3 ms·

There is a very close analogue in Korean, called "say f*cking Kim Jung-un now 김정은 개새끼 해 봐", typically used as an irrelevant Shibboleth-like question to move the

There is a very close analogue in Korean, called "say f*cking Kim Jung-un now 김정은 개새끼 해 봐", typically used as an irrelevant Shibboleth-like question to move the goalpost during a discussion. As like most such questions, this method won't last too long even if it supposedly works right now; they will be absolutely allowed to say so if the interviewer demands that.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
Not exactly. You have two factors working against this. The first is that in a communist/totalitarian regime, you don't want to give informants any opportunities for leverage. The fear of it being (mis)used against you is enough to take it off the table as an option. The second is that were the regime give permission to speak this way, it risks normalizing irreverence toward Kim Jong Un, beginning with a large swathe of employees working in espionage.
- rgblambda 1y ago
  They could make a very specific exception with serious penalties for misuse. Similar to how part of the Knights Templar's training was to learn to spit on a cross without spitting on Christ "in their minds" in case they were ever captured and made to do so by their captors.
  - Dracophoenix 1y ago
    > Similar to how part of the Knights Templar's training was to learn to spit on a cross without spitting on Christ "in their minds" in case they were ever captured and made to do so by their captors. Eerily reminiscent of 1984's doublethink.
    - rgblambda 1y ago
      I don't think the comparison is apt. Doublethink is to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. The spitting on the cross thing is to say/do something without actually believing it.
      - pbhjpbhj 1y ago
        It's perhaps more rightthink (only allowing thoughts that would be approved by the party). But as with the parent, I too find the <"i never did $action" thought whilst having performed $action> reminiscent of doublethink... it's at least consistent. I think BB would approve! Very much the current USA zeitgeist.
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      It doesn’t seem that much like doublethink to me. More like, common sense. It would be convenient if everyone who was trying to trick us was required to follow their ideology to a silly logical conclusion and provide obvious tells. But, even fanatics are full people. The Knight Templar is working for a being that can read his mind. Surely it can see through any duplicity that he needs to engage in, in that being’s service.
  - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
    My understanding is that this account of the Knights Templar is dubious and obtained through torture. It also seems odd: coercion already removes culpability in due proportion, and you're still spitting on Christ. In any case, we're talking about a dictatorial communist regime, where informants and informing on people is widespread, and where having a case file of excuses to eliminate people is standard. We shouldn't trivialize this by appealing to standards that don't apply here.
citizenpaul 1y ago
>it supposedly works right now; they will be absolutely allowed to say so if the interviewer demands that. Thats the good thing about being a theocratic dictator. Your rules don't have to be consistent, rational or even make sense. Oh if you slander the supreme leader while holding a goose feather that you burn at his monthly worship you are forgiven. Or whatever.
neilv 1y ago
> they will be absolutely allowed to say so if the interviewer demands that. If so, there might still be limits. You could make the challenge an n-part, back-and-forth exchange, of increasingly worse insults of that personage. Complete with escalating to enthusiastic shouting, slapping the table for emphasis, making crude illustrative gestures, etc. Perhaps there's only so much that an authoritarian work center will tolerate. For legitimate candidates, doing this at the start of an interview might be sending a confusing message about the corporate office environment. On the other hand, it would serve as an icebreaker, to help candidates feel comfortable sharing. And it will tell you more about the candidate's creativity than Leetcode regurgitation does. Well, until students start buying "Cracking the Techbro Interview: Trash-Talking Edition" books, spending months memorizing lists of insults to recite in interviews, and rehearsing their delivery, with enthusiastic full-arm gesticulating. Actually, that would still be better for the field than Leetcode interviews.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago

Not exactly. You have two factors working against this. The first is that in a communist/totalitarian regime, you don't want to give informants any opportunities for leverage. The fear of it being (mis)used against you is enough to take it off the table as an option. The second is that were the regime give permission to speak this way, it risks normalizing irreverence toward Kim Jong Un, beginning with a large swathe of employees working in espionage.

rgblambda 1y ago
They could make a very specific exception with serious penalties for misuse. Similar to how part of the Knights Templar's training was to learn to spit on a cross without spitting on Christ "in their minds" in case they were ever captured and made to do so by their captors.
- Dracophoenix 1y ago
  > Similar to how part of the Knights Templar's training was to learn to spit on a cross without spitting on Christ "in their minds" in case they were ever captured and made to do so by their captors. Eerily reminiscent of 1984's doublethink.
  - rgblambda 1y ago
    I don't think the comparison is apt. Doublethink is to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. The spitting on the cross thing is to say/do something without actually believing it.
    - pbhjpbhj 1y ago
      It's perhaps more rightthink (only allowing thoughts that would be approved by the party). But as with the parent, I too find the <"i never did $action" thought whilst having performed $action> reminiscent of doublethink... it's at least consistent. I think BB would approve! Very much the current USA zeitgeist.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    It doesn’t seem that much like doublethink to me. More like, common sense. It would be convenient if everyone who was trying to trick us was required to follow their ideology to a silly logical conclusion and provide obvious tells. But, even fanatics are full people. The Knight Templar is working for a being that can read his mind. Surely it can see through any duplicity that he needs to engage in, in that being’s service.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  My understanding is that this account of the Knights Templar is dubious and obtained through torture. It also seems odd: coercion already removes culpability in due proportion, and you're still spitting on Christ. In any case, we're talking about a dictatorial communist regime, where informants and informing on people is widespread, and where having a case file of excuses to eliminate people is standard. We shouldn't trivialize this by appealing to standards that don't apply here.

citizenpaul 1y ago

>it supposedly works right now; they will be absolutely allowed to say so if the interviewer demands that. Thats the good thing about being a theocratic dictator. Your rules don't have to be consistent, rational or even make sense. Oh if you slander the supreme leader while holding a goose feather that you burn at his monthly worship you are forgiven. Or whatever.

neilv 1y ago

> they will be absolutely allowed to say so if the interviewer demands that. If so, there might still be limits. You could make the challenge an n-part, back-and-forth exchange, of increasingly worse insults of that personage. Complete with escalating to enthusiastic shouting, slapping the table for emphasis, making crude illustrative gestures, etc. Perhaps there's only so much that an authoritarian work center will tolerate. For legitimate candidates, doing this at the start of an interview might be sending a confusing message about the corporate office environment. On the other hand, it would serve as an icebreaker, to help candidates feel comfortable sharing. And it will tell you more about the candidate's creativity than Leetcode regurgitation does. Well, until students start buying "Cracking the Techbro Interview: Trash-Talking Edition" books, spending months memorizing lists of insults to recite in interviews, and rehearsing their delivery, with enthusiastic full-arm gesticulating. Actually, that would still be better for the field than Leetcode interviews.