> If you treat cab drivers and other service personnel badly, that’s because you’re a shit person.

That attitude seems the same one that judges service workers. IME, and based on what I know of humanity, people act badly because they feel vulnerable; they are scared or anxious. It's still bad behavior, but they aren't 'shit people'.

If bad behavior damns us, then we all qualify. The mistake is judging others, and lacking empathy and humility.

> I’ve been in extremely stressful situations in my life involving lots of travel and I’ve yet to “take it out” on a third party.

We all act badly sometimes; if you really think you don't, you are not seeing it. It's not ok in the situation, but it's ok in terms of our humanity. Apologize and work to do better.

These are reasonable points in the context of normal everyday life. However, when making a hiring decision, there are likely to be several competent candidates who could all do the job just as well as any other. If you've got an easy way to filter out potentially problematic candidates based on their soft skills, might as well do so to avoid a bad hire. There's no room for giving the benefit of the doubt in this context.

>There's no room for giving the benefit of the doubt in this context.

really depends on the candidate and the situation. We dont have the context for neither here. If a truly senior candidate who has deep domain knowledge interviews, they may not be dinged as much if they gave a service worker a low tip or complained about the smell of the car.

But sure, for some college candidate in a yearly hiring spree that are all from top schools, maybe that is the little bit of a filter needed to make a difference.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make the candidate a 'shit person'.

I generally apply a similar test when dating - if the person is a huge asshole to the service staff then it generally is not going anywhere

Sorry, unless you tell them you are testing their dateablilty you have to ignore any behavior on their part.

This needs a "/s".

Sarcasm is a rhetorical trust-fall, I refuse to cheapen it by adding the /s.

Sorry, you didn't tell me it was sarcasm so I can't be blamed for believing it.

this needs a "/s".

Then you refuse to be a helpful contributor to discussions.

Life is littered with cases where people thought they understood each other but didn’t. If there’s a chance you’ll be misinterpreted, you’re not communicating well and need to take steps to correct it, just out of general empathy for those who don’t have the exact same knowledge as you.

In conversations where optimizing the productivity of the discussion is a priority, I would not use sarcasm.

And you don't see HN as that kind of place?

This site has lots of good technical discussions, but it is not a place I'd go to pick up dating tips.

I think the question was about productivity of discussion.

Some discussions are serious and follow the core competency of the site (technical ones for example). For these discussions, it is best to avoid sarcasm and non-obvious forms of communication.

Some discussions are not serious, and are destined not to be really productive anyway. Dating advice falls into that category.

Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I don't see who's being helped by this.

>Some discussions are not serious, and are destined not to be really productive anyway. Dating advice falls into that category.

Then you could have said as much from the beginning.

>Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I don't see who's being helped by this.

You communicated poorly, in being (almost deliberately) unaware of what context others might lack. That error followed a pattern that others often make. I pointed out why it is an error so that you, and those others, can avoid it. And then, in doing so, I got you to reveal context your original comment needed.

Yes, I absolutely feel like I contributed here, and that you made the forum just a little bit worse with your original reply and contempt for discussion quality. Do you see why I might think that?

Interesting! While I disagree with you that I've made the forum worse, this conversation has cause me to reflect on the importance of using low-stakes sarcasm like this, which has refined my internal justification for doing so. So, I guess everyone benefited. Have a good one!

I didn’t benefit if you’re going to keep making comments like you did here that hurt the forum for reasons I explained and which make no difference to you.

Wow. Upvoted you twice in one subthread. I don't do that often :-)

That’s a fact about your poor judgment of HN contributions, not a fact about any helpful insight in bee_rider’s comments.

You forgot your /s.

bee_rider is smart enough to figure these things out.

Giant red flag, indeed.

If you cheat on your partner you are also a "shit person". Do you think employers should reject candidates if they know they cheated on a romantic relationship?

Honestly, if I somehow knew that the candidate cheated on their partner, then yes, I would reject them. I doubt I will ever find myself in that position.

I did have a coworker cheat on their spouse. I certainly lost respect for them, avoided working with them whenever possible, and cut off the non-professional aspect of our relationship.

I recall Ross Perot saying, "If your wife can't trust you, how can I."

I'd treat that similarly to finding that the person had embezzled money before. I wouldn't want a person of that character anywhere around me or my business.

Once again, WE WERE ON A BREAK!

#realtalk