I thought this at first as well. But then I thought he probably is that dislodged from reality that he genuinely thinks he’s discriminated against when people mention equity and stuff like that because he’s the antagonist of equity.
If everyone in the world is at least not poor and comfortable it means a lot less wealth for him; a big No No for PeElon.
The origin of that phrase is ironic, given how it’s used. It originates from a USENET post from the late 90s by what was essentially a proto-MRA referring to a woman.
I could see applying it in that direction today still, if talking about certain domains, like conscription or basically anything tied to the criminal justice system, or services for the homeless or victims of abuse.
For real. Diversity could easily be considered antithetical to racism. Inclusion could be considered antithetical to sexism. But no, Chef Elon made pseudo-intellectual word salad.
But, “Worlds grossly richest man not big on equity” feels like an Onion article title.
I feel like wokeness in general requires empathy and understanding of the plight of others. Anti-woke means being unempathetic, and folks feel that is positive? I literally can’t comprehend being for Team Sociopath, but millions of people will vote for Trump, so it’s real.
Could be, but like countries that use the words “Democratic” and/or “People’s” in their names, just because you call something by a word doesn’t necessarily mean that word is accurate.
Often “diversity, inclusion and equity” in practice means doing things that would rightly be called out as sexist and racist but targeting the “right” sex and/or race.
Without citing specific examples, it sounds like you just don’t like affirmative action programs, which is an opinion I’d be embarrassed to say out loud. When one group of people has all the money and all the connections, it’s not fair to say “just treat everyone equally!” because it maintains the unequal status quo—poorer minority groups continue getting into schools at lower rates since they live in poorer neighborhoods with poorer schools and poorer access to the funds needed for higher education, women continue getting passed up for management positions, leading to more male dominated companies hiring more men for more management positions, et cetera
Not the guy you replied to, but I’ll give you one: if you are male, it is (or at least was last federal election) impossible to be at the highest spot of any candidate list of the german green party. There was a hard rule that spot 1 had to be a woman and then it alternates. The alternation rule seems pretty alright, but blanket excluding someone from the #1 spot because of gender is pretty blatant sexism. It doesn’t matter that women were in that position and worse in the pretty recent past, 2 wrongs don’t make a right (also ironically this kind of ignores other gender identities entirely but they’d probably be given the woman treatment as they’re clearly generally disadvantaged, which seems alright). Something like having at least 45% at #1 of both men and women and then keeping the alternating rule seems a lot more sensible, or even flat out forcing 50% and flipping the genders each election.
I can also spend a very long time talking about how affirmative action in general feels more like the lazy route to achieve a somewhat better state since socioeconomic factors play a huge role in education and those heavily correlate with ethnicity, but it’s unfair to exclude people based on their skin color (almost like that’s racism by definition), but whatever. I haven’t seen any cases of it being actually abused, and overall just fast tracking more representation of all sorts of people into all kinds of jobs and social groups will likely help a lot against racism in the long run. It just feels like the inferior means to that end.
Germany has things like giving disabled people preference in job applications given otherwise equal qualifications which I think is great as they most likely have much fewer options overall, and I believe that might be considered affirmative action too? I’m not super familiar given that that’s not a term here.
To your last point, yes, affirmative action is the term the U.S. has decided on for programs such as that one. There may be newer phrases in use, I don’t know for certain.
I would agree on the ‘lazy’ argument. It certainly feels like we could do better. But that always seems to be true!
I have on a personal level had to learn to avoid letting perfection get in the way of improvement. Whether that is broadly applicable to policy is debatable—I would welcome much more radical change, but I also feel as though radical action in one direction spurs more radical opposition. For instance, Biden tried to forgive $430 billion in student debt in the U.S. and it was in the news, argued over, eventually stopped due to some absurd court cases—yet he and his administration have successfully gotten about $132 billion forgiven in other avenues, step by step, with much less fanfare and thus (in my mind) much less opposition as well.
