2 ms·

> Last time I did the same I lost the ability to vouch. Shoot an email to the mods, I'm sure they'll restore it. Looking at rebootthesystem's previous comment

> Last time I did the same I lost the ability to vouch. Shoot an email to the mods, I'm sure they'll restore it. Looking at rebootthesystem's previous comments, a couple are a bit heated but in general it's decent quality. I've made worse comments than that one without getting flagged myself; assuming good faith goes a long way.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
People are just too sensitive these days. Calling bullshit for what it is without going around in circles not to offend anyone used to have a name: Being honest. These days people are so delicate that get offended by straight talk and "flag" you. I wonder if they realize the facts don't change at all. Every time I run into these kinds of situations I remember that my grandparents survived a Genocide. People are so incredibly delicate these days that we can't even engage in straight talk. My grandparents didn't have to face words, they had to face reality, a brutal reality. Guess what, they ended-up being fine.
- tempestn 10y ago
  Calling bullshit might not the best approach if you want to convince others to see things the same way though. Could you lead with your reasoning, rather than by outright dismissing the original argument? (Especially using a term like 'bullshit', or even 'hippie logic' that's likely to shut people down from considering your points, whether that makes them delicate or not.) Just putting myself in the parent commenter's shoes, if I expressed my thoughts regarding the study, and read the response that my position was hippie talk without merit, my natural reaction wouldn't be to reconsider my position.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago
    There is nothing whatsoever wrong with labeling nonsense as such. If it is nonsense it is nonsense. We can devote five paragraphs to describing it in a number of styles of prose and it would still be nonsense. Sometimes I want to call nonsense nonsense and bullshit bullshit. I have those days. We all do. Today was one of them. I am not going to apologize for something adults ought to be perfectly capable of dealing with. So much time wasted focusing on the style of the message rather than the argument itself. That's a choice made by the reader. Just like someone listening to rap music can choose to conclude it is foul crap and ignore the underlying messages, which may or may not be valid. The reader (or listener) makes the choice. I have yet to see a solid argument showing that the statement I responded to was nothing more than nonsense. I repeat it here for convenience: > Then again, the hours that were cut also wouldn't have to be paid to the people not working them. In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. Slicing it up and paraphrasing: "they would have received a 25% cut in pay" "they would have to hire more people to make up for the deficit in man-hours" "people would be happier" "employment would increase" So: We pass a law that says "people can only work six hours". Everyone loses 25% of their pay. Whole households. Companies still need to make widgets so they run more shifts and hire more people. Yet now entire households have a severe income deficit. People are forced to make ends meet and either work double shifts or look for a second job. This does not lead to happier employees, happy families, good family life, well-cared-for kids, etc. And so, the statement is nonsense. People get paid less, work more and are miserable. They are not going to be happy and the higher employment numbers are fake and useless. This is as close to nonsense as one can get and yes, it'd take a very unique state of mind to think this a sensible idea. Offensive? So be it. It happens to be the truth.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  I find it odd you use your grandparents (horrible) experience (I'm assuming in WWII?) to bolster your argument. Not sure what that has to do with being needlessly antagonistic. And using terms like "bullshit" and "hippie logic" and calling that "being honest" does not serve the discussion, rather whatever need your ego has to invalidate the expressions of others.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  I think it was the "hippie" epithet that upset people (using the name of a group of people as an insult, on top of the original insult, is not likely to go well here). People who advocate for shorter work weeks are genuinely concerned about the big picture, long-term effects of overwork. You might get more traction if you recognize that and explain that maybe they're missing some essential little picture, short-term details, rather than dismissing and insulting their views.
- twblalock 10y ago
  You aren't a martyr for free speech or the free exchange of ideas. You're just rude. You could have easily made the same arguments in a constructive way rather than leading with insults. Despite what your grandparents have been through, I bet they'd slap you if you spoke to them as rudely as the way you've addressed everyone here.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  "Offending people" isn't "being honest" or vice versa. If they seem to go hand in hand, that's failure on the part of the communicator almost 100% of the time. There are tons of people who are totally honest all the time, who somehow manage to not offend random people when interacting with them. It can be done, it's not magic.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago
