The guy is getting roasted in the comments too, especially about being unfair to NDs

    • ramble81@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      15 days ago

      Honestly more people in high positions need a vibe check every now and then. Rich and powerful people become so insulated and surrounded by yes-men they think their ideas are infallible. As negative as social media is, one of the nice things is it levels the playing field a bit and gets that brutal feedback straight to them.

      (Granted the truly narcissistic and arrogant will just brush it off, but for some, it’ll cause them to reflect)

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        I’m largely convinced that lack of vibe checking is why the particularly powerful and particularly powerless seem to lose their minds in the same way. You’re about equally likely to convince the ceo and the homeless guy out front that what they’re saying is completely untethered from reality, and they’re similarly likely to make you regret trying.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 days ago

      Less shocking than usual. The rest of his post was pretty on point tbh. If anyone could acknowledge their faults, it’s someone that hires the whole person.

      • taco@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        15 days ago

        Nothing screams “hires the whole person” like dismissing candidates for arbitrary reasons like being too busy to answer the phone.

        • VitoRobles@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          15 days ago

          I’ve been in so many corporate jobs where they dismiss candidates because they couldnt solve brain teasers or explain what they would put in a ultimate burrito. I shit you not.

          • taco@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            15 days ago

            Nobody mentioned being shocked; your “counterpoint” is countering a point nobody made. You don’t have to be shocked to be busy or avoid answering unknown numbers, ( which is the norm now )

            It’s expected that a caller with a legitimate professional purpose would leave a message. Has been since the answering machine came around. This isn’t some sort of novel wholistic approach to someone’s personally, it’s a specific, arbitrary filter to find people who don’t follow normal telephone interaction behaviors.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              14 days ago

              If you are not going to answer unknown numbers, don’t give your number to unknown people.

              This is basic logic. Nothing to do with imaginary “normal telephone interaction behaviors”.

              • limelight79@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                14 days ago

                This is insane. Why wouldn’t they leave a voice mail? Why do you expect people to be available at all times?

                For example, what if I’m in the middle of a bike ride when this person calls back? Or driving? In the shower? Taking a dump? In a sensitive conversation? On the phone with someone else?

                This is the whole point of voice mail. There are plenty of reasons people might not answer the phone, even before the “spam call” issue comes into play.

                Your “basic logic” is extremely flawed.

                • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  The argument is not about availability. It’s about answering calls from (listening to messages from, calling back to) unknown numbers.

                  • limelight79@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    14 days ago

                    No, the original argument was about not even leaving a voice mail, just expecting someone is going to answer their phone every time it rings regardless of the situation.

          • cheesybuddha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 days ago

            Counter-Counterpoint. If you call someone, you should understand that they may be unable to answer to phone at a that specific time, and you should use the tools at your disposal, such as voicemail, to facilitate further communication.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      Doesn’t change anything. His initial tirade shows what kind of self absorbed piece of shit he is. Everyone’s been inundated with spam calls for decades now. He’d have to have been living under a rock to not understand that. To expect people to just answer an unknown number, or call back when you don’t leave a voice mail saying who the fuck you are and what you want is asinine. But no, HE’S special and if you don’t answer HIS calls your a bad candidate.