ITT rampant discrimination/ableism. People acting like the world is functional or that most rules make sense and are grounded in reality.
If somebody asks why a rule is the way it is, something really beautiful happens if people entertain and allow that questioning.
Was the rule made that way to simply punish someone in the past? Could the rule be improved? Does the rule apply to the present day? Could the rule be done away with?
If the enforcement of rules is taken seriously, the questioning, validity, and improvement of those rules should be, as well.
Otherwise, we live in an authoritarian society that actively encourages enforcing/following draconian rules no one understands - rules that would likely be enforced improperly or in an unbalanced sense, because nobody can properly explain it when somebody questions the rule (in good faith).
Having trouble with authority and/or being neurodivergent doesn’t mean you are anti-social, dangerous, or bad for the workplace.
Bad rules, however, can be anti-social or create a culture of anti-social behavior, they can be dangerous or harmful (especially if they can not be explained and are not widely understood), and they can be bad for the workplace. It may just not be readily apparent when everybody keeps their heads down and says yes all the time to bullshit.
If somebody asks why a rule is the way it is, something really beautiful happens if people entertain and allow that questioning.
What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?
If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.
Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.
Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).
Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.
What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?
I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it’s over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?
If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.
I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we’re not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.
Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.
As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can’t assume to know what somebody does or doesn’t know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.
Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).
Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.
Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.
I specifically made sure to include that I specified “in good faith”. That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I’m not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it’s sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.
As for somebody being perceivably “annoyingly obtuse”, that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn’t waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.
It’s like people think I’m just trying to be an asshole. I really don’t like starting conflict without having a good reason, and questioning the questionable is one of the best reasons out there.
I swear, some of my recent posts have brought out some nasty responses that I didn’t expect. On one hand, I don’t want to hold myself back from posting stuff just because I fear unjustified backlash. At the same time, I need to better prepare myself for it.
I’m sorry your experience has been less than ideal. I enjoy every single one of your posts that I’ve caught and I truly appreciate them.
I suggest doing what I did, just accept that every experience (in this case, post on social media) is a learning opportunity for yourself and others.
Some people have more learning to do, and we don’t have to blame them or feel badly about ourselves for being discriminated against, or not being understood/accepted, or having our intentions misread. You clearly aren’t trying to hurt anyone!
You said it in your reply earlier to me, embracing yourself and all your quirks helped you move forward. That helped me! Think about all of the people who are helped by the discussions you spark and move forward proudly! 💚
Is the rule well intentioned but impossible or self defeating to apply consistently, and the intent needs to be known because that’s the only part that’s worth a single fuck?
You’re right. You can also learn a lot about the culture and society around you because of that questioning, even if you end up still following the rules.
On the other hand, what’s there to gain from following the rules without question and forcing others to do the same? The only thing I can imagine right now that could be gained is the feeling that you are helping society “stay in the right track”.
This means that there are about 3 options:
Learn something new;
Continue to follow the rules without question while trying to force others to not learn something new, and feel good about it.
Do nothing and continue to follow the rules (you’re not bothered enough to learn something new, but also don’t want to be a pain in the ass);
Notice that when questioning the rules, you might come to the conclusion that there’s no harm in following the rules, or that following the rules is what’s the best for you or those around you.
Questioning ≠ opposing.
Question = checking validity and understanding why.
For the reasons Michael has outlined above, questioning the rules feels like the most productive approach.
Yes, much better, and not only that - I advocate for them (even when it’s unpopular). I’m somebody who thinks even Peter Thiel can choose another way of being and I’d be happy to help them out if they ever decide to release their ambitions for world domination.
Me? Suggest illegal action? Never. The matrix can be released without advocating for any harm, loss of freedom, or suggesting anything illegal. It just takes a willingness to reform our justice system and engage in rehabilitative or restorative justice, justice that is based on a foundation of consent.
If Peter Thiel wants to surveil the entire world and create AI-based tools to enslave humanity, with his consent, we can answer his desire and make him a computer program that resembles the matrix/our world. Let him cook and enslave/kill billions in a virtual reality he is empowered to help create. We could even employ human actors who choose to participate in his recovery. When he’s gotten it out of his system, he can be assisted in joining the society he sought to enslave under the guise of libertarian ideology.
ITT rampant discrimination/ableism. People acting like the world is functional or that most rules make sense and are grounded in reality.
