Alvin
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Of courseYes the options are there for people to ignore it, follow it, or do something different. They are also free to discuss it surely?
Of courseYes the options are there for people to ignore it, follow it, or do something different. They are also free to discuss it surely?
If you have to google the meaning of something to understand it then I don’t think it’s been explained well enough in the first place.
I have to respectfully disagree and I probably Google at least 10-15 things per day as they come up on line (or in real life) so I can understand them and learn what they are. The first time I ever saw a protest with empty pairs of shoes it was for gun violence and each pair of shoes symbolized each child who was murdered by a gun. The shoes showed the age that their life stopped and symbolized all of the things they will never grow up to do.
I think it is a brilliant concept both for children murdered by gun violence and for the ME/CFS Millions Missing Movement. I would think that we WANT people to Google what they see so that they can learn more about it. I am not saying that the gesture that Janet chose for "Whitney's Plea" is the gesture that I would symbolize for my own illness nor that anyone else should do it. Different things resonate for different people and it could be done in English, any other language, sign language, holding a sign, an empty pair of shoes, etc. It all works for me.
When something that is supposed to be a simple, impactful and easily understood statement fails to be easily understood without a google search I believe you’ve failed.
This campaign has the added problem that not only will people not understand it (in my opinion) they will think they understand it and that it means people are praying for death (in my opinion). I personally believe this is a disaster.
If it works for you then great but I disagree.
I feel a little bad now because I posted the video of the boy.
Would it be possible to make this thread private
By this logic no new symbols can ever be developed or deployed since new symbols are by definition not innateMy short view; if you want to express something through symbols, using widely known symbols for praying and upwards will be viewed as praying either to a god, or wanting to move towards one.
I would also suggest that people make the distinction between a private symbol being used between the person sending the code or symbol and the decoder, and asking others to replicate the symbol are two completely different things, and where the expressed discomfort seems to lie.
I don't follow? I'm saying that symbols are culturally learned and the success of a symbol depends on it being distinct from other symbols that are already known.By this logic no new symbols can ever be developed or deployed since new symbols are by definition not innate![]()