4 ms·

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

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.
- Slow_Hand 4y ago
  But the thing is that I DO agree that the drivers should have free speech. Genuinely. You're heavily implying that I have malicious intent and am deliberately deceiving everyone here with rhetorical tricks to convince them that F1 drivers should surrender their free speech in this or similar situations. To what end? I don't doubt that these techniques you're detailing are an actual thing, but you seem really, really fixated on this and you are reading way too far into my intentions here. Way too far. I don't think there's going to be any convincing you of my intentions, so this is where I get off from this conversation. Judging by your posting history within the last 9 hours, you've got a big "propaganda/psychological manipulation/evil" hammer and there are a whole lot of "nails" out there in the world that need hammering. By you. Best of luck in your endeavors. You seem earnest, but misguided.
  - than3 4y ago
    > You're heavily implying that I have malicious intent and am deliberately deceiving everyone here with rhetorical tricks to convince them that F1 drivers should surrender their free speech in this or similar situations No, I'm saying the way you communicated implies malicious intent. How you do something is sometimes more important than what you do. I'm giving you the chance to not make the same mistake. Pay attention, and notice the significant difference in the wording, they don't mean the same thing. What I said is changeable and can be easily discarded as a mistake, what you said is unchangeable, and shuts down a conversation. Who said what and why? As I said before, if you didn't want that kind of response, you should identify what caused that and change it. It was pretty easy in this case as I told you exactly the characteristics that I took issue with. Also that is what any reasonable person who was mistaken or didn't know would want, to be told so they could change future outcomes and increase their agency and options in future engagements. Its pretty obvious so I hate having to say this.. delicately, if you were so certain I was certain of your intentions, why would I give you any information so you could be better, or potentially do worse depending on your perspective. Its pretty clear I'm not a dumb or irrational person. I'm methodical, evidence oriented and hedge my risk. That pokes a huge hole in that logic of yours. The only possible reason is I erred on the side that you were being genuine and didn't know. You should lighten up. As a mature adult, I'm sure you would agree that it is important to call out bad behavior when one sees it especially when it looks intentional and has impact on you. You had 4 strikes in that post going against you. You'll have to read the book to find the other strikes I didn't detail out. If you don't say something, you can't expect a real change in behavior unless an Anaconda suddenly eats someone near you, which unfortunately happens sometimes in certain places, and living in fear of being eaten is not living. > nails that need hammering ... by you. I don't relish being a hammer, there are a whole lot of reasons why it looks that way. If more people were standup honest people, educated at recognizing subversive propaganda and not tolerating it, and less bots pushing subversive narratives and philosophies, and less ignorant people mixed in with the group trying to corrupt and subvert and then start parroting them. I wouldn't have to call out bad behavior as much. Its not something I enjoy, its compelled by survival instinct because I know more than most what the real stakes are. Unfortunately, there's an infestation problem on social media, and lack of education has a lot of chatter pushing narratives and philosophy that has historically and provably caused deaths with no aim or understanding of the downsides. Unlike some people who don't react at all, I take the threat seriously especially when its in my proverbial backyard and I take a measured approach. Paying attention and having the education and experience to act is the difference between surviving and becoming a victim of circumstance. As I'm uncertain of your intentions I can't in good conscience wish you luck. I will choose to hope you aren't naive and misguided, or worse. Those techniques and other active measures are used more than you apparently seem to know, or are willing to admit. Whichever it may be, I remain terribly uncertain, but I hedge my risks and luckily what I've provided wouldn't provide much of any benefit to someone being malevolent as they would already be familiar with the material, while at the same time it would be quite valuable to someone who doesn't know, as it would aid in developing a discerning eye for classification of material that should be discarded as misinformation and propaganda, and isn't generally covered in school. Until social media is regulated, disposable accounts pushing the many to one subversion and corruption narratives will be the norm because its cheap means to silence voice, which is intimately linked to agency.

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.

Slow_Hand 4y ago
But the thing is that I DO agree that the drivers should have free speech. Genuinely. You're heavily implying that I have malicious intent and am deliberately deceiving everyone here with rhetorical tricks to convince them that F1 drivers should surrender their free speech in this or similar situations. To what end? I don't doubt that these techniques you're detailing are an actual thing, but you seem really, really fixated on this and you are reading way too far into my intentions here. Way too far. I don't think there's going to be any convincing you of my intentions, so this is where I get off from this conversation. Judging by your posting history within the last 9 hours, you've got a big "propaganda/psychological manipulation/evil" hammer and there are a whole lot of "nails" out there in the world that need hammering. By you. Best of luck in your endeavors. You seem earnest, but misguided.
- than3 4y ago
  > You're heavily implying that I have malicious intent and am deliberately deceiving everyone here with rhetorical tricks to convince them that F1 drivers should surrender their free speech in this or similar situations No, I'm saying the way you communicated implies malicious intent. How you do something is sometimes more important than what you do. I'm giving you the chance to not make the same mistake. Pay attention, and notice the significant difference in the wording, they don't mean the same thing. What I said is changeable and can be easily discarded as a mistake, what you said is unchangeable, and shuts down a conversation. Who said what and why? As I said before, if you didn't want that kind of response, you should identify what caused that and change it. It was pretty easy in this case as I told you exactly the characteristics that I took issue with. Also that is what any reasonable person who was mistaken or didn't know would want, to be told so they could change future outcomes and increase their agency and options in future engagements. Its pretty obvious so I hate having to say this.. delicately, if you were so certain I was certain of your intentions, why would I give you any information so you could be better, or potentially do worse depending on your perspective. Its pretty clear I'm not a dumb or irrational person. I'm methodical, evidence oriented and hedge my risk. That pokes a huge hole in that logic of yours. The only possible reason is I erred on the side that you were being genuine and didn't know. You should lighten up. As a mature adult, I'm sure you would agree that it is important to call out bad behavior when one sees it especially when it looks intentional and has impact on you. You had 4 strikes in that post going against you. You'll have to read the book to find the other strikes I didn't detail out. If you don't say something, you can't expect a real change in behavior unless an Anaconda suddenly eats someone near you, which unfortunately happens sometimes in certain places, and living in fear of being eaten is not living. > nails that need hammering ... by you. I don't relish being a hammer, there are a whole lot of reasons why it looks that way. If more people were standup honest people, educated at recognizing subversive propaganda and not tolerating it, and less bots pushing subversive narratives and philosophies, and less ignorant people mixed in with the group trying to corrupt and subvert and then start parroting them. I wouldn't have to call out bad behavior as much. Its not something I enjoy, its compelled by survival instinct because I know more than most what the real stakes are. Unfortunately, there's an infestation problem on social media, and lack of education has a lot of chatter pushing narratives and philosophy that has historically and provably caused deaths with no aim or understanding of the downsides. Unlike some people who don't react at all, I take the threat seriously especially when its in my proverbial backyard and I take a measured approach. Paying attention and having the education and experience to act is the difference between surviving and becoming a victim of circumstance. As I'm uncertain of your intentions I can't in good conscience wish you luck. I will choose to hope you aren't naive and misguided, or worse. Those techniques and other active measures are used more than you apparently seem to know, or are willing to admit. Whichever it may be, I remain terribly uncertain, but I hedge my risks and luckily what I've provided wouldn't provide much of any benefit to someone being malevolent as they would already be familiar with the material, while at the same time it would be quite valuable to someone who doesn't know, as it would aid in developing a discerning eye for classification of material that should be discarded as misinformation and propaganda, and isn't generally covered in school. Until social media is regulated, disposable accounts pushing the many to one subversion and corruption narratives will be the norm because its cheap means to silence voice, which is intimately linked to agency.