So do you plan to learn what it means, or do you believe that language should remain exactly as it was at some arbitrary point in the past?
Sadly, this group of authors didn't know the meaning either. Typical.
As a rule, I avoid using terms I can't define. If you know any of the authors, please pass that tip along. Thanks.
> ...or do you believe that language should remain exactly...
Wut?
And thus the majority of friction in todays discourse.
Something I still fall prey to more than I like and try to stay vigilant of so thanks for pointing it out!
Having no psychological/developmental conditionals recognized by the DSM
More seriously...
I'm totally on board with navel gazing. But I don't see how (mis)using such terms helps this letter's authors make the case for having the individual choice to work remotely.
So performative.
"They said that Apple's reasons for implementing the policy don't stand up, and that the policy is wasteful, inflexible and will lead to a "younger, whiter, more male-dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied" workforce."
I, for one, have no idea what neuro-normative means.
Anywho, u/EricE isn't agreeing or disagreeing. They're just advising that people can just state their preference plainly, no tortured nonsensical rationalizations necessary.
"If you're explaining, you're losing." -- Lee Atwater
Labor now has greater power. Wield it. Those who would take away your power don't bother to explain themselves. Why should Labor?
Unless, of course, you'd rather be right, over actually winning.