I remember years ago the media was doing the same thing to that poor old lady who got scalded by McDonald's coffee. They ballyhooed the initial $1M (edit: actually $2.86M) judgment as front-page news, but the little details--like having burns severe enough to require skin grafts, or the judgment being reduced to a few hundred grand on appeal that barely covered her hospital expense--was always tiny print published much later.
The result? People were driven to the bogus conclusion that torts-gone-wild were root of all evil, and of course, we end up with the current scenario of arbitration-gone-wild (like in this article). We traded a non-problem for a serious one thanks to media disaster porn.
Whatever awful things I can say about Facebook or Twitter, I have to concede some degree of gratitude to them for eviscerating the mainstream media.
Except Facebook is entirely driven by engagement with absolutely zero value placed on truth, it drives all posts towards a supermarket check-out lane tabloid sensibility. I'm not sure how that can be considered an improvement on any axis.
Is it better to have a few "authoritative" sources everyone believes that exhort us all to do something stupid, like Vietnam or Iraq, and we trust them, and we do it with minimal-to-no hesitation? Or, is it better to have a million little squabbling social-media echo chambers and gridlock?
So far, I think I prefer the latter.
Read "Trust Me, I'm Lying" by Ryan Holiday for a frightening look at media manipulation.
But now people use it as an example of rush to judgement, when really, people were mostly right about it in the first place. She shouldn't have put fresh coffee in her crotch. McD's still brews their coffee just as hot because that is how you are supposed to. She shouldn't have gotten a dime.
There is a defensible case that the particular level of coffee temperature, combined with some rational standard for how it should be labeled, combined with general consumer preferences for temperature and understanding of what to expect when served coffee, all together imply that McDonald's acted negligently.
But that debate is always short-circuited in discussions about the case, where everyone is tripping over each other to say, "oh, you disagree with the verdict? I guess you didn't see these pictures [NSFW]. Checkmate, skeptics."
Or worse, "the lawyers were really aloof when Liebeck was trying to be cool."
Those really aren't good reasons to make a decision.
Back in '94 the media was in better shape and had more than enough resources to do it right, but they didn't.
No, it wasn't. The mid-1990s was pretty much the modern minimum for health of the US media; it was the end of decades of decline driven by corporate consolidation and cutting local resoures in traditional media, and before competing new media provided alternatives and spurred new efforts in traditional media.
Just going off my own recollection, it looks like broadcast has fragmented into a million irrelevant outposts, all racing each other to the bottom.
Print seems to be in even worse shape. In the southeast, almost every paper outside of the largest state metro has been shuttered and centralized into a state-wide newsroom running on a skeleton crew.
I don't know how those trajectories gets classified as improvements...
Source? Particularly since places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts that do not offer free refills serve at roughly the same temperature.
I think this only works in isolated cases when the offending party accidentally says something offensive, or there was misunderstanding.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands the meaning of the N word. Any prevalent behavior like this is unacceptable no matter how many "sincere" apologies follow.
Huh...well according to that book that's sourced, he at least knew about bullying.
Sure bullying is wrong and leaves victims hurt very badly. For most people bullying ends after a while, when they grow up.
Racism on the other hand is superset of things, of which bullying is a part. In a racist set up you have to deal with discrimination day in and out, even if not physical assault, you still have to deal with lost opportunities, economic hardships and social problems for no mistake of yours.
"Musk was severely bullied throughout his childhood, and was once hospitalized when a group of boys threw him down a flight of stairs and then beat him until he lost consciousness."
I remember defending Randy Ben on Twitter once after he got kicked out of Kiwicon for violation of the code of conduct (they never even said what he specifically did or said that was a violation). This friend of mine, not in tech and not a hacker, goes on and on about how she didn't expect a straight, cis, male to understand, blah blah blah.
Just because I'm male doesn't negate my right to an opinion. Just because I don't experience the same things you do doesn't negate my opinion. I wrote an article about this a while ago actually, about the Race to the Bottom:
When you dismiss words like privilege, you pretend there isn't a difference between people's circumstances. Especially in a case like this when it is beyond obvious that there is a difference.
> Just because I'm male doesn't negate my right to an opinion. Just because I don't experience the same things you do doesn't negate my opinion. I wrote an article about this a while ago actually, about the Race to the Bottom:
This literally has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
And what does that mean exactly? If someone accuses him of racism then they must be right because he's too privileged to have empathy? He's too privileged to understand racism? If you grew up poor or lower middle class in a developed nation then to people living on 30 cents a day in the 3rd world you're privileged as fuck. And we're all privileged as fuck compared to people who had the misfortune of being born 1000 years ago, does that mean they're the only ones who have empathy? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But maybe it's because I'm privileged as fuck too.
There are also many poor people who do an honest days work, try to help every family member and do their best for their families, villages and communities.
Your status doesn't indicate what type of person you are.
Who did? I certainly didn't. I said he didn't experience it. So then who are you referring to?
> He's too privileged to understand racism?
I question the logic of anyone who that read his response to the alleged harassment and doesn't ask wtf he was thinking. That conclusion is a perfectly legitimate one to his handling of the situation.
> If you grew up poor or lower middle class in a developed nation then to people living on 30 cents a day in the 3rd world you're privileged as fuck. And we're all privileged as fuck compared to people who had the misfortune of being born 1000 years ago, does that mean they're the only ones who have empathy? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Ah yes, Reductio ad absurdum rears its head. Makes for a excellent and persuasive argument doesn't it?
> But maybe it's because I'm privileged as fuck too.
Yea you are, the fact that you got all uppity about it, makes me think you don't appreciate how fortunate you really are.
If you're privileged enough to have the 1st world problem of too much social media, then you are probably empathically challenged, because social media erodes humanity. (Especially if you are on the side with power, which some might argue is actually the left when it comes to the media.)
Another time they called me for a very specialized position, I told them, "I'm not qualified for this." The recruiter assured me it wouldn't be a problem. I go through the rigamarole and a couple days later the same guy calls me back to tell me I'm not qualified.
Whether or not that doesn't count as racism is up for debate. But its similar to the motivations behind trolling, which is more or less just to stir shit up.
I am not even a fan of the stock either, but damn their is a gigantic microscope on them.
It would be rather useful to see how many articles are written about a company and then be able to see if they are negative or positive, b)c I beg the ration for Tesla would be way negative.
>Tesla has roughly 33,000 employees globally but has never publicly released its diversity statistics.
100/33000 = 0.303% is representative of the company values.
I bet their are a ton of lawsuits against other major corporations that we do not hear about, but anything related to Elon Musk will cause a commotion.
This is poor journalism and sensationalism from Bloomberg.
Maybe they will interview one of their analysts and ask them for their analysis on the issue.
It also easier to be an asshole on the internet, rather than look at the content of the post =)
Next time I'll try to remember maybe it's just text to speech :P
Strange that there were not earlier complaints - the employees all seemed very happy for the past many years.
Thus I vote for Musk's side in this argument.
At any rate, the allegations are pretty vague and seem like those of an ambulance chaser seeking. They are seeking a class action lawsuit on behalf of current and past African Americans who’ve ever worked there.
From quick skimming the Vaughn alleges he’s “heard people and supervisors say the Nigga or Nigger”. It doesn’t say exactly at who it was directed to if at all.
I know I’ll get downvoted for saying this, but the factory workers at Tesla for sure say those slang words and for sure listen to rap music.
I don’t think though that Tesla’s managers and executives are out on the floor running a plantation like Roots