I had a better way of articulating it, but I went with that.
So for the longest time I felt like I shouldn’t give people reasons behind an answer because you can put in the reasons behind it can sway their decisions. Also I know that I had incomplete data set. Humans do lean on each other to think and you can inject what idea and have it spread.
To attempt something more coherent. You can do propaganda when you try to reason. It’s just natural to talk as if they know and just bridge the gaps in their knowledge with any old phrase
All communication is attempted manipulation. That’s not bad. Manipulation is about changing someone else’s behavior. There are unethical ways to do this (eg. threat of violence, extortion) and there are ethical ways to do this (education, presenting factual evidence, positive reinforcement) and some that are more situational (deception, disincentives, horse trading).
Avoiding manipulation is neither practical nor particularly virtuous. It just makes you a doormat, a mugwump, a fence-sitter. We all affect those around us every day, and acknowledging that is the first step in making sure those interactions are a positive force in the world and the lives of those around us.
Arguably, violence and extortion are also situational. States exist on a foundation of use of force, and most people are fine with that.
Arguably, though we are primarily discussing interpersonal conduct in this thread. I will additionally quibble by pointing out that while violence itself is often necessary, the threat of violence is a separate concern; and one I myself find unpalatable in interpersonal relationships.