posted
I've been thinking a lot about the exchange that Stephen and I had yesterday about inflammatory tactics. Now, before I say anything else, this is not meant to be an attack on him, what he says, or how he says it. I have a lot of respect for him and what he does. What our discussion highlighted for me is that I must be pretty ignorant about how things like changing public opinion or policy work, and I'd like to understand.
quote:Don't assume that reason and rational discourse will get anyone to pay any attention to you unless they already agree with you.
Now, I think I can see where reason might not be able to get someone to pay attention to you, but whether it can get them to agree with you seems a different question. Almost invariably, when someone opens with an inflammatory line with which I disagree, it doesn't matter what else they say. It doesn't even matter if I agree with everything else they say, my gut reaction is to argue with the initial inflammatory line. I know it's not just me; I've seen that happen many times, both here and offline. Is this type of reaction unusual? And, if it's not, how do you then get past the initial hostility?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saxy also realize that emotional reactions worse for most other people than it is for engineers (and/or scientists and/or lawyers), since we are in fields trained to examine things rationally and make our decisions based on the evidence rather than gut feel. Most people tend to make more emotional decisions than that.
posted
I don't know that its unusual. I think its part of the vocal minority problem. When you have a small group of people, but one that is extraordinarily vocal, they tend to get more attention from the media than a much much larger, but significantly les vocal group. This can be good or it can be bad, however the actual size of the group is rarely presented. (A good example of this, I think, is the huge upswing in FCC complaints and fines even though 98% of the complaints come from PTC. I'm not say whether PTC is right or wrong.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can accept any argument that makes sense, no matter what the tone is. I cannot accept any illogical argument. So perhaps I am not the norm? Granted it is nicer when an argument can take a rational form and not get nasty, but sometimes that just doesn't happen. I am able to see past it.
I like argument, I enjoy debate. But a strange thing has happened recently. Any time I am debating or arguing with someone (depending on how they see it ) they tend to get angry at the fact that I am attempting to be rational and logical. I don't really understand that. It seems that cold logic and reasonable thought make people angrier than gut reactions and personal attacks, at least for the last few months. Sorry about the sidetrack, it just seems like an odd reaction to me.
quote:Saxy also realize that emotional reactions worse for most other people than it is for engineers (and/or scientists and/or lawyers), since we are in fields trained to examine things rationally and make our decisions based on the evidence rather than gut feel. Most people tend to make more emotional decisions than that.
As an engineer myself, I'm not sure I agree. If someone comes in deliberately inflamatory, part of me assumes that they must not have rational explinations or evidence. It's really hard to get past that.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you mean that, because I am an engineer I am more likely to argue with a statement I find irrational? Or do you mean that non-engineers are even more likely than I am to argue with a statement they find objectionable?
-----------------------------------------
I think what I'm missing is a big picture of the strategy. Maybe the idea is that once you have gotten the the other person to acknowledge you, even if only to vocally disagree with you, then you start retracting or modifying the previous inflammatory statements and try reasonable arguments. Is that it? But then, I'm curious whether that usually works, or if the initial inflammatory remarks make the opening stages too difficult to ever actually reach an agreement.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the reason I say "inflammatory" things (usually sarcastic, and not as inflammatory as some statements I've seen) is an attempt to get people to rethink something they seem to have made up their mind on. I try to reframe the situation so that "right" no longer looks quite so "right". It doesn't always work, but when purely rational argument is being dismissed without consideration, what have I got to lose?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't like the idea of people using hyperbole and scare tactics to 'just get people's attention.'
Everyone deserves to have their intelligence respected. I beleive that people can be reasoned with, and that to use derogatory remarks for the purpose of igniting enough emotion to overwhelm reason is the mark of a demagogue, and no friend to civilization.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean that people trained extensively in scientific methods or logic (generally NT types), are more likely to make decisions based on cold hard facts regardless of the emotional arguments surrounding them. They are also more likely (IMO) to enjoy a debate without getting emotionally involved, simply because they enjoy the stimulation of the exchange of ideas. Most people will go with whichever emotional side sways them regardless of whether there are cold hard facts backing up that position. They find the facts after they've made their emotional decision.
posted
saxon, You're sort of on the right path. Read over sndrake's stuff again. Consider what is the biggest problem facing him and the people he represents. Think beyond the intial reaction of the person reading it. Think beyond that person to the people watching them. sndrake's employing tactics that are effective for the situation.
