My general opinion is: ignore those people. If you have a specific thing someone said, which seems plausible to you, you could quote, link, summarize or paraphrase it and ask for comments on it.
EDIT: Many people on Twitter were never even members of the TCS email list. Only someone who found DD at least 5 years before BoI was published could have much actual experience with the original TCS community (before it became a lot more about me and philosophy, and a lot less about parenting). Most people on Twitter came years after BoI and just read a few articles and some tweets re TCS.
I meant that the term “coerce” is flexible re what type of causality or responsibility it refers to, like “help” or “scare” is flexible.
The sample size is way too small. I’m particularly good at avoiding coerced states but it’s hard to know what set of things is important to that and would work for many others. It’s hard to say with any confidence whether just my explicit philosophical knowledge + its implications + practicing/integrating/chewing would be adequate or whether some other things are required that I wouldn’t know how to share/explain. It’s hard to say how much background context, like childhood, is relevant and someone would have to address lots of issues they have from that (both negative active-problem type issues and also omissions of learning stuff).
What I can say is that most people seem to find it extremely hard to learn the explicit philosophy well. People tend to get stuck, feel bad, quit, etc. Often there’s some idea they can’t answer in debate but strongly dislike. Often they are worse at some stuff than they knew and want to maintain their current self-image. Often they want to lecture/teach/impress rather than learn. Often they want to social climb rather than learn. Often they aren’t very aware of what they’re doing or why.
Lots of the problems people have with learning are pretty generic issues that would come up with learning other stuff too, rather than being specific to CF material. Lots of other communities just give people credit for learning stuff when they still don’t actually understand it (similar to how people often pass school tests without understanding the material well), and try to be nice about everything and pretend things are going better than they are. They can appear to be more successful at teaching new members when they aren’t really. I try to challenge people more and seek out problems and errors instead of glossing them over and avoiding conflict.