Issue 77: We discuss the problems with bullshit, how it harms groups, what you can do about it, and how you can measure your own susceptibility to bullshit
How is Aramco's statement bullshit and not lying? I think they know they are responsible for "about 5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions". To me the difference between liers and bsers seems interesting in principle, but hard to apply, since it requires knowing the internal states of a person. But I'm happy to get clarifications in this regard
I would argue it's bullshit because they aren't explicitly lying about it. Just like a kid might lie that they didn't break a window, Aramco could lie and say that they aren't impacting climate change or producing emissions. Instead, they are bullshitting and making public statements hey care about the environment when their entire business model history is focused on polluting the environment.
I'd argue that it's bullshit but for a different reason than the one given above. If they "clearly have no intention of fulfilling their promise," then it's a lie, not bullshit, because they are trying to get the audience/public to believe a falsehood. However, I'd argue it's bullshit because their claim is full of vacuous, empty language that leverages "strategic ambiguity."
What specific "initiatives" are they actually undertaking "to ensure we leave an enduring legacy of protecting the planet we all inhabit?" It's not clear what any of that means and that ambiguity was likely intentional. No concrete examples are given of specific actions. No benchmark is provided as a referent for progress. It's all empty talk full of buzzwords (Cohen's idea bullshit, rather than Frankfurt's). So, to me, that's what makes it bullshit.
I carried around Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" in my bag/briefcase for years. Was always a heckuva conversation starter.
Looking forward to the content of your work and exploring possibilities of alliance. CIT is a non-profit registered in NC
How is Aramco's statement bullshit and not lying? I think they know they are responsible for "about 5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions". To me the difference between liers and bsers seems interesting in principle, but hard to apply, since it requires knowing the internal states of a person. But I'm happy to get clarifications in this regard
I would argue it's bullshit because they aren't explicitly lying about it. Just like a kid might lie that they didn't break a window, Aramco could lie and say that they aren't impacting climate change or producing emissions. Instead, they are bullshitting and making public statements hey care about the environment when their entire business model history is focused on polluting the environment.
I'd argue that it's bullshit but for a different reason than the one given above. If they "clearly have no intention of fulfilling their promise," then it's a lie, not bullshit, because they are trying to get the audience/public to believe a falsehood. However, I'd argue it's bullshit because their claim is full of vacuous, empty language that leverages "strategic ambiguity."
What specific "initiatives" are they actually undertaking "to ensure we leave an enduring legacy of protecting the planet we all inhabit?" It's not clear what any of that means and that ambiguity was likely intentional. No concrete examples are given of specific actions. No benchmark is provided as a referent for progress. It's all empty talk full of buzzwords (Cohen's idea bullshit, rather than Frankfurt's). So, to me, that's what makes it bullshit.