Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So you've made a mistake and it's public

meta.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 403 posts

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#391

Post by jschulenklopper »

minkzilla wrote: post #216
herodoturtle wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he refuses to listen even to the church, then forgive him anyway.

This passage isn’t as much about forgiveness as correction. You are supposed to forgive no matter what (77 times). But this is if someone is doing wrong and needs to be corrected. If no matter what they will not stop their bad behavior then depending on how serious it is they cannot be allowed to keep being a part of the community.

It’s 7 times 70, not 7 plus 70. Anyway, too many times so that you could keep count.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#392

Post by watwut »

aidenn0 wrote: post #152
mannykannot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denying that you have made a mistake is likely to piss off the people who would otherwise be willing to move on. As the "mob", which may or may not exist in any given situation, is not going to be swayed by protests of innocence, the former are the only people you should care about.

In the current "us vs them" of politics, apologizing does nothing to appease "them" while making you seem weaker to "us" and denying it means you will be given the benefit of the doubt by "us." If e.g. Kavanaugh had admitted assaulting Ms. Ford and apologized, do you think enough Democrats would have said "Apology accepted" and voted to confirm to make up for the Republicans who would be unwilling to vote to confirm…

Apology for sexual assault really does not mean I will be ok with someone who did it on the most powerful judicial position.

I mean, it is absurd expectation. Apology does not even absolve you if minor crime in legal system. Plus, Supreme Court has great only little checked power. I just don't see someone willing to use power that way as suitable, even if he apologized.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#393

Post by watwut »

smsm42 wrote: post #353
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, your first hunch was correct. I sort-of know that it means the phenomenon where Harvey Weinstein rapes a dozen women and everybody on the internet pretends that's the reason they don't want to have women on their team. Because apparently "showing up at their colleagues' hotel room doors, naked and at night" is somehow just bound to happen in the course of standard operating procedures. Also the related phenomenon…

> I sort-of know that it means the phenomenon where Harvey Weinstein I think you are confusing your imagination with reality. Nobody - and by that I mean literally, without exaggeration, no single person who lives or ever lived - ever pretended that Harvey Weinstein raping women is the reason they don't want women on their team. Not "everybody", not somebody - literally no single person is pretending or ever pretende…

Oh yeah they do. And while canceled guys ressurect their careers pretty regularly, their victims don't.

It is not like actresses who lost careers because they refused Weinstein could ever get their careers back. And it is not like those who complain about securely harassment cold easily get new jobs - people are afraid to hire them.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#395

Post by Supermancho »

aflag wrote: post #126
Supermancho wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this is downvoted when its apropos. ^Trumps behavior is an effective counter example to the evolved list of rules, wikipedia puts forth as good autocratic process...insofar as wikipedia is more autocratic than communal by contribution. ^Obviously trump is not a genious

He was first elected with a minority and lost the reelection (which is uncommon in USA's history). Quoting the article: > But isn't it true that organization/individual X made a mistake and didn't follow this process at all? > Yes, it's true. And how did that work out?

It worked out fine, imo. The wikipedia page isnt about a popularity contest, per se but I can follow that parallel line of thinking.

Trumps behavior hasnt changed before he was elected or after the last election. As PotUS Trumps behavior was a bit less popular than another choice (not a relative landslide like 1984, 1972, 1964, etc). Granted, the political money machines have a lot to do with spinning the viewpoint of Americans, so it is possible that the election was not a good representative model.

I dont think the 2020 is a compelling single indicator of policy effectiveness on either side.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#396

Post by throw7 »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #326
throw7 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only one rule for apologizing: You apologize if you actually believe that you've done wrong. NEVER apologize for something you believe was done correctly or in good faith or for "PR" or whatever else.

Should you not apologize for unintended consequences, i.e. done in good faith, but on your authority/responsibility?

I think only you can answer that question. Part of a good apology is knowing one-self and self-reflection. Unintended consequences happen, yes, and I don't think one could argue one way is always the right answer in all cases. Just remember rule 1 and that is _you_ that is giving the apology.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#397

Post by cactus2093 »

djsumdog wrote: post #328
cactus2093 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you say so dude, and hey I have nothing against the using the legal process as it's intended. However there really is not tons of evidence, you haven't provided a shred of evidenced, nobody anywhere has produced any credible evidence of any of this. If they had the mainstream media would be all over it because any scandal is very good for their bottom line. And I hope you'll retract your dangerous statements once…

I did a whole post on it here: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-return-of-american-co... There are a lot of irregularities and several states have already forced hand recounts because the margins are so close. In PA and NV, they kicked out GOP observers. Why? Even if there is no foul play, that is a terrible thing to do. It. Looks. Bad. And it's illegal. Votes need to be tallied in front of both parties. They m…

You're just spewing garbage here.

