If the style of one’s (e.g.
@readalot ’s) argument is embarrassing or unprofessional in the context of a debate/discussion, there’s the risk of pushing the audience to start feeling defensive about the entity one wants to convince to change behaviors,
even if the audience agrees on the merits of one’s core argument and would be one’s natural allies.
That is not the optimal outcome one may be looking for. That’s the risk that is being pointed out, I’m just stating it formally. Simpler: one may lose allies who were already on the same side, based on the merits of one’s case, if they can’t stand the approach.
Debate is by its nature performative. Strategy can be as important as the merits of the case. Sometimes more so. The most effective leaders acknowledge this and work both angles.
Other factors, such as debate opponents’ style (e.g. Tracy, lol) as well as knowing one’s audience come into play, obviously. It’s not always about being the most formal/virtuous in approach.
This also applies to the vendor reps as well, but they do start with the upper hand by definition. Well…if their prices and delivery completion aren’t a shit show, and they aren’t disingenuous
all the time.
I am impressed at the drive of several folks here,
@readalot included, who spend their own free time pushing the vendors and participants towards safer solutions.
From time to time I cringe at some of what some harm reduction proponents write (and what defensive vendors write, obviously)…others might not, but I do, maybe that’s my personal problem. On balance, however, it’s good work. Thank you all for your commitment to harm reduction here and elsewhere.
TTA