| ▲ | milesrout 2 days ago |
| Why should Tesla be responsible for what its employee allegedly said? How ridiculous. And why would someone be entitled to monetary compensation because someone said "welcome to the plantation"? What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? When did people become so psychologically weak? And what is the loss that is being compensated? EDIT: Can people please stop downvoting comments they disagree with? If you disagree with someone, upvote them and have a fucking conversation. Downvoting and flagging is NOT for disagreement. |
|
| ▲ | rs186 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I assume Tesla doesn't have to settle if there is no basis for the claim, if it does not violate any law, or it is not afraid of internal documents revealed about this in discovery. And Tesla has the money and hires lawyers for dragging an ordinary employee into deep lawsuits. If they care enough about what's "right" and the facts, they would prove that in court. The mere fact that there is a settlement says something to me. |
| |
| ▲ | Veserv 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You do not need to assume, here is Elon Musk talking about his lawsuit philosophy: "My commitment: - We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win. - We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose."[1] [1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1527749734668050433 | | |
| ▲ | stuaxo a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's his idea of just though, so it could mean anything. | | |
| ▲ | m463 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | right. lots of ambiguous words like justice, freedom, advertising. two people can say the words to each other and mean something completely different. |
| |
| ▲ | giraffe_lady 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How much weight do you think the words of a notoriously vindictive self-aggrandizing liar should carry? | | |
| ▲ | Veserv 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Er, you should reread the quote: "We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us". He just settled. That means it must have been a just case. That or he is a hypocritical self-aggrandizing liar when he claims the Fremont factory is not abhorrently and pervasively racist. | | |
| ▲ | netsharc 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How charitable of an interpretation. It has the air of "I only have consensual sex. We had sex, therefore it must have been consensual"... But did he instruct them before to seek victory? If he did, then your set of tautologies just contradicted themselves... | | |
| ▲ | Veserv 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If he sought victory, then he believed it was a just case and would not settle. If he settled, then he believed it was a unjust case and would not fight. If such a person settles and fights then they are acting in two contradictory ways which is called hypocrisy. Given that they clearly settled we must either believe they are acting consistently and thus believe the case to be just. Or they both settled and fought (or believe the case to be unjust) which means they are acting inconsistently and are thus hypocrites. That concludes my lesson in elementary logic. | | |
| ▲ | netsharc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I gotta admit, in your grandparent post I responded after reading only your first paragraph, having the "Or"-clause in a separate paragraph made it sound like you were using logic to be very charitable. I guess after this lesson of logic I need to take a lesson in proper reading, and you perhaps need one for writing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | giraffe_lady a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean I just don't think it says anything either way. He spews all kinds of shit on twitter and habitually lies about his intentions and motivations. I'm not gonna take him seriously this one time because it aligns with my own view of his racist malfeasance. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | milesrout 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | rs186 a day ago | parent [-] | | Thankfully you are (probably) just a random person on the Internet, not a lawmaker, and our employment laws aren't based on those crazy, misinformed ideas. > You are not morally entitled to be compensated because you have sustained no loss. There is nothing to compensate. What the hell are you talking about? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | southernplaces7 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Can people please stop downvoting comments they disagree with? If you disagree with someone, upvote them and have a fucking conversation. Downvoting and flagging is NOT for disagreement. you got at least one upvote from me, and agreed about the infantile stupidity of the downvoting on this site, it's idiotic, detracts from decent debate and often gets used by people who apparently have the emotional development of children just for the sake of trying to make anything they dislike disappear. I apply and recommend a specific rule of never using the silly downvote no matter how much you hate an opinion. |
|
| ▲ | fragmede a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There was a meeting about the new machine after it was installed. It wasn’t meeting spec - jamming up other machines, slowing everything down. People tried working around it, adjusting workflows, but nothing fixed the underlying issue. At a certain point, you’d just replace the machine. But here’s the thing - this wasn’t just any machine, and it was causing real problems. Turns out, in this case, the “new machine” is Tony. And Tony’s kind of a racist. He’s tanking morale, making people feel unsafe. But management keeps him around because “he works hard.” If Tony were a literal machine causing this kind of disruption, you’d replace him without a second thought. But because he’s a person, and management doesn’t want to deal with it, they let the damage spread. That’s not just bad leadership - that’s liability. So what do you think Tesla should be responsible for - just the machines, or also when someone like ‘Tony’ starts throwing the whole system off? If you keep someone like Tony around, knowing the damage he’s causing, you’re not neutral - you’re endorsing his behavior. |
| |
| ▲ | milesrout 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Turns out, in this case, the “new machine” is Tony. And Tony’s kind of a racist. He’s tanking morale, making people feel unsafe. But management keeps him around because “he works hard.” You're talking about management. Not the law. This discussion is about legal obligations. There is no law that says people should not have to work around things they don't like. There is no law of morale. It also has nothing to do with anyone being "kind of a racist" or causing "disruption" or "tanking morale" or "making people feel unsafe". You have added all of those yourself. The article is about a single woman complaining about a couple of specific comments. She is heavily incentivised by the American system to overstate the effect these comments have on her. If she just says she doesn't like it (reality) she gets nothing. If she claims it has caused her emotional harm, she gets something. >So what do you think Tesla should be responsible for - just the machines, or also when someone like ‘Tony’ starts throwing the whole system off? It should quite obviously not be legally responsible for what its staff members say, outside of their authority. What's more there should be nothing to be legally responsible for anyway, because saying "welcome to the plantation" isn't and shouldn't be a legal wrong. Your analogy doesn't change anything. >If you keep someone like Tony around, knowing the damage he’s causing, you’re not neutral - you’re endorsing his behavior. And nobody said that Tesla shouldn't be able to fire someone if it disagrees with what its employee said or did. But obviously that doesn't mean that what was said was legally actionable. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Words can punch down hard, especially when backed by centuries of systemic racism |
| |
| ▲ | milesrout 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Who working at Tesla can speak with the force of a punch? Nobody. Words cannot "punch" in any direction. Don't abuse language to try to conflate words with violence. Violence is physical. Words are harmless. | | |
| ▲ | shadowgovt a day ago | parent [-] | | That's why incitement to riot isn't a crime. ... Wait, my mistake. Yes it is. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | maximinus_thrax a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is one of the worst takes I've seen on hacker news. This account piqued my curiosity, ended up browsing through the comment history and holy shit... > Can people please stop downvoting comments they disagree with? If you disagree with someone, upvote them and have a fucking conversation. Downvoting and flagging is NOT for disagreement. "sticks, stones and downvotes may break my bones but words will never hurt me" |
| |
|
| ▲ | thunderfork 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | dlachausse 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | whateveracct 2 days ago | parent [-] | | "vandalize Teslas" hey cmon i just keep Kraft cheese singles in my car for a nice snack on the go I am a messy eater tho |
|
