1
00:00:15,595 --> 00:00:17,898
Phony philanthropist,

2
00:00:17,898 --> 00:00:20,138
humanitarian hypocrite,

3
00:00:20,478 --> 00:00:22,432
deceptive do-gooder,

4
00:00:22,802 --> 00:00:24,917
fraudulent altruist,

5
00:00:24,937 --> 00:00:27,440
charitable pretender -

6
00:00:28,210 --> 00:00:31,489
however you describe them,
one thing's for sure:

7
00:00:31,489 --> 00:00:34,852
There are few things in life
that we hate more

8
00:00:34,852 --> 00:00:37,787
than moralizing hypocrites,

9
00:00:37,787 --> 00:00:42,965
people who ask us to do charitable acts
but are themselves hypocritical.

10
00:00:42,965 --> 00:00:44,723
Now, in my line of work,

11
00:00:44,723 --> 00:00:45,856
working with charities,

12
00:00:45,856 --> 00:00:47,688
social enterprises,

13
00:00:47,688 --> 00:00:49,847
foundations, and aid agencies,

14
00:00:49,867 --> 00:00:53,667
I hear the word "hypocrite" all the time.

15
00:00:54,137 --> 00:00:55,701
When Bono,

16
00:00:55,701 --> 00:01:01,250
the sunglass-wearing, tax-avoiding,
mansion-living, jet-setting Irishman,

17
00:01:01,700 --> 00:01:04,383
when he asks people to donate to charity,

18
00:01:04,383 --> 00:01:05,393
what do we say?

19
00:01:05,393 --> 00:01:07,100
We say, "Hypocrite!"

20
00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:10,180
When Al Gore campaigns on climate change,

21
00:01:10,180 --> 00:01:13,768
a man who many years

22
00:01:13,768 --> 00:01:17,375
has had a utility bill
more than 20 times the average household,

23
00:01:17,395 --> 00:01:19,475
we say, "Hypocrite!"

24
00:01:20,015 --> 00:01:22,845
When the CEO of the Kony campaign

25
00:01:22,845 --> 00:01:24,993
was, on one hand,
asking us to donate money

26
00:01:24,993 --> 00:01:26,565
and saying he cared

27
00:01:26,565 --> 00:01:31,245
but, on the other hand, was taking home
a charity salary of $90,000,

28
00:01:31,245 --> 00:01:34,361
we said - you guessed it - "Hypocrite!"

29
00:01:34,673 --> 00:01:36,467
You see, we hate hypocrites.

30
00:01:36,467 --> 00:01:39,182
We hate people who purport
to have certain beliefs

31
00:01:39,182 --> 00:01:41,109
that we don't actually think they have

32
00:01:41,109 --> 00:01:43,641
when their actions
don't reflect those beliefs.

33
00:01:45,031 --> 00:01:49,845
And I want to ask us,
"Should we call out people for hypocrisy?

34
00:01:49,845 --> 00:01:53,980
People who we think are hypocrites,
should we give them that label?"

35
00:01:54,880 --> 00:01:59,364
Now, I hate genuine hypocrisy
as much as the next person,

36
00:01:59,364 --> 00:02:01,959
but I want to suggest -
and this is a big "but" -

37
00:02:01,959 --> 00:02:05,425
I want to suggest
that calling out people for hypocrisy

38
00:02:05,425 --> 00:02:07,525
is misguided at best,

39
00:02:07,525 --> 00:02:10,552
downright dangerous at worst.

40
00:02:11,692 --> 00:02:13,741
The key problem here

41
00:02:13,741 --> 00:02:16,973
is that often when we accuse
people of hypocrisy,

42
00:02:16,973 --> 00:02:18,949
it's not actually hypocrisy.

43
00:02:19,679 --> 00:02:24,018
And there's a few common mistakes
that we make time and time again.

44
00:02:24,548 --> 00:02:26,321
The first mistake that we make

45
00:02:26,321 --> 00:02:29,824
is that we assume that
all charitable acts are equivalent.

46
00:02:30,564 --> 00:02:34,690
Say someone tells you
that they support a carbon trading scheme.

47
00:02:34,700 --> 00:02:39,245
We interpret that as just that person
supports the environment,

48
00:02:39,245 --> 00:02:42,329
and so if they don't recycle,
we say, "Hypocrite!"

