[HN Gopher] Bye Twitter - Manu Cornet
___________________________________________________________________
Bye Twitter - Manu Cornet
Author : progbits
Score : 45 points
Date : 2022-11-03 16:55 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ma.nu)
(TXT) w3m dump (ma.nu)
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| Seems to me like the guy was a nob. Tried to be funny with the
| new boss. Got sacked. Blog posts about it because, you know...
| people need to know.
| hortense wrote:
| I would say he's trying to control the narrative so that his
| future prospective employers believe that he was not laid off
| because of his performance.
| dekhn wrote:
| If I had headcount for his particular role, I'd hire him in a
| second and let him know it's OK to continue making his
| cartoons (which are very on-point and useful to execs who
| want to learn more about their orgs than what their middle
| managers are telling them) but he should of course be aware
| that my abilities to protect him if an SVP gets annoyed are
| going to be limited.
| tschwimmer wrote:
| He will be effective in doing so because the email screenshot
| he included indicates exactly that: he was fired for non-
| performance related reasons. "Your recent behavior has
| violated multiple policies" is pretty unambiguous to me.
| prepend wrote:
| There's likely a policy about having good performance.
|
| Lots of people got laid off, I don't think it will be a
| problem to find a new job unless this turns into something
| crazy.
| tayo42 wrote:
| What narrative is there to control? It's not like Twitter was
| about to put a big post out saying we fire him. He put all of
| this out their on his own. He wouldn't even need to bring up
| being fired in interviews, just say he left
| lm28469 wrote:
| B-bu-but Musk is a free speech absolutist, he should absolutely
| love this guy's take
| [deleted]
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Free speech loudmouths never fail to contradict themselves, it's
| one of the few things that are _always_ true. Anyone who thinks
| they have the secret for freedom in their minds (and nobody else
| has) is obviously too narrow-minded to have any interesting idea
| about the complex (and collective) subject that is "freedom".
| 10g1k wrote:
| The mass layoffs were just cleaning house. Like many other
| Silicon Valley silos, it became a cult. Everyone had to believe,
| think, talk, and behave in the approved manner.
| wittycardio wrote:
| Did you read the article ?
| tdeck wrote:
| > I was one of the early layoffs after the Oct 2022 acquisition
| of Twitter
|
| > ...
|
| > On the same day, I was fired and that post was taken down.
|
| So were you fired or laid off? This seems like a relevant
| distinction in this case. Either way it's a shitty thing though
| :(.
| tschwimmer wrote:
| He was fired (at least as it's commonly referred to in the
| United States), see the image of his termination email at the
| bottom of the post
| nateb2022 wrote:
| Yep. I've never been fired or layed off before (thank
| goodness) but I found it unusual that they fired him in the
| middle of a meeting and the "screen went blank." That seems a
| little dramatic.
| rastignack wrote:
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| Is your suggestion that they modify their standard email
| signature when sending a requested message to someone they have
| already terminated in another way?
| rastignack wrote:
| I just highlight the hypocrisy of HR people.
|
| They are doing the dirty job to maximise shareholders'
| profits at the expense of workers, all while abiding
| religiously to the current political correctness policy.
|
| I just think that this in your face virtue is modern
| pharisaism.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| Being "politically correct" while sending an email doesn't
| seem hypocritical to me. Can you expand more on why this is
| problematic to you?
|
| This doesn't seem to be a case of maximizing shareholder
| profits because it doesn't seem like it was part of the
| layoff plan, but a directed termination because of behavior
| (as noted in the important part of the email).
| rastignack wrote:
| > Can you expand more on why this is problematic to you?
|
| Because at my company I never see anyone but the HRs
| stating their pronouns systematically. Yet they are the
| one to pressure you to implement alienating policies.
|
| Wolves dressed as welcoming and inclusive sheeps.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| What alienating policies do you see them implementing?
|
| I think it's possible to be respectful and treat the
| recipient with respect while also doing something that
| they don't like. HR often has to terminate people based
| on someone else's decision. Does that mean they shouldn't
| do it respectfully?
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| I'm assuming you're in HR? I was an SWE, and definitely
| noticed a real level of disingenuousness from the more HR
| types out there.
|
| The same people constantly tooting their own horn about
| how respectful and human-centred they were would go out
| of their way to rip the soul and humanity out of
| everything they touched.
|
| This is probably why GP is in opposition to the pronoun
| thing. It's got nothing to do with the merit of the idea
| itself, but the people implementing it - similar to how
| people are against the Metaverse simply because Facebook
| own it.
| sli wrote:
| It may shock you to learn that some of us actually,
| legitimately do care about being inclusive of others in a
| multitude of ways. It costs nothing to be kind and
| sharing/respecting another person's pronouns takes no more
| effort than any other way you might refer to someone. That
| a few people get tilted over something that does exactly
| zero harm to them is inconsequential because, like I said,
| there's no harm.
|
| And you can just use their name and skip over them in an
| email signature, anyway.
| vlz wrote:
| Oh, come on. Stating pronouns can be really helpful at times.
| It's not always just virtue signaling.
| rastignack wrote:
| How did we manage to live thousands of years without. I guess
| we had names.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Indeed, names like "Alex", "Pat", and "Taylor".
| rastignack wrote:
| Alex and Pat are diminutives. I would understand if only
| people with names like Taylor did state their gender
| though.
| martin1b wrote:
| This!
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| vlz wrote:
| Well, for thousands of years we lived in small homogenous
| communities with only a handful of names. We also had very
| rigid gender norms. As times change we now live in more
| open communities with thousands of different names and
| looser gender norms. I oftentimes cannot easily guess the
| pronoun from a name.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| We lived a long time without having to use honorifics yet
| we do now and are even publicly shamed for not doing so.
| Humanity and the language we use is a constantly evolving
| thing.
| Macha wrote:
| Are we? My impression was English language honorifics
| were going out of fashion. People are more likely to say
| Tom or Tom Smith than Mr. Smith these days
| Iv wrote:
| As a foreigner I find that great to be able to know if some
| of the more uncommon American names are male or female.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-03 23:02 UTC)