Just drop your photo, write "I escaped" and go.😐
🚫Things to leave behind in 2020:
1. Leaving the diaspora and moving to "Gohna🇬🇭" without a plan for earning income, then trying to survive in Gohna by monetizing your new YouTube channel about life in Gohna.
This thing is becoming a ponzi scheme and it must stop⛔
There\u2019s a YouTuber who interviews people who\u2019ve moved back to Africa from the diaspora and somehow all the videos sound like this to me pic.twitter.com/jwjMZMkueZ
— Nelumbo N. (@vuyanzi93) December 31, 2020
Just drop your photo, write "I escaped" and go.😐
This one baffled me because I was literally by myself and you came to meet me. What was the reason?🤷🏿♂️
Return to Ìbàràpá from whence you came, foul creature
😒
More from Culture
One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
This is ridiculous. Students were asked for their views on this example and several others. The study findings and conclusions were about student responses not the substance of each case. Could\u2019ve used hypotheticals. The responses not the cases were the basis of the conclusions.
— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) February 17, 2021
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
The UK govt\u2019s paper on free speech in Unis (with implications for Wales) is getting a lot of attention.
— Richard Wyn Jones (@RWynJones) February 16, 2021
Worth noting then that an important part of the evidence-base on which it rests relates to (demonstrably false) claims about my own institution
1/https://t.co/buoGE7ocG7
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
You May Also Like
My top 10 tweets of the year
A thread 👇
https://t.co/xj4js6shhy
https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d
https://t.co/1147it02zs
https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
A thread 👇
https://t.co/xj4js6shhy
Entrepreneur\u2019s mind.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) August 22, 2020
Athlete\u2019s body.
Artist\u2019s soul.
https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d
When you choose who to follow on Twitter, you are choosing your future thoughts.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) October 3, 2020
https://t.co/1147it02zs
Working on a problem reduces the fear of it.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) August 30, 2020
It\u2019s hard to fear a problem when you are making progress on it\u2014even if progress is imperfect and slow.
Action relieves anxiety.
https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
We often avoid taking action because we think "I need to learn more," but the best way to learn is often by taking action.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) September 23, 2020
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
