This passage is a sharp critique of rigid ideological purity within activism, using the discourse around Kendrick Lamar’s halftime performance as a case study. The core argument is that movements become self-defeating when they impose strict rules on what revolution should look like. The text challenges the “either-or” mindset—where people assume only one method of activism is valid—and argues for a multiplicity of approaches.
1. The Core Issue: Either-Or Thinking as an Obstacle to Progress
The passage begins by addressing the tendency to view activism in black-and-white terms. The phrase:
“All this discourse surrounding Kendrick Lamar’s performance… boils down to either-or thinking.”
implies that activism is often reduced to false binaries:
- You’re either radical or you’re complicit.
- You’re either grassroots or a sellout.
- You’re either performing activism the ‘right’ way or you’re not real.
This framing mirrors the rigid systems activists are fighting against. The text points out that extremism is bad, no matter which side it comes from. This is a crucial insight—movements often become authoritarian in their own way, enforcing purity tests and policing participation, rather than encouraging broad-based solidarity.
The phrase:
“Extremism is bad whether good people or bad people are the ones being extremists.”
suggests that moral certainty does not justify rigid, exclusionary thinking. The very systems activists want to dismantle thrive on division, and movements that alienate potential allies only weaken themselves.
2. The Hypocrisy of Exclusion Within Movements
The passage highlights a paradox: while activists criticize external forces for limiting diversity, they often impose their own rigid gatekeeping within their movements.
“Right now, they’re taking away diversity, equity, and inclusion federally in our workspaces, but we are taking away diversity, equity, and inclusion in our movement.”
This is a striking comparison. The systemic removal of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies is a real, structural issue, yet within activist spaces, a different type of exclusion is happening. Instead of celebrating multiple approaches to change, activists often discredit those who do not conform to a particular vision of revolution.
The passage argues that change must come in many forms because oppression itself is multifaceted:
“Being a part of this cause looks every way because these oppressive systems are everywhere, and you need people to attack it in every form.”
This is an important reminder: movements require varied approaches—policy reform, direct action, art, education, corporate disruption, legal battles, etc. No single method is universally correct, and demanding ideological purity limits the potential for real impact.
3. Policing Activism: The Danger of Internal Critique Becoming Gatekeeping
A major frustration expressed in the passage is the constant criticism of how individuals engage in activism.
“Every time a motherf**er tries to step out and do something for the people, we criticize and chastise the way in which they do that.”*
This line suggests that activists often spend more energy critiquing their allies than fighting the systems they oppose. The tendency to dismiss individuals for not being radical enough—or for engaging in activism in a way deemed “incorrect”—becomes a self-sabotaging cycle.
This echoes historical patterns seen in movements:
- The civil rights movement faced internal divisions between those favoring nonviolent resistance (MLK) and those advocating for self-defense and direct action (Malcolm X, the Black Panthers).
- The feminist movement has long struggled with exclusion, dismissing the contributions of those who do not align with a singular ideological stance.
- Modern social movements (BLM, climate activism, labor movements) often fall into the trap of attacking internal differences rather than building coalitions.
The key idea here is flexibility in approach. Instead of focusing on how someone does the work, the movement should focus on whether the work contributes to progress.
4. The Danger of Becoming What You Oppose
One of the most powerful insights in the passage is the warning that activists can easily become the very forces they fight against.
“We also have to recognize that we are just as close to becoming the monsters that we fear as we are to becoming the heroes.”
This is a fundamental dilemma in power dynamics—those who fight against oppression can become oppressive in their own ways if they are not careful.
- When movements silence dissent, they replicate the systems they oppose.
- When activists demand ideological purity, they create exclusionary hierarchies.
- When movements prioritize performance over impact, they become more about optics than real change.
This warning echoes George Orwell’s Animal Farm, which shows how revolutions can quickly replicate the systems they sought to overthrow. The passage suggests that if movements do not allow for nuance, they risk mirroring the very oppressive structures they claim to resist.
5. The Kendrick Lamar Halftime Performance Debate: A Case Study
The passage uses the discourse surrounding Kendrick Lamar’s halftime performance as an example of the broader issue of rigid thinking in activism.
The critique suggests that the debate around Kendrick’s performance boiled down to:
- Was it radical enough?
- Did it go far enough?
- Was it “real” activism or just performative?
The implication is that instead of acknowledging the impact of his message, people got caught up in policing whether it was “revolutionary” enough. This reflects the larger trend of people undermining efforts simply because they don’t align perfectly with their ideal vision of activism.
The passage suggests that movements should focus on the larger battle, rather than getting caught up in purity politics. If activism is about challenging oppressive structures, then every contribution matters, even if it doesn’t fit a singular blueprint.
Conclusion: The Call for Pluralistic Activism
The core message of this passage is a call for inclusivity and flexibility in activism. The fight for justice is broad and complex, requiring many different approaches. The key takeaways are:
- Either-or thinking is limiting. Movements should embrace a spectrum of approaches, not rigid binaries.
- Purity politics weakens movements. Criticizing those who try to contribute only alienates potential allies.
- Diversity in activism is essential. Just as oppression exists in many forms, resistance must take many forms.
- We must avoid replicating the systems we oppose. Extremism and ideological rigidity can turn movements into mirror images of oppressive structures.
- Progress should be prioritized over performative critique. Instead of focusing on whether something is “radical enough,” movements should assess whether it drives real change.
Ultimately, the passage is a plea for strategic unity—for movements to be expansive, adaptive, and welcoming of different forms of activism. If the goal is to dismantle oppression, then the work must be collective, not exclusive.