this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
464 points (97.0% liked)

Work Reform

9962 readers
293 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A system may take one of three forms

Ridiculous.

If so, then it should be trivial for you to show an alternative.

Please do so.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. You're either not arguing in good faith or showing yourself incapable of appreciating vital complexities. Either way, it's not worth my time and effort to continue down this road. Have the day you deserve.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is a good faith argument dismissing any idea with which you disagree, by invoking a single word, and then declining to provide the counterargument you have implied is trivial?

Which vital complexity am I incapable of appreciating?

Is a good faith argument a response based on an ad hominem?

You are being immensely hypocritical.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said have the day you deserve.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure. Enjoy making yourself seem extremely clever simply by asserting yourself as the only one capable of "appreciating vital complexities".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Expecting me to keep engaging after saying I don't want to just because you're demanding it? Yes, that IS ridiculous.

The only reason I'm still answering at all is because I have poor impulse control. Please stop.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The only reason I’m still answering at all is because I have poor impulse control.

Well, it would seem best to think about others' ideas more deeply, before simply returning summary dismissals.

It is bad faith for you to assert pejorative dismissals of someone else's behavior or position that you are unwilling to engage or to defend meaningfully.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i think, i found the issue in your exchange:

it's the way the two of you define "groups".

the person you replied to defines a "group" as members of a social grouping; they were talking about rich people as a "group".

you were talking about power being held by an unspecified, arbitrary "group" of no particular social membership; i.e.

to you, a democracy is a power structure that is "controlled" by a "group".

to the person you replied to, the U.S. government is a power structure controlled by a specific "group".

when they say "a minority group", they are talking about rich people being a small percentage of the population, and thus a minority, which is making laws benefiting mostly themselves.

when you talk about "a group holding power over others" you are talking about an abstract, arbitrary, and undefined collection of people.

to you, a coalition of far-right fascists and far-left anarchists forming a joint government would be a single "group".

to the person you replied to, that would be 2 distinct groups holding a portion of power.

you were talking past each other on different levels of abstraction.

which is why it's no wonder you accuse each other of being disingenuous... because neither of you engaged in the same conversation...

at least that's the impression i got, maybe i interpreted something wrong too... short text, like a forum comment, really isn't well suited to philosophical discussions: way too much room for interpretation...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem was not that we understood terms differently.

We may have done, and it may have produced obstacles to communication.

However, the problem with the conversation was that the other participant made hasty assumptions, and was predisposed to attack, rather than being reserved in judgment and willing to discuss. Ironically, such eagerness led to attacking me on the inferred basis of my discussing in bad faith.

Such kinds of smug dismissals contribute to toxicity in communities. They obstruct both explaining and learning.