Yep, I also agree on the object level, but if the proposal is “we should collectively communicate something to public”, then we should probably also get some feedback from people who have non-zero experience with communicating to public. Not about the message, but about its form.
For example, when I see people saying things like “We must all collectively condemn X”, I take it as evidence that many people support X… otherwise there would be no need to go hysterical, right? If it was just one person, you might simply say: “hey, John Doe is not one of us, do not listen to him if he speaks in our name”.
So in situations like this, we need to avoid not just lying, but also telling the truth in a way that predictably leads people to an opposite conclusion. (“They said X. In this business, when someone says X, they actually mean Y. Therefore, Y.”) Speaking for myself, I have no idea how to do it, because I have zero expertise in this area. When someone proposes a communication strategy, I would like to know what is their experise.
Of course, speaking for themselves, anyone is free to say anything. But for speaking in the name of a community, it would be nice to know the rules for “speaking in the name of a community” before doing so. There are such things as protesting too much. There are such things as creating associations; you keep saying “X is not Y”, and people remember “X is… uhm… somehow associated with Y”.
Yep, I also agree on the object level, but if the proposal is “we should collectively communicate something to public”, then we should probably also get some feedback from people who have non-zero experience with communicating to public. Not about the message, but about its form.
For example, when I see people saying things like “We must all collectively condemn X”, I take it as evidence that many people support X… otherwise there would be no need to go hysterical, right? If it was just one person, you might simply say: “hey, John Doe is not one of us, do not listen to him if he speaks in our name”.
So in situations like this, we need to avoid not just lying, but also telling the truth in a way that predictably leads people to an opposite conclusion. (“They said X. In this business, when someone says X, they actually mean Y. Therefore, Y.”) Speaking for myself, I have no idea how to do it, because I have zero expertise in this area. When someone proposes a communication strategy, I would like to know what is their experise.
Of course, speaking for themselves, anyone is free to say anything. But for speaking in the name of a community, it would be nice to know the rules for “speaking in the name of a community” before doing so. There are such things as protesting too much. There are such things as creating associations; you keep saying “X is not Y”, and people remember “X is… uhm… somehow associated with Y”.