4 ms·

yeah but why is it necessary to do this? why not >> At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations betwe

yeah but why is it necessary to do this? why not >> At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial slurs towards each other and a threat of violence.

kbenson 9y ago
Not all racial slurs are equal in everyone's eyes. What some people consider racial slurs, others say out of ignorance (less common, in today's sensitive reaction to them). Consider "colored" compared to "nigger". Colored will definitely be seen by some as a racial slur, but to others it may be the appropriate for the time, not necessarily racially charged, correct terminology they initially learned. For that matter, "nigger" was a fairly neutral term originally, but changed over time, as the circumstances of the people it referred to changed and they preferred a different, less loaded moniker.
toephu2 9y ago
...does it really matter? I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information.
- thephyber 9y ago
  > I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information. At the risk of being equally pedantic... Does that really matter? And is there a company on Earth that will tell you everything with radical honesty? Is there any value in that? Does Tesla tell you how bad their batteries, plastics, or leathers are for the environment? No. They focus on the positive aspects of the product and the company. We prioritize and value what we need to know versus what we might like to know versus all of the other noise. And there is a lot of noise. Far too much noise for almost any of it to be useful. In fact, this is a tactic that large law firms use against small ones -- they DoS attack the small firms with too much paperwork during discovery in hopes that the small firm can't use it effectively and exhaust client expenses just trying to read through the material. I imagine it would just make it easier to build lawsuits against the radically honest companies and the only ones that survived would be the ones with the weasel words or diplomatic silence. Almost like a darwinism where the fitness function isn't relevant to any of the current economics that we observe or product features we care about. I find similar arguments against "political correctness" similarly tiring and fruitless.

kbenson 9y ago

Not all racial slurs are equal in everyone's eyes. What some people consider racial slurs, others say out of ignorance (less common, in today's sensitive reaction to them). Consider "colored" compared to "nigger". Colored will definitely be seen by some as a racial slur, but to others it may be the appropriate for the time, not necessarily racially charged, correct terminology they initially learned. For that matter, "nigger" was a fairly neutral term originally, but changed over time, as the circumstances of the people it referred to changed and they preferred a different, less loaded moniker.

toephu2 9y ago

...does it really matter? I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information.

thephyber 9y ago
> I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information. At the risk of being equally pedantic... Does that really matter? And is there a company on Earth that will tell you everything with radical honesty? Is there any value in that? Does Tesla tell you how bad their batteries, plastics, or leathers are for the environment? No. They focus on the positive aspects of the product and the company. We prioritize and value what we need to know versus what we might like to know versus all of the other noise. And there is a lot of noise. Far too much noise for almost any of it to be useful. In fact, this is a tactic that large law firms use against small ones -- they DoS attack the small firms with too much paperwork during discovery in hopes that the small firm can't use it effectively and exhaust client expenses just trying to read through the material. I imagine it would just make it easier to build lawsuits against the radically honest companies and the only ones that survived would be the ones with the weasel words or diplomatic silence. Almost like a darwinism where the fitness function isn't relevant to any of the current economics that we observe or product features we care about. I find similar arguments against "political correctness" similarly tiring and fruitless.