If he wanted to risk being treated as a radioactive dumpster all the rest of his time working at that company - sure, he could. Maybe it wouldn't happen - maybe she would turn out a wonderful individual who would thank him for correcting her and educating her about the truth. Or maybe not. Given the risks of "maybe not" - the smart money is on "bite your tongue".
As it is true for any number of conversations in the workplace? Try telling your boss they're not as smart or talented as they think they are and see how that goes.
I'm not sure how "making broad generalizations about your coworkers based on their gender" differs from all the other stuff most people have to keep quiet about as they go about their work.
> Try telling your boss they're not as smart or talented as they think they are and see how that goes.
Why would I? My boss is very smart and talented :) No, seriously, I'm anonymous here so it's not because my boss would be reading it - I just not enjoy working for idiots and I have the luxury of being able not to do it for long.
But in general yes, telling people they're idiots doesn't usually go well, so don't do that either.
> "making broad generalizations about your coworkers based on their gender"
Oh it has nothing to do with gender. If've seen hyperwoke males as much as I seen females. It's the type you want to bite your tongue around, not gender.
This is one of the few examples where the phrase "political correctness" could be used correctly. Speaking 'correct' facts is not the 'correct' move to maximize the probability of still having a job tomorrow.
When the whole discussion is about a guy getting fired for saying a thing, it's not safe to defend him if you don't want to risk being fired. It's that simple.
That's so far from true that I would love to see links to the posts that made you conclude it. People tend to either imagine "HN bans all politics" (if they would prefer more) or "HN has become overrun by politics" (if they would prefer less). Sometimes they even simultaneously prefer more politics (of the kind they support) and less politics (of the kind they oppose). There's something for everyone to dislike, and the mind seems to find it irresistible to connect the dots into a picture of moderator bias (always, of course, a bias opposed to what it would prefer).
If you or anyone takes a look at those past explanations and has a question that's not answered there, I'd like to know what it is. If anyone knows a better solution, I'd really like to know what it is. Just make sure you've familiarized yourself with the material first, because if it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've answered many times already why that won't work.
I was on a call with their sales rep and he was awful. Even if I told him what kind of volume we're looking at, the guy didn't want to talk costs, over two meetings. Very poor experience. Seems like they're designing pricing around how much money you have.
A guy from a company with probably the worst history of unethical or even illegal behavior in the industry, got all worked up about guys doing link building outreach.
I would love to use iOS devices but somehow I just can't accept I can't run Linux on them. I understand, it's all great and neat and etc. but I also believe IT professionals should use open source OS if possible at all. I don't have strong arguments for this so I understand people have different expectations and understanding.
Google bought them and shut them down.