And think also, why did Diane get hate mail for her completely non-inflammatory piece?
There are aspects to these things that are much more complex than people are saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the important things to keep in mind is that the people who decide if you get your message out to the public are not the people whose minds you wish to change.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Erm, if they aren't listening to you in the present, why will they listen to you in the future? Most forms of publicity are mighty expensive, mind you. Most movements can't afford the sort of car advertisement that mostly focuses on abstract concepts (thinking of the Infiniti deal)
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been thinking about this ever since I first interacted with sndrake. I've come to the conclusion that it is likely necessary to take the forum (in the general sense) into account when judging which actions to take.
And so in the general public arena, I think Stephen and Diane are fighting just to get heard. Just to get the word out -- however inflammatory, in fact likely necessarily inflammatory, in order to be seen, like a road flare -- that there is another perspective, that real people are dying. And being told they should die. And real people are congratulating themselves for having the sensitivity and noble sentiments of appreciating such deaths as a Good Thing.
So, that kind of makes sense to me, especially when I remember that Diane did the hard long slog to get a JD, and she still wasn't being listened to. She tried to apply to conferences with weighty, carefully crafted papers. They ignored her. She tried to tackle them on their own terms, but for them, she still didn't exist. What a load of bull hockey.
On the other hand, in forums (in the general sense) where one is being heard, where one is visible and already has a platform, inflammatory approaches seem counterproductive. The goal there is not just to be seen, but to be listened to, thoughtfully. Different forum, different goal, so different tactics are appropriate.
My best guess. I'm still thinking about it, though.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The flip side of that is what when they DO get heard it is the inflammatory stuff that gets heard....and then dismissed because it is so inflammatory.
I know that if I HAD gone to see MDB and someone from sndrakes group had stood up and begun doing some of what was suggested (yelling bullshit, making a scene) I would not be willing to listen to any of their points from that point on...and I might have been the one to call the police and have them removed.
It's not that I don't sympathize with the difficulties in getting that type of message across...it is the fact that I have a problem with respecting the opinions of people who are disrespectful of others. I don't care how much I dislike a movie, or the political views espoused in it, I wouldn't disrespect the other other people in the theater that way, and I feel that if a group does that type of things then they are proving how much of a fringe group they are bu such actions.
I am not saying that I don't like and respect sndrake and Diane....I do, and their opinions on MDB resulted in me refusing to go see it....but I wouldn't care who they were if they did that while I was in the theater.
Groups that employ these types of tactics don't like being marginalized, but it is this type of behaviors that allows people to dismiss them out of hand as crackpots or radicals.
posted
I think it looks different from the other side. I think (and this is a definite "I think," as I'll leave Stephen and Diane to speak for themselves) that it is only after people become familiar enough with them (necessarily from the "antics," as not even a law degree and the finest crafted papers could even get Diane's foot through the door) that it will be even possible for a less inflammatory message to be heard. No matter how logical and rhetorically brilliant you are, from 2 miles down a well where nobody can see or hear you, it won't matter.
I think it might feel like calling out to the world from the bottom of that well. Sure, if you crawl your way out to where you can be heard, you're going to be a frightful sight, but then at least people will know there is a well there. And once they know there is a well there, maybe someone else who comes along (in a nice suit and tie, well-coiffed, with minty fresh breath) with some information about the well will get more than a puzzled look and a quick brush-off as delusional.
I mean, at least people will be familiar with the existence of a well in that spot, and so somebody will have something to work with, eventually. Even if the people clawing their way out don't look too pretty or sane.
I think.
But this is a very different perspective than I've had before, so I'm stretching to grasp it. Forgive the tenuousness of the metaphor.
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Yes, regarding this well we've become aware of recently. Tragic thing, isn't it? Perhaps you would be interested in my plans for filling it in ...
posted
What sort of hatemail did she get? I can't understand how anyone can write hatemail in response to a heartfelt letter like that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Groups that employ these types of tactics don't like being marginalized, but it is this type of behaviors that allows people to dismiss them out of hand as crackpots or radicals.
