[DavidWanjiru]

The fact that there are others who have it much worse than you does not invalidate your grievances or limit the language you can use to speak to those grievances. If we start that kind of comparison, then I'd argue the people you describe have it pretty good, compared to people to Nazi concentration camps, who got shot dead (!) for giving their supervisor sound technical advice (assuming Schindler's List is an acceptable source of Nazi anecdotes).

[blowski]

The OP is talking about 'workplace abuse' which has a specific definition which, even in its less extreme forms, is much worse than being asked to keep timesheets.

[ufukbay]

Imo you are missing the bigger picture here by clinging on the meaning of the word "abuse" and the timesheet example. However, if you are happy keeping timesheets knock yourself out. For me this is a big issue and if you think it's okay then what's next? Video surveillance at your desk or maybe counting number of commits in git per day?

[blowski]

It is precisely the word that I object to. You can express like and dislike, and choose and reject employment based on those likes and dislikes, all you want.

But bandying around words like 'abuse' based on those likes and dislikes is akin to crying wolf when you see a pussy cat. It devalues its meaning for those cases where people are genuinely suffering and need help.

[Gigablah]

There's certainly something to be gleamed here about programmers and their reluctance to context switch, and the desire for a one unified standard.

However, English isn't a programming language.

[blowski]

A more light-hearted comment on what I'm saying would be Eddie Izzard discussing the word 'awesome':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rYT0YvQ3hs

By devaluing the word, when we hear people talking about 'abuse' we will assume they're just whinging.