Yesterday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that Texas is generally dropping COVID-related restrictions. He did this with executive order GA-34.
While not well publicized, this also repeals the group-size limits. Outside of defined exceptions (churches, etc.) and in some rural areas, Texans weren’t permitted to congregate in groups larger than 10.
GA-34 “rescinds” GA-17, GA-25, GA-29, and GA-31. Searching those on the word group, none of those reference group-size limits.
However, GA-34 “supersedes” GA-32. I am not clear why the word was changed from “rescind” to “supersede”, but they both appear to mean that GA-32 is no longer in effect. Regardless, GA-32 had language about group-size limits:
…people shall not be in groups larger than 10 and shall maintain six feet of social distancing from those not in their group
GA-32 “supersedes” GA-30, which had the same group-size language. GA-30 supersedes GA-28, which had the same group-size language. GA-28 supersedes GA-26, which also has group-size limit language. GA-26 supersedes GA-23, which does not have group-size language, so GA-26 probably started that thread of group-size limits.
Checking the remaining EOs not mentioned above and issued since GA-08 (list of Texas Governor’s EOs), a search on “group” on each reveals that only the first COVID-related EO from March 13, 2020, GA-08, had a group-size limit. It was superseded by GA-14, from March 31, which did not include group-size limits.
Therefore, it appears Texas had a general, ten-person group-size limit from March 13, 2020 (GA-08) through March 31, 2020 (end of GA-08) and again starting June 3, 2020 (GA-26). With GA-34, Texas has no group-size limit starting March 10, 2021.
The “death of email” fad is over a decade old. It is wrong. Email is still key to marketing and communications (marcom).
“Death of email” supposes people move to other platforms. The “other platforms” part isn’t wrong. Social media platforms barely existed a decade ago, and now they are widely used. The “move” part is what’s wrong.
Email is effective
Email’s first strength: it reaches more people than any other platform.
If you search on this, two facts emerge:
Email is by far the #1 tool, measured by percent of people using it.
The pandemic has significantly increased email utilization.
Effective email communications should be a marcom starting point.
Email’s other strength: it’s a single platform.
Think about social media: some are on Facebook, some are on Twitter, some are on Instagram, some are on other platforms. Effective marcom on social media requires you to cross-post to several platforms. That’s a chore!
Other platforms can be secondary
For all important communications, email should be primary. That means what you need to communicate, or a link to this information, must be in an email. Other platforms must be secondary.
Want to also convey information over Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, etc.? Go for it! Just be consistent and thorough with what you do. If a social media platform’s users become satisfied with communications over it, they may pay less attention to emails.
Targeted or non-important communications? Do what makes most sense. A geofenced communication to find prospects may make sense exclusively on social media.
What about communities that are simply part of a social-media platform, such as Facebook groups? In that case, using social media as the primary or even exclusive communications tools could make sense.
Finally, your organization may have a practice of using selected platforms for communications. For communicating with affiliates, exclusive use of the selected platforms could be fine. This assumes enough of your affiliates are willing to watch for information on that platform.
Email is the dominant communication platform. Allegations of change have been hoaxes.
For typical marketing and communications, email-first should be the rule. If it’s important, it must be in an email. Other platforms are generally best for complementing emails.
None of these scores meaningfully measure anything important about me.
Scores don’t matter…
Your time is your most precious asset. When you focus on these website scores, you’re giving away your most precious asset, just to enrichen company owners.
These scores don’t matter. These websites don’t even know your goals!
…unless you made the score
The scores that matter will be the ones you’ve created, that measure your progress to your own goals.
For example, I ran a Cub Scout day camp for four years. Wanting to have maximum positive effect on the community, I have a “go big or go home” approach to Scouting. I rated myself in part on how well the camp recruited participants. That is a score I made for myself. It helped us set new records.
Focus for success
If website scores end up being good, that’s fine! But make sure those great scores are merely incidental. They should not be your goal.
Focus on scores that matter. They will be the ones you created. They will help you know your path to your goals.
What do you do when someone whitewashes the January 6 rally/insurrection with eyewitness accounts? Normally, respectful debate traditions have you listen and objectively evaluate the points.
