3 ms·

When you facetiously equate my comment with the harm perpetuated by someone actively racially discriminating against someone, do you expect me to take your argu

When you facetiously equate my comment with the harm perpetuated by someone actively racially discriminating against someone, do you expect me to take your argument in good faith? I'm not going to argue you with you.

saiya-jin 4y ago
How can you judge what is harmful to me? You personally are no general metric to all mankind. In fact, what you just wrote made me suicidal now since your words hurt me very badly and triggered massive childhood trauma which I barely survived but haven't told about to anybody due to shame. Your words hurt me that much. You can't question it, since you have no idea what is happening on my side. If you try to diminish the harm you have already done, you are causing me even more harm. To compensate this harm, I am suing you for 3 billions $$ + legal fees, since I know you are not poor and come to HN. My lawyers will contact you. And there you go, you just did exactly what you criticize on others and put yourself above somebody else. Hell, that's another trauma for me, now its 4 billions since I have panic attack now from your toxic posts.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Of course, none of that is actually going to happen, there is no general legal basis for "Someone owes me money because they said a thing that made me sad online in a debate website I voluntarily visit in my leisure time for (one assumes) entertainment or educational value," and your explanation of why it would happen indicates massive ignorance of the legal framework relevant to this thread topic. I always find it interesting when people who are willing to accept the arbitrariness of the LISP interpreter or JavaScript's market dominance or the C++ curiously recurring template pattern get shocked or surprised that the United States' framework of law and legal precedent is arbitrary and path-dependent and does not conform to their (also arbitrary and path-dependent) sense of fairness.
  - misslibby 4y ago
    People fret about the programming languages they use all the time...
ngruhn 4y ago
Maybe not ”equate“. Let’s say it’s 10.000 times less harmful. 3M/10k = 300. You owe that man 300 bucks.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Your math doesn't work because the situations are incomparable. jszymborski comments did not break the law. Tesla violations of employment laws regarding a hostile work environment did break the law. Two different juries decided that Tesla broke the law, and that punitive damages were needed to deter that behavior in the future. What law is jszymborski breaking? What court is applicable? None.
  - misslibby 4y ago
    Just because something is a law, doesn't imply it is good or justified.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      Perhaps you can explain the relevancy of your comment? Your comment suggests you think financial payment to an HN user with hurt feelings due to another user "not thinking much of his comment" is either good or justified. I find that hard to believe. On the other hand, decades ago the US decided that it's neither good nor justified to have a hostile work environment - something I agree with - and put laws and systems into place to enforce that belief. That's what the lawsuit is about. Yet I also find it hard to believe you support a hostile work environment. That makes your comment seen like neither here nor there.
      - misslibby 4y ago
        Your argument was that "so and so did break the law". I answered that just because something is a law, it isn't good or correct. If you don't see the relevancy, I don't know what else to tell you. I don't think people should pay other users because of their comments. On the contrary, my argument was that they shouldn't have to pay. As for hostile work environments, my opinion is that people should simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment. I don't think governments should interfere with how companies conduct their business. I even think racism should be legal. Don't get me wrong - I don't like racism. But the government shouldn't be allowed to tell people who they have to like or dislike. If somebody doesn't want to work with somebody else because they don't like their nose or whatever, it should be in their rights to refuse to work with them. In general, people should be allowed to do with their money as they please, so also to pay for work who they want. One thing I heard is that the guy in question here even tried to get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad. Not sure if that is true, though.
johngladtj 4y ago
The only reason you think it's facetious is because you disagree with his specific point
- jszymborski 4y ago
  Agreed, I think racism is bad.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

saiya-jin 4y ago

How can you judge what is harmful to me? You personally are no general metric to all mankind. In fact, what you just wrote made me suicidal now since your words hurt me very badly and triggered massive childhood trauma which I barely survived but haven't told about to anybody due to shame. Your words hurt me that much. You can't question it, since you have no idea what is happening on my side. If you try to diminish the harm you have already done, you are causing me even more harm. To compensate this harm, I am suing you for 3 billions $$ + legal fees, since I know you are not poor and come to HN. My lawyers will contact you. And there you go, you just did exactly what you criticize on others and put yourself above somebody else. Hell, that's another trauma for me, now its 4 billions since I have panic attack now from your toxic posts.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Of course, none of that is actually going to happen, there is no general legal basis for "Someone owes me money because they said a thing that made me sad online in a debate website I voluntarily visit in my leisure time for (one assumes) entertainment or educational value," and your explanation of why it would happen indicates massive ignorance of the legal framework relevant to this thread topic. I always find it interesting when people who are willing to accept the arbitrariness of the LISP interpreter or JavaScript's market dominance or the C++ curiously recurring template pattern get shocked or surprised that the United States' framework of law and legal precedent is arbitrary and path-dependent and does not conform to their (also arbitrary and path-dependent) sense of fairness.
- misslibby 4y ago
  People fret about the programming languages they use all the time...

ngruhn 4y ago

Maybe not ”equate“. Let’s say it’s 10.000 times less harmful. 3M/10k = 300. You owe that man 300 bucks.

eesmith 4y ago
Your math doesn't work because the situations are incomparable. jszymborski comments did not break the law. Tesla violations of employment laws regarding a hostile work environment did break the law. Two different juries decided that Tesla broke the law, and that punitive damages were needed to deter that behavior in the future. What law is jszymborski breaking? What court is applicable? None.
- misslibby 4y ago
  Just because something is a law, doesn't imply it is good or justified.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Perhaps you can explain the relevancy of your comment? Your comment suggests you think financial payment to an HN user with hurt feelings due to another user "not thinking much of his comment" is either good or justified. I find that hard to believe. On the other hand, decades ago the US decided that it's neither good nor justified to have a hostile work environment - something I agree with - and put laws and systems into place to enforce that belief. That's what the lawsuit is about. Yet I also find it hard to believe you support a hostile work environment. That makes your comment seen like neither here nor there.
    - misslibby 4y ago
      Your argument was that "so and so did break the law". I answered that just because something is a law, it isn't good or correct. If you don't see the relevancy, I don't know what else to tell you. I don't think people should pay other users because of their comments. On the contrary, my argument was that they shouldn't have to pay. As for hostile work environments, my opinion is that people should simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment. I don't think governments should interfere with how companies conduct their business. I even think racism should be legal. Don't get me wrong - I don't like racism. But the government shouldn't be allowed to tell people who they have to like or dislike. If somebody doesn't want to work with somebody else because they don't like their nose or whatever, it should be in their rights to refuse to work with them. In general, people should be allowed to do with their money as they please, so also to pay for work who they want. One thing I heard is that the guy in question here even tried to get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad. Not sure if that is true, though.

johngladtj 4y ago

The only reason you think it's facetious is because you disagree with his specific point

jszymborski 4y ago
Agreed, I think racism is bad.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]