All three are different, particularly when explicitly presented as contrasting alternatives, which wouldn’t be the case for the original listener. If given in the same tone, the first two are fairly equivalent, it’s just that the first would tend to be presented in a more negative tone more often.
One fair point to remember—we received the report from someone clearer hostile to the first speaker. What’s your prior that this is meant as an exact quote? That it is an accurate exact quote, if so meant? If not exact, more likely the quote given was marginally worse or better than the original comment?
The original guy could have been completely hostile, with a sneering and demeaning tone. Admittedly it’s a mountain of inference we’re dealing with, as it was for the original commenter here. That’s why I hate this whole business of playing psychic detective in the first place. What will someone think of this word? What did they mean by that word? What a tiresome way to live. Makes my teeth hurt just thinking about it. Most likely, the guy wasn’t thinking that hard and was just flapping his mouth to make conversation. Me, I deliberately try to squelch ruminations of hostile intent, and take people at face value.
That’s seems a weakness of this whole series. It’s all about inferring motive on a thimble full of evidence. Without us all watching a movie of events, we’re all talking to different movies we’ve constructed in our own heads. What unreasonable conclusions people are drawing from what happened! (In my movie!)
The poster here seemed hostile to me. Maybe there was good reason for it based on the emotional tone of the original statement. Given my priors and the comment here, I’d still bet against it, but could be.
The “actually” implies that the target has already made an indication of reading LW, and that the speaker is asking for verification of that indication.
Didn’t happen in my movie. Certainly, if the guy originally was suggesting that the woman was a liar about a claim she made about reading LW, that’s an entirely different movie. And, I think literally, a different story in fact, as my prior for that scenario is vanishingly low. Don’t you think that would have been a relevant part of the story to relay in the first place, if it was indeed the case? Why would the poster leave it out, when it so well suited her narrative? People aren’t likely to do that.
EDIT: For people downvoting army1987′s comment below, I suggest you’re missing the point and blocking valuable content on Postel’s Law. I missed the point originally because I jumped to the link and found it idiotic, and didn’t take the time to decipher SCNR—sorry, could not resist.
He’s made a valid point about intent not being a get out of being a dick free card, made in a tongue in cheek manner with a pointer to a raving post, or so I take it. The SCNR warning should immunize him from karma downvotes, IMO.
The point is, certain bad things can only happen if both parties in an interaction fail to abide by Postel’s law, so if such a thing happens to me, I don’t get to chide the other party for violating Postel’s law, because so did I.
In my own mind I’ve always named this “Two Way Slack”, but never had such a concise formulation before. Thanks!
But I disagree with your comment a bit, at least in the general human case. Slack on both ends tolerates some deviation from Postel’s law. You get very robust when both sides observe it, still some robustness without it, but there’s still always the potential for failure.
That assumes neither party is actively malicious. If one of the parties is in fact malicious abiding by Postel’s law makes it more likely that you can be hacked.
Yeah, setting the prior toward good will, which seems the proper course in a social get together. There are predators out there, and there are dicks, but better to have a fairly high bar before assuming either in that context, IMO.
The question is how much damage can improperly trusting someone cause. In particular the woman in the OP could reasonably be described as ideologically driven.
Yeah. Alone in a parking garage with someone—don’t extend that trust so easily. Though I’d say it’s easy to be paranoid, for me at least, and the expected cost of fear is likely greater than the expected cost from violated trust. A woman could not trust the guy from the meeting who offers to walk her to her car, thereby being alone should someone else be there. There is a safety cost in not trusting people. And just a cost in lost opportunities of connection with others.
In particular the woman in the OP could reasonably be described as ideologically driven.
I have some suspicions of that on my part as well. I’m trying to extend her a little trust, and take her at her word in her latest update.
All three are different, particularly when explicitly presented as contrasting alternatives, which wouldn’t be the case for the original listener. If given in the same tone, the first two are fairly equivalent, it’s just that the first would tend to be presented in a more negative tone more often.
