3 ms·
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 failu
by 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 agoI 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.