Originally posted by dadudemon
This is an easy decision to make as long as some unknowns are fleshed out a bit better.Based on the salary you're describing, the position is not entry-level. Hiring Lily for that position is not only inappropriate, it is bad human resource management.
As a hiring manager, you need to be acutely aware of CURRENT statistics which include education trends and employment trends. Placing talent in your open positions has a huge overhead cost especially in the high-skilled/deep-education positions. In one of the jobs I had before, for a particular position for which we had 8 slots, after everything was said and done and all direct and indirect costs were compiled, the average cost to fill each position was $24,000. Twenty Four Thousand Dollars. This was another position that was high-skilled/deep-education. That's quite a bit of money.
What happens if you take a gamble on a fresh college graduate on a not-entry-level position? You can squander quite a bit of money.
So back to why this is just simply bad management:
"In 2010, only 62 percent of U.S. college graduates had a job that required a college degree.
Second, the authors estimated that just 27 percent of college grads had a job that was closely related to their major."
And that data is outdated. From what I understand, the data is worse and even more lopsided for our young and educated Americans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-study-shows-careers-and-college-majors-often-dont-match/
And a significant portion of Americans just don't work in a field related to their major.
For STEM majors (relevant to your OP), it is less than half who actually end up working in their field of study:
Add on the other fact that men still make up a very large majority of the STEM major related jobs, and Lily's gender also becomes another variable (why? Because real life gets in the way for many women around that age...especially children, so they fade out of their STEM-related jobs within a few years). BUT WAIT! You say, that's sexism, right? It really is. It really really is.
But that is not everything. If Lily has never ever worked in her entire life at any job before, it would be a solid no from me. If I had an entry level position (it would pay 50-70k a year if it is engineering), I'd consider her for that. But is she did have work experience in ANY job, I'd want multiple references and I would verify actual working relationships. If she got stellar accolades from coworkers and bosses at other jobs, even if it wasn't related to engineering, that would put her very high upon the consideration list. Why? Because I have found that regardless of where a person works, if they put in effort and care about doing a good job, they'll do a good job in just about any position as long as they get the training they need to be successful. The work ethic is what makes a good employee. The onus is on me to train my people to be most successful in their jobs.
But that's not everything! Nope, not at all. Since this is a mid-level engeering job (based on the description you have), I would talk to my other engineering leads and ask them about a common major issue they encounter as it relates to the job. I would prioritize the top 3 and then I would present those scenarios to the top 3. Here's the kicker: 2 out of those 3 would already have been resolved and I would have feedback and lessons learned from those leads about how those were successfully resolved (and how they would do it over again to be even more successful).
When I interview these 2 candidates, I would compare their answers against the real-world scenarios, I would review the candidate answers with the engineering leads, and I would obtain an consensus on an "over-all best fit." All these factors would be weighed to come to a decision.
Usually, the more experienced candidate will be the winner especially for mid-level and above STEM jobs.
Who knows? Perhaps Lily will knock it out of the park.
Anecdote: that's how I get my big break at my last job. The CIO took a risk on me even though I missed the requisite experience required for the job by about 5 years (needed 7, I had 2). I was running up against 2 other decade+ people. The group that interviewed me felt that I just did so much better than the others when I was presented with the scenarios. And the fact that I'm an arrogant bastard who doesn't crumble under public speaking pressure certainly made it easier to get the position.
But how did I REALLY get the position? I knew what the **** I was talking about. 😐 That's pretty much the biggest difference.
So what if Lily, in your scenario, shadowed several very seasoned engineers during her college days? What if she gleaned quite a bit of "not- taught-in-school" ideas from those veterans? She may end up having answers that the other engineer doesn't have. Why? Because no one person can know everything. So why not learn from everyone to increase your own ability to adapt and succeed? Why repeat others' mistakes? Why not benefit form others' successes?
Okay, there is your real answer.
Entry level engineers can make six figures at the start at places like Google, Exxon, etc. It's hardly clear that this is necessarily a very veteran position. Beyond that, I'll elaborate when I'm on a laptop.
Re: Re: Who would you rather hire?
Playing (and possibly supporting) the contrarian:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Based on the salary you're describing, the position is not entry-level. Hiring Lily for that position is not only inappropriate, it is bad human resource management.
