4 ms·

Amazon built the warehouse. Amazon hired the people and ordered them to work in that warehouse. Amazon failed to warn employees of dangerous weather or provide

Amazon built the warehouse. Amazon hired the people and ordered them to work in that warehouse. Amazon failed to warn employees of dangerous weather or provide safe shelter before a tornado slammed the Edwardsville facility on 10 December. McEwen and five others were killed in the disaster. If a mining company doesn't warn their miners of an earthquake, and it kills their workers, it's absolutely the mining company's fault. So how can this be anyone else's fault, but Amazon's? > So to clear this up: Are we actually talking about a case of manslaughter happening at Amazon, or is this a weird way of pointing out their abysmal workplace safety? Is there really a difference? The definition of manslaughter depends on the juridistiction, but I think this is clearly a case gross negligence manslaughter, by Amazon.

moring 4y ago
> So how can this be anyone else's fault, but Amazon's? Why are we even discussing this? I never asked whose fault it is, and actually asserted from the beginning that I think it is Amazon's fault. Such working conditions should not even be allowed by law. What I did ask for is evidence that "Amazon literally killed their employee", which nobody has provided yet, and probably never will, because it is becoming very clear that it never happened, and that this is just a case of mis-using the word "literally" for dramatic effect.
- oblio 4y ago
  I think you're taking the word "literally" too literally.
- vidarh 4y ago
  The word "literally" has long meant both "literally" and "figuratively" to the point that the latter meaning is in some dictionaries at this point, and is reasonably used in this context to imply indirect responsibility. If the person above literally meant literally in its original meaning, then I agree it was misused for dramatic effect. if the person above meant to use it in the sense of figuratively, then it was merely ambiguously written.
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    I prefer to promote the term "veritable" as well as "virtually" which are good actual substitutes for what someone means when they mix up "literally". See also, nerds favorite superhero: https://youtu.be/9jh4Mpgbi4A https://youtu.be/9jh4Mpgbi4A
- pyth0 4y ago
  Nowadays "literally" is often used as "figuratively" in a somewhat ironic way to emphasize a point. In this case, the point being that Amazon's actions directly led to the deaths of workers.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  A trolley is hurtling down a track towards your employees, who are working on the tracks at your direction. You have time to warn them but do nothing. An employee gets hit and dies. Did you "kill" them? We're descending into semantics. But I think many justice systems would classify the above as some type of homicide.
  - psychoslave 4y ago
    It seems that the legal term is corporate manslaughter, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Amazon is not a person, and cannot kill someone by raising its hand and stabbing them in the spleen. So, what evidence exactly are you asking for? Are you implying that this word game ("Ha! Amazon didn't literally kill him by a physical attack!") somehow changes anything in terms of blame? Or are you just arguing semantics for the fuck of it? > this is just a case of mis-using the word "literally" for dramatic effect No, this is you not understanding that words have different meanings in different contexts. Amazon has literally killed them, as in, performed a manslaughter. The fact that it is not a person only changes the mechanism - instead of stabbing them, they performed gross negligence. Why you consider that a "literal manslaughter" must have an element of physical assault is beyond me, but in the end, it's just your own definition of the word.
  - psychoslave 4y ago
