Read on Twitter
What's most damaging for healthy debate is when an argument is framed using aggressive or derogatory language. Calling someone who questions the efficacy of SSP a 'denialist' or 'smoking them out' if they choose to try other methods, should have no place in professional discourse
It is interesting that phonics should be such a divisive topic, splitting the profession (it seems) between evangelists who believe it to be the only effective method and skeptics who find it useful but not a magic bullet.
It is not healthy to frame this division as a war...
It is not healthy to frame this division as a war...
...better, as an area of continuing research, where advocates and skeptics can discuss the topic professionally and respectfully. By calling one another names and casting aspersions we are reducing the debate to a playground brawl, neither edifying nor productive.
Calling someone a 'denialist' who questions whether phonics is *always* the best and only method is the strategy of someone who aims to shut down the debate and smear any opposition. The word is carefully chosen with its connotations to Holocaust denial & climate change denial.
Most people reading this thread will know this strategy of smearing the opposition is the product of a single well-known account. If you wish to comment, please avoid personal insults or nastiness, I have written this thread to make a point not to start a pile on.
