3 ms·

If you want a more nuanced conversation, it's saying I swiped left on Anne Hathaway (or an equivalent desirable partner) on dating sites, when more likely that

If you want a more nuanced conversation, it's saying I swiped left on Anne Hathaway (or an equivalent desirable partner) on dating sites, when more likely that person would reject an average person. The fact that OP had to mention "I rejected a recruiter email" means he is utterly clueless about what it takes from Recruiters email to offer-in-hand and 99.9% will be rejected by Amazon

Volundr 4y ago
Again, if we are discussing Anne Hathaway's dating life the fact that you chose to swipe left instead of pursing it, and why, is indeed relevant to the discussion. Is not a discussion I'm interested in having, but I'm sure you can find someone out there who is. This thread is discussing Amazon's employment practices. The fact that someone refuses to consider employment at Amazon due to those practices is on topic. Your assumption that they don't understand what it takes to be hired by Amazon is insulting and uncalled for.
operatingthetan 4y ago
I'm a bit baffled by how many got distracted by the name drop and missed the apt analogy.
- Volundr 4y ago
  I don't think it's a particularly apt analogy. For one thing, being swiped left on is completely passive on Anne Hathaway's part. She didn't send an e-mail asking you to swipe right. One is an active action toward a specific person, one is a passive. But again, it doesn't matter. Requiring people to have applied, then been accepted to work at Amazon in order for their comments on Amazon's labor practices to be relevant to the discussion means you have inherently limited the discussion to people interested in working at Amazon despite their labor practices. Anyone who isn't interested, due to, say, their labor practices, isn't going to spend countless hours going through the exhausting process of getting an offer. Why would they? They aren't interested.
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    The point you're missing is that both rejections are meaningless to tell people about. Recruiters are so unpicky with who they send emails or linkedin messages to, that it is equivalent in social meaning to a rejection on a swipe dating app. The offer has little to do with who you are, and represent a generalized offer of pursuit, a very wide and impersonal net. Additionally, the classic "I almost dated a celebrity" is such a cliche and something people instantly brush off as meaningless, just like the amazon recruiter emailing you. The analogy is 100% on point in regards to the social significance of the interaction, there being none.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      The point your missing is the email was never the point of the comment, it was the fact that Amazon's practices have turned them off from Amazon. The recruiter email was just building a context that many of us can relate to. You've picked the least relevant portion of the comment to focus on. Again, "I won't work at X because Y" in a conversation about X doing Y is pretty clearly on-topic.
      - operatingthetan 4y ago
        They bragged about rejecting amazon. Whether it was about Amazon's practices or the pride of rejection they are both "drive by shooting" level comments and are annoying. Suggesting one is more on topic or interesting is inane because they are both surface-level expressions with zero insight. You're literally holding a up a comment that doesn't even reference the practice they didn't like as "on topic." Is it because they are going back to the office, because they changed their mind, because it's 3 days a week, because the communication was an email? Who knows. There's no there there. It's a garden variety expression of dislike.
        Volundr 4y ago
        They didn't brag about anything. They said they didn't reply to an e-mail. If this sounds boastful to you, it's baggage you brought. Between the article and the comment, there's more than enough context to infer that the reason they didn't reply is they predicted the heel turn on remote work. If comments relying on reader inference instead of fully specifying context is an issue, you don't have time to chat with me, there's TONS of other comments you need to address.

Volundr 4y ago

Again, if we are discussing Anne Hathaway's dating life the fact that you chose to swipe left instead of pursing it, and why, is indeed relevant to the discussion. Is not a discussion I'm interested in having, but I'm sure you can find someone out there who is. This thread is discussing Amazon's employment practices. The fact that someone refuses to consider employment at Amazon due to those practices is on topic. Your assumption that they don't understand what it takes to be hired by Amazon is insulting and uncalled for.

operatingthetan 4y ago

I'm a bit baffled by how many got distracted by the name drop and missed the apt analogy.

Volundr 4y ago
I don't think it's a particularly apt analogy. For one thing, being swiped left on is completely passive on Anne Hathaway's part. She didn't send an e-mail asking you to swipe right. One is an active action toward a specific person, one is a passive. But again, it doesn't matter. Requiring people to have applied, then been accepted to work at Amazon in order for their comments on Amazon's labor practices to be relevant to the discussion means you have inherently limited the discussion to people interested in working at Amazon despite their labor practices. Anyone who isn't interested, due to, say, their labor practices, isn't going to spend countless hours going through the exhausting process of getting an offer. Why would they? They aren't interested.
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  The point you're missing is that both rejections are meaningless to tell people about. Recruiters are so unpicky with who they send emails or linkedin messages to, that it is equivalent in social meaning to a rejection on a swipe dating app. The offer has little to do with who you are, and represent a generalized offer of pursuit, a very wide and impersonal net. Additionally, the classic "I almost dated a celebrity" is such a cliche and something people instantly brush off as meaningless, just like the amazon recruiter emailing you. The analogy is 100% on point in regards to the social significance of the interaction, there being none.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    The point your missing is the email was never the point of the comment, it was the fact that Amazon's practices have turned them off from Amazon. The recruiter email was just building a context that many of us can relate to. You've picked the least relevant portion of the comment to focus on. Again, "I won't work at X because Y" in a conversation about X doing Y is pretty clearly on-topic.
    - operatingthetan 4y ago
      They bragged about rejecting amazon. Whether it was about Amazon's practices or the pride of rejection they are both "drive by shooting" level comments and are annoying. Suggesting one is more on topic or interesting is inane because they are both surface-level expressions with zero insight. You're literally holding a up a comment that doesn't even reference the practice they didn't like as "on topic." Is it because they are going back to the office, because they changed their mind, because it's 3 days a week, because the communication was an email? Who knows. There's no there there. It's a garden variety expression of dislike.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        They didn't brag about anything. They said they didn't reply to an e-mail. If this sounds boastful to you, it's baggage you brought. Between the article and the comment, there's more than enough context to infer that the reason they didn't reply is they predicted the heel turn on remote work. If comments relying on reader inference instead of fully specifying context is an issue, you don't have time to chat with me, there's TONS of other comments you need to address.