As mentioned above, such starting salaries are very common among, for instance, large software and petroleum companies. It's true that it's less frequent in the aerospace sector, but I'm honestly not sure if there's a very rational basis for this discrepancy, and why a company designing rockets couldn't pay smart entry level people lots of money for the same reasons Google and Exxon do.
As a hiring manager, you need to be acutely aware of CURRENT statistics which include education trends and employment trends. Placing talent in your open positions has a huge overhead cost especially in the high-skilled/deep-education positions. In one of the jobs I had before, for a particular position for which we had 8 slots, after everything was said and done and all direct and indirect costs were compiled, the average cost to fill each position was $24,000. Twenty Four Thousand Dollars. This was another position that was high-skilled/deep-education. That's quite a bit of money.What happens if you take a gamble on a fresh college graduate on a not-entry-level position? You can squander quite a bit of money.
True, but the potential upside to Lily is also much higher. For one, she likely has more potential than John, so if she stays for a long time, she'll certainly end up producing more. And historically the chances of someone like her producing something truly revolutionary is far greater. If you're a very large company as stipulated in the OP, it's not necessarily the case that 24,000 dollars is too risky for you.
So back to why this is just simply bad management:
"In 2010, only 62 percent of U.S. college graduates had a job that required a college degree.
Second, the authors estimated that just 27 percent of college grads had a job that was closely related to their major."
And that data is outdated. From what I understand, the data is worse and even more lopsided for our young and educated Americans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-study-shows-careers-and-college-majors-often-dont-match/
And a significant portion of Americans just don't work in a field related to their major.
For STEM majors (relevant to your OP), it is less than half who actually end up working in their field of study:
I'm confused. Why is this relevant? You're afraid that she'll leave?
Add on the other fact that men still make up a very large majority of the STEM major related jobs, and Lily's gender also becomes another variable (why? Because real life gets in the way for many women around that age...especially children, so they fade out of their STEM-related jobs within a few years). BUT WAIT! You say, that's sexism, right? It really is. It really really is.
It seems less likely that she'll fade out completely given her particular credentials and very visible ambitions, and many companies now are experimenting ways to get around this, such as offering to freeze eggs or providing on-site childcare.
But that is not everything. If Lily has never ever worked in her entire life at any job before, it would be a solid no from me.
She's done internships.
If I had an entry level position (it would pay 50-70k a year if it is engineering), I'd consider her for that. But is she did have work experience in ANY job, I'd want multiple references and I would verify actual working relationships. If she got stellar accolades from coworkers and bosses at other jobs, even if it wasn't related to engineering, that would put her very high upon the consideration list. Why? Because I have found that regardless of where a person works, if they put in effort and care about doing a good job, they'll do a good job in just about any position as long as they get the training they need to be successful. The work ethic is what makes a good employee. The onus is on me to train my people to be most successful in their jobs.
Well, put it this way: your answer matches what some companies from certain industries would answer, and is the opposite of what others would. A company like Apple or, more relevantly, SpaceX, would pursue Lily far more vigorously than they would John. That's why their interviews are so geared around identifying intelligent candidates rather than those who have enormous amounts of job-specific expertise. Inexperience has the disadvantages you mentioned, but brilliance at Lily's level can certainly more than compensate. It really depends on a lot of factors, I guess. But in most cases, if you're designing a rocket, you're going more the SpaceX route than the Turning Construction company route.
But that's not everything! Nope, not at all. Since this is a mid-level engeering job (based on the description you have), I would talk to my other engineering leads and ask them about a common major issue they encounter as it relates to the job. I would prioritize the top 3 and then I would present those scenarios to the top 3. Here's the kicker: 2 out of those 3 would already have been resolved and I would have feedback and lessons learned from those leads about how those were successfully resolved (and how they would do it over again to be even more successful).When I interview these 2 candidates, I would compare their answers against the real-world scenarios, I would review the candidate answers with the engineering leads, and I would obtain an consensus on an "over-all best fit." All these factors would be weighed to come to a decision.
I think that could be a factor in the interview process, yes, provided that these engineers' responses are themselves reasonable.
Usually, the more experienced candidate will be the winner especially for mid-level and above STEM jobs.Who knows? Perhaps Lily will knock it out of the park.
It seems like an extremely risk adverse way to select a candidate, which may or may not be a good thing.
