NO. It was 'laying it out plainly' which is the major need today. In all the horrors, behind them all is one supreme horror: the ignorance and apathy of the masses.
What is needed is for them to be shown, to be 'persuaded' and the first step is to lay it out as Pilger did.
Hopefully they will manifest some flicker of interest and perhaps question this or that and then hopefully we have them 'on the hook' and can 'catch them' by showing them the truth of that assertion, convince them, get them on the side of awareness and the facts.
You should ask yourself, I suggest, how best characterise your comment? A petulant whine? Doing nothing for anyone, anywhere, any time?
Oy. Your audience is giving you feedback, and you're rejecting it. Not a good look.
It didn't come across as plain talk. It came across as rhetoric. It reads like a speech already made a hundred times to people who already agree with the speaker.
You put your need to persuade your audience into 'quotes'. Why? Do you not like them? Not trust them? They don't like being patronized. It doesn't look good.
If you feel contempt for them, it'll come through in your words.
You need to talk to them as if you actually respect their point of view, and offer arguments they can relate to. Not rhetoric.
Rest in peace, John. You will not be forgotten.
Devastating news closing a dreadful year. Ominous sign for the next. RIP.
A truly fundamental loss.
Thank you Thomas for this gesture!
There is some truth in what you write. But two caveats:
Communism was even deadlier than the West, destroying close to a billion lives.
Israel is a refugee state, not a colonial one.
Was this supposed to be at all persuasive? It wasn't. It was mostly yelling into an echo chamber.
NO. It was 'laying it out plainly' which is the major need today. In all the horrors, behind them all is one supreme horror: the ignorance and apathy of the masses.
What is needed is for them to be shown, to be 'persuaded' and the first step is to lay it out as Pilger did.
Hopefully they will manifest some flicker of interest and perhaps question this or that and then hopefully we have them 'on the hook' and can 'catch them' by showing them the truth of that assertion, convince them, get them on the side of awareness and the facts.
You should ask yourself, I suggest, how best characterise your comment? A petulant whine? Doing nothing for anyone, anywhere, any time?
Oy. Your audience is giving you feedback, and you're rejecting it. Not a good look.
It didn't come across as plain talk. It came across as rhetoric. It reads like a speech already made a hundred times to people who already agree with the speaker.
You put your need to persuade your audience into 'quotes'. Why? Do you not like them? Not trust them? They don't like being patronized. It doesn't look good.
If you feel contempt for them, it'll come through in your words.
You need to talk to them as if you actually respect their point of view, and offer arguments they can relate to. Not rhetoric.
we are not on the same page, you and I. sorry.