Don't Label Me
July 30, 2004 | 
34 Comments
You won’t see too many political type posts here, as I’m not into talking about that stuff much. However, something happened tonight that compels me to talk politics, in my uneducated way, a bit.
A friend and I got into a moral discussion about the WTO riots that happened here in Seattle a few years back. He was a part of the riots and I was an innocent by-stander.
I’m not going to get into my opinion about the WTO too much, but lets just say, in the main, I was in agreement, philosophically, with my friend.
However, he pointed his…beliefs…at people who were just trying to get on with their day — you know, trying to work. I’ve got a problem with this. One that, whenever I talk to someone who has some kind of moral, or political agenda, they just don’t get.
In my opinion, there is a time, a place and a way to talk to people about “issues”.
Hopefully that time, place and way is cool with the person you’re talking too.
All too often I’ve been approached by someone with a cause when I’m not prepared (or they’re nor prepared) to talk about it.
When you are going to talk politics, morals or religion — both parties need to be ready and willing. Otherwise your just asking for trouble and you’re doing both yourself and the people you’re talking to a disservice.
You also need to know what you are talking about and, people, please lets not label or pigeon-hole people when we’re talking to them. There is more to life than right-wing and left-wing, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.
Life is much more complicated than that.
I’ve been labeled a liberal, a republican, a hypocrite and much more in my life…and frankly I resent it all — I’m a person who’s beliefs defy simple categorization — just like everyone else’s. I hate being labeled as anything.
Anyway…this post was just to vent. If you’re curious I’m going to vote for Kerry. I’ve got a few reasons, but I’ll explain why like this:
If you ran a burger joint and your fry cook couldn’t speak very well, blew up the fryer once, burned a few burgers, was late to work and held a general disregard for the customer — you’d be interested in bringing in a new fry cook too.
That doesn’t mean I’m a democrat, a liberal or anything else…I’m just me.
Filed under: Life and Such
Comments
1. Tim said:
Hey Keith,
You’re right that there’s more than the left/right spectrum that normally gets presented. You should take the Political Compass test to see where you stand/sit!
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Oh, and it’s “by-stander”, not “by-standard” ;)
Posted on July 30, 2004 03:14 AM | #
2. Dextro said:
Most European people (like me) hope that Kerry wins. Not only for the sake of the world, but also for the sake of the American country. I think that Bush (and his environment, don’t point at one person in this case) has divided your country.
I must be honest, there are some thing who are very strange for an European guy. For example the way the elections goes. Everyone is joining the whole strange media circus.
The patriotism is good, but don’t let patriotism be an obstacle.
And also, watch out when companies are the financiers of the political partys. They rule the politics, not the choosen party.
(sorry, a little bit of topic…)
Posted on July 30, 2004 03:54 AM | #
3. ssp said:
While I’m not the rioting type myself either, I think more sympathy for your friend would be good.
Sadly your opinion that there is a time, a place and a way to talk to people about “issues”, doesn’t seem well-founded to me. At least if you read ‘talk’ as ‘talk and be heard’.
Try giving a strategy with less ‘collateral damage’ for drawing attention to what’s going on at WTO (or that it exists in the first place) and maybe even trying to change things. I wonder whether there is a better way.
The best possible solution isn’t always a good solution, or so.
Posted on July 30, 2004 03:54 AM | #
4. Chris Vincent said:
“If you ran a burger joint and your fry cook couldn’t speak very well, blew up the fryer once, burned a few burgers, was late to work and held a general disregard for the customer — you’d be interested in bringing in a new fry cook too.”
Perfect.
Posted on July 30, 2004 04:01 AM | #
5. Matthew Pennell said:
Even during a riot you’re compliant…
Posted on July 30, 2004 04:37 AM | #
6. craig said:
While I’m far from a raging against the machine GAP smashing self-proclaimed anarchist, I agree with SSP in saying that while it’s nice to think there’s a time and a place, you can’t always rely on getting a fair time to voice your opinion and actually be listened to when dealing with organizations such as the WTO. Riots and protests that get out of hand shouldn’t be the first channel of conversation/discussion explored, but there’s certainly often cause for them in today’s world.
And as far as acosting people on the street with your message, you’re right - some people do get out of hand to the point of bordering on harassment, but the vast majority of people aren’t even AWARE of some of these issues - I can’t even begin to count how many peers of mine have no clue what the WTO and IMF are (in any depth at least) let alone why people care - and I go to a BUSINESS college (granted this may speak volumes about my school, but I think it’s more about people just not caring if they don’t perceive it as directly affecting their lives).
