I'm quite confused by this. Is calling someone a "stinky manager" a personal attack? It's funny that we can't differentiate the person from his "job". I work with some shitty managers, but I don't hold it against them on a personal level...
yes!
"software developers are stinky managers" is not a personal attack. neither is "managers are stinky", but "you/he/she/etc are something" is personal. it may not be an attack though if it is still part of a generalization: "you are a stinky manager because all software developers are stinky managers". but the article is not making that generalization, and therefore it's not just personal but also an attack.
What Kelley would have said if he were acting like an adult & offering professional criticism was that Jarred was a bad manager. Ineffective, even. That is what an adult would have said there.
That said, it isn't necessarily the case that workaholics are bad managers, or that they insist on workaholism in their subordinates. We, generally, don't have access to Andrew's rumornet, we can only go off what Jarred's said publicly.
You’re a shitty programmer!
Vs “your code is bad”.
Who is the subject of these sentences?
Do some of you really talk to others like this and find no issue with it? It's hard to say words like that and not end up with deep schisms and hatred.
> The grapevine was (...), and all those grapes contained the juice of the same message: Jarred was a stinky manager.
Per exact words these two are different:
- I think someone is stinky
- I spoke with people who said someone is stinky
- I think someone is stinky at this one particular thing
- I spoke with people who said he was stinky at this one particular thing
Those are different than personal attacks
He may well be a shit manager. I have no idea. Either way it’s not something you casually throw out there in a blog like this
Andrew and Jarred and I are all peers in this situation. You get reviews from your peers.
Anyways, what do you think about Jarred? Do you think he lies about Andrew in public? What was the term Andrew used? Outright fabrication?
I wouldn't claim he's lying because I have no first-hand knowledge to base such a claim on. I just think his whole persona is about selling the idea that "you don't need to look at the code anymore". I would have a hard time calling that a lie because I think he really believes it. It does mean that I think of him as a fool or a pawn, though: a friendly face whose purpose is to give a feeling of safety and human harmlessness to a destructive agenda of machine supremacy.
My moral condemnation for that is as strong as if I thought he was simply lying, and perhaps stronger.
This is very beginner energy lol. Are you possibly a teenager?
> and bullshitting (e.g. using AI to say you used AI) is the opposite of competence.
Your username name is conartist6....
Do you often quote yourself?
That's not even the extent of it. Saying something in private face to face at least keeps it between 2 people. He posted it publicly for the world to see, so it's a massively bigger "attack".