3 ms·

> If someone has a lot to contribute but it never happens because their attitude sucks, that's on them. It's not on us to enable them. It's not on you, maybe,

> If someone has a lot to contribute but it never happens because their attitude sucks, that's on them. It's not on us to enable them. It's not on you, maybe, but I'd be willing to put up with somebody's shit if they get the job done. And especially then if no one else has gotten it done so far. Einstein bonked his cousin. And postulated the Theories of Relativity. Yeah, you'd think he could've thought of a better name. I care about results, if someone's nice, that's a bonus. But don't deny the fact either, that some people will be nice because they need to hide an incompetence. I know, and they know, if you have the results, that that is the most important thing, being nice is optional. Not being nice also does not imply being rude, just neutral, by the way. EDIT: And as a German, I'm intrinsically aware of the stereotype that we're often labelled as "rude", when we're actually being direct. So, who's at fault here? No one is, but we'd all go a long way to take a step back and realize, what's actually going on. EDIT2: And I also often have to put up with the reverse of this, people who are so goddamned nice, I can't be mad at them for any longer than a few seconds, but basically can't get shit done. As an employee who often had to clean-up after others, I often got pissed at this, but fortunately, that's no longer my case.

conception 7y ago
And someone who’s great but an ass/racist/sexist could push out, deter, and marginalize geniuses. We do not have a deficit of people able to do wonderful things. We do not have to tolerate terrible people to get results.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  You know what, I agree with you on that (at least concerning racism/sexism). But when it comes to "ass(holes)" and other "terrible people", as we can see from the whole RMS debacle, most people are unreliable and incapable of correctly identifying those terrible people. I should've been more precise in this: Seemingly terrible people deserve an accurate evaluation that does not rely on "feelings" or the lynch-mob. Definitions of an "ass(hole)" are pretty subjective, and the tolerances here vary far greater than those that are racist or sexist. You shouldn't mix them up.
  - conception 7y ago
    That's fair and it is subjective - but I think it's pretty simple to come up with an "Employee Bill of Rights" that can enumerate "inalienable" rights for your employees, e.g. the right respectful communication (aka not being shouted at) etc. The internet is full of them. This is, of course, different from being blunt, quiet, or other sorts of personality quirks people can associate negatively with. But I would say the line between proper and improper workplace behavior is more defined than people think. I think the fear you are bringing up is the slippery slope into people being fearful of every interaction, but that will always need to be managed just like privacy and security and there will never be a one size fits all. But there certainly can be some pretty simple baselines established. Unions do it all the time - to varying degrees of success.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  > We do not have to tolerate terrible people to get results. You are totally correct. I see no reason to tolerate people that go around lying and digging dirt in order to defame people... I also see no reason to tolerate people that blindly jump on rumours in order to push their political goals. I definitively see no reason to tolerate people that seek to erode principles of justice on which our society is founded.

conception 7y ago

And someone who’s great but an ass/racist/sexist could push out, deter, and marginalize geniuses. We do not have a deficit of people able to do wonderful things. We do not have to tolerate terrible people to get results.

klingonopera 7y ago
You know what, I agree with you on that (at least concerning racism/sexism). But when it comes to "ass(holes)" and other "terrible people", as we can see from the whole RMS debacle, most people are unreliable and incapable of correctly identifying those terrible people. I should've been more precise in this: Seemingly terrible people deserve an accurate evaluation that does not rely on "feelings" or the lynch-mob. Definitions of an "ass(hole)" are pretty subjective, and the tolerances here vary far greater than those that are racist or sexist. You shouldn't mix them up.
- conception 7y ago
  That's fair and it is subjective - but I think it's pretty simple to come up with an "Employee Bill of Rights" that can enumerate "inalienable" rights for your employees, e.g. the right respectful communication (aka not being shouted at) etc. The internet is full of them. This is, of course, different from being blunt, quiet, or other sorts of personality quirks people can associate negatively with. But I would say the line between proper and improper workplace behavior is more defined than people think. I think the fear you are bringing up is the slippery slope into people being fearful of every interaction, but that will always need to be managed just like privacy and security and there will never be a one size fits all. But there certainly can be some pretty simple baselines established. Unions do it all the time - to varying degrees of success.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
> We do not have to tolerate terrible people to get results. You are totally correct. I see no reason to tolerate people that go around lying and digging dirt in order to defame people... I also see no reason to tolerate people that blindly jump on rumours in order to push their political goals. I definitively see no reason to tolerate people that seek to erode principles of justice on which our society is founded.