Kwea,
You're getting a skewed sense of our presence in the media - probably due to my own presence here.
We started out ignored and marginalized.
Example: I think a total of 17 disability groups have filed briefs opposing Terri Schiavo's starvation. You'd have to look long and hard for press coverage that describes the players in the struggle surrounding Terri Schiavo as anything except "prolifers" vs. "everyone else."
And some of the conservatives - not all - are doing as much as the mainstream press to keep things framed that way.
I was brought up to be a really polite person - typical for my middle-class upbringing. Confrontation is a learned skill with me, and one I still don't like emotionally.
But I'm still waiting for helpful alternatives that don't involve being civil and letting the louder and more powerful voices just roll over us.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, sndrake.....it isn't the groups I have a problem with, or their points, it is that type of tactic. I don't like PETA throwing blood, I don't like NAMBLA...well, I don;t like them period.
O understand kicking and screaming is the only way to get heard sometimes....but if that is what is happening, then I don't expect people to treat what you are screaming and yelling seriously.
It is the same as a person here at Hatrack who is trolling...even if they make a good point once and a while, I don't care. I won't waste my time thinking about anything they have to say, usually.
I am not in your situation, Steve, so I don't know what is necessary and what isn't...and you have always been respectful to me, and to others here, at least as far as I have seen. I am not surprised that you are a polite person, and when you discuss things here I pay attention because of that.
But if you (or someone in your group) had been a "protest" at a public venue where I was, I wouldn't listen to him at all....if he isn't respectful of my in a public place, then why should I respect him at all, or his views.
Just the way I would feel about it. I don't like people who corner me at work (retail) to try and convert me to their religion either. It may be a great religion, but I won't listen to them at all because of their approach and their policies of forcing salespeople who can't leave to listen to their speeches.
They could save a lot of money by not forcing their cards on me, to be honest.
Edit: I also wanted to add this Steve..I know your views aren't highly visible, which is why you use these tactics...my point is that if someone does notice you because of them, it is self defeating, because they are not listening. It makes it easier to dismiss your views once you are noticed.
posted
But, what if the protest group is making a good point? I know a lot of gay groups will do some outrageous things for visibility and acceptance. To me, that doesn't seem like such a bad thing, it's not like Klan rallies or things that are really frightening. Perhaps it depends on if I agree with the group. I know if I saw a bunch of KKK people just standing there in those silly hoods I'd be cranky and irratable and unwilling to listen to a word. Plus, they'd probably look at me in a hateful way in the first place. But, if gays were marching around singing at the top of their lungs and kissing and stuff, I'd probably join them. There has to be a way to get your points across without peaple thinking you are a crackpot that cannot be taken seriously....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm starting to understand the reasoning. As to this part, though:
quote:I'm curious whether that usually works, or if the initial inflammatory remarks make the opening stages too difficult to ever actually reach an agreement.
Does anyone have anything on this? Apart from just "this is how I, personally, would feel"?
Stephen, I just want to reiterate that I'm not trying to be critical of you, and that the only reason that I was using you as my example is that you're the one that got me thinking about it. I'm really just interested in exploring the general phenomenon, and so far I'm finding it pretty fascinating.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand that attitude. "Yeah this might be a major injustice, but I'm not going to concern myself because I have problems with the specific person who brought it to my attention." What the heck kind of person are you that you'll only act to right wrongs if people ask you pretty please?
I mean leaving aside that what sndrake's group is doing is pretty darn mild (especially compared to insulting, inflammatory behavior of some of the popular respresentives of the issues that actually get aired, say Limbaugh and Moore) and that they are also presenting plenty of material that specifically non-inflammatory, how is the is behavior of the messenger revelant to the seriousness of the message. I mean, I can see the "I'm going to see things through the lens of your behavior.", which is a relevant thing, but saying "Oh, I don't have to listen to you because you're not nice." I can't respect. If there is injustice, it should be considered yours and my issue as well as sndrake's.
