alt Hacker NewsAuthor here. I was trying to walk the line between two concepts in tension:
* you want to treat your former co-worker as a human being. That's the whole point of the post.
* it can be scary or shameful to reach out to someone who was just let go. You wonder things like "why them and not me, what did they do wrong, what if they react negatively, I'm busy with other stuff, oh man, is my job at risk". (The caveat here is of course that those who remain still have income and so the burden is worse for the laid off.)
This is why I think some folks don't do this simple, humane, outreach. But they should. So I was trying to address the latter worry.
I doubt most conversations go negative (as I mentioned, I've never had them do so). I wanted to give permission to people to reach out because that is important but also permission to stop the conversation if it reached a point they didn't feel comfortable.
I am sure I could have phrased it better.
W/r/t your example, I think most folks who sent the first message you suggest would respond. I think I would.
Replies
Your phrasing in that post reads like boilerplate neutered corporate-speak, of the kind you'd get from some HR parasite instead of another fellow co-worker who might actually give half a shit about your misfortune. To start, describing their being fired as "parting ways" would be flat out insulting enough to toss the whole thing into the trash folder.
Also, "Don’t feel like you have continue the conversation if they respond. You can if you want, but don’t feel obligated."
Then what's the point of saying anything if it's just a meaningless single token of HR-speak sludge? better to not even write in the first place.
> I am sure I could have phrased it better.
I'm not a native speaker, but this sounds/reads awful:
… but I can’t continue this conversation.
I'd definitely swap that out for (or similar):
… but I don't wanna go there. Sorry.