> * having to make idle boring chit chat with corporate drones who want to socialize,
This point makes you look like a jerk.
This point makes you look like a jerk.
Can you honestly say you don't know people you'd describe, to yourself, at least, as corporate drones? Or maybe as boring, as squares, as idiots, as retards and so on? I bet you do. I bet everyone does, and everyone, including me, is the idiot in someone else's life. That's normal.
He who is without corporate drones in their life can cast the first stone.
You're just revealing your true colors, that's all.
> Can you honestly say you don't know people you'd describe, to yourself, at least, as corporate drones? Or maybe as boring, as squares, as idiots, as retards and so on? I bet you do. I bet everyone does, and everyone, including me, is the idiot in someone else's life. That's normal.
I don't feel contempt for them (which is what calling them "drones" is). Feeling contempt for people like that is a jerk move.
Not everyone is going to enjoy socializing with their coworkers. There's nothing wrong with that.
But certain labels do. Labels like "drone," for instance.
> Not everyone is going to enjoy socializing with their coworkers. There's nothing wrong with that.
There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.
> There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.
Says you. Your original response was ambiguous so I included that.
That's a massive stretch, dude. And the scenario here is pretty clearly one guy with a stable job at a megacorporation judging another guy at the same megacorporation .
>> There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.
> Says you. Your original response was ambiguous so I included that.
Maybe my original comment, but that's not what you responded to. By the time you chimed in the context made it clear.
His reply was quite judgmental but I don't think his original turn of phrase that you first objected to was.
Obviously I didn't feel the context made it clear or I wouldn't have written what I did.