    No. You are wrong. Being offended is one of those really weird states of mind. It is purely one that is created by the person who becomes offended. For example, in some cultures crossing your arms while someone is talking to you can be deemed offensive. In other cultures burping is perfectly fine while in others it is not acceptable. Leaving cultures behind, people, individuals, become offended for a huge variety of things and it varies from person to person. The difference here (and other fora) is that those who choose to be offended pile on and engage in down-vote wars that are utterly meaningless. Being offended serves exactly zero purpose and does nothing whatsoever to the facts. The facts in this case are that a national reduction of hours work --for everyone, not just someone's wife-- is a nonsensical and destructive an idea as can be. You can't force something like that without severe consequences. The "hippie on dope" comment was merely a colorful way to describe the state of mine someone would have to be in to think that this is a good idea at a national level. And people get offended. Hilarious.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      You don't seem to be getting this. It's not about "getting offended". I told you to tone it down because your comment is unnecessarily hostile. If you, as you say, didn't intend it to be hostile you should take my comment even more seriously: You're coming across as increasingly hostile and rude in each new post you wrote. Calling somebody a hippie with hippie logic just because you disagree with it? That's not a reasonable thing to do. It's not something I, or I'm sure even the person you were talking to, got offended about - it's just unnecessary and veers the discussion from "friendly chat" to "argument where everyone has their guards up". That's not ok, nobody wants HN to be that. If you think this isn't a reasonable think to ask, then what are you doing here?
scrollaway 10y ago
Welp, guess I was wrong.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Assuming you're referring to the discussion that followed your vouch, I know people who talk like that comment in person, and their tone of voice and body language makes it clear that they're reasonable and genuine people just with a different vocabulary. But it's impossible to tell online, with only text.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Indeed. I find I take extra care to review what I've written with an eye towards how it could be interpreted uncharitably. I'd rather not waste time and good will working through any misunderstandings.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I'm just a little sad some people don't understand the difference between "being offended" and simply not wanting a default-hostile tone on a discussion forum.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago
    The problem isn't vocabulary. It's lack of logic. We are talking about something that is nonsense. What are we talking about? People ought to be able to work no more than six hours a day. Really? Why does anyone work eight? Or ten? Or twelve? Did this 8 to 10 hour per day thing get sprung on people and forced upon them from nowhere? No. Of course not. It's something that achieved a "natural" balance over decades (centuries?). And the balance has hundreds of variables driving it. From personal happiness to international competitiveness and productivity with even more variables across varied industries and cultures. Nonsense is picking a number out of thin air, be it six or four hours and proclaiming that, not only will this work but it will result in happiness and a real improvement in employment figures. It's like going into an ecosystem with some balance and killing off all the rats. There will be consequences. And they will likely not be positive. You can't force a nation into a six hour work day without leaving behind measurable destruction. And this destruction would range from the personal (individual, family, kids, social groups) to corporate and national. You just can't do that and expect positive results. This isn't about not liking the idea of working less and devoting more time to "living life". No, this has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the reality that these decisions exist in the reality of a very complex local, regional, national and international competitive marketplace. A change of the sort being discussed would forcefully move away from a balanced position that allows everyone to earn a reasonable living, companies to remain viable while facing a myriad of competitors operating under different rules and society to function. And so, proposing that people would be happy while facing a massive change in their standard of living, their ability to save for their future, feed their kids, take trips, have free time (because they will need two jobs), etc. simply isn't in alignment with reality. To further propose that this would also improve employment is equally misplaced because this metric --the number of people being employed-- isn't a measure of anything other than a head count. A more useful measurement would combine head count with standard of living, savings rate, leisure time, quality of child care, etc. These conclusions are faulty to such an extent that suggesting this approach would work could only be done from a less than lucid frame of mind. In other words, it's nonsense and you'd have to be on dope to believe it would actually make society better. Could we make such a thing work? Yes, we could. How? Through massive global changes that are likely to require centuries to achieve. In other words, Star Trek territory. Not impossible, but, today, highly improbable because it would require dozens of nations to agree on terms and coordinate such changes over extended periods of time while making significant concessions.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

