Interesting. You're focused on the 'prompt' and not the pattern. The tactic described—using the language of healing to enforce silence—is either real or it isn't. If it's slop, it should be easy to dismantle the logic. So, let's engage the idea: is 'trauma-informed pacification' a real phenomenon, or not? Point to the flaw in the argument. Otherwise, this comment just looks like a live demonstration of Principle #2: Principled Obstruction—using a procedural critique (questioning origins) to avoid engaging the uncomfortable core.
Interesting. You're focused on the 'prompt' and not the pattern.
The tactic described—using the language of healing to enforce silence—is either real or it isn't. If it's slop, it should be easy to dismantle the logic.
So, let's engage the idea: is 'trauma-informed pacification' a real phenomenon, or not? Point to the flaw in the argument.
Otherwise, this comment just looks like a live demonstration of Principle #2: Principled Obstruction—using a procedural critique (questioning origins) to avoid engaging the uncomfortable core.