@timbray There is a slightly different - I think - usage context where I think it is meaningful: Making harder arguments against compromised, broken or dishonest systems.

Because defenders of these systems will conflate purpose with effect.

I can say "This new employee reward system is dehumanizing and hijacks positive interactions" and give examples and refer to literature, but be countered with "It is there to increase positivity and reward positive interactions. We have a problem with negativity." And further "Why do you argue agaist a positivity improvement system?"

Maybe it is partially or fully the purpose and intent, but the discussion is helped by rejecting it:

"The system causes people to send each other inane positivity notes. It causes people to expect positivity notes. It takes the place of genuine ThankYous and makes all public praise look calculated. The purpose is what it does. *It is a system to break interpersonal trust.*"

Now it's on them to argue effect instead