If I think of a tool like “genetic selection”. We can have a conversation about how genetic selection is a neat tool that allowed us to select wheat and build the modern bread industry. However if I start talking about genetic selection in terms of the reduction of inferior people and extermination of cultures that don’t fit my vision of the right thing, we are suddenly not talking about the use of a tool. We are instead talking about the use of manipulation to get what I want.
The “in my culture...” linguistic strategy tool is just a tool.
In how it’s being talked about, in how it’s being presented and in the examples, it’s being used in ways that manipulate, reject, oppress, suppress, override, and imply “rightness” over other people who might be unsuspecting to the method. I object to the propagation of the strategy without emphasis on the care, consent, acceptance, kindness aspects of interpersonal culture.
It feels like poison is seeping through every other sentence of the main document. Part of me is terrified to even touch this unholy mess for fear of accidentally picking up on the subtle manipulation techniques that are so deeply ingrained that they are such a blind spot for the author that he can’t even notice the way it comes out in all his language.
I expect this is going to hit a sore spot. That’s the nature of how people will often respond to manipulation. And the knee jerk reaction to people being challenged with such claims.
I want to note that my comment was the soft version of my brain repeating, “kill it with fire” as I read the document.
it’s being used in ways that manipulate, reject, oppress, suppress, override, and imply “rightness” over other people who might be unsuspecting to the method
This reads to me as an assertion in need of justification, via a more detailed description of the underlying causal model, or analogies to known phenomena, or illustrative case-study style examples, or something. Another way to say this is “I hear what you believe, but I do not hear why you believe what you believe.”
Based on your response I’m guessing, you disagree with a) ‘the author’s culture’, b) the wording (“in my culture”), c) not having enough cautionary remarks (or instructions on how to help people develop memetic immunity/etc. so it can be used responsibly in the group). Would you have responded differently if the post had focused more on reciprocation/negotiating a set of norms as a group, or, in order (counterfactually) for you to have responded differently, would that require too many changes to list?
If I think of a tool like “genetic selection”. We can have a conversation about how genetic selection is a neat tool that allowed us to select wheat and build the modern bread industry. However if I start talking about genetic selection in terms of the reduction of inferior people and extermination of cultures that don’t fit my vision of the right thing, we are suddenly not talking about the use of a tool. We are instead talking about the use of manipulation to get what I want.
The “in my culture...” linguistic strategy tool is just a tool.
In how it’s being talked about, in how it’s being presented and in the examples, it’s being used in ways that manipulate, reject, oppress, suppress, override, and imply “rightness” over other people who might be unsuspecting to the method. I object to the propagation of the strategy without emphasis on the care, consent, acceptance, kindness aspects of interpersonal culture.
It feels like poison is seeping through every other sentence of the main document. Part of me is terrified to even touch this unholy mess for fear of accidentally picking up on the subtle manipulation techniques that are so deeply ingrained that they are such a blind spot for the author that he can’t even notice the way it comes out in all his language.
I expect this is going to hit a sore spot. That’s the nature of how people will often respond to manipulation. And the knee jerk reaction to people being challenged with such claims.
I want to note that my comment was the soft version of my brain repeating, “kill it with fire” as I read the document.
This reads to me as an assertion in need of justification, via a more detailed description of the underlying causal model, or analogies to known phenomena, or illustrative case-study style examples, or something. Another way to say this is “I hear what you believe, but I do not hear why you believe what you believe.”
Based on your response I’m guessing, you disagree with a) ‘the author’s culture’, b) the wording (“in my culture”), c) not having enough cautionary remarks (or instructions on how to help people develop memetic immunity/etc. so it can be used responsibly in the group). Would you have responded differently if the post had focused more on reciprocation/negotiating a set of norms as a group, or, in order (counterfactually) for you to have responded differently, would that require too many changes to list?