Removed by mod

It can go too far in either direction. If you’re writing a report you know no one will ever read it can help to ask why and push for an answer, but it isn’t the driving instructor’s job to explain why you should stop at the red light.

Removed by mod

See if starvation is a little more charismatic.

This is why Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest sunnuvabitch in space!

“I don’t understand gravity so fuck it, Imma just throw a cat out of the window so that it can go for a walk”

Meaning there are different kinds of rules, different reasons and different understanding capabilities. Some rules are bullshit, some rules I will be able to verify only by experiment, simply because my knowledge and perception are limited

Rulemakers not being able to explain something in a way you do understand is not a you a problem though.

Doesn’t that depend on who the “you” is, and whether the rule itself falls within that person’s expertise?

There are plenty of safety rules written in blood, enforced by those who might not understand the background or the theoretical reasons behind the rule. But someone knows the reason why, and sometimes the reason is difficult to explain to someone who doesn’t have sufficient background. I’d rather someone build a house to comply with the fire code than to ignore the portions he can’t justify to the homeowner.

deleted by creator

If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that.

To be fair, most people doing stuff like that know very well, why the specific rules exist, but do not care, and are intentionally breaking them. In this example, if you have a driving licence, I image in most places they require you learning the rules of traffic, so they can be assumed to already have the knowledge. If they cared about the actual specifics of the reason, they would have asked, when they had to learn about it: thus them demanding answers for the rule on the fly, should also be assumed to be dishonest.
And also in this example, if you are unable to figure out on your own, why you should not endanger bikers, by putting huge metal obstacles, with suddenly opening doors in front of them, means you should not have a driving licence at all.

They always have some reason, they think is good enough for rule breaking - and might be, like some medical emergency or something, but those times would normally be solved with a polite discussion anyway, after the situation allows it - but usually it is just them being selfish morons.

What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?

I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it’s over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?

If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.

I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we’re not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.

Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.

As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can’t assume to know what somebody does or doesn’t know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.

Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).

Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.

Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.

I specifically made sure to include that I specified “in good faith”. That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I’m not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it’s sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.

As for somebody being perceivably “annoyingly obtuse”, that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn’t waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.

Nah sis, your post is totally on point, and I love it. Authority is something we must question!

Don’t change anything about your posting! You’re literally one of the best posters I’ve encountered on here.

I’m sorry your experience has been less than ideal. I enjoy every single one of your posts that I’ve caught and I truly appreciate them.

I suggest doing what I did, just accept that every experience (in this case, post on social media) is a learning opportunity for yourself and others.

Some people have more learning to do, and we don’t have to blame them or feel badly about ourselves for being discriminated against, or not being understood/accepted, or having our intentions misread. You clearly aren’t trying to hurt anyone!

You said it in your reply earlier to me, embracing yourself and all your quirks helped you move forward. That helped me! Think about all of the people who are helped by the discussions you spark and move forward proudly! 💚

But you might improve something or expose malfeasance. You’ll have to be killed. Sorry; just the rule.