And leaving all that aside, they should have a voice, which they don't now. I'm probably more inclined to disagree more with sndrake (not on this particular issue, but on others) than most of the other people here, but even (or especially) on those issues where I don't necessarily agree, I think it's extremely important that he and the people he represents have their perspective considered. Right now, that's not happening, and even if I thought they were 100% wrong, that's unjust.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, for me, it amounts to if I hear something inflammatory and with no additional information attached to it directly, I am unlikely to invest time in uncovering the "real" portion of the message.
It's not a question of discounting the message because of activities of some of the advocates of that message. It's a question of never receiving the message.
In short, inflammatory tactics don't engage me. However, thoughtful ones generally do, so I guess I'm not the target of inflammatory tactics.
It's important to note that sometimes tactics can be in direct opposition to the message - peace activists using violence would be an extreme example. A much more common example is a diversity activists shouting down a speaker. In these cases, I question the underlying motives of the messenger, and this does "discount" the message somewhat.
posted
saxon, A lot of the inflammatory stuff is aimed at people who aren't going to change their mind no matter what. Rush Limbaugh or the bio-ethicists or the main pundits aren't going to start considering the issue because of these remarks, but it's quite possible that they are going to start talking about them to dispute them and host people who propogated to argue with them. This is especially true if the remarks have gotten under their skin. Compared to the ranting that these people will do if this occurs, the stuff that NDY has put out will look like very clear, mature thinking.
And these people are the pretty much the only ones who are even aware that this stuff exists. They aren't going to be persuaded, but they can raise the issue to wider consciousness by railing against it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Yeah, I get that inflammatory stuff when it's either excessive or the only thing you have is going to fail. But that's a question of degree, not of the validity of inflammatory tactics as a whole, which I what I think is being talked about here.
I think that this is much more complex issue than many people seem to think it is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, absolutely, Squick. I generally will find to be unacceptable tactics that I see infringing on others' rights - intentional traffic jams, preventing people from hearing a movie, and, of course, physical intrusion.
But even outside the instances that I see as infringing, it's a tactic much less likely to engage me than many others. So from an efficacy standpoint, these kinds of effects have to be considered.
Thanks - I think the issue of "degree" is one that has been causing me the most consternation here. None of our rhetoric is a call to violence. It's nothing like PETA throwing blood on people. And we've passed on the chance to viciously attack "enemies" who have died (a particularly repugnant Phelps tactic, aimed at bereaved families more than the departed.)
There's a reason the editor of Ebert's page singled out my quote about suggesting people could say "bs" in the theater - it was the one thing in the whole article he could use to discredit us. But that single line was something that resonated with many people who actually have disabilities - the target audience was the disability activist community. We're so used to being ignored we never seriously considered at that moment the article would reach a broader audience. And it's still not the same thing as yelling "fire" in the middle of a theater.
Back a page or two, there's a link to an article by bioethicist Arthur Caplan, obviously pretty upset that so many people from the disability community were being heard about this, while bioethicists were being ignored. Go check it out. Caplan has a guaranteed forum on MSNBC and check the inflammatory quality (not to mention the accuracy) of his own diatribe. I doubt he's getting heat for it. But then, he was lashing out at us and reclaiming what he felt was his rightful "turf" - which happens to be health policy that concerns people with disabilities.
Caplan's rant alone is a sign we had an impact. He writes like someone afraid the playing field just got a little less uneven. Not much, maybe. But enough to really piss off some people.
That, in the end, is more threatening than any particular rhetoric we use.
Edit to add: Oops! Forgot which thread this was. The link to the Caplan rant is in the MDB thread.
posted
It's help to understand my perspective if you realize that Michael Collins (the Irish one who invented systematic terrorism, not the astronaut - although I guess he's cool too) is one of the people I admire, almost as much for his willngness to take the best chance he had as for the remarkable amount of restraint and responsibility he guided this by.
There's different types of inflammatory groups. There's the people who are immature and full of hatred (someone brought up Fred Phelps), there are people who have given up hope and enage in it as a outgrowth of their despair, and there are people who are driven to it, but retain their purposeful drive.
I'm not all that engaged by inflammatory tactics per se either, but I am concerned with all the real and perceived injustices there are out there and it's sad to say that it's generally only the ones that generate conflict that are brought to a wider audience than those directly affected by it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I tend to think that what really really gets to folks whose "turf" we're invading is when we put out stuff that is tightly-constructed and logical - and manages to get attention because of some of the occasional theater we engage in.
