Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

cohost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 492 posts

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#401

Post by camillomiller »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #279
camillomiller wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize you are all reinforcing that business must come always first before personal expression? It is factual that one person was touting instruments of war, but by most comments here that’s seen as “the right” because it’s representing “business”. What you’re all saying implicitly is that the rights of a corporate employer to make money are always above the freedom to personal expression, by contract, by law…

> What you’re all saying implicitly is that the rights of a corporate employer to make money are always above the freedom to personal expression Rather, it's the right to freely associate yourself with whoever you want. Not above freedom of expression but certainly not below either. I wouldn't want to associate with certain people because of what they say and do. There are people who wouldn't want to associate with m…

This freedom you all tout as a counterargument is a lie. You’re all repeating it as if it’s a commonly held piece of common sense, but have you stopped for one second if it actually makes sense? What is the alternative this freedom enables, if you have a skillset for which you need to be employed to make a living? For there to be a freedom, there would need to exist an alternative. As Mark Fisher already brilliantly pointed out before that devoured him to the core, the alternative is not even thinkable.

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#402

Post by camillomiller »

inertiatic wrote: post #117
camillomiller wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize you are all reinforcing that business must come always first before personal expression? It is factual that one person was touting instruments of war, but by most comments here that’s seen as “the right” because it’s representing “business”. What you’re all saying implicitly is that the rights of a corporate employer to make money are always above the freedom to personal expression, by contract, by law…

>you’re all confirming that contributing to corporate capitalism is incompatible with personal freedom Isn't it obvious? You're literally giving away more than a third of your life working these jobs to do things that you don't personally want or benefit from. You think the more restrictive thing that is being really imposed on you is being unable to tweet "Fuck you" instead of spending like half of your waking time…

Very good points. In fact the reality is the lack of alternative. But this is really what I don’t understand about thousand and thousand of talented people working for Meta, for example.

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#403

Post by camillomiller »

parineum wrote: post #129
camillomiller wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize you are all reinforcing that business must come always first before personal expression? It is factual that one person was touting instruments of war, but by most comments here that’s seen as “the right” because it’s representing “business”. What you’re all saying implicitly is that the rights of a corporate employer to make money are always above the freedom to personal expression, by contract, by law…

> I reiterate that you’re all confirming that contributing to corporate capitalism is incompatible with personal freedom. Nah, she should have quit and exercised her personal freedom to work for an employer she doesn't think is a war criminal. _That's_ how capitalism works, vote with your labor/dollar. Instead, she fought tooth and nail to keep that corporate job and the blood money that came with it.

LOL, no sorry. That’s the kool aid they want you drink. Stating it as if it’s an actual fact of corporate capitalism, as if facts wouldn’t have disproven these “tenets” over and over, won’t make it all magically real.

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#404

Post by jzb »

galkk wrote: post #246
jzb wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. First, you dropped the word “weapons.” “DoD systems” sounds neutral, could be benign personnel systems. DoD weapons systems isn’t neutral, and it is political. Those systems are used to enforce U.S. policy, via combat. That’s the status quo, which may not feel “political” if you’re supportive of U.S. policy and/or don’t think about the ramifications, but it is very political. If you’re not okay with how t…

Corrected, but missing word was honest mistake and not intentional. I still believe that point stands - as a software engineer I can see a lot of technical challenges in weapon systems too. And this is just from thinking about *potential* things, as in system design interview. Reality, I'm sure, is much more complicated and hard. Some will find offense in every word one can say, it doesn't mean that they're right. Be…

There were two assertions in the original, I was not responding about the complexity piece. Sure, DoD requirements are no doubt fascinating and complex.

What I was responding to was the assertion that "there is nothing political to say..."

As I said, the topic is political. Trying to move from "political" to "offensive" (and omitting "weapons") suggests to me that you're not seeing this as a political issue because you're just seeing this as "normal" from your POV. That doesn't make it not political.

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#405

Post by jzb »

camillomiller wrote: post #400
TheRoque wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the issue with this one. If you are working for the company in the first place, you're making an agreement to give your energy, and contribute to this company. It doesn't make much sense to willingly enroll in a company to then criticize its clients and business. The fact that they now represent this company is also quite obvious... This employee of course has the freedom to express its discontent with th…

The problem comes before that. Mostly there isn’t an alternative to that. Either sign off your rights with an employment contract if you wanna be paid for your skills, or die in a ditch (pardon the hyperbole). Tertium non datur, there is not an alternative. And no, I’m sorry, but “you have the freedom to start your own company”, “you have the freedom to not be employed by that company” are all false statements.

There's an in-between, here. The author was at a conference representing said company. Maybe they were told to go, but this isn't VMware policing their speech in general - this is someone attending an event on VMware's behalf and picking a fight directly with the speaker.

I'd feel very differently if VMware fired someone for voicing a political opinion outside the context of work with no reasonable association with VMware other than being employed there.

If part of your job includes repping the company, and the company paying for you to be somewhere, then while you're wearing that hat you need to be conscious of what you say and how it reflects on the company.

I agree with you that there's a power imbalance and "you're free to start your own company" would be unsatisfying if the company is trying to stifle your speech at all times.

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#406

Post by outcoldman »

Hamuko wrote: post #379
Freak_NL wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She. If you are unsure of a person's gender, just use 'they', but don't assume it's a man. In this case the pronouns are right there on the top of the blog though (as well used in the article).

"He" is also used as a gender-neutral pronoun, much like "man" is used for "person". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/he#Pronoun

Not a native speaker, but my assumption is that we are trying to go easy on “guys”, “man” and “he”. It is not hard to say “they”, “person”, “people”.

Also, I cannot really explain really well, but it seems like there is a big difference saying “he” about just mythical person, and referring to a real person (whose gender you don’t know).

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#407

Post by valval »

re-thc wrote: post #75
cmdli wrote: post #24

> "Being as I’m not an idiot, I elect to bring a witness of my own (@lizthegrey ). She slightly livetweeted that conversation until VP VMware tells her to stop. " This, I think, is the point that caused the firing. It's pretty clear that if you choose a witness who then posts everything publicly that you are not discussing in good faith. Like, it's your right to speak your mind, and maybe you think you are in the mor…

> that you are not discussing in good faith I'd think a VP (many levels above) coming to DM someone for a private chat isn't likely coming in good faith to begin with so it goes both ways.

[flagged]

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#408

Post by eadmund »

outcoldman wrote: post #406
Hamuko wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He" is also used as a gender-neutral pronoun, much like "man" is used for "person". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/he#Pronoun

Not a native speaker, but my assumption is that we are trying to go easy on “guys”, “man” and “he”. It is not hard to say “they”, “person”, “people”. Also, I cannot really explain really well, but it seems like there is a big difference saying “he” about just mythical person, and referring to a real person (whose gender you don’t know).

> It is not hard to say “they”, “person”, “people”.

Not hard, but incorrect.

Re: That Time I Posted Myself Out Of a Job

#410

Post by HDThoreaun »

irjustin wrote: post #9

Whether you agree or disagree with how VNWare followed up the tweet, he was very prudent in handling. Lawyer up, witnesses everywhere.

Bringing witnesses to all these meetings is likely what got them fired. The VP was going to just accept their apology for insulting a customer but the combativeness turned it into a bigger problem.
Post reply on HN