wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
In your experience what percentage of "[more/better] communication" as a diagnosis or remedy in a social context is an effective or appropriate one? I think it's uncommon these days.
- Perceived or real problem occurs
- Something Must Be Done
- That something, it is decided by problem seers, problem makers, or decision makers must be more communication. If we communicated more we'd be able to avoid perceived or real problems such as this.
One common example of this phenomena goes something like above. If you're still not picking up what I'm laying down consider the following:
- The powers that be fuck up, or an individual does, and the people below them are impacted and/or angry. An unstated social negotiation occurs where the people either realize there was a failure in communication, or they are manipulated into accepting more communication as a fix from the powers that be.
"Bob, next time we will communicate
fuck upschanges to you in advance which will prevent these types of futurefuck upsproblems that impact you."*
- Game developer/Coca-Cola releases unpopular patch/drink, gamers/consumers riot, demands are put forth, reversals are made, and the developer/Coca-Cola issues a press release agreeing that more communication should have been done.
More Communication the platitude, tool, and HR seminar is a lie. In contexts where More Communication is a social lubricant, language to demand conciliatory notions or more respect from the powers that be, why can't we just ask for that? Who decided we should wrap "communication" into such things? Stakes vary between context, but the mechanics of communication are important. Most people are shit at communicating, and even those who hold an unusually innovative communication super power are still shit at communicating with someone competent. We shouldn't be muddying that precise failure up with population level memes.
"Shut the hell up, Bob. We can circle back to this
fuck upproblem until the cows come home, but are you really going to disagree with moving forward with More Communication?"
Napoleon didn't deploy the More Communication meme after the Battle of Aspern-Essling, did he? Maybe he did. Even so, I maintain that More Communication is too overloaded and watered down. A meme that can mean an apology is in order, the radio failed and no one sent a runner, management sucks, or no one is going to be holding the bag for the latest fuck up-- this must be a warcrime against autists. Whoever made the Communications B.A. what it is has a lot to answer for at the Hague.
Virginia's gone, man. For Virginians, all that's left to do is to vote, pray, and fund the grand ballroom for their newest litigation-legislation waltz. I took a peek at /r/VAguns not long ago and they're well into non-compliance bravado. I can't say I'd be any better in their situation, but the reality of becoming a criminal is less than romantic.
I've been meaning to ask, did you read friend of The Motte BJ Campbell's "After Action Report: Bridging the Divide"? He participated in an experimental parley with firearms, firearms policy, and gun violence experts, and they created a document which I read at the time but do not recall liking very much. From his summary:
The only three laws that do anything significant are universal background checks (14.9% reduction), violent misdemeanor prohibitions (18.1% reduction), and adopting constitutional carry (9.0% reduction).
It's not the first time he's written about this, but universal background checks are one of the "common sense" solutions that could work to target violent criminals.
The “Background Checks” policy adds a state background check system that runs in parallel with the federal one, and can be used for peer to peer transfers or FFL transfers. It’s a state database and a smartphone app or website where you put a buyer’s information in, and it instantly returns a green flag or red flag on the prospective sale, without an owner registry. The state uses this for all peer to peer transfers which wouldn’t require a NICS check, and requests that the ATF allow it for FFL transfers as well. The policy also gets rid of state bans on SBRs and suppressors. This is the cornerstone, because it closes the supposed “gun show loophole” but does so in a way that is a convenient win for gun owners without a registry.
That all sounds fine to me. Could work. Could. Unfortunately, this is will be too juicy of a weapon to go to waste, which means I can't trust the terms and conditions will change, and this makes it as good as any other fantasy solution. We could place the UBC servers in Próspera, Honduras, or carve out another semi-sovereign microstate that only ceremonially answers to the US government . A start-up is chartered there with a sole purpose of running each US state's UBC system uniformly and acceptably. From there, a council of a dozen AI agents could respond to and consider any changes future USG law or decree creates with a heavy weights towards saying, "No, 100 years has not passed."
Other than the whole rights being rights issue, the trust problem is tricky.
I think gun friendly states could use this as a guideline to deflect antigun forces from ramming far more restrictive rules down their throats after a mass shooting.
What better way to rebuild trust than limit one's own policy in one's own states to only the most effective bits? As a pragmatic framework for antigun states this could be net positive for gun rights. The major caveat is that it doesn't change the incentives that push politicians to chase the dragon on this issue, disband Brady, or have a chance in hell.
I think choosing what and which communication to complete a task is more useful than an academic understanding. As a basic concept for people who would have never considered it as such it's probably good to cram it into the heads of all undergrads.
Follow-up questions as a KPI for active listening seems perfectly suited for the Bay Area. I wonder if this is an effect of moving away from lectures across education, or if it is more so an annoying compulsion because everyone asks AI or Google anything at any time. Who needs to listen to people with knowledge?
RE: Friday reference. I became concerned after learning they are making another. The new setting is in a gentrified neighborhood which could be funny, or it could be the old, out of touch leads are incapable of making a crass (B)lack comedy without the weight of heavy handed social commentary. One can hope it's only marketing.
More options
Context Copy link