6 ms·

While I agree with your observation that sports have the ability to unite people, regulating the speech of its athletes seems like the wrong move. It should be

While I agree with your observation that sports have the ability to unite people, regulating the speech of its athletes seems like the wrong move. It should be on the driver to make a judgement around whether the potential discord and fallout of their statements are worth it. At the same time, I think there is an interesting problem that does need to be addressed if you're in charge of an F1 team. An F1 team is a massive organization consisting of dozens if not hundreds of people who work to support the driver. Because the driver is the focal point for the team it means that any personal actions by the driver (such as bad behavior or acting in a way that causes outsized controversy) has the potential to jeopardize the entire organization that supports them. If the driver scares away sponsors due to their personal politics it can harm the entire operation and therefore the livelihoods of those people who support the driver. In this sense the driver has an outsized responsibility to look out for the well-being of their team. In this way the structure appears to be fragile and susceptible to the whims of the drivers. It feels vulnerable, so I also understand why F1 might try to restrict the speech of their drivers. That said, I don't know a whole lot about F1 teams. If a driver needs to be replaced (say, due to an injury), are F1 teams usually prepared with a second or third-pick driver who can complete the races for the team? Or is it all on the shoulders of the single driver?

than3 4y ago
This is a cleverly framed false dichotomy akin to cancel culture only with the added twist of compulsion of speech. There's no debate here, its wrong, you strip voice, and that strips agency. There's nothing good about this, no compromise can be had here, no debate to be won. That philosophy is quite real, has been tried before many times, and is plain evil. It has led to millions of deaths in the past. That is what you are advocating by supporting it or sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. The world has become a worse place because of cancel culture, and now you are advocating for something worse than that... Seriously, that's horrible and wrong, what are you doing? What kind of person does that? This philosophy taken to its logical conclusion ends in only one outcome, collapse, and a lot of collateral damage and death along the way, without any agency to correct the ship. You're basically signing up to be on a runaway train that someone's set up to go over the cliff but you can't see the cliff just yet, and worse its not just you, its your family as well because they followed, learned from, and supported you and are on that train too. Such mindless shortsightedness, its monstrous, or malevolent.
- Slow_Hand 4y ago
  Whoa. Which position do you think I'm advocating for here? My first paragraph is in support of the free speech of the drivers. I think that they should have it and should not have to limit their opinions in a public space. My second paragraph highlights the potentially fragile structure of building a 100 person enterprise (an F1 team) around a key individual (the driver). If the F1 driver does something that provokes a negative public response then it can have a negative effect on the livelihoods of the team that support them. All I'm doing is thinking out loud here. I get the impression that you have a different impression of my core message or my intent. It feels like you think I'm advocating against the free speech of the drivers. I stand for the free speech of the drivers. On reflection, I could have been more clear about that point. My writing voice probably comes off as amoral. It's not about judgement one way or the other. It's about highlighting the precarious position of power that the driver occupies at the fulcrum of their team. If they mishandle their power it can have unwanted second-order effects. If they anger the sponsors with their political messaging, then the team stands to potentially lose funding and the team cannot continue. I happen to think both things are true: That the drivers should retain their freedom of speech, but that they simultaneously carry a large weight in the form of the team in which they are the key figure. Their actions WILL have large consequences for the team... as long as my conception of how F1 teams operate isn't somehow flawed. I'm still waiting for someone who knows the domain better to correct that assumption for me. It's possible that I'm totally wrong on this point and that the team is more robust than I'm suggesting.
  - than3 4y ago
    Not amoral, it was composed and communicated like a nation-state propaganda piece. Writing structure set up was a false dichotomic structure coupled with several of the more subtle tactics that play on psychological blind spots which are in common practice by propaganda writers and salespeople alike. Its not my first rodeo, it is possible to say you are advocating for one thing, while actually advocating for another. Tone, tactics, and time spent can communicate a radically different intention than the words spoken. The majority of your writing was spent on F1 in a structure that builds agreement (psychological blindspot), followed by the problems those pesky things like freedom of speech cause. Once you get them to agree, psychological blind spot number 2 comes in, they've agreed to it so will defend that belief to maintain consistency. Same principle to what they did to PoWs in China back in Vietnam, and how they got American prisoners to inform on other prisoners, using forced essay writing. Its the equivalent of saying I agree (briefly and disingenuously), and then proceeding to line up several simple agreements to obvious yes questions in a row, before the final stick at the opposite while crafted in a way that sounds plausible, just like a used car salesman. If they don't question it immediately, you get them and they'll behave consistent with the principle and be more receptive to other things you say. Only in this case what are you selling? Very subtle and clever for anyone that doesn't know about them but its really manipulative and downright evil to use them for something like that. Those blindspots are very well known, Cialdini released a book which documented the most common ones, and covered other related areas that even people at the CIA have recognized. If you were blindsided by this response, you should read the book so you can alter your writing style so you don't get blindsided like that again in the future. Anything using those blindspots that causes or supports an outcome that reduces agency or causing disruption or disunity is going to receive the same kind of condemnation. They are known hallmarks of subversive propaganda.

