You can really traumatise a console player by explaining and demonstrating what anti-aliasing is. Once the Lego blocks have been seen, they can't be unseen.
Current consoles are already being held back by their hardware.
Current consoles are already being held back by their hardware.
Eh, call me crazy, but I think it might be a little too early to tell. I mean, look at the difference between early 360 titles like COD 2(for an easy example) and end-of-life titles like COD: Ghosts.
Now, neither are the prettiest games around, but that's not the point - the point is how much more they managed to squeeze out of the hardware they had in that period of time. We're only in the first stages of the current console life-cycle, might be prudent to wait till we're further in before we start commenting on how held back they are.
You know, I've never gone in for that whole thing. I figure if people are going to play games, fuck it, let them play on whatever they like. Feeling superior to someone else just because of the object they choose to enjoy your mutual hobby on, instead of just getting down and both enjoying your shared hobby, is a pretty fucked attitude to have when you get right down to it.
I look at stuff like /r/PCmasterrace, I don't see people who like games, I see people with massive inferiority issues trying to ease their minds by pushing someone else down, and while there's something to be said for the philosophy of "Whatever gets you through the day", that doesn't mean it makes me enthusiastic about having any interaction with them whatsoever.
k at stuff like /r/PCmasterrace, I don't see people who like games, I see people with massive inferiority issues trying to ease their minds by pushing someone else down, and while there's something to be said for the philosophy of "Whatever gets you through the day", that doesn't mean it makes me enthusiastic about having any interaction with them whatsoever.
This. Ever since I was at PAX PRIME 2014: Story time with Mikey Neumann! (Skip to 46:00), I try to live by the adage, "Enjoy & love that other people enjoy & love different things." It seriously saves so much time and energy instead of being a stupid hater. People who shit on other people's joy when it's honestly not detrimental to their enjoyment/well-being are assholes. Shame on anyone who does that.
k at stuff like /r/PCmasterrace, I don't see people who like games, I see people with massive inferiority issues trying to ease their minds by pushing someone else down, and while there's something to be said for the philosophy of "Whatever gets you through the day", that doesn't mean it makes me enthusiastic about having any interaction with them whatsoever.
This. Ever since I was at PAX PRIME 2014: Story time with Mikey Neumann! (Skip to 46:00), I try to live by the adage, "Enjoy & love that other people enjoy & love different things." It seriously saves so much time and energy instead of being a stupid hater. People who shit on other people's joy when it's honestly not detrimental to their enjoyment/well-being are assholes. Shame on anyone who does that.
I don't fully agree with the rule of not shitting on other people's joy. On the surface it sounds so simple. If something brings someone joy, then it is a good thing. If you try to take away that joy, you can't be anything but bad.
But isn't shitting on other people's joy exactly what Anita Sarekeesian and friends are doing? They are criticizing and shitting on games that bring people joy. The people who get joy from those games are upset and shit upon!
The fact is that absolutely everything on this earth that brings joy has something about it that can be validly criticized. Even if you ignore extreme examples like drugs that bring incredible joy and incredible suffering simultaneously. Is it not OK to shit on collectible games like M:TG because they drain people of their money?
It is important that people are aware of the negative consequences and harms that come from the things they enjoy. People who validly criticize and point out those harms are doing the world a service. If being made aware of those things reduces or cancels someone's enjoyment, then that person should rightfully stop partaking of that thing they formerly enjoyed. If someone is consciously aware of the harms caused by the thing they are doing, and decides to continue anyway, then more power to them.
Examples:
If someone eats meat and finds it very delicious that's fine as long as they are aware of where that meat came from, and how. If they are still ok with eating meat despite having that knowledge, great. If knowing that information shits on their joy of eating meat, they should rightfully become a vegetarian.
If someone is enjoying a video game and someone else criticizes the game and points out its flaws, that's perfectly OK. If the person enjoying the game continues to enjoy it anyway, more power to them. If seeing those flaws laid bare ruins the persons enjoyment of that game, they should rightfully stop playing it.
But isn't shitting on other people's joy exactly what Anita Sarekeesian and friends are doing? They are criticizing and shitting on games that bring people joy. The people who get joy from those games are upset and shit upon!
Didn't think of it as that, but more of ,"This game has sexism in it where consumers were raised on it and didn't realize it. I'm pointing it out so people can be aware of these tropes that are detrimental on the culture of how women are treated based on seeing how they are portrayed in the media we have such fond nostalgic memories of."
