> I know in the modern world any vocal criticism of anyone is not allowed. Everyone is very fragile apparently.
Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. In fact, calling anyone who stands up against boundary violations fragile is itself an abuse technique.
> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it.
Maybe for your own personal definition of great that thinks objectifying people to a function for some ostensible "greater good" is OK.
Maybe other people's definition of greatness necessarily includes not having abused anyone while achieving it. Something something virtue, human excellence, golden mean...
> Also my point about voluntary participation still stands.
For some absolutized romantic sense of free will, you'd be right. Humans don't work that way though. The number of people who go back to self-defeating patterns is a staggering proof to this; addiction relapses, returning to domestic abuse relationships, eating disorders etc. These are not even fringe issue, these are epidemics. Why would an abusive work relationships be any different?
My original post used precise wording that said vocal rejection of mediocrity. Then I was accused of abuse apologism. I never said verbal abuse is ok, I was accused of it though.
You have equivocated verbal abuse with vocal criticism through insinuating what Gordon Ramsey did on TV to be the latter and tying that to a telos of greatness. Then you hedged against criticism with a strawman fragility accusation. What Ramsay does is verbal abuse through and through, not calling it so is abuse apologism at best, and more like gaslighting when considered together with accusations of fragility.
Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. In fact, calling anyone who stands up against boundary violations fragile is itself an abuse technique.
> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it.
Maybe for your own personal definition of great that thinks objectifying people to a function for some ostensible "greater good" is OK.
Maybe other people's definition of greatness necessarily includes not having abused anyone while achieving it. Something something virtue, human excellence, golden mean...
> Also my point about voluntary participation still stands.
For some absolutized romantic sense of free will, you'd be right. Humans don't work that way though. The number of people who go back to self-defeating patterns is a staggering proof to this; addiction relapses, returning to domestic abuse relationships, eating disorders etc. These are not even fringe issue, these are epidemics. Why would an abusive work relationships be any different?