than3 4y ago

This is a cleverly framed false dichotomy akin to cancel culture only with the added twist of compulsion of speech. There's no debate here, its wrong, you strip voice, and that strips agency. There's nothing good about this, no compromise can be had here, no debate to be won. That philosophy is quite real, has been tried before many times, and is plain evil. It has led to millions of deaths in the past. That is what you are advocating by supporting it or sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. The world has become a worse place because of cancel culture, and now you are advocating for something worse than that... Seriously, that's horrible and wrong, what are you doing? What kind of person does that? This philosophy taken to its logical conclusion ends in only one outcome, collapse, and a lot of collateral damage and death along the way, without any agency to correct the ship. You're basically signing up to be on a runaway train that someone's set up to go over the cliff but you can't see the cliff just yet, and worse its not just you, its your family as well because they followed, learned from, and supported you and are on that train too. Such mindless shortsightedness, its monstrous, or malevolent.

Slow_Hand 4y ago
Whoa. Which position do you think I'm advocating for here? My first paragraph is in support of the free speech of the drivers. I think that they should have it and should not have to limit their opinions in a public space. My second paragraph highlights the potentially fragile structure of building a 100 person enterprise (an F1 team) around a key individual (the driver). If the F1 driver does something that provokes a negative public response then it can have a negative effect on the livelihoods of the team that support them. All I'm doing is thinking out loud here. I get the impression that you have a different impression of my core message or my intent. It feels like you think I'm advocating against the free speech of the drivers. I stand for the free speech of the drivers. On reflection, I could have been more clear about that point. My writing voice probably comes off as amoral. It's not about judgement one way or the other. It's about highlighting the precarious position of power that the driver occupies at the fulcrum of their team. If they mishandle their power it can have unwanted second-order effects. If they anger the sponsors with their political messaging, then the team stands to potentially lose funding and the team cannot continue. I happen to think both things are true: That the drivers should retain their freedom of speech, but that they simultaneously carry a large weight in the form of the team in which they are the key figure. Their actions WILL have large consequences for the team... as long as my conception of how F1 teams operate isn't somehow flawed. I'm still waiting for someone who knows the domain better to correct that assumption for me. It's possible that I'm totally wrong on this point and that the team is more robust than I'm suggesting.
- than3 4y ago
  Not amoral, it was composed and communicated like a nation-state propaganda piece. Writing structure set up was a false dichotomic structure coupled with several of the more subtle tactics that play on psychological blind spots which are in common practice by propaganda writers and salespeople alike. Its not my first rodeo, it is possible to say you are advocating for one thing, while actually advocating for another. Tone, tactics, and time spent can communicate a radically different intention than the words spoken. The majority of your writing was spent on F1 in a structure that builds agreement (psychological blindspot), followed by the problems those pesky things like freedom of speech cause. Once you get them to agree, psychological blind spot number 2 comes in, they've agreed to it so will defend that belief to maintain consistency. Same principle to what they did to PoWs in China back in Vietnam, and how they got American prisoners to inform on other prisoners, using forced essay writing. Its the equivalent of saying I agree (briefly and disingenuously), and then proceeding to line up several simple agreements to obvious yes questions in a row, before the final stick at the opposite while crafted in a way that sounds plausible, just like a used car salesman. If they don't question it immediately, you get them and they'll behave consistent with the principle and be more receptive to other things you say. Only in this case what are you selling? Very subtle and clever for anyone that doesn't know about them but its really manipulative and downright evil to use them for something like that. Those blindspots are very well known, Cialdini released a book which documented the most common ones, and covered other related areas that even people at the CIA have recognized. If you were blindsided by this response, you should read the book so you can alter your writing style so you don't get blindsided like that again in the future. Anything using those blindspots that causes or supports an outcome that reduces agency or causing disruption or disunity is going to receive the same kind of condemnation. They are known hallmarks of subversive propaganda.