Loved the fast food analogy :)
Posted on July 30, 2004 05:37 AM | #
7. Garrett said:
If you don’t have a captive audience, you’re just blowing hot air, and if you’re interfering with someone else’s day then the chances of them being open-minded to your views are pretty darn slim.
Good post.
Posted on July 30, 2004 05:51 AM | #
8. Keith H. said:
Amen Keith. Though I understand the concept of “in-your-face” activism, I do not always agree with its execution. Your rights end where my nose begins, as the saying goes. This is no doubt a very complex issue. What is appropriate depends on the situation.
I agree that big business runs america. But truthfully, big business runs the world. And that is a problem.
Posted on July 30, 2004 06:33 AM | #
9. Jeff Clark said:
I wholeheartedly agree. This also reminds me of a great Mitch Hedberg quote: “When someone hands you a flyer it’s like they’re saying ‘here, YOU throw this away’”.
Posted on July 30, 2004 06:36 AM | #
10. Sean Scott said:
Sounds like you are an independent :-). I hate labels myself as well although they do have their purpose in life which is to describe a person place, moment emotion in an easily and maleable word. He is a republican (begins to classify his belief system).
As much as we hate labels we need them. To help us process information. Humans have a natural tendency to want to discover patterns and hence group belief systems, personalities rightly or wrongly into categories or labels
Posted on July 30, 2004 06:48 AM | #
11. Chris Kavinsky said:
I think the big issue with a lot of POVs is how you present your message. It should be done out of respect to your audience. For instance, a few weeks ago the group, Operation Save America, held huge rallys in Columbus, Ohio. Regardless of if you agree with their message or not, they were very rude and disruptive. I don’t understand how any group/person can hope to persuade another when they react that way. I’m assuming that you would want to influence someone to your POV instead of just being an ass. Unfortunately, political campaigns are taking on this flair as well; mudslinging instead of pursuading. Sad.
Posted on July 30, 2004 07:45 AM | #
12. Geoffrey said:
As a left-leaning centrist I sat back and watched the WTO riots (a few blocks from my house) and I was struck by what seemed to be an overall anti-everything agenda. Protesting is essential to a democracy, but the kids smashing up the city I happened to live in didn’t seem like they really had any idea what the WTO or the IMF was. The anarchy symbol spray painted on my apartment door when I got home that night was an added bonus. Like Chris said, if you want me to listen to your message don’t assault me. Unless of course, you have no message, then go tear down your own neighborhood.
Posted on July 30, 2004 08:43 AM | #
13. Kevin Tamura said:
How true. Now lets hope some people stop treating the complexities as some downfall to be ashamed of.
Posted on July 30, 2004 09:02 AM | #
14. Craig said:
Despite having attended many public protests (or however one wants to label them) myself, I have mixed feelings about them and regularly ask whether the ends truly justify the means?
One the one hand, I often participant in such protests; on the other, I’m acutely aware that they are, in reality, a form of performance art — or a media hack — designed to attract the attention of the mass media.
Unfortunately, it’s often the only effective way to get an alternate view presented on a one-way medium such as television. Granted, protests like the WTO one in Seattle you cited typically don’t excel at convincing non-participants, but they generally succeed in creating informed discourse after the fact.
To use your example, after “Seattle,” most of North America (if not the developed world) knew about the WTO and IMF and what they do, and, in turn, globalization became a viable topic for mainstream debate.
Did the end justify the sometimes ugly means in that case? I might say yes. You seem to say no. Thankfully, we live in societies where we are able to freely voice our disagreements.
Posted on July 30, 2004 09:16 AM | #
15. Dave P said:
Uh-oh, bad to post about politics when I’m lurking in the crowd. :-)
First, I disagree with you Keith that there is a time and place. Anytime is the right time and anyplace is the right place. This is one of the most fundamental pillars of democracy and is enshrined in your constitution.
The whole idea is to inconvience people… in order to portray the importance of the topic. Would the WTO even be in the common lingo if it wasn’t for that and other riots? Would we be examining the state of globalism if the opposition to it wasn’t as fierce? I think not. I don’t support general rioting, but I do support vocal, disruptive (to the daily routine) protests.
But I digress, labels piss me off as well. I find the American labels of Left/Right espescially amusing as a Canadian, since to me you’re all just different degrees of right… some closer to the centre than others.
Anyway, good post.
