3 ms·
I think it definitely stereotypes, but it’s a defense mechanism. I think it’s possible, but too risky to attempt. It’s a situation where the Times is clearly i
by prepend 6y ago
I think it definitely stereotypes, but it’s a defense mechanism. I think it’s possible, but too risky to attempt.
It’s a situation where the Times is clearly in the wrong, but this guy is out of a job. Because of the thoroughness of these posts and the references to lawyers, the best case is this guy gets millions after a few years of litigation.
But that’s why the reasonable action is to just avoid the risk. That’s easier than trying to fix teenagers, large orgs, etc
- mikeg8 6y agoA life lived avoiding all risks would be a miserable existence. Risk and vulnerability should be embraced, within reason. If we can't have discussion, what the hell is the point?
- asciident 6y agoIt's not black or white. You can have discussions with friends and family, in anonymous forums, in low-stakes social situations. Not at the workplace with sensitive colleagues, or in public on social media.
- prepend 6y agoDefinitely, I’m not suggesting avoiding all risks, just risks that are high and have minimal positive outcomes. We can have discussion, but trying to talk to privileged, rich teenagers about topics that require context and understanding falls into the high risk, low reward.