>a good candidate doesn’t care about that LGBT stuff
Me:
>a good candidate cares about that LGBT stuff
Call it a different worldview or whatever, but I don’t mind making my profile/timeline suboptimal for anti-LGBT people.
Otherwise it’s just the LGBT folks in my network engaging all by themselves, and it’s a lot harder to ‘other’ and exclude people with vocal allies.
And yes, it’s 100% about engineering. I can engineer under awful heat/noise etc conditions, but if I was being dehumanized and excluded, my performance would suffer a lot more.
Why did you bring up the garbage code thing? The poster and the original poster said nothing about your actual capacities as an engineer.
This has nothing to do with your individual sexuality. Everyone looks ridiculous being overtly personal on LinkedIn.
Being heterosexual is a privilege since it's the norm, so you don't have to worry about it. Being gay on the other hand can be dangerous, even life threatening depending on the country.
You're projecting on to me right now.
> The idea of me declaring my heterosexuality while postering my CV...
But based on your answer you are also making a delineation between "blogspam" and for example someone posting a story about discrimination for being gay (for example).
But, for someone who is gay, by mearly showing a picture of themselves with their husband they'd be "declaring their sexuality", and being "overt"; They don't have to say anything more. Their _existence_ is politicized, and that's the problem.
And when we say "don't show rainbows", or don't show anything that can be linked to LGBTQIA, we're really saying,
"You can't do these otherwise non-political things, because just being who you are is still politically charged". We're better than that HN.
Also, a photo of yourself during your wedding is not a "weird home life". That's like the maximally normal home life thing. I think it would be flagrantly out of bounds for someone to tell a co-worker that their wedding photo is "weird home life" stuff and to keep it at home.
Edited to add: I don't really have anything against the advice of not putting your personal life at work. i.e. photos of kids, spouse, vacation pictures on linkedin, etc. I'm just confused why apparently only gay people can't do it according to OP. That's so bizarre to me.
Once you're hired feel free to do whatever, but leave anything controversial off the interview.
And yes, your linked in profile is part of the interview.
None of my multiple gay friends have ever displayed a rainbow on their profiles.
They are, however, openly gay on their profile.
No hiring manager wants to deal with drama, so it's not just rainbows, it's literally anything that that has a campaign and political force behind it, like Trump pictures, BLM links, climate change, conservation, nuclear power...
You reading the word 'ONLY' when one example is proffered is a problem in your end.
I literally don't understand affiliating rainbow emoji with pictures of actual political candidates or an actual explicitly political activist name.
I also don't understand saying climate change, conservation, or nuclear power has campaign/political force behind it. If someone had something to do with nuclear power in their profile I would just assume they worked in energy??? I am not reading politics into this at all dude...
It doesn't matter that you don't understand it, the idea is to get the interview over other candidates who focused solely on presenting the value they bring, and at the interview, landing the job over other candidates who are also focused solely on the value they bring.
You may not understand why hiring managers tend to avoid candidates who display non-work-related activism on their CVs, but that's just the way it is.
I have a connection on LinkedIn (garnered from the spam connect campaigns I talked about previously) that talks about his MtF transition experiences as well as the struggle to land a job. No one cares enough to do more than post "You go, girl!" and move on with their day. Good advice would be to tell this person that LinkedIn is not the place to talk about your bottom surgery, vents about potential unsympathetic employers, or your struggles to find a partner. A good hiring manager would check social media for any red flags, and this public venting is a HUGE one.
This is correct, if unfortunate.
>A good candidate who won’t start a Slack pronoun campaign while delivering garbage code
This is vile and slanderous.
Are people on HN getting railed at work with pronoun campaigns? We had one and it was honestly _the easiest thing in the world_
"Hey Daft, can you add pronouns"
*15 seconds later
"Done!"
What's the honest holdup with making the work environment more inclusive to non-binary or fluid people, there are a _lot_ of them. We already call people by their preferred titles, preferred nicknames, why the hangup on pronouns?
The advice is how to get a salary when you need it. Take off anything even slightly controversial.
> Campaigner for pronouns?
Specifically, in a concrete day to day sense? Asking for the smallest of efforts, the most minimal of inclusive actions, in the form of "putting a pronoun on your slack profile" doesn't really feel like a _campaign_ to me. We've spent more time here talking about it then it takes to add it to the profile during the "campaign"!
Do you disagree with the statements:
The advice is how to get a salary when you need it.
Take off anything even slightly controversial.
Anyone campaigning, or proud of campaigning, on their CV will get fewer callbacks. It's unfortunate but true.
My advice is how to get a job when you need one.