• 14 Posts
  • 562 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle
  • I don’t, in general make this same bargain, and I’m not more than happy to give my data, and thus sacrifice my privacy. However, I have had to reckon, and I think many of those who value privacy must too, with the fact that it isn’t inherently valued by everyone, that simply adequately communicating this in a way that’s better understood won’t translate to people suddenly realising what they’re giving up. We aren’t always simply one great analogy away from changing every person’s world view and likely many have come to their view from a place at least as well informed as those of us who jealously guard our privacy. I also have to reckon with the fact that to some extent, my own desire to protect my privacy is at least not fully explainable by logic and rationalism, especially in light of how difficult it is to protect and how easy it is to have unwittingly ceded it. You might call that defeatism, and to simply conclude “well I lost some privacy, so I might as well give it up completely” is accepting defeat, again not something I’m yet prepared to do, but it is also perhaps important to acknowledge and factor present realities in to one’s thinking. It might sound defeatist to point out an enemy’s big guns pointed toward you from all sides, but it’s insane to ignore them. That quote that you’ve produced, while antithetical to my thinking, really isn’t irrational or illogical, and only defeatist if you were onboard with fighting to begin with. If you do not value your privacy and you get something useful in exchange for its sacrifice then it would seem obvious to part with it gladly and it’s difficult to offer a rational reason why someone shouldn’t. My strongest motivation for protecting it is more idealistic than personal and has more to do with a kind of slippery slope argument and a concern for hypothetical power grabbing and eroding of our rights and autonomy. I like to think that’s reason enough, but at least right now, for almost everyone, none of those concerns represent clear nor present dangers and I can’t prove it definitely will become such in future though I certainly feel like it has accelerated trends firmly in the direction of my fears.




  • No person nor source gets it right all the time, I like your idea as an evaluative technique but I think the assumption that being incorrect here is necessarily because of lying might mean discounting a lot of sources/creators who are otherwise reputable. I’d look at it more like degrees of doubt cast over everything else they say where you don’t have the expertise to evaluate the accuracy. Much like a driver’s licence, you get dinged enough times for more and more infractions and eventually you lose your license. If they keep continually getting things wrong where it’s something you know something about eventually you can probably discount them on anything else as well, but if it’s just once or twice, especially where they’re not egregiously wrong, some benefit of the doubt could be beneficial to all concerned. Better I would have thought to take what feels like their salient points on the content they produce on topics where you aren’t knowledgeable and check if other people are claiming anything similar and where something is verifiable, try to verify. Of course theoretically you should do that all the time but in practice at least each time you know someone is wrong about something it’s an indication that for them specifically further checking is required.








  • There’s better answers here addressing the unlikeliness of contract killers existing in the sense of a freelancer available for hire to all the general public rather than someone trusted by peers in a criminal enterprise and also about the “contract” not really being a contract because it’s unenforceable but I think you could also draw the conclusion just by reasoning alone that if a contract killer in that Hollywood sense of the term existed, and breached their contract and you the client don’t have the personal connections or power to threaten that particular assassin’s life in response, there’s always just good old reputation at stake. I mean, it wouldn’t help you in your specific case if they’ve nicked off with the money and left your target very much alive but to have hired them in the first place would have required word of mouth in hopefully a pretty small community of people since you can’t exactly expect to find them on fiverr so you could make it know pretty quickly that this person doesn’t honour their contracts so their wet work career would be over pretty quick.







  • It also sounds like based on the preceding post that they really are going to have to do this as the initial reaction to offending their coworker seems not to have gone down well with them and their colleagues at all. It looks like they’re kind of having to do this to prevent things escalating any further which might be why their apology has needed to be workshopped and people are finding flaws in it. They’re probably having to work through a fair bit of resentment before they can find an authentic apology in themselves. Good for them though, that can take a bit of reflection and the initial instinct can be to try and issue a non-apology apology but instead they’re working through it to get it right.


  • A lot of the response here has been around the way the ‘apology’ focusses too much on the person who’s supposed to be receiving the apology and not the person who has something to apologise for. The intended draft follows along the classic lines of “sorry if you feel that way” which implies that the person being apologized to is really the one in the wrong for having taken offence and the apologizer is just indignant at being forced to say anything rather than actually sorry for anything.

    I get all that, but… Is there no way to sincerely express being sorry for not considering or anticipating another person’s individual response to something as opposed to the thing itself? Without seemingly blaming them for that response? It’s still about the apologiser’s actions in having been inconsiderate in their deployment of language then, just not for the actual language. I ask because your proposed change “I’m going to work on improving my language” implies that the error was in using the word fuck at all and that their language is in general faulty in some way. I don’t think that’s the case. Having a manner of speech that includes that word is not something inherently bad, the bad behaviour necessitating an apology as I see it is for being too presumptive in assuming this particular person would have no problem with it when it’s known that some people might and also for not immediately taking that person’s offence seriously in the immediate aftermath when they expressed having taken offence (they didn’t take it seriously, this is a follow up post).

    It seems reasonable, if expressed very carefully, to commit to avoiding the word around them, since that’s all that person can reasonably want, that’s the problematic behaviour that is getting in the way of their working together. Committing to improving their language can really only mean committing to not saying that word generally which is defacto suggesting the word itself, not the lack of consideration is the problem and also puts OP in a position now of being on the hook in future not just for using the word around this individual but in all other circumstances as well something they shouldn’t promise. If the work environment is such that nobody else speaks like this and they’re the only one then sure, it should have been common sense to begin with and such a commitment is a no brainer, but if it’s otherwise common practice and it’s just this one person they need to accommodate then that’s what should be done, accommodating this one specific person in order not to offend in future and apologising in order to let them know that you hear them and consider their feelings important.