zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
In general, trash talking one's employer in public is usually inversely proportional to the longevity of one's employment with said employer.

>>PopeDo+Eh
I've reread this comment a few times and I'm still not sure what to make of it. It's obviously true, but why post something with such a smug and gloating tone? Are you happy about how Amazon warehouse workers are treated and pleased to see people speaking out being fired in the midst of a pandemic?

>>sfkdjf+om
It's a form of ethical handwashing of the kind the American justice system is built on. It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes than it is to judge whether the outcomes are fair or just, since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments.

"If you do X then you can expect Y" is a tautology built on observation that divorces the observer from any responsibility for the outcome Y.

>>jgacoo+au
I have a hard time following your comment and logic. Can you expand in plain words what you mean, preferably with an example and concrete details?

Specifically:

> It's much easier to point out that taking a certain set of actions will lead to a certain set of outcomes

This statement is too vague. What specific actions and what specific outcomes?

> since those are abstract concepts that require critical thinking and making value judgments

What is "making value judgements" mean?

Also, when you say "American justice system" - is this specific to the American judicial law and it does not apply to other countries?

>>system+Jv
I interpreted their statement as:

"It's much easier for one to factually state that certain actions will almost inevitably lead to certain consequences than to critically question whether those actions should always justifiably warrant those consequences in the first place. Because of this, regardless of the underlying context, one may reflexively fail to sympathize with those who incur consequences that one may believe they reasonably should have expected would occur as a result of their actions.

That is, it's easier to say 'don't touch the stove or you'll get burnt' than 'you maybe generally should try not to touch the stove, but why is our room filled to the brim with dozens of hot stoves? also maybe you should touch it if you need to help save a cat that jumped on it'."

I had no trouble understanding what they were trying to say, honestly. They're saying it's easier for someone to say "drugs are bad, because they're illegal", or "you should've gone to jail because you used drugs", or "you should've known that using drugs would result in you ending up in jail", compared to saying something more nuanced like "one should be aware of the potential legal risks of using drugs, as a matter of personal precaution, but it's questionable whether US law and morality align on this particular subject".

Basically, caring more about "what is" than "what ought to be". "It is what it is, whaddya gonna do" is easier than trying to question the system. It is a pretty common phenomenon I've seen here, as an American.

They likely would have preferred the parent to consider the line between public trash-talking and public whistleblowing, how that applies to this case, what Amazon's perspective is and what the workers' perspectives are, etc. Instead of a simple "well, they said negative things about their employer in public, so why should anyone feel bad that their employer fired them as a result?".