Loved the format of this edition. Each author was concise in their point of view which made it for easy reading while at the same time getting various viewpoints. Would love to see more articles in this format.
Loved the format of this edition. Each author was concise in their point of view which made it for easy reading while at the same time getting various viewpoints. Would love to see more articles in this format.
Can we please do more pieces in this format? I know I am right (hilarious, I know), but I am all echo chambered out. We need to see good faith arguments side-by-side so we can assess them in context with the best other arguments we can find.
From here, let's get an interactive roundtable where readers (and the authors themselves) can, in GOOD FAITH, poke at each other's arguments to build the best argument possible.
This obsession with being right v. getting it right is a cancer - we're on the same team folks. We need to model that which we seek to accomplish.
Loved the format of this edition. Each author was concise in their point of view which made it for easy reading while at the same time getting various viewpoints. Would love to see more articles in this format.
Can we please do more pieces in this format? I know I am right (hilarious, I know), but I am all echo chambered out. We need to see good faith arguments side-by-side so we can assess them in context with the best other arguments we can find.
From here, let's get an interactive roundtable where readers (and the authors themselves) can, in GOOD FAITH, poke at each other's arguments to build the best argument possible.
This obsession with being right v. getting it right is a cancer - we're on the same team folks. We need to model that which we seek to accomplish.
Nicely put.