4 ms·

What "isn't adding up" in that paragraph is possibly a problem with the reading comprehension. Dariusz requested a change, but it wasn't granted and he had to w

What "isn't adding up" in that paragraph is possibly a problem with the reading comprehension. Dariusz requested a change, but it wasn't granted and he had to work alone for another five hours. Granted, the sentence could have been phrased in a way that didn't leave things open to your interpretation, but then we come to the second thing that "doesn't add up": your own bias, evident in your insistence on victim-blaming. People like Dariusz continue working in adverse, unhealthy conditions because they don't have the luxury of just quitting.

graphe 3y ago
You don't know his story or anything about him, you are making up a narrative and insulting me. Find his backstory of him not being able to quit before you make up another fantasy.
- CodeMage 3y ago
  I am not making up a narrative, I am presenting alternatives to the narrative you made up from the start. You're the one who said that Magda might not have been truthful and you offered arguments based on your own narrative about Dariusz being able to choose to quit freely, without consequences, and choosing to work himself to death. I provided counterarguments by showing how there are other alternatives you didn't think of. As for insults, it was not my intention to insult you and I'm not sure which part of my reply you found insulting. If it was the reading comprehension, then I apologize for the way it sounded: I merely meant to say you might not have understood the sentence properly, which is something that happens to everyone. If it was the part where I pointed out your bias, that's on you. When I point out that the person you're trying to blame for their own death might not conform to your own expectations -- the expectation that they are free to choose to quit without any consequences -- you're perfectly happy to call that a "fantasy", but you don't apply the same label to your own ideas about people who "want to work themselves to death". If you find the description of your biases insulting, maybe you should re-evaluate them.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Jacobian is a biased publication and I have read other untruthful biases they presented. I do not trust it. Dariusz worked himself to death, thanks in no small part to Amazon. Some people can be coaxed into working to death, I've known several people that have died in the restaurant business, they put themselves in that situation, they knew it was bad for years and they are a victim of circumstances just as Dariusz was. Where do you draw personal responsibility? They had been complaining, they did the same work or more, it was dangerous and bad. We don't ban jobs like roughnecks and our culture of rewarding working too hard is a problem. Some people love the high pressure tough on your body jobs, play hard work hard lifestyle. Even in programming there are people that work themselves to death. I know he worked too hard to his death and knew it was bad for a long time and continued to work there. There is no political statement besides the always work harder ethic which I don't agree with.
    - CodeMage 3y ago
      > Where do you draw personal responsibility? That depends on the power imbalance. The power dynamics in a job market are not symmetrical. The employees and employers are not on equal footing and don't wield the same power. The power imbalance becomes more pronounced the lower you go in the pecking order, with blue-collar laborers being the lowest rung. In short, the more an employer is in position to exploit their workers, the more responsibility they should bear. That's one of two ways to prevent exploitation. The other way is to shift the power balance back, by organizing into unions, which is why Amazon, Starbucks, and similar companies have been engaging in union-busting quite a lot. > We don't ban jobs like roughnecks and our culture of rewarding working too hard is a problem. That's one part of the cultural problem. Another important part is the constant indoctrination, from a rather young age, against workers' rights and in favor of exploitation. That's how we end up with so many people who are biased towards corporations and always looking for ways to absolve them from their wrongdoings. > There is no political statement besides the always work harder ethic which I don't agree with. Of course there's a political statement there. The political statement is right there in assigning disproportionate blame to the worker who has repeatedly requested to be treated in a way that would not lead to his death, and not enough blame to the employer who refused to consider those requests. That's what politics are -- or should be -- really about: real lives of real people. We're all used to looking at politics as machinations of the political class, but that's not how things are supposed to be.
- kelnos 3y ago
  What? If anyone is making up a narrative, it's you. The rest of us are just reading the article and going by what it says: he was overworked, he complained about it, his requests for help were denied, so he kept working. Is it so completely unfathomable that someone would stay in a job that is deleterious to their health because they need the job, and the money, and fear that they won't be able to find something else, and end up hungry or homeless? Because that's the norm. Not this weird mental illness you've somehow decided he had, without any evidence to support your theory.

graphe 3y ago

You don't know his story or anything about him, you are making up a narrative and insulting me. Find his backstory of him not being able to quit before you make up another fantasy.

CodeMage 3y ago
I am not making up a narrative, I am presenting alternatives to the narrative you made up from the start. You're the one who said that Magda might not have been truthful and you offered arguments based on your own narrative about Dariusz being able to choose to quit freely, without consequences, and choosing to work himself to death. I provided counterarguments by showing how there are other alternatives you didn't think of. As for insults, it was not my intention to insult you and I'm not sure which part of my reply you found insulting. If it was the reading comprehension, then I apologize for the way it sounded: I merely meant to say you might not have understood the sentence properly, which is something that happens to everyone. If it was the part where I pointed out your bias, that's on you. When I point out that the person you're trying to blame for their own death might not conform to your own expectations -- the expectation that they are free to choose to quit without any consequences -- you're perfectly happy to call that a "fantasy", but you don't apply the same label to your own ideas about people who "want to work themselves to death". If you find the description of your biases insulting, maybe you should re-evaluate them.
- graphe 3y ago
  Jacobian is a biased publication and I have read other untruthful biases they presented. I do not trust it. Dariusz worked himself to death, thanks in no small part to Amazon. Some people can be coaxed into working to death, I've known several people that have died in the restaurant business, they put themselves in that situation, they knew it was bad for years and they are a victim of circumstances just as Dariusz was. Where do you draw personal responsibility? They had been complaining, they did the same work or more, it was dangerous and bad. We don't ban jobs like roughnecks and our culture of rewarding working too hard is a problem. Some people love the high pressure tough on your body jobs, play hard work hard lifestyle. Even in programming there are people that work themselves to death. I know he worked too hard to his death and knew it was bad for a long time and continued to work there. There is no political statement besides the always work harder ethic which I don't agree with.
  - CodeMage 3y ago
    > Where do you draw personal responsibility? That depends on the power imbalance. The power dynamics in a job market are not symmetrical. The employees and employers are not on equal footing and don't wield the same power. The power imbalance becomes more pronounced the lower you go in the pecking order, with blue-collar laborers being the lowest rung. In short, the more an employer is in position to exploit their workers, the more responsibility they should bear. That's one of two ways to prevent exploitation. The other way is to shift the power balance back, by organizing into unions, which is why Amazon, Starbucks, and similar companies have been engaging in union-busting quite a lot. > We don't ban jobs like roughnecks and our culture of rewarding working too hard is a problem. That's one part of the cultural problem. Another important part is the constant indoctrination, from a rather young age, against workers' rights and in favor of exploitation. That's how we end up with so many people who are biased towards corporations and always looking for ways to absolve them from their wrongdoings. > There is no political statement besides the always work harder ethic which I don't agree with. Of course there's a political statement there. The political statement is right there in assigning disproportionate blame to the worker who has repeatedly requested to be treated in a way that would not lead to his death, and not enough blame to the employer who refused to consider those requests. That's what politics are -- or should be -- really about: real lives of real people. We're all used to looking at politics as machinations of the political class, but that's not how things are supposed to be.
kelnos 3y ago
What? If anyone is making up a narrative, it's you. The rest of us are just reading the article and going by what it says: he was overworked, he complained about it, his requests for help were denied, so he kept working. Is it so completely unfathomable that someone would stay in a job that is deleterious to their health because they need the job, and the money, and fear that they won't be able to find something else, and end up hungry or homeless? Because that's the norm. Not this weird mental illness you've somehow decided he had, without any evidence to support your theory.