this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
1210 points (98.4% liked)
memes
10327 readers
1630 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, nine women could produce a baby once a month (recovery period aside)
You're the one feeding managers bad information.
With something like a baby, people know what's going on and what's meant. That's why it's the example. But when it comes to esoteric things, playing word games just confuses the issue and will lead to a manager thinking that indeed 9 woman can give you a baby in 1 month (I'm not jumping through your word games, you know what's meant).
Making assumptions about what's meant, and expecting people to make assumptions about what you mean, is how problems happen. Thorough communication is the cornerstone of understanding.
Playing games with "it could be interpreted this way if I tried really really hard" and frankly being intentionally obtuse is how problems happen. Don't intentionally contribute to miscommunication. You can play games online, in real life this doesn't help anyone.
Unless they're politicians, of course. But then they rarely know what's going on.
I think it refers to producing a single baby, rather than just a baby every month
Yes, which is why I phrased my statement as "Well, ... could..." to indicate an alternative perspective. This was to illustrate that sometimes pithy reductive quips can be based on overly reductive assumptions. Maybe it is the case that a single baby is all that's required, but maybe the author misunderstood the goal.
In this fictional scenario of the author's creation? That just demonstrates the converse - that sometimes simple ideas will be deliberately misinterpreted in a convoluted way, to prove someone else's point.
So a straw man? Or are we supposed to infer that this is an illustrative example of actual behavior?