Alternate thread title (or question): what benefits come to the vaping community from being diplomatic with our current cause?
Feel free to respond to either question if the words below appear to you as TL;DR
When I say "ANTZ" I generally mean two things.
1 - full blown ANTZ type people that are best identified with Dr. Glantz and his ilk. I think many politically aware vapers know of this type of ANTZ and know who key players are. I also think most of the vaping community thinks of these type of people as what precisely ANTZ are, and same people in the vaping community also realize that the mainstream media is sympathetic to their press releases and propaganda.
2 - everyone or anyone that may express ANTZ-like rhetoric. I observe this can literally include everyone, but because the full blown ANTZ type exist as because MSM will promote that while usually downplaying counter-propaganda, then it is fair to say that there are clearly varying degrees of ANTZ-hood in all people. And is why I was compelled to stipulate first definition with the words "full blown."
I provide definitions because I don't run into full blown ANTZ people all that often, or rather very rarely. While I regularly run into people that will express anti-nicotine and/or tobacco statements that is clearly based on zealotry, and cannot be backed up when confronted. I regularly confront these people (even on ECF) and around 99% of the time, the discussion is so short lived, it is blatantly obvious that the anti-nicotine, or anti-tobacco, or anti-smoking rhetoric is based on lies / propaganda that laypeople cannot defend, whereas I imagine a full blown ANTZ could plausibly defend it in a discussion.
Anyway, when vaping the other day, indoors, in a restaurant / bar, I asked staff for the okay, and their response is "it's not illegal, so how could I say no?" Which is an interesting response as that would theoretically carry over to all places, even while a cordial vaper is likely to ask in most places they visit. Me, I ask in about 60% of the places I go and in certain places, like a hospital, I don't ask because I do anticipate the answer to be no and the rationale to be based on ANTZ rhetoric. I'd be very willing to discuss it with such businesses, but in all cases where I've tried, it became disrespectful interchange (from them) very quickly. Thus, you learn to not always ask, and to vape and not get caught, knowing they can't catch you even if they think they can.
But, this thread is about the many issue besides indoor vaping. If all this thread does is stick to that same old same old ECF debate, I'll do my best to steer it in the larger direction which is WHY PLACATE ANTZ RHETORIC WHEN IT COMES TO VAPING FREEDOMS (or practices)?
I currently see no benefit from it, other than when someone does take the time to engage in respectful interchange. I've encountered that a few times, and yet it seems to be getting more rare as the war on vaping is getting turned up a notch.
But I am open to discussion on why would vaping community be diplomatic (with anyone) regarding vaping issues. There is perhaps a bunch of things to discuss here or perhaps this is only post on this thread. I dunno. I do care, and hope discussion ensues. My current bottom line, for me personally, is I am going to vape what I please, where I please with consideration to people around me, within reason. My disposition in public is generally positive and polite and I'm not about to become militant vaper, though on a discussion forum, I may be a little more militant as my vaping whatever and wherever has no impact on the discussion at hand. If you have reasons that suggest vaping members really ought to be diplomatic going forward, I really hope you can back that up with good rationale. But right about now, in the arena of words and campaigning, I do think we really ought to be more aggressive in our tactics, and ought to be willing to tell (rhetorical) lies / invoke propaganda to get attention.
That vaping as practice and freedom is under attack (in some places) is obvious.
That vaping as practice is being lied about by opposition is obvious.
And that ANTZ will continue to think they can win the war against vaping because they (think they) won the war against smoking is obvious.
That vapers are at times being diplomatic in their desire to appease general members of the public, who utilize ANTZ rhetoric, is IMO, unwise and not working out in our favor, like we might think it could.
So name an issue, any issue, that works against vapers and please tell me how it benefits the vaping community to give in on that issue to placate the ANTZ among us, or within us?
So far, I have not seen how diplomacy is benefitting us when ANTZ rhetoric is so ingrained. Almost everything about our activity is relatively peaceful and our adversaries are not pulling any punches in attempts to make us look like the attackers that are bringing doom to society. I say we (continue to) turn that .... around on them.
