I've kinda stopped using 'good' and 'bad' most of the time.
See, thing is, those concepts map more or less to "this is consonant/dissonant with my values and/or desires" - and I can't count on sharing anyone else's values anymore, being all queer and trans and shit.
So those terms aren't useful for communication for me - I'm not going to be able to communicate effectively by assuming others' values align with mine, especially because I absolutely know that's not the case.
Instead, I have to state what those values or desires are directly, and indicate what the relationship between the thing under discussion and those values is.
so, e.g. -
"Microsoft Recall is bad" is not effective communication. Some dipshit's going to immediately argue that it meets his needs or desires and thus it's 'good', and then it's a whole-ass thing.
Instead, "Microsoft Recall provides a tool for domestic abusers to further their abuse" is much more effective. It specifies the behavior that I am concerned about, and the relationship of the thing being discussed to that behavior.
opinionated fi
And honestly I think 'good' and 'bad' aren't appropriate to use when speaking to people in general.
Those are words you use to condition behavior into a dog or a child, where you can - and are expected to - impose your values system onto them.
People who have actual ability to form and understand their own values systems oughtn't use those terms when speaking to each other, I think, because it promotes a culture of assuming similar values instead of openly explaining what the fuck you actually mean.
Be fucking specific, damnit.
re: opinionated fi
@robryk
I think that 'should' has a specific place, and that this place is in specifying an opinion that is clearly demarcated as such.
It also has a place in RFCs, where it's specifically defined - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119