5 ms·
No, my point is that this analogy conveys something other than what the author intended to convey.
by staticautomatic 5y ago
No, my point is that this analogy conveys something other than what the author intended to convey.
- Emma_Goldman 5y agoThat Amazon doesn't work its employees to the literal point of death, only up to the point at which they are unable to continue to work? There are many gradations of suffering and torment up to that limit, that are more than sufficient to wreck someone's life.
- staticautomatic 5y agoNo, that farmers don’t work their animals to the point that they’re unable to work.
- Emma_Goldman 5y agoI don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, because that's exactly what I said in my last comment. I'm arguing that 'not exploiting a sentient being under one's control to the point of death' is a low standard consistent with all kinds of terrors. I'm assuming you weren't just randomly throwing your comment into the cybervoid. The person to whom you responded said that Amazon employees might prefer a company where 'workers aren't driven like some beast working a field' - implying that they are treated as such at Amazon. You suggested that beasts aren't treated so badly by their masters, which following the analogy, suggests that Amazon workers aren't treated so badly. I'm countering that suggestion.
- staticautomatic 5y agoI’m making a point about the parent’s use of the analogy, not yours.