3 ms·
> And conversely, you don’t get to assume that others understand you when you use language in ways that aren’t colloquial. Yep! It was a failure of all parties
by sagichmal 5y ago
> And conversely, you don’t get to assume that others understand you when you use language in ways that aren’t colloquial.
Yep! It was a failure of all parties involved that the two competing definitions of racism weren't laid out on the table, when people started getting huffy.
> Shared definitions is the bedrock of human communication, and absent that, we’re no better than chimps just grunting past each other.
(laughs) Lay it on thick, why don't you?
- bhupy 5y agoIt sounds like we agree! I will say that from the transcripts (and from the way conversations have been going in this thread), the way this usually starts is that one party unilaterally sets the rules of engagement and more or less demands that others accept those terms, and when the others push back on those rules, we all take a step back and admit “failure of all parties”. It would be a lot easier for us to collaborate on these problems if we can be honest with ourselves about who the aggressor is, and who’s caught on the defense in these kinds of heated exchanges in workplace debates.