49
00:02:42,679 --> 00:02:47,996
If someone asks you for money
for water purification tablets

50
00:02:48,016 --> 00:02:49,992
for a country like Myanmar,

51
00:02:50,012 --> 00:02:53,847
we assume, oh, that person
supports fresh clean water,

52
00:02:53,847 --> 00:02:57,346
and so if they don't themselves
give money to build water wells,

53
00:02:57,346 --> 00:02:59,203
we say, "Hypocrite!"

54
00:02:59,543 --> 00:03:00,544
But the reality

55
00:03:00,544 --> 00:03:03,944
is that there are multiple different ways
of solving every problem,

56
00:03:03,944 --> 00:03:06,144
some that are far more
effective than others,

57
00:03:06,144 --> 00:03:09,394
and just because you support
some approaches to problems

58
00:03:09,394 --> 00:03:14,439
doesn't mean you can or should or will
support every approach.

59
00:03:14,439 --> 00:03:16,645
That's the first mistake we commonly make.

60
00:03:17,045 --> 00:03:19,698
The second problem
that we often come across,

61
00:03:19,698 --> 00:03:21,360
the second mistake that we make

62
00:03:21,360 --> 00:03:27,096
is that we compare to the extremes
of selflessness and selfishness.

63
00:03:27,556 --> 00:03:29,680
Say you walk into a cafe,

64
00:03:29,680 --> 00:03:34,897
and there's a sign on the wall that says,
"We donate 20% of our profits to charity."

65
00:03:34,897 --> 00:03:38,270
You'd probably think,
"What a great café! What good people!

66
00:03:38,270 --> 00:03:40,482
Donating a bit
of their profits to charity."

67
00:03:41,032 --> 00:03:45,072
And so when we have mostly profit-making,

68
00:03:45,072 --> 00:03:47,805
mostly selfishness but a bit of altruism,

69
00:03:47,805 --> 00:03:50,029
we like it, we think of it
as a good thing.

70
00:03:50,733 --> 00:03:53,023
But then if someone works for a charity,

71
00:03:53,023 --> 00:03:56,404
if someone dedicates
their entire career to a good cause,

72
00:03:56,404 --> 00:03:59,254
if someone is mostly selfless

73
00:03:59,254 --> 00:04:02,036
but then takes home
a reasonably decent salary,

74
00:04:02,036 --> 00:04:04,306
we say, "Hah, hypocrite!"

75
00:04:04,666 --> 00:04:08,868
So we're fine with mostly selfish
with a touch of altruism

76
00:04:08,868 --> 00:04:12,677
but not mostly altruistic
with a touch of selfish.

77
00:04:12,937 --> 00:04:14,653
You can be 10% altruistic,

78
00:04:14,653 --> 00:04:16,483
but you can't be 90%,

79
00:04:16,483 --> 00:04:18,823
which doesn't make any sense.

80
00:04:18,823 --> 00:04:23,567
We prefer honest greed
to imperfect generosity.

81
00:04:23,567 --> 00:04:25,564
We compare to the extremes

82
00:04:25,564 --> 00:04:28,697
rather than comparing people
to other people.

83
00:04:28,907 --> 00:04:30,499
That's the second mistake.

84
00:04:30,739 --> 00:04:32,511
The third mistake we make

85
00:04:32,511 --> 00:04:33,525
is that we assume

86
00:04:33,525 --> 00:04:37,912
that because someone supports
a collective response to something,

87
00:04:37,912 --> 00:04:39,934
individual action must follow.

88
00:04:39,934 --> 00:04:41,363
And so if a politician says

89
00:04:41,363 --> 00:04:44,371
that they support
government-provided education,

90
00:04:44,371 --> 00:04:47,047
but they send their kids
to private independent schools,

91
00:04:47,047 --> 00:04:49,199
we say, "Hypocrite."

92
00:04:49,199 --> 00:04:53,479
If someone was to say they supported
a global ban on meat consumption,

93
00:04:53,479 --> 00:04:55,993
and yet they themselves ate meat,

94
00:04:55,993 --> 00:04:58,341
we might say, "Hypocrite."

95
00:04:58,711 --> 00:05:02,125
But the reality is it's totally rational

96
00:05:02,715 --> 00:05:06,465
often to support a collective response

97
00:05:06,835 --> 00:05:10,287
without necessarily wanting
to be the one to act alone,

98
00:05:10,287 --> 00:05:12,551
to act individually, to bear the cost.