    >Amazon is not a person, and cannot kill someone by raising its hand and stabbing them in the spleen. So, what evidence exactly are you asking for? From a legal point of view, yes Amazon is a person, and that’s the ground on which it can be sued, unlike "Nature" that generated the tornado — though lately things started to move a bit on that side all around the world.[2,3,4,6,7,8,9] But even that is missing the forest for the tree I think. It seems to me that the point raised by moring is more like can these words be honestly stated as accurate as when The Mail & Guardian titles "The Nigerian government is killing its citizens — again[1]". Although it can be argued that this geopolitical entity is a pure human fiction, there are actual humans that are willingly planning to kill other people. As awful as the resulting situation might be, I doubt that within Amazon case they were plans and orders to deliberately kill annoying employees. It doesn’t mean Amazon behavior is acceptable, nor is the fact that some government have let Amazon build this situation. [1] https://mg.co.za/africa/2020-10-21-the-nigerian-government-is-killing-its-citizens-again/ https://mg.co.za/africa/2020-10-21-the-nigerian-government-i... [2] https://theselfless.org/mother-nature-a-legal-person/ https://theselfless.org/mother-nature-a-legal-person/ [3] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-environmental-law/article/can-nature-hold-rights-its-not-as-easy-as-you-think/3FF2901E0FA5EF1A2E37CCB7C403E190 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-enviro... [4] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/nature-legal-personhood/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/nature-legal-personho... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature_in_Ecuador https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature_in_Ecuador [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#Related_initiatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#Related_initi... [7] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31102022/celebrating-victories-in-europe-and-south-america-the-rights-of-nature-movement-plots-strategy-in-a-time-of-crises/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31102022/celebrating-vict... [8] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-46523-0_6 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-46523-0_... [9] https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2022/03/women-environment-and-rights-of-nature https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publicati...
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >I never asked whose fault it is, and actually asserted from the beginning that I think it is Amazon's fault followed by >What I did ask for is evidence that "Amazon literally killed their employee" employees died, you agreed it was Amazon's fault, if it is Amazon's fault that an employee died then Amazon literally killed that employee. Notice it was never said Amazon is legally culpable for the deaths of employees which has a different meaning in English than 'literally killed'. >this is just a case of mis-using the word "literally" for dramatic effect. I must admit I find the grammatical high-horseplay evinced by the last bit rather weird, for the reasons I have outlined.
NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
Wait a minute, failure to warn of an impending earthquake constitutes corporate liability? Warn of an EARTHQUAKE? Am I reading your words right? Are you accusing hypothetical companies of negligence because they fail to do the impossible? Bad analogy: tornadoes are predictable. Try to stick with reality.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  True, it's not a perfect analogy, I missed the unpredictability factor. But you understood what I was trying to say, so for what it's worth, it served it's purpose.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    It doesn't seem clear how a company can have liability to have 'safe shelter' from tornados in a warehouse. Can you explain?
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Sure, I'll simplify it: 1. company pays workers to work in warehouse 2. tornado warnings happen 3. company doesn't warn workers in warehouse 4. warehouse in a country where tornadoes happen often doesn't have a tornado shelter 5. tornado kills workers I hope this makes it more clear! Feel free to ask if things are still confusing.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Can you cite the law that says or implies this must be provided for tornado prone areas? As far as I'm aware in the U.S. and Canada it's legally considered an 'act of god', a natural disaster, etc...
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        No, I cannot. I am not a lawyer, I don't consider this particular question (whether it's legal to kill your workers or not) relevant to the question of whether they're responsible for their death (they are), and I don't consider lawmakers as the ultimate authority of ethics.

