4 ms·
I'm not following your comment in relation to the one you replied to Parent: “Kind and Evil” (there’s institutionalized whatever, so let’s help X by punishing
by asiachick 5y ago
I'm not following your comment in relation to the one you replied to
Parent: “Kind and Evil” (there’s institutionalized whatever, so let’s help X by punishing Y).
You: Evil (results over optics)
"there’s institutionalized whatever, so let’s help X by punishing Y" is not results over optics, it's optics over results. Or maybe that's just what it conjures in my head
- moate 5y agoSo we agree, the post I was responding to was confusing. If a system has been created (as our "kind vs nice" duality does) and you seek to expand on it, I think you should expand on it in "logical" (ymmv on what "logic" is). So if you add "Evil and Mean" they should a similar duality, IMO. That said, I don't think "Evil/Mean" should be an added axis to the "Kind/Nice" paradigm, because they don't actually bring clarity. It's adding language that doesn't help provide better understanding to the original discussion, but instead confuses. How can you be Kind (good results over good optics) and evil(however you define it)? If I'm being completely honest, felt like OP was trying to inject their personal opinion of the current state of politics into a discussion about personal behavior. When people start complaining about "identity politics" I just immediately assume we disagree politically and try point out what I perceive as flaws.