It is important that people are aware of the negative consequences and harms that come from the things they enjoy. People who validly criticize and point out those harms are doing the world a service. If being made aware of those things reduces or cancels someone's enjoyment, then that person should rightfully stop partaking of that thing they formerly enjoyed. If someone is consciously aware of the harms caused by the thing they are doing, and decides to continue anyway, then more power to them.
I'll concede to that, but when people constantly point it out, you end up being more of an asshole. I have been guilty of this and now just let people be. When people ask me why I don't play, I point out the money sink factor.
If someone is enjoying a video game and someone else criticizes the game and points out its flaws, that's perfectly OK. If the person enjoying the game continues to enjoy it anyway, more power to them. If seeing those flaws laid bare ruins the persons enjoyment of that game, they should rightfully stop playing it.
Do you not think that Anita and friends are doing that, not necessarily on a game play level, but cultural/social level?
The Freemium South Park episode basically said that free-to-play time waster games like Farmville aren't games, and that no one should play them. It goes so far as to say that they are fundamentally different from other games.
I basically do agree, to be honest. I know I make a big deal about how "not-a-game" people are assholes. But, frankly, someone who "plays" only games like Farmville is basically on the same level for me as someone who "plays" meth.
See, that's not the point I'm making at all. There's a difference with what Sarkeesian is doing(Critique), and shitting on someone's joy.
Take, for example, The Expendables. The Expendables is not, from a critical standpoint, a good movie. In fact, it has a paper thin plot that only (barely) exists to string together a hodgepodge of idiotic, over-the-top action scenes, it has incredibly stupid dialog driven primarily by one-liners and oblique references to old action movies. The women(or, should I say, Woman) of the film is set-dressing, she exists primarily to give the rest of the cast a more sympathetic connection to the conflict, and to be rescued from mortal peril. If you took the entire cast - who have been chosen primarily for their ability to give a nice big nostalgia hit and get arses on seats - and combined them into one being, you might barely be able to put together enough acting to get by as an extra in a high school play. That is a critique, and a harsh one at that.
However, it's not shitting on people's joy. You're not a bad person if you like The Expendables. You are not less of a film fan, you are not nessissarily a stupid person, you don't have bad taste. It's a dumb action movie, but hey, if you like a dumb action movie from time to time, brother, I got just the thing. It is what it is, no bones about that, but you can still like it for (or perhaps despite) what it is. As you say, if someone's joy is taken away by that, the onus is really on them, rather than you. And also they might be a bit weird, but hey, takes all sorts I suppose.
Shitting on people's joy is when you lecture them about how much better of a film Coffee and Cigarettes is than The Expendables, tell them that therefore they should watch that instead, when you mock someone for enjoying it, when you try to make them watch your thing because you think you are doing them a favor by shoving something you prefer on them, when you're condescendingly telling them that they'll have a far superior experience if they'd just watch Coffee And Cigarettes instead of The Expendables.
That goes double, if you're also implying in the process that you are somehow better, because you don't enjoy the experience they choose, or because you prefer a different experience - pushing someone down, to raise yourself up, in other words. That's the point you need to step back and take a good look at yourself - If you need to be pushing others down to feel good about yourself, as I'm sure you already know, you've got a problem that doesn't have anything to do with what platform you play your games on.
Can someone explain to me how Russell Brand is funny or smart? He is certainly no George Carlin and his critiques of America sound like they are coming from someone with only a superficial knowledge of how the American system of governance is set up.
The Freemium South Park episode basically said that free-to-play time waster games like Farmville aren't games, and that no one should play them. It goes so far as to say that they are fundamentally different from other games.
I basically do agree, to be honest. I know I make a big deal about how "not-a-game" people are assholes. But, frankly, someone who "plays" only games like Farmville is basically on the same level for me as someone who "plays" meth.
See, that's not the point I'm making at all. There's a difference with what Sarkeesian is doing(Critique), and shitting on someone's joy.
