Why does the word 'activist' make some people cringe and take a step back? Often it's because you know that an activist has an agenda that they wish to preach about, and that they aren't interested in discussion. That is the difference between an activist giving a speech, and a thinker that holds a discussion—one provides information that may skip some facts that don't suit them, while the other is open to alternative ideas and opinions.
Most activists start as a student as you are encouraged to speak up and protest, and I do believe that some protests succeed in convincing others to consider their views. However, there are many that simply like to protest for the sake of it and do not wish to hear any rational arguments or other opinions. I remember in one English Literature seminar, we were discussing a poem but no one was really interested in it as it was also the end of the day. Then out of the blue, a girl started declaring that the poet was a misogynist and that the poem was biased. The lecturer was just grateful someone was speaking up and let them carry on with their feminist and activist spiel. I looked around as horrified faces glanced at each other, eyes rolled, and people were uncomfortable because what she said had nothing to do with the poem at all, but she had an opening and platform to reel off her activist rhetoric and then someone decided to join in with her. Most of us stifled laughs, and scribbled notes to each other (no mobile phones yet) and were relieved when it was 4 pm, and mad a dash for the door.
Later on in life, I met hardcore activists through friends who jumped on any protest bandwagon to 'support' a cause. Most of the time they had no idea why they were there and one even set up a company to pay for protesters to turn up. The friend of a friend used to message us all on Facebook with details of a protest, then offering us £20 (cash in hand) per hour to show up for two hours. You can probably see why I am skeptical of protests knowing that some people are there to make up numbers and noise.
Brexit was one of the issues that divided family and friends in the UK, and those who didn't want to leave the EU (mainly Labour or socialists) protested when the 'leave' vote won. They had the right to protest, but what they failed to understand is that it was a national referendum and leaving the EU was the will of the majority, therefore, the protest was purely a way for them to voice their view. This is what separates an activist who repeats a specific narrative versus a thinker who can debate and discuss the pros and cons of an issue.
Around 80-90% of my friends are socialists and nearly all opposed Brexit, but not one of them could give a reason as to why they opposed it apart from them stating they hated the Conservatives, and that it was bad for the country but couldn't say why. I muted most friends on social media, only because their activist posts were offensive and often displayed inaccurate information that activists use. Most will give out information— a few facts that suit their agenda but not the whole story, and that is the problem with activist journals and media publications because they fail to deliver balanced accounts so that the reader can decide for themselves what they wish to think.
I remember the few conversations I had with a couple of friends after the Brexit vote, and both were left angry, and huffed and puffed when I gave my reasons for supporting Brexit (mainly that we regain our sovereignty and the right to implement and decide our own domestic laws, and trading agreements). One ended our conversation by saying that I would never convince her that Brexit was a good idea, where I replied that had never been my intent. Another just got so frustrated when she couldn't think of a reason why the UK should remain, that she couldn't speak and muttered that the Conservatives were destroying the country.
The problem I see these days is that activists are the most vocal because they need support for their agendas and causes, but in doing so they offer a biased opinion which can lead to brainwashing. We have all seen it, just because someone says something and sounds convincing, people assume it is factual without checking all sides first. People are too eager to accept things at face value, and they may question, but often they ask the wrong questions.
Thinkers don't tend to preach, but open up topics for discussion where more than one belief is discussed. People are afraid of discussions at times because people may point out the flaws in their argument, and that's why most people didn't want to discuss things in my English Literature class. I also see that some universities are considering suspending English Literature degrees, claiming that it won't lead to well paid jobs. When I did study English Literature at university, I chose it because I thought it would be simple and to read books and then discuss and write about the issues. However, the course is more about critical discussion and how to use the novel/poem and the issues raised. It took me many years to fully understand why I was critically discussing Anna Karenina and her morals and choices—it wasn't necessarily about Tolstoy or the novel, but to be able to hone in on issues, and themes and use the text as evidence to discuss them.
People are often afraid of discussions for fear of looking silly or being 'wrong', yet as long as you can substantiate your opinion, then it can never be wrong. That's why students fear speaking up in class or putting their hand up to answer a question incase they are wrong. No one likes to look foolish, and that is why people need to stop fearing what others think of them. More often than not, you'll find others had the same thought or question but were afraid to speak out too.
Learning to ask the right questions, or knowing how to challenge a belief are skills that a thinker employs, where an activist tend to shun them. An activist preaches, for they don't want questions that will challenge them, while a thinker (philosopher such as Socrates) welcomes differing opinions and how others arrived at them. It does take courage to be a 'thinker' who is willing to discuss a variety of opinions and views on topics, knowing that there will be disagreement from some people. Knowing how to handle them diplomatically also takes skill and bravery. That's why activist rhetoric is often heard and not challenged, and why when people call themselves activists I (like many) tend to mentally back away. A good debate or discussion can open up minds, while a closed activist speech can lead to misinformation (or a partial version of facts), and that is why we should never fear questioning the motive of a speaker or a thinker either.
As for discussions with my friends and others I meet, my aim is never to influence but merely to express my beliefs and to explain why I have arrived at a specific conclusion. I always encourage people to think for themselves and when they have a belief that they can't explain, hopefully that will make them think more logically, for many beliefs are installed in us through habit and 'parrot fashion' with no understanding as to why we think as we do. A healthy exchange of ideas and beliefs can open your mind to other opinions from those with alternative experiences, and can make you rethink your own values and beliefs. A good discussion can also lead to solving issues, and problems, but not when a party wishes to preach and who isn't open to listening to other viewpoints. It took me years to gain the courage to speak up with my opinions in class (but that also stemmed from being bullied for getting answers correct), but we should never be afraid of having an opinion (or disagreeing) or what people think of them (as long as they aren't offensive).