An Open Apology for Miscommunicating
Wow, have I really blown it. A few days ago I posted this article which was intended to thank the activists who did such an amazing job on the Concord BEARCAT issue. It apparently did the opposite – at least two of the activists who spearheaded the issue are apparently very upset. Why? The answer is in the last paragraph of the article where I said:
The more ridiculous and outrageous the NH state-believers become, the more people will move here and get active. The state-believers are not even close to having learned their lesson about not aggressing against peaceful people yet, so I must thank them for inspiring more influential activists like Dan to move here and concentrate their activism! Yay!
One of the anti-BEARCAT organizers shared my post on facebook, calling it a “backhanded compliment”. She apparently thought I was talking about her in that paragraph. I thought I was clear that I was talking about the government bureaucrats, but apparently I was not at all clear.
Why would she think I was talking about her with the term “state believer”? Well, after the BEARCAT activism, the activists in question were understandably a little frustrated with some of their fellow liberty-loving activists. Apparently there is a group of “anarchists” in the movement who have a habit of deriding political activism and that has frustrated the anti-BEARCAT activists in question, who are political activists and are disappointed that more people did not help with their anti-BEARCAT efforts. Worse, some of the “anarchists” apparently openly insulted the anti-BEARCAT efforts as pointless – these critics are totally wrong – the efforts were a strong success. The anti-BEARCAT activists had indicated that some callous people had called them “statists” for their small-government beliefs. So, when she saw my use of “state-believer”, she thought I was talking about her. At least – that’s what I could extract from the posts one of them made on facebook before blocking me.
I wasn’t talking about the political activists. I was talking about the aggressors – in this case, the people calling themselves the “city of Concord” and police. I can see how “state believers” did not effectively communicate that.
I have nothing but respect for the political activists in New Hampshire. They have done and continue to do amazing work. I myself am a politically active person and did the exact-same-things as did the Concord activists during the Keene BEARCAT situation – why on earth would I insult similar efforts? I hope this message reaches the eyes of anyone who took offense. Your activism was fantastic, as I poorly expressed in my original article. I’m sorry I blew communicating my ideas – I did not mean to upset you.
Regarding the term “state-believers”, the reason I’ve been using it is to stop using the word “statist”, which comes off as very derogatory. I see the state as a dangerous religion. The use of “state-believer” is intended to point that out, but it doesn’t discriminate between those who are actively advocating aggression vs those who, like the organizers above, believe in a smaller, friendlier state. I am sorry for upsetting anyone and I will work on being a better communicator in the future and am certainly open to ideas on how best to communicate these concepts.Want to discuss rather than just commenting here? Visit the Shire Society Forum.