4 ms·

The reason for the poor view of the NH community (outside NH) is clear from the opinions expressed here. From defending Amazon's right to pay low wages to “it's

The reason for the poor view of the NH community (outside NH) is clear from the opinions expressed here. From defending Amazon's right to pay low wages to “it's easy, just quit” demonstrates the disconnection of NH people with reality to the point of full psychopathy. And everyone knows that you never go a full psychopath. The technical part of HN is a delight. But the non-technical part, when something is said about humanities, it's sad. It's as if most of the people at HN were no longer people, they were robot CEOs who defend money above all else. I would love a tag system so I can't view these discussions (I already do this, but sometimes it escapes me)

polarix 3y ago
No, of course it’s not easy to quit. But perhaps it’s wrong to even offer these terrible jobs as an “opportunity” to people who have so little choice.
burnerburnson 3y ago
[flagged]
golergka 3y ago
> From defending Amazon's right to pay low wages to “it's easy, just quit” demonstrates the disconnection of NH people with reality to the point of full psychopathy. You seem to be under impression that people who express this view do not have sympathy for the workers. That's not true. We just refuse to accept that an employer becomes responsible for a person's condition just because he chooses to purchase the person's labour. When you hire a plumber to fix your pipes, or buy tomatoes from a farmer, you don't become responsible for their condition. You don't have an obligation to pay higher than a market rate, or to continue paying them when you no longer want to. Why would you expect a full-time employer to have these obligations? This doesn't have anything to do with sympathy. My sympathy for the poor people drives to me donate a significant proportion of my income. But I don't have any right to force my notion on charity on other people or organisations.
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  > When you hire a plumber to fix your pipes, or buy tomatoes from a farmer, you don't become responsible for their condition. You don't have an obligation to pay higher than a market rate, or to continue paying them when you no longer want to. Why would you expect a full-time employer to have these obligations? You know very well these are non sequitur, absurd arguments. If the plumber dies fixing your pipes in your home, you bet your civil liability will be scrutinized. As for the rest of your arguments, the agreement is usually only about the plumber "fixing the pipe", not forcing the plumber to work 10 hours a day, or prevent them from taking more than a 15 minutes lunch break or something, You see the absurdity of your examples? You're acting like there are no differences between an individual contracting a plumber and the relationship between a megacorporation, the employees, and the obvious power imbalance between them. It's usually because you deem your interlocutor an idiot whom you can just patronize with absurd arguments.
- metabagel 3y ago
  > just because he chooses to purchase the person's labour This sounds like the corporation’s point of view. Most people view employment as a relationship between employer and employee which extends beyond the salary and includes a proper work environment, etc. Libertarians believe that it’s OK to treat people as badly as they allow themselves to be treated.
- pram 3y ago
  “When you hire a plumber to fix your pipes, you don't become responsible for their condition.” Have you never heard of premises liability?
Geisterde 3y ago
What do I need to do for you today? Cover up your mistakes? Deal with the admin you are slacking on? Pull you into the conference room and reteach you electricity and magnetism? Give you a pat on the back? Throw you softball projects that will make you look like a superstar? Climb into the tight places you cant fit? Send you the job application to fill out? Fill it out for you? There is little doubt who the nicest person is at work, and I feel terrible about the trajectories of everyone elses lives. Though, I am at a loss, what more do I need to do? Would the true kindness be in having these people fired, because otherwise they will die on the job?
mrborp 3y ago
[flagged]
DaSHacka 3y ago
> The reason for the poor view of the NH community (outside NH) is clear from the opinions expressed here. Where does HN have a poor reputation? Whenever I've seen it mentioned, its either been by other users of the site or people who generally view it favorably (largely due to the post quality). The only place I've come across that has a particular disdain for it is /g/, but they hate everyone so thats to be expected.
- delfinom 3y ago
  Basically outside this mosh pit, there are many smaller communities scattered about the internet and social circles. They all refer to HN as "the orange site" to avoid naming it, and it's usually always about something in disdain.
  - sharken 3y ago
    The great thing about any community is that you have free speech, but don't be surprised if your opinion is challenged. I enjoy both HN and other community sites, both are great ways to communicate. I don't get this us vs them mentality, but perhaps that is an American thing. Whatever it is, it is silly.
  - graphe 3y ago
    So small echo chambers whose opinions don't matter and whose relevance is unnameable don't like this site? I'm so depressed. I hope their 3 friends on Mastodon don't get upset.
advael 3y ago
It's a population of mostly tech workers, a population of which a large segment has mostly never experienced the labor market as others do, and of which an at least significant segment has been inundated with messaging that implies that they have more in common with the people who own tech companies than other workers. The massive layoffs that occasionally happen show some of them that this is a fiction, but survivorship bias is strong in the presence of so many smart-sounding people saying people who are harmed by a system simply failed in some personal sense (or, often, as seen in this thread, chose their outcome intentionally). It seems deeply out of touch and unempathetic because it is, and that's the point of it
kelnos 3y ago
You say this, and yet there are plenty of people in the comments here defending the worker who died on the job, and the woman interviewed for the story. Yes, there are a lot of heartless people here who seem to think that capitalism trumps all. And there are some who are so insulated by their privileged bubble that they can't understand the idea that quitting a job can mean financial ruin for a huge number of people. But I don't see the overwhelming level of awfulness that you see.

