5 ms·

> Conversely, if you let these assholes exert their power over you, you dehumanize yourself in submission. I normally like strong opinions even when I disagree

> Conversely, if you let these assholes exert their power over you, you dehumanize yourself in submission. I normally like strong opinions even when I disagree with them. It is usually refreshing to hear people share their true feelings in an unfiltered way. This, on the other hand, feels bitter. It seems to be coming from a place of hate. By all means, stand up for yourself and your ideals. Sometimes you have to make difficult choices to maintain your own integrity. But, conversely, deciding to make the choice to return to an office is not "dehumanize yourself in submission". Many people, perhaps most, will just go back to the office because they aren't convinced that they are locked in a life-long struggle to free themselves from some imaginary battle between the oppressors and the oppressed. They will realize that a job is an offering made to them, the conditions of which may change from time to time. Some will actually relish the idea of hanging around the office with likeminded coworkers. This is a cancer of our times: to see every single thing that happens as one side being an asshole exerting power and the other side being dehumanized into submission.

labria 3y ago
I think you missed the point here. They were not talking about _making the choice_ to return to the office, but rather about _accepting the ultimatum_. There’s nothing wrong with deciding you want to work from the office, it’s the ultimatum part that’s important IMO.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  What is the difference between "making a choice" and "accepting an ultimatum" in the case of an employee working at a company where an RTO policy is enacted? The only point of a invective like the original article is to try to make people who are perfectly fine commuting into an office feel like they are traitors to some fictitious worker solidarity organization. Like some red-eyed Sauron entity with no motivation other than pure evil in their soul is threatening to steal the food from their babies mouths unless they comply. The blackness and whiteness of this moral viewpoint is extremely toxic. If you have a strong preference to work from home and your employer springs an "ultimatum" on you then what you actually have is a choice. How you make that choice should be much more nuanced than "asshole exerting power" vs. "dehumanized submission". And if the balance of factors, whatever they may be, lead you to decide to go back to the office - don't let some ideological zealot turn that decision into some moral absolute.
clemailacct1 3y ago
> This, on the other hand, feels bitter. It seems to be coming from a place of hate. Does it bother you that someone may actually hate something?
- zoogeny 3y ago
  It does bother me when that hate is directed at anyone who might make the decision to return to the office when faced with a RTO policy from their employer. The author is plainly saying such people are dehumanizing themselves. I would hate to see that kind of contempt for others spread, especially for a compromise that a large majority of people will probably make. I'm not a saint myself, but I would prefer if popular articles on the subject urged us to look at others with empathy.
  - revlolz 3y ago
    I did not infer any contempt from the author towards everyday people who are forced to capitulate. The author empathized with the hardest hit victims in this target: h1b workers. Those who cannot simply 'play chicken' without risking deportation. There was no contempt or hate in these words or I feel like the sentiment would have been 'they are getting what they deserve... ' I agree completely with this author about the dehumanizing nature of these rto mandates. They completely forbid and outlaw natural human development/growth without risk to your career. Did anything in your life change? Well, I guess you need to start looking for a new career even though you've demonstrated over x years that you can accomplish your work remote. It's so obvious the majority of these mandates are for dehumanizing purposes to force people to quit, gain tax incentives, impress power upon subordinates, or benefit commercial real estate holders. Hate and contempt towards the selfish leaders here is totally warranted. Disdain towards fickle middle managers lacking backbone would also be understandable in my opinion.
    - zoogeny 3y ago
      > forced to capitulate There it is again. As if it isn't possible for people to just, you know, decide that it is fine and move on with their lives? Are they really "forced to capitulate"? I recall working in an office building for a small software company. Due to the growth, the company had people working in hallways. Soon after I joined the company moved offices so they could have more space. The new building was on the other side of town. That would increase the commute for a lot of workers, like adding one hour plus to their lives. Some opted to leave the company. Was everyone else "forced to capitulate"? > I agree completely with this author about the dehumanizing nature of these rto mandates. You don't agree with the quote I pulled. The author isn't calling the "nature of these rto mandates" dehumanizing. He is explicitly saying that the people who submit to this are dehumanizing themselves.
unnouinceput 3y ago
>This, on the other hand, feels bitter. It seems to be coming from a place of hate. Of course is bitter. Dude said it clearly. Was hired as WFH before COVID, had challenging work, enjoyed it and then some asshole higher up, one day, decided to RTO indiscriminately for everyone. And I didn't felt any hate, just disappointment. He was disappointed that he had to resign. Hence his rant. I would rant too in same shoes.

