31 ms·

Are you accusing him of lying? And if you are, do you have any evidence? Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the c

Are you accusing him of lying? And if you are, do you have any evidence? Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation. Anyone could respond "he claimed that...which is somewhat different from it being known to be true" after any claim. It's just a way of derailing discussion and reducing the cognitive dissonance of a statement you'd rather not believe.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation. Yes, that's exactly how I feel about his long-delayed claims of explicit cut-and-dried (with decades of on-point precedent at the time he claims it occurred) illegal employment practice by his previous employer.
- leereeves 4y ago
  There's an important difference: he knows what happened to him. You have no idea. So unless you have some conflicting evidence, the reasonable thing to do is listen to him about his own experience. Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence. Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > You have no idea Exactly my point in regard to the upthread question: “Is it now well known that Dilbert exists solely because Scott Adams was told - as a young executive - that he would not be promoted further because he is a white male?” I have no idea if that occurred or if it is why Dilbert exists, though I certainly know that is part of the story that Adams tells about it.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    You're actually allowed to have skepticism about someone else's personal claims, offered decades after the fact, without any corroborating external facts.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      What's the basis of your skepticism here? Is it rooted in fact, or in bias?
      - random314 4y ago
        Its rooted in the fact that this behavior is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make any such communication.
        hnfong 4y ago
        By your reasoning everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying.
        giaour 4y ago
        We do in fact require more than a report before meting out punishments. Whether that means "everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying" or "everyone accused of a crime should be presumed to be innocent" is a matter of how you want to spin it.
        hnfong 4y ago
        There's a material difference between a public, open forum and a court that can mete out punishments. Though people tend to confuse the two these days.
evgen 4y ago
> Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation. Seeing as how Adams has no evidence whatsoever that a large corporation whose HR department would be well-versed in what they can and cannot say (as well as what they should and should not say) to employees I think the burden of proof rests on Adams.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Presumably an HR department or executive would also be smart enough not to put such a statement in writing.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation. Yes, that's exactly how I feel about his long-delayed claims of explicit cut-and-dried (with decades of on-point precedent at the time he claims it occurred) illegal employment practice by his previous employer.

leereeves 4y ago
There's an important difference: he knows what happened to him. You have no idea. So unless you have some conflicting evidence, the reasonable thing to do is listen to him about his own experience. Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence. Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > You have no idea Exactly my point in regard to the upthread question: “Is it now well known that Dilbert exists solely because Scott Adams was told - as a young executive - that he would not be promoted further because he is a white male?” I have no idea if that occurred or if it is why Dilbert exists, though I certainly know that is part of the story that Adams tells about it.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  You're actually allowed to have skepticism about someone else's personal claims, offered decades after the fact, without any corroborating external facts.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    What's the basis of your skepticism here? Is it rooted in fact, or in bias?
    - random314 4y ago
      Its rooted in the fact that this behavior is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make any such communication.
      - hnfong 4y ago
        By your reasoning everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying.
        giaour 4y ago
        We do in fact require more than a report before meting out punishments. Whether that means "everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying" or "everyone accused of a crime should be presumed to be innocent" is a matter of how you want to spin it.
        hnfong 4y ago
        There's a material difference between a public, open forum and a court that can mete out punishments. Though people tend to confuse the two these days.

evgen 4y ago

> Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation. Seeing as how Adams has no evidence whatsoever that a large corporation whose HR department would be well-versed in what they can and cannot say (as well as what they should and should not say) to employees I think the burden of proof rests on Adams.

leereeves 4y ago
Presumably an HR department or executive would also be smart enough not to put such a statement in writing.