Freddie Ingle

The problem with the analogy is that there are literal parks you can go to. Social media is only "necessary" if everyone else is on it. If you ban it for everyone some people will get a VPN, but many others will just adapt and those growing into adolescence won't adapt to it in the first place.

It's not "go play in the abandoned factory" it's "go play in the abandoned factory in the next town with the weird kids who are writing in elvish".

Other options were available.

I think that friction is important John, and I don't think it would read across entirely to where socials are now. That lack of optimisation, and the...heavily moderated dynamics in those forums, protected a big majority of people from them.

Not me, but pro-wrestling and RPGs aren't quite as bad.

increasingly starting to feel that the argument isn't "ban this group from social media" but "ban social media".

Sam is joking. I'm not sure if I am.

I'm starting to suspect a conspiracy of bottom half premier league defenders to pad Cole Palmer's stats. Pedro is an unfortunate patsy for their fiendish plan.

Best practice is an initial conversation in which the leader talks through in detail with the writer what they want to say. "Being the guiding mind", and, frankly, short-circuiting a lot of debate later. But then there has to be proper engagement on the *final draft*, or what are we even doing?

I've had a few principals that have taken what I've written, kept the structure and many of the phrases, but then changed them to fit closer to their own language, story or vision. That's great! That's what my job should be —a launching pad, not a strait jacket.

BUT I don't think the solution is that leaders should produce the first draft. That's partly because I don't think that's logistically feasible , but also because they're often no good at structure or framing an argument.

I do think, though, that they often need to be more involved at the end

Look, I'm biased, but I feel the need to defend my profession a little here.

Stephen's general point - that leaders need to have some involvement in the production of the stuff they say, because those remarks are important, is bang on. Trying to read the mind of a principal is a nightmare

Babe 2: Pig in the Sausage.

YouTube video by Dionyssis V biased towards fairness - the newsroom

Apropos of nothing...
youtu.be/6dgBCjmiDrw?...

Wouldn't he need congressional approval to actually do that? A, admittedly swift, Google suggests that congress passed a Bill last year to stop him doing precisely this.

The Prime Minister is not going to make a dramatic "fight them in the FTSE" trade war speech the day everyone is flying out to Davos. He wants to try to talk Trump down, and he's got the EU playing bad cop. Expect lots of hand-wringing before we find out where we really are later in the week.

People worried about Trump's letter to the Norwegian PM need not worry. Politicians get letters like this all the time.

They're usually handwritten and covered in mysterious stains, but still.

Id like to revise this bet to "Easter"

if I were a betting man, I'd bet that we'll see the invocation of the 25th Amendment before the midterms.

Although I'd have to do it quick, because those odds keep shortening.

People say AI isn't good but my spotify DJ just went: "This is my Father's world" -> XMEN THEME SONG -> Pop song and I challenge you to do better.

I think this conversations makes an assumption - that all these pictures are being produced for sexual gratification - when I think a higher-than-you'd-expect number are being produced to troll. They're creating them to hurt people and prompt outrage. That's what they're really getting off to.

I mean honestly Liam, it was right there.

Chelsea in 18 months.

You can, and should, use information and entertainment in speeches. They're crucial for establishing credibility and connection. But they're not the end point. I often think that's what's missing in speeches I here. They think their points are the point.

That means your first focus isn't your message, it's your audience. Where are they? Where do they need to be? Then you figure out how to get them from Point A to Point B. That's why you should start by writing the end. Then the start, then the middle.

Presentations at work, in politics, etc are the same. The big question for any speech is "How do I want the hearer to think/act differently afterward"? "I want them to accept this restructure", "I want them to buy this", "I want their vote".

And yes, Best man/maid of honour speeches, and eulogies at funerals, are still this. They're encouragement to praise the focus of the day, to elicit an emotional response of joy or grief (and almost always have value propositions in them, not for nothing)

Instead, consider that words spoken aloud to an audience are almost always for the sake of persuasion. I think the number of times this isn't true is statistically insignificant, and probably includes virtually every conversation we have (though often in that case, the persuasion is "like me").

If you're just trying to inform an audience, a speech isn't the way to do it. Papers, seminars and classrooms are better.

Speeches just for entertainment are a specific genre. Usually comedians or celebrities give after-dinner speeches. Even then, the best of these do more than just entertain.

I've heard it said that the goal of speeches is either to inform, persuade, or entertain. Generally, I think this is rubbish.

Ha! I confess I hadn't noticed that. I guess the accessibility of the full sentence is of more benefit than the asyndeton in written form?

Well, you're more cultured than me, clearly. Aaron Sorkin would certainly approve.

Apologies, I've responded to loads of different things on this, but it's because it's my passion and profession, and it's rare for these subjects to come up!