4 ms·

It's a lie. It's a deliberate, baldfaced lie. I don't want "you" working for me. Who knows what other lies you think are okay because they're "just how people w

by Steuard 14y ago

It's a lie. It's a deliberate, baldfaced lie. I don't want "you" working for me. Who knows what other lies you think are okay because they're "just how people work"? You compare this lie on your resume to being "accidentally inconsistent". Tell me: if HR asked you about the discrepancy (maybe the company requires a background check?), would you admit to your deliberate deception, or would you lie again and say, "Oops, must've typed that wrong"? (And then you wonder why HR mistrusts people who make accidental mistakes.) Maybe you're right and this is a social status thing, but man. It hadn't struck me that the ability to live with a shred of integrity was that much a matter of privilege.

michaelochurch 14y ago
I don't think you've read the rest of my posts. I have far too much of an online presence to ever get away with lying about my age (I'm 29) or anything like that, so you don't have to worry about me. I've also had enough experience to know what the real crimes are and what the worst players actually look like. I've been screwed over by people who are actually deeply unethical (like a member of a prominent family who robbed me and threatened to bribe judges if I sought legal action) so if someone benefits by fiddling with dates and making a better story, I don't really give a shit. If you care about these things, then go and do something about the real crimes, which are usually perpetrated by powerful people who never get caught and involve far worse deceptions than a few dates on a CV. Also, the pile-on that happens to people who get caught in these minor lies isn't a reaction to a lack of integrity; it's indignation at the thought of a low-status individual getting "above his station" (the horror!) I'm lucky enough to be one of those high-status people with a good career and pedigree, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that it comes from innate superiority rather than mostly luck.
- Steuard 14y ago
  I've read your other posts, and they don't sway me. (And I put my initial "you" in quotes because you'd clearly separated yourself from this particular form of dishonesty.) As for your "real crimes" argument, BS. You absolutely do not get to excuse one person's unethical behavior just because someone else, somewhere, did something worse. In my day-to-day life, I have practically no ability to bring your prominent robber to justice, nor price-fixing Wall Street CEOs, nor that Kony guy. But that doesn't disqualify me from insisting that my employees or co-workers behave with integrity themselves. Finally, I don't think I've said anything here to merit what looks like a suggestion that my motivation is "status protection" rather than "integrity" as I said it was. I'm a professional scientist and a professor, so integrity and academic honesty are quite central to my working life. I'm sure there are people out there who do "pile on" only when it's chance to crush some uppity peon, but that's far from the only reason. (And hey, what's with your final aside about the origins of social status? It's largely true, of course, but what's it doing in this comment?)
flyinRyan 14y ago
>baldfaced lie Sorry to be that guy, but it's bold faced lie, as in print.
- tptacek 14y ago
  No, it's not. "Bold" is the malapropism, not bald, which is the original term.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Rats. I looked this up and apparently the original term was "Bare faced" and is pre-shakespear. I had always heard it had to do with print (e.g. a lie told in Bold Face print on the front page). I still think that's nicer than bald faced, even if my version is the wrong one. :)

by Steuard 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago

I don't think you've read the rest of my posts. I have far too much of an online presence to ever get away with lying about my age (I'm 29) or anything like that, so you don't have to worry about me. I've also had enough experience to know what the real crimes are and what the worst players actually look like. I've been screwed over by people who are actually deeply unethical (like a member of a prominent family who robbed me and threatened to bribe judges if I sought legal action) so if someone benefits by fiddling with dates and making a better story, I don't really give a shit. If you care about these things, then go and do something about the real crimes, which are usually perpetrated by powerful people who never get caught and involve far worse deceptions than a few dates on a CV. Also, the pile-on that happens to people who get caught in these minor lies isn't a reaction to a lack of integrity; it's indignation at the thought of a low-status individual getting "above his station" (the horror!) I'm lucky enough to be one of those high-status people with a good career and pedigree, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that it comes from innate superiority rather than mostly luck.

Steuard 14y ago
I've read your other posts, and they don't sway me. (And I put my initial "you" in quotes because you'd clearly separated yourself from this particular form of dishonesty.) As for your "real crimes" argument, BS. You absolutely do not get to excuse one person's unethical behavior just because someone else, somewhere, did something worse. In my day-to-day life, I have practically no ability to bring your prominent robber to justice, nor price-fixing Wall Street CEOs, nor that Kony guy. But that doesn't disqualify me from insisting that my employees or co-workers behave with integrity themselves. Finally, I don't think I've said anything here to merit what looks like a suggestion that my motivation is "status protection" rather than "integrity" as I said it was. I'm a professional scientist and a professor, so integrity and academic honesty are quite central to my working life. I'm sure there are people out there who do "pile on" only when it's chance to crush some uppity peon, but that's far from the only reason. (And hey, what's with your final aside about the origins of social status? It's largely true, of course, but what's it doing in this comment?)

flyinRyan 14y ago

>baldfaced lie Sorry to be that guy, but it's bold faced lie, as in print.

tptacek 14y ago
No, it's not. "Bold" is the malapropism, not bald, which is the original term.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Rats. I looked this up and apparently the original term was "Bare faced" and is pre-shakespear. I had always heard it had to do with print (e.g. a lie told in Bold Face print on the front page). I still think that's nicer than bald faced, even if my version is the wrong one. :)