Genuinely curious. Just wanted to make it clear what my thought process was (because the product doesn't always make that obvious).
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
I don't think it has to be an either/or thing — we either talk about the possibility of a nuclear detonation, or we talk about systemic violence and poverty. This seems like a false choice to me (and there is journalism about the latter, to be sure).
There is a separate question about strategy, e.g., does talking about the damage serve as a hook to get people to care about the issue, which can then result in policy engagement? In my experience this is true, but this is also being studied.
-
-
(E.g., Does framing nukes in terms of social justice get a stronger response — esp. with younger voters — than framing them in terms of the "circles of death"? I don't know. This is an empirical question, not quite yet answered to my satisfaction, but we're looking into it.)
-
Anyway, I appreciate your comments.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.