Well, she was just asking you if you would LIKE to. I would LIKE to, you would LIKE to, we all would LIKE to-we can't but we would LIKE to.

(I actually agree with your rant and am messing with you just a little bit. Heh.)

Hey, look, change is incremental. The issue is not what she asked you - the question is only a hook - but what legislation/action she was proposing and whether that's likely it was effective. There are specific ways to be effective in a democracy and they don't depend all that much on idealism vs. cynicism: they just depend on effective action. So the only worthwhile question is: Is this an effective action? If so, awesome, sign the thing. If not, move on to the more effective action.

The only dumb decision is to write off the whole issue as a waste of time because you don't like the way it was presented. People work hard for causes they believe in and they'll do what it takes to get your attention. If it's a cause you really believe in, then lend your support, and continue to seek real ways to make change.

No, we're not doomed to mediocrity. All we're doomed to is the degree of serious action we accept. What will you take on? And how? What are you willing to do?

You do realize that this post simultaneously scolds people for both striving for a perfect world and for accepting a mediocre one. That dosen't leave a whole lot of options.

Think of the rhetoric this way:

"Would you like to end domestic violence today?"

Yes, of course you would, if it were in your power. But it's not. So, given that it's not in your sole power to do so, and yet it is within the power of society as a whole to lessen the hurtful impact of domestic violence in the country you live in, what about helping support this legislation that would significantly reduce that impact?

It's a salesmanship issue, and by fucking up the initial pitch line, the salesperson failed. You aren't dumb to decide to walk by without stopping because some person fucked up in presenting her cause.

The girl with the clipboard missed one very important word: help. "Hi, would you like to help end domestic violence today?" You can help today.

We all have all sorts of reasons for deciding to do as we do, as quirky and individual as we humans often are, and you really shouldn't let anyone call those reasons dumb.

I'd a said, "No, I want to end that shit like, yesterday!" But then I always ask if it's okay for me to write down a fake name because I don't trust mailing lists. Most petitioners don't like this and I say I'm sorry, I believe in the cause but I can't help them. So I waste their time and mine because I actually do want to help, but you gotta be crazy to give your name, address, and phone number to random strangers on the street.

It's not even about the grammar for me. I live in the neighborhood of a large university, on the main drag. Each and every day, there are people out for social causes. Save the Children. Save the Whales. Greenpeace. ACLU. Real Change. WAPIRG. There are some days when I *literally* can't walk thirty feet without some starry-eyed undergrad asking me if I'd like to change the world. It's even better when it's two people FROM THE SAME ORGANIZATION, within eye- and sometimes ear-shot of each other, who sequentially ask me if I want to help right after seeing me blow by their partner.

It's not that I object to the causes, because I don't; I support most of them. But frankly it's at the point where it's a quality of life issue for me; I'm trying to get *home*, or to the grocery store, or to class, or whatever; I don't want to listen to you for twenty minutes and I sure as hell am not about to give you my info.

I will not even GET into how much it pisses me off when the Save the Children reps start their spiel with "Hey, pretty lady!" (and yes, that's a quote).

This is an irritant in the same way "would you like to donate/buy a ribbon/tag/band/ticket to support violence against women/child poverty" etc. is an irritant.

It's great that you are out to do good things but the cognitive dissonance of your delivery gets us off to a rocky start.

heh.

This reminds me of when I worked for NYPIRG and canvassed up on 125th street knocking on doors begging for money. The hundred dollar checks I got after selling people in their own apartments mostly bounced (and I only made a percentage over any thousand dollars I got in a day). I failed so hard at that gig, begging these folks to keep the price of a subway token from going up to 1 dollar 50 cents.

But I learned one thing: How to sell. And another one: I should not do it face 2 face (I can make you a posted that does it though!)

PosteRRR. Also, I have to agree that those fifteen-feet apart posses on the street are major annoyance. They LOVE to target mom's with prams, because they think moms with prams have time on their hands. FAIL!

