3 ms·

> A thing I got pissed off at a while ago was reactions to someone talking about having weekly one-on-ones with his wife My guess is that it would have gone ov

> A thing I got pissed off at a while ago was reactions to someone talking about having weekly one-on-ones with his wife My guess is that it would have gone over a lot better if the person had stated that he had weekly scheduled dates with his wife. > When someone tries to do something good and we don't think it's the right thing, we punish them. Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions and cultures condemn things like that. Do good for its own sake, not to be rewarded and praised by your peers. I think a lot of the issues the author describes are a backlash from oversharing.

cwojno 6y ago
Example of author's point?
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  I think it is, yes.
matt_morgan 6y ago
You don't know that there was oversharing. Or in any case, consider situations in which they're not oversharing. Everything he says might still be true in those cases. So your argument kind of slides around the point, it doesn't counter it. The author is using a blunt kind of language that may encourage us to disagree. You're right that it could be said better ("date" is a good example). But there's still truth in it.
quadrifoliate 6y ago
> Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions and cultures condemn things like that. Most religions are built upon stories of other people's good deeds. It seems hardly fair to disallow people from airing their own :)
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Most religions are built on third-party narratives of other people's good deeds; it's absolutely self-consistent for them to have negative view of first-party narrative of the same topic.
greenshackle2 6y ago
I'm guessing a "one-on-one" is more like a relationship check-in than a date. It's possible they just didn't know the term "relationship check-in" and reached for a term they know. Using business-speak to describe personal relationships sounds wrong but conceptually one-on-ones and check-ins are not that far off.

cwojno 6y ago

Example of author's point?

hundchenkatze 6y ago
I think it is, yes.

matt_morgan 6y ago

You don't know that there was oversharing. Or in any case, consider situations in which they're not oversharing. Everything he says might still be true in those cases. So your argument kind of slides around the point, it doesn't counter it. The author is using a blunt kind of language that may encourage us to disagree. You're right that it could be said better ("date" is a good example). But there's still truth in it.

quadrifoliate 6y ago

> Why are you announcing your good deeds to the whole world? A lot of religions and cultures condemn things like that. Most religions are built upon stories of other people's good deeds. It seems hardly fair to disallow people from airing their own :)

dragonwriter 6y ago
Most religions are built on third-party narratives of other people's good deeds; it's absolutely self-consistent for them to have negative view of first-party narrative of the same topic.

greenshackle2 6y ago

I'm guessing a "one-on-one" is more like a relationship check-in than a date. It's possible they just didn't know the term "relationship check-in" and reached for a term they know. Using business-speak to describe personal relationships sounds wrong but conceptually one-on-ones and check-ins are not that far off.