Yes my original exampled used a common occurrence to demonstrate that "cooperation" isn't always given as an option, but as a front to pretend you have that choice. Even if you actively wanted to do so, its still an order. Some people enjoy/want the extra hours while others want to be home with their family. It doesn't magically change from an order because the result is different.
You giving a more specific example requires a specific response, it doesn't make anything I've said wrong in the slightest. But solid attempt at a gotcha, 4/10 would work on Twitter mobs.
The issue is that you're trying to pretend something is an "order" from a "political party" when it's not.
Except it is. They are being told to "review" these, with the clear intent being to "handle it" because they deemed it problematic. The twitter retards being happy to jump when asked how high doesn't change the original intention behind it. An order doesn't require resistance in any form, except whatever world you live in.
Regardless of the truth of the statement in other circumstances, what you've said is fundamentally irrelevant here.
Nay, it was providing an example of ambiguous "requests" given with the illusion of choice are still orders because the unspoken understanding is that saying no will bring consequences if not force. You wanting to do it, which seems to be your fundamental hangup, is what is irrelevant to that.
That's the entire problem here. You think them being willing to do it somehow makes it not an order, which isn't the reality of how words or authority works. I don't care about your little soapboxes about the nature of the world when you can't handle basic words.
Yes my original exampled used a common occurrence to demonstrate that "cooperation" isn't always given as an option, but as a front to pretend you have that choice. Even if you actively wanted to do so, its still an order. Some people enjoy/want the extra hours while others want to be home with their family. It doesn't magically change from an order because the result is different.
You giving a more specific example requires a specific response, it doesn't make anything I've said wrong in the slightest. But solid attempt at a gotcha, 4/10 would work on Twitter mobs.
Except it is. They are being told to "review" these, with the clear intent being to "handle it" because they deemed it problematic. The twitter retards being happy to jump when asked how high doesn't change the original intention behind it. An order doesn't require resistance in any form, except whatever world you live in.
Nay, it was providing an example of ambiguous "requests" given with the illusion of choice are still orders because the unspoken understanding is that saying no will bring consequences if not force. You wanting to do it, which seems to be your fundamental hangup, is what is irrelevant to that.
That's the entire problem here. You think them being willing to do it somehow makes it not an order, which isn't the reality of how words or authority works. I don't care about your little soapboxes about the nature of the world when you can't handle basic words.