Short thread on communication, teaching and selling ideas:

When I finished school I went to study in Israel in a "Yeshiva" - these are like HE academies where you just study Jew stuff: philosophy, bible, history, law. And, lots of talmud. 1/

The Talmud is really hard at the best of times. It's very confusing, varies in style from page to page, the content itself is very demanding and it's in a weird Aramaic-Hebrew hybrid. 2/
Everyone in the Yeshiva studied the same tractate (like a book of the talmud) but there were lots of different classes, with each rabbi having a very different style and approach. 3/
One rabbi took a highly abstract and conceptual approach. He used very complicated ideas and words and did a lot of monologuing. Everybody used to rave about how amazing his classes were. So, one day, I decided to go. 4/
I confess that I didn't understand a damn thing. It all just felt very...like...nothingness. Like things were being overcomplicated and overdramatised and ideas and lenses were being added that didn't really add much at all. It was just confusing. 5/
Afterwards I asked my friends "um so how was that" almost all of them said some variation of "absolutely brilliant. I didn't really understand it - but it was brilliant"

Emmmm not for me, mate. 6/
Instead I went to a different rabbi, who was famed for the clarity of his ideas. He used to synthesise all the different opinions, lay them out clearly, explained precisely where each authority differed from the next. It was SO unsexy, but we learnt loads. 7/
There were no moments where I was like "OMGIZZLE MIND BLOWN I'M INSPIRED" it was just "yeah, cool that makes sense. nice one." And that was perfect. 8/
Feck I'm 9 tweets in and haven't got to the point. Basically, I see a lot of stuff out there in ed teaching and CPD that is just wool. It doesn't actually clarify ideas, doesn't have concrete examples, lacks detail BUT - and this is the key - makes you feel smart. 9/
This is salesman work. Where you give people a product that doesn't actually move them on, but makes them feel like something awesome has just happened. Tomorrow, nothing has changed. 10/
Be wary of big words. Be wary of the cult of charisma. Be wary of things and ideas that aren't communicated in a way that makes them readily intelligible. And be wary of that feeling of "MIND BLOWN", often it just results in nothingness. /end

More from Law

This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."

Bilious bullshit.


"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.

I'm not sure how that logic works.

Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.

A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.

He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like