Which is exactly why I didn’t read it—and I’m not saying I’m going to read it either. I’m just saying that it’s a neat example of how debating the terminology is, in many situations, the low-hanging fruit. I know it’s mentioned in the Sequences, though I can’t remember where. Debating the content of the argument is harder and, I find, quite often means reading a lot of boring things like white papers and scientific studies and reports to commissions nobody’s ever heard of. That comes up in political discussions all the time.
(Though speaking of terminology, I think we should throw things at morganism for posting a link to a 166-page “strategic communication guide” and calling it an “article”.)
Yes, power point must die...science presentations are getting better, but NGO’s still lagging on content.
Section 2 starts getting down to it, but starts incorporating the first workbook too ! (pg 37)
I thought the first paragraph on the landing page was pretty succinct in stating why it was “dangerous”, instead of just hateful or inciting, as it encourages action against a group.
The article in CSM wasn’t that helpful either, this is a very interlinked system, as she points out that defenders can also become targeted just from trying to protect the attacked group. Guess that is why there is so many points to deal with, tho they do show how to diagram it with just 5 post-it notes
I might have to read it after all now—I map out most of my life on post-it notes and feel a great sympathy for anyone who appreciates that underrated medium.
Which is exactly why I didn’t read it—and I’m not saying I’m going to read it either. I’m just saying that it’s a neat example of how debating the terminology is, in many situations, the low-hanging fruit. I know it’s mentioned in the Sequences, though I can’t remember where. Debating the content of the argument is harder and, I find, quite often means reading a lot of boring things like white papers and scientific studies and reports to commissions nobody’s ever heard of. That comes up in political discussions all the time.
(Though speaking of terminology, I think we should throw things at morganism for posting a link to a 166-page “strategic communication guide” and calling it an “article”.)
Yes, power point must die...science presentations are getting better, but NGO’s still lagging on content.
Section 2 starts getting down to it, but starts incorporating the first workbook too ! (pg 37)
I thought the first paragraph on the landing page was pretty succinct in stating why it was “dangerous”, instead of just hateful or inciting, as it encourages action against a group.
The article in CSM wasn’t that helpful either, this is a very interlinked system, as she points out that defenders can also become targeted just from trying to protect the attacked group. Guess that is why there is so many points to deal with, tho they do show how to diagram it with just 5 post-it notes
I might have to read it after all now—I map out most of my life on post-it notes and feel a great sympathy for anyone who appreciates that underrated medium.