Take, for example, The Expendables. The Expendables is not, from a critical standpoint, a good movie. In fact, it has a paper thin plot that only (barely) exists to string together a hodgepodge of idiotic, over-the-top action scenes, it has incredibly stupid dialog driven primarily by one-liners and oblique references to old action movies. The women(or, should I say, Woman) of the film is set-dressing, she exists primarily to give the rest of the cast a more sympathetic connection to the conflict, and to be rescued from mortal peril. If you took the entire cast - who have been chosen primarily for their ability to give a nice big nostalgia hit and get arses on seats - and combined them into one being, you might barely be able to put together enough acting to get by as an extra in a high school play. That is a critique, and a harsh one at that.
However, it's not shitting on people's joy. You're not a bad person if you like The Expendables. You are not less of a film fan, you are not nessissarily a stupid person, you don't have bad taste. It's a dumb action movie, but hey, if you like a dumb action movie from time to time, brother, I got just the thing. It is what it is, no bones about that, but you can still like it for (or perhaps despite) what it is. As you say, if someone's joy is taken away by that, the onus is really on them, rather than you. And also they might be a bit weird, but hey, takes all sorts I suppose.
Shitting on people's joy is when you lecture them about how much better of a film Coffee and Cigarettes is than The Expendables, tell them that therefore they should watch that instead, when you mock someone for enjoying it, when you try to make them watch your thing because you think you are doing them a favor by shoving something you prefer on them, when you're condescendingly telling them that they'll have a far superior experience if they'd just watch Coffee And Cigarettes instead of The Expendables.
That goes double, if you're also implying in the process that you are somehow better, because you don't enjoy the experience they choose, or because you prefer a different experience - pushing someone down, to raise yourself up, in other words. That's the point you need to step back and take a good look at yourself - If you need to be pushing others down to feel good about yourself, as I'm sure you already know, you've got a problem that doesn't have anything to do with what platform you play your games on.
I understand your point, and actually agree with it. There is a difference between critique and shitting-upon, and I think our lines for these things are in similar places.
HOWEVER
Many people do indeed feel that they have been shat upon by what we would consider to be valid critiques. If you say absolutely true things, like that their game of choice is not a game, is a waste of time, or money-hol, they have legitimate feelings of being shat-upon and their joy is diminished.
Those people have legitimate feelings, and now because you offered legitimate and true critiques, like those Anita doles out, you are a bully to them.
You can see this same thing occurring with a Washington DC football team, which South Park also relevantly discussed. People are legitimately using the name of that team with no racist intent whatsoever. Some people who hear that name being used feel shat-upon, others do not. Some use the term while not feeling that they are shitting upon others, and some do. How can you possibly say who is right? Everyone involved is a human being, and their feelings are real.
The simple fact of the matter is this. If you want freedom of speech, then there will always be people who say things that hurt the feelings of others. It's unavoidable. We can clearly say that people who say things with the specific intent to hurt the feelings of others are wrong. But just about anything anyone says is bound to hurt at least one person's feelings somewhere. There are literally people exist who will get extremely upset if you make even one legitimately negative statement about their favorite thing. You can apologize that you did not intent to hurt their feelings, and stand by, or recant, your statement, but in the end, you unavoidably shat on their joy.
In the end, my personal policy is, and always has been, just honesty. I do my absolute best to only say things that are true. If the truth upsets someone, then that's no different than someone being upset that grass is green or that snails are slow. That's their problem. If they're upset at the world, I can't do anything for them.
I also give absolutely no fucks what anyone else ever says. It's just sound waves or keyboard presses coming out of some animated lump of flesh. Why should they have any effect on me? Obviously this philosophy doesn't seem to work for everyone. There are people out there who can't seem to help but care what other people think. All I can do for them is to encourage and help them not be that way, but I can't make them.
Many people do indeed feel that they have been shat upon by what we would consider to be valid critiques. If you say absolutely true things, like that their game of choice is not a game, is a waste of time, or money-hole, they have legitimate feelings of being shat-upon and their joy is diminished.
Yeah, we pretty much agree then.
Provided that your critique is fair(in the sense that you're not manufacturing points against it, exaggerating beyond reason, or otherwise going beyond the bounds of reasonable and accurate critique), and provided that you're critiquing the work and not the person enjoying it, then I'd have to say the problem in that case lies with them.
End of the day, like you say, it's either fact, or it's someone's opinion. The former, well, that's the demonstrable fact of the thing, and if you enjoy it despite that, then no point getting offended, it is what it is, and you have to decide if you still like that thing knowing that going forward. The latter, well, whatever, it's just someone's opinion about the thing you enjoy, and unless their opinion is grossly offensive for other reasons(for example, their opinion is driven by overt racism or sexism) then it's no reason to get bent out of shape.
