Read on Twitter
The thing about taking a "both sides/civil" approach to dialogue is you end up entertaining ideas you find morally suspect and you waste your time.
The best thing to do is find out if you and the person agree on a goal, and *then* use logic and reason to reach that goal.
(1/5)
The best thing to do is find out if you and the person agree on a goal, and *then* use logic and reason to reach that goal.
(1/5)
Everything else is pure politics and should be treated as such.
You are asking different questions.
You weight facts and evidence differently.
Importantly, you want your knowledge used for different ends.
(2/5)
You are asking different questions.
You weight facts and evidence differently.
Importantly, you want your knowledge used for different ends.
(2/5)
So when someone replies to your "woke" ideas - the best thing to do is to say, as an example,
"Ok. I think Latinx people are underrepresented in STEM and I want to do something about it. Do you share this goal?"
(3/5)
"Ok. I think Latinx people are underrepresented in STEM and I want to do something about it. Do you share this goal?"
(3/5)
Their answer will then determine your approach.
If "NO", then you take a *political*, approach - "ok, we have different moral compasses, see you at the polls".
If "YES", then take a *scientific* approach - "what is the research and what are some approaches we can take?"
(4/5)
If "NO", then you take a *political*, approach - "ok, we have different moral compasses, see you at the polls".
If "YES", then take a *scientific* approach - "what is the research and what are some approaches we can take?"
(4/5)
If "MAYBE/NOT SURE", then take a *communication* approach - "what are your thoughts about the underrepresentation of LatinX students in STEM?"
So stay away from the civility porn, and choose your convos wisely - your time is valuable.
(5/5)
So stay away from the civility porn, and choose your convos wisely - your time is valuable.
(5/5)