In regards to the German Green Party, and to for the moment ignore the question of additional genders, I thought that there were currently two co-leaders, one man one woman? If that is not the case, and even if it is, I assume the argument would be along the lines of ‘women have been underrepresented for so long that it is reasonable to give them a stretch of overrepresentation in order to bring a semblance of balance around.’ Or ‘other parties are mostly led by men so we will be led by women for some semblance of balance.’ Neither concept seems crazy to me.
And on the question of alternative gender presentations I think the issue is one of how to enact the greatest good for the largest number of people. The rights and representation of trans, non-binary, etc. peoples matter very much to me, knowing several such people personally! But collectively they do at the moment make up a small portion of the population. I think they should be encouraged to do whatever it is they want with their lives. If that is to pursue office with the Green Party, so be it. Such a thing seems like it may take a change in language to ‘allow’. But it does not mean the rules are bad conceptually or that they need to be thrown out—more inclusive language seems like a small change that does not require a change in the direction of progress.
That’s the ‘affirmative’ side of affirmative action—taking an action like encouraging trans people to run for office. Temporarily banning men from holding office wouldn’t really fall under the umbrella in spirit I suppose, but isn’t the outcome the same, and thus whether or not you take offense at the concept a personal choice, or at least worthy of a philosophical debate?
Visiting again the concept of laziness: just appointing women to leadership positions does not make everything fair. For instance, the disabled may suffer more social exclusion under female leadership, because women tend to see disabled children in terms of the additional child raising work they represent (of course, mostly men’s fault for pigeonholing women as homemakers). But this is a reason to improve the course we are on. It is okay to critique, to point out the ways that things are not going the right way. For instance, feel free to complain about how the focus on social justice overshadows the larger issues of economic injustice that hold everybody down! Feel free to point out groups that are being forgotten. Individuals who benefit from affirmative action and then turn around and preach self sufficiency. Personally, I think men’s mental health will need to be a bigger focus! It’s clearly an issue, and since they’re still mostly in charge it’ll probably benefit us all if they get some help. Whatever your critique, it should be in the spirit of fostering a world where your genitals or skin color or the neighborhood you’re born in does not determine your life’s course.
But it should not critique the concept. We should not reverse course and say “we were wrong, put men back in charge of everything and don’t let brown people live here.” And that is what I think being against affirmative action means. It means “no thanks, I am okay with the deal as it stands.” The deal as it stands, where in the United States you can accurately predict someone’s income just by knowing what ZIP code they were born in; where despite Hillary Clinton’s career women are underrepresented lucrative fields like the sciences because they’re still expected to put their future on hold to raise a couple’s children; where despite Barack Obama’s success black men are more than four times as likely to have felony convictions than white, taking the community’s right to vote away. That means, whether the person saying it is part of the in-group or a well-off member of a minority group, that they have enough, and aren’t interested in helping others get enough. I’d be embarrassed to say something like that.
Sorry I rambled on so much, I am “stealing time” at my job and lost my train of thought a few times as I left and revisited this comment. :)
Sorry I rambled on so much, I am “stealing time” at my job and lost my train of thought a few times as I left and revisited this comment. :)
Totally didn’t do the same thing…
Anyway, I mostly agree with you, just fyi regarding the german green party: Annalena Baerbock was their chancellor candidate, Habeck was effectively what in the US would be a president’s running mate. A duo, but Baerbock was iirc always going to be chancellor if the greens got a majority. And yes, they have joint leadership of the party.
That policy has to do with the german voting system, where each party has to provide a list of candidates for each state. Then according to how many votes the party gets, proportionally many people from that list get into the Bundestag, the list is in order. And that’s the one that had to alternate.
The greens as of last federal election are big enough to where this effectively isn’t going to single out anyone, they will get a few candidates from every state into the Bundestag. However the principle of forcing the gender of slot 1 just left a bit of a bad taste. Still voted for them and will most likely do that again.
