3 ms·

Presumably they meant nothing positive in return to the reviewer.

by ziddoap 4y ago

nocman 4y ago
Except a lot of people find helping others to be a positive thing for themselves.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  If you get that feeling out of leaving negative reviews, by all means my comment doesn't intend to detract from that.
  - nocman 4y ago
    It actually takes a fairly high bar for me to leave a negative review of a product or service. But some sellers/providers are just so awful to their customers, you're dang right I enjoy helping other people avoid suffering from a business deal that is certain to be terrible.
  - Jenk 4y ago
    I get a positive feeling when others have honestly reviewed a product/service, whether that be positive or negative feedback. I most certainly do not get a positive feeling when watching someone recommend just keeping your mouth shut because "there's no point leaving a review" Have Airbnb become the corporate mafia or something?
    - ziddoap 4y ago
      >recommend just keeping your mouth shut because "there's no point leaving a review" Did anyone say that? I know I didn't. The parent I was replying to (and simply to offer clarification on what they might have meant) said: >This is wise. In reply to the suggestion of using a fake name to leave a negative review. >Have Airbnb become the corporate mafia or something? I'm not sure how this follows from what I commented? I don't have a reply.
atoav 4y ago
You can always try do do the Kant thing for questions like these: Would it be good for you if everybody followed your advice? Compared to the chances of getting fucked for writing a bad review, aren't the chances bigger to get fucked by a bad actor in a world where nobody left bad reviews? It is simple. If the answer to the question: "How would it be if everybody acted like me?" is "It would be worse", this means you are acting in a way that makes society worse for your own advantage.
- workingon 4y ago
  It's really unfortunate that this simple principle can't work in real life, just because people's idea of "what is worse" are so different. One has only to look at the very different outlooks people have politically to know the answers to the question "Will this make the world worse?" are going to be wildly different, and some of them downright nonsensical to most people.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  A bit pedantic, but that's not really the Kant thing. Kant is a proponent of deontology, which is utterly unconcerned with consequences. His thing was more checking if it would still make logical sense. That is, when he asks "What if everybody lied?", what he's getting at isn't that it'd suck if you couldn't even ask for the time and get the right answer, but that it'd destroy the concept of truth, and with that what does "lying" even mean? Kant answered the specific scenario of "What if the Gestapo wants to know if you're hiding any Jews?" (his actual scenario was with a murderer looking for a victim, since Nazis weren't a thing yet), and said that yup, you do not lie, because to him the morality of an action is unrelated to its likely consequences.
- samatman 4y ago
  This is where the limits of the categorical imperative become apparent. If there were a fund (assume a spherical, frictionless, voluntary society) that was the only way to feed the hungry, everyone should donate to it. Unfortunately it's set up by an evil game master, and one in ten thousand donations is answered with a bullet to the spine. Of course the categorical imperative says we should do it anyway. I wouldn't. You wouldn't. Rational defection on bad payoff matrices is correct behavior.

Presumably they meant nothing positive in return to the reviewer.

nocman 4y ago

Except a lot of people find helping others to be a positive thing for themselves.

ziddoap 4y ago
If you get that feeling out of leaving negative reviews, by all means my comment doesn't intend to detract from that.
- nocman 4y ago
  It actually takes a fairly high bar for me to leave a negative review of a product or service. But some sellers/providers are just so awful to their customers, you're dang right I enjoy helping other people avoid suffering from a business deal that is certain to be terrible.
- Jenk 4y ago
  I get a positive feeling when others have honestly reviewed a product/service, whether that be positive or negative feedback. I most certainly do not get a positive feeling when watching someone recommend just keeping your mouth shut because "there's no point leaving a review" Have Airbnb become the corporate mafia or something?
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    >recommend just keeping your mouth shut because "there's no point leaving a review" Did anyone say that? I know I didn't. The parent I was replying to (and simply to offer clarification on what they might have meant) said: >This is wise. In reply to the suggestion of using a fake name to leave a negative review. >Have Airbnb become the corporate mafia or something? I'm not sure how this follows from what I commented? I don't have a reply.

atoav 4y ago

You can always try do do the Kant thing for questions like these: Would it be good for you if everybody followed your advice? Compared to the chances of getting fucked for writing a bad review, aren't the chances bigger to get fucked by a bad actor in a world where nobody left bad reviews? It is simple. If the answer to the question: "How would it be if everybody acted like me?" is "It would be worse", this means you are acting in a way that makes society worse for your own advantage.

workingon 4y ago
It's really unfortunate that this simple principle can't work in real life, just because people's idea of "what is worse" are so different. One has only to look at the very different outlooks people have politically to know the answers to the question "Will this make the world worse?" are going to be wildly different, and some of them downright nonsensical to most people.
dale_glass 4y ago
A bit pedantic, but that's not really the Kant thing. Kant is a proponent of deontology, which is utterly unconcerned with consequences. His thing was more checking if it would still make logical sense. That is, when he asks "What if everybody lied?", what he's getting at isn't that it'd suck if you couldn't even ask for the time and get the right answer, but that it'd destroy the concept of truth, and with that what does "lying" even mean? Kant answered the specific scenario of "What if the Gestapo wants to know if you're hiding any Jews?" (his actual scenario was with a murderer looking for a victim, since Nazis weren't a thing yet), and said that yup, you do not lie, because to him the morality of an action is unrelated to its likely consequences.
samatman 4y ago
This is where the limits of the categorical imperative become apparent. If there were a fund (assume a spherical, frictionless, voluntary society) that was the only way to feed the hungry, everyone should donate to it. Unfortunately it's set up by an evil game master, and one in ten thousand donations is answered with a bullet to the spine. Of course the categorical imperative says we should do it anyway. I wouldn't. You wouldn't. Rational defection on bad payoff matrices is correct behavior.