Feel free to respond to either question if the words below appear to you as TL;DR
When I say "ANTZ" I generally mean two things.
1 - full blown ANTZ type people that are best identified with Dr. Glantz and his ilk. I think many politically aware vapers know of this type of ANTZ and know who key players are. I also think most of the vaping community thinks of these type of people as what precisely ANTZ are, and same people in the vaping community also realize that the mainstream media is sympathetic to their press releases and propaganda.
2 - everyone or anyone that may express ANTZ-like rhetoric. I observe this can literally include everyone, but because the full blown ANTZ type exist as because MSM will promote that while usually downplaying counter-propaganda, then it is fair to say that there are clearly varying degrees of ANTZ-hood in all people. And is why I was compelled to stipulate first definition with the words "full blown."
I provide definitions because I don't run into full blown ANTZ people all that often, or rather very rarely. While I regularly run into people that will express anti-nicotine and/or tobacco statements that is clearly based on zealotry, and cannot be backed up when confronted. I regularly confront these people (even on ECF) and around 99% of the time, the discussion is so short lived, it is blatantly obvious that the anti-nicotine, or anti-tobacco, or anti-smoking rhetoric is based on lies / propaganda that laypeople cannot defend, whereas I imagine a full blown ANTZ could plausibly defend it in a discussion.
Anyway, when vaping the other day, indoors, in a restaurant / bar, I asked staff for the okay, and their response is "it's not illegal, so how could I say no?" Which is an interesting response as that would theoretically carry over to all places, even while a cordial vaper is likely to ask in most places they visit. Me, I ask in about 60% of the places I go and in certain places, like a hospital, I don't ask because I do anticipate the answer to be no and the rationale to be based on ANTZ rhetoric. I'd be very willing to discuss it with such businesses, but in all cases where I've tried, it became disrespectful interchange (from them) very quickly. Thus, you learn to not always ask, and to vape and not get caught, knowing they can't catch you even if they think they can.
But, this thread is about the many issue besides indoor vaping. If all this thread does is stick to that same old same old ECF debate, I'll do my best to steer it in the larger direction which is WHY PLACATE ANTZ RHETORIC WHEN IT COMES TO VAPING FREEDOMS (or practices)?
I currently see no benefit from it, other than when someone does take the time to engage in respectful interchange. I've encountered that a few times, and yet it seems to be getting more rare as the war on vaping is getting turned up a notch.
But I am open to discussion on why would vaping community be diplomatic (with anyone) regarding vaping issues. There is perhaps a bunch of things to discuss here or perhaps this is only post on this thread. I dunno. I do care, and hope discussion ensues. My current bottom line, for me personally, is I am going to vape what I please, where I please with consideration to people around me, within reason. My disposition in public is generally positive and polite and I'm not about to become militant vaper, though on a discussion forum, I may be a little more militant as my vaping whatever and wherever has no impact on the discussion at hand. If you have reasons that suggest vaping members really ought to be diplomatic going forward, I really hope you can back that up with good rationale. But right about now, in the arena of words and campaigning, I do think we really ought to be more aggressive in our tactics, and ought to be willing to tell (rhetorical) lies / invoke propaganda to get attention.
That vaping as practice and freedom is under attack (in some places) is obvious.
That vaping as practice is being lied about by opposition is obvious.
And that ANTZ will continue to think they can win the war against vaping because they (think they) won the war against smoking is obvious.
That vapers are at times being diplomatic in their desire to appease general members of the public, who utilize ANTZ rhetoric, is IMO, unwise and not working out in our favor, like we might think it could.
So name an issue, any issue, that works against vapers and please tell me how it benefits the vaping community to give in on that issue to placate the ANTZ among us, or within us?
So far, I have not seen how diplomacy is benefitting us when ANTZ rhetoric is so ingrained. Almost everything about our activity is relatively peaceful and our adversaries are not pulling any punches in attempts to make us look like the attackers that are bringing doom to society. I say we (continue to) turn that .... around on them.
