Preface: Something I've noticed about jerks/assholes: they're convinced that they're surrounded by jerks and/or assholes. Almost none of them are jerks for no reason. They're almost always jerks in response to some slight (either imagined, or blown way out of proportion). A good sign that you might be a jerk is that you see jerks all around you. Most people are basically all right. If you (1) run into conflicts with a lot of people, please consider the possibility that you are at least part of the cause.
Actual Point: The reason I am hesitant about following the advice of this article is that it encourages you to divide the world into jerks and nice people. It's very easy to be a jerk to a jerk. If you are a jerk to a jerk, suddenly everyone on the project has to deal with two jerks.
I do agree that there are behaviors that just shouldn't be accepted, and there are lots of examples of them online. But you (2) do need to be mindful of your response to those behaviors. Make sure your response isn't to engage in those behaviors yourself.
(1 & 2) and by you, I mostly mean me. I am totally writing to myself here.
They're almost always jerks in response to some slight (either imagined, or blown way out of proportion).
Either that, or they're just clinically certifiable narcissists. True narcissists are world-class pains in the ass like nothing else on the many spectra of personality disorders.
The true narcissists I have had the misfortune of knowing have been extremely charming. If they hadn't been, their "handicap" would have crippled their social lives. True narcissism and well above average ability to charm people, go hand in hand.
The same can be said about all sociopaths, they are all a very charming bunch.
Outwardly charming, on a surface level? Yes. Impossible to work with, or worse, for? Absolutely. They have close to zero conception or awareness of other human beings, making them poor communicators, irrational decisionmakers with regards to anything other than their personal interests, and something approximating pathological liars.
I've read books on this because I have had to deal with more than one of these people. One of the leading experts on Narcissism says that most therapists won't even deal with these people they are so difficult to treat.
"A good sign that you might be a jerk is that you see jerks all around you."
The same goes for various other personality traits. If someone refuses to trust anybody else they likely can't be trusted themselves; I've seen it myself several times.
Your last line was very nicely put. Something a jerk generally wouldn't say. I find that when I give advice to people often times it's more of a reminder to myself.
I agree the world is not divided into jerks/nice people. There's a spectrum. Try to stay on the nice side. You can't always avoid jerks but one should not go out of their way to be around them.
Not only that but there will be times, for whatever reason, a nice person will occasionally behave like a jerk. be it because something bad has happened at home or they are just having a bad day.
Always a good idea to consider that the other person isn't having the same day/thoughts/experience as you.
Around 10 years ago I started to approach situations that were dicey by making the assumption that the other person was having a bad day. In addition to helping prevent situations from escalating out of control this has had a calming effect on me.
Empathy is much better than judgment especially in a situation with imperfect information.
I always try to give the benefit of the doubt. I can think of plenty of times where I only realize after the fact that I was distracted/in a bad mood and unduly acted rude towards someone.
While, I don't disagree with you at all, if you've ever seen Jacob respond to a jerk online, It's really great. Not tolerating something is not equivalent to getting on the same level (which, also should not be tolerated).
From the article, "The vast majority of people I’ve met through my work in open source communities are friendly, warm, and funny...Once in a while, though, I’ve run into assholes."
While what you say may be true, in this case, it does not sound like he's convinced he's surrounded by assholes. Rather that during the few times he's encountered them, he simply decided not to put up with their behavior.
You've created a situation where nobody can refute your premise that "most people are basically all right" without outing himself as part of the cause according to the conclusion derived from that premise. Impressive :P
It's a gross oversimplification, but I try to live according to the dictum that it is easy to bifurcate behaviours into good and bad, but people are complex and subject to change, thus it is very difficult for me to brand someone as an "asshole."
UPDATE: Thinking about the OP, I wonder if seeing behaviours as simple and people as complex actually helps you be intolerant of bad behaviour.
If you believe that some people are assholes, you have very little in the way of options for dealing with them: Purge them from your life, wall them off so their damage can be contained, or accept them and their behaviour wholesale.
But if you focus on the behaviour, you can try to negotiate: "You are a genius, your work on ___ is brilliant. However, this behaviour ____ is unacceptable, please stop doing it. Here is why..., Here is something more constructive you could consider..."
> But if you focus on the behaviour, you can try to negotiate: "You are a genius, your work on ___ is brilliant. However, this behaviour ____ is unacceptable, please stop doing it. Here is why..., Here is something more constructive you could consider..."
