Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 3616 to 3621 (20th to 24th November 2017)
traroth:
"Relax, it's just a comic."
Marco:
I thought the last strip could put an end to the deep analysis of Tilly's acts and motivations. Oh, boy, how I was wrong...
I'll be back in a week or two to see where it went.
Thrudd:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 20 Nov 2017, 23:25 ---Because most large corporations consider the law to be something to work around, not something to obey. I doubt that this is the first project Tilly's been involved in where obeying the law and the rules of human decency is only an issue when a SWAT team, assisted by FBI officers and a SEC auditor or two come busting in to arrest the entire project team.
"Low-pollution diesel engines" comes to mind.
--- End quote ---
I was more thinking of a certain FDA raid, using out-of-county deputies because of lack of trust of the local constabulary [for good reason], a decade or so back, just outside Chicago.
The diesel engine thing I take as a smoke screen to hide the ongoing endemic actions of the local players in the industry.
Muscle cars that pass EPA standards, using the similar techniques that the particular diesel did through software, yet have a hard time getting approved in other jurisdictions with supposedly less stringent regulations.
--- Quote from: BenRG on 21 Nov 2017, 00:15 ---Not so much 'failed' as maneuvered (sp) into a situation where success is impossible on several criteria. It happens in corporate life sometimes and you can be very sure that the manager who gave you flawed instructions isn't the one who is going to be blamed!
--- End quote ---
Sadly all too true.
Fortunately I have not as yet suffered too much backlash from requesting that ethically/legally questionable instructions be given in writing - I work with regulated industries and am overqualified for what I do - surprising on how the paperwork never materializes and the "request" is "forgotten".
Cornelius:
--- Quote from: Case on 21 Nov 2017, 07:08 ---
But it is completely impossible to choose to be ignorant of something, or to follow an order to be ignorant of something - in order to make the choice, or follow the order, you first need to become aware of the something, at which point you are no longer ignorant of it. What we can do is to pretend to others that we are ignorant of something, while in reality we made a conscious choice to ignore it. But this pretence is not a faithful account of reality, and unless we apply some heavy-duty 1984-style doublethink to the problem, at least we ourselves would know it is not.
(*) subconscious [n] - "the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unreportable mental activities. " (subconscious, www.dictionary.com)
(**) oxymoron [n] - "a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”." (oxymoron, www.dictionary.com)
(***) ignore [v] - "to intentionally not listen or give attention to" (ignore, www.dictionary.com)
(****) ignorant [adj] - "not having enough knowledge, understanding, or information about something" ignorant, www.dictionary.com)
--- End quote ---
Just wanted to add the minor foot note that in French, ignorer, does have both meanings. I wonder how frequently people do use ignore for being ignorant. But that's another board, I do believe.
Otherwise doubleplusgood oldspeak.
Case:
--- Quote from: Cornelius on 21 Nov 2017, 08:00 ---Otherwise doubleplusgood oldspeak.
--- End quote ---
Oldspeak ref crimethink. Crimethink ref doubleplusungood. Dayorder rewrite post fullwise antevisit thinkpol.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version