Quote:
Originally Posted by vid
I'm not prepared to settle for the status quo either but apparently that fact really agitates some people and I need to "be careful".  |
There are some you could not help but offend, I wouldn't spend any time concerning yourself over it.
But I do think its important to understand that at least some people with whom you may disagree, in whole or in part will need to be persuaded to join your cause in order to affect change.
Packaging what you have to say in a manner that is digestible at the minimum and ideally appealing to said group is not a requirement, but is advantageous.
Let me offer, that many right-wing populists like or liked the Ford family.
Clearly, the former Toronto mayor had addiction issues and ultimately sought treatment for them.
That should afford an avenue among those who might otherwise be indifferent or even adversarial to issues of First Nations rights to get behind better addiction treatment services to which First Nations members would have access.
In that case, you sell the program as something for the people of Kenora, not as something for First Nations members. It may disproportionately benefit the latter; but the fact it may also benefit the former may be the more persuasive argument, in certain contexts.
Likewise, you might note that greater level of treatment with even moderate success would likely reduce crime, thus reducing worry/fear, losses and insurance premiums.
That the primary argument should be about helping those in need is irrelevant; if arguing in the latter fashion gets the people who need it, the help they require.
Nothing in the arguments above changes facts on the ground; what it does is seek to persuade others, to support the actions, that will change results on the ground.
Its about speaking to people where they are; not where you wish they were.
So you can affect the change that's needed.