3 ms·

I am suspecting that you are holding assumptions which are not the case. So, let us be clear: -- yes, you are supposed to be «nice and warm» only in case this

by mdp2021 4y ago

I am suspecting that you are holding assumptions which are not the case. So, let us be clear: -- yes, you are supposed to be «nice and warm» only in case this is genuine. If it is not, just behave appropriately. "Respectful" does not imply «nice and warm». Also: since «nice and warm» does not imply "respectful", and on the contrary it may suggest the opposite if patently constructed, I would be very careful about any temptation to think that some coating "will do"; -- when suggesting the idea of people «employing... hypocrisy», it is very advisable to avoid the term 'you'; -- teaching people hypocrisy, idea which may appear from your text, would be criminal. If you had to orient them, it'd better be towards the substance.

throwaway290 4y ago
And I recommend to not use 'we' when speaking for yourself. Regarding your nice -> respectful update, just replace 'nice' with 'respectful' so the proposed idea reads 'correct emails to be respectful if they're not', done.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  'We' is perfectly valid if not using an individual matter but a sharable position: "I went there", but "We believe". (Because it is not just this one who happens to be writing.) (By the way, I could add for clarity, there is an extreme difference from the considerations that are apparent in the case of that 'we' and the suggestion "Who has never set fire to a public monument? I did" (Graham Chapman) that was implied in that 'you'. It is really not the same, because avoiding calling people "arsonists" is what I recommended.) The idea to have engines that notify of disrespectful qualities in text is interesting - of course it should be clear that it is a completely different matter from what was discussed before -, but I suspect that the engine should be quite intelligent to discriminate what is respectful and what is not. It is similar to the former context: a veneer of kindness is cheap and possibly inadvisable; a respectful stance is not superficial hence not cheap - it has harder requirements for feasibility.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Real example: https://twitter.com/DannyRichman/status/1598254671591723008 https://twitter.com/DannyRichman/status/1598254671591723008 > Because it is not just this one who happens to be writing. I am talking to you and you are representing only yourself, not a collective.

throwaway290 4y ago

And I recommend to not use 'we' when speaking for yourself. Regarding your nice -> respectful update, just replace 'nice' with 'respectful' so the proposed idea reads 'correct emails to be respectful if they're not', done.

mdp2021 4y ago
'We' is perfectly valid if not using an individual matter but a sharable position: "I went there", but "We believe". (Because it is not just this one who happens to be writing.) (By the way, I could add for clarity, there is an extreme difference from the considerations that are apparent in the case of that 'we' and the suggestion "Who has never set fire to a public monument? I did" (Graham Chapman) that was implied in that 'you'. It is really not the same, because avoiding calling people "arsonists" is what I recommended.) The idea to have engines that notify of disrespectful qualities in text is interesting - of course it should be clear that it is a completely different matter from what was discussed before -, but I suspect that the engine should be quite intelligent to discriminate what is respectful and what is not. It is similar to the former context: a veneer of kindness is cheap and possibly inadvisable; a respectful stance is not superficial hence not cheap - it has harder requirements for feasibility.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Real example: https://twitter.com/DannyRichman/status/1598254671591723008 https://twitter.com/DannyRichman/status/1598254671591723008 > Because it is not just this one who happens to be writing. I am talking to you and you are representing only yourself, not a collective.