In most workplaces in the US, across every industry, if you publicly castigated a coworker or employee the way Linus did Mauro and did not own the company, your job would be in jeopardy. I used to do this a lot in my early 20's, and was routinely disciplined for it (I've since grown up a bit). This article appears to reframe that fact in terms of the sensitivity of women, but the issue obviously has nothing to do with women.
Linus gets away with talking to people like that for the same reason Marco Pierre White got away with throwing a pot full of hot risotto at Mario Batali: because he is a revered auteur.
You are not Marco Pierre White or Steve Jobs, acting like them is not a step in the direction of becoming more like them, and social forces in your workplace that keep you from throwing risotto or hurling obscenities at your coworkers are in fact doing you a favor. They are not a symptom of prickly gender sensitivities.
I had the same problem to varying degrees with other parts of this article, which (with only minimal pejorative intent) I'd describe as mostly shit-stirring. But the Linus/Mauro thing seemed as good a place to make my case as any.
> You are not Marco Pierre White or Steve Jobs, acting like them is not a step in the direction of becoming more like them, and social forces in your workplace that keep you from throwing risotto or hurling obscenities at your coworkers are in fact doing you a favor.
That wasn't his point at all. Personally, I think Linus' behavior is ridiculous and counter-productive.
The article's point seemed to be, quite simply, that if the target of Linus' rant was a woman, it would have instigated a massive gender debate, rather than simply leaving most adults to shake their head at his poor ability to communicate firmly AND politely.
> I had the same problem to varying degrees with other parts of this article, which (with only minimal pejorative intent) I'd describe as mostly shit-stirring.
With only "minimal pejorative intent:" that's how I usually perceive most of your comments. They're always written in an clear, authoritative voice, even when said authority is not justified by experience or credentials, and the comments seem tuned for the purpose of declarative "shit stirring" through tone and content.
Did standards in society change, or did the tech industry change, or did you change? I don't remember being particularly out of bounds back in 2000, but was definitely more abrasive and less concerned with propriety then, similar to what you claim. I'm wondering what changed.
Comments
In most workplaces in the US, across every industry, if you publicly castigated a coworker or employee the way Linus did Mauro and did not own the company, your job would be in jeopardy. I used to do this a lot in my early 20's, and was routinely disciplined for it (I've since grown up a bit). This article appears to reframe that fact in terms of the sensitivity of women, but the issue obviously has nothing to do with women.
Linus gets away with talking to people like that for the same reason Marco Pierre White got away with throwing a pot full of hot risotto at Mario Batali: because he is a revered auteur.
You are not Marco Pierre White or Steve Jobs, acting like them is not a step in the direction of becoming more like them, and social forces in your workplace that keep you from throwing risotto or hurling obscenities at your coworkers are in fact doing you a favor. They are not a symptom of prickly gender sensitivities.
I had the same problem to varying degrees with other parts of this article, which (with only minimal pejorative intent) I'd describe as mostly shit-stirring. But the Linus/Mauro thing seemed as good a place to make my case as any.
> You are not Marco Pierre White or Steve Jobs, acting like them is not a step in the direction of becoming more like them, and social forces in your workplace that keep you from throwing risotto or hurling obscenities at your coworkers are in fact doing you a favor.
That wasn't his point at all. Personally, I think Linus' behavior is ridiculous and counter-productive.
The article's point seemed to be, quite simply, that if the target of Linus' rant was a woman, it would have instigated a massive gender debate, rather than simply leaving most adults to shake their head at his poor ability to communicate firmly AND politely.
> I had the same problem to varying degrees with other parts of this article, which (with only minimal pejorative intent) I'd describe as mostly shit-stirring.
With only "minimal pejorative intent:" that's how I usually perceive most of your comments. They're always written in an clear, authoritative voice, even when said authority is not justified by experience or credentials, and the comments seem tuned for the purpose of declarative "shit stirring" through tone and content.
Did standards in society change, or did the tech industry change, or did you change? I don't remember being particularly out of bounds back in 2000, but was definitely more abrasive and less concerned with propriety then, similar to what you claim. I'm wondering what changed.