05 May, 2008
Putting a name to things
I saw an interesting comment on slashdot where the author argues that the behaviour of entities like the RIAA, who manage to have the law bent around them, is leaning towards fascism.
It reminded me of an article I read a while ago (and now can't find - anyone?) that talked about names and labels and how they can be used to sway people's opinion of things. Un-american, communist, flip-flop, and so on. Names that, once they stick, are lethal.
When I saw the fascism post, my first thought was that it would be great to have this stick. Now I'm just wondering if wrapping up everything within the label, no matter how useful, is still just a dirty trick. Shouldn't we argue about specifics instead? Or do we need to simplify? I'd like to think that everyone can listen to the argument and make an informed decision, but is that just wishful thinking? I can't count the amount of times I've been stumped in arguments about the ID card issue because someone just spouts "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". Not because I can't point out that this just isn't true, but because I don't have anything pithy enough or slogan-like to trump it with.
So, it comes down to a choice between assuming people are stupid or getting nowhere because nobody wants to know the details.
I've actually been of the mind in recent years that this urge to "simplify" causes many more problems than it solves. So often, if you can't be pithy or don't have a catchy slogan, you don't get heard, and there are issues that are too complex to boil down to a 15-sec soundbite, or to something that'll fit on a protest poster.
<< Home