Critics should not consider the personal feelings of the fans of the thing being critiqued. Fans today take far too much umbrage with critical discussion of any kind, and should be soundly ignored.
"Many people do indeed feel that they have been shat upon by what we would consider to be valid critiques."
This is one of the absolute hardest things to do well in society: to both give and receive valid criticism without taking it personally.
It's an actual thing that really needs to be taught, because it extends way beyond the enjoyment of consumed media. Whole swaths of people are bad at taking critique, and whole swaths of people are bad at giving critique. The result is that well-meaning people offer up hamfisted critique that can only inevitably be taken poorly by its audience - and then feelings are hurt and nothing productive happens.
I've generally found that you have to really really really repeat the positivity in a critique in order for it to be palatable to most people. Be a bit dispassionate, emphasize what is good, suggest improvements, be harsh only if needed, and re-emphasize that liking bad media does not make you a bad person.
Unless you like kiddie porn. Then you pretty objectively suck as a human being.
The funny thing is that I personally HATE any critique of my own work that does what you describe. I never want platitudes or even positives. The more cutting and direct it is, the more likely I am to take the advice to heart.
The funny thing is that I personally HATE any critique of my own work that does what you describe. I never want platitudes or even positives. The more cutting and direct it is, the more likely I am to take the advice to heart.
Platitudes != positive feedback.
"Here's what I liked. You did [blah], and it resulted in [blee] effect. Keep that. This part here, that was good too. [Property x] was very good, and enabled enjoyment.
[Property y] was sub-par, and it stood out harshly against the other elements. You dropped the ball on [foo], and I can tell that you know you dropped the ball on it. Don't drop the ball, and never let it show if you do.
Overall, 7/10. Well exectued with some flaws that did not detract severely from the end product. Fixing the flaws would allow you to produce exemplary work."
That's off the top of my head. Another approach I use when critiquing work is the "senses" approach, which tends to work better for performing arts. "I saw [blah], I heard [foo]. I felt like this at this part. Was it your goal to induce [y] feeling?"
I'm not saying that you have to call everything good, but you don't need to provide a complete review of everything (unless requested). Highlights can work well. If something's garbage, it's garbage - but highlight the learning experiences.
"Positive feedback" isn't necessarily there to pad your ego. Sometimes, you do a thing and aren't totally sure how well it worked. If I say "blah worked well" or "foo is the best bar I've ever seen you do," that means "keep doing that thing and not the thing you were trying to do." That's what it's for. Stuff to keep, stuff to change. When properly executed, it has nothing to do with making you feel good and everything to do with helping your work to be the best that it can be.
The funny thing is that I personally HATE any critique of my own work that does what you describe. I never want platitudes or even positives. The more cutting and direct it is, the more likely I am to take the advice to heart.
This is how I have operated but so many employers have been trained to not hurt feelings to the point that they never clearly describe what the issue is, resulting in the employee not perceiving anything is wrong.
This is one of the absolute hardest things to do well in society: to both give and receive valid criticism without taking it personally.
There was one case where I directly critiqued a nurse for placing a choker chain on a dog recovering from a critical anaesthetic for a major surgery. It still had an ET tube in and she hadn't deflated the cuff (the thing that keeps a tube inside the windpipe. When it awoke it obviously started choking, she sat there trying to pull it out, I ran over and pushed her out of the way, saving the dog (with my career and avoiding a law suit for myself and the clinic). The nurse understood what she had done wrong after I explained it however another nurse reported me to management for having a negative attitude, anger issues and physical abuse.
This fucking blew my mind. Especially when I had to defend myself and eventually the offending nurse explained to management that she disagreed with all the reports made. 100% of this bullshit is present in the medical community as well. Health care workers especially need to be able to take critique and plain understand when they fuck up.
Comments
Also, this sucks. I can't believe they're retiring.
Once the Lego blocks have been seen, they can't be unseen.
Current consoles are already being held back by their hardware.
Now, neither are the prettiest games around, but that's not the point - the point is how much more they managed to squeeze out of the hardware they had in that period of time. We're only in the first stages of the current console life-cycle, might be prudent to wait till we're further in before we start commenting on how held back they are.
