Unless you are going out there and campaigning or operationally actually doing some-fucking-thing; you absolutely do want someone to lead and fulfill your desires. If you personally are not making it happen then you want someone else to take the lead on it.
You are allowed to have a belligerent sense of independence; just don’t fool yourself.
As examples (as “taking charge” can take multiple forms across mutiple goals): table and/or moderate meetings to come to consensus on goals, coordinate members for coordinated actions toward social goals, source funding for operations if funds are needed, speak on behalf of your group (or coordinate group messaging) toward other groups. To name a few generic things. Specifics depend on what you want done.
To try and sum it up: “taking charge” is providing impetus, and potentially aligning community power, toward making headway to some social/political goal.
I don’t know what exactly you mean by “English is not a language of domination and hierarchy” or how that really relates to what I was saying or what I originally asked you. “Taking charge” is a extremely common idiom in English.
I will concede that “take initiative” is a more neutral phrase, but you have turned to nitpicking my diction, even after I spent another full comment explicating the meaning and intention of the original question.
So it is my turn to ask what you mean by sidestepping my question? If you are uninterested in answering the question, just say so. I have done with someone else in this very post. But don’t think you can confuse me with literary legerdemain. You don’t answer questions by saying “you could’ve phrased it better.”
Sorry was originally writing that sarcastic because I assume nobody is literate and I should at least be having fun.
If I completely rewrite what you asked and assume the best, sure in some cases. Its not exactly what I want, but close enough. But you didn’t actually write what I’m responding to here, so…
If I pay a mechanic to fix my car, that ain’t them leading. If I hire a politician to enact my will, that isn’t them leading. You don’t have to be the one personally doing the job.
And just what is their job? You don’t “hire them” to “enact [a specific] will”, but to take charge of things for the body politic that their constituents can’t individually solve as effectively. You elect them to analyse problems or opportunities for improvement, pool resources and insights from others, propose a course of action and coordinate the collective effort to solve them.
That is leadership. It’s not rulership, nor is it strict servitude, though it is a service to their community by leading the way to improvement.
That doesn’t really change the nature of their job. They’re not the ones carrying out whatever change they were elected or hired to enact. They were elected to coordinate and oversee the process, to direct the efforts, to make decisions about dealing with whatever challenges crop up.
They were elected to lead the enactment of that platform.
Your mechanic is hired to lead the Department of Car Repairs, where he has surveyors take stock of cars in need of repairs, defines rules to prioritise them, tasks subordinates with getting and compare various quotes for these repairs, allots a budget, signs off on the selected repairs, gets status reports, investigate hitches and find solutions?
Unless you are going out there and campaigning or operationally actually doing some-fucking-thing; you absolutely do want someone to lead and fulfill your desires. If you personally are not making it happen then you want someone else to take the lead on it.
You are allowed to have a belligerent sense of independence; just don’t fool yourself.
I do not in fact want to be lead.
Do you take charge in effecting political/societal change for yourself (and your community)?
Or do you disagree with the other guy’s requirements for what constitutes someone who does not want to be led?
You kinda just said “no.”
‘Take charge’. Explain what you mean by this.
As examples (as “taking charge” can take multiple forms across mutiple goals): table and/or moderate meetings to come to consensus on goals, coordinate members for coordinated actions toward social goals, source funding for operations if funds are needed, speak on behalf of your group (or coordinate group messaging) toward other groups. To name a few generic things. Specifics depend on what you want done.
To try and sum it up: “taking charge” is providing impetus, and potentially aligning community power, toward making headway to some social/political goal.
English is not a language of domination and hierarchy you need to be careful to avoid expressing that.
You might say ‘initiative’ if you were being careful and conscious.
I don’t know what exactly you mean by “English is not a language of domination and hierarchy” or how that really relates to what I was saying or what I originally asked you. “Taking charge” is a extremely common idiom in English.
I will concede that “take initiative” is a more neutral phrase, but you have turned to nitpicking my diction, even after I spent another full comment explicating the meaning and intention of the original question.
So it is my turn to ask what you mean by sidestepping my question? If you are uninterested in answering the question, just say so. I have done with someone else in this very post. But don’t think you can confuse me with literary legerdemain. You don’t answer questions by saying “you could’ve phrased it better.”
Sorry was originally writing that sarcastic because I assume nobody is literate and I should at least be having fun.
If I completely rewrite what you asked and assume the best, sure in some cases. Its not exactly what I want, but close enough. But you didn’t actually write what I’m responding to here, so…
I was going to bring in something I saw in a different thread but then I noticed you were already there.
You seem convinced that “leaders” are necessarily authoritarian. I do not believe that, so there’s not going to be much point to this.
👍
Removed by mod
That seems uncalled for. We just agreed that we’re not gonna convince each other. I’m not pissed off by a thumbs up
Your take, mine is they were acting like a child
If I pay a mechanic to fix my car, that ain’t them leading. If I hire a politician to enact my will, that isn’t them leading. You don’t have to be the one personally doing the job.
And just what is their job? You don’t “hire them” to “enact [a specific] will”, but to take charge of things for the body politic that their constituents can’t individually solve as effectively. You elect them to analyse problems or opportunities for improvement, pool resources and insights from others, propose a course of action and coordinate the collective effort to solve them.
That is leadership. It’s not rulership, nor is it strict servitude, though it is a service to their community by leading the way to improvement.
To enact the platform we agreed serves our will when we elected them. Electing them is hiring them.
That doesn’t really change the nature of their job. They’re not the ones carrying out whatever change they were elected or hired to enact. They were elected to coordinate and oversee the process, to direct the efforts, to make decisions about dealing with whatever challenges crop up.
They were elected to lead the enactment of that platform.
Then a mechanic is hired to lead my car repairs.
Your mechanic is hired to lead the Department of Car Repairs, where he has surveyors take stock of cars in need of repairs, defines rules to prioritise them, tasks subordinates with getting and compare various quotes for these repairs, allots a budget, signs off on the selected repairs, gets status reports, investigate hitches and find solutions?
Or is he hired to carry out a specific repair?