4 ms·

> You're victim blaming. This premise assumes the person who attempted suicide was a victim. Perhaps he/she was not mentally fit to work in a high pressure an

> You're victim blaming. This premise assumes the person who attempted suicide was a victim. Perhaps he/she was not mentally fit to work in a high pressure and stressful environment? Pushing code to Amazon.com is a lot different from pushing code to some <insert dinky non-brand name company>. Not everyone is capable of handling the pressure. I don't know one way or the other but you are as easy to dismiss his side of the argument by assuming the person who jumped is the victim. Sorry but you and I and the internet don't know the situation well enough to conclude either direction.

GotURsolution3 10y ago
You can generalize it all you want, but you're not looking at the specific case. Perhaps this, perhaps that. The truth of the victim's situation will not be known now. All we can do is point at Amazon or society. But here we are with specific facts. The person was either mentally unfit and our society failed to catch this and help, and forced them to take whatever jobs were available for someone with that skill-level (oh man an Amazon job! They aren't going anywhere anytime soon!). Or Amazon is a shitty place for low-skilled workers. Amazon can be just as culpable for being a known shit-hole. People can be sane and go in and come out nutters at companies, doesn't just happen to programmers. Burnout and occupational stress are real. By saying maybe this person was just nuts, sweeps alternatives under the rug. And whether they were or not isn't relevant now. Amazon or society will still peddle the mantra of "get a job!" and push people that maybe shouldn't have certain roles into them by default.
trentmb 10y ago
> Perhaps he/she was not mentally fit to work in a high pressure and stressful environment? Further evidence the hiring process is broken I suppose.
mistermann 10y ago
Ok, then why isn't the person fired for poor performance? If they literally can't perform the job, there should be no legal issues right?
- notyourwork 10y ago
  Because its cheaper to let them quit on their own accord and milk a few more hours from them. Legal or not doesn't prohibit a law suit which costs time and also leads to bad PR.

GotURsolution3 10y ago

You can generalize it all you want, but you're not looking at the specific case. Perhaps this, perhaps that. The truth of the victim's situation will not be known now. All we can do is point at Amazon or society. But here we are with specific facts. The person was either mentally unfit and our society failed to catch this and help, and forced them to take whatever jobs were available for someone with that skill-level (oh man an Amazon job! They aren't going anywhere anytime soon!). Or Amazon is a shitty place for low-skilled workers. Amazon can be just as culpable for being a known shit-hole. People can be sane and go in and come out nutters at companies, doesn't just happen to programmers. Burnout and occupational stress are real. By saying maybe this person was just nuts, sweeps alternatives under the rug. And whether they were or not isn't relevant now. Amazon or society will still peddle the mantra of "get a job!" and push people that maybe shouldn't have certain roles into them by default.

trentmb 10y ago

> Perhaps he/she was not mentally fit to work in a high pressure and stressful environment? Further evidence the hiring process is broken I suppose.

mistermann 10y ago

Ok, then why isn't the person fired for poor performance? If they literally can't perform the job, there should be no legal issues right?

notyourwork 10y ago
Because its cheaper to let them quit on their own accord and milk a few more hours from them. Legal or not doesn't prohibit a law suit which costs time and also leads to bad PR.