SSO: Deep Thoughts

[crushingpetal]

Not chatter code, but law code section # in CA lmao:
"6505. Whenever the court considers it necessary or advisable, it may cause an order to issue for the apprehension and delivery to the court of the person alleged to have a developmental disability, and may have the order executed by a peace officer."

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/welfare-and-institutions-code/wic-sect-6505/#:~:text=Whenever%20the%20court%20considers%20it,executed%20by%20a%20peace%20officer.

And for 5153:

2011 California Code :: Welfare and Institutions Code :: DIVISION 5. COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES [5000 - 5912] :: ARTICLE 1. Detention of Mentally Disordered Persons for Evaluation and Treatment :: Section 5153

law.justia.com

I think that's exactly what Hartley was going for.

 

[Randy]

Trust is earned but I submit that access to the truth is also earned.

 

[Demiurge]

I call that "honesty with discretion".

 

[crushingpetal]

Trust is earned but I submit that access to the truth is also earned.

Fuck yeah.

Edit: it is hard to know things. It takes work.

 

[TedEH]

access to the truth is also earned

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but any interpretation I can think of seems counter-productive.

Does it mean only be honest to people who "deserve it"? Why? Why arbitrarily lie to people?
Does it mean treat "the truth" as privileged or valuable resources that should be gate-kept? That serves nobody.
It is the I'm-14-and-this-is-deep version where nobody is allowed to see the "real you" until they've proven they're just as "real" as you and they've totally got you back bro?

The truth should be the default, and everyone should have access to it. Because when people don't have access to the truth, they make shit up. And there's enough evidence out there to show that people making shit up causes very real problems.

 

[Crungy]

Does it mean treat "the truth" as privileged or valuable resources that should be gate-kept? That serves nobody.

That's how I read it. I agree it serves nobody, but I think that's just how it goes at higher levels of "truth", whether it's politics or whatever the topic.

 

[Randy]

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but any interpretation I can think of seems counter-productive.

Does it mean only be honest to people who "deserve it"? Why? Why arbitrarily lie to people?
Does it mean treat "the truth" as privileged or valuable resources that should be gate-kept? That serves nobody.
It is the I'm-14-and-this-is-deep version where nobody is allowed to see the "real you" until they've proven they're just as "real" as you and they've totally got you back bro?

The truth should be the default, and everyone should have access to it. Because when people don't have access to the truth, they make shit up. And there's enough evidence out there to show that people making shit up causes very real problems.

You've never told someone the truth and they reacted negatively toward it, or taken it out on you just because they didn't like it? The proverbial "shooting the messenger"

Or tell someone the truth and they weaponized it? Blackmail and extortion, etc

 

[Demiurge]

In my view, it's "don't lie but be judicious as to who deserves an explanation" which I think is a necessary defense mechanism in this age of no privacy where that seems to be the expectation.

When you call out of work sick- do you tell them what you're sick with?
If you decline someone's invite for plans- do you tell what you're doing instead?
If you're in a bad mood- do you have to tell everyone what's upsetting you?
EDIT: Meant to add that there are probably people in everyone's life where you're comfortable providing reasons to the above and others you are not. It's not dishonesty.

 

[crushingpetal]

I read "the truth", not as "a true statement", but "the way the world is". Then, "the truth is earned" meant, again, as I read it, that it takes a lot of work to figure out how the world really is. It is not something you can get (alone) by reading your feed, or even reading the NYT.

Not throwing shade at the youguns, but I've talked to a few younger folks that seemed to think that getting "the truth" was easy, you just look it up on the internet.*

*This is not meant to represent all young people, btw.

 

[TedEH]

You've never told someone the truth and they reacted negatively toward it, or taken it out on you just because they didn't like it? The proverbial "shooting the messenger"

Or tell someone the truth and they weaponized it? Blackmail and extortion, etc

Honestly, nobody who was an adult, no. I generally think of myself as very honest, and any time that backfires, the problem is never that "they didn't earn the truth", whatever that means. I don't do anything that is worthy of blackmail so that's not a problem. Keeping trade secrets is nothing to do with "earning" the truth. Any time I've been in a potential "shoot the messenger" situation, the consequences of putting off an inevitable truth was worse than being shot as the messenger. If my boss really wants to know what I'm sick with, putting aside it's illegal to ask that in Canada, then I'll tell him. If I'm sick I'm sick, what difference does it make? Honesty remains the best policy.

I still don't get what "earning the truth" is supposed to mean.

 

[crushingpetal]

Ok, I get the other reading. I see where we're going.

>I still don't get what "earning the truth" is supposed to mean.

Maybe it's helpful if we concentrate on "the hard truths", it's easier to see. Not everyone is ready to understand or even hear "the hard truths" (the uncomfortable or terrible facts of life).

If we're talking about any old truth ("it is raining outside"), yes, then it's harder to see why the original claim is true.

 

[Randy]

Maybe it's helpful if we concentrate on "the hard truths", it's easier to see. Not everyone is ready to understand or even hear "the hard truths" (the uncomfortable or terrible facts of life)

This is the correct reading, yes.

 

[Randy]

Honestly, nobody who was an adult, no. I generally think of myself as very honest, and any time that backfires, the problem is never that "they didn't earn the truth", whatever that means. I don't do anything that is worthy of blackmail so that's not a problem. Keeping trade secrets is nothing to do with "earning" the truth. Any time I've been in a potential "shoot the messenger" situation, the consequences of putting off an inevitable truth was worse than being shot as the messenger. If my boss really wants to know what I'm sick with, putting aside it's illegal to ask that in Canada, then I'll tell him. If I'm sick I'm sick, what difference does it make? Honesty remains the best policy.

