5 ms·

What an utter disaster this society is if having a conscience makes you "radioactive" to employers. I can only aspire to be as radioactive as possible, then.

by krig 6y ago

thundergolfer 6y ago
Speaks volumes doesn't it.
scruffups 6y ago
Count me in.
marvindanig 6y ago
> What an utter disaster this society is if having a conscience makes you "radioactive" to employers... Exactly what this whole conversation made me feel.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
YayamiOmate 6y ago
Well, this is interesting because, subset of people deciding one is "radioactive" is very small compared to whole society, but in general the society is selforganized. There is no oppression. People have money and power because other people give it to them. I guess people collecitvely want to have black characters in power to do the dirty, making their live easier overall. I don't see other reason "western" societies don't change people in power when they actually can.
- scruffups 6y ago
  << society is selforganized. There is no oppression.>> Self-oppression? Sure. But it does not mean that oppression doesn't exist. It's just that it is self caused, and self here refers to society as a whole. Oppression exists whether it's self-inflicted or inflicted by one/many upon another/others.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    It's tough to call it self-oppression when our governance mechanisms are literally unresponsive to 90% of the public. See [1] pdf page 10. [1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
    - scruffups 6y ago
      I understand. But a significant percentage of people keep voting for stooges and corporatists. What do you call that? Maybe not your self but the collective self is responsible, no?
- throwaway49872 6y ago
  > There is no oppression Please tell me you are being sarcastic. > people collecitvely want to have black characters in power to do the dirty, making their live easier overall. As if the appointment of people in power was decided democratically.
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  For anyone wondering why this viewpoint is wrong, recall Nash equilibrium. Society, made of many people, is often stuck in suboptimal Nash equilibrium despite no one actually wanting the global state of things. The only way out is collective social or legal action (often seeded or inspired by martyrs).
IAmEveryone 6y ago
The real disaster is that people are cynical enough to believe and continue to popularise this myth. Most people think of themselves as fundamentally good. Considering someone who has made decisions based on (well-argued) ethical beliefs to be dangerous would contradict their image of self. And if there's one thing people abhor, it's being inconsistent in their believes about themselves. Ergo: nobody not working for Uber or Facebook is going to have a problem with a do-gooder. If you don't believe me, consider this: Do you believe this guy, Tim Bray, had both the power as well as the mindset to hire someone who had made a similar stand at a previous job? Or consider the overwhelming majority in this thread seemingly supportive of this action, and registering disagreement with the idea of not hiring such people. Do you believe they all change their opinion if they are ever promoted into management? Would you? There is also a vast universe of companies that just aren't in a position to generate the sort of ethical controversies Amazon invites, either by being small or by selling innocuous products. As a cultural phenomenon, this idea is similar to believing that corporations never do anything that isn't in direct pursuit of shareholder value (they frequently do, sometimes even quietly where it doesn't even generate positive PR). In a certain sense, these are examples of Keynesian Beauty Contests, where everyone considers the girl-next-door type to be pretties, but bets on the blonde playmate with fake breasts to be chosen by the majority.
- montecarl 6y ago
  > Most people think of themselves as fundamentally good. Everybody thinks they are the hero of their own story. In fact, its almost required that individuals view themselves in this way. If you think you are evil and cannot justify your actions, it is really hard to get out of bed in the morning.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I think at least part of the hiring problem for the next employer has to do with the amount of effort involved to get the whole story. I’ve been with two organizations that hired a “radioactive” whistleblower with two very different conclusions. In the first case the President put in quite a lot of effort and determined the person probably acted ethically before extending the offer. The individual (later proven correct) was exceedingly grateful and has since been incredibly loyal to the organization. He absolutely could have been recruited away a thousand times since but he hasn’t left because they gave him a chance when no one else would. His hiring has been, without a doubt, an excellent investment. The second case was more or less the complete opposite. The CEO hired a friend who had been a “whistleblower”. His claims against his prior employer weren’t entirely without merit but it later became clear they were... tenuous. And it turned out he was a giant headache. He was difficult to work with, made mountains out of molehills, and didn’t last long at the company. The company lost quite a bit of money getting rid of him, the CEO lost a lot of respect internally, and he lost a friend. I think it’s unlikely the CEO would ever consider hiring a whistleblower again. I don’t think companies or hiring managers see a whistleblower and are immediately turned off by the prospect of hiring someone with morals. It’s more that there are two sides to every story and they often don’t think it’s worth the effort to get the information necessary to make the decision: is this person a problem-solver or a problem-starter? If there’s another candidate with 90% of the qualifications that doesn’t require similar vetting it’s just easier and less risky to hire that person instead. That being said, I’ve seen first hand that if you’re willing to do a little due diligence a recent whistleblower can be a really fantastic hire.
Aunche 6y ago
We live in a society where everything is interconnected, so everyone is going to get tangled up in something ethically questionable indirectly no matter what. If everyone is as radioactive as possible, we would have anarchy. As a result, people only selectively exercise their conscience. If AWS were its own company and sold their products to smaller companies with worse working conditions than Amazon but dodge media attention, I'm sure Tim would happily work for them.