Just some extra detail that I think you might have been missing about the German electoral system. #1 spot doesn’t refer to the leader of the party as this comment sort of seems to imply.
Germany uses a voting system called Mixed-Member Proportional. In it, you vote for your local candidate exactly the same as you would in America or the UK—using first past the post. But then you also vote for your favourite party. And there are additional seats in the Bundestag (congress) that are not tied to a particular region, but are instead used to “top up” the total of the Bundestag so that its party representation is proportional to the wishes of the voters. So if 10% of voters want the Greens and 20% want SPD, then 20% of the seats will be SPD and 10% will be Greens. If a party wins more seats in local elections than it is owed proportionally, it gets no additional people. If it wins fewer local elections than its national party vote percentage, it gets topped up using its party list. The #1 spot on that list will be the first person elected under this system, unless they also won their local race, in which case it goes to #2 instead, etc.
MMP is a really good electoral system, and honestly it’s probably the one I would advocate for and would encourage Americans and Brits to advocate for in their respective countries. Though I would replace the party lists entirely with a “nearest loser” to eliminate the problem @LwL describes. I’d also prefer IRV be used for the local part of the election, though that might be overly complicating it for some. Having those proportional top-ups means third parties not just can earn a place (which is what IRV by itself does), it actually guarantees that they will earn a place, if any sizeable number of people want them to. No more Nader ruining it for Gore; instead, Nader’s party will actually have representatives elected.
So looking back at the example they described about Germany, if we ignore local seats for the sake of simplicity, if the Greens are owed 1 seat, that seat will always be a woman. If they’re owed 2 seats, they’ll have a woman and a man. Owed 3 seats and they’ll have two women and a man. Etc.
When one group of people has all the money and all the connections, it’s not fair to say “just treat everyone equally!” because it maintains the unequal status quo
Then targeting socioeconomic status makes more sense. Any system that categorizes people and puts poor white folks in the same “has all the money and connections” bucket as the Clintons and the Obamas in the same “has no money or connections” bucket as poor black folks is not, in any way, actually about having money or connections.
Well unfortunately, the overlap is close enough to a circle that it makes plenty of sense, especially since the issue is not purely economic, but social, as you accidentally point out by using the phrase socioeconomic. Obama has wealth that is unfathomable to the everyday person, as does Clinton—both deal with a society that belittles them because of who they are in a way that white men don’t face, rich or poor.
Surely you’ve noticed that Obama is the only black president so far, despite black people making up 10 to 20% of the population over the last few centuries.
You are also aware that Clinton would have been the first female U.S. President. She won the popular vote by a significant margin, which is a great sign for public opinion on women, but the reality is still that women, who are more than half the country, are not more than half in charge of it.
The fact these two got as far as they did is in no small part thanks to the concept of affirmative action, where we try to right past wrongs and level the playing field. Encourage women to go into nontraditional fields, encourage black students to apply for Ivy League schools and ensure there are spots for them—these things only “hurt” white men because resources are so artificially limited already, disproportionately held by the tiny percentage of [rich white men] who control the US’s giant conglomerates and obedient politicians, and regular old white men aren’t used to feeling the squeeze.
Did Obama pull the ladder up behind him somewhat by applying the same neoliberal bullshit that has destroyed the concept of compassionate social safety nets in favor of a more competitive marketplace? Can you be mad at him? Yeah. That’s beside the point. White people have been allowed to fuck over other white people for ages.
honestly what I hate the most about those quotes is that every one of those slogans actually have a quite clear meaning , especially within the context of the book .
I find myself saying “We are the dead” quite a lot when something reality bending occurs (you know, like Elon opening his pie hole), because that’s how it feels.
You used to be able to get a pine box for $500. Idk what they cost now. I only know this because I had the misfortune of having to plan a funeral for someone.
