"The first one is the idea that there's some magic number that you can derive that gives you the worth of a person"
Fair enough. It was a sketch of an argument. I picked a large, round number to make it obvious that I was not serious. What do you think 100 times more rude even means? It doesn't really mean anything.
"Secondly, you're biasing our reactions by picking a large number. If Ulrich is worth 1.1 other programmers, what do you do?"
In the argument, he is allowed to be up to 1.1 times more rude to compensate for technical prowess.
"Calling people idiots or defining their work as a waste of time should never be excusable."
I'll pick on the word "never". Let's take it literally. If a person is an idiot, and the work is waste of time, perhaps it would be good idea to call it such? I don't see what denying reality gets you, other than blinders that cause you to make mistakes.
Posted May 8, 2009 10:53 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141)
[Link]
I already regret the last paragraph. Let's just say that I agree that it's good to be a polite, reasonable person. I just am not so sure that hard-fast rules such as "it's never ok to be rude" are reasonable. I see the matter such: there is a palette of expressions, and every one of these may have its uses.
To skillfully use this palette is completely another matter: it's horribly crude to use wrong kind of expression, and doesn't reflect well on the speaker. Communication is, after all, a process where you need to make yourself understood to another. Whether I just transgressed remains to be seen...