3 ms·

If I had gone through a number of workplaces in six years, interacted with hundreds of people and potentially liked no more than three, I would probably sit dow

by antman 5y ago

If I had gone through a number of workplaces in six years, interacted with hundreds of people and potentially liked no more than three, I would probably sit down and do some introspection.

ThePadawan 5y ago
I didn't say I didn't like them. I could work together with a vast majority of them just fine. Only handful of them were actively people I would not look forward to being in a meeting with, for example. But that doesn't mean I would invite most of them over for a beer, talk about politics, and still expect to have a good time.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>that doesn't mean I would invite most of them over for a beer, talk about politics, and still expect to have a good time. The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? I am finding that more and more. People want agreement and echo chambers, not debates and arguments. I love arguing politics, hell sometimes I will take a contrarian position just to have the contrarian position not because I believe / support it. Debate and augmentation is how with strength our principles, our worldview, and solidify our beliefs as we age. As a society (in the US at least) we seem to be losing the ability to sit down with people that have different politics, have a heated debate/conversation, but then still walk away as friends or colleagues. that is very bad for society over all
  - ThePadawan 5y ago
    > The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? No and no. Because I couldn't get a word in edgewise. And they can shout louder than me, and for longer. I have been in that meeting at work before, and I have left with a headache, and they with a sense that "they've won". Imagine trying to have a beer with Piers Morgan, or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, it might be productive. But it wouldn't be fun, and I feel that was the premise - I don't think the idea of a "family-like atmosphere at work" was to imply "everybody hates each others guts, but still has to get along somehow".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
syshum 5y ago
>> would probably sit down and do some introspection. What now? Not in the modern era. No one take personal responsibility for anything, everyone else must conform to their worldview, their opinions, their lifestyle... Period no discussion. Nothing is wrong with them, everyone else is the problem

by antman 5y ago

If I had gone through a number of workplaces in six years, interacted with hundreds of people and potentially liked no more than three, I would probably sit down and do some introspection.

ThePadawan 5y ago

I didn't say I didn't like them. I could work together with a vast majority of them just fine. Only handful of them were actively people I would not look forward to being in a meeting with, for example. But that doesn't mean I would invite most of them over for a beer, talk about politics, and still expect to have a good time.

syshum 5y ago
>>that doesn't mean I would invite most of them over for a beer, talk about politics, and still expect to have a good time. The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? I am finding that more and more. People want agreement and echo chambers, not debates and arguments. I love arguing politics, hell sometimes I will take a contrarian position just to have the contrarian position not because I believe / support it. Debate and augmentation is how with strength our principles, our worldview, and solidify our beliefs as we age. As a society (in the US at least) we seem to be losing the ability to sit down with people that have different politics, have a heated debate/conversation, but then still walk away as friends or colleagues. that is very bad for society over all
- ThePadawan 5y ago
  > The question is why? Because they would disagree with you? They would challenge your beliefs? No and no. Because I couldn't get a word in edgewise. And they can shout louder than me, and for longer. I have been in that meeting at work before, and I have left with a headache, and they with a sense that "they've won". Imagine trying to have a beer with Piers Morgan, or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, it might be productive. But it wouldn't be fun, and I feel that was the premise - I don't think the idea of a "family-like atmosphere at work" was to imply "everybody hates each others guts, but still has to get along somehow".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

syshum 5y ago

>> would probably sit down and do some introspection. What now? Not in the modern era. No one take personal responsibility for anything, everyone else must conform to their worldview, their opinions, their lifestyle... Period no discussion. Nothing is wrong with them, everyone else is the problem