3 ms·

Well, it's certainly true that the post is about hypocrisy: > Most laws are defined in relatively objective ways, so that society can truthfully say “no one is

Well, it's certainly true that the post is about hypocrisy: > Most laws are defined in relatively objective ways, so that society can truthfully say “no one is above the law”. Those who violate the law can be found guilty and punished, while others remain free....But most societies have also included a few less objective and more “flexible” offenses, flexible enough to let the powerful more arbitrarily punishment disliked parties. If we all agree on the facts of how the word "manipulation" is used in practice, then mind-blight's first paragraph is at most asking that Hanson would be clearer that he is a linguistic descriptivist rather than a linguistic prescriptivist. That would be fair enough, but then mind-blight's second paragraph wouldn't make sense: Hanson's objection isn't that "manipulation" is hard to prove, it's that it's used exclusively in an outcome-dependent (i.e. hypocritical) way.

mind-blight 5y ago
Yep, I disagree with Hanson's assertion that "manipulation" is outcome dependent. I think he's conflating the way that it's used in popular discourse (which is often outcome dependent), with what I think is a fairly clear definition. He's then calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining a person's intent. I actually think that's counter-productive and leaves you vulnerable to (for want of a better word) manipulation. A person's intent matters and effects how you should interpret and respond to information they deliver. If I'm debating with someone, I want to know whether their intent is to 1) figure out the truth or try to reach consensus, 2) prove themselves right, or 3) just prove me wrong. 1 is fun, 2 is normal, and 3 is a troll. Whether they agree with me or not isn't relevant - their intentions very much are.
- jessriedel 5y ago
  > I think he's conflating the way that it's used in popular discourse (which is often outcome dependent), with what I think is a fairly clear definition. He's not conflating, he's just taking a different stance than you to linguistic prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. > He's then calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining a person's intent. I actually think that's counter-productive and leaves you vulnerable to (for want of a better word) manipulation. No, he's not. He never mentions intent in the post. He is calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining the actions outcome.

mind-blight 5y ago

Yep, I disagree with Hanson's assertion that "manipulation" is outcome dependent. I think he's conflating the way that it's used in popular discourse (which is often outcome dependent), with what I think is a fairly clear definition. He's then calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining a person's intent. I actually think that's counter-productive and leaves you vulnerable to (for want of a better word) manipulation. A person's intent matters and effects how you should interpret and respond to information they deliver. If I'm debating with someone, I want to know whether their intent is to 1) figure out the truth or try to reach consensus, 2) prove themselves right, or 3) just prove me wrong. 1 is fun, 2 is normal, and 3 is a troll. Whether they agree with me or not isn't relevant - their intentions very much are.

jessriedel 5y ago
> I think he's conflating the way that it's used in popular discourse (which is often outcome dependent), with what I think is a fairly clear definition. He's not conflating, he's just taking a different stance than you to linguistic prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. > He's then calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining a person's intent. I actually think that's counter-productive and leaves you vulnerable to (for want of a better word) manipulation. No, he's not. He never mentions intent in the post. He is calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining the actions outcome.