I’ve always said to dump me in a ditch somewhere, I’m not gonna care, I’ll be dead. If anybody pays for an expensive ass coffin for me, I will come back and haunt their ass.
I’ve said the same thing,same reasoning, but my wife and kids lost their minds when I suggested it. I even suggested planting a tree so they could have a place to consider “me” to be,no dice. So good luck to you and everyone else concerned with saving money or hassle out there.
Bene Gesserit burials in “Chapterhouse” sound like it: dig a vertical hole, put the body in with (presumably) biodegradable wrapping, plant a tree on it.
My plan, if I live old enough to be facing debilitating age-related illness is to organize all my assets to be distributed beforehand, then hike out into the middle of a dense forest where I cant possibly be found, dig a shallow pit to lie in, and die there by whatever means tickles me at the time.
There are no large predators where I live, so Id just be slowly dissected by the ants and the beetles.
You basically just rephrased multiple scenes with Frank in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia…
“I mean, I don’t give a shit. If I was dead you could bang me all you want. I mean, who cares? A dead body is like a piece of trash. I mean, shove as much shit in there as you want. Fill me up with cream, make a stew out of my ass. What’s the big deal? Bang me, eat me, grind me up into little pieces, throw me in the river. Who gives a shit? You’re dead, you’re dead! Oh shit! Is my mic on?”
or another episode: “When I die, just throw me in the trash!”
Just thought it was funny to find people mirroring Frank Reynolds in real life… although I always pretty much agreed with him. I’m more concerned with how traumatizing it’d be for my family to see me in a ditch, and/or being filled with cream.
It would work. Senator Sanders forced a vote to require the State department to report on Israel’s humanitarian violations or immediately withhold aid, and the Senate quickly voted 72-11 against the proposal. That is probably the most bi-partisan vote we’ve seen in decades. But don’t go thinking that the enormous American political machine actually represents the will of the American people. They represent corporate interests, and hardly even try to hide that anymore.
Yes, a number of users on Lemmy have made that claim, and this article shows references of it being done by various media outlets and other political pundits.
David Friedman, the conservative former US ambassador to Israel during Donald Trump’s presidency, went further, tweeting before Monday’s protest: “Any American Jew attending this rally is not a Jew – yes I said it!”
It was the Democrat president that bypassed congress twice to send munitions to Israel during it’s active genocidal campaign so no, it’s not Republicans.
Also, Republicans want to send weapons and money to Israel and not to Ukraine, while Congressional/Biden admin Democrats want to do both. So with Republicans you get double the genocides.
Pardon me while I go feed my giant geriatric giraffe, George. He likes generic foods, so long as they are germ free and genetically unmodified.
Afterwards, I’m gonna hit the gym, gently gesticulate while talking to someone about geography, geometry, and genetics, maybe consume some protein gel packs.
As a genuine gesture of gentlemanly genius, my genuine German genie will conjure up some gems to pay for everything.
This morning, I’m off to groom the goats and gather fresh eggs from the geese. The greenhouse needs tending too, with its gourds and guava plants.
After that, I’ll glide on my skateboard along the gritty pavement, feeling the cool gusts. For lunch, perhaps a grilled cheese sandwich with gouda, and a glass of grapefruit juice.
In the afternoon, a game of golf awaits, grueling yet galvanizing. And as dusk falls, I’ll gaze at the glimmering stars, grasping the grandeur of the galaxy.
Then I’ll grab my guitar, gleefully strumming glorious melodies.
Next, I’ll gear up for gaming, getting into go-kart racing and guild quests. Great for unwinding and igniting gusto.
Then, on to grub: guacamole with garlic, garnished with green onions, alongside golden tortilla chips, goulash, gumbo, gazpacho, gravy, granola, gorgonzola, and graham crackers. A gourmet, gratifying snack.
Later, I’ll grab my gardening guide, to gain groundbreaking insights on growing gardenias. Guiding the creation of a grand, lush grove is very gratifying.
