3 ms·
You are correct that I wouldn't agree with that straw man that nobody would agree with. My point is mainly that we should default to not manipulating people, e
by wpietri 5y ago
You are correct that I wouldn't agree with that straw man that nobody would agree with.
My point is mainly that we should default to not manipulating people, especially when the manipulator has a conflict of interest, which includes the vast bulk of paid advertising. And that secondarily, it's ethically dangerous to cloud that over with a philosophical fog.
- alecbz 5y agoI was responding to your straw man ("if you think that sometimes people can be influenced into having different genuine desires, then you must think this is true any time someone is manipulated, even in the case of spousal abuse") with another to demonstrate that there's a spectrum and more subtlety here than your initial response was acknowledging. > especially when the manipulator has a conflict of interest I think the conflict of interest argument is a good one for why advertising is generally dangerous. > it's ethically dangerous to cloud that over with a philosophical fog. Eh, fuck that noise. "Advertising is definitely bad so we shouldn't ever try to be clear about why exactly it's bad, since that might involve discussing some ways in which advertising is not bad, and we know it is bad."
- wpietri 5y agoI don't believe that's a fair statement of my point regarding abuse. And it's an entirely unfair restatement of my concern about your post. So I'm done here.