You just quoted a purely American reference. It literally refers to the American Republican party.
I am arguing that it will have strong brand recognition as an NGO. The lobbying space is completely different to the party political space. This suggestion is based on my experience representing this organisation over the last several years in both capacities.
For those unfamiliar with my history:
- Secretary for several years
- Registered the party with the AEC
- President and Councillor once each
- Represented Party at several lobbying events such as Australian Digital Alliance and Internet Governance Forum events, ACTA and TPP ‘public consultations’, as the NSW Senate candidate in 2013.
I have had the “honour” of hearing the responses to our name and branding from people with power (and less power) in many different contexts. You haven’t had the Chief Regulatory Officer of iiNet rudely laugh in your face for talking about your political party before.
Anyway, I will update the phrasing to make my intent more clear.
I am not being difficult. Difficult is shitposting in a thread with off the cuff remarks of opinion without being bothered to defend those opinions.
This is fundamentally a discussion of philosophy and branding. You can cite your own argumentation for why you think you are correct. An assertion is not an argument.
I’d like people to truly attempt to make an argument or shitpost about me on Facebook. Pick one, not both.
I’m here to have a proper discussion on the merits and consequences. You seem not to be actually debating my proposal. I put a lot of effort into detailing the reasons why I think it’s a good name and why I believe we need to rename.
You’ve also decided that there are “camps”—to make this “us” and “them”—good for you. You’ve chosen to approach this as a tribal issue, which says more about your debating technique and mentality than it does mine.
I’m genuinely flabbergasted with the approach you and @davidb have decided to take with this debate, considering the amount of substance I have put into my discussion. You do not seem to be approaching it with the same good faith that I have and will continue to maintain.
If you wish to actually make an argument in the future, I will happy to consider it, but no more single sentence assertions, because at least I have enough respect for the party and its members to argue my points in detail.