99
00:05:12,551 --> 00:05:14,355
It's very rational.

100
00:05:14,355 --> 00:05:17,326
For example, if you act in a certain way,

101
00:05:17,326 --> 00:05:19,739
such as by taking really short showers

102
00:05:19,739 --> 00:05:23,573
or taking the train instead of a plane
to save on carbon emissions,

103
00:05:23,573 --> 00:05:26,800
you bear the full cost of your action,

104
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:30,172
and yet the benefits
are dispersed by seven billion people.

105
00:05:30,466 --> 00:05:33,767
And so in order for it to be rational
for you to do that,

106
00:05:33,767 --> 00:05:37,749
the benefits really need
to be seven billion times the cost,

107
00:05:37,749 --> 00:05:39,603
which is rarely going to be the case.

108
00:05:39,603 --> 00:05:44,348
That's why initiatives such as Earth Hour
often don't have a sustained impact.

109
00:05:44,688 --> 00:05:47,703
It's not hypocritical to be rational.

110
00:05:48,803 --> 00:05:50,853
The fourth mistake that we often make

111
00:05:50,853 --> 00:05:53,228
is that we assume
that if someone really cares,

112
00:05:53,228 --> 00:05:55,715
if someone really wants the best outcome,

113
00:05:55,715 --> 00:05:59,043
they'll necessarily support
the ideal policy.

114
00:05:59,513 --> 00:06:02,270
So when Kevin Rudd,
the former Prime Minister of Australia,

115
00:06:02,270 --> 00:06:06,179
said climate change is the greatest
moral challenge of our time,

116
00:06:06,189 --> 00:06:10,258
and then he supported
watered-down environmental legislation,

117
00:06:10,258 --> 00:06:11,958
we said, "Hypocrite."

118
00:06:12,548 --> 00:06:15,720
But the reality is sometimes
you need to be strategic.

119
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:19,410
And if that ideal policy,
if the ideal situation

120
00:06:19,410 --> 00:06:21,919
would not receive parliamentary support,

121
00:06:21,919 --> 00:06:26,594
if that would be scrapped
by the next Parliament in a year or two,

122
00:06:26,594 --> 00:06:29,670
then sometimes opting
for the second-best approach

123
00:06:29,670 --> 00:06:32,047
is actually more sustainable
and actually better

124
00:06:32,057 --> 00:06:34,132
and actually has a greater impact.

125
00:06:34,452 --> 00:06:39,138
Another common mistake we make
is that we conflate legality and morality.

126
00:06:39,488 --> 00:06:43,518
If someone was to stand up
and say they opposed prostitution,

127
00:06:43,518 --> 00:06:46,053
they thought prostitution was wrong,

128
00:06:46,053 --> 00:06:48,560
and yet then they voted
for it to be legal,

129
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:50,582
we might say, "Hypocrite."

130
00:06:50,582 --> 00:06:53,954
But questions of legality and morality
are very different.

131
00:06:55,024 --> 00:06:58,963
You see, if making prostitution legal

132
00:06:58,963 --> 00:07:01,846
meant that victims of abuse
could come forward

133
00:07:01,846 --> 00:07:05,282
without fear of persecution
or prosecution,

134
00:07:05,282 --> 00:07:07,378
then it might be the right thing to do,

135
00:07:07,378 --> 00:07:11,561
irrespective of whether you thought
it was morally right or wrong.

136
00:07:11,561 --> 00:07:15,343
Likewise, it's entirely consistent
for someone to say

137
00:07:15,343 --> 00:07:19,100
that they themselves,
say for religious reasons,

138
00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:21,758
don't believe in gay marriage,

139
00:07:21,758 --> 00:07:25,107
but for that same person to say
they think it should be legal.

140
00:07:25,477 --> 00:07:28,090
Because questions of legality
also take into account

141
00:07:28,090 --> 00:07:32,804
other people's beliefs and opinions
and sexual preferences.

142
00:07:33,184 --> 00:07:35,827
We shouldn't conflate
legality and morality.

143
00:07:36,587 --> 00:07:38,497
And the final mistake that we often make

144
00:07:38,497 --> 00:07:41,926
is we just don't distinguish
between different circumstances.

