Charles Starrett (not the Durango Kid)
@cstarrett.bsky.social
@cstarrett most places. better.boston/@cstarrett on Mastadon. Facilitating leadership and well-being at work @ SoulCo. Practicing the Art of Possibility. He/Him. Former home dad, Harvard & NECmusic alum, 한국어 appreciator, Theory U, electronic music; TTRPGs
Reposted by Charles Starrett (not the Durango Kid)
/3 Previously it has been the Right that more reliably asserted that “hate speech” was not a First Amendment exception. But the Right’s pretense to caring about actual freedom of speech has been revealed to be sheer bunk.
September 16, 2025 at 1:06 AM
/3 Previously it has been the Right that more reliably asserted that “hate speech” was not a First Amendment exception. But the Right’s pretense to caring about actual freedom of speech has been revealed to be sheer bunk.
Reposted by Charles Starrett (not the Durango Kid)
The other thing about it is that the entire world has been captured by a discursive framing, where EVERYTHING is about how you talk about issues and NOTHING is about what you do. It's normal for consultants, it doesn't have to be normal for you! We aren't all executing a PR strategy we're people.
August 24, 2025 at 12:32 PM
The other thing about it is that the entire world has been captured by a discursive framing, where EVERYTHING is about how you talk about issues and NOTHING is about what you do. It's normal for consultants, it doesn't have to be normal for you! We aren't all executing a PR strategy we're people.
Reposted by Charles Starrett (not the Durango Kid)
Interestingly we have some empirical evidence and it doesn’t suggest that Democratic politicians are showering voters with off-putting academic language. bsky.app/profile/dcin...
August 24, 2025 at 3:28 AM
Interestingly we have some empirical evidence and it doesn’t suggest that Democratic politicians are showering voters with off-putting academic language. bsky.app/profile/dcin...
Reposted by Charles Starrett (not the Durango Kid)
*i* think that the issue isn’t the words, it is the substantive positions. no amount of language self policing will satisfy someone who just disagrees with, say, legal protection from gender discrimination
August 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM
*i* think that the issue isn’t the words, it is the substantive positions. no amount of language self policing will satisfy someone who just disagrees with, say, legal protection from gender discrimination