Posted on July 30, 2004 09:25 AM | #
16. Geoffrey said:
Dave: You make a good point about how the WTO riots made “WTO” part of the common lingo. But I’m still not convinced the anti-globo kids understand what the WTO is, other than WTO=Bad.
Posted on July 30, 2004 09:56 AM | #
17. Keith said:
A few of you mentioned this and it’s pretty much the heart of the issue. I saw too many “protesters” during the whole WTO thing that were just down there to “socialize” with like minded people. By “socialize” I mean riot, break stuff, get drunk, accost people like me spewing half-formed ideas…
I went to a huge anti-war rally about a year and a half ago and I was hugely disappointed in the actions of the crowd in general. Vandalism, propaganda (when they were bitching about the opposition’s use), mixed messages, and violence (I saw a female pro-troops “protester” get smacked) were all prevalent.
At an anti-war, peace rally…
It didn’t bother me too much as I went looking. Now with WTO, these people pretty much came is shat on my doorstep.
The message gets lost…
Tim – I know where I sit, don’t need a program to tell me. ;)
ssp – My friend didn’t have a firm grasp of the issues. He was just there to be “part of it all.” When pressed about it he fessed up. Problem is, this was the majority and they really messed up my city. How about next time, your city can deal with the “collateral damage”? I’ll admit, I’m a bit biased as it was in my face. I generally agree with what people were protesting for, I just didn’t like the methods and the fact that it was more like a riot or a rave than a means of political expression.
Geoff – Sorry about the door. I know a few people who had to deal with similar issues.
Sean – We need labels? ;) I don’t agree – you labeler. ;)
Dave P –
You know, I hear this all the time and while you have a right to your own views and methods, I don’t have to like or agree with them. This is the kind of attitude that gets people in jail.
For example, back to the WTO thing – I was going to meet a friend for lunch and was barred from entering a building by protesters. Physically barred. Now, touching me when you’re not invited is a bad idea, so this might be an extreme case (one of the reasons I generally avoid churches also) but I didn’t want to listen to a word these people had to say.
I wanted to knock someone out.
I think there is a right time and place to talk to someone about politics and religion, etc. There is also a right way. Pressure, coercion, physical contact and the like might work – but they’re not going to win good, intelligent people to your cause.
I guess if your just looking for numbers ambush type tactics might work well, but people like me (and there are lots of us out there) don’t react well to that. As well, it seems that people who take this kind of action have a very hard time seeing the bigger picture and acknowledging that there are usually more than two sides to an issue.
I see your point, I just think there has to be a better way of communicating.
Anyway, as I said, to each his own – just keep it away from me unless I ask for it. ;)
Posted on July 30, 2004 10:10 AM | #
18. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
But that doesn’t take away from the importance of the message, and if you’re being critical and responsible, you will look for that truth and respect it. I’ve seen you post some opinionated rants that could easily cross over the ‘nose boundary’, but that doesn’t take away from your point necessarily, if ever.
I understand though. I see that too, and it’s terribly unfortunate. I think that your problem with how you react to it though is interesting because it seems like a reflection of one of the things you claimed to take issue with: you seem to then write off the issue, or file it under “not worth my time” because you expand the actions of a few to represent the whole. A few, I might add, that have been publicly criticized by those that were there for serious action those days. And none of this even touches on the issues of police provocation, but that’s getting into the specifics of the WTO riots and away from the general point you were making.
Posted on July 30, 2004 10:21 AM | #
19. Greg said:
I’d like to agree with Dave P. that anyplace is the right place, but it’s not always practical. I think there is room for both Dave’s view and Keith’s, but it boils down to what you are trying to accomplish.
I don’t agree with labels or categorization, but I also don’t agree with people who claim to vote “for candidates, not parties”. That’s fine if you are living in a different America than I am. The reality is that the party platforms dictate a large portion of a presidential agenda, and by endorsing a person, you are endorsing the ideology he represents. It’s naïve to think otherwise.
Posted on July 30, 2004 10:22 AM | #
20. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Sorry, just to clarify: starting with the above, my comment was in reference your comments on “supposed” protesters when I saw “I see that too.”
Posted on July 30, 2004 10:30 AM | #
21. Keith said:
Seth – I know all about police provocation. I got shot with those slugs they use, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When I tried to explain I almost got shot again…but that’s another story.
As far as “writing off the issue” goes, yeah I do that when I’m not in the mood to think or talk about it. But if it really is important I will address it when I’m better prepared.
Look, important is a subjective term and while I agree with you that there are many important issues that need to be talked about, they seem a whole lot less important when someone is shouting at you when you’re trying to get to work.