One fair point to remember—we received the report from someone clearer hostile to the first speaker. What’s your prior that this is meant as an exact quote? That it is an accurate exact quote, if so meant? If not exact, more likely the quote given was marginally worse or better than the original comment?
The original guy could have been completely hostile, with a sneering and demeaning tone. Admittedly it’s a mountain of inference we’re dealing with, as it was for the original commenter here. That’s why I hate this whole business of playing psychic detective in the first place. What will someone think of this word? What did they mean by that word? What a tiresome way to live. Makes my teeth hurt just thinking about it. Most likely, the guy wasn’t thinking that hard and was just flapping his mouth to make conversation. Me, I deliberately try to squelch ruminations of hostile intent, and take people at face value.
That’s seems a weakness of this whole series. It’s all about inferring motive on a thimble full of evidence. Without us all watching a movie of events, we’re all talking to different movies we’ve constructed in our own heads. What unreasonable conclusions people are drawing from what happened! (In my movie!)
The poster here seemed hostile to me. Maybe there was good reason for it based on the emotional tone of the original statement. Given my priors and the comment here, I’d still bet against it, but could be.
Didn’t happen in my movie. Certainly, if the guy originally was suggesting that the woman was a liar about a claim she made about reading LW, that’s an entirely different movie. And, I think literally, a different story in fact, as my prior for that scenario is vanishingly low. Don’t you think that would have been a relevant part of the story to relay in the first place, if it was indeed the case? Why would the poster leave it out, when it so well suited her narrative? People aren’t likely to do that.
EDIT: For people downvoting army1987′s comment below, I suggest you’re missing the point and blocking valuable content on Postel’s Law. I missed the point originally because I jumped to the link and found it idiotic, and didn’t take the time to decipher SCNR—sorry, could not resist.
He’s made a valid point about intent not being a get out of being a dick free card, made in a tongue in cheek manner with a pointer to a raving post, or so I take it. The SCNR warning should immunize him from karma downvotes, IMO.
I’ve just noticed the extra layer of irony in that comment which I hadn’t realized (or perhaps I had forgotten) was there.
Ha! I hadn’t noticed either.
Intent! It’s fucking magic! (SCNR.)
Yes, but someone could write the same thing about offense.
Of course.
The point is, certain bad things can only happen if both parties in an interaction fail to abide by Postel’s law, so if such a thing happens to me, I don’t get to chide the other party for violating Postel’s law, because so did I.
Postel’s law—love it! Just talking with the roommate the other day about why we get along so well. Postel’s law is the perfect summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_Principle
In my own mind I’ve always named this “Two Way Slack”, but never had such a concise formulation before. Thanks!
But I disagree with your comment a bit, at least in the general human case. Slack on both ends tolerates some deviation from Postel’s law. You get very robust when both sides observe it, still some robustness without it, but there’s still always the potential for failure.
That assumes neither party is actively malicious. If one of the parties is in fact malicious abiding by Postel’s law makes it more likely that you can be hacked.
Yeah, setting the prior toward good will, which seems the proper course in a social get together. There are predators out there, and there are dicks, but better to have a fairly high bar before assuming either in that context, IMO.
The question is how much damage can improperly trusting someone cause. In particular the woman in the OP could reasonably be described as ideologically driven.
Yeah. Alone in a parking garage with someone—don’t extend that trust so easily. Though I’d say it’s easy to be paranoid, for me at least, and the expected cost of fear is likely greater than the expected cost from violated trust. A woman could not trust the guy from the meeting who offers to walk her to her car, thereby being alone should someone else be there. There is a safety cost in not trusting people. And just a cost in lost opportunities of connection with others.
I have some suspicions of that on my part as well. I’m trying to extend her a little trust, and take her at her word in her latest update.
When talking about transphobia intent is the very last fucking thing you should be insulting.