Just got an email from beloved org @RAICESTEXAS titled "It's Not About National Security," repeating"bad hombre," and I want to crawl into a messaging advice vortex.
But first, once again: When you negate a frame, you evoke it. Don't hand your opposition free airtime.
-
Basically, we want to say “we need *thing we’re for* not more money for an imaginary crisis.” Or “it’s about *thing we’re for. * it’s not about national security.” But whenever I think of a *thing we’re for* it just ends up getting articulated as an end to the *thing we hate*
Have tested, for illustration, "end family separation" v. "create a fair immigration process that respects all families" - latter off charts better. 1 example of pivot from what we're against to what we're for. As visible in ad -https://twitter.com/ACLU_SoCal/status/1050053629145542658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1050053629145542658&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclusocal.org%2Fen%2Fnews%2Fevery-child-deserves-sleep-safe-and-sound&fbclid=IwAR1wcVbQHTm7J5JmXy4POGbzjPPfbU02q7GYsH_cJkHlnY9SJjEDWNSLTsg …
0:58
-
-
-
occasionally. my pleasure.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.