Before bed, a glance at tomorrow’s goals: glazing pottery, a new, gripping hobby.
If “gif” has to be pronounced with a hard G because it stands for “graphics,” then the P in “jpeg” has to be pronounced like an F because it stands for “photographic.”
Sadly, a professor I used to respect is following similar bullshit ideologies. Climate denialism, veiled racism, and bigotry. Once he moved out of California into a much more red area, he plummeted.
There has even been government enquires about this. Just because something is at the expense of white men doesn’t mean it isn’t racist. It’s just as racist as if it was any other group.
Under most definitions of racism that’s not true. Racism is usually defined as towards a minority or marginalized group. Discrimination toward the dominant group isn’t racism how it’s usually understood.
Conservatives are trying to redefine it, but that’s not the legal or academic definition anywhere where the courts haven’t been hijacked by conservative nutcases.
The problem is there’s a massive divide between racism and the colloquial racism. One is a discussion of how beliefs and systems disadvantage people based on the status of their birth. The other is being mean to people because of the color of their skin.
Sure, both are “bad”. But suggesting that they’re the same thing or have similiar impact is laughable.
The “racism” Elon is on about doesn’t exist, because people born into every potential benefit being unable to reap those benefits because we’re doing our best to change the system aren’t disadvantaged. But when you’ve been told your whole life that you deserve to win, you’re inclined to cry “cheat!” every time the system is changed to be more fair.
Here’s my view as an executive, if my folks regularly add hours to their day/week to get their job done they’re not good at their job. If they’re good at their job they know how to prioritize and they also know how to optimize and automate constantly so they can do more with less. They also do their form of zero base reporting or zero base budgeting constantly to get rid of what was once important that no longer is.
To be fair in senior leadership a 40 hour week probably isn’t going to happen but you should swing between 55 hours and 30 hours depending on the week and average it to the mid to high 40s.
I suspect this isn’t going to be a popular post, and I accept your down votes but would also like to hear your contrary view along with it if you don’t mind.
I’d say there’s also something to be said about an overbearing workload. If everyone is constantly struggling to get things done in time then more staff could be needed. But yeah, if it’s the same ones over and over and only them, then investigating why makes sense.
Mostly irregularity of what needs to happen. Some weeks everything you can imagine needs to happen now, other weeks not much needs to happen. I’ve learned not to shove my slow weeks with irrelevant busy work so I can ebb and flow with the work.
Last week with this SaaS implementation I was so busy I couldn’t see straight. Right now I’m chilling on Lemmy and thinking about what other famous movie scenes I can enhance with Muppets lol.
Agreed! Luckily they’re fairly easy to replace as long as you don’t build systems that won’t allow them to fail.
A decade or more before COVID my favorite tool was to let everyone work from home. Those that sucked at their job wouldn’t get anything done. HR would just ask we bring them all in and I’d refuse. If they can’t be trusted to work without supervision they can’t be trusted to work with it.
Now keep in mind we have to be reasonable people and not driving our people beyond reasonableness.
Now keep in mind we have to be reasonable people and not driving our people beyond reasonableness.
Ditch your suite, and go into executive exclusive consultancy.
Just paraphrase the quoted section for each individual thick skull, and maybe teach them that softening the skin around your eyes and giving the beleaguered high performers bringing feedback a knowing look doesn’t violate business needs.
Then you won’t have to worry about posts starting with “as an executive” going wrong.
Well, no not really, but I know a board that needs to internalize that sentiment.
The problem is you need a executive body that already agrees with you to select you from their choices of consultant. We’re not rational creatures and are our personal biases make it so we’re more likely to hire the consultant that reflects our preconceived ideas
I’m not sure why you got a down vote for saying someone should help change the whole system but here is an up vote to help fix it.
And bottom line that won’t work. It won’t because American organizations are dictatorships and dictatorships always end up that way. I do what I can to fight it but I know my efforts have limited impact outside of my departments.
