Advocacy:
About 3 months ago I expressed the sympathy I feel with the need to protect women’s spaces. I received the abuse I expected.
Last night I commented on the need to win those arguments & not behave in a way that alienates support.
The reaction was at odds with the claimed
About 3 months ago I expressed the sympathy I feel with the need to protect women’s spaces. I received the abuse I expected.
Last night I commented on the need to win those arguments & not behave in a way that alienates support.
The reaction was at odds with the claimed
importance of the issue. When a point needs to be won, good advocates spend as much time on the presentation & wording of it as on the substance.
The reaction of those who claimed I was seeking to endanger women, shut down their concerns, & patronise isn’t just cobblers, but it
The reaction of those who claimed I was seeking to endanger women, shut down their concerns, & patronise isn’t just cobblers, but it
undermines the case by making thoroughly bad points.
It also has 2 other effects. First it makes me less anxious to engage. That doesn’t, of course mean I don’t have a view. Just that it’s less likely to be influenced by discussion on Twitter. That’s a lose for any campaigner.
It also has 2 other effects. First it makes me less anxious to engage. That doesn’t, of course mean I don’t have a view. Just that it’s less likely to be influenced by discussion on Twitter. That’s a lose for any campaigner.
Secondly, I’m asking why a view I’m sympathetic to needs to rely on such behaviour or attracts those who indulge in it. The reaction makes me wonder whether I should rethink.
Of course, the other side are worse.
But my primary focus is on the advocacy. To persuade a supporter
Of course, the other side are worse.
But my primary focus is on the advocacy. To persuade a supporter
they may be wrong is horrendous. If the debate is that important it should never happen. Advocacy is about the case, not the advocate.
I’m now unsure if this debate really is so important. The refusal of both sides to engage with nuance suggests to me that the substantive issue
I’m now unsure if this debate really is so important. The refusal of both sides to engage with nuance suggests to me that the substantive issue
is marginal. That’s another change of mind, brought about by the behaviour of the side of the argument I sympathise with. It’s hard to imagine a worse example of bad advocacy.
So:
1. Check your ego at the door.
2. Focus on substance.
3. Never misrepresent the argument. If you’re
So:
1. Check your ego at the door.
2. Focus on substance.
3. Never misrepresent the argument. If you’re
genuinely unsure of what it is, ask.
4 Never abuse anyone.
5 Accept that the issue has 2 sides. Every issue does.
6 Ask what the other side’s strongest argument is. Assess its strength objectively. And answer it.
7 Don’t use the extreme position as your paradigm. It doesn’t help
4 Never abuse anyone.
5 Accept that the issue has 2 sides. Every issue does.
6 Ask what the other side’s strongest argument is. Assess its strength objectively. And answer it.
7 Don’t use the extreme position as your paradigm. It doesn’t help
to argue the real issues.
8 Don’t be frightened to accept there’s a counter-argument. You have to persuade the audience yours is a stronger case - not obliterate the opposition.
9 Focus on persuasion. Focus only on winning & the audience will believe that’s your only purpose.
End
8 Don’t be frightened to accept there’s a counter-argument. You have to persuade the audience yours is a stronger case - not obliterate the opposition.
9 Focus on persuasion. Focus only on winning & the audience will believe that’s your only purpose.
End
