4 ms·
"Under the reasonable person principle, the first thing to do is work it out privately. [...] Indeed, many people would find it unreasonable to bring in third p
by exporectomy 5y ago
"Under the reasonable person principle, the first thing to do is work it out privately. [...] Indeed, many people would find it unreasonable to bring in third parties before trying personal discussion."
Imagine if everyone getting angry at some group, strangers or neighbors followed that advice. It's also the recommendation from my government for disputes about tenancy, trade, employment, etc.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoIt works well with reasonable people, but it has some flaws: - unreasonable people will not doubt themself, but reasonable people will. So this discussion has a tendency to turn in favor of the unreasonable. - unreasonable persons will make you pay for not being on their side. Coming to them gives them a heads up for doing that. - you usually have less problems with reasonable people, so if you do have a problem, there is more chance the opposite party is not reasonable, and hence risking point 1 or 2. So I'd say, "test if the opposite side is reasonable with a smaller grievance first".
- hbl 5y agoIt is the persons who depict themselves as reasonable on woke mailing lists and forums who will make you pay if you don't affirm their religion every day. They are also pushy (which is never accepted as a grievance) and dominant KPI grabbing assholes.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoYeah, that's also part of the "doubt" dichotomy: if you are reasonable, you will ask yourself "am I unreasonable?" while unreasonable people will be certain they are being reasonable.
- krageon 5y agoYou are essentially saying the opposite of the article without any real information about what you're basing your decision on (except for apparently a hate of reasonable people and all that you believe they stand for). You're not going to change anyone's mind that way, was that what you were going for?
- Applejinx 5y agoThey're an existence proof of why the reasonable person principle doesn't work in practice. If you assume this is performative, it's an exploit to control the environment the RPP is in. If it's authentic, then it's a person who cannot bridge the gap to meet the reasonable people, therefore the reasonable people must comply with the demands of the authentic and aggrieved person. Probably best to assume that for MOST people, operating by a Reasonable Person Principle is best. You've got to account for outliers, though. You can't operate both a reasonable person principle, and total inclusivity, at the same time.
- shadowgovt 5y agoCorrect. And the unwritten rule (inside the unwritten rule, lol) about the CMU computer science culture is it's hyper-exclusive. It's a lot easier to assume reasonableness if there's a giant gate in front labeled Everyone Who Passes Through Here Has Gone Through The Admissions Process... and a giant slide in the back labeled That's A Nice Academic Career You Have, It'd Be A Shame If You Violated The Institution's Code of Conduct Similarly, the reasonable person principle tends to work in practice on this forum thanks to moderation, votes, and the extremely occasional ban. The parent of the comment you replied to is getting harder and harder to read as the day goes on.
- darkerside 5y agoThis makes it key to have a culture of reasonableness. Like an extended prisoners dilemma, if there are worse penalties for building a reputation for being unreasonable, people will be less likely to take that path.