I think it's not a coincidence that both Vance and Ted Cruz - two guys we're told are very skilled at formal debate - both undermine their ability to be persuasive by having zero theory of mind.

For me it was the opening of the second book that was the problem.

I think people on here also underestimate just how many people dislike weak looking dweebs who whine about the rules.

I agree that of the two the second is better. What I don't agree with is the general idea that telling a group of people they have a long-held, nefarious motive is going to be the best way of persuading them. I think we mostly agree and wasn't trying to drag you into a debate, to be clear.

Part of my disagreement is that particular message is not an effective way to work the refs.

I sincerely think that Sweeney hammering that fucking depression mantra a dozen times a day is exclusively a bad thing and he should stop.

I would love for her to talk to a clinical psychologist about the research on avoidance but maybe even that wouldn't change her mind.

Fundamentally, you have to assume your reader is not a small child and understands that by choosing the word "seminal" you are not *actually* comparing something to cum.

I can usually ignore that kind of discourse but it's infuriating to see the EIC for Scientific American go beyond endorsing content warnings (which studies show to have harmful-to-neutral effects) to say "don't even say a word that has a negative connotation".

Yeah, I agree that those kind of words are rarely a good choice for that kind of publication, but the reasons she gives aren't the reasons I'd use. They're just imprecise and stylistically inappropriate imo, not bigoted.