4 ms·

"Oh, they're not interested in going to this event, they probably think it's stupid." "He's always talked about working more with his hands, I probably shouldn

"Oh, they're not interested in going to this event, they probably think it's stupid." "He's always talked about working more with his hands, I probably shouldn't forward him this desk job that'd otherwise be perfect for his career progression." "She'd never date a loser like me."

fluoridation 5y ago
It seems like you're confusing "robbing" and "not giving opportunities".
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  "not giving opportunities for the expression of agency" doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same...
  - jerry1979 5y ago
    I agree that robbing someone of their agency sounds very important; however, if I make assumptions about how someone feels, that could rob them of a potential opportunity, or it could also give them a new opportunity depending on the nature of my assumption. Either way, their capacity to act (agency) remains intact. The very important phrasing, in my estimation, can lead people to neurotically question their feelings less they "rob" someone of the capacity to act. In reality, a more lax quip such as "assuming makes an ass out of u-&-me" gives people more breathing room for their lapses in judgement.
- mitchdoogle 5y ago
  In this context, "robbing" fits just fine. Merriam-Webster lists this as a definition of "rob": to deprive of something due, expected, or desired So to say you're "robbing someone of their agency" is the same as saying you're "depriving them of an opportunity to decide for themselves"
  - fluoridation 5y ago
    I think we've gotten too hung up on a specific word, but if you really want to bring the dictionary into this, are you saying you owe it to other people to give them as many possibilities to decide for themselves? I would have to disagree with that assertion.
    - mitchdoogle 5y ago
      Think about it in reverse. Suppose your boss is thinking of increasing your responsibilities along with a significant pay bump, but they think about it and make the assumption that you like your current role and wouldn't like any new responsibilities. Wouldn't you rather make that decision yourself? Or suppose you're single and there's an attractive acquaintance who is thinking of asking you on a date, but they overhear you talking to a friend about a date you had, and so they assume you wouldn't be interested. You don't want to make that decision yourself?
      - fluoridation 5y ago
        Yes, I would like to make those decisions. No, I don't think I'm owed the right to make them. To say otherwise would be silly; if we all honored such a right we'd be forever trapped navigating an interminable labyrinth of negotiation and consensus-reaching.
        em-bee 5y ago
        reaching consensus and building unity is a good way to strengthen a community, organization or team, so no i don't think we'd be trapped. on the contrary, everyone would feel empowered. most of our problems today are coming from the fact that people are disempowered and lack the agency to improve the situation.
        fluoridation 5y ago
        I misspoke. I should have said "consensus-seeking". The state of having reached consensus is good, yes. Perpetually seeking consensus is not.

fluoridation 5y ago

It seems like you're confusing "robbing" and "not giving opportunities".

TameAntelope 5y ago
"not giving opportunities for the expression of agency" doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same...
- jerry1979 5y ago
  I agree that robbing someone of their agency sounds very important; however, if I make assumptions about how someone feels, that could rob them of a potential opportunity, or it could also give them a new opportunity depending on the nature of my assumption. Either way, their capacity to act (agency) remains intact. The very important phrasing, in my estimation, can lead people to neurotically question their feelings less they "rob" someone of the capacity to act. In reality, a more lax quip such as "assuming makes an ass out of u-&-me" gives people more breathing room for their lapses in judgement.
mitchdoogle 5y ago
In this context, "robbing" fits just fine. Merriam-Webster lists this as a definition of "rob": to deprive of something due, expected, or desired So to say you're "robbing someone of their agency" is the same as saying you're "depriving them of an opportunity to decide for themselves"
- fluoridation 5y ago
  I think we've gotten too hung up on a specific word, but if you really want to bring the dictionary into this, are you saying you owe it to other people to give them as many possibilities to decide for themselves? I would have to disagree with that assertion.
  - mitchdoogle 5y ago
    Think about it in reverse. Suppose your boss is thinking of increasing your responsibilities along with a significant pay bump, but they think about it and make the assumption that you like your current role and wouldn't like any new responsibilities. Wouldn't you rather make that decision yourself? Or suppose you're single and there's an attractive acquaintance who is thinking of asking you on a date, but they overhear you talking to a friend about a date you had, and so they assume you wouldn't be interested. You don't want to make that decision yourself?
    - fluoridation 5y ago
      Yes, I would like to make those decisions. No, I don't think I'm owed the right to make them. To say otherwise would be silly; if we all honored such a right we'd be forever trapped navigating an interminable labyrinth of negotiation and consensus-reaching.
      - em-bee 5y ago
        reaching consensus and building unity is a good way to strengthen a community, organization or team, so no i don't think we'd be trapped. on the contrary, everyone would feel empowered. most of our problems today are coming from the fact that people are disempowered and lack the agency to improve the situation.
        fluoridation 5y ago
        I misspoke. I should have said "consensus-seeking". The state of having reached consensus is good, yes. Perpetually seeking consensus is not.