Incredibly well said - that's the point I was reaching towards and couldn't quite articulate perfectly, apparently. Ideally, we'd call out shitty behavior and change that behavior. I didn't mean to suggest a "my way or the highway" attitude; rather, my point is that we shouldn't keep quiet when someone's being a jerk.
Typically, I've managed to maintain a decent working relationship even with people others found virtually intolerable. My natural inclination is to let the more abrasive aspects of their personalities slide, but sometimes I doubt this approach, because occasionally what it means is taking them less seriously as human beings. Their idiosyncrasies can be predictable, so I'm tempted to think of them as machines. In one sense, it's convenient: I rarely get angry at machines, so why would I get angry at machine-like people? On the other hand, it's dismissive and lazy.
What you're talking about is rejecting cynicism, assuming things can change, believing things are worth changing, and being willing to put in the effort to call out the jerks. As long as you do it constructively, you end up humanizing people who probably need it--and you might even make a difference! So, for all our sakes, please keep it up.
Great and insightful comment! However, I think most "assholes" has an justification of their behavior that they find sufficient.
If the person thinks the greatness and contribution of their work is somehow dependent on the antisocial behavior, then it's hard to convinced them to separate behavior from action.
As a side-note I think this kind of asshole behavior is as prevalent in non-technical types as technical types.
I think perhaps I haven't been clear enough, because most here seem to be missing what I intended to be my central argument; to quote:
I will call out antisocial behavior, enforce professionalism in the communities where I have the power to do, and leave the communities that cannot at least offer civility.
In other words, if someone's being a jerk, we should call them on it. I didn't mean to suggest dividing the world into "assholes" and "good people" — clearly there's a spectrum, and clearly even saints have bad days. And I certainly didn't mean we should ostracize people at the first sign of shitty behavior.
But if someone's abusive, and they refuse to moderate their behavior, then either they need to leave or I will. I just can't accept that allowing abusive behavior is the price we have to pay for good code.
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Another point, which the author could have also argued, is that assholes push or scare others out of open-source communities. Much of the time, the people scared away are not profilic contributors, however many of them had the potential to become so if they were nurtured. I certainly wasn't the best coder when I started contributing to Drupal (and I'm still not), but I managed to do a lot of good for it both in code and evangelizing for it. Had it not been for the leaders in the community who were super-nice (e.g., Neil Drumm and Angie Byron), then I would have let the jerks keep me from using and contributing back to something I loved. However, I noticed that as I became a better and more knowledgeable contributor, it was easier for me to fall into the behavior of sounding like a jerk myself. We (or at least I) have to constantly check ourselves to ensure we are doing good for the community and sticking true to our nice roots.
Have you looked in the mirror, man? That entire posts exudes the exact same behavior you are condemning.
You've asked for them to be fired? That wasn't your place, and the penalty is far too harsh for the crime. You were attempting to ruin their livelihood because you don't like them.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." - The Bible. Nobody would get to throw a stone. Nobody fits the criteria of being 'perfect'.
In the case I'm talking about, the gentleman in question threw a chair out a window halfway through a meeting. This after months of threatening violence against co-workers after showing up to work drunk.
You bet your ass I asked for him to be fired. He wasn't, so I quit.
I'm very sorry that my post rubbed you the wrong way. My intention is simply to suggest that we shouldn't tolerate antisocial behavior in our communities, and that we should ask those behaving badly to stop. Do you disagree?
I disagree with your lumping "drunken violent chair throwing" into a the exact same catagory as "guy who sarcastically responds to a person not reading the documentation". Really, extreme reactions like 0-tolerance are no better than tolerance for the extreme misbehavior you describe.
I propose that a large portion of the reaction against your statements is that until this comment, many or most of the people assumed you meant a more common form of asshole: e.g. the guy who defends his code too hard, or the guy who isn't good at criticizing others' work. The term asshole, at least as used by large numbers of people, applies to both cases. Getting someone fired because they are a bit caustic is not at all an appropriate reaction, whereas as a response to violence it is (probably) an appropriate reaction.
I definitely agree that antisocial behavior should be noticed and handled. I don't agree with asking a coworker to be fired.
Alerting your manager that the situation is intolerable is perfectly cool. Demanding that someone be fired just isn't. (This applies to customers demanding employees to be fired, too.) If the offense is really that serious, the manager already knows how to handle it. If he has a history of these things, again, the manager knows and can deal with it. There is a chain of command in place for a reason.
