4 ms·

There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Some people named Bob started to complain, but some other empl

There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Some people named Bob started to complain, but some other employees liked the rule. It was causing a stir, so I as CEO decided to prohibit any discussion on the matter. Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group. The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place. QED?

throwaway0xc 6y ago
This strawman is so huge it experienced autoignition. >There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Your logic breaks down in your first sentence. No one is gagging company internal politics that pertains to their corporate charter and mission, rules, regulations, etc. Quite the contrary, they're actually opening that up and flattening the hierarchy. If anything your example only proves my point further (if you actually bothered to real TFA). >QED? QED for me yes, thanks.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. > It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED. The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.
  - throwaway0xc 6y ago
    >It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed. >I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before every table meal. The "default" state is fair. The fact of the matter is multiple different "default status quos" exists. >The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. Except the straw man because internal company dealings are not gagged. >According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral. Yes, external politics not related to work are gagged, which de facto makes it neutral.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Okay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway0xe 6y ago
        >A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Again, it's not specific topics, you're straw maning here. The societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor is because when they have a table meal, they kill babies. In this case the "status quo" is the morally correct approach. But still, it's not specific to company politics. >Neutral? Yes.

throwaway0xc 6y ago

This strawman is so huge it experienced autoignition. >There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Your logic breaks down in your first sentence. No one is gagging company internal politics that pertains to their corporate charter and mission, rules, regulations, etc. Quite the contrary, they're actually opening that up and flattening the hierarchy. If anything your example only proves my point further (if you actually bothered to real TFA). >QED? QED for me yes, thanks.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. > It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED. The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.
- throwaway0xc 6y ago
  >It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed. >I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before every table meal. The "default" state is fair. The fact of the matter is multiple different "default status quos" exists. >The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side. Except the straw man because internal company dealings are not gagged. >According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral. Yes, external politics not related to work are gagged, which de facto makes it neutral.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Okay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway0xe 6y ago
      >A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Again, it's not specific topics, you're straw maning here. The societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor is because when they have a table meal, they kill babies. In this case the "status quo" is the morally correct approach. But still, it's not specific to company politics. >Neutral? Yes.