> I don't think OP actually disagrees, the chest pounding rhetoric is likely because they're covering up something deep inside that's saying "I know this is the right move for Amazon but I'm terrified of what that means for me".
This is condescending and aggressive. You may not have meant it that way, but it is.
I probably shouldn't have replied to them at all—my comment was absolutely less constructive than I normally strive for—but 'much less substance' implies that there was some substance to the original comment.
This is the entire comment I replied to. What is the substance?
> I don't think OP actually disagrees, the chest pounding rhetoric is likely because they're covering up something deep inside that's saying "I know this is the right move for Amazon but I'm terrified of what that means for me".
Fair enough - happens to the best of us. Regarding the quoted text, what they are communicating in a comically absurd way is that WFH proponents aren't open to an unbiased evaluation of WFH and the company's success. They are just as biased as the bias their accusing their employers of.
This is condescending and aggressive. You may not have meant it that way, but it is.