6 ms·

If my job were to be to subtract all traces of humanity from language about things that directly affect countless people, I’d consider that to be ghoulish even

If my job were to be to subtract all traces of humanity from language about things that directly affect countless people, I’d consider that to be ghoulish even though I was receiving a paycheck. The idea that my pointing out that something somebody said was distasteful is “a little bit silly” on the grounds that the author was paid to write those words seems… ghoulish?

xfhgjxcfgh 5y ago
You might want to avoid medical textbooks.
- newbie789 5y ago
  I’ve never read a JP Morgan medical text book, but that’s a salient point.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
How is not foreclosing on seriously delinquent US homeowners and letting people go about their lives and jobs (aka COVID run rampant) in the US any worse than not building housing for homeless people in Mexico and India and not making it a priority to vaccinate the entire global population on our own dime? Why is it so evil to not give thousands of dollars to US people - but it's fine to do to non US people?
- newbie789 5y ago
  What? Edit: I will clarify that I’ve obviously not brought up other countries covid responses. I’m literally asking why this completely new equivocation could possibly deserve my response. It’s a confusing question to me, so I’ll clarify: I do not care for this thought experiment. I did not solicit it nor will I help you out with your unrelated rhetoric.
clusterfish 5y ago
Sounds like you're just addicted to excessive political correctness and are shocked when it's absent from a report that has no place for it. The author's job is not to express moral stances that you agree with, but to provide accurate fact based estimates without ceremony, which they do well here.
- newbie789 5y ago
  This is a fascinating opinion that I’ve seen various forms of. I suppose it is objectively a fact that the author believes that increasing the supply of homeless people and allowing for the spread of a pandemic will help increase financial returns for some stakeholders. Stating the ” fact“ that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. Does the author have a crystal ball that shows various timelines, and he’s objectively reporting exactly what is shown? Or is this a human person with an opinion on the future from a specific viewpoint that’s necessarily influenced by his worldview?
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    > Stating the "fact" that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. The author is not advocating for what should be done. He's describing what he expects to happen, based on what X policy changes will affect Y result.
    - newbie789 5y ago
      You’re of the opinion that the author does have a crystal ball and is objectively relating what can be known about the future(s)? And he’s doing so in such a careful manner that he’s painstakingly taken immense care to ensure that his musings are not interpreted as prescriptive? That’s not my interpretation
      - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
        No, I don't think he is clairvoyant. He is making a forecast, a prediction about what might likely happen in the near future.
        newbie789 5y ago
        So the phrase “will require” is descriptive and not prescriptive? That’s news to me because I was of the opinion that the future, having not happened yet and has such has never been observed, cannot be objectively described. This whole premise of “It’s not his opinion, his brain is just so big that the awful things he outwardly advocates for should be considered facts about the future, which he’s capable of observing and commenting on due to his aforementioned big brain.” is nakedly designed to carry water for people that have semi-psychopathic opinions. For example, the opinion that there won’t be enough boats on the ocean unless the homeless population increases definitely sounds like some sort of superstitious hokum, but because it’s on a bank website it’s to be treated as if it’s as logically consequent as the laws of thermodynamics. This is beyond silly. It’s slapstick.
kristjansson 5y ago
I have trouble understanding what you'd prefer. Should this analysis be more concerned with (non-financial) human impacts? More concerned with impacts on the most affected/least privileged? Should it have been written by someone else? Should it not have been written at all? Should there be no demand for it?

xfhgjxcfgh 5y ago

You might want to avoid medical textbooks.

newbie789 5y ago
I’ve never read a JP Morgan medical text book, but that’s a salient point.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

How is not foreclosing on seriously delinquent US homeowners and letting people go about their lives and jobs (aka COVID run rampant) in the US any worse than not building housing for homeless people in Mexico and India and not making it a priority to vaccinate the entire global population on our own dime? Why is it so evil to not give thousands of dollars to US people - but it's fine to do to non US people?

newbie789 5y ago
What? Edit: I will clarify that I’ve obviously not brought up other countries covid responses. I’m literally asking why this completely new equivocation could possibly deserve my response. It’s a confusing question to me, so I’ll clarify: I do not care for this thought experiment. I did not solicit it nor will I help you out with your unrelated rhetoric.

clusterfish 5y ago

Sounds like you're just addicted to excessive political correctness and are shocked when it's absent from a report that has no place for it. The author's job is not to express moral stances that you agree with, but to provide accurate fact based estimates without ceremony, which they do well here.

newbie789 5y ago
This is a fascinating opinion that I’ve seen various forms of. I suppose it is objectively a fact that the author believes that increasing the supply of homeless people and allowing for the spread of a pandemic will help increase financial returns for some stakeholders. Stating the ” fact“ that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. Does the author have a crystal ball that shows various timelines, and he’s objectively reporting exactly what is shown? Or is this a human person with an opinion on the future from a specific viewpoint that’s necessarily influenced by his worldview?
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  > Stating the "fact" that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. The author is not advocating for what should be done. He's describing what he expects to happen, based on what X policy changes will affect Y result.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    You’re of the opinion that the author does have a crystal ball and is objectively relating what can be known about the future(s)? And he’s doing so in such a careful manner that he’s painstakingly taken immense care to ensure that his musings are not interpreted as prescriptive? That’s not my interpretation
    - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
      No, I don't think he is clairvoyant. He is making a forecast, a prediction about what might likely happen in the near future.
      - newbie789 5y ago
        So the phrase “will require” is descriptive and not prescriptive? That’s news to me because I was of the opinion that the future, having not happened yet and has such has never been observed, cannot be objectively described. This whole premise of “It’s not his opinion, his brain is just so big that the awful things he outwardly advocates for should be considered facts about the future, which he’s capable of observing and commenting on due to his aforementioned big brain.” is nakedly designed to carry water for people that have semi-psychopathic opinions. For example, the opinion that there won’t be enough boats on the ocean unless the homeless population increases definitely sounds like some sort of superstitious hokum, but because it’s on a bank website it’s to be treated as if it’s as logically consequent as the laws of thermodynamics. This is beyond silly. It’s slapstick.

kristjansson 5y ago

I have trouble understanding what you'd prefer. Should this analysis be more concerned with (non-financial) human impacts? More concerned with impacts on the most affected/least privileged? Should it have been written by someone else? Should it not have been written at all? Should there be no demand for it?