I don't think I've shared this, but MDB and Dirty Harry haven't been the only tasks over the past two months. This is beginning to raise a stir, although we're not really getting a lot of credit for it yet. We'll be adapting it to a resolution form and soliciting organizational sign-ons:
quote:How much more evidence do we need? Disability Activists Call for Moratorium on Starvation and Dehydration
Feb. 14, 2005 -- Disability activists have called for a nationwide moratorium on the dehydration and starvation of people alleged to be in "persistent vegetative state." This would apply to individuals who do not have an advance directive or durable power of attorney.
The call for a moratorium is a reaction to the newly-published report indicating high levels of brain activity in people thought to be in "minimally conscious state (MCS)." The study, published in the February issue of Neurology, discovered evidence that these individuals may hear and understand much of what is going on around them, but are unable to respond.
The study drew a distinction between MCS and Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), but the distinction is not a reliable one. In a New York Times article, Dr. Joseph Fins mentioned research indicating a 30% misdiagnosis rate of PVS, indicating that nearly a third of persons diagnosed in PVS are actually in "minimally conscious state." Fins is chief of the medical ethics division of New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center.
With the exception of oblique references to Terri Schiavo, current coverage of the study and its implications dance around the most important issues regarding this study. Namely, thousands of people around this country with labels of both MCS and PVS are being starved and dehydrated, often without an advance directive indicating their wishes, or a durable power of attorney appointing a substitute decision-maker they chose for themselves.
"Given the current research regarding brain activity and misdiagnosis, it's a virtual certainty that countless people have been helpless to prevent their own deaths through starvation and dehydration," says Stephen Drake, research analyst for Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group opposed to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. "There's an analogy to DNA evidence and the death penalty. Here in Illinois, the staggering numbers of innocent and wrongly convicted people on Death Row resulted in a moratorium on the death penalty. Whether you agreed with the death penalty or not, everyone was forced to find ways to make sure no innocent person ended up on Death Row again. The same amount of concern should apply to medically induced deaths, in which the numbers far exceed the number of convicted people executed each year."
Not Dead Yet is calling for a moratorium on the withholding of feeding tubes from people in PVS and MCS until they can be tested under the same protocol used on individuals in the Neurology study. State-of-the-art testing for cognitive activity should be a minimum standard to be applied when someone's death is proposed. Just as the availability of DNA testing and competent counsel are accepted as essential to people being tried in capital cases, the new technical tools to evaluate cognitive activity and potential should be applied to individuals before feeding tubes are withdrawn. Even with this technology, there will probably still be mistakes. But at least it will be the first step in reducing the number of conscious people dying from hunger and thirst in hospitals and nursing homes, aware of every minute and unable to cry out that they are awake.
quote: It's important to note that sometimes tactics can be in direct opposition to the message - peace activists using violence would be an extreme example. A much more common example is a diversity activists shouting down a speaker. In these cases, I question the underlying motives of the messenger, and this does "discount" the message somewhat.
I agree. I've been given several opportunities to bash a couple of film critics with disabilities who differ with NDY, NSCIA, and others who have blasted the film (they don't disagree on all points, though). I've passed on them and I think others have done the same. So the conversation then focusses on the shared agreement that MDB does rely on stereotypes and cliches to work.
I have taken part in disrupting a panel presentation, but the context is a different one than Dag is describing. After the conviction of Thomas Youk by Jack Kevorkian, there was a panel of "experts" convened by one of the universities in Michigan. The panel consisted of some journalists, Mike Wallace, a representative of the Catholic Church, Derek Humphry and a bioethicist. Notice who was missing?
Here was a panel discussion about a guy whose body count consisted on nonterminally ill disabled people and there were no representatives of the disability community invited to speak. In fact, they specifically denied our call to be included in the panel.
You bet we disrupted the event.
The panelists all resented us - our signs, our shouting (we did allow them to speak eventually, but shouted some stuff back at Mike Wallace a couple times during his talk).
Did I say they all resented us? That overstates the case. One panelist seemed to be very thoughtful through the whole thing. He talked to us during the breaks.
That panelist was Clarence Page, who was also the only person belonging to a minority group on the panel.