The lawsuits in PA regarding kicking out GOP observers have been thrown out repeatedly, at this point the Trump campaign had to drop the claims about GOP observers not being allowed in from their lawsuits. Because there is zero basis to any of it.

The margins are close enough to recount, and nobody is arguing against a legal recount. But any reasonable person also recognizes that historically recounts don't change totals by tens of thousands of votes, so it is very unlikely to matter. The Florida results in the 2000 election you mention were much much closer than any state is in 2020.

Voter fraud is not at all difficult to prove. Many studies ballots have been analyzed in excruciating detail after elections, and surely will be done again this election. Voter fraud in the US is always extraordinarily rare. So far this election, one single case has been found in PA, and it was from a Trump supporter submitting a mail in ballot for his dead mother.

Not only are your claims untrue, they are so unfounded that there is hardly anything at all there to even refute https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/13/trump-vote...

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#398

Post by lopmotr »

kbenson wrote: post #388
lopmotr wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's something overhyped in social media and probably hardly even exists. It's very easy to incorrectly attribute mistreatment to something visible like sex or race. I used to have a workmate who complained everybody hated him at his previous job because he was the only American there. But then most people ended up hating him at his new job too, which was majority American staffed. People might use the obv…

> Yes, but that's something overhyped in social media and probably hardly even exists. As someone who has noticed their own knee-jerk reactions based on sex at times (due to a number of factors that mostly boil down to very little exposure to women in my specific field over the decades I've been in it based on small company sizes outside of major markets), I think you're either just entirely unaware of it, lucky enou…

I generally agree with all you've said there. I guess I have so much personal experience with non-sexism prejudice in all kinds of ways that I don't really care about the plight of women as much. It seems like everyone gets it. If someone asks as question on StackOverflow, I judge them for having a default avatar or username. I judge them for having a teenage writing style. If someone writes in 3rd person or 1st person, you can judge them in either direction depending on whether other signals are consistent with it. I try to combat that in myself and treat everyone fairly, but ways to judge people are just overwhelming even without knowing their sex. You get judged by the way you walk, the way to look at people, the timing of your speaking, your age, your clothes, everything. You might say those features aren't innate and people can change them, but it can be incredibly hard for some because they're actually signals of some underlying qualities and if you don't have those qualities, you're struggling to fake the signals which is risky and difficult.

I think women may actually get a better deal overall because so many men are trying not to be sexist that they treat them well, giving them a free pass on all those other judgable signals. Men might not even understand that a woman is revealing her inadequacy by wearing the "wrong" clothes, while they'll openly laugh at a man exhibiting "wrong" behavior.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#399

Post by aidenn0 »

watwut wrote: post #392
aidenn0 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current "us vs them" of politics, apologizing does nothing to appease "them" while making you seem weaker to "us" and denying it means you will be given the benefit of the doubt by "us." If e.g. Kavanaugh had admitted assaulting Ms. Ford and apologized, do you think enough Democrats would have said "Apology accepted" and voted to confirm to make up for the Republicans who would be unwilling to vote to confirm…

Apology for sexual assault really does not mean I will be ok with someone who did it on the most powerful judicial position. I mean, it is absurd expectation. Apology does not even absolve you if minor crime in legal system. Plus, Supreme Court has great only little checked power. I just don't see someone willing to use power that way as suitable, even if he apologized.

I didn't say people should forgive Kavanaugh, I said they wouldn't. Therefore denying it does have a point, directly contradicting the beginning of the article that states that there is no point denying it.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#400

Post by inopinatus »

will4274 wrote: post #335
inopinatus wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "progressives" you're referring to aren't progressive. They're reactionary authoritarians, hijacking the ideals and preferences of whatever group they're attached to. You can find them in all forms of debased public discourse and lowbrow populism, with a history going back millennia, and uniformly distributed across the political spectrum. No-one called the Spanish Inquisition progressive. I hold a very special l…

Tomato tomato. The members of the inquisition called themselves the inquisition, so we call them the inquisition. Today's progressives call themselves progressives so we call them progressives.

Conflating an organisation with an adjective is a fascinating category error and not one I'd previously considered working into my offerings of puns and satire. No doubt Tom Lehrer was already aware of the possibilities. Thanks for bringing this novelty to my attention!
Post reply on HN