3 ms·
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 li
by 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 agoYou're actually allowed to have skepticism about someone else's personal claims, offered decades after the fact, without any corroborating external facts.
- leereeves 4y agoWhat's the basis of your skepticism here? Is it rooted in fact, or in bias?
- random314 4y agoIts rooted in the fact that this behavior is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make any such communication.
- hnfong 4y agoBy your reasoning everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying.
- giaour 4y agoWe 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 agoThere'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.