These arguments are kind of dripping in slippery slope fallacy. That’s a potential outcome but by no means the only one. I’d hazard that’s a pretty worst case interpretation. I think your average person doesn’t evaluate themselves solely through the lens of economic value. Capitalismwould nudge people toward your slope, but I don’t think humans would totally cooperate with the effort.
Most of the time when I get into an argument with someone on Lemmy (formerly Reddit) it was for the people who may read it more than the other person. The best outcome in those cases is civil disengagement, not changing their mind. But the goal is to reveal some faulty logic and dismiss some disinformation for random strangers.
Who the fuck downvotes this?
Maxim 6: If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Down bad, but more.
I’ve told people before, as a non-smoker, that smoking would be the ultimate social activity if it weren’t for all the cancer and assorted negative health outcomes. You’ve got an idle habit that many people also engage in. It requires that people come closer together to share the disposal resources. It then requires that you hold still and fidget with a small stick for several minutes every time you do it. And nothing else. It’s hard to beat a set of conditions to get people to idly interact with each other that’s better than that.
But, you know, cancer…
Oooooohhh. Yeah that makes sense.
You left the conditions for “acceptable behavior” as “common and rote”. The point of the extremity was to demonstrate that this is a bad definition. Your revulsion to the comparison would indicate you understand this on some level, though that assertion is flimsier.
Well yeah, of course you can look up the questions and plan out answers. Hell, many of the questions are useful to ask. And get good results. I would further recommend that to prospective interviewees in spite of the heartburn the idea gives me. I’ll play the damned game but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t rub me the wrong way. Familiarity does not necessarily breed comfort. Sometimes all you get is resignation to an unpleasant task. But that wasn’t my point.
The point was this particular, common question is insulting and demeaning to everyone involved for no value to the interviewer and that the only plausible justification for it boils down to “its tradition” (which is a stupid reason to keep it) and further incentivizes character features that I hazard are socially detrimental (brown nosing and lying are not typically positive traits).
I can accept the song and dance interpretation of things, but contest that it isn’t degrading and ultimately either useless or arguably detrimental. To go as extreme as possible: slavery was once common and rote and that did not make it anything less than a dehumanizing crime against humanity. Being common does not make it OK. There are better options and holding on to things because that’s how it’s always been is a fallacy.
To follow up, and reveal my own biases, the song and dance is hard for many people who are neurodivergent (and presumably some subset of neurotypicals, but I can’t really speak from experience there). I’m a bad liar. It’s one thing to selectively pick facts and let people make assumptions (which I’m meh at at best, and need prep for and don’t enjoy doing) and another to openly make shit up on the fly (or have your bullshit prepared in advance). And for people such as myself that are bad at and uncomfortable with directly lying, despite my qualifications, now I’m screwed because society values dishonesty for some deeply stupid reason. And just riding the wave at this point: is incentivizing brown nosing and lying really what we want? Because that seems like a bad incentive.
Yeah, if someone is being a cunt and saying that, sure. Most people have the good sense to be friendly during an interview and if they can’t manage that, I have no defense for them.
But you don’t even need this question to judge friendliness. The question is completely worthless and is very “dance monkey dance”. I asks the applicant to degrade themselves by lying to your face about some higher meaning for no useful information to the interviewer. As I said, there are way better questions to ask.
Sure, but depending on the field, there is no difference from one job to another. I can do data analysis on your engine, your electrical grid, your stupid app. It’s all numbers to me. Going through the motions of pretending I was called by destiny for your company is insulting to both of us. Same category as a damned cover letter. I had ChatGPT write whatever I thought would get me in the door and you honestly shouldn’t trust a single one ever.
If you can find that special someone that really does have a thing for your company, neat. Otherwise, maybe don’t use this question because you’re probably just going to learn how well the applicant can brown nose. There are plenty of interview questions to choose from that might yield useful data.
So clarify what I can do. I vote, so that’s out of the way.
Donate? With what money?
Help/run campaigns? With what time and/or money?
Be informed? I generally am and a fat lot of good it did.
Inform others? Not an influencer, so no reach. The few crazies I am adjacent to I either can’t discuss things with because it’d be unprofessional and I don’t want to lose my job or they drank deep of the Kool aid. And the non crazies are usually on my side even when I do have info they don’t already know.
Take people to the polls? Everyone for whom I could offer such a service early voted.
So what power am I overlooking? I participate to the best of my ability and within my limited resources so what am I missing?
Edit: How shocking, no response, just a downvote.
I’d be shocked if that was possible. Though I wouldn’t hate being able to do crafting/gathering from my phone.
Both obviously. I did my part and sanity lost in the US. I continue to have no meaningful power.
Our lives are also on the list to lose. The health and well-being of those that depend on us as well. Losing our chains is great if that’s really all you have to lose.
The detachment is more of a defeatism issue. When you have zero power to affect change, what the hell else can you do but work through the day and try to not have a breakdown?
Mind you, I vote when that comes around, I just don’t have the mental fortitude anymore to not be detached. Don’t have the time or space to do more than that, which is rather by design I expect.
Conservatives are really anti conservation for some strange reason.
Greta Thunberg, swedish environmental activist and a favorite hate watch of conservatives.
It’s only controversial for those who are being called out on being terrible people on a moral level.
Maybe (as in I would have to check, not that I think it likely) at highway speeds. But in any low speed area, vehicles without gas engines can be sneaky.
My company was working on an electric bus and I saw a driver sneak up on an engineer with the aforementioned city bus. They actually, legally (in some places) need noise makers at low speeds to deal with this.