moring 4y ago

> So how can this be anyone else's fault, but Amazon's? Why are we even discussing this? I never asked whose fault it is, and actually asserted from the beginning that I think it is Amazon's fault. Such working conditions should not even be allowed by law. What I did ask for is evidence that "Amazon literally killed their employee", which nobody has provided yet, and probably never will, because it is becoming very clear that it never happened, and that this is just a case of mis-using the word "literally" for dramatic effect.

oblio 4y ago
I think you're taking the word "literally" too literally.
vidarh 4y ago
The word "literally" has long meant both "literally" and "figuratively" to the point that the latter meaning is in some dictionaries at this point, and is reasonably used in this context to imply indirect responsibility. If the person above literally meant literally in its original meaning, then I agree it was misused for dramatic effect. if the person above meant to use it in the sense of figuratively, then it was merely ambiguously written.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  I prefer to promote the term "veritable" as well as "virtually" which are good actual substitutes for what someone means when they mix up "literally". See also, nerds favorite superhero: https://youtu.be/9jh4Mpgbi4A https://youtu.be/9jh4Mpgbi4A
pyth0 4y ago
Nowadays "literally" is often used as "figuratively" in a somewhat ironic way to emphasize a point. In this case, the point being that Amazon's actions directly led to the deaths of workers.
anonymous_sorry 4y ago
A trolley is hurtling down a track towards your employees, who are working on the tracks at your direction. You have time to warn them but do nothing. An employee gets hit and dies. Did you "kill" them? We're descending into semantics. But I think many justice systems would classify the above as some type of homicide.
- psychoslave 4y ago
  It seems that the legal term is corporate manslaughter, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter
bheadmaster 4y ago
Amazon is not a person, and cannot kill someone by raising its hand and stabbing them in the spleen. So, what evidence exactly are you asking for? Are you implying that this word game ("Ha! Amazon didn't literally kill him by a physical attack!") somehow changes anything in terms of blame? Or are you just arguing semantics for the fuck of it? > this is just a case of mis-using the word "literally" for dramatic effect No, this is you not understanding that words have different meanings in different contexts. Amazon has literally killed them, as in, performed a manslaughter. The fact that it is not a person only changes the mechanism - instead of stabbing them, they performed gross negligence. Why you consider that a "literal manslaughter" must have an element of physical assault is beyond me, but in the end, it's just your own definition of the word.
- psychoslave 4y ago
  >Amazon is not a person, and cannot kill someone by raising its hand and stabbing them in the spleen. So, what evidence exactly are you asking for? From a legal point of view, yes Amazon is a person, and that’s the ground on which it can be sued, unlike "Nature" that generated the tornado — though lately things started to move a bit on that side all around the world.[2,3,4,6,7,8,9] But even that is missing the forest for the tree I think. It seems to me that the point raised by moring is more like can these words be honestly stated as accurate as when The Mail & Guardian titles "The Nigerian government is killing its citizens — again[1]". Although it can be argued that this geopolitical entity is a pure human fiction, there are actual humans that are willingly planning to kill other people. As awful as the resulting situation might be, I doubt that within Amazon case they were plans and orders to deliberately kill annoying employees. It doesn’t mean Amazon behavior is acceptable, nor is the fact that some government have let Amazon build this situation. [1] https://mg.co.za/africa/2020-10-21-the-nigerian-government-is-killing-its-citizens-again/ https://mg.co.za/africa/2020-10-21-the-nigerian-government-i... [2] https://theselfless.org/mother-nature-a-legal-person/ https://theselfless.org/mother-nature-a-legal-person/ [3] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-environmental-law/article/can-nature-hold-rights-its-not-as-easy-as-you-think/3FF2901E0FA5EF1A2E37CCB7C403E190 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-enviro... [4] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/nature-legal-personhood/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/nature-legal-personho... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature_in_Ecuador https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature_in_Ecuador [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#Related_initiatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#Related_initi... [7] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31102022/celebrating-victories-in-europe-and-south-america-the-rights-of-nature-movement-plots-strategy-in-a-time-of-crises/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31102022/celebrating-vict... [8] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-46523-0_6 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-46523-0_... [9] https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2022/03/women-environment-and-rights-of-nature https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publicati...
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>I never asked whose fault it is, and actually asserted from the beginning that I think it is Amazon's fault followed by >What I did ask for is evidence that "Amazon literally killed their employee" employees died, you agreed it was Amazon's fault, if it is Amazon's fault that an employee died then Amazon literally killed that employee. Notice it was never said Amazon is legally culpable for the deaths of employees which has a different meaning in English than 'literally killed'. >this is just a case of mis-using the word "literally" for dramatic effect. I must admit I find the grammatical high-horseplay evinced by the last bit rather weird, for the reasons I have outlined.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago

Wait a minute, failure to warn of an impending earthquake constitutes corporate liability? Warn of an EARTHQUAKE? Am I reading your words right? Are you accusing hypothetical companies of negligence because they fail to do the impossible? Bad analogy: tornadoes are predictable. Try to stick with reality.

bheadmaster 4y ago
True, it's not a perfect analogy, I missed the unpredictability factor. But you understood what I was trying to say, so for what it's worth, it served it's purpose.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  It doesn't seem clear how a company can have liability to have 'safe shelter' from tornados in a warehouse. Can you explain?
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Sure, I'll simplify it: 1. company pays workers to work in warehouse 2. tornado warnings happen 3. company doesn't warn workers in warehouse 4. warehouse in a country where tornadoes happen often doesn't have a tornado shelter 5. tornado kills workers I hope this makes it more clear! Feel free to ask if things are still confusing.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Can you cite the law that says or implies this must be provided for tornado prone areas? As far as I'm aware in the U.S. and Canada it's legally considered an 'act of god', a natural disaster, etc...
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        No, I cannot. I am not a lawyer, I don't consider this particular question (whether it's legal to kill your workers or not) relevant to the question of whether they're responsible for their death (they are), and I don't consider lawmakers as the ultimate authority of ethics.