Re: Nader's Big Chance

One more point I didn't think of for my previous message.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> Slide. I'm not using my righteousnes. At least, we're presuming that. The
> problem is that some section of my audience will *claim* that that's what
> I've done (or seem to have done). Some, like you, will then argue that I'm
> tactially misguided. Others (unlike you) will claim that I've wronged
> them.

I'm not sure that it matters at all how you _thought_ you were acting.
What's far more important is what your audience thinks.  After all, isn't
the point of activism to change other people's minds?  If that's true,
then it is absolutely crucial that you express yourself in a way that
makes yourself easy to listen to for as many people as possible.

If you know people will claim you are being overly righteous, then doesn't
it make sense to try to avoid this.  After all, its only a distraction the
important points.  Its your responsibility as an activist to do the best
job you can in focusing people on the issue, not your style or your
intentions or your attitude.

I guess the question is where does this accomodation turn from a good
tactic into selling your soul?

Again, for me as an animal rights activist, I've learned a lot about the
difference between actions that are satisfying for myself (nothing like a
good chanting/yelling/shouting street demo) and things that are actually
effective.


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/