I look at stuff like /r/PCmasterrace, I don't see people who like games, I see people with massive inferiority issues trying to ease their minds by pushing someone else down, and while there's something to be said for the philosophy of "Whatever gets you through the day", that doesn't mean it makes me enthusiastic about having any interaction with them whatsoever.
But isn't shitting on other people's joy exactly what Anita Sarekeesian and friends are doing? They are criticizing and shitting on games that bring people joy. The people who get joy from those games are upset and shit upon!
The fact is that absolutely everything on this earth that brings joy has something about it that can be validly criticized. Even if you ignore extreme examples like drugs that bring incredible joy and incredible suffering simultaneously. Is it not OK to shit on collectible games like M:TG because they drain people of their money?
It is important that people are aware of the negative consequences and harms that come from the things they enjoy. People who validly criticize and point out those harms are doing the world a service. If being made aware of those things reduces or cancels someone's enjoyment, then that person should rightfully stop partaking of that thing they formerly enjoyed. If someone is consciously aware of the harms caused by the thing they are doing, and decides to continue anyway, then more power to them.
Examples:
If someone eats meat and finds it very delicious that's fine as long as they are aware of where that meat came from, and how. If they are still ok with eating meat despite having that knowledge, great. If knowing that information shits on their joy of eating meat, they should rightfully become a vegetarian.
If someone is enjoying a video game and someone else criticizes the game and points out its flaws, that's perfectly OK. If the person enjoying the game continues to enjoy it anyway, more power to them. If seeing those flaws laid bare ruins the persons enjoyment of that game, they should rightfully stop playing it.
I basically do agree, to be honest. I know I make a big deal about how "not-a-game" people are assholes. But, frankly, someone who "plays" only games like Farmville is basically on the same level for me as someone who "plays" meth.
Take, for example, The Expendables. The Expendables is not, from a critical standpoint, a good movie. In fact, it has a paper thin plot that only (barely) exists to string together a hodgepodge of idiotic, over-the-top action scenes, it has incredibly stupid dialog driven primarily by one-liners and oblique references to old action movies. The women(or, should I say, Woman) of the film is set-dressing, she exists primarily to give the rest of the cast a more sympathetic connection to the conflict, and to be rescued from mortal peril. If you took the entire cast - who have been chosen primarily for their ability to give a nice big nostalgia hit and get arses on seats - and combined them into one being, you might barely be able to put together enough acting to get by as an extra in a high school play. That is a critique, and a harsh one at that.
However, it's not shitting on people's joy. You're not a bad person if you like The Expendables. You are not less of a film fan, you are not nessissarily a stupid person, you don't have bad taste. It's a dumb action movie, but hey, if you like a dumb action movie from time to time, brother, I got just the thing. It is what it is, no bones about that, but you can still like it for (or perhaps despite) what it is. As you say, if someone's joy is taken away by that, the onus is really on them, rather than you. And also they might be a bit weird, but hey, takes all sorts I suppose.
Shitting on people's joy is when you lecture them about how much better of a film Coffee and Cigarettes is than The Expendables, tell them that therefore they should watch that instead, when you mock someone for enjoying it, when you try to make them watch your thing because you think you are doing them a favor by shoving something you prefer on them, when you're condescendingly telling them that they'll have a far superior experience if they'd just watch Coffee And Cigarettes instead of The Expendables.
That goes double, if you're also implying in the process that you are somehow better, because you don't enjoy the experience they choose, or because you prefer a different experience - pushing someone down, to raise yourself up, in other words. That's the point you need to step back and take a good look at yourself - If you need to be pushing others down to feel good about yourself, as I'm sure you already know, you've got a problem that doesn't have anything to do with what platform you play your games on.
HOWEVER
Many people do indeed feel that they have been shat upon by what we would consider to be valid critiques. If you say absolutely true things, like that their game of choice is not a game, is a waste of time, or money-hol, they have legitimate feelings of being shat-upon and their joy is diminished.
Those people have legitimate feelings, and now because you offered legitimate and true critiques, like those Anita doles out, you are a bully to them.
You can see this same thing occurring with a Washington DC football team, which South Park also relevantly discussed. People are legitimately using the name of that team with no racist intent whatsoever. Some people who hear that name being used feel shat-upon, others do not. Some use the term while not feeling that they are shitting upon others, and some do. How can you possibly say who is right? Everyone involved is a human being, and their feelings are real.
