On the other hand, if we STOP talking, does that mean that we're actually going to do something, or that we're NOT EVEN going to talk? The talk SHOULD be just the beginning ...

I think most people would agree with this article - but I think many will take the wrong message from it - not that something should be done about the underlying social problems (which are seemingly so complicated that no one can do anything about them anyway), but that we shouldn't be bothered doing anything even about the irritants on the surface, because what do they really matter? In other words, some people will use the arguments in the article to reinforce their passivity rather than to support social activism.