| ▲ | latexr 3 days ago | |
Feels to me like that is addressed by the very first sentence in the article: > We influence others every day, whether we intend to or not. And then it’s expanded as it continues. > Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree. Yes, to a degree. Seems to me the author is attempting to be pragmatic and not let excessive pedantry cloud the larger point. A friend trying to convince you to stop smoking because they want you to live healthier for longer may be technically manipulating you, but that’s not a useful definition and realistically no one would colloquially consider it to be the case. Whenever you find yourself dismissing an argument because a word can be applied universally, instead steelman the author’s argument by trying to understand the definition they are working with. | ||
| ▲ | squigz 3 days ago | parent [-] | |
It's not only the more rational (and productive) position to take, it's part of HN's guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. | ||