Persefone Campaigning

03/09/2026

“You should have a proper job by now.”
“People like us don’t….”
“You’re not the creative type.”

We all carry messages like these. Picked up from family, school and class, often long before we were able to question them.
Over time, these messages can become beliefs and expectations that continue to shape our decisions.

As part of the Coaching Minds Master Your Mindset Summit, join Julie Blint, an EMCC accredited transformational coach, for a powerful guided process to:
• Trace one of your beliefs or expectations back to its source
• Question whether it still serves you
• Decide whether to keep it, rewrite it or let it go
• Choose what to replace it with

Live today at 5pm UK on YouTube, LinkedIn and Facebook.
Join us live and begin changing the messages that shape your choices.

08/07/2026

05/02/2026

Bravo

21/01/2026

False dichotomy presents only two options when more exist, forcing an artificial choice when the reality contains multiple positions and shades of grey.

'Either you support traditional families or you want children to suffer.' Or: if you criticise capitalism, you must be a communist.
This tactic eliminates all middle ground and alternative positions, pushing listeners towards tribal thinking.

Recognising false dichotomies
Watch for language that presents stark either/or choices: 'You're either with us or against us', 'There are only two sides to this issue', 'If you don't support X, you must support Y'.

Responding in debate
When confronted with a false dichotomy, highlight the excluded options: 'You've presented two positions, but there are several others worth considering...' Then articulate the middle ground or alternative approaches that have been omitted.

Ask questions that expose the artificial framing: 'Why are we limiting this to two choices?' 'What about those who support parts of both positions?' 'How would you categorise someone who...'

Avoiding the trap
Refuse to accept the binary framing. Instead of defending yourself against the implication ('I'm not a communist!'), reframe the discussion: 'The question isn't capitalism versus communism - it's about which specific policies will address this particular problem.'

Point out the spectrum: 'Most people hold positions somewhere between these extremes, and that's where the productive conversation actually happens.'

20/01/2026

Loaded questions, embed false accusations into the question itself.

When an interviewer asks 'How do you justify your support for ideas that are destroying traditional values?' and the person responds with 'Well, I don't think they're destroying values, actually if you look at...' means they've already lost because by engaging with the question directly they've accepted the premise that their ideas could destroy traditional values, and to everyone watching it looks like they're admitting the destruction and just making excuses.

Someone who recognises the tactic would instead say 'That question contains a false premise. Here's what I actually believe...' which rejects the frame before it can trap them.

When watching content online you need to recognise when someone is being trapped by a loaded question, otherwise you judge them based on their defensive-sounding response without realising the question itself was manipulative, and those viral clips where someone looks terrible in an interview are often because they failed to recognise a loaded question and accepted a false premise.

The response when this happens in comment sections is also to answer with something like: 'Your question contains a false premise and I don't accept that characterisation of my position',

The person asking isn't looking for a genuine answer but trying to make you look bad by getting you to accept their hostile characterisation of your position.

20/01/2026

Poisoning the well, pre-emptively discredits opposition so their arguments can be dismissed without engagement, following patterns like 'You can't trust anyone who [attribute]' or 'They're just [dismissive label], so ignore them' or 'Anyone who believes X is obviously Y', which dismisses arguments based on who's making them rather than evaluating the actual evidence or logic.

When someone's argument is dismissed because of who they are, ask yourself whether anyone actually addressed what they said, whether you can evaluate their specific claims on evidence rather than on their identity, and whether the dismissal is preventing you from considering potentially valid points.

If someone tries to poison the well against you with 'Of course you'd say that, you're [identity/group]', don't get defensive about your identity because you'll end up debating your legitimacy rather than your argument, and instead say something like ‘You're dismissing my argument based on who I am rather than addressing what I've actually said, so if you disagree with my point, address the point’, which forces them either to engage with the actual argument or admit they're just dismissing it based on the source.

18/01/2026

Fate girare la voce. Condividi questo post con chi non conosce questa riforma:

Oggi esiste un solo Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura.
I magistrati eleggono i loro rappresentanti.
Il Parlamento elegge solo una parte dei membri.

Con la riforma questo sistema cambia.

Nasceranno due Consigli Superiori separati:
uno per i giudici
e uno per i pubblici ministeri.

In più verrà creata una nuova Alta Corte disciplinare.

I membri di questi nuovi organi non saranno più eletti come oggi.
Verranno sorteggiati da liste preparate dal Parlamento.

Questo significa che la politica decide chi può entrare negli organi che governano la giustizia.

Quando chi governa controlla l’accesso a chi controlla, l’indipendenza si indebolisce.
E senza controlli reali, il potere diventa intoccabile.

La giustizia deve restare libera.
Non sotto il controllo della politica.

Fate girare la voce.

15/01/2026

Vota NO il 22 e 23 marzo. Fate girare la voce.

Con la riforma cambia chi decide la carriera dei magistrati.

Promozioni, assegnazioni e sanzioni saranno decise da nuovi organismi, i cui membri sono scelti da liste preparate dal Parlamento.

Questo rende questi organi più esposti all’influenza della politica.

Se chi indaga sa che il suo futuro può dipendere da chi governa, eviterà di toccare i potenti.

E quando i potenti non vengono controllati, il potere diventa intoccabile.