Fun fact: Attendees to the January 6 Trump rally/insurrection are not credible. It is each attendee’s responsibility to regain their personal credibility. Until that happens, you don’t need to engage in a loathsome, soul-sucking discussion. You can freely dismiss their entire witness accounts and move on.
NOTE: This article is about establishing facts about the rally/insurrection. You generally don’t establish credible facts using the accounts of non-credible witnesses. There are other reasons why you may wish to discuss the rally/insurrection with someone, such as a conversation of understanding. That is a different matter and is touched on when I discuss redemption below.
Isn’t this fallacious? No.
That may sound like attacking the person instead of the argument. Indeed, that is normally a genetic fallacy or an ad hominem fallacy.
However, the credibility of witness accounts hinge on credibility of the observer. Establishing the credibility of the observer is a necessary part of establishing reliability of any witness testimony.
Affirming non-credibility of attendees
Simply attending the Trump rally/insurrection shows astoundingly bad moral and intellectual discernment. Here’s why:
It is evil to attempt to steal a fair election. That point stands on its own.
For months, Trump and his friends justified their evil with the big lie, a Nazi propaganda tactic. They promulgated repeated, colossally false claims.
The January 6 rally/insurrection was to celebrate evil and a big lie. People who attend an event that celebrates evil and a big lie are broadcasting profoundly faulty judgment and moral corruption.
Confirmation bias makes it worse. That happens when people bias their words to reinforce their own choices. For example, product reviews are more favorable when the reviewer purchased the reviewed product. A positive review is likely; otherwise, the reviewer would be repudiating his or her own choice.
Confirmation bias will encourage witnesses to portray their involvement, and the rally/insurrection itself, in the best light. This helps attendees avoid troubling questions about their own moral discernment and intellect. That’s why you see so many false stores of Antifa involvement, blame-shifting to unrelated events or actors, sanitizing of the rally/insurrection’s causes, and more. “I would never choose to attend an evil rally/insurrection. It was those outsiders!”
Attending the rally/insurrection is a large commitment. That amplifies the confirmation bias.
All the above eliminates the credibility of attendees. In addition to showing horrible judgment, they have powerful reasons to lie about the rally/insurrection.
A path to redemption
Why does all this matter? I’ve seen some of these witness accounts, where they whitewash the rally/insurrection. While the verifiable parts of their accounts do not contradict the truthful narrative, these truth-ish parts are enveloped in lies.
Since the rally/insurrection attendee is who starts from the position of lacking credibility, it is that attendee’s responsibility to regain credibility. That may happen by the attendee providing credible verification for every fact, even if plainly obvious. For example, if the attendee says “the sky is blue”, the attendee must also provide credible information to substantiate that.
Nothing the attendee says can escape this verification. Even if, say, the attendee shared three verified facts in a row, that in no way prejudges the next fact. Every fact the attendee alleges may be dismissed out of hand until corroborated with reliable information.
Providing verification of individual facts will get tedious for the attendee. I get it. But it is necessary given the attendee’s non-credibility. If the attendee wishes to regain credibility as a person, step one is to cleanly and irrevocably repudiate the big lie. This is a starting point–just a starting point–for the attendee’s redemption. If this repudiation is genuine, the attendee will unhesitantly share deeply negative sentiment on Trump’s election-steal agenda.
Here’s the funny thing about the above redemption paths: neither of them makes the attendee’s account worth anything! If facts are verified, then they are simply matching voluminous, reliable information. In other words, they are simply affirming what conscientious people already know! These facts did not meaningfully expand the body of knowledge. (I acknowledge a chance of me being wrong, but the record of the Trump apparatus suggests that chance is vanishingly small.)
An important exception: None of this applies to those who attended for sound reasons, such as journalists, the opposition, and more. While verification of their words remains important, they do not start from a position of immense non-credibility.
To summarize, the witness accounts of those attending the January 6 Trump rally/insurrection are not credible. Simply by showing up, attendees demonstrated severe personal flaws, destroying their credibility. Also, attendees have powerful incentives to lie. It is up to the attendees to establish credibility of their words. Until then, rally/insurrection witness accounts are trash and can be summarily disregarded.