With a six figure salary to work with i'd just offer John the job for a slightly higher salary than he's already receiving and use the rest to hire lily to train with him.
If i had to pick one i'd obviously choose, John. The only way i'd hire, Lily is if i owned the company and if no one else was experimenting with similar technology.
Re: Re: Re: Who would you rather hire?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Entry level engineers can make six figures at the start at places like Google, Exxon, etc. It's hardly clear that this is necessarily a very veteran position. Beyond that, I'll elaborate when I'm on a laptop.
Uhhh, what? No, that's simply not true. Unless you cite a "source" by providing a job posting for an entry level engineering position at one of those places that requires 0 experience? In other words, if you can find a job posting for an entry level position that requires 0 experience, you're wrong. Those jobs don't exist.
To further elaborate, petroleum engineers have the highest average starting salary after college. And the average is not quite six figures, either.
Keep in mind, your OP talks about a student with 0 job experience (and summer internships are not cutting it to meet entry level positions, which almost always say 2-5 years of experience required).
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Playing (and possibly supporting) the contrarian:
Don't worry about this...do it! It is more fun this way. While my arguments may be strong, do not be offended. I will always argue against your points, never against you. So do not take offense.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
As mentioned above, such starting salaries are very common among, for instance, large software and petroleum companies. It's true that it's less frequent in the aerospace sector, but I'm honestly not sure if there's a very rational basis for this discrepancy, and why a company designing rockets couldn't pay smart entry level people lots of money for the same reasons Google and Exxon do.
As I've stated above, you're wrong. It is simply not an entry level position at that salary.
You can expect to make, on average, $64k.
http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-makes-right-out-of-college/
To further my point, you also have the other candidate at 20 years of experience clearly indicating that this is a large experience job. If you would like to alter the scenario and make up a job that just doesn't exist, we can go down that path just to have a hypothetical discussion. But what does that really accomplish?
To make a better argument...why is John applying for an entry level job that requires 0 experience when he has 20 years of experience and he is solid and reliable? A solid and reliable engineer, after 20 years, will definitely be making 6 figures. So why is he applying for an entry-level job, again?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
True, but the potential upside to Lily is also much higher. For one, she likely has more potential than John, so if she stays for a long time, she'll certainly end up producing more. And historically the chances of someone like her producing something truly revolutionary is far greater. If you're a very large company as stipulated in the OP, it's not necessarily the case that 24,000 dollars is too risky for you.
You're basically restating my same point but focusing on the complement (which is great because it shows you understood my point and are stating the other side of the coin I talked about...makes it far far far easier to have these discussions instead of playing word games).
Of course and is quite obvious that you could potentially invest in a rock-star and your point is pretty damn good and acknowledge the weakness in my argument.
But you could also invest a ton of money in someone who is going to leave the position in less than 2 years which ends up being an even large waste because you just spent all of that money hiring, paying, training, and bonus-ing someone that did not give you an ROI.
"...half between 20 and 24, have been with their current employers for under a year, the BLS says."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575468162805877990
So while you may think it is an amazing investment with a great ROI opportunity, it is still poor management practices to hire an engineer, with no experience, into a mid-level engineering position. As we've talked about it more, if one of my managers hired someone like this, I would consider formal discipline and investigate whether or not it was inappropriate nepotism (I think in the corporate world, light nepotism is okay as long as the candidates are qualified for the job...knowing someone to get a job is part of the game so nepotism is expected).
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you hire a top-academic performer, you're not hiring an innovator. You're hiring someone that can work well within a system and they don't take high risks. Very lengthy research on Valedictorians has shown that while they do enter into decent careers, they are not the changers and innovators.
"...they’ve never been devoted to a single area in which they can put all their passions...The opportunities to become famous or change the world as an accountant, for example, are few and far between...They obey rules, work hard, and like learning, but they're not the mold-breakers. They work best within the system and aren’t likely to change it.”
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I'm confused. Why is this relevant? You're afraid that she'll leave?
I'm not afraid she will leave. She will leave. It is almost an inexorable inevitability, probabilistically. You've created quite a few factors in your scenario which indicates there is an extremely strong possibility that she will leave in less than 2 years. This is a very risky hire for a mid-level engineering job. It is just bad business. If you're looking for a mid-level position but also an innovator, you'll be looking for someone in the 5-10 year experience range. Something Lily can consider after 1 or 2 employers later.
Unless she has personally innovated something that is well-known? Then she has a much better chance! Just depends on what the hiring company is really needing at the moment. Maybe they need a solid and dependable aerospace engineer who will get the damn job done and not try to dick-around with new ideas? Because the strategic designing would be done by higher ups, in some companies...the shakers and movers would have difference titles and they wouldn't be entry level.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
It seems less likely that she'll fade out completely given her particular credentials and very visible ambitions, and many companies now are experimenting ways to get around this, such as offering to freeze eggs or providing on-site childcare.
Oh, so you know this person on an intimate level and have a guaranteed assurance that she'll remain? If that is the case, it makes considering her for the position much easier, right? Then I would have to agree she may be a good candidate but it still does not tip the scale. She still lacks experience for a mid-level job. She has the bridge that gap in other ways which I've talked about.
Basically, you can't just make a baseless assumption like that unless you personally know the person.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
She's done internships.
Yes, you said she has done internships at prestigious firms over the summer/s. I know you'll say it was paid internships with direct real-world team-building experiences in successful engineering projects because I get the impression that you really want Lily hired over the other guy... 😖hifty:
Since this is a mid-level engineering job her internships mean nothing when comparing the two candidates. It means 0 experience.
But has she lead successful engineering projects outside of school? If so, that eliminates her 0 functional experience.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well, put it this way: your answer matches what some companies from certain industries would answer, and is the opposite of what others would.
That's not really true. Let me explain it to you a different way. Hiring managers vary from person to person on their hiring practices, right? One company doesn't act all x or all y. They are made of individuals with individual talents, weaknesses, and preferences. All hiring managers have a job to fill talent into positions that are a best fit while trying to mitigate the loss on a poor hiring decision.
A good hiring manager who is aware of employment trends and statistics will know not to hire a brand-new college graduate who has been a stellar academic performer, into a mid-level engineering position because they are going to leave: you can't keep new talent. Unless the job is project based and it is forecasted to last 6-18 months? Then that is a PERFECT fit and Lily is an amazing candidate.
I'll give you a great example of alternative labels but have similar outcomes. Your suggestion to hire lily is like hiring a person who says that they have to move to a different country in 6 months to 24 months. You know it will happen. You have a great idea for when it will happen. Do you go ahead and hire? Does your position have things this person can work on for that limited time? If you yes, hire them if you like them and their personality fits with your "shop." If not, hire the solid and dependable guy.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
A company like Apple or, more relevantly, SpaceX, would pursue Lily far more vigorously than they would John.
Yes and no. For an entry level position specific to her education, perhaps one or more of those you listed would. But you may see the exact opposite as they need experienced engineers who are stable to see a 5+ year project completed and consistency are preferred over cowboy innovations.
Here's another point you need to consider if you want to be an amazing mould-breaking and innovative engineer when you grow up (I hope you do...and remember me when you get to the top, please):
If you appear amazing and you make yourself seem super amazing, you'll be passed over for great jobs because they don't want another cowboy innovator, they want someone who will do their damn job. Know why is that? Oh, that's because they already have their innovators. They don't need yet another person with a huge ego strutting around conflicting ideas on an already established roadmap.
Here's your warning if you want to be a future engineer at a great place: show that you are capable, be humble, and demonstrate that you believe innovation comes in small pieces, not large pieces all at once. You'll be more likely to get hired by that egotistical engineer who may take you under their wing and you'll get amazing opportunities to innovate. Engineers are renowned for having huge egos for a reason. I have first hand experience with engineering majors in college. I had to tutor them in college because they couldn't do some of the physics homework. 😐 Nothing is worse in academia than trying to teach someone who thinks they know everything but actually known nothing.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's why their interviews are so geared around identifying intelligent candidates rather than those who have enormous amounts of job-specific expertise. Inexperience has the disadvantages you mentioned, but brilliance at Lily's level can certainly more than compensate.
That's incorrect for all the reasons I've pointed out, already. They don't look for intelligence, directly. They actually look for and find people that have won competitions...engineering competitions. That's real world experience (I'm referring to SpaceX). That supposed brilliance can also be part of her weakness. The real world is full of failure after failure after failure. And this can discourage your top-of-the-class people. And as the research suggests, they aren't the innovators.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
It really depends on a lot of factors, I guess. But in most cases, if you're designing a rocket, you're going more the SpaceX route than the Turning Construction company route.
Why...what? Okay, I'll move on because I like your replies. I don't want to cause arguments.
By the way, based on the things you've been posting, you seem to be hinting at SpaceX being the employer you had in mind. More specifically, one of their aerospace engineering jobs. And their engineers? They very experienced ones make $107k-$111k a year. Your starting positions for those students, like Lily, that you described? $64k a year.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Spacex/Salary
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I think that could be a factor in the interview process, yes, provided that these engineers' responses are themselves reasonable.
Well, if this is SpaceX like you're implying, these are the best of the best. You would have a very hard time getting together a team of engineering leads that could think of better real-world scenarios for interview candidates.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
It seems like an extremely risk adverse way to select a candidate, which may or may not be a good thing.
The opposite is true. I've outlined multiple ways the candidate would be considered are as part of the hiring process, a truly best-fit candidate would be selected. It is always a good thing when considering potential employees. It is a good thing. There is not equal weight, here, as you imply with your "may or may not be a good thing." It is more like, "A very bad decision, almost all of the time, versus a very good decision, most of the time."
To put it better for you, you don't hire newbs into mid-level aerospace engineering jobs. That's just stupid. No matter how amazing they are. Wait until they are a bit more seasoned. Then you'll know for sure that the will be solid and dependable.
Edit - Also, why do the KMC people here give you lots of trouble? What the hell happened? Why are they such dicks to you? I seem to be able to have an argument/debate with you just fine. And you're not coming off as an a**hole when you disagree with me.
If you're only 17, I think you're brilliant and have a great future ahead of you.
Supra gave him a hard time because Ellimist took something Supra told him in confidence (that Supra is not very book smart and is finding it really hard to keep up with fellow students in a class he was taking, and that he had to work much harder to break even with them) and put him on blast on the forum, saying that if Supra is aware that he is unintelligent, then why does he feel he has the right to voice his opinions so strongly?
I can almost guarantee that is what prompted Supra's outburst in this thread.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Supra gave him a hard time because Ellimist took something Supra told him in confidence (that Supra is not very book smart and is finding it really hard to keep up with fellow students in a class he was taking, and that he had to work much harder to break even with them) and put him on blast on the forum, saying that if Supra is aware that he is unintelligent, then why does he feel he has the right to voice his opinions so strongly?I can almost guarantee that is what prompted Supra's outburst in this thread.
Thanks for explaining.
WTF? That's really what happened?
Don't do that, Ellimist! If you did this, apologize out in the open. Make amends, dude!
Originally posted by The Ellimist
TI, if you struggle so much in school and at work compared to your peers, as you've admitted to me that you do, why do you think you're going to reason better fiscal and social policies?
His first post on the subject.
Now I'm no big fan of Supra, but some would say that airing his dirty laundry and taunting him that you saying you could easily post the PM Supra sent you in confidence to prove it is pretty scummy.
Though some would say that Supra is asking for it.
Originally posted by NemeBro
His first post on the subject.Now I'm no big fan of Supra, but some would say that airing his dirty laundry and taunting him that you saying you could easily post the PM Supra sent you in confidence to prove it is pretty scummy.
Though some would say that Supra is asking for it.
No matter how heated arguments get, I think you should keep private details revealed in PMs, private.
The entry level software engineer at Google averages six figures. Not sure about Exxon, but I personally know someone who did land six figures there straight out of school. I know several other people at these companies who are making well into the six figures starting out - and I've worked with many of them too (not 17), although not yet in a full-time capacity. Note that these are just median salaries - Lily is obviously far above the median prospective employee. I suppose you could say that I didn't say these were software engineers - but I didn't say they weren't either, I left lots of variables open for the sake of the discussion.
Also, why do the KMC people here give you lots of trouble?
It's just TI and Surtur, who are both right-wing members and so disagree with me on practically everything.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No matter how heated arguments get, I think you should keep private details revealed in PMs, private.
It's a little more complicated than that. TI had on multiple occasions gone on harassment campaigns against me, even going over to the Star Wars vs. forum to spam my threads with random insults. He's also instigated racist hate mongering. You know, if you just read a sample of twelve of his posts, you'd get what I'm talking about. So yeah, I don't feel bad, especially given his obsession with Hillary's private emails...
But anyway, not the subject. I might give a more comprehensive reply to your post later.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
The entry level software engineer at Google averages six figures. Not sure about Exxon, but I personally know someone who did land six figures there straight out of school. I know several other people at these companies who are making well into the six figures starting out - and I've worked with many of them too, although not yet in a full-time capacity. Note that these are just median salaries - Lily is obviously far above the median prospective employee. I suppose you could say that I didn't say these were software engineers - but I didn't say they weren't either, I left lots of variables open for the sake of the discussion.
Entry level jobs require 5 years of experience.
Look, right on Google's site:
https://www.google.com/about/careers/jobs#!t=jo&jid=/google/safety-engineer-hardware-operations-1600-amphitheatre-pkwy-mountain-view-ca-6520005&
"5 years of experience in a related role (i.e. Safety Engineering, Test Engineering, or similar)."
Entry level jobs like these are do not mean "beginner" level. It means it is the lowest level in that career field. It also does not mean it is the lowest paying: their direct manager could make less than them (different responsibilities).
Also, let me be clear that you did specify that she got awards for coding and mathematics so I should have assumed you also intended to include software engineers:
My bad: I was wrong.
But I would like to note that "machine learning" or AI is also listed for what you've cited. That's hardly "right out of college" stuff. That's just bottom of their AI programs.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
It's just TI and Surtur, who are both right-wing members and so disagree with me on practically everything.
Yeah, but, I'm much more a social liberal than you are (I think) and I get along just fine with them. In fact, my liberalness, when it comes to social stuff, makes Hillary look like a conservative warlord in an oppressive theocracy. But they don't give me the shit they give you.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
It's a little more complicated than that.
Well, not really and I will explain why below.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
TI had on multiple occasions gone on harassment campaigns against me, even going over to the Star Wars vs. forum to spam my threads with random insults. He's also instigated racist hate mongering. You know, if you just read a sample of twelve of his posts, you'd get what I'm talking about. So yeah, I don't feel bad, especially given his obsession with Hillary's private emails...
I don't feel that that is appropriate, regardless. If it was a PM, it was a PM. Keep it that way. No matter what he does, do not stoop so low as to do scumbag internet things. No matter how tempting, don't be that guy.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
But anyway, not the subject. I might give a more comprehensive reply to your post later.
Okay but it may not be that necessary since I assumed you meant aerospace engineer (or the usually understood use of "engineer"😉.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's like this: it's not what he says, it is how he says it.This is someone who could announce he just cured cancer and make you dislike him by the time he's finished telling you about it.
What was it about you hating political correctness again?
Oops - it turns out you really just hate liberal minorities. It has nothing to do with wanting open speech at all. 👆
Originally posted by The Ellimist
What was it about you hating political correctness again?Oops - it turns out you really just hate liberal minorities. It has nothing to do with wanting open speech at all. 👆
Dude, be as politically incorrect as you want. Just don't be an arrogant little shit along the way.
But notice I'm not blocking you or anything like that. I'm not whining and saying you shouldn't be able to say what you say. I am reacting to your words.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Entry level jobs require 5 years of experience.
Not sure if you linked to an entry level position, and it's in safety engineering, which is a more specialized field and, as you could imagine, more risk adverse. An entry software engineer could certainly be straight out of college. To be blunt, this isn't a matter of contention - regardless of whether you think this should happen, there's no question that it does, it happens all the time.
Yeah, but, I'm much more a social liberal than you are (I think) and I get along just fine with them. In fact, my liberalness, when it comes to social stuff, makes Hillary look like a conservative warlord in an oppressive theocracy. But they don't give me the shit they give you.
I'm a much more blunt debater than you are, at least when I don't have any serious investment in changing people's minds diplomatically.
I don't feel that that is appropriate, regardless. If it was a PM, it was a PM. Keep it that way. No matter what he does, do not stoop so low as to do scumbag internet things. No matter how tempting, don't be that guy.
Well Astner should get called out for doing the same thing to me, and for TI and Surtur asking him to post the actual message - but regardless, we could have a whole conversation about the ethics of negative reciprocation if you want, just not here. You can PM me if it's really important to you.