Reductionist generally means you are over-extending an idea beyond its context or that you are omitting too many variables in the discussion of a topic.

That isn't what it generally means.

To say that rhetoric is simply wrong and that "white-hat writing/speaking" is right is too black and white.

I don't think it's black and white; there is a continuum between clear communication and manipulation. But beware of the fallacy of gray: just because everything has a tinge of darkness, that doesn't make it black--some things are very Dark Artsy, others are not. I do think it is possible to communicate without manipulative writing/speaking. Just to pick a random example, Khan Academy videos. In them, the speaker uses a combination of clear language and visuals to communicate facts. He does not use dishonesty, emotional manipulation, or other techniques associated with dark artsy rhetoric to do this.

Please taboo "force."

"Giving people skills" they do not ask for is forcing it on them. It is an act of force.

He asked you to taboo "force" to avoid bringing in its connotations. Please resend that thought without using any of "force" "might" "violence" etc. What are you trying to say?

If that is what you mean by force, you coming here and telling us your ideas is "an act of force" too. In fact, by that definition, nearly all communication is "an act of force". So what? Is there something actually wrong with "giving people ideas or tools they didn't ask for"?

I'm going to assume that you mean it's bad to give people ideas they will dislike after the fact, like sending people pictures of gore or child porn. I don't see how teaching people useful skills to improve their lives is at all on the same level as giving them pictures of gore.