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.
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, 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.
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.
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. Also that is what any reasonable person who was mistaken or didn't know would want, so they could change future outcomes and increase their agency.
Its pretty obvious so I hate having to say this, but it kind of goes without saying, if I were certain of your intentions why would I give you any information so you could be better, or potentially do worse depending on your perspective.
Kind of pokes a huge hole in your logic there, I erred on the side that you were being genuine and didn't know. Its important to call out bad behavior when one sees it especially when it looks intentional. You had 4 strikes in that post going against you compared to most other posts.
If you don't say something, you can't expect a real change in behavior unless an Anaconda suddenly eats someone near you.
> 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 less bots pushing subversive narratives and philosophies, I wouldn't have to call out bad behavior as much.
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.
Unlike some people, I take that seriously especially when its in my proverbial backyard. Paying attention 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.
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.