Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> They can only be as trustworthy as they're allowed to be.

This may be true, but it still means they're untrustworthy. We all are responsible for our own actions. Behaving in an untrustworthy fashion says something important about a person even if (or especially if) they're behaving that way to save their own skin.



sort by: page size:

> You shouldn't trust anybody other than yourself

And probably not even that either.


> You shouldn't trust anybody other than yourself

Oh, definitely don't trust yourself. Everybody is wrong about almost everything, that includes yourself


> Not if you want to be trusted ever again.

Except, apparently you can! Here you are acknowledging the lie, and yet you still trust them.


> If it appears human, we will develop a false sense of trust. But you can never trust it as you would trust a human.

I would certainly never trust it as I would a human, but in most instances that makes it more trustworthy, not less.


>do not trust others

it's hard to trust someone who calls you 'racist' without evidence.

It's also hard to trust people who are willing to destroy your life if you're not on their side.


> being untrustworthy based on a single article

A single article... and the negative to do anything about it.

Yes it does.


> I honestly believe everyone is trustworthy.

There's another point to make here: Not giving individuals the keys to the kingdom protects them from being targets.


> That's the thing. If we don't trust, or accept that trust may not be merited, then there's nothing to break.

Yeah but to get to that point you have to break the trust you had in them or people in general, so my point remains. Or did you from the day of your birth assume everyone is lying to you about everything?


I maintain that that was an intelligent commentary on human nature, and that it has been misconstrued.

He was saying “I could be anyone” not “I can’t be trusted.”


> Why protect this asshole?

Because future sources need to trust you. Protecting sources needs to be absolute, or some of them will wonder what it takes to constitute “betrayal” in the future.

Not betraying a source that has wronged you is fantastic signalling to future sources.


> Some folks might not trust those authority figures and their advice.

Part of this might be just normal human nature; but a big part of it is that authority figures are often simply not reliable. They set and enforce rules based on fears, or their own convenience, or their own pride or status instead of actually making rules which are for the benefit of the person under authority.


> In life, you trust your family and your friends

Should we believe that family and friends are beyond the reach of the cardinal sins? I'm going to proclaim loudly: No! Family and friends are ideally placed to defraud us and sleep with our partner.

This isn't and indictment against trust, because, in practice, we trust family and friends anyway, and are rightly surprised and disappointed when they let us down.

We shouldn't be surprised or disappointed when HR, Legal, Management, etc, turn against us.


> If you don't trust me on this, that's fine.

For the third time (might just be the charm), you contradict yourself, it's not that I don't trust you it's that you're internally inconsistent.


> Well, when others overreach, why should i not be allowed to overreach?

Because this is how you win the trust of the observers.


> because why believe people are malicious when they could just as well be careless?

When your job is to be careful, being careless is nothing but malicious.


> an assumption that something is not malicious.

It's not even that. It's just a statement of fact. The things that you put in positions where they can fuck you are de facto the things you trust. You might know for a fact that they are untrustworthy garbage, but you're still trusting them.


> If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy

What’s the backing for this? If a stranger asks me what my favorite color is, I don’t feel any particular obligation to give them a truthful answer. But at least in my experience, that hasn’t manifested as a willingness to lie or deceive in cases where it matters. I think it’s possible that your personal social contract is not as universal as you think.


> the reason you act like this is because you don't understand that you are doing something wrong

No, it's actually because you don't think it's wrong in the first place.

I understand why people prefer to lie to protect other's emotions, or why people prefer being high-status rather than being right, but I disagree with that, I think it's wrong.


> make us not trust anything.

It should make us not trust that which should not be trusted.

And that's a good thing.

next

Legal | privacy