Empowerment: Difference between revisions

Empowerment (view source)

Revision as of 17:39, 9 November 2020

381 bytes added , 9 November 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,883

edits

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 She will be institutionalised, worn down and broken. Her fresh blue eyes will cloud, her shoulders will sag, she will mutter distractedly, using the world “[[leverage]]” when she means “use” — all these deteriorations in the service of descent towards the same fate we all share: a lifetime nosing boulders back up that very same slope.
-We all know the feeling. The [[credit department]] policy that requires [[cross default]] in a spot contract. The [[clearing house]] which demands an unlimited [[indemnity]] for losses it might suffer carrying out a trade-matching service that it cannot articulate even in theory. A disclaimer of all liability for conduct up to and including [[gross negligence]].
+We all know the feeling: the [[credit department]] policy that requires [[cross default]] in a spot contract; the [[clearing house]] which demands an unlimited [[indemnity]] for losses it might suffer — but that it cannot articulate even in the hypothetical — whilst carrying out a trade-matching service; the absurd contractual [[disclaimer]] of liability for losses arising from ones’ notwithstanding normal or even [[gross negligence]].
-In each case, the home-team negotiators ''know'' these terms to be preposterous, but they know just as thoroughly that the prescribed process for winning a derogation from them is so monstrous as to be unthinkable, so they externalise the suffering to their clients’ [[negotiator|negotiation team]]. Of course, these poor souls have their own policy crosses to bear.  Presented with such enstilted nonsense, they will have no choice but to object to it: it is their sacred covenant to make sure their firm does not recklessly endanger itself by [[contract]]. Their domain being one of law, not facts, it is ''theoretical'', ''juristic'' endangerment they must identify: that no merchant would be so misguided to take such protections to their logical legal conclusion can form no part if his calculus.
+In each case, we ''know'' these terms to be preposterous, but we know just as thoroughly that the prescribed process for winning a derogation from them is so monstrous as to be unthinkable, so we externalise our suffering and pass it to our clients. This really doesn’t seem an especially commercial way to go about business.
-And so it is we have two bald men fighting over a comb neither of them wants, because other bald men, with barely any more interest in it, have put in place a policy that a man must have a comb.
+And spare a thought for your client’s [[negotiator|negotiation team]]. Will they be any more empowered than you? They will not. These poor souls have their own policy crosses to bear, many just as palm-faced as yours, only different. Presented with ''your'' enstilted nonsense, they will have no choice but to object to it and perhaps even counter it with ''theirs''.
+It is the [[legal eagles]]’ sacred covenant ''to make sure their firm does not endanger itself by reckless [[contract]]''. Their domain being of law and not fact, it is ''theoretical'' reckless ness and ''juristic'' endangerment they must identify: that no merchant would be so misguided to take such protections to their logical legal conclusion can form no part of the calculus.
+And so it is we find bald men fighting over combs no-one wants in micro-soap operas across the city, because other bald men, with barely any more interest in them, have made a policy that ''men must have combs''.
 {{sa}}
 *[[The Victory of Form over Substance]]
 *{{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}}