It's your right to quit whenever you want, for whatever reason you want. I don't argue with that. I would probably refuse to work with the chair-thrower, too, out of safety concerns. But I wouldn't demand he be fired.
I think the attitude you endorse just enables the assholism. Assholes ruin their own livelihood by being assholes, no need to blame the victims of their vitriol.
For any given job, there are hundreds of other equally deserving candidates who aren't jerks. Getting fired gives assholes a chance to learn their behavior isn't acceptable, and is only fair to the more-deserving candidate who then fills the position.
I think the reactionary ideals you promote enforce and enable sliminess. The person with the best presentation and fakest smile wins over any actual merit. You are actively endorsing the world of used-car salesmen, A&R reps, and so on, where substance and a solid stance are detrimental to success.
Pathological extremes at both ends are still pathological, the correct response to an extreme is not its opposite, but a reasonable alternative.
...how did you make that leap? Where does "it should be possible for being a jerk to get you fired" lead to "enforcing and enabling sliminess"?
It is entirely possible to hold a firm stance on what you think is the correct approach without being a jerk. It is equally possible to create a friendly atmosphere without acting like a used car salesman. I think you're reading more into the GP's statements than was intended.
Judging from a lot of the responses on this thread, it seems like there's a sort of unwritten assumption that people who act like jerks are technically proficient, while people who are easy to get along with are only "acting nice" to make up for their lack-luster technical skills.
I agree, however the post I responded to was in fact rejecting a call for some moderation and tolerance. Rejecting those is a stance of extremism, and the extreme case of "no assholes" is "fake-nice/smarmy".
If I understand your post, implicit in what you are saying is that people skills and even the mere trait "not an asshole" is antithetical to technical competence, which I don't believe.
If that isn't what you're implying, then it seems you are putting up a false choice between merit and people skills.
Not at all. You are very clever in you attempt to deflect your false choice situation by accusing me of it.
In fact, I am suggesting that your notion of 0-tolerance for assholism is an extreme, no better than complete endorsement and rewards for assholism. If you are not suggesting 0-tolerance for assholism, then I appologize, it just seems that way since you respond to call for moderation and some tolerance with a rejection of that principle.
So, you come on to a project and someone fits your definition of "asshole". Getting them fired will allow them to "learn their behavior isn't acceptable". No need to actually put up with that person, there are plenty more fish in the sea.
Maybe your "nice guy" teammate doesn't actually keep the production db running correctly and who cares if the "asshole" has to cleanup. It really shouldn't matter that to not get blamed the "asshole" needs to do the work themselves. Maybe you send some e-mail not knowing what is going on and that sends the "asshole" up the wall. Heck, you did the "asshole" a favor since the "asshole" needs to learn a lesson(2).
1) author of article says all "assholes" are guys, which I find quite unbelievable.
2) add one of the "asshole"'s parents getting cancer and I've seen that one (with sleep deprivation)
Relevant book: The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't - Robert I. Sutton. It provides an academic view of the subject.
The inflammatory title of my post did bleed through the content a bit, didn't it? I just loved the quote. Mea culpa.
At some point, indeed, behaviour becomes so bad that you have a moral duty to stand up to it, even if it means burning your bridges on that project. Your examples in these comments fit the bill.
But discovering that someone on the project is not a nice person, and someone you wouldn't want to hang out with? Even though they're a Coding Deity? I don't know if I'd work on any large FOSS projects if I drew the line there.
Maybe your experience has been more pleasant, or your classification of assholes more sophisticated than mine :)
> These people behave in a way that would not be tolerated in real life. I’ve worked with a few of these jerks in real life, and when they’ve been unable to restrain their behavior I’ve asked for them to be fired, and I’ve quit.
Just because you couldn't tolerate them doesn't mean they aren't tolerated. When you asked for them to be fired (instead of asking the manager to talk to them about their behavior), were they actually fired? That sort of thing depends on the amount of power you hold in an organization. I certainly couldn't just demand that one of my coworkers be fired and expect my boss to acquiesce.
I was thinking of two specific instances (luckily this sort of crap is rare and it's only happened to me those two times).
