Musing For Today
When one gets a letter from an official source---say, from their landlord, or a government agency, or a summons to appear in county court---one tends to regard such notification in a literal sense.
Landlords, don't send notices to your tenants stating "it's been determined that" their unit "has a bedbug infestation", followed by instructions for preparation for treatment by professional exterminators.
...and then, after possessions have been bagged and piled up in the middle of the front room and bedroom, mention that "it's merely an inspection to determine whether or not there is an actual cause for concern".
Then, after the inspection, tenant's unit is given the "all clear" ...AFTER their having gone through all the panic and time and expense of preparation for a problem that doesn't even exist.
"That's just a general notice. We send it out to ALL the units".
Nothing like a good scare tactic to keep the tenants on their toes, I guess.
Also quite dishonest as well, if I may say so myself. I don't know if it's intended to be some kind of psyop or what, but I think it's morally wrong to traumatize and shock another in order to "get them to take some kind of initiative".
...plus, when one receives an official directive they tend to take whatever's stated at face value. One's not exactly going to read a notice from an employer, a landlord, a government agency, or a court order the same way they would read the works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Emily Dickenson, Robert Frost, or John Keats.
One doesn't reread a "summons to appear in county court" looking for subliminal metaphors and social commentary or hidden sarcasms. It's just understood that official directives are intended to be interpreted literally.
That's why it's important for such directives to be precise and concise, to the point, and accurate.
Then again, I've long doubted the level of transparency of most businesses, professions, agencies, and institutions. They've always seemed, to me anyway, to be big on psyops, power-tripping, and pigeonholing.
When one gets a letter from an official source---say, from their landlord, or a government agency, or a summons to appear in county court---one tends to regard such notification in a literal sense.
Landlords, don't send notices to your tenants stating "it's been determined that" their unit "has a bedbug infestation", followed by instructions for preparation for treatment by professional exterminators.
...and then, after possessions have been bagged and piled up in the middle of the front room and bedroom, mention that "it's merely an inspection to determine whether or not there is an actual cause for concern".
Then, after the inspection, tenant's unit is given the "all clear" ...AFTER their having gone through all the panic and time and expense of preparation for a problem that doesn't even exist.
"That's just a general notice. We send it out to ALL the units".
Nothing like a good scare tactic to keep the tenants on their toes, I guess.
Also quite dishonest as well, if I may say so myself. I don't know if it's intended to be some kind of psyop or what, but I think it's morally wrong to traumatize and shock another in order to "get them to take some kind of initiative".
...plus, when one receives an official directive they tend to take whatever's stated at face value. One's not exactly going to read a notice from an employer, a landlord, a government agency, or a court order the same way they would read the works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Emily Dickenson, Robert Frost, or John Keats.
One doesn't reread a "summons to appear in county court" looking for subliminal metaphors and social commentary or hidden sarcasms. It's just understood that official directives are intended to be interpreted literally.
That's why it's important for such directives to be precise and concise, to the point, and accurate.
Then again, I've long doubted the level of transparency of most businesses, professions, agencies, and institutions. They've always seemed, to me anyway, to be big on psyops, power-tripping, and pigeonholing.
No comments:
Post a Comment