4 ms·

I'm not sure what you're "correcting" in the original post. The only difference I see is that the author said Marissa removed the turnstiles after reading an e

by freyir 10y ago

I'm not sure what you're "correcting" in the original post. The only difference I see is that the author said Marissa removed the turnstiles after reading an email complaint, and you say she removed the turnstiles after looking at them.

smhost 10y ago
The framing is different. In one frame she appears to care about the QoL of her employees, in the other she doesn't necessary care about that so much as she cares about efficiency and her personal comfort. http://i.imgur.com/LRGZRTO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LRGZRTO.jpg
- freyir 10y ago
  It's an interpretation based on speculation, not a correction. She might have looked at the turnstile and thought, "This is probably annoying to the other employees, so it has to go." We don't know, and 1024core doesn't know. Or maybe the OP was correct, and an email complaint really did contribute to the decision. Without further evidence, or unless 1024core is actually Marissa Meyer, we simply don't know.
  - smhost 10y ago
    Speculation is how we judge other people, and our social space doesn't have objective truths. Narratives are all there is, so narratives are what matter most. It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality.
    - freyir 10y ago
      > It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality. You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation, unless there's some grounding in evidence and objective truth. Core1024 may have evidence that supports his interpretation, but he didn't present it. As such, it doesn't qualify as a correction.
      - smhost 10y ago
        > You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation But that's how people use the word, that's what politics is. There are no objective truths to social narrative, and facts aren't the only things that have the property of correctness. Perspectives have correctness, as in moral perspectives etc. It's not an objective scale, but people don't have to conduct their lives scientistically.
        freyir 10y ago
        You've now brought value judgement and morality into the discussion, and neither apply here. The blogger said Meyer acted on an email complaint about the turnstiles. The commenter said that's incorrect, that Meyer decided to have them removed on her own accord. There's no value judgement. There's no appeal to moral authority. It's not politics. Core1024 is claiming to be objectively correct about Meyer's internal motivation for removing the turnstile. In this case, it's acceptable to ask: what evidence do you have? If he says "She told me herself" or "It was a water cooler rumor," then great, we have our answer. If he says, "It's my strong suspicion based on [...]," then he passed off suspicion as fact. And if he says, "There is no evidence, this is a social narrative I've constructed without regard to objective truth," then we have a serious problem.
        smhost 10y ago
        I've brought neither value judgment nor morality. I merely said that it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness, just as it's legit to think about moral philosophies as having degrees of correctness. It's fine if you want say, "I don't believe you," and that would be a valid interpretation on your part. But it is politics in the true sense, and you're participating in it with this conversation. You're attempting to assert that your interpretation of a word or a concept or a situation is correct and that mine is not, even though there are no objective truths to be said about either perspective. As far as I can tell, OP doesn't claim that he is correcting the specific fact-claim about the turnstiles but that he is correcting the anecdotes as a whole. What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes, not any particulars facts inside them.
  - 1024core 10y ago
    Actually, I heard it from her directly that she was appalled at the barriers, and wanted them to go. Now, whether it was in a TGIF or in person, I don't recall.
1024core 10y ago
I meant no offense by issuing the correction. I heard it from MM's mouth that she wanted to get rid of these barriers to entering Yahoo. My point, which is minor, is that she evaluated the situation herself and made a decision to get rid of the barriers, rather than responding to someone's complaint.

by freyir 10y ago

smhost 10y ago

The framing is different. In one frame she appears to care about the QoL of her employees, in the other she doesn't necessary care about that so much as she cares about efficiency and her personal comfort. http://i.imgur.com/LRGZRTO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LRGZRTO.jpg

freyir 10y ago
It's an interpretation based on speculation, not a correction. She might have looked at the turnstile and thought, "This is probably annoying to the other employees, so it has to go." We don't know, and 1024core doesn't know. Or maybe the OP was correct, and an email complaint really did contribute to the decision. Without further evidence, or unless 1024core is actually Marissa Meyer, we simply don't know.
- smhost 10y ago
  Speculation is how we judge other people, and our social space doesn't have objective truths. Narratives are all there is, so narratives are what matter most. It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality.
  - freyir 10y ago
    > It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality. You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation, unless there's some grounding in evidence and objective truth. Core1024 may have evidence that supports his interpretation, but he didn't present it. As such, it doesn't qualify as a correction.
    - smhost 10y ago
      > You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation But that's how people use the word, that's what politics is. There are no objective truths to social narrative, and facts aren't the only things that have the property of correctness. Perspectives have correctness, as in moral perspectives etc. It's not an objective scale, but people don't have to conduct their lives scientistically.
      - freyir 10y ago
        You've now brought value judgement and morality into the discussion, and neither apply here. The blogger said Meyer acted on an email complaint about the turnstiles. The commenter said that's incorrect, that Meyer decided to have them removed on her own accord. There's no value judgement. There's no appeal to moral authority. It's not politics. Core1024 is claiming to be objectively correct about Meyer's internal motivation for removing the turnstile. In this case, it's acceptable to ask: what evidence do you have? If he says "She told me herself" or "It was a water cooler rumor," then great, we have our answer. If he says, "It's my strong suspicion based on [...]," then he passed off suspicion as fact. And if he says, "There is no evidence, this is a social narrative I've constructed without regard to objective truth," then we have a serious problem.
        smhost 10y ago
        I've brought neither value judgment nor morality. I merely said that it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness, just as it's legit to think about moral philosophies as having degrees of correctness. It's fine if you want say, "I don't believe you," and that would be a valid interpretation on your part. But it is politics in the true sense, and you're participating in it with this conversation. You're attempting to assert that your interpretation of a word or a concept or a situation is correct and that mine is not, even though there are no objective truths to be said about either perspective. As far as I can tell, OP doesn't claim that he is correcting the specific fact-claim about the turnstiles but that he is correcting the anecdotes as a whole. What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes, not any particulars facts inside them.
- 1024core 10y ago
  Actually, I heard it from her directly that she was appalled at the barriers, and wanted them to go. Now, whether it was in a TGIF or in person, I don't recall.

1024core 10y ago

I meant no offense by issuing the correction. I heard it from MM's mouth that she wanted to get rid of these barriers to entering Yahoo. My point, which is minor, is that she evaluated the situation herself and made a decision to get rid of the barriers, rather than responding to someone's complaint.