He seemed to understand the anger - since it was about excluding the voices of people who belonged at the table.
quote: What the heck kind of person are you that you'll only act to right wrongs if people ask you pretty please?
Speaking about straw man arguments, Squick....
I didn't say they had to say pretty please, and while I would be unhappy if I had been at that meeting Steve was talking about, I would understand that....everyone there was there to discuss those issues.
What I do have a problem with is people forcing their views on me when I am about my business, or at a movie looking for entertainment. People feel passionate about many different things, from religion to disability rights, which I understand, but I don't always care about the same issues, or if I do I may not feel as passionate about them as they do. That doesn't make them wrong, or me right....as long as I have the right to continue on about the things I care about.
If someone is having a sit-in in a building to protest something I don't care about, I will walk right past them...and if they try to bar my way in I will call the police and have them removed, if necessary. I had that happen while I was in school....and if I had allowed them to stop me then I would have not been able to get a class I needed for my degree. While I understand they cared about their issue (diversity on campus) I wasn't about to allow their passion for their issue to have an adverse effect on my education and/or future.
(Also, I knew them, and their point wasn't valid. We had a diverse campus, and most of the people I knew liked it that way. What they really were protesting was the fact that a star basketball player didn't make good enough grades and was benched. I was in a class with him, when he bothered to show up, and I don't know how he passed ANY classes he was in. It wasn't diversity they wanted, it was an advantage over the rest of the class, and a reinstatement of the "pass the athlete" program that had been unofficially in place before.)
If I go to a movie I want to see, I would not be happy to hear disability groups protesting it inside the theater. If they want to protest outside of it I still wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't feel they were interfering with my right to see a movie I had payed to see.
It is a respect issue. If the group trying to make a point is respectful, then I am usually willing to listen. If they aren't, I can be every bit as rude and uncompromising as they are...and usually I would have the law on my side, and if necessary I would use it.
I have had 4 people thrown out of the mall I work at because they were insisting that I "get saved" and handing out their little prayer cards, and I would do it again in a second if I saw them do it again. We don't allow anyone to distribute newsletters in the mall, and while I respect their right to religious freedom, if that right interferes with others freedoms then I have no qualms about having them throw out.
As a person working in retail, I have no other recourse, really. If I tell them of I could get fired, and when I ask them politely to leave me alone they never do. I had a man complain about me because I wouldn't take the "saved" card he wanted me to have, because he thought I was rude.
All because I wouldn't "get saved" right there and then.
If someone wants me to take them seriously, and to look into the points they are protesting, then they have to be willing to treat me with respect. If they don't I usually just brush them off thinking they are a crackpot with a bug up their ass, like the guy who wears a T-shirt that says " The Holyoke Geriatric Authority Gives Terrible Care", and comes in to the mall every day. I am sure that he has a story, and he may even be right....but seeing him with this dirty, dingy, tired while t-shirt every day, pulled over his sweater or dress shirt, makes me laugh. Not because he might not have a point, but because he thinks that anyone might be influenced by his shirt. I remember his claims, but I don;t take them too seriously because he is so far out there with his approach.
posted
But just how are they supposed to approach people? If there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and someone carrying signs outside screaming and yelling won't reach you, then what can they do? It's obviously, literaly a life or death situation for some people. They may be desparate and most people are apathetic and just won't listen even if a person is wearing a tuxedo and looking dignified...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephen, I definitely don't think your disruption falls into the category of actions I described in the part you quoted. I am pretty sensitive about such disruptions and uncomfortable with them (as I mentioned in the other part of the post), but the use of the tactic in the situation you described doesn't fall into the hypocrisy realm which would affect my opinion of the overall message.
To expand a little, I'd have a much bigger problem with the tactic if you disrupted (not merely inconvenienced, but interfered with directly) a Singer speech. That would be an event purporting to be exactly what it was - a single viewpoint which I find abhorrent.
In the situation you described, the event was purporting to represent all sides of the issue. It sounds like you took reasonable steps to inform them of the error in leaving your side out and gave them a chance to correct it. Essentially, you were acting not to stop an opposing viewpoint from getting out, but from stopping someone from saying you have nothing valuable to say on these issues.