For some “light” reading, try The Doctors Handbook and Cultish. Both amazing books that do a great job outlining why the systems work the way they do and changing the system is what’s needed to change the default output.
Germany to an extent and some Nordic countries do a good job of this on paper. I can’t say I’ve read enough to speak intelligently about their solutions though.
I can see that you’re engaging thoughtfully and in good faith, but that’s a pretty glaring omission from your original post.
Even in organizations that are healthy in many ways for most people, there can still be people who are stretched thin and don’t feel empowered to throttle their workload for whatever reason.
Culture for most people begins and ends at their boss. And if they don’t feel empowered it’s often because of their boss and the culture their boss creates.
This topic like most are more nuanced than this, sometimes it’s that person’s own history and issues and not the bosses, like maybe past locations are childhood and so on. But this things aren’t really something a boss can do anything about. The boss is responsible for creating a healthy environment that encourages healthy boundaries and the measurement is that they are getting the results from the majority of the people the majority of the time.
Is the measurement that they’re getting the results, or is it that they aren’t working extra hours? “Getting the results from the majority of the people the majority of the time” is exactly how I’d expect an executive to handwave employees burning out due to the kind of environment we’re talking about. Not everybody is going to manifest visible problems at the same time, so it will just look like a handful “not working out” every once in awhile, which is to be expected.
It could describe a healthy environment equally well… But my point is just that your formulation (“Results from the majority of the people the majority of the time”) doesn’t seem to me to have the ability to distinguish between a healthy and a toxic environment.
The phrase applies to negative results not positive ones because the rest of the phrase is it’s not the people it’s the system which implies a problem not a good result. Going through all the details of the system is more than I’m willing to type. If you’d like to know more these are a few of my favorite resources.
Oh, sorry for misunderstanding you. I’m used to “getting results” as referring to achieving measurable business objectives, but the meaning changes completely if you meant the opposite, and I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying in that case.
Thanks for the recommendations. I will look at those.
It’s a swing, see, 30 - 55. In 2023 I averaged 46 hours a week with a low of 30 hours and a high of 57 hours. That’s excluding the 5 partial weeks due to PTO and the full weeks off due to PTO and holiday weeks. I feel this for me is a healthy amount.
But also you mention the petty tyrants, keep in mind they demand from us what they voluntarily give. When executives associate dedication with 45 hours week averages they demand we show dedication too.
I think there’s something serious to be said for even executives attempting to move all of our society towards a shorter work week. Though I acknowledge that that doesn’t fall into something any one person can do. I also am not sure whether it’s more likely to arrive top down or bottom up.
I think this is a great point. One thing I haven’t mentioned is I’m clear with my folks if it only takes 20 hours to get the job done they can do whatever they want with the rest of the time, they’re exempt afterall. I’ve only had one person fully take me up on it and he was referred to as 7’ Jesus. To be clear he was 6’6” but I guess rounding was fine. And he only worked about 25 hours a week for me but killed it with what I needed and was happy.
Most people work about what I do but they know they can take time for themselves wherever and regularly do.
One person has a new born and doing half Fridays for the foreseeable future which I think is great. I encouraged more but that’s all she wants.
If you want to put in more time, thats on you obviously. But I see CEO/CFO and othe4 senior management doing 40, and employees doing the same. it has to be driven top down as a culture. Thankfully I’m in BC so management/salary gets extra hours paid, but I still don’t want them.
Free advice: Don’t do unpayed overtime and it will regulate itself. I work 36h/week and if there was too much work planned for me in a 2 week sprint I use the overtime to get a free Friday now and then.
Everything above 40h/week is unhealthy, at least for me, it is! In the near future I will ask for 32h/week; had that in a previous job and it was fantastic.
