3 ms·

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

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.