>And frankly, I just don't see the negative connotations that you and others associate with it. I am confused by your confusion, given your quote from the article: > "One of the problems is that we insist on using terms like 'digital rights,' the usage of which basically leaves out a large percentage of the population. Most people don't know what that means, and they assume that digital doesn't include them, because they don't work in the tech industry and have little contact with people who do." I don't think people have such a negative opinion of geeks that they'll hear the name and think "geeks, huh, if they're for it then I'm against it". But I would worry that they'll think "geeks, huh, dunno what that has to do with me but it's probably too complicated, I'm just an (artist/movie buff/media reform activist/investigative journalist/someone with an iPod...)". I know these memes sink down deep inside us where they're hard to uproot, but isn't the whole *point* of what you're doing that this *isn't* about geeks? Plus, as Don points out, never mind the word "geek" in particular, "GeekPAC" is the kind of name that says "we are here to represent the interests of one sub-group of people against competing sub-groups", just like the "Dairy Farmers Council" or "AARP" or something. But you want to come across as the other sort of political organization, the sort that is organized not around a group of people, but a group of principles -- those have names like "Americans for Social Justice" or "Club for Growth", that involve abstract goods and claims to represent all people. (Sometimes they're lying, but that's a separate issue.) So your name seems to misrepresent your organization in that way too.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds