zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
I can't be the only person disturbed by the penetration of terms like "obsession" into nominally professional culture. You should not be asking your employees to qualify for DSM symptoms just to not get fired (with severance, lol, that is genuinely a step up from nothing even if it's clearly meant to soften the psychological shock of reading about A- B- and C- employees).

>>darby_+hK1
"Obsession" predates the DSM and psychiatry as a profession.

>>chucks+zU1
You'll find that most undesirable human behavior and perception does. This is just "product obsession" marketing bullshit forced onto real-life relationships. If you want to engage in this type of culture because it helps you fit in with founders; fine, that's your own brain you're messing with. Don't force it on others.

>>darby_+GX1
> Don't force it on others.

Nobody is forcing anything on anybody here so there's no need to end your thought with a defiant coda.

> If you want to engage in this type of culture because it helps you fit in with founders; fine, that's your own brain you're messing with.

You misunderstand the objection I hinted at. Which is fine. I'm not pro-"marketing bullshit" because it's not an either/or choice. What I object to is taking a perfectly normal word someone uses and then choosing a narrow, fraught, medical interpretation of the word to ascribe to them a viewpoint of, essentially, "they want you to be mentally ill!"