There is nuance, but some companies are far past that.
The nuance isn’t about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
There has to be a line somewhere
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it’s okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to “they’re all just evil”?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won’t kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where “just leave” isn’t a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.
Well evil is a ridiculous word, but yes they are immoral people the way I see it. That doesn’t mean I want them executed or put in prison. We should simply call something wrong when we think its wrong. Those people are hopefully going to grow and learn. I’m not going to give them praise or any social benefit until they do so, however.
All I’m doing is signalling that I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level. I don’t see why that’s such a cruel thing.
I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level.
My point is that not all may have a choice, because quitting your job can be scary in the most stable of times, let alone when people are being laid off left and right while small businesses get churned under. “I want to afford life” is a life choice only in the immediate, literal sense of choosing to live.
Hence my proposition to build a system that allows them to quit without jeopardising healthcare coverage, livelihood, all the things that make a person stick with a bad job.
Whoever stays when they don’t need to is definitely in the wrong.
Everyone has a choice, this isn’t slave labor. The most common argument I hear from these people is “I’m used to the amount I make, and I can’t go back now.” And again, they are not choosing between working at Meta and “being able to afford life”. These are supposed to be smart people, yet they actually can’t see any other choice?
Ego and greed drive people to these positions that they think they deserve, there is no moral justification here. Its a perfect example of the fuck-you-get-mine lifestyle that America promotes.
I’m not shocked that the people who work there have convinced themselves they are good people, but I am surprised at how many people on the outside will defend them.
I think you’re missing the core point: You assume finding a different job is easy for everyone, or even just possible for everyone. I don’t think that’s true. More accurately, I know that’s not true.
To quit without a new job lined up puts you in a precarious position, like jumping off the edge and hoping there’s somewhere to land. If you can’t be sure, you would naturally hesitate. That’s why I’ve been saying to create a safety net that allows them to jump off anyway because they know they’ll be caught and find their way to solid footing.
Those who could easily find stable employment that covers their expenses elsewhere absolutely should. I’m not defending them.
I’m defending those that you overlook because it’s easier to condemn collectively.
I’m not really convinced. I’ve quit a job for moral reasons without anything else lined up, and I have a house, kids, and cars. These Meta employees make at least triple what I do, but somehow I have more financial freedom than they do? Explain that part to me.
My guess is simply that I’m comfortable cutting expenses while most of these Meta employees aren’t. I dont understand why anyone would rather break their morals than cut expenses. Thats why I said they are greedy.
The nuance isn’t about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it’s okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to “they’re all just evil”?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won’t kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where “just leave” isn’t a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.
Well evil is a ridiculous word, but yes they are immoral people the way I see it. That doesn’t mean I want them executed or put in prison. We should simply call something wrong when we think its wrong. Those people are hopefully going to grow and learn. I’m not going to give them praise or any social benefit until they do so, however.
All I’m doing is signalling that I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level. I don’t see why that’s such a cruel thing.
My point is that not all may have a choice, because quitting your job can be scary in the most stable of times, let alone when people are being laid off left and right while small businesses get churned under. “I want to afford life” is a life choice only in the immediate, literal sense of choosing to live.
Hence my proposition to build a system that allows them to quit without jeopardising healthcare coverage, livelihood, all the things that make a person stick with a bad job.
Whoever stays when they don’t need to is definitely in the wrong.
Everyone has a choice, this isn’t slave labor. The most common argument I hear from these people is “I’m used to the amount I make, and I can’t go back now.” And again, they are not choosing between working at Meta and “being able to afford life”. These are supposed to be smart people, yet they actually can’t see any other choice?
Ego and greed drive people to these positions that they think they deserve, there is no moral justification here. Its a perfect example of the fuck-you-get-mine lifestyle that America promotes.
I’m not shocked that the people who work there have convinced themselves they are good people, but I am surprised at how many people on the outside will defend them.
I think you’re missing the core point: You assume finding a different job is easy for everyone, or even just possible for everyone. I don’t think that’s true. More accurately, I know that’s not true.
To quit without a new job lined up puts you in a precarious position, like jumping off the edge and hoping there’s somewhere to land. If you can’t be sure, you would naturally hesitate. That’s why I’ve been saying to create a safety net that allows them to jump off anyway because they know they’ll be caught and find their way to solid footing.
Those who could easily find stable employment that covers their expenses elsewhere absolutely should. I’m not defending them.
I’m defending those that you overlook because it’s easier to condemn collectively.
I’m not really convinced. I’ve quit a job for moral reasons without anything else lined up, and I have a house, kids, and cars. These Meta employees make at least triple what I do, but somehow I have more financial freedom than they do? Explain that part to me.
My guess is simply that I’m comfortable cutting expenses while most of these Meta employees aren’t. I dont understand why anyone would rather break their morals than cut expenses. Thats why I said they are greedy.