A bit of a niche topic, but the opinionating by Nate Silver is part of the ongoing pendulum swing between "trust science" and "it's not just about masks." /1 https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1340605340346363907

There's a model yet to be communicated for examining all of the stakeholders when crafting solutions. This model increases in priority as scale of systems impact increases, as does the element of doubt. /2

We need to be driving leaders to incorporate the widest perspective and change the strategy iteratively in cases where we're impacting multiple communities. /3

As we begin to see traction, doubt should be supressed or criticized with evidence, and processes can begin to harden.

Criticism is an important element when there's little traction, but this "indignation hot take" format by pundits is really only appropriate for topics where leaders are ignoring valid criticism and the reach of that hot-taker. /5

It's easy to want to apply indignation to valid questions because that drives engagement in this media, but it's vital nutrition for the most reactionary elements of the medium. /6

The only exception to this rule is when the dogpile of bad faith response is overwhelming the argument being made. i.e, bullies. Joanne Freeman had a great thread and video about this recently. /7 https://twitter.com/jbf1755/status/1339574074654265347?s=19

I'm seeing some profound levels of growth around this on liberal Twitter (and in my offline communities) in 2020, but there's a lot more work for those us with privilege. /8

For those of us with a high degree of privilege, snark only where you have to, focusing on centering marginalized voices that expand perspective and have already done the work. Protect those voices through whatever means necessary. /fin