4 ms·

It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without

It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting Sometimes you want to speak not to the idea but the person. “XYZ has an unbroken track record of coming up with flagrantly stupid ideas and then acting on them with zero thought to their obviously-foreseeable consequences” is a mouthful beginning to cross, itself, into euphemistic territory.
- groby_b 2y ago
  Even then, it's possible to talk about the person not possessing the necessary skill set, instead of resorting to an insult. It's not about euphemism - an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem. Note, I'm not saying you should never insult - it's a tool that's sometimes useful - but you should carefully choose if you want to use that tool. And it's definitely a different tool than "calmly and legitimately pointing out". You cannot, in this case, have your cake and eat it too.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem If you're insulting to feel good, that's on you. But if you're insulting to be sure your point came across clearly, that has utility. I'm simply challenging the claim that the "desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions." It can also be from a desire to avoid miscommunication. Strong language is strong because it demands strong interpretation. If what you need is a strong interpretation, strong language is legitimate. > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem Most of the time, the process is fucked. But sometimes, a person is unqualified. Or a liar. In those cases, the person is the problem. The fact that it displeases someone is secondary, and honestly, totally irrelevant. Trying to re-frame that in a form that pretends the person isn't the problem is the point of euphemism. It's more polite to say "ABC is having difficulty with their workload" than "ABC is a moron; these are not difficult asks."
    - smeej 2y ago
      You can also say, "ABC is terrible at this." That's not an insult. It's an observation. "ABC is a moron" is an insult. The insult defines the person by a failure, instead of limiting the criticism to the relevant task. If you're stooping to defining a person by their inability to do some specific thing, I still hold that you need to take responsibility for your own reaction.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > You can also say, "ABC is terrible at this." That's not an insult. It's an observation. "ABC is a moron" is an insult The first is debatable. The second implies you don’t want to debate this. There is succinctness lost when one forbids the second. > stooping to defining a person by their inability to do some specific thing Yes, within a utilitarian context, a person is defined by their ability to do a thing. In the short run, there is a trade-off between empathy and efficiency. You try to avoid those situations. But not every environment permits you to. If the case is time sensitive, I’d much rather my surgeon or commander be extremely direct when someone is screwing up than explain that they’re bad at everything they’re supposed to be doing. Being able to make this call is, in my opinion, a gating component of serious leadership
        smeej 2y ago
        I think a lot of the world's leaders would agree with you, and the overwhelming majority of the human population who think one of the main problems facing humanity is how the world leaders are leading it would disagree. Overlooking a person's humanity for the sake of efficiency is at the root of the problem, and an attitude that supports it as at the root of insult culture.

It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting Sometimes you want to speak not to the idea but the person. “XYZ has an unbroken track record of coming up with flagrantly stupid ideas and then acting on them with zero thought to their obviously-foreseeable consequences” is a mouthful beginning to cross, itself, into euphemistic territory.

groby_b 2y ago
Even then, it's possible to talk about the person not possessing the necessary skill set, instead of resorting to an insult. It's not about euphemism - an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem. Note, I'm not saying you should never insult - it's a tool that's sometimes useful - but you should carefully choose if you want to use that tool. And it's definitely a different tool than "calmly and legitimately pointing out". You cannot, in this case, have your cake and eat it too.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem If you're insulting to feel good, that's on you. But if you're insulting to be sure your point came across clearly, that has utility. I'm simply challenging the claim that the "desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions." It can also be from a desire to avoid miscommunication. Strong language is strong because it demands strong interpretation. If what you need is a strong interpretation, strong language is legitimate. > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem Most of the time, the process is fucked. But sometimes, a person is unqualified. Or a liar. In those cases, the person is the problem. The fact that it displeases someone is secondary, and honestly, totally irrelevant. Trying to re-frame that in a form that pretends the person isn't the problem is the point of euphemism. It's more polite to say "ABC is having difficulty with their workload" than "ABC is a moron; these are not difficult asks."
  - smeej 2y ago
    You can also say, "ABC is terrible at this." That's not an insult. It's an observation. "ABC is a moron" is an insult. The insult defines the person by a failure, instead of limiting the criticism to the relevant task. If you're stooping to defining a person by their inability to do some specific thing, I still hold that you need to take responsibility for your own reaction.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > You can also say, "ABC is terrible at this." That's not an insult. It's an observation. "ABC is a moron" is an insult The first is debatable. The second implies you don’t want to debate this. There is succinctness lost when one forbids the second. > stooping to defining a person by their inability to do some specific thing Yes, within a utilitarian context, a person is defined by their ability to do a thing. In the short run, there is a trade-off between empathy and efficiency. You try to avoid those situations. But not every environment permits you to. If the case is time sensitive, I’d much rather my surgeon or commander be extremely direct when someone is screwing up than explain that they’re bad at everything they’re supposed to be doing. Being able to make this call is, in my opinion, a gating component of serious leadership
      - smeej 2y ago
        I think a lot of the world's leaders would agree with you, and the overwhelming majority of the human population who think one of the main problems facing humanity is how the world leaders are leading it would disagree. Overlooking a person's humanity for the sake of efficiency is at the root of the problem, and an attitude that supports it as at the root of insult culture.