5 ms·
Regardless of bad commentary, it’s a cogent point. Debate the idea, not the idiot.
by wizerdrobe 3y ago
Regardless of bad commentary, it’s a cogent point. Debate the idea, not the idiot.
- lgvln 3y agoCredibility matters. If someone is equivocating genocide with “making Germany great again”, it deserves to be pointed out and their testimony taken with a huge grain of salt.
- hotpotamus 3y agoI was under the impression that the German economy was vastly improved under Hitler, so I think that point at least is valid.
- krzyk 3y agoBecause he funded military and conquest paid for that. In the long run he devastated Germany and half Europe with it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y agoGo read Götz Ali's Hitler's Beneficiaries, which lays out in exhaustive detail the combination of financial chicanery and outright theft that was used to channel wealth toward his political base.
- great_psy 3y agoWhile the risk is obvious, what is the alternative ? You can go down as a number on the spreadsheet, or you can show everyone else they are also numbers on a spreadsheet. Her behaviour is a first step towards a different workplace. The effectiveness is questionable, but what more can a single, non organized individual can do ?
- k8svet 3y agoSome people really thrive in the cage and would prefer to not acknowledge it's existence. That's what this entire thing really boils down to. No one's saying she did something immoral. Instead the implication is that she broke some social code. Because of course we're all operating on the assumption that corporations hold the power and we should be grateful that they take pity on us to exploit us at all.
- secondcoming 3y agoEveryone else with any measure of maturity knows they're just numbers on a spreadsheet. It's not a startling revelation.
- great_psy 3y agoHow many people act like they know this? Given how many people are willing to burn themselves out because of their job I’m going to guess not too many.
- fjoireoipe 3y agoThey could have quoted someone else who made the same point. Instead they chose to give more attention to a troll.
- anigbrowl 3y agoNo. Anyone can form a superficially cogent argument when they don't need to defend it. This one is fallacious because it assumes its conclusion (hard working managers doing their jobs, rather than the reality of being unable to articulate what expectations the laid-off employee failed to meet). Further, engaging with bad actors (who are generally cynics rather than idiots) normalizes their standing as commentators/public figures, and gives them opportunity to push shitty ideas into public discourse. They're PR professionals who understand how to exploit the dynamics of social media very well and imho to the general detriment.
- acdha 3y agoIt’s not a cogent point but a distraction: as an authoritarian, Owens is naturally predisposed to assuming the company is in the right but a more accurate framing recognizes that this was not HR doing their jobs but HR lying about someone to make it sound like they were being fired for cause. Doing their jobs would have been “we’re doing a layoff, here are the terms of your severance”, and recognizing that Owens is an unreliable source is important for not letting her framing shape the discussion.
- StreetChief 3y agoI find the whole article to downplay and minimize the impact of CloudFlair's actions.