People are just too sensitive these days. Calling bullshit for what it is without going around in circles not to offend anyone used to have a name: Being honest. These days people are so delicate that get offended by straight talk and "flag" you. I wonder if they realize the facts don't change at all. Every time I run into these kinds of situations I remember that my grandparents survived a Genocide. People are so incredibly delicate these days that we can't even engage in straight talk. My grandparents didn't have to face words, they had to face reality, a brutal reality. Guess what, they ended-up being fine.

tempestn 10y ago
Calling bullshit might not the best approach if you want to convince others to see things the same way though. Could you lead with your reasoning, rather than by outright dismissing the original argument? (Especially using a term like 'bullshit', or even 'hippie logic' that's likely to shut people down from considering your points, whether that makes them delicate or not.) Just putting myself in the parent commenter's shoes, if I expressed my thoughts regarding the study, and read the response that my position was hippie talk without merit, my natural reaction wouldn't be to reconsider my position.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  There is nothing whatsoever wrong with labeling nonsense as such. If it is nonsense it is nonsense. We can devote five paragraphs to describing it in a number of styles of prose and it would still be nonsense. Sometimes I want to call nonsense nonsense and bullshit bullshit. I have those days. We all do. Today was one of them. I am not going to apologize for something adults ought to be perfectly capable of dealing with. So much time wasted focusing on the style of the message rather than the argument itself. That's a choice made by the reader. Just like someone listening to rap music can choose to conclude it is foul crap and ignore the underlying messages, which may or may not be valid. The reader (or listener) makes the choice. I have yet to see a solid argument showing that the statement I responded to was nothing more than nonsense. I repeat it here for convenience: > Then again, the hours that were cut also wouldn't have to be paid to the people not working them. In a perfect situation this would have led to higher employment numbers and happier employees. Slicing it up and paraphrasing: "they would have received a 25% cut in pay" "they would have to hire more people to make up for the deficit in man-hours" "people would be happier" "employment would increase" So: We pass a law that says "people can only work six hours". Everyone loses 25% of their pay. Whole households. Companies still need to make widgets so they run more shifts and hire more people. Yet now entire households have a severe income deficit. People are forced to make ends meet and either work double shifts or look for a second job. This does not lead to happier employees, happy families, good family life, well-cared-for kids, etc. And so, the statement is nonsense. People get paid less, work more and are miserable. They are not going to be happy and the higher employment numbers are fake and useless. This is as close to nonsense as one can get and yes, it'd take a very unique state of mind to think this a sensible idea. Offensive? So be it. It happens to be the truth.
chillwaves 10y ago
I find it odd you use your grandparents (horrible) experience (I'm assuming in WWII?) to bolster your argument. Not sure what that has to do with being needlessly antagonistic. And using terms like "bullshit" and "hippie logic" and calling that "being honest" does not serve the discussion, rather whatever need your ego has to invalidate the expressions of others.
nitrogen 10y ago
I think it was the "hippie" epithet that upset people (using the name of a group of people as an insult, on top of the original insult, is not likely to go well here). People who advocate for shorter work weeks are genuinely concerned about the big picture, long-term effects of overwork. You might get more traction if you recognize that and explain that maybe they're missing some essential little picture, short-term details, rather than dismissing and insulting their views.
twblalock 10y ago
You aren't a martyr for free speech or the free exchange of ideas. You're just rude. You could have easily made the same arguments in a constructive way rather than leading with insults. Despite what your grandparents have been through, I bet they'd slap you if you spoke to them as rudely as the way you've addressed everyone here.
mwfunk 10y ago
"Offending people" isn't "being honest" or vice versa. If they seem to go hand in hand, that's failure on the part of the communicator almost 100% of the time. There are tons of people who are totally honest all the time, who somehow manage to not offend random people when interacting with them. It can be done, it's not magic.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  No. You are wrong. Being offended is one of those really weird states of mind. It is purely one that is created by the person who becomes offended. For example, in some cultures crossing your arms while someone is talking to you can be deemed offensive. In other cultures burping is perfectly fine while in others it is not acceptable. Leaving cultures behind, people, individuals, become offended for a huge variety of things and it varies from person to person. The difference here (and other fora) is that those who choose to be offended pile on and engage in down-vote wars that are utterly meaningless. Being offended serves exactly zero purpose and does nothing whatsoever to the facts. The facts in this case are that a national reduction of hours work --for everyone, not just someone's wife-- is a nonsensical and destructive an idea as can be. You can't force something like that without severe consequences. The "hippie on dope" comment was merely a colorful way to describe the state of mine someone would have to be in to think that this is a good idea at a national level. And people get offended. Hilarious.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    You don't seem to be getting this. It's not about "getting offended". I told you to tone it down because your comment is unnecessarily hostile. If you, as you say, didn't intend it to be hostile you should take my comment even more seriously: You're coming across as increasingly hostile and rude in each new post you wrote. Calling somebody a hippie with hippie logic just because you disagree with it? That's not a reasonable thing to do. It's not something I, or I'm sure even the person you were talking to, got offended about - it's just unnecessary and veers the discussion from "friendly chat" to "argument where everyone has their guards up". That's not ok, nobody wants HN to be that. If you think this isn't a reasonable think to ask, then what are you doing here?