I sort of do that and have most of my career with my people. If I’m aware they’ve put in a bunch of hours I’ll ask them to take time off on me. I’m sure I’m not always aware and I know it’s against company policy but I’ve never been busted for it. But I don’t make it an official policy just to stay on the safe side of company policy. I’m sure if someone found out and complained I’d not be able to do it anymore.
Do you brag about your long hours, or do you complain about the lack of predictability from management? Only the former matches the statement in the quote.
Some take my bitching and moaning that I was up all night working on ____ because the project is a complete mess and they wanted it today as “bragging”.
Its performance review time, i hate myself and rent is expensive.
I always wondered how bragging about how long you worked was considered by some as a good thing. The “higher ups” must have used some fancy tricks to get people to think that way. It never worked on me though :)
Management was handing out bullshit busywork recently, and some people were complaining. Then some guy was like “they pay my salary, so I do whatever they want!”
What kind of bullshit wage slave mentality is that? I am the vendor in this scenario, my employer is paying for the privilege of using my services. There can be terms and conditions from both parties of that deal, and if they’re incompatible the deal is off.
Ah I have the attitude of “you’re free to pay me engineer money to do this, but I’m leaving at 4 whether I was productive or doing weird bullshit you decided on.“
Sure, if there’s a business need for cleaning the office toilets I’ll stop coding and do it for a day.
In this case it’s “everyone needs to spend a few weeks getting points in the training portal, we don’t care what you do in there as long as you get points”. This clearly doesn’t fulfill any business need, people just do whatever BS is the least effort per point. And as you might expect from an internal training portal, spending 20 minutes in that thing makes me want to stab myself.
Again, if there’s a business need for it that’s a different story, but useless mandates just to jerk people around are a deal breaker.
Ok that’s fair. I’m an engineer and I’ve told my line workers consistently that I’ll never ask them to do something I wouldn’t be willing to do, and at times I do have to help out because shit happens when you’ve got a skeleton crew. Hell I spend some days fabricating my designs.
And yeah I’d love good training. Teaching me actionable skills. Or just send me to grad school or give me a subscription to my professional organization and let me read their magazine on the job. Hell, throw IEEE in there, they’ve always got something to say. But no I’ve spent days doing the training portal bullshit on everything from “here’s how to deal with the fact that technically you’re an arms trafficker, don’t do treason and don’t think about how you’re a legitimate military target” to “watch a too damn long video about workplace sexual harassment that was clearly not written by anyone who’s ever seen a factory floor” and it just made me want to bash my brain in.
See, those are needed for compliance/CYA. That has business value, so I can work with that. What I’m referring to here is just training on useless stuff for the sake of racking up points.
I never thought about this before, but if I worked somewhere and they gave me an ‘employee of the month’ award, it would piss me off because it would make me feel like I was being a kissass somehow.
I think people believe it is a sign you are striving to excel or that you care about the work you are doing.
In my case I think I talk about how much overtime I work because I got insecurities about my productivity drilled into me as a child with undiagnosed ADHD. Constantly being told you don’t work hard enough regardless of the effort you put in will give you some weird hangups. I think subconsciously its about needing external validation that the time you put in was adequate, or insecurity around ‘work ethic’
I can relate to that. I’m extremely glad I broke that habit. They told me when they needed me. I did what needed to be done within reasonable expectations. My failure past that point is on workload
There’s a lawyer I like to watch on YouTube but once he advocated jif pronunciation and I’ve barely watched him since then. If he apologized I might change my opinion. What’s even worse is that he’s obsessed with proper pronunciation. I think he was just trying to create drama to drive interactions but for me it backfired.
I genuinely can’t tell if the comic was added by somebody else to mock Musk’s tweet, or if Musk is such a narcissistic prick with zero self awareness that he "“ironically” added this comic as part of his fellow-kids memelord act.
There’s a simple litmus test. Musk would never joke about himself in a self-deprecating way, in any capacity. He has such a fragile ego it would break if someone farted in his general direction.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.