hotdogscout

You helped me understand a position I never wrapped my head around before. Thank you!

I've never made a decision on few points of information, often I know researchers or their output for years before we interact, so it makes sense I don't have to care what language they use as this is a low correlation signal on their output.

Why is this the language they're familiar with? Serial dishonesty?

>Makes it sound like you got fired or something, or that you don’t take it seriously.

My background in academia colors me but the level of office politics some describe in the private sector genuinely sounds like a middle school drama club at times. I've personally witnessed incredibly talented individuals at FAANG companies get the boot for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with their competence. Think messy personal dynamics, bosses having affairs with coworkers aiming for a position.

It makes me wonder about this ingrained necessity for pretense and obfuscation in private sector communication. Why the need to constantly play these games as if acknowledging reality is somehow detrimental? In academia, while not devoid of its own issues, the selection process for students at least attempts to prioritize merit and potential. The idea that some of the most brilliant minds I've encountered might be filtered out by arbitrary corporate "standards," while incapable but politically savvy individuals thrive, seems counterproductive.

Pass me the cyanide, these people are ghoulish.

Why is this needed. Nobody acts like this in college, where do people pick up on the eldritch horrors of Corporate behaviour policing?

Seriously why the silly insuffer theater, demonstrating willingness to perform ritualistic sodomy of your ego?

Why are people at their jobs so fatally allergic to honesty?

>“yeah and that job didn’t end very nicely…I’ll just leave it at that.” This is not a good thing to say in a job interview.

Do you think this is helping you select better people?

I think this is selecting for fakers and cheaters.

the TOS goes further and allows you to call gay people abnormal and mentally ill.

"We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation."

The carve out also focuses only on LGBT people. If calling someone abnormal and mentally ill can reasonably be considered insulting then according to this TOS you can't say it to someone with ADHD but you can say it to a gay person.

The TOS is not about enforcing truthfulness, it is about promoting good behaviour. For example according to this TOS you cannot call someone stupid if they have limited intellectual capacity. It doesn't matter if it's true or not because that's not the purpose of the TOS. I can't see any reason for a carve out specifically for LGBT people that allows this sort of technically justifiable insulting language when there is no such carve out for other groups.