I still don't get what "earning the truth" is supposed to mean.

A couple statements in here I can't tell if they're piousness or naivety.

I don't do anything worthy of blackmail. I'm curious if that is some kind of statement claiming you never lie, have no secrets or you believe you have no status that anyone would bother holding something over you?

The irony is that I made this statement not as someone who lies or has felt the need to lie with any consistency. I say it as someone who is frequently truthful and up front to a fault, and those truths very often bite me in the ass.

I find it odd a person that says they're exceptionally truthful but can't cite a scenario where telling someone the truth was hurtful to them or the other person unnecessarily?

 

[SalsaWood]

All men are subordinate to Logos whether they know it or not.

 

[crushingpetal]

All men are subordinate to Logos whether they know it or not.

I'm not going to look this up, because that would be cheating. Is this a Stoic? I don't think Aristotle said that...

 

[TedEH]

That doesn't make any more sense to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nobody has explained what it means to "earn access to the truth". Some people understand hard truths just fine without having to do any hard work to "earn" it.

I'm curious if that is some kind of statement claiming you never lie, have no secrets or you believe you have no status that anyone would bother holding something over you?

I don't lie in any way serious enough to warrant blackmail. I don't steal things, I don't get into fights, I don't start drama behind people's backs, I don't generally break any meaningful laws, I don't take nudes to be leaked, and if anyone took any work information from me, I would present that situation to my office before it became a chance to be blackmailed, I'm not a manager or holder of any special position or information, I'm not a protected minority of some kind. Dunno what to tell you. The only things I really keep secret are things I'm bound to by NDA. Other than that, what secrets do you think I would have? What horrible secrets do you think the average person is keeping? What exactly are people going to leak about me? Oh no, Ted knows when an ad-ridden mobile game is going to come out. Oh no, Ted isn't the biggest fan of Steve. Oh no, Ted has occasionally drove over the speed limit. Oh no, Ted has an overly ambitious Steam backlog. Oh no, Ted didn't really need to buy another guitar. Oh no, Ted doesn't brush his teeth as often as he should.

I find it odd a person that says they're exceptionally truthful but can't cite a scenario where telling someone the truth was hurtful to them or the other person unnecessarily?

Cases where the truth was hurtful to me or the other person? Certainly. I've got plenty of family drama, as I've posted about. But unnecessarily? Nope. If I say something that pisses off a family member, they're almost certainly pissed precisely because it was necessary, not the other way around.

But again, I loop back around to - what does "earning it" mean? 'Cause it sounds to me like one of those machismo "only real true tough bros who have struggled can really truly understand the hard truths" which is a nothingburger of a statement. Life ain't that deep.

 

[Randy]

I don't steal things, I don't get into fights, I don't start drama behind people's backs, I don't generally break any meaningful laws, I don't take nudes to be leaked,

Behold you describing scenarios expressing that you fully understand the original statement but rather than simply say you disagree, you instead purport to not understand it.

 

[TedEH]

Behold you describing scenarios expressing that you fully understand the original statement but rather than simply say you disagree, you instead purport to not understand it.

I'm honestly even more confused by this than the original statement. None of those things are hard work, I didn't "earn" those things. Are you under the impression that the average person's default mode is to steal and fight and argue and break all the laws and stamp about like unruly toddlers unless they expend some herculean effort to....
and I'm failing to find a connection here.... "earn access to the truth"?

Do you think a person doesn't "deserve access to the truth" if they've ever done any of those things?

 

[ArtDecade]

 

[Randy]

I'm honestly even more confused by this than the original statement. None of those things are hard work, I didn't "earn" those things. Are you under the impression that the average person's default mode is to steal and fight and argue and break all the laws and stamp about like unruly toddlers unless they expend some herculean effort to....
and I'm failing to find a connection here.... "earn access to the truth"?

Do you think a person doesn't "deserve access to the truth" if they've ever done any of those things?

Holy shit man you and the mental pretzel. Take a fucking break

I think it's a statement that scales and translates just fine but the scenario which brought it up this time is not that deep dude.

Couple days ago the woman in the office next to mine had her Wi-Fi go down. Her router was dead and she wanted me to set up a new one for her. Which I did.

A day or two later she told me that it wasn't working because her granddaughter came to visit and couldn't get on. I went back and debugged it and found that the router was working fine and all the devices she had connected to it were working fine.

When I told her that she said well, the real story was that her old router had a guest alternate access and the new one didn't have it set up. Her Wi-Fi password was something she also uses for other more sensitive purposes and she didn't trust her granddaughter with having it. So what she really wanted me to do was just set up a guest Wi-Fi for her.

In this case the truth isn't the Wi-Fi password, it's the woman not telling her granddaughter she wasn't giving it to her because she doesn't trust her. Which was also the reason why the statement invoked both the concept of trust and the truth.

The question was if it was incumbent on the woman to tell her granddaughter I'm not giving you the password because I don't trust you? We're telling her that be helpful? Would that not invoke other deeper questions about their relationship that go beyond necessary for what they were dealing with?

Again this is one example but I do think it translates elsewhere, as I've seen.