|
|
|
|
|
|
by awj
1321 days ago
|
|
|
So, your answer now is to argue that you don't know whether or not the working conditions are bad, after arguing that they aren't bad enough to entitle people to complain? Which is it? Why are you now equivocating over this instead of being able to answer for your own conclusions? Clearly you think the working conditions of Twitter aren't that bad, that was literally the thesis of your first post. Clearly you think that there exists a set of working conditions that are deeply immoral and deserving of at least complaint. That was also the thesis of your first post. So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"? |
|
|
Especially in a fog-of-war sort of situation with a lot of drama where it's hard to tell what claims might be real and fake, I don't know precisely what Twitter's working conditions are like. But even not knowing some nuanced details about life at TwitterHQ right now, I'm very comfortable in saying that the worst case scenario working at Twitter is miles better off than the best case scenario say down in an iron mine.
> So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"?
Everybody is entitled to complain and voice their opinion no matter how rich or powerful they are, but I did take a bit of issue with the "deeply depressing" language that was used.
If the tweet had said "On a human level, it's upsetting to see my coworkers stressed out over the impending layoffs" or something to that effect, I can totally empathize. But "deeply depressing" is a bad phrase for this situation.