Originally Posted by ilbegone
I believe that people in the street are more far likely to move a recalcitrant politician than phone calls, letters and emails.
I believe that web sites are valuable mainly for recruiting and getting information out as well as discussion. I believe websites which become over involved with bitching about the problem rather than solving the problem lose their anti illegal migration value, and not even phone calls, letters and emails get accomplished.
Something I have seen and find detrimental is the sites where a few same exact people are on all threads shouting exactly the same thing to the same exact people, calling each other names while shouting down and driving off reasoned discussion. Nothing gets accomplished in those situations.
Letters to the editor sometimes get printed, but I have found that sometimes what is printed has been so heavily edited that it gives a different idea or slant than what the writer had submitted, but the writer's name is on it rather than the editor's, and the editor always has the last word. It's worth a shot from time to time. Some papers will get tired of of a particular writer's stand, and quit printing the person's view.
And, hindsight has told me that in the case of two or three letters out of many I have submitted over the years the editor did me a favor by not printing them, not the least that they were hastily written and weren't good communication of my particular thought and I would have appeared as an ass.
I believe that there will probably always be more complainers than active participants.
I believe there is a negative return to placing a yard stick for activism - everyone is different, maybe some aren't ready for another level, there is a valid barrier to participation, or others may find themselves black balled from a career if they are identified on the street. Some of those people might be doing other doing things they really can't publicize. The opposition does try to identify anti illegal immigration activists, and there have been attempts to neutralize or punish activists if there is some leverage which can be applied. The problem with brow beating people who don't measure up to another's idea of what an acceptable level of activism is is that the accuser might not have all the information, or maybe drive off someone who isn't ready yet but just might be there when needed most in the future.
The other side of the coin is irrational or uncalled for criticism of a faithful participant by someone who's never left the house.
Some people who aren't participants might donate funds or other other assistance, but a potential problem with that is that occasionally some people seem to believe that there is an unmentioned string attached to their donations and that their voice is a little more "equal" than others.
No one is going to entirely agree with another person, and although it helps, it is not a requirement that everyone like one another in order to work together towards a goal. Disagreements and misunderstandings will happen, I see the problem is not having disagreements in which there may be some shouting but in attacks and bridge burnings over minor things.
Like it or not, people who have anti illegal migration beliefs are under a microscope, and the words and intents of those people will be twisted by people who much more have the medias' "ear", and nothing sells so much and works so well against the goal of immigration law enforcement as "white hate". Appearance counts.
For what it's worth.
|