polarix 3y ago

No, of course it’s not easy to quit. But perhaps it’s wrong to even offer these terrible jobs as an “opportunity” to people who have so little choice.

burnerburnson 3y ago

[flagged]

golergka 3y ago

> From defending Amazon's right to pay low wages to “it's easy, just quit” demonstrates the disconnection of NH people with reality to the point of full psychopathy. You seem to be under impression that people who express this view do not have sympathy for the workers. That's not true. We just refuse to accept that an employer becomes responsible for a person's condition just because he chooses to purchase the person's labour. When you hire a plumber to fix your pipes, or buy tomatoes from a farmer, you don't become responsible for their condition. You don't have an obligation to pay higher than a market rate, or to continue paying them when you no longer want to. Why would you expect a full-time employer to have these obligations? This doesn't have anything to do with sympathy. My sympathy for the poor people drives to me donate a significant proportion of my income. But I don't have any right to force my notion on charity on other people or organisations.

throw_m239339 3y ago
> When you hire a plumber to fix your pipes, or buy tomatoes from a farmer, you don't become responsible for their condition. You don't have an obligation to pay higher than a market rate, or to continue paying them when you no longer want to. Why would you expect a full-time employer to have these obligations? You know very well these are non sequitur, absurd arguments. If the plumber dies fixing your pipes in your home, you bet your civil liability will be scrutinized. As for the rest of your arguments, the agreement is usually only about the plumber "fixing the pipe", not forcing the plumber to work 10 hours a day, or prevent them from taking more than a 15 minutes lunch break or something, You see the absurdity of your examples? You're acting like there are no differences between an individual contracting a plumber and the relationship between a megacorporation, the employees, and the obvious power imbalance between them. It's usually because you deem your interlocutor an idiot whom you can just patronize with absurd arguments.
metabagel 3y ago
> just because he chooses to purchase the person's labour This sounds like the corporation’s point of view. Most people view employment as a relationship between employer and employee which extends beyond the salary and includes a proper work environment, etc. Libertarians believe that it’s OK to treat people as badly as they allow themselves to be treated.
pram 3y ago
“When you hire a plumber to fix your pipes, you don't become responsible for their condition.” Have you never heard of premises liability?

Geisterde 3y ago

What do I need to do for you today? Cover up your mistakes? Deal with the admin you are slacking on? Pull you into the conference room and reteach you electricity and magnetism? Give you a pat on the back? Throw you softball projects that will make you look like a superstar? Climb into the tight places you cant fit? Send you the job application to fill out? Fill it out for you? There is little doubt who the nicest person is at work, and I feel terrible about the trajectories of everyone elses lives. Though, I am at a loss, what more do I need to do? Would the true kindness be in having these people fired, because otherwise they will die on the job?

mrborp 3y ago

[flagged]

DaSHacka 3y ago

> The reason for the poor view of the NH community (outside NH) is clear from the opinions expressed here. Where does HN have a poor reputation? Whenever I've seen it mentioned, its either been by other users of the site or people who generally view it favorably (largely due to the post quality). The only place I've come across that has a particular disdain for it is /g/, but they hate everyone so thats to be expected.

delfinom 3y ago
Basically outside this mosh pit, there are many smaller communities scattered about the internet and social circles. They all refer to HN as "the orange site" to avoid naming it, and it's usually always about something in disdain.
- sharken 3y ago
  The great thing about any community is that you have free speech, but don't be surprised if your opinion is challenged. I enjoy both HN and other community sites, both are great ways to communicate. I don't get this us vs them mentality, but perhaps that is an American thing. Whatever it is, it is silly.
- graphe 3y ago
  So small echo chambers whose opinions don't matter and whose relevance is unnameable don't like this site? I'm so depressed. I hope their 3 friends on Mastodon don't get upset.

advael 3y ago

It's a population of mostly tech workers, a population of which a large segment has mostly never experienced the labor market as others do, and of which an at least significant segment has been inundated with messaging that implies that they have more in common with the people who own tech companies than other workers. The massive layoffs that occasionally happen show some of them that this is a fiction, but survivorship bias is strong in the presence of so many smart-sounding people saying people who are harmed by a system simply failed in some personal sense (or, often, as seen in this thread, chose their outcome intentionally). It seems deeply out of touch and unempathetic because it is, and that's the point of it

kelnos 3y ago

You say this, and yet there are plenty of people in the comments here defending the worker who died on the job, and the woman interviewed for the story. Yes, there are a lot of heartless people here who seem to think that capitalism trumps all. And there are some who are so insulated by their privileged bubble that they can't understand the idea that quitting a job can mean financial ruin for a huge number of people. But I don't see the overwhelming level of awfulness that you see.