Post #1935830

So maybe I can try to give an idea of a more specific real-world example. Say there’s a Discord group, where everyone plays COD, but also some members are very practiced in making fake SWAT calls, and innocent people have nearly been killed by them. That is a big, urgent issue; one that can drive emotions. Picture that an influencer gives a statement like “These gamers are horrible, worthless people.” You’re right, that an absolutely *perfect*, flawless statement might have been “The people SWATting in that Discord are horrible and worthless.” But assume the statement, in its emotion, tried to be contextual and descriptive, mentioning “gamers”. In your definition, this might be an unnecessary detail. Yet, that’s not a huge misstep; and yet someone could potentially weaponize that statement so it sounds like the influencer believes all members of that Discord, or even all gamers, are horrible. AND, by pulling attention to that statement, they both draw attention off that Discord, and discourage people from speaking out on it. Worse, let’s say the next influencer gives a perfect statement: “We will bring SWATters to justice”. If people have already fallen under the misconception that this is a cultural war targeting gamers, then they might invent reasons to oppose that second statement anyway, since they feel their identity is being attacked. So it can even discourage people from speaking up in the “wrong” way. Hence why I’d like to work on terminology for the misdirection, rather than tone policing on the exact words people use; something that can help us call it out. Unnecessary details like “black”, “female” or non-identity descriptors like “blue-collar” can be a misstep, but they are not the largest evil in a lot of cases.