Twitter is now X

[ConservagameR]

Machiavellian said:

ConservagameR said:

"What I am finding to be an issue is that, yes free speech is important... But not if it comes at the expense of being ethical towards other people."

"There is no room for bigotry, fake information, hate speech, homophobia, sexism, racism and more, period. Real life or online."
"It's called being respectful."

This was the start of the conversation (above). Multiple times he's assumed the worst about me. Is that ethical? Is that respectful?

He made it clear that white people have an advantage which is a problem. He made it clear being rich was a bad thing. He made it clear that equality and equity are vital to a solid foundation. Yet to highly achieve would be, to be better or higher on a scale, to some degree, like wealth, than someone else.

How much more can someone achieve over others before it's a problem? How much wealthier can that someone end up before it's a problem? When is good enough, good enough, for anyone?

You can't then brag about being a high achieving rich white male and have someone honestly believe you're being genuine in this case. Even if you came from nothing on the street, you can't then take more than others or you're just becoming part of the problem. The only justification I could see being somewhat understandable would be if you were using all that extra power and wealth to specifically help those being highly oppressed. Doing good things for other people in this case, but reaping most of the rewards so you live like a king, isn't justified with those stated morals.

"In short, the guy is your typical hypocrite, they exist on the left and right side of the political spectrum."

As I pointed out to them, hypocrisy will soon be the norm for the majority. We're all guilty at times even if we're unaware of it. Hiding or running from it is just another addition to the problem, while practicing what you preach and accepting it is much easier said than done. Either that or make well thought out adjustments or changes to your morals to create a stronger foundation.

Why would you ask this if you've read through the conversation and understand the context as mentioned in your first point?

I've made it clear I'm open to options. Immediate pay or temporarily unpaid. It doesn't matter to me if I'm likely going to get what I want in the end and can make it work. If I'm unlikely to get it, or can't make it work, then I'm not doing it.

He made it clear that unpaid work is unacceptable, period.

Both baselines were already available. One of us is flexible and the other isn't in this case, so what do you hope to achieve here?

Also your position does not mean you are more flexible instead it just means you are willing to take more risk.  To work for free on a promise of getting paid is just the amount of risk you are willing to accept.  The thing is, there are a lot of people who do not have the flexibility to actually choose.  You present your position where you have a choice but there are many who are placed in those situations where there is no choice it either do as the employer says or find yourself out of a job. This is why we have labor laws because of the exploitation employers have used over the years.

Taking more risk wouldn't mean in every potential life scenario possible, but it did mean more flexibility when it came to that specific subject, as I stated.

Your point about lack of options is unnecessary as I've already said I find it an acceptable option depending on the other options. If the only option is slave labor, then the lack of options obviously means that's not acceptable. 

In today's world, for the most part, with today's rules, mostly being positive and useful, if your employer isn't giving you many or any options, you almost always have the choice to go elsewhere. In the off chance they're the only choice, you still have the choice to change careers or attempt to compete directly with them.

Choices aren't only about what's found to be perfectly acceptable. Sometimes people need to make hard choices that will lead to some negative consequences before they can move forward in a positive manner again. Two steps forward and one step back. It's unfortunate but it's the way of the world.

I asked you to answer your own question because you threw out a bunch of questions without any context to your position.  This usually boarder on sea-lioning so wanted you to actually state your position on the subject instead of asking a bunch of questions as you have done again in your reply.  This is the first time I have seen you actually make a declaration on your position instead of the appearance of you just throwing out stuff as a counter to an argument.

What I hope to achieve is for you to stop with the bolded part.  This tactic as I mentioned gives a sea-lioning feeling to your arguments instead of just putting your arguments into a declaration of what YOU actually believe.

Ah I see, I think. I didn't look at it from the other side when it comes to integrity. Didn't dawn on me at all.

To me it would have been beyond hypocritical, and flat out idiotic, if my stance, or anyone taking me stance, was to be a super wealthy snob who wouldn't bend over to pick up a $100 dollar bill, let alone offer some average person a helping hand, while also thinking slave labor was ok. That would be pretty embarrassing.

Apparently I should've, and should in the future, assume everyone takes a hypocritical stance. That will help me to better explain myself knowing that's also the assumption about me. It doesn't exactly seem very ethical and respectful, but who are we to judge? Though that assumption would also lead me to want to ask many questions of them, to verify their integrity, which would seem to be a concern here. What a pickle.

The questions I asked most recently, no different than in the past, weren't asked to overwhelm, weren't asked to misdirect or change the conversation, and weren't asked for nothing as if I didn't care about the answers. They are clearly based on the conversation and were asked because the likely answers would've furthered my point. To call them sealioning would've been to call a penalty before the infraction even occurred, like Minority Report.

What I believe, hasn't always been found to be good enough though, which at times leads to me ask more questions. Questions where the likely answer will further explain and prove the point I'm making, if answered, and honestly. I can't exactly make a strong statement if I don't have enough information from them for a point I'd like to make, so the only way to do that is to ask more questions.

What was said between us prior is an example. You asked questions about my stance. I found them to be useless because to me the answer was, and is there within the prior conversation, if you assumed I was being genuine.

Yet you asked anyway. Why? Likely because regardless, you felt you needed more information to make a solid statement that you couldn't have otherwise, and there's certainly no point in making a weak useless statement, so why not ask?

Now should I have assumed the worst about you and called that sealioning prior, or been ethical showing respect by assuming you weren't just wasting time, and answering your questions? Hopefully it's more clear now to you why I reply the way I do at times.