3 ms·

It's usually a matter of priorities. Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional

It's usually a matter of priorities. Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them. Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually harass women because 1 out of 10 times, it gets them laid. Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. Or they stop paying rent because there's an eviction moratorium, even though they could, because it saves them money and their landlord has no way to enforce agreements anyway. Or they sell drugs to children because they want money. Or they cut people down because it makes them feel big in the moment.

gotostatement 6y ago
Not to derail the conversation but I find it amusing to put sexual harassment in the same sentence as not paying rent
- monsieurbanana 6y ago
  And this is why nothing can ever be safely said on internet without putting huge disclaimers everywhere. "/!\ I do not mean to liken sexual harassment to rent default /!\".
  - gotostatement 6y ago
    Yeah I mean, it's not exactly a huge leap of logic based on reading the post. If it's a misunderstanding, that's just one of the perils of written communication, and this gives the author a chance to reply. The societal role of rent/landlords is an active political issue, far from consensus, so it's not just a nitpick to jump in on the implication. Noone is being cancelled
- nostrademons 6y ago
  I find it amusing that I can't tell whether you mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent or not paying rent is dramatically more serious than sexual harassment. Both examples - really all of the examples other than "selling drugs to children", which is from Breaking Bad - are taken from real-world conversations with people that basically said "What a jerk!" The person complaining about their non-paying tenant basically accepts sexual harassment as how the world works. The person (people really, it's a composite of a half-dozen or so conversations) complaining about the sexual harassers would likely find nothing wrong with a tenant skipping out on rent. Both are women, though a generation apart.
  - gotostatement 6y ago
    not worth getting into the nitty gritty but I'll just say that I mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ethbr0 6y ago
And I guess part of my question was that what you said (pretty close to my own understanding of the definitions) is predicated on piercing the veil of intent. Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us. And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The answer, then, is to not try to judge people you don't know. If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Who said anything about destroy? Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. And that's a pretty important distinction.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > Who said anything about destroy? Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding. > Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass. But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well. See also superrationality etc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
sellyme 6y ago
> Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  This is entirely contextual. It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery. Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.
  - sellyme 6y ago
    > It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole. I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  These are all examples where one party in the interaction has come away from it saying "What a jerk!" I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.
- 6y ago

gotostatement 6y ago

Not to derail the conversation but I find it amusing to put sexual harassment in the same sentence as not paying rent

monsieurbanana 6y ago
And this is why nothing can ever be safely said on internet without putting huge disclaimers everywhere. "/!\ I do not mean to liken sexual harassment to rent default /!\".
- gotostatement 6y ago
  Yeah I mean, it's not exactly a huge leap of logic based on reading the post. If it's a misunderstanding, that's just one of the perils of written communication, and this gives the author a chance to reply. The societal role of rent/landlords is an active political issue, far from consensus, so it's not just a nitpick to jump in on the implication. Noone is being cancelled
nostrademons 6y ago
I find it amusing that I can't tell whether you mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent or not paying rent is dramatically more serious than sexual harassment. Both examples - really all of the examples other than "selling drugs to children", which is from Breaking Bad - are taken from real-world conversations with people that basically said "What a jerk!" The person complaining about their non-paying tenant basically accepts sexual harassment as how the world works. The person (people really, it's a composite of a half-dozen or so conversations) complaining about the sexual harassers would likely find nothing wrong with a tenant skipping out on rent. Both are women, though a generation apart.
- gotostatement 6y ago
  not worth getting into the nitty gritty but I'll just say that I mean sexual harassment is dramatically more serious than not paying rent

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ethbr0 6y ago

And I guess part of my question was that what you said (pretty close to my own understanding of the definitions) is predicated on piercing the veil of intent. Versus most of the time, people who we don't know well do things for reasons that are inscrutable to us. And we're left to judge solely on that basis of that information.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The answer, then, is to not try to judge people you don't know. If you're not invested in someone enough to understand them, why should you be invested in them enough to try to destroy them?
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Who said anything about destroy? Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. And that's a pretty important distinction.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Who said anything about destroy? Some jerk named Twitter is my understanding. > Truly for my own self-benefit, I often need to make decisions (e.g. with work colleagues, customers, strangers) on whether someone is (a) malicious or (b) misunderstood. I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This sorts itself out with any kind of long-term relationship because then you get to know them well enough to tell whether or not they're an ass. But the first time you meet someone, it's prisoner's dilemma. Everybody defaulting to defect because you're afraid the other guy might be doing the same thing is not going to end well. See also superrationality etc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality

sellyme 6y ago

> Or they care more about being right than being diplomatic. This doesn't seem like particularly assholeish behaviour. Caring more about being perceived as right (even when erroneously), sure, but if the person is actually right of course they should care more about that than diplomacy. Surely we have enough examples demonstrating the pitfalls of fostering a culture where the truth can be ignored if you don't like it.

joshuamorton 6y ago
This is entirely contextual. It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Failure to do so (often from a perspective that being right means one need not worry about diplomacy) is assholery. Note that this is also somewhat self fulfilling. If you do end up being wrong, you can not admit that, as it would make your behavior inexcusable, so even when incorrect, you feel the need to fight and bully the people correcting you, in hopes that they go away.
- sellyme 6y ago
  > It's also possible to be both correct and diplomatic, and to criticize diplomatically. Oh absolutely, but those are both totally compatible with someone who "care[s] more about being right than being diplomatic". It's if they didn't care about being diplomatic at all that they'd be an asshole. I perceived that specific quote as referring explicitly to situations where the two are mutually exclusive, in which case I believe that being right is by far the better option in most scenarios.
nostrademons 6y ago
These are all examples where one party in the interaction has come away from it saying "What a jerk!" I'm particularly partial to being right on the Internet rather than diplomatic, so I'll cop to being an asshole. But I wanted to make the point that different people have vastly different definitions of "asshole". Some people will recognize themselves in the examples; others will recognize the person they can't stand. Sometimes those people are one and the same.
6y ago