labria 3y ago

I think you missed the point here. They were not talking about _making the choice_ to return to the office, but rather about _accepting the ultimatum_. There’s nothing wrong with deciding you want to work from the office, it’s the ultimatum part that’s important IMO.

zoogeny 3y ago
What is the difference between "making a choice" and "accepting an ultimatum" in the case of an employee working at a company where an RTO policy is enacted? The only point of a invective like the original article is to try to make people who are perfectly fine commuting into an office feel like they are traitors to some fictitious worker solidarity organization. Like some red-eyed Sauron entity with no motivation other than pure evil in their soul is threatening to steal the food from their babies mouths unless they comply. The blackness and whiteness of this moral viewpoint is extremely toxic. If you have a strong preference to work from home and your employer springs an "ultimatum" on you then what you actually have is a choice. How you make that choice should be much more nuanced than "asshole exerting power" vs. "dehumanized submission". And if the balance of factors, whatever they may be, lead you to decide to go back to the office - don't let some ideological zealot turn that decision into some moral absolute.

clemailacct1 3y ago

> This, on the other hand, feels bitter. It seems to be coming from a place of hate. Does it bother you that someone may actually hate something?

zoogeny 3y ago
It does bother me when that hate is directed at anyone who might make the decision to return to the office when faced with a RTO policy from their employer. The author is plainly saying such people are dehumanizing themselves. I would hate to see that kind of contempt for others spread, especially for a compromise that a large majority of people will probably make. I'm not a saint myself, but I would prefer if popular articles on the subject urged us to look at others with empathy.
- revlolz 3y ago
  I did not infer any contempt from the author towards everyday people who are forced to capitulate. The author empathized with the hardest hit victims in this target: h1b workers. Those who cannot simply 'play chicken' without risking deportation. There was no contempt or hate in these words or I feel like the sentiment would have been 'they are getting what they deserve... ' I agree completely with this author about the dehumanizing nature of these rto mandates. They completely forbid and outlaw natural human development/growth without risk to your career. Did anything in your life change? Well, I guess you need to start looking for a new career even though you've demonstrated over x years that you can accomplish your work remote. It's so obvious the majority of these mandates are for dehumanizing purposes to force people to quit, gain tax incentives, impress power upon subordinates, or benefit commercial real estate holders. Hate and contempt towards the selfish leaders here is totally warranted. Disdain towards fickle middle managers lacking backbone would also be understandable in my opinion.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    > forced to capitulate There it is again. As if it isn't possible for people to just, you know, decide that it is fine and move on with their lives? Are they really "forced to capitulate"? I recall working in an office building for a small software company. Due to the growth, the company had people working in hallways. Soon after I joined the company moved offices so they could have more space. The new building was on the other side of town. That would increase the commute for a lot of workers, like adding one hour plus to their lives. Some opted to leave the company. Was everyone else "forced to capitulate"? > I agree completely with this author about the dehumanizing nature of these rto mandates. You don't agree with the quote I pulled. The author isn't calling the "nature of these rto mandates" dehumanizing. He is explicitly saying that the people who submit to this are dehumanizing themselves.

unnouinceput 3y ago

>This, on the other hand, feels bitter. It seems to be coming from a place of hate. Of course is bitter. Dude said it clearly. Was hired as WFH before COVID, had challenging work, enjoyed it and then some asshole higher up, one day, decided to RTO indiscriminately for everyone. And I didn't felt any hate, just disappointment. He was disappointed that he had to resign. Hence his rant. I would rant too in same shoes.