Dzień dobry. Dzisiaj poszedłem do kościoła po raz pierwszy od kilku miesięcy. Byłem smutny, że imię Charlie Kirk nie zostało wspomniane ani razu. Wspomniano o innych tragediach. Ale w tym konkretnym kościele katolickim nic o Charlie. Czego się bali?

The Strong Form versus the Weak Form The Strong Form of the argument, action or aesthetic is almost always better than the weak form. Yet for decades we’ve been told the opposite is true. The Strong Form of the argument has no “But” or “Others say.” The Strong Form of the action has no hedge. It’s all in or nothing. The Strong Form of the aesthetic isn’t derivative. It’s wholly authentic and original. We so rarely see the strong form in any aspect of life. If you work for a big company, the CEO will often give a speech or write an email that’s been edited by HR and Legal, departments that specialize in the weak form of language. In a litigious society, where anyone can bring a case against anyone, language is always diluted to the weakest form to prevent litigious action. The permanent managerial class specializes in the weak form of action and language. Everything has a built in hedge. Everything basks in “nuance.” “Some say while others say” is the balanced way to write a narrative. The strong form doesn’t exist for much of the managerial world. The strong form of language, aesthetic and leadership is so rare, it’s jarring to see the counter. To see someone act without a hedge. To see someone say something without a “but.” To see someone go all in without caveats. We’re entering an era where the Strong Form is now prized and on display all the time. It’s going to be jarring to see this way of being in government and business but the good thing is, the strong form becomes infectious once it becomes acceptable to implement. Stop hedging your bets. Stop caveating your arguments. Stop diluting your aesthetic to please others. People crave the strong form of everything. And it’s finally acceptable to wield it.