I don’t think this is a valid analogy at all.
I do think I get what you are saying here, but, umm, I don’t make anyone read this site. It’s my site, I say what I want, when I want – I also let people respond, usually.
To illustrate my point it would be more like me going to your place of work and reading one of my rants through a megaphone while you’re trying to work. When I think of “nose boundary” I think of that in very literal terms. You can’t get that online. ;)
Posted on July 30, 2004 10:36 AM | #
22. Dave P said:
Ahh… but therein lies the crux of the matter… you don’t need good intelligent people, because everyone votes and most aren’t intelligent. :-)
I think though that there’s a big difference between being inconvienced and a riot. Keith in your particular case, you’ve brought up points against both. I perfer to seperate the two. Anti-social punks on a rampage are just that, regardless of the cause they proclaim.
Like it or not, the message got through to you. The protestors actions, like a bad tv ad, worked.
I’m going to hazard a guess that prior to this protest you never gave the WTO much thought, and now you’ve thought about it enough to form a valid opinion on globalization. I’m in the same boat.
Unfortunate as it is, like terrorism and viral marketing, this is one of the best ways of communicating.
Like I said, unfortunate.
Posted on July 30, 2004 10:45 AM | #
23. Keith said:
Oh and another thing about blogs and rants – when someone comes here they can check into my background, see who I am and where I’ve come from. They can e-mail me and I’ll respond back most of the time. This isn’t done on all sites, but I think it’s a must and it really sheds light on one’s views.
More on that later…I smell a post coming on. But anyway..
You don’t get any of that durning a protest. Someone I know and respect talking to me about an issue carries much more weight than a stranger yelling at me as I walk by.
It’s not always the message and method it’s who that message is coming from. Seth’s comments, for example, carry much for weight than an anonymous poster’s would, he left his site, I can contact him, and he’s posted before. I respect what he has to say.
His comment carries a bit of weight because of that.
Posted on July 30, 2004 10:45 AM | #
24. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
Keith:
You’re right: that was a poor analogy on my part. And you make a good point about when the time is appropriate that I didn’t necessarily disagree with to start with.
Another very good point is this: there are *so* many things to be concerned with these days that not even the most concerned individuals can reasonably expect to address it all, even if at different times.
I think you got the points I was trying to make, though, despite my feeble attempts. :)
Posted on July 30, 2004 11:05 AM | #
25. Ritz said:
I’ve been making it a point lately to ask people why they think what they think. Even if I agree, I still ask them why.
An absurd percentage of the people I talk to have no damn clue why they feel the way they do, but they will fight you to the death no matter how many facts you present. Even if they have none.
It makes me wonder how many people really have no intention of ever changing their beliefs. They simply think people who don’t think their way are stupid and that’s all there is too it.
I’ve been labeled a lot of things too and it doesn’t seem to bother me, until someone claims that makes you stupid and then have no way to back it up. That is such a close-minded way of thinking, but it seems to be EVERYWHERE. Even at most protests!
Posted on July 30, 2004 12:31 PM | #
26. Faruk Ates said:
While true, the problem with democracy is that it was originally formed when people were being informed properly and without too much mudslinging, yet today, democracy is about giving a voice and power to people who don’t know heads from tails about the situation. Democracy as a concept is only as efficient and powerful as its weakest link - much like nearly everything else in life and our society - and thanks to our “wonderful media”, people are very poorly informed about the topics and know more about the politician’s drug-use when they were 20 than they do about their political plans and intended courses of action (should they be elected).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against democracy. I just feel that it’s likely to do more damage than good when the people with power (the voters) don’t know exactly what they’re voting for.
Just look at Bush. Half the USA voted him into office, but how many really knew that he was going to try to ban gay marriage (for instance)? There are a ton of things he ended up doing, saying or attempting that probably nobody in their right mind in the USA supports, yet 50% of the lot still voted for him.
Posted on July 30, 2004 01:01 PM | #
27. Rob said:
Siddhartha learned a valuable lesson, and he confronted Buddha with his finding.
Siddhartha found that, though you could draw a map to enlightenment, teach the appropriate rituals, and say the appropriate prayers, you could not impart enlightenment. That is something that comes from within you when you a prepared to receive it.
The rituals and prayers give the unenlightened something to do, a pattern to live by. On this, Buddha concurred.
So as the common man becomes more apathetic (or maybe he’s not, he just doesn’t want to talk about it right now) the ideologue gets more desperate, shouts louder, breaks more glass. He has to get attention so that he might forcibly enlighten the common man.
