3 ms·

>I don't get this reasoning that ... they are resolved of any blame ... annoying me ... causing hassle Yes, I agree that annoyance is being made and hassle i

by jasode 11y ago

>I don't get this reasoning that ... they are resolved of any blame ... annoying me ... causing hassle Yes, I agree that annoyance is being made and hassle is being caused but I assign the "they" part more to the owners of the businesses rather than the low-level employees working the phones. Those workers are just cogs in a wheel. Therefore, I don't derive any satisfaction of justice by making employees suffer the games of an AI Turing Test. On the other hand, I am happy when business owners pay $100,000 fines for ignoring the Do-Not-Call list. The workers vs owners distinction is the same for fast-food cashiers asking "do you want to Super Size that?", or Radio Shack employee requesting my phone number for their database, or a retail employee trying to sell me an "extended warranty". For each of those situations, I'm annoyed but it's not necessary for me to socially shame the low-level workers with rants about obesity and high-fat consumption, the dangers of privacy invasion and identity theft, and the financial foolishness of 3rd-party warranties. All those employees are just cogs in a wheel and they are required to follow a script and upsell those things. Otherwise, they are fired. I see most telemarketing employees in equivalent situations++. Waging war with those low-level employees seems like fighting the wrong layer. Instead, just don't spend money with the business or utilize technical tricks (e.g. phone TeleZapper). ++To level set, I'm not talking about criminal activities such as scammers making calls to trick senior citizens into wiring their life savings. I'm talking about the single mother or starving college student who sees a job ad for "$8/hour tele-sales" and hopes to get money for diapers or ramen noodles. The telemarketing I was thinking of was newspaper subscriptions, church donations, burglar alarms monitoring, etc.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>For each of those situations, I'm annoyed but it's not necessary for me to socially shame the low-level workers with rants about obesity and high-fat consumption, the dangers of privacy invasion and identity theft, and the financial foolishness of 3rd-party warranties. And yet, if we did that to such an extent that most people couldn't work those jobs with those policies, would not society be better off as a whole? >Waging war with those low-level employees seems like fighting the wrong layer. Speaking of war, the general way it goes is that you shoot the soldiers even though they are just following orders and there are a dozen more to take their place. Ideally taking out the general would be best, but when not given the opportunity to do so you target the highest ranking person in front of you, even if that is the lowly private who is on the same level as you.
- Merad 11y ago
  > And yet, if we did that to such an extent that most people couldn't work those jobs with those policies, would not society be better off as a whole? Your attitude isn't just out of touch with reality, it's somewhere between 'callous and unsympathetic' and 'sociopathic.' Roughly 95% of the people who work in crappy low-wage jobs like fast food or call centers already hate their jobs. They already hate what their employers tell them they have to do. They aren't there because they love cold calling strangers or asking you to upgrade your meal by 1000 calories, they're there because they need a paycheck and have little other alternative. I can only speak from personal experience regarding call centers, but I imagine fast food isn't very different. Most people absolutely do get out of those jobs as fast as they can. In the call center I worked at, average tenure was 6 months if not less (that's exactly how long I lasted, FWIW). And you know what? Every time a person walks out the door, someone else walks in to take their place, because the world has no shortage of desperate people. Taking the stance of 'we should torture these people as much as possible because we don't have access to their employers' is bad enough, but to smugly claim that it's really for their own good and the good of society is frankly disturbing.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >Your attitude isn't just out of touch with reality, it's somewhere between 'callous and unsympathetic' and 'sociopathic.' As is needed of any soldier killing a guy who doesn't want to be there just as much as they don't. Probably the most sociopathic thing I did today was I just ate a Butterfingers candy bar, made by Nestle, and thus likely involved child slavery, which I funded by buying the candy bar. But I do think my informed apathy is a step up from ignorant bliss. >Roughly 95% of the people who work in crappy low-wage jobs like fast food or call centers already hate their jobs. They already hate what their employers tell them they have to do. They aren't there because they love cold calling strangers or asking you to upgrade your meal by 1000 calories, they're there because they need a paycheck and have little other alternative. And if their work isn't a net harm for me, I'll try try to make their day more pleasant. But when I'm at the local cell store again because another family member was lied to about their contract, or when you just interrupted my concentration while solving some problem to try to get me to sign up for some service that will be near impossible to cancel and which comes with more fine print than my employment contract, then I am not going to excuse you just because you did such for money. >Taking the stance of 'we should torture these people as much as possible because we don't have access to their employers' is bad enough, but to smugly claim that it's really for their own good and the good of society is frankly disturbing. >torture I found the bug.
coldpie 11y ago
> The workers vs owners distinction is the same for fast-food cashiers asking "do you want to Super Size that?", or Radio Shack employee asking for my phone number, or a retail employee trying to sell me an "extended warranty". Each of your examples is providing me with a service; making food, ringing up my order, charging my card, or otherwise servicing the store of which I'm a customer. I'm happy to allow them some room for corporate bullshit, because they're also doing something I want them to do. What does a telemarketer do for me?
leephillips 11y ago
"Those workers are just cogs in a wheel" How does your analysis translate to soldiers who are ordered to torture prisoners? Or Dickens-style juvenile pickpockets?
belorn 11y ago
Listening on lenny bot (A older and more basic bot with plenty of recordings on youtube), I wonder how common it is for those working at telemarketing to start down the slippery slope of scamming. A question that the game paper please asked, is how plausible it is for a person living near staving condition to give up on their own income on the basis of morals. If at the same time you are working in a environment which directly rewards unmoral behavior with promotions, I wonder if such that behavior doesn't simply become the norm and moral people either quit or do not take up the job in the first place.
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
So, if a rip-off gang accosts you in the streets some night, and one of the low level flunkies clonks you over the head and takes your money while the gang leader watches, you wouldn't defend yourself? Because it's not his fault?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Consider that he is likely in the gang to protect his little siblings. You don't even want to know what happens to a younger sister when their older brother doesn't join a gang for protection. And if he didn't attack you... well let's just say gangs can be very creative in their methods of punishment. If anything, the low level flunky has far more to lose than just a pay check, so if anything, their behavior would be more justified (if you go with the logic).

