I do note that it also works in mirror that just because someone has declared that they are not doing something doesn’t mean that they are not doing the thing.
So if not “this impact can’t be harmful, because my intentions are good” or “this impact can’t be harmful, because these people would have noticed.” was meant, what was meant? Outside of the frowned upon telepathy I am at a loss for relevance. So I am asking rather than assuming.
You seem to be convinced that “pseudo” is not communicating what it is supposed to communicate and that dropping the link to autism is not worth the damage it does in establishing the point. And you seem to think that should you find yourself in a situation where you have an impulse to use the short phrase you should just bother to write a longer sentence.
I also note you are not reworking to existing article to use a longer sentence instead.
Trying to read the article and take it seriosly/literally it does raise a question do you realise how extreme/harsh line it is doing.
This was in the list of terrible ideas
Publish a set of absolute user guidelines (not suggestions) and enforce them without exception instead of enforcing them like speed limits. e.g. any violation from a new user, or any violation from an established user not retracted immediately upon pushback = automatic three-day ban. If there are Special Cool People™ who are above the law, be explicit about that fact in a way that could be made clear to an autistic ten-year-old.
It doesn’t say “retracted after discussion” or “retracted fast”. And it also doesn’t say “upon establishing it happened” or “after credible claim” or “on balance of evidence”. Now this is a terrible idea and I guess part of it is to not rely on “suggestion guidelines”. It says “immediately upon pushback”. At the beginnig of this comment-thread that as of this writing stands at −10 karma I linked to an instance where a hospitality norm was non-centrally violated in a oneline comment and it was addressed by spelling out an assumtion of unfamliarity with norms, that it is unwanted and why it is unwanted. That user edited out the most eggrecious of the unhospitality maybe on the balance that it was not needed to convey the message. One would think that ideally atleast that line would extend for those that write longer messages and which are more central to the core userbase.
I do realise that I am sounding like some bad mechanics over at the mindkilly side. Maybe I actually am, but my goal is not to control productions/writings authored by others. I see that somebody wants to attain a high standard and wants help even in the small details. I would think that ideally when people make mistakes they would actively go hunt out tips that they are in the wrong “say oops” and correct on the their own accord. Not because they anticipate a social backlash. Not because there is a threat of a ban. “But sometimes there’s a mountain there, and it’s kind of wild that you can’t see it.”. Do you want help in climbing this particular mountain?
And I simply disagree that I’m enforcing neurotypical values, except I guess insofar as I’m validating that there is a difference between autists and non-autists (a fuzzy, population-level statistical one, not one that allows particularly accurate predictions on the level of individuals).
Is this relevantly different from calling autists stupid? I think I want to tease out and explicate taken very literally “that there is a difference between autists and non-autists” could be value neutral and the kind of “social information vs general information” kind of that is going on here. But it feels like taking it in the sense that there is a single linear axis where the two groups don’t have the same median and other statistical properties would also be justified (from able to not able, from competent to non-competent). Does this kind of distinction fall out of the scope of
I (extremely) agree with you that doing so is and would be rude, bad, unwelcoming, and a violation of basic hospitality norms.
I ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma.
In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation.
-”you are killing the plants by poisoning them”
-”No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave” [points at massive billboard]
-”No, but if you would just try it...”
-”But we have always done it this way. Its common knowledge everybody knows that electrolytes are good for crops”
Being the head of agricultural sector in some sense makes that the most compent farmer around. But that is distinct from being right. I guess the current lingo fashion would be to say that instead of indirect arguments of reliablity talk about gear-level models on what is the impact exposing to water vs exposing to electrolytes. And in order to do this cleanly one needs to suppress the “knowledge” that electrolytes help plants.
Like working all your life around plants doesn’t guarantee good croppping working all your life with and towards autists doesn’t guarantee good attitude. The gear spinning doesn’t care where you have been lurking.
I do note that it also works in mirror that just because someone has declared that they are not doing something doesn’t mean that they are not doing the thing.
So if not “this impact can’t be harmful, because my intentions are good” or “this impact can’t be harmful, because these people would have noticed.” was meant, what was meant? Outside of the frowned upon telepathy I am at a loss for relevance. So I am asking rather than assuming.
You seem to be convinced that “pseudo” is not communicating what it is supposed to communicate and that dropping the link to autism is not worth the damage it does in establishing the point. And you seem to think that should you find yourself in a situation where you have an impulse to use the short phrase you should just bother to write a longer sentence.
I also note you are not reworking to existing article to use a longer sentence instead.
Trying to read the article and take it seriosly/literally it does raise a question do you realise how extreme/harsh line it is doing.
This was in the list of terrible ideas
It doesn’t say “retracted after discussion” or “retracted fast”. And it also doesn’t say “upon establishing it happened” or “after credible claim” or “on balance of evidence”. Now this is a terrible idea and I guess part of it is to not rely on “suggestion guidelines”. It says “immediately upon pushback”. At the beginnig of this comment-thread that as of this writing stands at −10 karma I linked to an instance where a hospitality norm was non-centrally violated in a oneline comment and it was addressed by spelling out an assumtion of unfamliarity with norms, that it is unwanted and why it is unwanted. That user edited out the most eggrecious of the unhospitality maybe on the balance that it was not needed to convey the message. One would think that ideally atleast that line would extend for those that write longer messages and which are more central to the core userbase.
I do realise that I am sounding like some bad mechanics over at the mindkilly side. Maybe I actually am, but my goal is not to control productions/writings authored by others. I see that somebody wants to attain a high standard and wants help even in the small details. I would think that ideally when people make mistakes they would actively go hunt out tips that they are in the wrong “say oops” and correct on the their own accord. Not because they anticipate a social backlash. Not because there is a threat of a ban. “But sometimes there’s a mountain there, and it’s kind of wild that you can’t see it.”. Do you want help in climbing this particular mountain?
Is this relevantly different from calling autists stupid? I think I want to tease out and explicate taken very literally “that there is a difference between autists and non-autists” could be value neutral and the kind of “social information vs general information” kind of that is going on here. But it feels like taking it in the sense that there is a single linear axis where the two groups don’t have the same median and other statistical properties would also be justified (from able to not able, from competent to non-competent). Does this kind of distinction fall out of the scope of
I ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma.
In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation.
-”you are killing the plants by poisoning them”
-”No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave” [points at massive billboard]
-”No, but if you would just try it...”
-”But we have always done it this way. Its common knowledge everybody knows that electrolytes are good for crops”
Being the head of agricultural sector in some sense makes that the most compent farmer around. But that is distinct from being right. I guess the current lingo fashion would be to say that instead of indirect arguments of reliablity talk about gear-level models on what is the impact exposing to water vs exposing to electrolytes. And in order to do this cleanly one needs to suppress the “knowledge” that electrolytes help plants.
Like working all your life around plants doesn’t guarantee good croppping working all your life with and towards autists doesn’t guarantee good attitude. The gear spinning doesn’t care where you have been lurking.