In the first instance, the person in question was my direct boss and was responsible for reviewing my code. He'd routinely call me an idiot, a retard, etc., and during meetings he'd often say things like "no, we can't give that to Jacob - he'll just fuck it up." Now, in his defense I was a pretty shitty developer at the time, but I do believe there are more constructive ways of reviewing code than calling the author a retard. I dealt with it for a few months, and finally asked his boss to transfer one of us. When I explained the reasons, this person was fired.
In the second case, my coworker was showing up to work drunk, yelling and cursing at coworkers, and routinely threatened violence -- "I'm gonna beat your ass if you don't shut the fuck up" was, I believe, a common line. Once he threw a chair through a window halfway through a (technical) meeting. Again I was too much of a coward to call him on his behavior directly, but yes I spoke to first my boss, then his, then the owner of the company. Nothing changed, so ultimately I quit.
In retrospect I certainly didn't behave perfectly: I should have confronted the behavior directly, and I should have made clear what my expectations were with regard to a professional working environment. But I was young, and all in all I'm proud of myself for not tolerating abuse (even if I didn't go about it quite right).
Okay, wow, your samples are far and above what I expected - I thought you'd merely put up with Torvalds-style directness, or perhaps simply had a couple of Russian coworkers. I didn't think that people in the real world actually called their coworkers retards, or threw chairs through windows.
I now think you were perfectly justified in asking for those people to be fired and quitting - I'd have probably tacked on a discreet phone call to the police, and maybe scraped together enough cash to get a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit.
Awesome. Please tell us the names of these companies where managers refer to their employees as "retards", coworkers show up drunk, and it takes direct confrontation to get any of it resolved. Because I doubt anyone here wants to end up working at these places either.
These people behave in a way that would not be tolerated in real life.
This statement is heavy with implications. Like many of us, the author abstracts these interactions into a second class version of reality, even though they are really happening. Why do people who are usually polite in person sometimes unleash an uglier, more confrontational side of themselves when there is a buffer of distance? Even before the introduction of email & chat, I've seen this happen in phone exchanges. In the absence of the need for a flight response, do we naturally tend to fall back to the fight response?
I think this effect is exercerbated by the fact that it is difficult for users to discern tone in online modes of communication, unlike phone or face to face discussion (geeks in general have a hard time with either) I've been trying to ensure that I speak to people on the internets like I would if we were talking face to face.
I am sure that there are at least half a dozen different definitions of "asshole" being used in these discussions making most commentary highly ambiguous.
I've worked with lots of these over the years. The really successful young ones were called enfant terribles. Sounds much nicer, non? My tolerance was in proportion to my paycheck, and I never saw management crack down unless they were heading off a discrimination case.
Nowadays I work on a small startup. Hard computer problems are easier than simple people problems!
It's important to realize, however, that some people can be major assholes to you but charming to others. This disconnect can be pretty annoying but is something you have to get over because if you attack the "asshole" back and your friends like the asshole, you're going to look stupid.
It's an old sore. And every once in a while someone bitches and moans about it. Big whoop. Pat yourself on the back for calling out anti-social behaviour. You made the world a better place. Now shut up and hack.
Right?
The thing about these arseholes is that they, just like you, are doing this on their own, because they enjoy doing it. They're giving up their time to create something that other people can use, usually without asking anything in return for it. What they can rightfully expect in return, though, is that people read the fucking manual or do a google search before they start their incessant questioning and bitching and nagging.
Sure, but calling someone who hasn't read the manual a moron takes more effort that shutting the fuck up. So either help the poor illiterate person or shut the fuck up. It's not like this person knows that there were 58 persons before with the very same question and then the next one will come and won't know that you just called this one a moron and ask the same question again, so you're not solving anything. Quick copy-paste of a link with the answer is a much better and easier solution, don't you think?
I used to lead a community and those were my rules - help or keep silent; tolerate others. That's not so difficult, is it?
I have similar feelings about this. There are billions of people on the earth and hundreds of millions of them are cool. So, why waste time with people who aren't nice when there are so many nice people to meet?
Because maybe those many nice people couldn't program their way out of a wet paper sack.
If I'm looking for someone to go to a bar with, I'll pick the nice person. If I need someone to help me complete a project at work, I'll probably try to find someone who's good at what they do, regardless of whether they're an asshole or not.
You can do that but these people that act like jerks or asshole really do alienate and demotivate others, so while you might be able to handle them if you have a group of people an asshole can really destroy productivity.