I'm still leary of such tactics, but I understand the need for them. As long as activists are willing to face the consequences of such tactics (including possible criminal charges and reputation hits), then I think they will be necessary in some cases and are appropriate.
What are the factors in how I assign acceptability? Off the top of my head: attempts to use more respectful tactics prior to escalating, targeting the appropriate people (the audience being misled by the people running the event and, of course, the event coordinators themselves), narrowly tailored to deliver the message (we have something to say on such issues, and we're being ignored), and letting the event eventually continue all make this action seem less hostile than several others might be.
One big issue I have is when the justification for such tactics does not acknowledge the legitimacy of others' discomfort with them - a mistake I haven't seen you make. When people are inconvenienced by such actions which are at least technically illegal, they have a legitimate gripe. Explaining why this intrusion on their rights was necessary is fine, but that explanation must include an acknowledgment that their was such an intrusion. Otherwise, I think such actions will be a net negative.
quote:But just how are they supposed to approach people? If there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and someone carrying signs outside screaming and yelling won't reach you, then what can they do? It's obviously, literaly a life or death situation for some people. They may be desparate and most people are apathetic and just won't listen even if a person is wearing a tuxedo and looking dignified...
Syn, to be fair, I've seen you complain (and have complained myself) about actions taken by people who believe a situation is life or death and are propagating the message in an inflammatory manner.
For example, Phelps absolutely believes that his message can save people from eternal damnation - literally, a fate worse than death.
I include the message being put out when evaluating such tactics, but there is probably something unfair about that. If part of the justification for such tactics is the fact that the message can't be heard, and opinions can't be formed, any other way, then such messages will almost always be about an issue on which the majority is either uninformed or hostile.
Another problem I have is blurring legal analsyis in this. Generally, I refuse to look at content when evaluating the legality of a a particular expressive action. While the standards do not have to be the same for a mere ethical judgment, I do have a hard time separating the two sometimes.
Finally, there's no question that some people, rightly or wrongly, will become more hostile to a message expressed in an inflammatory manner. Efficacy must be part of the evaluation of such tactics. For example, I will never listen to a thing ACT-UP has to say since they invaded Mass at St. Patrick's. I've listened to other groups on the same subject, but I won't listen to them.
posted
It also depends on the amount of distraction, to be honest. If one or two things were said I would not be happy but I would probably ignore it....I can live with a little disturbance most of the time.
But you would be amazed at the things some people think are important enough to require my attention.....such as their views on the status of my "salvation", or the need for the US to pull out of Iraq.
I AM A SALES PERSON! Not President, not a Congressman, and most importantly NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINIONS! I am not allowed to tell people off, or tell them to shut up, no matter how much they deserve it. I can't even refute their points, which usually is very easy to do, because they might get pissed that I showed them up in public and complain.
If I am in a class discussing these things, fine. If I am at the polls and you want to show your support for a candidate.
If you try to push me into a discussion when I am watching a movie, or out to dinner....or at work trying to make a living.....then don;t be surprised if I have you removed from wherever I am. I wouldn't bother you unless I had to, and if I did I would not be surprised if you were put out a bit.
quote:I AM A SALES PERSON! Not President, not a Congressman, and most importantly NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINIONS! I am not allowed to tell people off, or tell them to shut up, no matter how much they deserve it. I can't even refute their points, which usually is very easy to do, because they might get pissed that I showed them up in public and complain.
Taking advantage of the customer/salesperson power imbalance is almost evil, in my opinion. It's certainly unfair.
quote:Taking advantage of the customer/salesperson power imbalance is almost evil, in my opinion. It's certainly unfair.
I totally agree. I mentioned this in a thread last year when I talked about how I really disliked being hit up for donations by cashiers at the local grocery store for the Jerry Lewis telethon, but still didn't think it would be useful in any way to lecture the cashiers, since they were following instructions from the corporate office. As an individual, it didn't feel right. A group in a case like that should aim at corporate headquarters and the decisionmakers, not lower-level employees.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) they tend to get angry at the fact that I am attempting to be rational and logical. I don't really understand that. It seems that cold logic and reasonable thought make people angrier than gut reactions and personal attacks, at least for the last few months. Sorry about the sidetrack, it just seems like an odd reaction to me.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
