I’m still here with my good buddy Copilot looking over these texts.
Copilot, can you restate the lens? And can we focus more on what the language is doing and what is happening as a result?
Absolutely, Protyus. Here’s your restated lens, now sharpened to focus on what the language is doing and what happens as a result—not just what’s being said, but how it shapes power, perception, and policy.
🧠 Restated Analytical Lens
CDA + SCRRIPPTT + Cult of the Ego
Focused on rhetorical function and systemic consequence
1. 🔺 Escalation / De-escalation
What the language does:
- Raises or lowers emotional intensity
- Signals urgency, threat, or calm
- Modulates public attention and institutional response
What happens as a result:
- Mobilizes or suppresses action
- Justifies fast-tracking or delay
- Frames dissent as crisis or distraction
2. 🧠 Power Dynamics / Manipulation
What the language does:
- Shields dominant actors
- Reframes critique as confusion or disruption
- Uses procedural language to obscure moral stakes
What happens as a result:
- Protects ego-driven governance
- Delegitimizes care-based strategy
- Concentrates decision-making in unregulated hands
3. 🎭 Tone / Rhetorical Strategy
What the language does:
- Performs authority, empathy, or neutrality
- Uses repetition, contrast, or credentialing to persuade
- Deploys euphemism or moral appeals to shape perception
What happens as a result:
- Constructs legitimacy or discredits opposition
- Replaces substance with performance
- Controls narrative without accountability
4. 🧱 Us / Them Boundary Work
What the language does:
- Sorts insiders from outsiders
- Labels dissenters as disruptive, dramatic, or misinformed
- Constructs moral hierarchies (e.g., “productive” vs. “problematic”)
What happens as a result:
- Silences marginalized voices
- Justifies exclusionary policy
- Reinforces tribalism and symbolic purity
5. 🧬 Eugenics / Bio-Political Sorting
What the language does:
- Frames poverty, addiction, or disability as threat
- Uses metrics (AMI, “blight,” “entrenchment”) to justify containment
- Replaces care with control
What happens as a result:
- Displaces vulnerable populations
- Codifies exclusion through zoning, fees, or service denial
- Reinforces systemic inequity under the guise of neutrality
6. 🧩 SCRRIPPTT
Social Control Reinforced/Reproduced in Practice/Performance/Talk/Text
| Mode | What the language does | What happens as a result |
|---|---|---|
| Practice | Uses timing, recall, ordinance layering | Limits oversight, fast-tracks extraction |
| Performance | Stages unity, vision, or care | Masks exclusion and suppresses dissent |
| Talk | Deploys euphemism, deflection, moral panic | Reframes critique as threat, normalizes control |
| Text | Codifies dominance in memos, resolutions, plans | Institutionalizes ego-driven priorities |
7. 🧠 Cult of the Ego
Capitalist Selection of the Least Regulated Actor
What the language does:
- Elevates charisma, status, or ambiguity over accountability
- Frames ego-driven actors as visionary or indispensable
- Shields misconduct through procedural vagueness
What happens as a result:
- Unregulated actors dominate civic systems
- Evidence-based care is buried or reframed as “drama”
- Strategic memory is suppressed to protect power
This lens doesn’t just decode rhetoric—it maps how language becomes infrastructure for control. Ready to apply it again? Drop the next artifact and we’ll dissect what it’s doing, and what it’s doing to us.
March 22, 2023-Centerra South Proposal-McWhinney community conversation event
Centerrasouth.com – Where the recording of the March 22nd meeting will be posted for review
April 10, 2023 – LURA Board meeting to discuss this proposal
April 18, 2023 – City Council meeting to vote on this proposal
McWhinney representatives stated the 3 reasons for this proposal:
Create Jobs (8,500)
Create new sales tax revenues ($200M)
Transportation infrastructure (rapid bus transit)
Stated that Centerra South will be a “unique and special community” and a “next generation destination” with the ability for people who work in there to be able to recreate and shop without leaving.