145
00:07:41,926 --> 00:07:44,174
When Obama came out and said

146
00:07:44,174 --> 00:07:49,525
that having armed security in every school
wasn't the answer to gun violence,

147
00:07:49,525 --> 00:07:52,676
the NRA responded,
not by attacking the argument,

148
00:07:52,676 --> 00:07:54,353
but by attacking the person.

149
00:07:54,353 --> 00:07:57,523
They ran ad campaigns,
saying that Obama was a hypocrite

150
00:07:57,523 --> 00:08:00,483
because he had armed security
for his daughters.

151
00:08:00,903 --> 00:08:04,716
We often don't distinguish
different circumstances.

152
00:08:04,736 --> 00:08:07,762
My point here is that often
when we accuse people of hypocrisy,

153
00:08:07,782 --> 00:08:10,203
it's simply not hypocritical.

154
00:08:10,203 --> 00:08:12,235
We assume that we know people's beliefs,

155
00:08:12,235 --> 00:08:15,822
we assume we know why people
are acting in a certain way,

156
00:08:15,822 --> 00:08:18,434
but it's often arrogant to assume that.

157
00:08:18,434 --> 00:08:21,863
We're too quick to condemn,
too slow to ask why.

158
00:08:22,503 --> 00:08:25,498
But let's assume for a moment
that it was hypocritical,

159
00:08:25,508 --> 00:08:29,664
that these people did actually act
in a hypocritical manner.

160
00:08:30,194 --> 00:08:34,647
The problem here is that
the existence of hypocrisy

161
00:08:34,647 --> 00:08:38,645
doesn't actually undermine
the argument that is being made.

162
00:08:38,645 --> 00:08:41,924
It's a convenient distraction,
but it's not a rebuttal.

163
00:08:41,924 --> 00:08:44,640
I mean the argument that smoking is bad

164
00:08:45,030 --> 00:08:49,429
doesn't change because the person
who is making it is a smoker.

165
00:08:49,729 --> 00:08:54,275
You can know right or wrong
without being morally perfect yourself.

166
00:08:54,275 --> 00:08:57,574
And you should be able to ask people
to do what is right.

167
00:08:57,574 --> 00:09:00,606
That shouldn't just be
the purview of the morally perfect.

168
00:09:02,056 --> 00:09:05,772
And so, if we shouldn't
call out people for hypocrisy,

169
00:09:05,772 --> 00:09:09,903
if we shouldn't focus
on the charitable messenger,

170
00:09:09,903 --> 00:09:11,447
what should we do?

171
00:09:11,747 --> 00:09:12,753
I want to say

172
00:09:12,753 --> 00:09:17,132
that we should discuss and debate
and critique the charitable message.

173
00:09:17,702 --> 00:09:19,778
Now, with me I have two jugs.

174
00:09:20,128 --> 00:09:21,875
One of those represents the person,

175
00:09:21,875 --> 00:09:25,264
one of those represents
the messenger in question,

176
00:09:25,264 --> 00:09:28,141
and the other one represents
the argument, the message.

177
00:09:28,141 --> 00:09:30,866
Now, when we call out people
for hypocrisy,

178
00:09:30,866 --> 00:09:33,681
when we use that hypocrisy argument,

179
00:09:33,691 --> 00:09:36,169
when we use it to attack a person,

180
00:09:36,179 --> 00:09:37,970
this is what happens.

181
00:09:39,130 --> 00:09:40,727
It's easy to make them bleed.

182
00:09:40,727 --> 00:09:42,646
It's easy to inflict pain.

183
00:09:43,136 --> 00:09:45,632
After all, they're a fallible person.

184
00:09:47,042 --> 00:09:48,175
But what's interesting

185
00:09:48,175 --> 00:09:50,298
is that we don't discuss,
we don't critique,

186
00:09:50,298 --> 00:09:53,252
we don't criticize the charitable message.

187
00:09:55,862 --> 00:09:57,246
And so that's the status quo,

188
00:09:57,246 --> 00:09:59,552
that's the situation we find ourselves in,

189
00:09:59,552 --> 00:10:03,371
where attacking the charitable
messenger is all too easy

190
00:10:03,391 --> 00:10:07,240
and attacking the charitable
message is often taboo.

191
00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:09,623
Why is this?

192
00:10:09,623 --> 00:10:13,852
Well, I think we often think of charity
as somewhat of a taboo subject.

193
00:10:13,872 --> 00:10:15,734
We don't like criticizing it.

