5 ms·

Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive dis

Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive disadvantage.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
I agree that forced arbitration should be illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean we can't criticize a company for doing it!
- zeroname 8y ago
  I didn't say you can't criticize it. I said you can't expect anything else. Are you going to go down the list of companies from A to Z criticizing everyone of them? Is that going to fix the problem?
0x262d 8y ago
actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. [citation needed] > meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes. What's economically illiterate is to expect market participants not to exploit the rules that are in place on moral grounds. You can make a moral case against an indefinite number of things done by private enterprise, but you can't maintain negative publicity for all of them. If you don't change the rules, companies only pay lip service, nothing more. That's not ideology, that's not "veneration", that's common sense.
  - 0x262d 8y ago
    ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.
    - zeroname 8y ago
      > ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. No, where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? Google is always in the media spotlight, they're more likely to pay lip service than others. > I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do. I'm not excusing anything, that's a really unfair allegation. I'm saying you are naive if you expect anything else out of the rules that are in place and that the rules need to be changed. Of course big companies yield to PR campaigns, that's a market incentive in and of itself. Yet, these arbitration clauses remain pervasive. Companies can just wait out some harassment suit that may never happen and then apologize and maybe change something.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        >where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? The USA has had a civil war on this one.
starbeast 8y ago
I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it. I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Let's imagine manslaughter was legal (as it has been in the past, to some degree) and I would be here arguing that it should be illegal because you can't trust people not to kill each other merely because there's a court of public opinion. Would that be morally bankrupt, or just common sense?
  - starbeast 8y ago
    >I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Are you a space lizard?

Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive disadvantage.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

I agree that forced arbitration should be illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean we can't criticize a company for doing it!

zeroname 8y ago
I didn't say you can't criticize it. I said you can't expect anything else. Are you going to go down the list of companies from A to Z criticizing everyone of them? Is that going to fix the problem?

0x262d 8y ago

actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.

zeroname 8y ago
> actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. [citation needed] > meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes. What's economically illiterate is to expect market participants not to exploit the rules that are in place on moral grounds. You can make a moral case against an indefinite number of things done by private enterprise, but you can't maintain negative publicity for all of them. If you don't change the rules, companies only pay lip service, nothing more. That's not ideology, that's not "veneration", that's common sense.
- 0x262d 8y ago
  ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. No, where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? Google is always in the media spotlight, they're more likely to pay lip service than others. > I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do. I'm not excusing anything, that's a really unfair allegation. I'm saying you are naive if you expect anything else out of the rules that are in place and that the rules need to be changed. Of course big companies yield to PR campaigns, that's a market incentive in and of itself. Yet, these arbitration clauses remain pervasive. Companies can just wait out some harassment suit that may never happen and then apologize and maybe change something.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      >where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? The USA has had a civil war on this one.

starbeast 8y ago

I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it.

zeroname 8y ago
> I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it. I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Let's imagine manslaughter was legal (as it has been in the past, to some degree) and I would be here arguing that it should be illegal because you can't trust people not to kill each other merely because there's a court of public opinion. Would that be morally bankrupt, or just common sense?
- starbeast 8y ago
  >I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Are you a space lizard?