That's very true, an asshole can wreck productivity. But we're human beings, and we excuse deficiencies in one area for excellence in another. If the asshole produces more than he destroys, it might be worth keeping him on board.
I do not tolerate working with assholes or having assholes working for me, but I am more than happy to let them work for someone else or on someone else's project and enjoy the fruits of their labor :)
I'm pretty sure working with an asshole just means that the person you are working with simply doesn't like you. It doesn't mean that they are an asshole to everyone, which in some cases they might be, but most of the time, I'm sure they just don't like you, for whatever reason. So what does that make you? A pushover? At the very least, it makes you someone who identifies other people's behavior, which pretty much makes you judgmental and fearful, and also, if you understand "the secret", it makes you someone who attracts assholes. Instead of "refusing to tolerate assholes", be an asshole right back and maybe they might respect you. Never push someone away just because you don't know how to interact with them, and that's the thing, you don't know how to interact with them, cause if you did, they would like you & respect you.
This article really strikes a chord. In several nerd organizations at MIT, there are longstanding "assholes" who are brilliant people and whose contributions are very valuable and educational to other members, but who typically write acerbic and harsh messages. (Almost always their criticism is directed at other longtime members, not directly at new members, but even new members see these messages or interactions in person.)
In the past, per longstanding MIT culture, these "assholes" were tolerated and their acerbic comments usually ignored -- meaning the "asshole" would send perhaps one acerbic contribution every 6-8 weeks to an otherwise busy mailing list. (Usually the assholes did not get in dust-ups with other assholes.) More recently, though, a new generation has decided not to tolerate the "assholes" and engages them publicly with every acerbic message, leading to huge flame wars that prove very distracting (because neither the asshole nor the altruist who engages them ever likes to give up).
The organizations usually lack the will to actually expel the brilliant asshole, and it's not clear whether such a move would be in their best interests -- the asshole usually does make great contributions to the mission of the group, and I personally have learned a huge deal by engaging these people and picking their brains and sometimes recruiting them to join my projects because I know they will (and do) keep a sharp eye and tell us what we're doing wrong, and their commitment and level of effort toward a technical goal when they are on your team can be extraordinary. On the other hand, the asshole's acerbic contributions and criticism are doubtless offputting to some new members, even if not directed at them.
I am not sure whether the new state of affairs is actually an improvement. I usually think it may be better just to tolerate the assholes, and I myself have a pretty thick skin about these things. I value the diversity of opinion and perspective and technical skill that comes from having a big tent, and by picking their brains and wealth of experience, I learned a great deal from the assholes. And these flamewars, some responsibility for which falls on the people who won't tolerate assholes, prove incredibly distracting.
The people who adopt hard-line stances against tolerating assholes usually consider people like me -- (hopefully) non-assholes who nonetheless counsel caution and tolerance for the assholes -- to be terribly misguided and injurious to the long-term health of the organization. They make comments like, "I want to be in this organization with my friends, not people constantly criticizing me," which to my ears sounds possibly misguided -- you do not have to expect to be friends with everybody in an organization in order to work productively toward a shared goal. Often, the non-tolerators explain that while they themselves have thick skins, they are engaging the asshole on behalf of other, newer members who are not as willing to speak up but who are offended and repelled by the asshole.
Are we just seeing the consequences of a new breed of the pampered "Generation Y" who have been raised to value civility above diversity of experience and raw merit? Or was the old way -- where harsh emails were merely ignored, while the group proceeded with its business -- just us having our heads in the sand, and unwelcoming enough to foreclose a whole crop of talented (but less thick-skinned) people from entering and flourishing in the group? Is this period of frequent flamewars likely to persist, or are we just seeing the temporary pains of a slow revolution as friendly and civil "millennials" replace the old guard? I really am not sure.
raised to value civility above diversity of experience and raw merit?
You're forgetting all of the brilliant people who, for reasons of their own, prefer not to work alongside these assholes. That is diversity your organizations have historically missed out on.
Many people who are perceived as "acerbic" are simply direct and don't engage in the poo-pooing that characterizes many human social interactions. To get rid of them is to revert to a less intelligent form of life.
Only if you presuppose that the "poo-pooing" of human social interaction has no value, or perhaps misunderstand the value of social conventions.
Even if you're brilliant and correct, a tactful approach to persuasion/discussion is virtually guaranteed to yield better results than verbal blunt-trauma. Unless the goal of life is simply "To be correct", which honestly strikes me as a fairly depressing end game compared to the other options.
