I believe thereās a chance that protest organisers understood their phrasing could potentially cause people to have an impression not informed by details but kept the phrasing because they thought it suited their goals better...I think itās likely enough they were acting deceptively.
Is accusing someone in the community of deliberately lying, and you seem to equivocate on that in other comments. Even earlier in this thread you say to Holly that āTo be clear, in the post, Iām not implying that you, personally, tried to deceive people.ā But to me this clearly is you implying that quite obviously, even with caveats. To then go back and talk about how this refers to the community as a whole feels really off to me.
I know that I am very much a contextualiser instead of a decoupler[1] but using a term like ādeceptionā is not something that you can neatly carve out from its well-understood social meaning as referring to a personās character and instead use it to talk about a social movement as an agent.
Iād very much suggest you heed Jasonās advice earlier in the thread.
The messaging wasnāt technically false; it was just misleading, while saying technically true things. Iām not sure why youāre using ālyingā here.
I would guess youād agree organisations can use deceptive messaging? Iām pretty sure communities can also do that, including with dynamics where a community is deceptive but all parts have some sort of deniability/āintentionlessness.
I think itād be sad to have to discuss the likelihood of specific people of being deceptive. It would be making their lives even worse. If people Google their names, theyāre going to find this. And itās not really going to help with the problem, so this is not what I want to focus on. I titled the post this way because the community acted deceptively, regardless of how deceptive itās members were.
Iām saying what I think in the comments and in the post, while avoiding, to the possible extent, talking about my current views of specific peopleās actions or revealing the messages/āwords sent/āsaid to me in private by these people.
And I donāt at all understand why we both are exchanging comments focusing on the words (that I thought were pretty clear, that I ran just before publishing pass a bunch of people, including protest participants, who told me they agreed with what I wrote) instead of focusing on the problems raised in the post.
Sorry Mikhail, but this:
Is accusing someone in the community of deliberately lying, and you seem to equivocate on that in other comments. Even earlier in this thread you say to Holly that āTo be clear, in the post, Iām not implying that you, personally, tried to deceive people.ā But to me this clearly is you implying that quite obviously, even with caveats. To then go back and talk about how this refers to the community as a whole feels really off to me.
I know that I am very much a contextualiser instead of a decoupler[1] but using a term like ādeceptionā is not something that you can neatly carve out from its well-understood social meaning as referring to a personās character and instead use it to talk about a social movement as an agent.
Iād very much suggest you heed Jasonās advice earlier in the thread.
At least in EA-space, I think Iām fairly average for the general population if not maybe more decoupling than average
The messaging wasnāt technically false; it was just misleading, while saying technically true things. Iām not sure why youāre using ālyingā here.
I would guess youād agree organisations can use deceptive messaging? Iām pretty sure communities can also do that, including with dynamics where a community is deceptive but all parts have some sort of deniability/āintentionlessness.
I think itād be sad to have to discuss the likelihood of specific people of being deceptive. It would be making their lives even worse. If people Google their names, theyāre going to find this. And itās not really going to help with the problem, so this is not what I want to focus on. I titled the post this way because the community acted deceptively, regardless of how deceptive itās members were.
Iām saying what I think in the comments and in the post, while avoiding, to the possible extent, talking about my current views of specific peopleās actions or revealing the messages/āwords sent/āsaid to me in private by these people.
And I donāt at all understand why we both are exchanging comments focusing on the words (that I thought were pretty clear, that I ran just before publishing pass a bunch of people, including protest participants, who told me they agreed with what I wrote) instead of focusing on the problems raised in the post.