Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.

May 2008
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Talking strategy: Building a playbook for the future

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]amethyst_hunter)

I had some thoughts this past week regarding the countering of dominionist tactics. It’s clear we need a solid plan (and fast). How to go about it? Here are some ideas I cobbled together...

These may or may not make sense; I tried to be as coherent as possible given that I'm by no means a rocket scientist on a lot of stuff. I'm just a pissed-off plain 'ol American who's sick and disgusted with the handbasket our so-called government has thrown us all in.

This series will be posted in parts so as to be easily digestible, some to come as I manage to get them typed out.

ACT I: Communications/Public Relations

(Open to anyone, regardless of national affiliation – i.e., people who live outside the States are also welcome to participate)

Extremists favor the cell method, as was recently noted in the Rolling Stone article on Sam Brownback’s theocratic-dominionist ambitions. I’m pretty sure the idea of fostering counter-cells has been mentioned already, but it’s an idea that I think bears serious merit. Cells, as we all know, multiply into bigger (and more powerful) entities. Each of our cells, manned by volunteers with particular skills that fit their designated purpose, would work on a regular basis – contacting government officials, digging up research information, etc. This is how it would work:

Cell #1: Made up of people who are primarily skilled in writing letters.
Cell #2: Made of people skilled in writing emails.
Cell #3: People skilled in making phone calls (public speaking). (People skilled in writing from either/both of the first two cells could help in making up prepared speeches to read from, as not everyone is comfortable with talking on the phone – I myself am one of those folks)

These cells could further be categorized in specific groups: Womens’ rights, national defense, international affairs, etc. Because many topics are very personal-sensitive (meaning, if you are a male, then the right to contraception is not going to affect you quite as strongly as it would a woman who was denied her BC medications – after all, I have yet to hear of any cases where a male customer was denied condoms, or a vasectomy, or even Viagra, for that matter, by self-righteous bullies. Not trying to irk people there, that’s just how things have historically worked.) it might make more impact if a whole group was dedicated to one particular cause. And seeing as how we have such a large and growing group here, there would likely be a lot of people able to volunteer for the group(s) of their choice. There’d be no limit on cell size, either – in fact, the more the merrier! (meaning, the more people available to drown out the crap artists, the better)

Cell #4: People who are skilled in finding information and maintaining databases (the latter half could even be a separate cell). This could be further split into information cells with a specific area of knowledge: again, there’s womens’ rights, abuses of judicial power, public education, etc. – some of these may even overlap (ex. A judge deals with a case involving a woman patient’s right to privacy).

The first three cells would go to #4 for any necessary information they might need for making a strong case. For example, the subject of domestic spying – A group of cells devoted to objecting against, say, Patriot Act (a misnomer if ever there was one) extensions would ask #4 to dig up related links or published articles to reference for important points. Once they had whatever information they wanted, each cell would start contacting EVERY – and I DO mean EVERY – public official, from west to east coast, via their designated means (email, phone, etc.).

Bombardment, basically, and as someone probably pointed out, the more contacts that out-of-staters get, means they’ll be aware that not only are their own constituents paying attention to what’s going on, so are people elsewhere. Which would ideally make it that much harder for them to sneak nasty business under the public radar since they’d realize they’ll be hit with a countersmack of outrage if they screw up. (Threats to boycott and/or vote for an opposing candidate would be useful, I’m sure – “Mr. X, I’m not voting for you because you passed/want to pass a Bad Bill that does Y to this group of people, so I’m voting for Mr. Z because she/he didn’t pass/would not pass that bill!”)

Another example: A nutjob (like Pat Robertson) spouts off some disgusting sentiment that gains lots of attention. A cluster of cells devoted to refuting that kind of idiocy would immediately go into action, sending letters, emails, and phone calls to public officials (if any are involved) and to other high-profile organizations (charities that host events where said nutjobs are speaking at, for instance), and to the media at large (newspapers, opinion polls – again, threats to boycott the media that cater to said whackjobs can be effective).

As crazy as it may sound to even attempt to drown out fools like PR, I do think it’s very important to get right back in their faces and let them know that kind of shit won’t be tolerated – remember, a LOT of people DO take seriously those kinds of ravings and a select few will not hesitate to actually act upon them. I’m sure I don’t have to go into detail what kind of action would likely be involved there. The bullies need to know that the vast majority of people DO NOT share their hostile views. That old chestnut “Ignore ‘em and they’ll go away” DOES. NOT. WORK, especially where this bunch is concerned. I know this because as someone who was bullied all the time in high school, nothing short of a hard, fast smackdown will make a bully back off.

It’s one thing to think (and randomly say) hateful things about a person or a group of people, however revolting that is (the double-edged blade of free speech); it’s quite another to take up televised time or mass-publish books and pamphlets encouraging people to “take a stand against the [insert favorite hated group here] agenda.” Not to mention using the funds from the sales of those kinds of products towards groups actively working to make life more miserable for the aforementioned hated groups! (Think the piles of manure that are the Left Behind series and the people responsible for ‘em who like to channel money to groups aimed at CAUSING war. If using God to encourage war isn’t blasphemous, then I don’t know what is.)

Our contact cells could also come up with intimidating-sounding names, like “Organization For American Women” or “Alliance Against Veteran Abuse”, to make officials believe that we are every bit as formidable as the devils they’ve made deals with. Ex: “I am a member of the National Alliance For Religious Cooperation, and my organization is planning a nationwide boycott of your product because of your endorsement of [insert nasty nutjob’s name here] as a spokesperson/his/her’s statements/agenda.”

For anyone who is actually involved in media (newspapers, television, internet, etc.), cells could also be formed for the purpose of informing the public about dangerous zealotry at work. A notable example of this was the series of forums held on dominionism in New York. More cells could also work with local law enforcement (an excellent idea that has also been suggested I believe), educating them on the effects of zealotry and giving them a heads-up as to the general behavior of some of the more crazed folks (like a certain funeral-picketer whose last name rhymes with ‘whelps’) should they have cause to come up against them.

Speaking of funeral picketing, I’m sure that veterans’ groups would be mightily pissed if they knew that a brother or sister-in-arms was being posthumously spat upon by such hatemongers. Cells could work with them and get out the word that the hatemongers are deliberately trying to incite violence (fires and movie theaters rule) by publicly parading their hate, and perhaps peaceful counter-protests could be arranged.

Next series part: The 'Legally Blonde' Rule - If The Fabric Won't Work With You, Don't Work With The Fabric (Deals with political parties and thereof)

( )Anonymous- this user has disabled anonymous posting.
( )OpenID
Don't have an account? Create one now.
No HTML allowed in subject