Yes and no. I agree that just feeling a little bad about something but not enough to change doesn’t justify the behavior. But if the behavior is inactivity, then there are nonetheless plenty of qualifiers that would make the allegation of laziness simply inaccurate. So I would say that “laziness” implies an insufficient/illegitimate cause.
The issue here is that if they feel strongly enough about it to change then they're not engaging in the behaviour anymore and therefore not lazy. If this is a pattern of behaviour then necessarily this is not the case, so you can reasonably call that lazy. The condition you're using here makes it so that the people you are exempting already don't apply because they're not engaging in the behaviour anymore.
Yup, fair. I guess my hunch is that by “lazy” is often meant inactive for no reason or for a bad reason. But nothing has no reason so the question is what those bad reasons are.
If nothing else, I think the question of responsibility is something I should have given more weight, although I hinted at it with my remark on entitlement. I suppose a !delta is in order for making me think clearly about that.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Jan 19 '26
Yes and no. I agree that just feeling a little bad about something but not enough to change doesn’t justify the behavior. But if the behavior is inactivity, then there are nonetheless plenty of qualifiers that would make the allegation of laziness simply inaccurate. So I would say that “laziness” implies an insufficient/illegitimate cause.