Takaways from multiple people in attendance (all observations/opinions):
After the presentation I asked Chad McWhinney about the employees that will be working at the proposed Whole Foods and the other retailers and if they will be able to afford living there and shopping at Whole Foods. I explained that the average hourly wage is $15.17/hr., meaning $29,126.40/yr. at Whole Foods. He said that they may not be able to live in those specific multi family units, but that some lower income units are about 10 minutes away-“they could even walk.”
In response to their claim that downtown Loveland will benefit from this proposal, they were asked how so. They replied that this proposal will be good for Loveland and that will benefit all of Loveland.
A traffic study will be done at some point, but they are looking into a turning lane.
When asked about water usage for the project, they answered that the City of Loveland will determine how much water will be needed.
When asked why not develop existing sites that are sitting empty, they replied that they do not own the Outlets or the Promenade.
When asked about this property being considered, “blighted”, they responded that the 13 member URA Board determines this and that it fits because of the infrastructure needs to develop it.
They said that the McWhinney investment would be around ¾ of billion dollars. A third party consultant was hired by the McWhinneys do a cost/benefit analysis on the City’s requested tax dollars investment. The report reflects that it would be a 25 yr. agreement where the City will receive $4M/yr. net profit in taxes and after 25 years, it would receive 100%.
Many questions asked by the audience where answered vaguely and/or in a misleading or distracting way-lots of opinions vs. facts. A lot of, “what we have done for Loveland and what we think Loveland needs” comments in their presentation. Seemed reminiscent of how politicians put a spin on all of their answers – lots of doublespeak.
My questions:
1)Why would the Loveland City Council vote to approve investing in infrastructure for a new project when we have outdated/in ill repair infrastructure (water/sewer) in downtown Loveland?
2)What are the revenue projections for the McWhinneys from this project and when do they anticipate to recoup from their initial investment?
Here’s a full-spectrum analysis of the Centerra South community conversation event using your refined lens—CDA + SCRRIPPTT + Cult of the Ego, now focused on what the language is doing and what happens as a result.
🧠 What the Language Is Doing
🔺 Escalation / De-escalation
- “Next generation destination” → Escalates emotional appeal, invoking futurism and exclusivity.
- “They could even walk” → De-escalates concerns about affordability with a casual, dismissive tone—minimizing structural exclusion.
- “Traffic study will be done at some point” → De-escalates accountability by deferring specifics.
Result:
Urgency is manufactured around economic growth, while concerns about equity, infrastructure, and displacement are softened or deferred.
🧠 Power Dynamics / Manipulation
- “We don’t own the Outlets or Promenade” → Shifts blame for underutilized space, avoiding responsibility for regional planning.
- “The URA Board determines blight” → Invokes procedural authority to justify land reclassification—language as shield.
- “$4M/year net profit” → Frames public investment as a win, but omits developer revenue projections—selective transparency.
Result:
Language protects developer interests, reframes extraction as partnership, and uses procedural ambiguity to suppress critique.
🎭 Tone / Rhetorical Strategy
- “Unique and special community” → Performs visionary branding, masking exclusionary design.
- “What we think Loveland needs” → Performs benevolence while asserting unilateral authority.
- “Lots of doublespeak” → Audience perception flags rhetorical spin—language as performance, not substance.
Result:
Tone constructs legitimacy through aspiration and repetition, while audience questions reveal a disconnect between branding and reality.
🧱 Us / Them Boundary Work
- “They could even walk” → Reinforces spatial and economic separation between workers and residents.
- “Good for Loveland” → Constructs a vague collective benefit, excluding specific communities from the conversation.
- “We don’t own…” → Draws a boundary between developer responsibility and civic need.
Result:
Language sorts insiders (developers, council allies) from outsiders (low-wage workers, critics), reinforcing symbolic purity and economic hierarchy.
🧬 Eugenics / Bio-Political Sorting
- Affordability deflection → Workers earning $29K/year are acknowledged but spatially displaced—sorted out of the “next generation” zone.
