5 ms·

Thee pay them for caste solidarity and not to ally with the employeomans or the actual company interests, but with those of the shareholders.

willcipriano 4y ago
Caste solidarity is everywhere when you start looking for it. Another example, go to court without a lawyer, make a minor procedural violation and the judge will rip your head off. Hire a attorney who does the same thing and all of the sudden it isn't a big deal, the judge may not even mention it. Judges tend to be former lawyers and the legal caste feels that one of them must be paid lavishly for you to receive a defence. Don't pay them? You should be punished! I modestly propose that tech workers should join in on this game with similar solidarity, members of the executive caste like Sundar should suddenly find themselves without access to email for example, and then should be forced to pay a nerd tens of thousands of dollars to go talk to the guy who runs the email server to have his account reinstated. If he talks to the guy directly, without paying the requested fee and fails to use the correct IT Crowd reference or doesn't know what version of Python added type annotations off hand, his account should be permanently removed and all of his devices banned from the internet.
- singleshot_ 4y ago
  Not quite true: the pro se litigant will often get every possible consideration from the court. As an example: the person who ran over all those people in Kenosha at that parade. Do you really think that if I went into a courtroom as an attorney and refused to wear a shirt, or made a fort out of boxes, that the judge would “not even mention it”? If you do I encourage you to watch some in-court hearings. They are typically open to the public and you will surely find pro se litigants being extended every possible courtesy to their rights as Americans.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    I have attended court proceedings and have witnessed what I have described on several occasions. I suspect high profile televised court cases are atypical in many ways. Consider this for a moment, if a judge is merely a fact finder why would having a attorney alter the outcome of the case? It is known that people respond more positively to others with a similar background, is it all that crazy to think that bias may extend to judges?
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Where do you see high profile televised court cases with pro se litigants? I would love to watch that channel.
      - singleshot_ 4y ago
        There’s about three hundred billion hours of YouTube from that Kenosha parade murderer who just got sentenced. I think those search terms should get you there. Beware, watching court is addictive (so many insane unpredictable moments) and time consuming (many, many more extremely boring trivial moments).
        freejazz 4y ago
        So one case? That's your example? I go to court all the time, I'm an attorney. Your experience watching the one case on TV isn't representative of how it normally goes. Judges, basically as a rule, provide insane levels of deference to pro se litigants that they do not provide to attorneys. I'd think that your smarmy comments would have implied this level of common sense on your part, but here we are!
        singleshot_ 4y ago
        > I go to court all the time, I'm an attorney. I admit, I loled. :) Hello, brother. I think you might want to read a little further into the thread, because I'm not saying what you think I am. I'm also an attorney and I have convicted a pro se litigant in addition to watching at least two handfuls of trials where self-represented defendants were involved. Every single time, the court provided "insane levels of deference to pro se litigants that they did not provide to attorneys." You are precisely correct except where you contradict me. Also, my experience watching trials on youtube is in fact representative of how it normally goes: I have never seen a judge act in a poor manner toward a self-represented party, on youtube or elsewhere. In the Kenosha parade murder trial, the judge was able to sigh deeply and respect the rights of the defendant, but I suspect if you or I built a fort out of books and boxes on our counsel table, or declined to wear a shirt, we would be immediately disbarred. I was only mentioning the youtube/Kenosha angle because you asked for an example.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >Another example, go to court without a lawyer, make a minor procedural violation and the judge will rip your head off This is not even remotely true. Courts give tons of deference to pro se litigants that they do not afford to licensed attorneys

willcipriano 4y ago

Caste solidarity is everywhere when you start looking for it. Another example, go to court without a lawyer, make a minor procedural violation and the judge will rip your head off. Hire a attorney who does the same thing and all of the sudden it isn't a big deal, the judge may not even mention it. Judges tend to be former lawyers and the legal caste feels that one of them must be paid lavishly for you to receive a defence. Don't pay them? You should be punished! I modestly propose that tech workers should join in on this game with similar solidarity, members of the executive caste like Sundar should suddenly find themselves without access to email for example, and then should be forced to pay a nerd tens of thousands of dollars to go talk to the guy who runs the email server to have his account reinstated. If he talks to the guy directly, without paying the requested fee and fails to use the correct IT Crowd reference or doesn't know what version of Python added type annotations off hand, his account should be permanently removed and all of his devices banned from the internet.

singleshot_ 4y ago
Not quite true: the pro se litigant will often get every possible consideration from the court. As an example: the person who ran over all those people in Kenosha at that parade. Do you really think that if I went into a courtroom as an attorney and refused to wear a shirt, or made a fort out of boxes, that the judge would “not even mention it”? If you do I encourage you to watch some in-court hearings. They are typically open to the public and you will surely find pro se litigants being extended every possible courtesy to their rights as Americans.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  I have attended court proceedings and have witnessed what I have described on several occasions. I suspect high profile televised court cases are atypical in many ways. Consider this for a moment, if a judge is merely a fact finder why would having a attorney alter the outcome of the case? It is known that people respond more positively to others with a similar background, is it all that crazy to think that bias may extend to judges?
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Where do you see high profile televised court cases with pro se litigants? I would love to watch that channel.
    - singleshot_ 4y ago
      There’s about three hundred billion hours of YouTube from that Kenosha parade murderer who just got sentenced. I think those search terms should get you there. Beware, watching court is addictive (so many insane unpredictable moments) and time consuming (many, many more extremely boring trivial moments).
      - freejazz 4y ago
        So one case? That's your example? I go to court all the time, I'm an attorney. Your experience watching the one case on TV isn't representative of how it normally goes. Judges, basically as a rule, provide insane levels of deference to pro se litigants that they do not provide to attorneys. I'd think that your smarmy comments would have implied this level of common sense on your part, but here we are!
        singleshot_ 4y ago
        > I go to court all the time, I'm an attorney. I admit, I loled. :) Hello, brother. I think you might want to read a little further into the thread, because I'm not saying what you think I am. I'm also an attorney and I have convicted a pro se litigant in addition to watching at least two handfuls of trials where self-represented defendants were involved. Every single time, the court provided "insane levels of deference to pro se litigants that they did not provide to attorneys." You are precisely correct except where you contradict me. Also, my experience watching trials on youtube is in fact representative of how it normally goes: I have never seen a judge act in a poor manner toward a self-represented party, on youtube or elsewhere. In the Kenosha parade murder trial, the judge was able to sigh deeply and respect the rights of the defendant, but I suspect if you or I built a fort out of books and boxes on our counsel table, or declined to wear a shirt, we would be immediately disbarred. I was only mentioning the youtube/Kenosha angle because you asked for an example.
freejazz 4y ago
>Another example, go to court without a lawyer, make a minor procedural violation and the judge will rip your head off This is not even remotely true. Courts give tons of deference to pro se litigants that they do not afford to licensed attorneys