11–20 of 572 posts
Am I reading this correctly? Fired for lack of empathetic communication? Is that really a thing?
At-will means "for basically any reason." PIPs are used to try and demonstrate cause so that collecting benefits is harder.
It's not always in these words, sometimes it's presented as "culture fit", which is a bit broader but "communication style" fits under it.
Can't really say I'm expecting someone like that to be low friction.
>Was politely calling out a data scientist on a problematic and transphobic survey answer a demonstration of lack of empathy?
How presumptuous. Ever thought that maybe the person putting it together didn't know any better? What does framing oneself as the victim accomplish here?
In addition, this is hilariously ironic given that GitHub employed (still employs?) people who actively promote racism against white men (and women): http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-...
Isn't this the person who ran a code of conduct that has a website which includes things like "thoughtless use of pronouns" and mentions meritocracy as an evil, not a goal to strive for? Can't really say I'm expecting someone like that to be low friction.
I've seen this a few times. People with a naturally terse way of communicating eventually end up offending someone with the power to retaliate.
It feels dumb to me but I know for a fact that some people who are quick to take offense ease when they see it.
Should I assume that all characters not parenthetically emphasized as male are female?
This person mentions multiple times that meritocracy is a bad idea, that promotion or reward based on merit should be done away with in order to promote diversity, e.g., racial/gender-based quotas.
This is a person who does not view competence as the primary trait to select for within a market, and is insisting here that competence be downplayed to make room for people with the correct melanin levels and/or chromosomes.
""What is your gender?" The multiple-choice options were "Male", "Female", and "Transgender". I was very disappointed at this 101 mistake, and sadly opened an issue referencing the question. The body of my issue read: "
Uh oh! The data scientist isn't up to date on the trends in gender studies and critical theory, better send her off to sensitivity training! Doesn't the data scientist who wrote the question know that gender is performative? Better get offended and make her apologize. Oh wait, that's exactly what the author does, like the bully she is.
I can't take a diary post like this, from someone interested in enforcing equity, littered with ideological axioms, promoting unscientific gender "theory", all the while playing the victim in the classic social justice style, with anything more than a giant boulder of salt.
Worse is the antipathy she directs to "white males", which destroys the goal of an inclusive environment.
Every story has two sides, would certainly wait for hearing what her team mates would have to say, but I suspect they will say nothing out of fear from the repercussion by SJW when expressing how it was to work with such person.