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
In the parent comment I'm referring to the commenter states that if you talk negatively about your employers employment practices (perform action X) you should expect to be fired (receive outcome Y).

I get irritated by this kind of comment because by being a description of a chain of events with no verdict as to whether outcome Y is fair or proportional to action X, it is an absolution of responsibility for the observer and to some extent implies that those affected by outcome Y are responsible for their fate simply because they weren't canny enough to realize the chain of events they had set in motion, regardless of whether the chain of events is immoral.

An alternate example: "The subversives held a protest and were reported to the secret police who sentenced them to death by firing squad. Perhaps if the subversives didn't want to be shot they shouldn't have staged the protest in the first place, since protesting carries the death sentence."

I know that example is taken to the extreme, but I think it makes some points more salient: (i) by reciting a series of outcomes without value judgments about the outcomes, the observer is not engaging with whether the subversives should be shot and thereby implicitly supports the status quo, regardless of whether the status quo is fair or just (ii) the observer misses the point by implying that the protesters are responsible for their fate and blames them for the unjust outcome. The protesters likely knew that they would be executed for protesting. Surely we should be asking why the sentence for protesting is death, not whether the protesters were too stupid to see what they were getting themselves into.

RE the criminal justice system...I know it's a cop out to say "I read a lot", but I am interested in its shortcomings and consume a lot on the subject matter. I recently read "Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System" which I think is a good primer on the bureaucracy of the justice system. It's a complex thing to dissect in a post, but from a very high up/more abstract POV the American justice system considers "justice" the rendering of sentences based on breaking of laws, not necessarily whether an outcome is compatible with what we consider "justice".

Example: a man is sentenced to 10 years for possession of marijuana. The justice system considers this to be justice because the man was aware that action X (possessing marijuana) leads to outcome Y (prison time) without really considering whether jail time is a reasonable or fair outcome for possessing a plant that is quite harmless by most scientific standards.

This turned into an essay...hope I clarified my point of view though!