| Question should be self-explanatory, if less unbiased than I'd like, but I've been wundering where I sit on the scale of... whatever the scale is of for this.
I used to take the upproach of "probubly does nuthing, but only takes a fuw secunds so why not?"
More recuntly my stance has changed tu "gives a large number of people a sense of having dun something without having any actual effect", and thus is arguably harmful to whatever cause the petition is in favour of, because that sense of achievement numbs the avurage person's desire to du more.
It can be argued that it's a way of expressing public opiniun, but have there actually been any cases of any guvernments turning around on any significunt issue due to a bunch of signatures? (And I do mean key (inter)national policies, not local issues nor token victuries for things they didn't really care about in the furst place, but will happily use to give the illusion of the populace having a say.)
I would like a way to indicate what is importunt and have those aggrugated feelings actually takun into consideration, but I don't think petitions do this, and I'd prefer if infurmation on important issues was spread without a glorified like button, so peopul don't get that quick fix and are more likely to try coming up with sum real solution for each issue (whatever that might be).
Um, so reading that back I'm not sure I've articulated very well (nuthing nuw there then), but I'm getting tired and can't be bothured re-writing it, and in any case it's probably gud enough to get you ugly bunch discussing stuff and tossing around vuewpoints... |