If somebody asks why a rule is the way it is, something really beautiful happens if people entertain and allow that questioning.
Was the rule made that way to simply punish someone in the past? Could the rule be improved? Does the rule apply to the present day? Could the rule be done away with?
If the enforcement of rules is taken seriously, the questioning, validity, and improvement of those rules should be, as well.
Otherwise, we live in an authoritarian society that actively encourages enforcing/following draconian rules no one understands - rules that would likely be enforced improperly or in an unbalanced sense, because nobody can properly explain it when somebody questions the rule (in good faith).
Having trouble with authority and/or being neurodivergent doesn’t mean you are anti-social, dangerous, or bad for the workplace.
Bad rules, however, can be anti-social or create a culture of anti-social behavior, they can be dangerous or harmful (especially if they can not be explained and are not widely understood), and they can be bad for the workplace. It may just not be readily apparent when everybody keeps their heads down and says yes all the time to bullshit.
What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?
If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.
Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.
Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).
Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.
I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it’s over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?
I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we’re not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.
As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can’t assume to know what somebody does or doesn’t know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.
Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.
I specifically made sure to include that I specified “in good faith”. That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I’m not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it’s sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.
As for somebody being perceivably “annoyingly obtuse”, that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn’t waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.
It’s like people think I’m just trying to be an asshole. I really don’t like starting conflict without having a good reason, and questioning the questionable is one of the best reasons out there.
I swear, some of my recent posts have brought out some nasty responses that I didn’t expect. On one hand, I don’t want to hold myself back from posting stuff just because I fear unjustified backlash. At the same time, I need to better prepare myself for it.
Nah sis, your post is totally on point, and I love it. Authority is something we must question!
Don’t change anything about your posting! You’re literally one of the best posters I’ve encountered on here.
I’m sorry your experience has been less than ideal. I enjoy every single one of your posts that I’ve caught and I truly appreciate them.
I suggest doing what I did, just accept that every experience (in this case, post on social media) is a learning opportunity for yourself and others.
Some people have more learning to do, and we don’t have to blame them or feel badly about ourselves for being discriminated against, or not being understood/accepted, or having our intentions misread. You clearly aren’t trying to hurt anyone!
You said it in your reply earlier to me, embracing yourself and all your quirks helped you move forward. That helped me! Think about all of the people who are helped by the discussions you spark and move forward proudly! 💚
Is the rule well intentioned but impossible or self defeating to apply consistently, and the intent needs to be known because that’s the only part that’s worth a single fuck?
You’re right. You can also learn a lot about the culture and society around you because of that questioning, even if you end up still following the rules.
On the other hand, what’s there to gain from following the rules without question and forcing others to do the same? The only thing I can imagine right now that could be gained is the feeling that you are helping society “stay in the right track”.
This means that there are about 3 options:
Notice that when questioning the rules, you might come to the conclusion that there’s no harm in following the rules, or that following the rules is what’s the best for you or those around you. Questioning ≠ opposing. Question = checking validity and understanding why.
For the reasons Michael has outlined above, questioning the rules feels like the most productive approach.
But you might improve something or expose malfeasance. You’ll have to be killed. Sorry; just the rule.
Hopefully the Agent Smiths of the world consider another way of being.
Do you think that would be better?
Yes, much better, and not only that - I advocate for them (even when it’s unpopular). I’m somebody who thinks even Peter Thiel can choose another way of being and I’d be happy to help them out if they ever decide to release their ambitions for world domination.
Then either its illegal or you’re wrong.
Me? Suggest illegal action? Never. The matrix can be released without advocating for any harm, loss of freedom, or suggesting anything illegal. It just takes a willingness to reform our justice system and engage in rehabilitative or restorative justice, justice that is based on a foundation of consent.
If Peter Thiel wants to surveil the entire world and create AI-based tools to enslave humanity, with his consent, we can answer his desire and make him a computer program that resembles the matrix/our world. Let him cook and enslave/kill billions in a virtual reality he is empowered to help create. We could even employ human actors who choose to participate in his recovery. When he’s gotten it out of his system, he can be assisted in joining the society he sought to enslave under the guise of libertarian ideology.
Yeah,simulated people wouldn’t count. Creating them fully conscious for the sole purpose of optimizing their suffering is totally cool.