What an utter disaster this society is if having a conscience makes you "radioactive" to employers. I can only aspire to be as radioactive as possible, then.

by krig 6y ago

What an utter disaster this society is if having a conscience makes you "radioactive" to employers. I can only aspire to be as radioactive as possible, then.

thundergolfer 6y ago

Speaks volumes doesn't it.

scruffups 6y ago

Count me in.

marvindanig 6y ago

> What an utter disaster this society is if having a conscience makes you "radioactive" to employers... Exactly what this whole conversation made me feel.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

YayamiOmate 6y ago

Well, this is interesting because, subset of people deciding one is "radioactive" is very small compared to whole society, but in general the society is selforganized. There is no oppression. People have money and power because other people give it to them. I guess people collecitvely want to have black characters in power to do the dirty, making their live easier overall. I don't see other reason "western" societies don't change people in power when they actually can.

scruffups 6y ago
<< society is selforganized. There is no oppression.>> Self-oppression? Sure. But it does not mean that oppression doesn't exist. It's just that it is self caused, and self here refers to society as a whole. Oppression exists whether it's self-inflicted or inflicted by one/many upon another/others.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  It's tough to call it self-oppression when our governance mechanisms are literally unresponsive to 90% of the public. See [1] pdf page 10. [1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
  - scruffups 6y ago
    I understand. But a significant percentage of people keep voting for stooges and corporatists. What do you call that? Maybe not your self but the collective self is responsible, no?
throwaway49872 6y ago
> There is no oppression Please tell me you are being sarcastic. > people collecitvely want to have black characters in power to do the dirty, making their live easier overall. As if the appointment of people in power was decided democratically.
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
For anyone wondering why this viewpoint is wrong, recall Nash equilibrium. Society, made of many people, is often stuck in suboptimal Nash equilibrium despite no one actually wanting the global state of things. The only way out is collective social or legal action (often seeded or inspired by martyrs).

IAmEveryone 6y ago

The real disaster is that people are cynical enough to believe and continue to popularise this myth. Most people think of themselves as fundamentally good. Considering someone who has made decisions based on (well-argued) ethical beliefs to be dangerous would contradict their image of self. And if there's one thing people abhor, it's being inconsistent in their believes about themselves. Ergo: nobody not working for Uber or Facebook is going to have a problem with a do-gooder. If you don't believe me, consider this: Do you believe this guy, Tim Bray, had both the power as well as the mindset to hire someone who had made a similar stand at a previous job? Or consider the overwhelming majority in this thread seemingly supportive of this action, and registering disagreement with the idea of not hiring such people. Do you believe they all change their opinion if they are ever promoted into management? Would you? There is also a vast universe of companies that just aren't in a position to generate the sort of ethical controversies Amazon invites, either by being small or by selling innocuous products. As a cultural phenomenon, this idea is similar to believing that corporations never do anything that isn't in direct pursuit of shareholder value (they frequently do, sometimes even quietly where it doesn't even generate positive PR). In a certain sense, these are examples of Keynesian Beauty Contests, where everyone considers the girl-next-door type to be pretties, but bets on the blonde playmate with fake breasts to be chosen by the majority.

montecarl 6y ago
> Most people think of themselves as fundamentally good. Everybody thinks they are the hero of their own story. In fact, its almost required that individuals view themselves in this way. If you think you are evil and cannot justify your actions, it is really hard to get out of bed in the morning.
elliekelly 6y ago
I think at least part of the hiring problem for the next employer has to do with the amount of effort involved to get the whole story. I’ve been with two organizations that hired a “radioactive” whistleblower with two very different conclusions. In the first case the President put in quite a lot of effort and determined the person probably acted ethically before extending the offer. The individual (later proven correct) was exceedingly grateful and has since been incredibly loyal to the organization. He absolutely could have been recruited away a thousand times since but he hasn’t left because they gave him a chance when no one else would. His hiring has been, without a doubt, an excellent investment. The second case was more or less the complete opposite. The CEO hired a friend who had been a “whistleblower”. His claims against his prior employer weren’t entirely without merit but it later became clear they were... tenuous. And it turned out he was a giant headache. He was difficult to work with, made mountains out of molehills, and didn’t last long at the company. The company lost quite a bit of money getting rid of him, the CEO lost a lot of respect internally, and he lost a friend. I think it’s unlikely the CEO would ever consider hiring a whistleblower again. I don’t think companies or hiring managers see a whistleblower and are immediately turned off by the prospect of hiring someone with morals. It’s more that there are two sides to every story and they often don’t think it’s worth the effort to get the information necessary to make the decision: is this person a problem-solver or a problem-starter? If there’s another candidate with 90% of the qualifications that doesn’t require similar vetting it’s just easier and less risky to hire that person instead. That being said, I’ve seen first hand that if you’re willing to do a little due diligence a recent whistleblower can be a really fantastic hire.

Aunche 6y ago

We live in a society where everything is interconnected, so everyone is going to get tangled up in something ethically questionable indirectly no matter what. If everyone is as radioactive as possible, we would have anarchy. As a result, people only selectively exercise their conscience. If AWS were its own company and sold their products to smaller companies with worse working conditions than Amazon but dodge media attention, I'm sure Tim would happily work for them.