I think the reactionary ideals you promote enforce and enable sliminess. The person with the best presentation and fakest smile wins over any actual merit. You are actively endorsing the world of used-car salesmen, A&R reps, and so on, where substance and a solid stance are detrimental to success.

Pathological extremes at both ends are still pathological, the correct response to an extreme is not its opposite, but a reasonable alternative.

...how did you make that leap? Where does "it should be possible for being a jerk to get you fired" lead to "enforcing and enabling sliminess"?

It is entirely possible to hold a firm stance on what you think is the correct approach without being a jerk. It is equally possible to create a friendly atmosphere without acting like a used car salesman. I think you're reading more into the GP's statements than was intended.

Judging from a lot of the responses on this thread, it seems like there's a sort of unwritten assumption that people who act like jerks are technically proficient, while people who are easy to get along with are only "acting nice" to make up for their lack-luster technical skills.

I agree, however the post I responded to was in fact rejecting a call for some moderation and tolerance. Rejecting those is a stance of extremism, and the extreme case of "no assholes" is "fake-nice/smarmy".

If I understand your post, implicit in what you are saying is that people skills and even the mere trait "not an asshole" is antithetical to technical competence, which I don't believe.

If that isn't what you're implying, then it seems you are putting up a false choice between merit and people skills.

Not at all. You are very clever in you attempt to deflect your false choice situation by accusing me of it.

In fact, I am suggesting that your notion of 0-tolerance for assholism is an extreme, no better than complete endorsement and rewards for assholism. If you are not suggesting 0-tolerance for assholism, then I appologize, it just seems that way since you respond to call for moderation and some tolerance with a rejection of that principle.

So, you come on to a project and someone fits your definition of "asshole". Getting them fired will allow them to "learn their behavior isn't acceptable". No need to actually put up with that person, there are plenty more fish in the sea.

Maybe your "nice guy" teammate doesn't actually keep the production db running correctly and who cares if the "asshole" has to cleanup. It really shouldn't matter that to not get blamed the "asshole" needs to do the work themselves. Maybe you send some e-mail not knowing what is going on and that sends the "asshole" up the wall. Heck, you did the "asshole" a favor since the "asshole" needs to learn a lesson(2).

1) author of article says all "assholes" are guys, which I find quite unbelievable.

2) add one of the "asshole"'s parents getting cancer and I've seen that one (with sleep deprivation)