They just know that moms with prams can't run away as fast as other people. They probably also target old people with walkers, and jonmc.

I'd a said, "No, I want to end that shit like, yesterday!" But then I always ask if it's okay for me to write down a fake name because I don't trust mailing lists.

Nodding. I get so much/piles of nonprofit bulk mail solicitations -- something every day from at least one org -- I really don't want to give anyone a check or my address on the street. Sometimes I'll give a little cash; some groups don't take cash.

Side story: I was amazed by this Greenpeace gal who hit me up in Hawaii (don't get excited I was there for work and actually working). She was the virtuoso of hitting people up for money -- really passionate, fun, bright. I was so impressed I was going to give her a check just to reward her skill and energy, but she wanted me to sign up for a monthly contribution that would automatically get deducted from my account. I said no, and she said no to a one-time gift. I was impressed/curious that Greenpeace decided to take that strategy (monthly commitment or nothing).

I had someone from Children International throw a belt at me. I refuse to give one penny to any group who refuses to respect my right to be left alone--which includes blocking my path on the sidewalk. This is why I am no longer a member of the ACLU.

The proper response is: "Out of my way chugger!"

There was an article in the Village Voice a few months ago which made it clear that most of these people are only doing this for money, not altruism.

Fail to respect my space and you are on my shit list.

As to whether this helps or not? I don't think petitions are worthwhile and usually ignore them anyway. If they're for national groups or initiatives, they just go to a lobbyist who then hangs out in Washington talking about how many signatures they got. Basically it supports the lobby system.

What I think is much more effective is just to stay in touch with your representatives in Congress (UScentric). Write to them about whatever you care about, once or twice a month if you want to. They actually do read mail and their staff will take phone calls and relay your question, and usually get back to you.

So I don't think you have to feel bad about not signing petitions.

most of these people are only doing this for money

It's a job, an entry level job, not many these days (shrug). I wonder that it's worth it to the charities -- the people don't seem to raise much money. Maybe it's a visibility thing.

Brujita, that article sounds interesting, do you have a link for it (or at least more keywords for a search)? Thanks.

This looks like the one, Melismata.

Thank you! What a great article. The only quibble I have is:

the Dialogue Group, which helped to develop this brand of street confrontation and brought it to U.S. cities a few years ago with a subsidiary called Dialogue Direct.

This has been happening, at least in my area, for 20+ years. Maybe they just got it streamlined it or something.

It's an interesting question: Do you focus on the words or the message? Words are an imperfect tool for communication, but without linguistic precision, the underlying meaning is harder to divine.

Personally, I probably would have answered "yes" and kept walking.

My answer to Eideteker and many others here is focus on yourself.

We are all too well-versed in coming up with fantastic-sounding rationalizations for not breaking up our daily lives to do volunteerism on any level.

I think it's not rocket science. We all make decisions every day about how much of ourselves to give to various causes, other people, our partners and pets.

It all comes back to you and you alone, though. If you don't want domestic violence to happen, and do nothing - don't blame others for their need to get out there and act. Don't rationalize.

Are they imperfect? Hell yes. So are any of us for saying we want BAD THING NUMERO UNO to end and then do nothing. Petition-holders are irritating without a doubt. But they are also not the be-all and end-all of the struggle to make a better world.

It's the first small step. It's someone getting a glimmer of something bigger than themselves and making time for it.

Everything they do provokes a negative reaction in you that you make time for enough to talk about it on the internet. That same time could have been spent writing a letter to a Congressman, or surfing for volunteer opportunities at a local shelter, or contacting a hospital to see if they need assistance with grief counseling.

We all know the messages these people are on about - they want to fix something. They're trying out a method to do so.

I think too many people, myself included, try out too many ways of deflecting, rationalizing, intellectualizing and ignoring what little things we could be doing to make the world better.

Or put another way: Guilt's a bitch and snark is cheap.

It's all about the grammar

Hi, would you like to educate people who don't understand the difference between "grammar" and "usage" today?