by jasode 11y ago

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>For each of those situations, I'm annoyed but it's not necessary for me to socially shame the low-level workers with rants about obesity and high-fat consumption, the dangers of privacy invasion and identity theft, and the financial foolishness of 3rd-party warranties. And yet, if we did that to such an extent that most people couldn't work those jobs with those policies, would not society be better off as a whole? >Waging war with those low-level employees seems like fighting the wrong layer. Speaking of war, the general way it goes is that you shoot the soldiers even though they are just following orders and there are a dozen more to take their place. Ideally taking out the general would be best, but when not given the opportunity to do so you target the highest ranking person in front of you, even if that is the lowly private who is on the same level as you.

Merad 11y ago
> And yet, if we did that to such an extent that most people couldn't work those jobs with those policies, would not society be better off as a whole? Your attitude isn't just out of touch with reality, it's somewhere between 'callous and unsympathetic' and 'sociopathic.' Roughly 95% of the people who work in crappy low-wage jobs like fast food or call centers already hate their jobs. They already hate what their employers tell them they have to do. They aren't there because they love cold calling strangers or asking you to upgrade your meal by 1000 calories, they're there because they need a paycheck and have little other alternative. I can only speak from personal experience regarding call centers, but I imagine fast food isn't very different. Most people absolutely do get out of those jobs as fast as they can. In the call center I worked at, average tenure was 6 months if not less (that's exactly how long I lasted, FWIW). And you know what? Every time a person walks out the door, someone else walks in to take their place, because the world has no shortage of desperate people. Taking the stance of 'we should torture these people as much as possible because we don't have access to their employers' is bad enough, but to smugly claim that it's really for their own good and the good of society is frankly disturbing.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Your attitude isn't just out of touch with reality, it's somewhere between 'callous and unsympathetic' and 'sociopathic.' As is needed of any soldier killing a guy who doesn't want to be there just as much as they don't. Probably the most sociopathic thing I did today was I just ate a Butterfingers candy bar, made by Nestle, and thus likely involved child slavery, which I funded by buying the candy bar. But I do think my informed apathy is a step up from ignorant bliss. >Roughly 95% of the people who work in crappy low-wage jobs like fast food or call centers already hate their jobs. They already hate what their employers tell them they have to do. They aren't there because they love cold calling strangers or asking you to upgrade your meal by 1000 calories, they're there because they need a paycheck and have little other alternative. And if their work isn't a net harm for me, I'll try try to make their day more pleasant. But when I'm at the local cell store again because another family member was lied to about their contract, or when you just interrupted my concentration while solving some problem to try to get me to sign up for some service that will be near impossible to cancel and which comes with more fine print than my employment contract, then I am not going to excuse you just because you did such for money. >Taking the stance of 'we should torture these people as much as possible because we don't have access to their employers' is bad enough, but to smugly claim that it's really for their own good and the good of society is frankly disturbing. >torture I found the bug.

coldpie 11y ago

> The workers vs owners distinction is the same for fast-food cashiers asking "do you want to Super Size that?", or Radio Shack employee asking for my phone number, or a retail employee trying to sell me an "extended warranty". Each of your examples is providing me with a service; making food, ringing up my order, charging my card, or otherwise servicing the store of which I'm a customer. I'm happy to allow them some room for corporate bullshit, because they're also doing something I want them to do. What does a telemarketer do for me?

leephillips 11y ago

"Those workers are just cogs in a wheel" How does your analysis translate to soldiers who are ordered to torture prisoners? Or Dickens-style juvenile pickpockets?

belorn 11y ago

Listening on lenny bot (A older and more basic bot with plenty of recordings on youtube), I wonder how common it is for those working at telemarketing to start down the slippery slope of scamming. A question that the game paper please asked, is how plausible it is for a person living near staving condition to give up on their own income on the basis of morals. If at the same time you are working in a environment which directly rewards unmoral behavior with promotions, I wonder if such that behavior doesn't simply become the norm and moral people either quit or do not take up the job in the first place.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

So, if a rip-off gang accosts you in the streets some night, and one of the low level flunkies clonks you over the head and takes your money while the gang leader watches, you wouldn't defend yourself? Because it's not his fault?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Consider that he is likely in the gang to protect his little siblings. You don't even want to know what happens to a younger sister when their older brother doesn't join a gang for protection. And if he didn't attack you... well let's just say gangs can be very creative in their methods of punishment. If anything, the low level flunky has far more to lose than just a pay check, so if anything, their behavior would be more justified (if you go with the logic).