Comment by lowbloodsugar
2 days ago
See, you're just making the same mistake, with this assumption "subtract the harmful part about calling individuals bad people over bad work, and you still have an abrasive, decisive leader who calls ideas and work bad when he sees it”.
I once sat in a promo meeting and the consensus was that a particular individual had a "bad attitude". Someone asked for evidence, and another pointed at a ticket, where the person had written:
"This should not have been a ticket".
Everyone agreed this was very much an example of a bad attitude. After several minutes of discussion around how to exit this person, I asked "Was he right?" and, upon review, everyone agreed that in fact this should not have been a ticket. He was not fired.
There's no "calling individuals bad people" here. You just assumed that when I said "often received feedback that my communication is snarky, rude, or tone-deaf" that I am being snarky, rude or tone-deaf, that I am "calling individuals bad people".
This would be hilarious if it wasn't every fucking conversation about the issue. And it's also the fallout of every time an autistic person is reported "Oh, Bob was so rude today", and then is interpreted as "Oh, did you hear, Bob called someone a cunt."
Bob said "This should not have been a ticket."
I’m the asshole I was thinking of when I wrote that, so of course I’m talking from the perspective of my experiences. Amused to be condescended to about the typ/atyp interfacing woes in business. I’m a middle-aged autistic prosociopath with decades of business experience, and it remains validating to this day to be so badly misread by other atyps. Hope you feel better soon :)