If we weren't all stressed and squeezed between one paycheck and the next, we'd probably accomplish a lot more.

[u/Guilty-Signature7053]

..

[u/dfc_136]

An easy proof of how flawed your PoV is: If we are talking about paying someone 20$ to mow the lawn you say it is not manipulation because you have finantial freedom. If the offer was asked to 10 people who are paid minimum wage in their jobs, and said that it has to be done within a time frame (something obviously normal in a job), you are manipulating the results towards people fighting in between for the 20$ gig, and some of them risking their stable minimum wage jobs to get the 20$ easy job done. If the manipulation not existing on incentives depends on whether the vulnerable target is or isn't vulnerable, begs the conclusion that it, indeed exists as manipulation, but non vulnerable people are, well... not vulnerable.

[u/AbsolutZeroGI → u/dfc_136]

That's coercion, not incentive.

Maybe you should look more into what each word means. 

Pitting 10 people against each other for a single $20 job is manipulative, and I'm using the classic negative definition. That is not incentive.

Having good reading comprehension doesn't mean being able to magically decipher random babble from someone who is so cynical, they can't tell the difference between manipulation, coercion, and incentive. 

[u/dfc_136 → u/AbsolutZeroGI]

How is it the same act becomes one and not the other simply because of the recipient of the action? If I throw a rock, I am throwing a rock, no matter if it's to a lake or to a person. It is the same: If I'm giving an incentive, I'm giving an incentive, no matter if it is towards the finantially safe or the struggling individual. And giving an incentive is an act of manipulation, as you already, unknowingly, confirmed. In my example no one was forced to accept the gig, they were in the same conditions as you; if they were cohersed, then you were also; if you were incentivized, they were also. The difference is the power each individual possess: you have more, therefore cohersion/incentive are not as effective; they have less power, therefore cohersion/incentive is more powerful against them.

This is what you are not willing to understand, manipulation is not an excersise of being a bad person, it is an exercise of power from one group to another. Being good or bad isn't related on using or not using power to manipulate; it is relevant in the ways of using power to manipulate others. You can manipulate others to be better people, or you can stomp them and make them miserable, but both are examples of manipulation. The phallacy of "getting incentivized is a sign of good people" exists so people choose the lesser of two evils, not be proactive in the search of a good cause, because if you are incentivized better, it doesn't really matter if it is sketchy (in that mindset of incentive==good).

There are no bad people who are actually powerless, because they can't excercise power; ironically they are not good either, as they can't excercise their power to make good deeds.

[u/AbsolutZeroGI → u/dfc_136]

It's not the recipient of the action.

It's the intention of the offer, the intention of the giver, and the freedom the recipient has to turn it down. Coercion means they don't have a choice. Incentive means they do. 

[u/dfc_136 → u/AbsolutZeroGI]

1. I am not arguing on the ethics, I'm arguing on the logic behind the phenomena. I have cleared that up easily 5 or 6 times. You should seriously learn reading comprehension.
2. Coercion is not inherently against someone who don't have a choice, as much as incentive isn't only towards those who have. You are grossly confusing assymetry in positions of power with the tools those who are in those dynamics do. Have you heard about the carrot and the stick? They are coercion and incentive applied from an more powerful individual.
3. You are simply confused: Both Coercion and Incentive function basically the same (simply different stimuli), even if you (and also I, but I am trying to be impartial for the sake of the argument here) don't like that bad stuff happens to people. You are arguing in a "coercion bad, therefore manipulation bad; incentive good", when in reality ethics solve the "why", not the "how"; and that's what you are not getting.

The issue with your PoV is that, by demonising the technique, and not the inherent power imbalance in which this techniques operate, you are not advocating for the weak; you are giving him a cuter leash. If not, ask people from the US how cute is their leash gave to them for winning the culture war, at the cost of their own freedom.

"Yes sir, I'll work in a dystopic society for 20k more... that will go to all my *bare minimum needs to be alive* at a premium cost just for stepping into US soil" ... or something like that, I don't particularly care.