3 ms·

Yup yup yup. "Using a weapon gives your enemy explicit permission to use it against you." ~Me I'd love to live in a world where we speak to the average most r

Yup yup yup. "Using a weapon gives your enemy explicit permission to use it against you." ~Me I'd love to live in a world where we speak to the average most reasonable person in the room instead of the most sensitive, easily offended, and brittle person in the room. But that might be my age showing. And that's the tension between the majority and the minority, an ageless tension.

benlivengood 4y ago
The average most reasonable person in the room cares about other people's feelings and life condition and tries to not insult or hurt them with what they say.
- kleer001 4y ago
  Depends on what you means by "cares" Cares, like will bend over backwards to prevent any possible perceived insult? No, that's not reasonable. We don't need to revamp our language. Intent, not language, should be the focus. For example master and slave are perfectly fine terms for the relationship between pieces of hardware or software. No actual slave in this world would care. No actual person descended from slaves should care. If someone is truly insulted by language and not intent they need to grow up. Cares, like makes reasonable accommodations, sure. That's what handicap parking places are about. That's why there's ramps on sidewalks in cities. That's why there's a push for accessibility in software for colour blind people.
  - trs8080 4y ago
    > If someone is truly insulted by language and not intent they need to grow up. Spoken like someone who's never had to hear a slur about them in a joke. "But I was just joking!" - oh, then it's okay? Maybe the person using slurs should grow up? In the article, the author specifically discusses a case when a new hire used a pejorative. Intent doesn't matter. What you say and do matters. "Well I just wanted to get home safe and to bed" isn't a good defense when you get into an accident while drunk driving.
    - kleer001 4y ago
      > Spoken like someone who's never had to hear a slur about them in a joke. "Personal argumentation on the internet is the bastion of the shallow." ~ Me I cannot prove over this medium if I had experienced that or not. You cannot verify either way. Your use of this argument saddens me. You could have just left it out and strengthened your apparent position. > Intent doesn't matter. Mens Rea doesn't matter? There's more than a few hundred years and dozens of generations of judges and lawyers from around the world that would like to have a word with you.
      - trs8080 4y ago
        > "Personal argumentation on the internet is the bastion of the shallow." ~ Me If you believed what you're saying above, then why respond? Also, you don't need to quote yourself; you can just write the sentence. > I cannot prove over this medium if I had experienced that or not. You cannot verify either way. Your use of this argument saddens me. You could have just left it out and strengthened your apparent position. It was rhetorical. Someone who's actually experienced this doesn't take the attitude you're taking. > Mens Rea doesn't matter? There's more than a few hundred years and dozens of generations of judges and lawyers from around the world that would like to have a word with you. I'm talking about racist jokes and being a decent human being, not legal precedent.
  - benlivengood 4y ago
    > Intent, not language, should be the focus. Changing the language with good intentions isn't a problem if intent should be the focus instead of language. What is not ok is demanding that people be mind-readers and pull the "good intent" out of the people's heads who use harmful language widely identified as unacceptable. Language changes over time, except for dead languages.
    - kleer001 4y ago
      > ... good intentions isn't a problem The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > harmful language No such thing.
cudgy 4y ago
Is it ageless? Or is it a sign of a jaded societal class living during an era with relatively few hardships?
- kleer001 4y ago
  No, it's ageless. It's why the United States has a Congress and a Senate. It's why the Jews left Egypt. At some times some minorities will truly be oppressed by a majority. That's not just human nature, it's nature. The trick is always eschewing pareidolia.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Calling a person a pronoun they don’t like probably is not why the Jews left Egypt; they were persecuted with far more than words. Congress was created to allow for representation for citizens (wealthy land owners) within a Republic and was not addressing minor infractions like pronoun disagreements or backlash against disagreements over debatable events.
    - kleer001 4y ago
      You've missed the point. But that's okay, it seems like you didn't want to understand me.
olsonjeffery 4y ago
Your comment is sufficiently vague and mealy-mouthed so as to be useless. All the I see here is you complaining about shifting social mores. Toughen up. Maybe if you weren't so "sensitive, easily offended, and brittle" then the notion of a window of acceptable social behavior, that changes over time, wouldn't be so radical and hurtful to you.
- kleer001 4y ago
  Ah, the "no-you" gambit, classic.
  - olsonjeffery 4y ago
    Your inability to articulate a meaningful response is all about you, not me.
    - kleer001 4y ago
      Ah, a one note debate technique. Reminds me of the clatter of a train going by. I had nothing to respond to, hence the lack of meaning.
ROTMetro 4y ago
It's not your age showing. Coming from a guy who comes off horribly from his posts online, if you are self aware enough to put a disclaimer (might be my age), maybe uhhh ???? This person proposes the OPPOSITE of a weapon. A constructive tool to disarm potential issues in the workplace to redirect focus to the task at hand is not a weapon. That you view it as such might be a flag for yourself to look at how you view workplace discussions. You want it to be ok to STEAL the effectiveness/contributions of MARJINALIZED people from the company for irrelevant purposes. These people were not placed ( placed, these are not your friends who can choose to hear your funny quips, these are co-workers just trying to do their job) to work with you to give you opportunity to offend, they were placed there for a business purpose. Why do you want to STEAL potential contributions from the place you work while at the same time reducing quality/effectiveness instead of just being, you know, professional?
- kleer001 4y ago
  A weapon is a tool used to injure. A tool used to heal or comfort is medicine, or something like that. Right? Still, it's a tool. There's no such thing as an opposite of a tool. Anyways, again, it's about intent. Your first paragraphs seem fine. Your second reiterates my last sentence. Your last paragraph seems unhinged. There's no need to yell or put plans in my mouth, that's just poor arguing. Most tools never stay in their original places of use, they drift.