The simple fact of the matter is this. If you want freedom of speech, then there will always be people who say things that hurt the feelings of others. It's unavoidable. We can clearly say that people who say things with the specific intent to hurt the feelings of others are wrong. But just about anything anyone says is bound to hurt at least one person's feelings somewhere. There are literally people exist who will get extremely upset if you make even one legitimately negative statement about their favorite thing. You can apologize that you did not intent to hurt their feelings, and stand by, or recant, your statement, but in the end, you unavoidably shat on their joy.
In the end, my personal policy is, and always has been, just honesty. I do my absolute best to only say things that are true. If the truth upsets someone, then that's no different than someone being upset that grass is green or that snails are slow. That's their problem. If they're upset at the world, I can't do anything for them.
I also give absolutely no fucks what anyone else ever says. It's just sound waves or keyboard presses coming out of some animated lump of flesh. Why should they have any effect on me? Obviously this philosophy doesn't seem to work for everyone. There are people out there who can't seem to help but care what other people think. All I can do for them is to encourage and help them not be that way, but I can't make them.
Humans gonna human.
Provided that your critique is fair(in the sense that you're not manufacturing points against it, exaggerating beyond reason, or otherwise going beyond the bounds of reasonable and accurate critique), and provided that you're critiquing the work and not the person enjoying it, then I'd have to say the problem in that case lies with them.
End of the day, like you say, it's either fact, or it's someone's opinion. The former, well, that's the demonstrable fact of the thing, and if you enjoy it despite that, then no point getting offended, it is what it is, and you have to decide if you still like that thing knowing that going forward. The latter, well, whatever, it's just someone's opinion about the thing you enjoy, and unless their opinion is grossly offensive for other reasons(for example, their opinion is driven by overt racism or sexism) then it's no reason to get bent out of shape.
"Many people do indeed feel that they have been shat upon by what we would consider to be valid critiques."
This is one of the absolute hardest things to do well in society: to both give and receive valid criticism without taking it personally.
It's an actual thing that really needs to be taught, because it extends way beyond the enjoyment of consumed media. Whole swaths of people are bad at taking critique, and whole swaths of people are bad at giving critique. The result is that well-meaning people offer up hamfisted critique that can only inevitably be taken poorly by its audience - and then feelings are hurt and nothing productive happens.
I've generally found that you have to really really really repeat the positivity in a critique in order for it to be palatable to most people. Be a bit dispassionate, emphasize what is good, suggest improvements, be harsh only if needed, and re-emphasize that liking bad media does not make you a bad person.
Unless you like kiddie porn. Then you pretty objectively suck as a human being.
"Here's what I liked. You did [blah], and it resulted in [blee] effect. Keep that. This part here, that was good too. [Property x] was very good, and enabled enjoyment.
[Property y] was sub-par, and it stood out harshly against the other elements. You dropped the ball on [foo], and I can tell that you know you dropped the ball on it. Don't drop the ball, and never let it show if you do.
Overall, 7/10. Well exectued with some flaws that did not detract severely from the end product. Fixing the flaws would allow you to produce exemplary work."
That's off the top of my head. Another approach I use when critiquing work is the "senses" approach, which tends to work better for performing arts. "I saw [blah], I heard [foo]. I felt like this at this part. Was it your goal to induce [y] feeling?"
I'm not saying that you have to call everything good, but you don't need to provide a complete review of everything (unless requested). Highlights can work well. If something's garbage, it's garbage - but highlight the learning experiences.
"Positive feedback" isn't necessarily there to pad your ego. Sometimes, you do a thing and aren't totally sure how well it worked. If I say "blah worked well" or "foo is the best bar I've ever seen you do," that means "keep doing that thing and not the thing you were trying to do." That's what it's for. Stuff to keep, stuff to change. When properly executed, it has nothing to do with making you feel good and everything to do with helping your work to be the best that it can be.
"You'd be a lot more attractive as a woman if you didn't talk about farts so much."
This fucking blew my mind.
Especially when I had to defend myself and eventually the offending nurse explained to management that she disagreed with all the reports made.
100% of this bullshit is present in the medical community as well. Health care workers especially need to be able to take critique and plain understand when they fuck up. Hey, you wanna meet up for coffee some time? I really like ex flight attendants ;^).