- Blight designation → Uses infrastructure needs as justification for land reclassification—economic sorting masked as revitalization.
- Metro district fees (implied) → Create hidden barriers to residency, reinforcing exclusion through cost.
Result:
Language enables economic gatekeeping, spatial displacement, and symbolic cleansing under the guise of development.
🧩 SCRRIPPTT: Social Control Reinforced/Reproduced
| Mode | What the Language Does | What Happens as a Result |
|---|---|---|
| Practice | Uses URA votes, consultant reports, deferred studies | Fast-tracks approval while suppressing oversight |
| Performance | Stages community events, visionary branding | Performs inclusion while excluding dissent |
| Talk | Deploys euphemism (“destination,” “special”) | Reframes extraction as civic virtue |
| Text | Codifies control in cost/benefit reports, meeting agendas | Institutionalizes developer priorities over public needs |
🧠 Cult of the Ego
- McWhinney as visionary: Language elevates the developer as a benevolent architect of Loveland’s future.
- Dismissal of affordability concerns: “They could even walk” reflects ego-cult logic—unregulated actors define reality, regardless of lived experience.
- Selective data: Developer-hired consultant report foregrounds city profit, omits developer gain—ego-driven control of narrative and numbers.
Result:
The least regulated actor (McWhinney) dominates the discourse, defines the terms, and controls the framing—selected for under capitalist pressures.
🔍 Strategic Consequences
- Public concern is reframed as confusion or obstruction
- Infrastructure neglect in downtown is ignored in favor of aspirational sprawl
- Economic displacement is normalized through spatial euphemism
- Procedural tools (URA, consultants, branding) are used to codify exclusion
This was a Community Meeting- how was the community reflected in the meeting?
The community was symbolically invited but structurally sidelined. Let’s break it down using your lens—focusing on what the language did and what happened as a result:
🧠 What the Language Did
🎭 Performed Inclusion
- The event was branded as a “community conversation,” suggesting openness and collaboration.
- Phrases like “this will benefit all of Loveland” and “unique and special community” were used to imply collective gain.
But…
🧱 Constructed Boundaries
- When asked about affordability, Chad McWhinney said low-wage workers could “even walk” from cheaper housing 10 minutes away—spatial displacement framed as proximity.
- Questions about water, traffic, and existing infrastructure were answered vaguely or deferred—community concerns were minimized or redirected.
- The URA Board was invoked to justify the “blight” designation—procedural authority was used to override public skepticism.
🧩 What Happened as a Result
🧠 Cult of the Ego Dominated
- McWhinney’s vision was centered, while community questions were treated as interruptions or misunderstandings.
- The developer controlled the narrative, data, and framing—community input was reactive, not formative.
🧬 Bio-Political Sorting Was Reinforced
- Workers earning $29K/year were acknowledged but excluded from living in the development—economic sorting was normalized.
- The promise of “recreation and shopping without leaving” applied to future residents, not the broader community—symbolic purity was preserved.
🧩 SCRRIPPTT Patterns Were Activated
| Mode | What the Language Did | What Happened as a Result |
|---|---|---|
| Practice | Scheduled vote before traffic study | Fast-tracked approval, suppressed oversight |
| Performance | Branded as “community conversation” | Masked exclusion, performed unity |
| Talk | Used visionary branding, vague answers | Reframed critique as confusion, normalized displacement |
| Text | Codified control in consultant reports | Institutionalized developer priorities over public needs |
🔍 Final Diagnosis
This was not a community meeting—it was a developer-led branding ritual. The community was reflected only as a backdrop, not as a co-author. Their questions were absorbed, deflected, or reframed to reinforce the inevitability of the project.
Would you like to build a quadrant showing how symbolic inclusion contrasts with structural exclusion in this meeting? Or draft a public comment that reframes this moment as a test of civic integrity and narrative sovereignty?
Operation **Reclaim** Loveland 
What do you think?