[diacritical]

So? I wouldn't say it to their face. Who cares if I (a random person online) say something bad about no one in particular to a bunch of random people on the internet?

Can you honestly say you don't know people you'd describe, to yourself, at least, as corporate drones? Or maybe as boring, as squares, as idiots, as retards and so on? I bet you do. I bet everyone does, and everyone, including me, is the idiot in someone else's life. That's normal.

He who is without corporate drones in their life can cast the first stone.

[palmotea]

> So? I wouldn't say it to their face. Who cares if I (a random person online) say something bad about no one in particular to a bunch of random people on the internet?

You're just revealing your true colors, that's all.

> Can you honestly say you don't know people you'd describe, to yourself, at least, as corporate drones? Or maybe as boring, as squares, as idiots, as retards and so on? I bet you do. I bet everyone does, and everyone, including me, is the idiot in someone else's life. That's normal.

I don't feel contempt for them (which is what calling them "drones" is). Feeling contempt for people like that is a jerk move.

[fc417fc802]

Labeling does not necessarily imply contempt. I'm sure everyone (including you) applies labels all the time without feeling any.

Not everyone is going to enjoy socializing with their coworkers. There's nothing wrong with that.

[palmotea]

> Labeling does not necessarily imply contempt.

But certain labels do. Labels like "drone," for instance.

> Not everyone is going to enjoy socializing with their coworkers. There's nothing wrong with that.

There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.

[fc417fc802]

That's subjective. I don't agree about "drone" for example. I see it as a largely neutral descriptor that can skew slightly positive or negative based on context. Particularly "corporate drone" to me refers to an office worker with a long term stable job at a megacorporation. Such a category can easily carry either a positive or negative connotation depending on the speaker.

> There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.

Says you. Your original response was ambiguous so I included that.

[palmotea]

> I see it as a largely neutral descriptor that can skew slightly positive or negative based on context. Particularly "corporate drone" to me refers to an office worker with a long term stable job at a megacorporation. Such a category can easily carry either a positive or negative connotation depending on the speaker.

That's a massive stretch, dude. And the scenario here is pretty clearly one guy with a stable job at a megacorporation judging another guy at the same megacorporation .

>> There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.

> Says you. Your original response was ambiguous so I included that.

Maybe my original comment, but that's not what you responded to. By the time you chimed in the context made it clear.

[fc417fc802]

Not a stretch. That's my genuine impression of the phrase.

His reply was quite judgmental but I don't think his original turn of phrase that you first objected to was.

Obviously I didn't feel the context made it clear or I wouldn't have written what I did.

[diacritical]

A feeling is not a move, though. What I do makes me a jerk, not what I think or feel. Telling the drones to fuck off would be a jerk move, but I don't do it.