194
00:10:15,744 --> 00:10:18,904
Indeed, we just think of it as doing good.

195
00:10:18,914 --> 00:10:21,810
That's why you can do a lot of things
in the name of charity.

196
00:10:21,810 --> 00:10:23,616
(Laughter)

197
00:10:24,396 --> 00:10:27,565
If you want an excuse
to do a naked calendar,

198
00:10:27,565 --> 00:10:29,420
do it in the name of charity.

199
00:10:29,750 --> 00:10:32,988
If you want an excuse to do a marathon,
do it in the name of charity.

200
00:10:32,988 --> 00:10:35,418
If you want an excuse
to make three of your friends,

201
00:10:35,418 --> 00:10:36,846
to force three of your friends

202
00:10:36,846 --> 00:10:39,278
to pour a bucket of ice cold water
over their heads,

203
00:10:39,278 --> 00:10:40,275
(Laughter)

204
00:10:40,275 --> 00:10:42,135
do it in the name of charity.

205
00:10:42,135 --> 00:10:45,779
You see, we find it difficult
to criticize acts of charity.

206
00:10:45,779 --> 00:10:48,091
We think of charity as one and the same,

207
00:10:48,111 --> 00:10:50,834
but not all charities are created equal,

208
00:10:50,844 --> 00:10:54,817
not all approaches to problems
are equally effective.

209
00:10:55,437 --> 00:10:57,583
One of the things
that the organization I run,

210
00:10:57,583 --> 00:10:58,742
180 Degrees Consulting,

211
00:10:58,742 --> 00:11:00,114
specializes in

212
00:11:00,114 --> 00:11:01,585
is measuring the social impact

213
00:11:01,585 --> 00:11:04,851
of different programs
and different organizations,

214
00:11:04,851 --> 00:11:06,206
and it's very clear to me

215
00:11:06,206 --> 00:11:08,522
that some approaches, some charities,

216
00:11:08,522 --> 00:11:13,368
are hundreds, even thousands, of times
more effective than other approaches.

217
00:11:13,368 --> 00:11:14,572
And so what that means

218
00:11:14,572 --> 00:11:17,857
is that it's more important
to do the right act,

219
00:11:17,857 --> 00:11:19,341
the most effective act,

220
00:11:19,341 --> 00:11:22,006
than to merely do an action.

221
00:11:22,591 --> 00:11:24,737
An action is merely a means to an end.

222
00:11:24,747 --> 00:11:27,794
We focus on it when we accuse
people of hypocrisy,

223
00:11:27,794 --> 00:11:31,656
but focusing on the impact
is far more important.

224
00:11:32,436 --> 00:11:34,011
It's far more important

225
00:11:34,011 --> 00:11:37,322
because in a world with unlimited problems

226
00:11:37,332 --> 00:11:40,625
but limited time, limited resources,
and limited money,

227
00:11:40,635 --> 00:11:45,975
we can't afford to not have
the greatest social impact possible.

228
00:11:45,975 --> 00:11:47,474
We can't afford it.

229
00:11:47,474 --> 00:11:52,642
We can't afford for doing good
to merely be a feel-good endeavor.

230
00:11:52,662 --> 00:11:55,948
It must be an intellectual
endeavor as well.

231
00:11:56,308 --> 00:11:58,215
Let me give you one example.

232
00:11:58,645 --> 00:12:01,134
Say you have $42,000,

233
00:12:01,154 --> 00:12:04,367
and you want to spend that money
helping blind people.

234
00:12:04,387 --> 00:12:06,779
You can spend that money
in a few different ways.

235
00:12:07,099 --> 00:12:10,125
One way is by not giving it at all.

236
00:12:10,135 --> 00:12:14,440
The second way is by using the money
to train a guide dog.

237
00:12:14,450 --> 00:12:17,326
It cost about $42,000
to train a guide dog.

238
00:12:17,336 --> 00:12:18,640
And the third option

239
00:12:18,650 --> 00:12:21,749
is that you can use it
to fund a low-cost eye surgery

240
00:12:21,759 --> 00:12:22,812
in a place like India,

241
00:12:22,832 --> 00:12:26,308
which costs about $75 per surgery.

242
00:12:26,328 --> 00:12:28,985
And so with that $42,000,

243
00:12:28,995 --> 00:12:31,429
you can either help no blind people,

244
00:12:31,699 --> 00:12:33,306
one blind person,

245
00:12:33,316 --> 00:12:35,902
or 560 blind people.

