3 ms·

Non-negotiable tenet(s): all human lives are valuable, all humans deserve dignity, and when we as a society can't find a place for a valuable and talented indiv

Non-negotiable tenet(s): all human lives are valuable, all humans deserve dignity, and when we as a society can't find a place for a valuable and talented individuals like the author then we have failed in some sense. That said, within the current system... Morally and legally, what are the limits of accommodation? Accommodation, in my uninformed layman understanding, is about accommodating people who can do the job, but need to do it differently than others. For example, wheelchair accessibility for white-collar office workers. Does it include the inclusion of people who can't perform all aspects of the job? Communication and collaboration are absolute pillars of nearly any engineer's job, but by the writer's own statements it seems like his condition often prevents this. How do we resolve this?

squigz 1y ago
> Non-negotiable tenet(s): all human lives are valuable, all humans deserve dignity, and when we as a society can't find a place for a valuable and talented individuals like the author then we have failed in some sense. This sort of framing assumes the author bears no responsibility at all, and it's just society that has failed. The thing is though, even in an ideal society, it would be not reasonable to expect people to deal with someone's issues indefinitely, particularly when they chalk up all criticism as "discrimination"; I'm quite certain there are legitimate reasons, completely unrelated to his mental health, that he was fired or passed over for promotions.
- JohnBooty 1y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. Individual responsibility is, really, a crucial pillar of just about anything. Especially this question. The thing is though, even in an ideal society, it would be not reasonable to expect people to deal with someone's issues indefinitely Agree 100%. Now, in that somewhat narrow perspective, this seems unsolvable. If we accept that communication and collaboration is an essential part of nearly any engineering job then I don't know that many companies are going to be able to accommodate an engineer who can't do those things. That gets back to the fundamental distinction between "is able to do the job, but needs to be able to do it differently" versus "cannot do the job." Zooming out a bit, though, it's also true that in an ideal society we'd be able to use everybody's talents to their full potential. Getting to 100.0% of that is surely not achievable but getting as close to it as possible should be our "north star" if you'll forgive the cliched corpo-speak term. The author has proven himself (unless I am mistaken) to be a valuable and dedicated Python engineer, and creates code that helps others, and it really is a loss to society if those talents cannot be utilized.

squigz 1y ago

> Non-negotiable tenet(s): all human lives are valuable, all humans deserve dignity, and when we as a society can't find a place for a valuable and talented individuals like the author then we have failed in some sense. This sort of framing assumes the author bears no responsibility at all, and it's just society that has failed. The thing is though, even in an ideal society, it would be not reasonable to expect people to deal with someone's issues indefinitely, particularly when they chalk up all criticism as "discrimination"; I'm quite certain there are legitimate reasons, completely unrelated to his mental health, that he was fired or passed over for promotions.

JohnBooty 1y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. Individual responsibility is, really, a crucial pillar of just about anything. Especially this question. The thing is though, even in an ideal society, it would be not reasonable to expect people to deal with someone's issues indefinitely Agree 100%. Now, in that somewhat narrow perspective, this seems unsolvable. If we accept that communication and collaboration is an essential part of nearly any engineering job then I don't know that many companies are going to be able to accommodate an engineer who can't do those things. That gets back to the fundamental distinction between "is able to do the job, but needs to be able to do it differently" versus "cannot do the job." Zooming out a bit, though, it's also true that in an ideal society we'd be able to use everybody's talents to their full potential. Getting to 100.0% of that is surely not achievable but getting as close to it as possible should be our "north star" if you'll forgive the cliched corpo-speak term. The author has proven himself (unless I am mistaken) to be a valuable and dedicated Python engineer, and creates code that helps others, and it really is a loss to society if those talents cannot be utilized.