It’s like she doesn’t realize she is herself a trope character straight out of a Douglas Coupland novel, and a core part of the whole problematic ecosystem she is criticizing.
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
Comparing the author to a satirical character in a Coupland novel is likewise in no way name calling or attacking. The author herself uses satire as a judgement mechanism for coworkers and others she observed and mentioning eg Coupland serves to point out her hypocrisy.
I strongly disagree with the reprimand on this one.
Generally speaking, everyone thinks they're breaking the site guidelines 1000x less than they actually are. (That's true of me too.) We don't perceive it in our own case, but when there are thousands of readers you can be sure that many, many others will perceive it.
This author doesn’t have anything to say. It’s the expose equivalent of junk food meant to catch onto some zeitgeisty populism to win fame.
I think part of what makes the author part of the problem is the mixture of lack of experience with myopic delusion that what she has to say matters despite that. It’s the same problem many start-up founders and venture capital have that beget all the very things she’s writing about.
Is your criticism about lack of experience? IMO, new players in a system are often have clearer perspective than entrenched dinosaurs.
Looking forward to reading about your Character in the book ;)
It's a pattern in many walks of working life with office space.