There's a difference between people who simply have poor social skills, where they'll say things like "You're obviously an idiot because that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard" and those who are assholes who say things like "All <people of race X> are stupid, just like you".
Calling someone stupid is another form of social poo-poo. There's no utility to it. Calling someone's action or behavior stupid, on the other hand, is direct and constructive. You are demanding that someone do something specifically different in order to improve. Calling the person an idiot is not constructive - it is only an insult. On the other hand, if the person said, "You're obviously an idiot because you consistently say stupid things, and you're dragging this project down, therefore I want you off the team," that may be hurtful, but it is constructive. It's a demand for change for the better.
Yes, definitely, let's not tolerate assholes like RMS (almost unarguably an asshole) or Linus (arguably an asshole, although, I for one find his directness and lack of tact refreshing and amusing) in open source. So let's get rid of Linux and GNU and start over.
Nice to see a wave of contrary reactions to the original post, but I have to agree with him. And it's not because I think I can change an asshole. I probably can't. And perhaps sometimes I just add more to the flame.
But in cases like this I follow the maxim: "Qui tacet consentire videtur."
If you are silent and let this person behave badly then all others will see that this behaviour is in the realms of acceptableness to you and the group. For me, it is no different than allowing a bully to threaten a small kid in a school. We might have to tolerate this to have the most efficient workplace, but I prefer to optimize for justice.
(I admit, in places where I steadfastly attempt to stick to this against the wills of the group, I am a jerk.)
Half-serious question: Why isn't being an asshole a clinically recognized disability? I have yet to meet a reformed asshole, so I've come to the conclusion that it's an inherent part of one's personality. No different than OCD, ADHD, sexual addiction, etc.
> I have yet to meet a reformed asshole, so I've come to the conclusion that it's an inherent part of one's personality.
I disagree. I've witnessed many people acquire empathy as they grow older and start treating others better. I know (hope) that I'm certainly not as impetuous or quick to judge as I was in my youth.
I'm typically very good at getting along with people, but I suppose my reaction to an asshole depends on the type of assholery being committed. Take for example someone who is egotistical and condescending. I may not necessarily like that person, but I can tolerate that person so long as the work being done is of good quality. On the other hand, take for example someone who takes credit for the work of others or in some other way actively seeks to step on his/her peers for personal gain. I have no tolerance for that.
I think it might be worthwhile to consider the influence that the egoistical and condescending example person might have on someone who is not a perfectly rational actor, and possibly easily cowed into giving up on a technical discussion or retreating from the project as a whole.
Sure, ideally all contributors to open-source projeccts are thick-skinned and confident enough that harsh condescendence will not affect them much, but in reality, they probably are not, and I would rather cater to them than to the "assholes" who might be scaring them away.
Someone who contributes good code is by no means an asshole. Real assholes are selfish. Maybe some people are rude, that's it, but smart people see beyond rudeness.
I think you're confusing "asshole" with "socially awkward". The real assholes are the ones who smile and ooze kindness and would backstab you for 10 bucks.
Usually the "grumpy" people you're talking about are just grumpy, but good-hearted in the end.
Every successful enterprise requires three men – a dreamer, a businessman, and a son-of-a-bitch. ( Every opensource project required three people. Linus. Jacob. Asshole. ( kidding... ( before you stop tolerating me ) ) yes. lisp. )
I can't comment directly on his blog. What kind of asshole doesn't let people comment on his blog? :3 (Sarcasm, by the way; I don't have comments on my blog either.)
More pragmatically, the tolerance of assholes is a requisite for using a computer, if you know anything about who maintains your operating system. Linux, glibc, binutils, gcc, X; these are the underpinnings of your system, and they are all maintained by assholes of one kind or another. How do you propose to fix this?
Actual Point: The reason I am hesitant about following the advice of this article is that it encourages you to divide the world into jerks and nice people. It's very easy to be a jerk to a jerk. If you are a jerk to a jerk, suddenly everyone on the project has to deal with two jerks.
I do agree that there are behaviors that just shouldn't be accepted, and there are lots of examples of them online. But you (2) do need to be mindful of your response to those behaviors. Make sure your response isn't to engage in those behaviors yourself.
(1 & 2) and by you, I mostly mean me. I am totally writing to myself here.