benlivengood 4y ago

The average most reasonable person in the room cares about other people's feelings and life condition and tries to not insult or hurt them with what they say.

kleer001 4y ago
Depends on what you means by "cares" Cares, like will bend over backwards to prevent any possible perceived insult? No, that's not reasonable. We don't need to revamp our language. Intent, not language, should be the focus. For example master and slave are perfectly fine terms for the relationship between pieces of hardware or software. No actual slave in this world would care. No actual person descended from slaves should care. If someone is truly insulted by language and not intent they need to grow up. Cares, like makes reasonable accommodations, sure. That's what handicap parking places are about. That's why there's ramps on sidewalks in cities. That's why there's a push for accessibility in software for colour blind people.
- trs8080 4y ago
  > If someone is truly insulted by language and not intent they need to grow up. Spoken like someone who's never had to hear a slur about them in a joke. "But I was just joking!" - oh, then it's okay? Maybe the person using slurs should grow up? In the article, the author specifically discusses a case when a new hire used a pejorative. Intent doesn't matter. What you say and do matters. "Well I just wanted to get home safe and to bed" isn't a good defense when you get into an accident while drunk driving.
  - kleer001 4y ago
    > Spoken like someone who's never had to hear a slur about them in a joke. "Personal argumentation on the internet is the bastion of the shallow." ~ Me I cannot prove over this medium if I had experienced that or not. You cannot verify either way. Your use of this argument saddens me. You could have just left it out and strengthened your apparent position. > Intent doesn't matter. Mens Rea doesn't matter? There's more than a few hundred years and dozens of generations of judges and lawyers from around the world that would like to have a word with you.
    - trs8080 4y ago
      > "Personal argumentation on the internet is the bastion of the shallow." ~ Me If you believed what you're saying above, then why respond? Also, you don't need to quote yourself; you can just write the sentence. > I cannot prove over this medium if I had experienced that or not. You cannot verify either way. Your use of this argument saddens me. You could have just left it out and strengthened your apparent position. It was rhetorical. Someone who's actually experienced this doesn't take the attitude you're taking. > Mens Rea doesn't matter? There's more than a few hundred years and dozens of generations of judges and lawyers from around the world that would like to have a word with you. I'm talking about racist jokes and being a decent human being, not legal precedent.
- benlivengood 4y ago
  > Intent, not language, should be the focus. Changing the language with good intentions isn't a problem if intent should be the focus instead of language. What is not ok is demanding that people be mind-readers and pull the "good intent" out of the people's heads who use harmful language widely identified as unacceptable. Language changes over time, except for dead languages.
  - kleer001 4y ago
    > ... good intentions isn't a problem The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > harmful language No such thing.

cudgy 4y ago

Is it ageless? Or is it a sign of a jaded societal class living during an era with relatively few hardships?

kleer001 4y ago
No, it's ageless. It's why the United States has a Congress and a Senate. It's why the Jews left Egypt. At some times some minorities will truly be oppressed by a majority. That's not just human nature, it's nature. The trick is always eschewing pareidolia.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Calling a person a pronoun they don’t like probably is not why the Jews left Egypt; they were persecuted with far more than words. Congress was created to allow for representation for citizens (wealthy land owners) within a Republic and was not addressing minor infractions like pronoun disagreements or backlash against disagreements over debatable events.
  - kleer001 4y ago
    You've missed the point. But that's okay, it seems like you didn't want to understand me.

olsonjeffery 4y ago

Your comment is sufficiently vague and mealy-mouthed so as to be useless. All the I see here is you complaining about shifting social mores. Toughen up. Maybe if you weren't so "sensitive, easily offended, and brittle" then the notion of a window of acceptable social behavior, that changes over time, wouldn't be so radical and hurtful to you.

kleer001 4y ago
Ah, the "no-you" gambit, classic.
- olsonjeffery 4y ago
  Your inability to articulate a meaningful response is all about you, not me.
  - kleer001 4y ago
    Ah, a one note debate technique. Reminds me of the clatter of a train going by. I had nothing to respond to, hence the lack of meaning.

ROTMetro 4y ago

It's not your age showing. Coming from a guy who comes off horribly from his posts online, if you are self aware enough to put a disclaimer (might be my age), maybe uhhh ???? This person proposes the OPPOSITE of a weapon. A constructive tool to disarm potential issues in the workplace to redirect focus to the task at hand is not a weapon. That you view it as such might be a flag for yourself to look at how you view workplace discussions. You want it to be ok to STEAL the effectiveness/contributions of MARJINALIZED people from the company for irrelevant purposes. These people were not placed ( placed, these are not your friends who can choose to hear your funny quips, these are co-workers just trying to do their job) to work with you to give you opportunity to offend, they were placed there for a business purpose. Why do you want to STEAL potential contributions from the place you work while at the same time reducing quality/effectiveness instead of just being, you know, professional?

kleer001 4y ago
A weapon is a tool used to injure. A tool used to heal or comfort is medicine, or something like that. Right? Still, it's a tool. There's no such thing as an opposite of a tool. Anyways, again, it's about intent. Your first paragraphs seem fine. Your second reiterates my last sentence. Your last paragraph seems unhinged. There's no need to yell or put plans in my mouth, that's just poor arguing. Most tools never stay in their original places of use, they drift.