scrollaway 10y ago

Welp, guess I was wrong.

nitrogen 10y ago
Assuming you're referring to the discussion that followed your vouch, I know people who talk like that comment in person, and their tone of voice and body language makes it clear that they're reasonable and genuine people just with a different vocabulary. But it's impossible to tell online, with only text.
- grzm 10y ago
  Indeed. I find I take extra care to review what I've written with an eye towards how it could be interpreted uncharitably. I'd rather not waste time and good will working through any misunderstandings.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I'm just a little sad some people don't understand the difference between "being offended" and simply not wanting a default-hostile tone on a discussion forum.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  The problem isn't vocabulary. It's lack of logic. We are talking about something that is nonsense. What are we talking about? People ought to be able to work no more than six hours a day. Really? Why does anyone work eight? Or ten? Or twelve? Did this 8 to 10 hour per day thing get sprung on people and forced upon them from nowhere? No. Of course not. It's something that achieved a "natural" balance over decades (centuries?). And the balance has hundreds of variables driving it. From personal happiness to international competitiveness and productivity with even more variables across varied industries and cultures. Nonsense is picking a number out of thin air, be it six or four hours and proclaiming that, not only will this work but it will result in happiness and a real improvement in employment figures. It's like going into an ecosystem with some balance and killing off all the rats. There will be consequences. And they will likely not be positive. You can't force a nation into a six hour work day without leaving behind measurable destruction. And this destruction would range from the personal (individual, family, kids, social groups) to corporate and national. You just can't do that and expect positive results. This isn't about not liking the idea of working less and devoting more time to "living life". No, this has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the reality that these decisions exist in the reality of a very complex local, regional, national and international competitive marketplace. A change of the sort being discussed would forcefully move away from a balanced position that allows everyone to earn a reasonable living, companies to remain viable while facing a myriad of competitors operating under different rules and society to function. And so, proposing that people would be happy while facing a massive change in their standard of living, their ability to save for their future, feed their kids, take trips, have free time (because they will need two jobs), etc. simply isn't in alignment with reality. To further propose that this would also improve employment is equally misplaced because this metric --the number of people being employed-- isn't a measure of anything other than a head count. A more useful measurement would combine head count with standard of living, savings rate, leisure time, quality of child care, etc. These conclusions are faulty to such an extent that suggesting this approach would work could only be done from a less than lucid frame of mind. In other words, it's nonsense and you'd have to be on dope to believe it would actually make society better. Could we make such a thing work? Yes, we could. How? Through massive global changes that are likely to require centuries to achieve. In other words, Star Trek territory. Not impossible, but, today, highly improbable because it would require dozens of nations to agree on terms and coordinate such changes over extended periods of time while making significant concessions.