5 ms·
Why did you make two logical leaps just to arrive at an accusation? From the HN Guidelines: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what
by nickff 4y ago
Why did you make two logical leaps just to arrive at an accusation?
From the HN Guidelines: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "
- eyelidlessness 4y agoHaving backed out of including a reply with my downvote—which I seldom do, but couldn’t find a productive response in me despite some effort—I’m curious what your charitable interpretation is. I went through all of mine, and none of them reflected well on the commenter.
- bitcurious 4y agoBizarre but illustrative that I have to defend myself against a nebulous “uncharitable interpretation.” Are you free (according to corporate policy) to ask your coworkers about religion, health, romance, politics, ethnicity, etc.? I’m comfortable discussing all of the above with my friends, yet each is to some extent restricted in the professional context, either by default or with seniority.
- MrJohz 4y agoNot the previous commenter, but yes? I have literally never worked in a place where talking about that has been forbidden. I mean, talking about it offensively is obviously not on the table, but I've discussed literally every single one of those with colleagues before. Is this a cultural thing? I'm from the UK, and I'm working now in Germany. Perhaps things are different in the US?
- bitcurious 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600848 Here is an example of how corporate risk aversion prevents authenticity.