You can lead a horse to water, but…
Posted on July 30, 2004 01:12 PM | #
28. Geoffrey said:
Forcibly enlighten the common man?
That’s rich in humor. Sounds like a crusade to me.
Posted on July 30, 2004 02:27 PM | #
29. ssp said:
Keith, I can fully understand that you’re personally annoyed if people keep you from doing whatever your want to do. And I still wonder whether there are better ways of achieving the same things with the same amount of people/money/expertise. (I really liked the comparison to bad TV ads above)
In addition, as with most mass protests, you’ll have to do some counting. Most people protesting are reasonable and peaceful. They just don’t get the big media coverage or your attention (that’s the result of their decency). A fraction of people will be pushed into aggressive acts by others (be it rioters or the police) and only an even smaller fraction comes there with rioting in mind. How large is that fraction? As large as the fraction of soldiers who torture prisoners? As large as the fraction of big-co subcontractors who use child-labour? [I wasn’t able to find any concrete numbers by either side - the best I could get were 50000 protester and ‘several hundred’ violent people] So we might be talking around 1 or 2% here, which seems to be par for the course. If they were the army or corporations, though, they’d be “misled individuals” and nobody’d condemn the army or corporations per se.
So what are you saying exactly? There were people around who are jerks and you don’t like them? I guess it didn’t need any WTO or protests against it for you to know that.
—-
What I find interesting is the result of those riots, though. Organisations like the WTO have learned that they’re not welcome in cities (note that the biggest ‘loss’ during the Seattle riots is always given to be lost sales for businesses, not for damage). As a consequence such conferences are moved to far-away places, easily protected expensive resorts etc. I wonder whether that is a good or a bad thing:
On the one hand seeing even casual reports about those meetings will make people realise how detached those organisations are from the real world - and that they actually have to hide from it. This might keep scepticism vis-à-vis such organisations alive. On the other hand, their agenda might just completely slip our attention in the future because they’re too far away.
So we’ll see whether those protest actually did any good in the long term.
Posted on July 30, 2004 04:05 PM | #
30. sTEVEN sTREIGHT said:
I will not vote because I don’t like Bush or Kerry.
Bush lied about WMD and reasons for attacking Iraq.
But I trust Bush more than Kerry.
Kerry and the Democrats are trying to deceive Americans by pretending their party is Moderate, rather than Liberal. They sound like flippin’ Republicans.
Kerry is twisting facts and words. Calling sailors “soldiers”.
I absolutely hate all politicians everywhere. I pity the poor souls who get excited about political figures who always lie and devote so much to special interest groups and the rich.
Government is an archaic tradition that should be replaced by computers someday, somehow.
Posted on July 30, 2004 09:35 PM | #
31. Andrew said:
You live in Washington (as do I) so I have a much higher chance of labeling you as liberal… (Bush didn’t burn burgers he was told by one of the guys in the front (the CIA) to make a burger with onion on it followed the directions and found out that they heard the order wrong)
Posted on July 31, 2004 11:50 AM | #
32. Andrew said:
Bush didn’t lie… he was misinformed.. We know the because of:
Senates Intelligence Commitess Report on the subject
The Lord Butler Investigation
Vladimir Putin admitting that he told the US that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Posted on July 31, 2004 11:55 AM | #
33. Keith said:
Andrew – You prove my point assuming I’m a liberal because I live in Washington. Ever been outside of 20 miles of Seattle? Not many liberals out there. ;)
Anyway, I guess you could consider me liberal on many issues, and conservative on others. That’s pretty much my point. I’m much more complicated in my beliefs and opinions than simply “liberal” or “conservative.”
Many times when you label someone or something you oversimplify the issue and “dumb it down” – we see this all the time in the media and frankly I, for one, am kinda sick of it. When you see (or are presented) issues in black and white you miss all sorts of important details.
As far as my fry cook analogy. It doesn’t even matter if Bush was misinformed, and anyway that sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me. The point is that I don’t like the way the country has been run in the main over the last few years, and it’s more complicated than simply the handling of Iraq. For that reason I’m for trying something new. Pretty simple.
Don’t agree? Great – that’s why we all get a vote.
Posted on July 31, 2004 01:41 PM | #
34. Rob said:
“Forcibly enlighten the common man?
That’s rich in humor. Sounds like a crusade to me.”
it’s an age-old strategy that never worked - outside of brainwashing, at least. i fear you’ve missed my point.
Posted on July 31, 2004 02:35 PM | #
Comments are now closed