| It's from Orwell's 1984: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime >nobody loses their job for wrongthink By definition, to use the term to describe a behavior at all implies that someone (specifically who depends on the wording, of course) considers that behavior termination-worthy. [Edit: I'm having trouble putting this into words. Let me try again. The point of using this term is to remind your listener of the novel and imply that the situation being discussed is similar, i.e., that there exists an near-omnipotent authority that is willing and capable to punish you for actions that any reasonable person would consider innocuous. In 1984, it would be Ingsoc punishing people for thinking party-proscribed thoughts. In the current context, it might be BigCo punishing people for expressing their thoughts about hiring practices. One could go on all day about there being a difference between thinking a thought and emailing your company, whether that difference is quantitative or qualitative, and whether the comparison to the novel is valid. But then one would be missing the point, which is simply that whoever used the term considers the comparison valid.] |
What is said in the post is certainly the kind of thing it's reasonable to lose friends and possibly family members over, and certainly acquaintances. The kind of thing you hear at a party and decide not to make friends with someone. Despite it being -- or maybe because it's -- not even very well argued, if it's even possible to do so, which I don't think it is.
It's funny that work is pretty much the only place it's proposed that the words not entertain a reaction. This person affects hiring decisions and performance reviews!