28 ms·
It would have sent a very powerful message to those already listening and looking to agree with it. It would not have sent a meaningful message to most, who wou
by Kalium 12y ago
It would have sent a very powerful message to those already listening and looking to agree with it. It would not have sent a meaningful message to most, who would have never encountered this hypothetical message.
- e12e 12y agoThat is generally the nature of "powerful messages". If you're advocating change, most of that time will be spent talking to people that don't, won't listen. If not, change would already have happened.
- Kalium 12y agoThat's not the nature of activism, friend. If you're spending most of your time talking to people who don't or won't listen, it's because you aren't communicating effectively. People listen when you communicate effectively. That said, do not ever confuse people listening for people agreeing. They are very different things. Just because someone honestly listens to you does not mean they will come to agree with you. Also, people listen when you are willing to listen to them. Too many "conversations" are thinly veiled preaching.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]