4 ms·

resource is also more specific than people, that doesn't obviate it from being dehumanizing.

nkrisc 7y ago
"Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. Of course, everything depends on context. Do you think in this context I was trying to dehumanize the people I was referring to? To what end?
- celticmusic 7y ago
  > "Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. This is such a poor thought process, and a strawman to boot. I never made any claims about causality between them. I pointed out you can't defend "stakeholder as dehumanizing" by claiming it's more specific and the example I used to demonstrate this was that "resource" is more specific than 'people', yet 'resource' is considered dehumanizing whereas 'people' is not. I'm not even going to bother answer your question. you're using stakeholder to mean "anyone in any way involved", much the way resource means "anyone I manage". That is not what that word means in agile vernacular. When you mean that, just say people. I've seen several people recently using it this way. Fast forward 5-10 years and people will be bitching about stakeholder being dehumanizing just like they do resource. Your usage is akin to calling a garbage truck driver a stakeholder in the city wide trash system. That's not how that word was meant to be used.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    Now I'm not sure if you were upset that I was dehumanizing them or that I was using a jargon-y term. I'm sensing it's really the latter, but just a guess. Is that word the only issue you took with what I wrote? I could change it for you.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      You continue to strawman, lets just end it here.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    “Resources” is dehumanizing because it reduces people to consumed production inputs. “Stakeholders” elevates people to active actors whose needs must be considered and addressed. It isn't dehumanizing, because instead of denying agency as “resources” does, it specifically recognizes and emphasizes agency.
randallsquared 7y ago
Resource is less specific, not more.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  Haha! True
- celticmusic 7y ago
  This is not true. An IT manager who says resource certainly isn't referring to the garbageman, but if he says people he may well be.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    But he also might be talking about money or computers. "Stakeholders" is (usually seen as?) a subset of "people", whereas the modifier in "human resources" is very much not redundant.
loco5niner 7y ago
Saying 'stakeholders' in this context is like saying 'engineers' or 'doctors'. Doesn't make them less human. It's just specifying a role they are taking.

"Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. Of course, everything depends on context. Do you think in this context I was trying to dehumanize the people I was referring to? To what end?

celticmusic 7y ago
> "Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. This is such a poor thought process, and a strawman to boot. I never made any claims about causality between them. I pointed out you can't defend "stakeholder as dehumanizing" by claiming it's more specific and the example I used to demonstrate this was that "resource" is more specific than 'people', yet 'resource' is considered dehumanizing whereas 'people' is not. I'm not even going to bother answer your question. you're using stakeholder to mean "anyone in any way involved", much the way resource means "anyone I manage". That is not what that word means in agile vernacular. When you mean that, just say people. I've seen several people recently using it this way. Fast forward 5-10 years and people will be bitching about stakeholder being dehumanizing just like they do resource. Your usage is akin to calling a garbage truck driver a stakeholder in the city wide trash system. That's not how that word was meant to be used.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Now I'm not sure if you were upset that I was dehumanizing them or that I was using a jargon-y term. I'm sensing it's really the latter, but just a guess. Is that word the only issue you took with what I wrote? I could change it for you.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    You continue to strawman, lets just end it here.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  “Resources” is dehumanizing because it reduces people to consumed production inputs. “Stakeholders” elevates people to active actors whose needs must be considered and addressed. It isn't dehumanizing, because instead of denying agency as “resources” does, it specifically recognizes and emphasizes agency.

randallsquared 7y ago

Resource is less specific, not more.

loco5niner 7y ago
Haha! True
celticmusic 7y ago
This is not true. An IT manager who says resource certainly isn't referring to the garbageman, but if he says people he may well be.
- dllthomas 7y ago
  But he also might be talking about money or computers. "Stakeholders" is (usually seen as?) a subset of "people", whereas the modifier in "human resources" is very much not redundant.

loco5niner 7y ago

Saying 'stakeholders' in this context is like saying 'engineers' or 'doctors'. Doesn't make them less human. It's just specifying a role they are taking.