I find it is extremely rare to find people who take one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences as in fact one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences. Because most people tend to take them as criticism and judgment.
— baker

This seems confused. Do you mean its rare to find people who hear other people's opinions and feelings, and read them as such? — AmadeusD

Of course.

Why not simply be assertive? Textbook assertiveness pretty much does away with the majority of the problems brought up in this thread
— baker

I cannot understand what you're driving at here, I am sorry. Assertive about what? Which party in the above tension? Being assertive against someone who claims 'my truth' either results in circular nonsense, as, fair enough, this thread became - or violence.

Where do you live that you have not heard about assertiveness?

If all involved would use I-messages, the conflict would either go away, or be shaped into something solvable. Alas, people don't seem to be fond of assertiveness ...

What are you talking about? Not incredulousness, I just have no clue what you're talking about. I do not know of any prison anywhere who would let any inmate walk out in the way you describe.

Some people get to live the Trumpian dream ...

Or when a judge asks you a question with a double negative and demands you to answer it with only a yes or no; and when you ask for a clarification or answer with a full sentence, he threatens to hold you in contempt of the law.
— baker

Are you able to provide it? I have never seen a judge do something similar, and not have their judgment recalled at a later date. It is not a contempt of court to not answer a question. You have every right (in a criminal case. If you're not talking Criminal many other considerations to consider).

It's not in English and the records are not available online.

If you refuse to sign it, you're taken to the police station where trouble ensues, and you have to hire a lawyer and so on. (And forget about free legal representation. It's virtually impossible to qualify for that here.)
— baker

Where do you live? This seems to me a gross misunderstanding of any related practices i've ever come across. Would be interested to see what the policies are. Particularly given your description of a document for signing is Federally illegal in most states I'm aware of.

Welcome to the EU!

Bottomline, my point is that for some -- many -- people, the experience with how the law is practiced is quite dismal, and it's a good example of "my truth" vs. "their truth".

In other words, this comes down to might makes right. — baker

This makes no sense to me either semantically, conceptually or attempting to figure out some bespoke application. You didn't quote the whole thing though, so maybe you're thinking something you're not quite saying.

The rest is just a child having a problem with being a child, best I can tell.

Of course. — baker

Well, That's definitely not the case In my life, but I wont argue if you think this is common in yours. I understand hte problem it presents and generally, I encounter this in children (sub-13 years old). I tend not to engage much with adults who behave like petulant children, as a general rule.

Where do you live that you have not heard about assertiveness? — baker

I asked you a set of questions which would clarify a crazily ambiguous statement. Your response not only refuses to answer them/clarify but instead takes a pot shot, as If I don't know what "assertiveness" is. Odd.

If all involved would use I-messages, the conflict would either go away, or be shaped into something solvable. Alas, people don't seem to be fond of assertiveness ... — baker

Becuase you have refused to clarify what you're talking about, I have no idea what you're talking about. But the link goes to nothing, fyi.

Some people get to live the Trumpian dream ... — baker

Could you please refrain from ambiguous, senseless drive-by statements and clarify something for me? If you don't want to, please just say that. This exchange is a bit ... eccentric, let's say.

It's not in English and the records are not available online. — baker

Convenient.

Bottomline, my point is that for some -- many -- people, the experience with how the law is practiced is quite dismal, and it's a good example of "my truth" vs. "their truth". — baker

It's not, and I can't see that you've illustrated anything that would move that needle. Some actual information could help?

I'm back from vacation and willing to continue the conversation. You of course don't have to continue if you feel this is old. Also, don't use my name in examples at my expense going forward. I don't find it funny or indicative of a person who's taking the conversation seriously, and will withdraw from further discussion if it happens again. If you use an example, neutral parties keep it focused on the discussion instead of the people discussing.

Lets continue from your definitions of facts and truth.

I'd say that "a fact is a statement that can be proven or verified through evidence or data, while truth is a more abstract concept that is subjective and can vary depending on individual perspectives." — Ecurb

You linked to a site which contradicts itself. Notice in the chart it places truth under objective, than later claims its subjective. Even at the bottom it states "Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts". So I'm going to dismiss this.

To be clear, we can state that something is a fact and true that is not true. The difference as I've noted is a fact deals with knowledge, while truth remains despite knowledge. It was a fact that Pluto was a planet, it is now a fact that it is not. What remains true is that there is something that existed then and now that we have facts about. Truth is the primacy of unquestionable and unchangeable reality. We can change facts about things that are true, we cannot change what is true, because what is true is what exists.

You've chosen the most negative definition of "manipulative" -- which, in my previous post - I noted. — Ecurb

Yes, because that is the term that I'm using. So if you're going to argue against the term that I'm using, you have to understand the context and definition of the term as I'm using it. Which is fine, I provided it. You can propose to expand upon the definition, but if I'm noting, "No, this is what I meant," then to engage in what is being discussed you'll need to address the definition being used, not another one.

Since its been a while, I'm going to sum the context of the original point I was making.

Trying to repurpose words for one's own benefit is a pretty common tactic among the manipulative. Its when a person takes the emotional and cultural connotation of the word, then repurposes it for their own advantage. "Truth" has the feeling of "Certainty that cannot be wrong." "My opinion" or "My viewpoint" has the connotation "I could be wrong." My truth implies "I hold a truth that is beyond your criticism or the possibility of being wrong." — Philosophim

Now lets refer to your examples.

Given these examples, it is clear that using "manipulative language" is not wicked ipso facto. — Ecurb

Nothing is. What is good and evil is all about context. I'm assuming you're referring to a response I had to Questioner.

But if they're trying to speak a subjective viewpoint that twists language to their own ends, its being manipulative. I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do...You cannot be a manipulative person and be good. It infects your mind as a poison, twists your emotions into hate, and utterly ruins otherwise good people. — Philosophim

First, this is a statement of context with Questioner. We are having a discussion on a philosophy board. No one is holding anyone at gunpoint. The goal of communication between good parties is to use accurate language to convey concepts as clearly as possible, then let them respond to that understanding. When you begin to use manipulative language, you distort language clarity for your own purposes. The only reason you would do this is because you fear that if the other person has a clear understanding of the picture, they won't give you what you want, or you'll have to admit that what you hold isn't correct.

I find this to be evil. It is selfish, a misuse of intelligence, and the break of trust and open communication that people need to have a clear eye about concepts. Now, in a different context, one where both parties are not attempting to clearly communicate with respect and freedom, do things change? Of course. Stabbing another person because they disagree with you is usually wrong, but if the other person who's disagreeing with you is about to murder people and there is nothing else you can do to stop it, stabbing them first is good. Of course, this requires a clear instance of what is good and evil to make such a call, and 'deciding' "That person is evil, I'm going to stab them," without careful justification leads to the stabber being the evil one.

So the context I am noting is that in a polite and non-coersive conversation between two people, using manipulative language to get what you want when the other person would not give you what you want if you used clear language, is wrong.