246
00:12:36,322 --> 00:12:39,030
I do not think it should be taboo

247
00:12:39,290 --> 00:12:44,233
to argue that you should not give money
to training the guide dog,

248
00:12:44,253 --> 00:12:45,771
as cute as guide dogs are

249
00:12:45,791 --> 00:12:49,222
and as important guide dogs are
for the people who use them,

250
00:12:49,422 --> 00:12:53,834
and that you should instead
give money for the low-cost eye surgery.

251
00:12:54,584 --> 00:12:56,684
I know that sounds bad.

252
00:12:56,944 --> 00:12:58,875
It sounds unethical.

253
00:12:59,455 --> 00:13:01,313
It almost sounds evil.

254
00:13:01,753 --> 00:13:05,634
Once we've done the effective approaches,
we can do the less effective approaches,

255
00:13:05,654 --> 00:13:07,877
but I don't think
less effective approaches

256
00:13:07,877 --> 00:13:11,621
should come at the expense
of the more effective approaches.

257
00:13:12,371 --> 00:13:15,245
Because as long as it is taboo

258
00:13:15,258 --> 00:13:18,579
for us to talk about the impacts
of different charitable acts,

259
00:13:18,869 --> 00:13:20,223
more people will be blind,

260
00:13:20,251 --> 00:13:21,721
more people will be poor,

261
00:13:21,751 --> 00:13:25,432
more people won't have access
to health, education, and sanitation,

262
00:13:25,432 --> 00:13:28,191
and that is something I cannot stand for.

263
00:13:28,921 --> 00:13:31,115
I want us to have
the greatest impact possible,

264
00:13:31,115 --> 00:13:33,377
and I don't think
we'd have that greatest impact

265
00:13:33,397 --> 00:13:37,097
by focusing on hypocrisy
or focusing on the messenger.

266
00:13:37,097 --> 00:13:39,878
We have it by focusing
on the charitable message.

267
00:13:39,878 --> 00:13:42,088
That's the most important thing.

268
00:13:42,708 --> 00:13:44,141
Let me conclude.

269
00:13:45,401 --> 00:13:48,741
Time and time again, when we can,

270
00:13:48,761 --> 00:13:50,923
we target the messenger, not the message;

271
00:13:50,943 --> 00:13:53,213
the campaigner, not the campaign;

272
00:13:53,243 --> 00:13:54,872
the person, not the argument.

273
00:13:55,272 --> 00:13:58,704
The exact opposite should be true.

274
00:13:59,764 --> 00:14:02,123
The key point that I'm trying to make here

275
00:14:02,123 --> 00:14:05,043
is that charitable messengers
should not be the target,

276
00:14:05,073 --> 00:14:09,244
and critiquing charitable messages
should no longer be taboo.

277
00:14:10,024 --> 00:14:14,794
Small minds rebut people;
great minds rebut arguments.

278
00:14:14,814 --> 00:14:17,109
I think Eleanor Roosevelt would agree.

279
00:14:17,529 --> 00:14:18,552
So the next time

280
00:14:18,552 --> 00:14:23,881
that a politician, a celebrity, a friend,
a religious leader, a charity worker

281
00:14:23,891 --> 00:14:26,387
asks you to do something
that you don't want to do,

282
00:14:27,667 --> 00:14:31,042
I want you to respond
by rebutting the message,

283
00:14:31,042 --> 00:14:32,622
not the messenger.

284
00:14:32,632 --> 00:14:35,759
The next time that a friend
calls out someone for hypocrisy,

285
00:14:35,769 --> 00:14:39,767
I want you to tell them,
"Rebut the message, not the messenger."

286
00:14:40,477 --> 00:14:43,316
By focusing on the hypocrisy
of the messenger,

287
00:14:43,316 --> 00:14:44,858
we're being misguided,

288
00:14:45,078 --> 00:14:47,782
but by focusing on
the validity of the message,

289
00:14:47,792 --> 00:14:49,181
we're being productive,

290
00:14:49,201 --> 00:14:51,957
we're helping to maximize impact.

291
00:14:51,977 --> 00:14:53,927
And that is a cause worth fighting for.

292
00:14:53,927 --> 00:14:55,077
Thank you.

293
00:14:55,077 --> 00:14:58,069
(Applause)