4 ms·

Standard retort: if a boss suspects a minimum wage worker of underperforming for the capitalist machine, he can just fire her, no questions asked. Having our bu

Standard retort: if a boss suspects a minimum wage worker of underperforming for the capitalist machine, he can just fire her, no questions asked. Having our burgers flipped correctly is important enough to us that we accept collateral damage there. Now when her boss is accused of being a sexist pig, we suddenly have to be 100% sure. Why? Are women less important to us than burgers? Or is "due process" just a concern troll that powerful people throw around to protect each other? Either way, bad look. I don't think this is right, but countering it takes some thought.

astine 6y ago
Attacking at-will employment whenever danger of Internet hate mobs is pointed out is a bit of a whataboutism. Not everyone worried about Internet hate mobs is otherwise a supporter of at-will employment. But that's really a distraction from the core issue. The thing about at-will employment is the it presumes that the employment relationship is largely between the employer and the employee. That assumption breaks down in the face of an Internet mob. This is part of the reason why the proof standard for how you treat complete strangers is different than the proof standard for how you treat people you know, including employees. Furthermore, in the theory that underpins American capitalism, employment is an economic relationship. For example, if a burger flipper is sufficiently bad at flipping burgers, he shouldn't be a burger flipper, because her status as a burger flipper is predicated on her ability to do that job. Even in the most socialist systems that I'm aware of, basic competence is considered a prerequisite for holding a job. Moral qualities are usually considered less important unless they impact the job. In the American system, people are theoretically hired and fired primarily based on their ability to do their job, but Internet mobs change this equation thoroughly. Now, your political opinions affect your employability as well. I think that this has profound implications for democracy.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
notSupplied 6y ago
This is a really great point. It takes an order of magnitude more energy to come up with a thoughtful rebuttal to this, and when you're done, you'll likely end up with a wall of text that gets TLDR'd. This is why reason loses on Twitter, it takes a Paul Graham level essay to counter even the most basic immflamatory logic.

astine 6y ago

Attacking at-will employment whenever danger of Internet hate mobs is pointed out is a bit of a whataboutism. Not everyone worried about Internet hate mobs is otherwise a supporter of at-will employment. But that's really a distraction from the core issue. The thing about at-will employment is the it presumes that the employment relationship is largely between the employer and the employee. That assumption breaks down in the face of an Internet mob. This is part of the reason why the proof standard for how you treat complete strangers is different than the proof standard for how you treat people you know, including employees. Furthermore, in the theory that underpins American capitalism, employment is an economic relationship. For example, if a burger flipper is sufficiently bad at flipping burgers, he shouldn't be a burger flipper, because her status as a burger flipper is predicated on her ability to do that job. Even in the most socialist systems that I'm aware of, basic competence is considered a prerequisite for holding a job. Moral qualities are usually considered less important unless they impact the job. In the American system, people are theoretically hired and fired primarily based on their ability to do their job, but Internet mobs change this equation thoroughly. Now, your political opinions affect your employability as well. I think that this has profound implications for democracy.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

notSupplied 6y ago

This is a really great point. It takes an order of magnitude more energy to come up with a thoughtful rebuttal to this, and when you're done, you'll likely end up with a wall of text that gets TLDR'd. This is why reason loses on Twitter, it takes a Paul Graham level essay to counter even the most basic immflamatory logic.