When you facetiously equate my comment with the harm perpetuated by someone actively racially discriminating against someone, do you expect me to take your argument in good faith?
Perhaps you can explain the relevancy of your comment?
Your comment suggests you think financial payment to an HN user with hurt feelings due to another user "not thinking much of his comment" is either good or justified.
I find that hard to believe.
On the other hand, decades ago the US decided that it's neither good nor justified to have a hostile work environment - something I agree with - and put laws and systems into place to enforce that belief.
That's what the lawsuit is about.
Yet I also find it hard to believe you support a hostile work environment.
That makes your comment seen like neither here nor there.
Your argument was that "so and so did break the law". I answered that just because something is a law, it isn't good or correct. If you don't see the relevancy, I don't know what else to tell you.
I don't think people should pay other users because of their comments. On the contrary, my argument was that they shouldn't have to pay.
As for hostile work environments, my opinion is that people should simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment. I don't think governments should interfere with how companies conduct their business.
I even think racism should be legal. Don't get me wrong - I don't like racism. But the government shouldn't be allowed to tell people who they have to like or dislike. If somebody doesn't want to work with somebody else because they don't like their nose or whatever, it should be in their rights to refuse to work with them. In general, people should be allowed to do with their money as they please, so also to pay for work who they want.
One thing I heard is that the guy in question here even tried to get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad. Not sure if that is true, though.
It would be easier if you simply wrote "we need to get rid of all employee rights laws."
> Your argument was that
No, my argument was that the two situations are not meaningfully comparable. I then explained why.
Even if the law isn't good or correct, the two situations are still not meaningfully comparable, because the awarded damages requires that the law exist.
> simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment
Ahh, sounds like a libertarian in favor of the Lochner era. I strongly disagree with what I see as a naive belief in the freedom of contract.
As you correctly point out, it means allowing racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, with people like Oncale quitting his job with Sundowner because "I felt that if I didn't leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex."
That's the freedom of contract you want.
Those were not good times to be an lowly employee. I suppose they were great times to be a manager and business owner, if you didn't care much about others.
> get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad
] After several months at Tesla, Diaz recommended that his son (and former plaintiff) Demetric Di-Az come to work at the Tesla facility. See, e.g., Tr. at 503:8-16. He testified that he “did believe he would be in a different location” so the situation might be different for him. Id. at 503:11-19. He said that he could not recall whether he warned Di-Az about the racial harassment. Id. at 504:5-11. At one point, Diaz witnessed a white supervisor yell at Demetric that, “I can't stand all you [fucking] [N-words].” Id. at 419:18-24. Diaz said that it “broke” him. Id. at 420:1. He testified that, if he had to do it over again, he would not have recommended that Demetric work there, calling it his “biggest mistake.” Id. at 420:2-5.
Note that his son was a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. The opinion doesn't say why it was dismissed, but the other co-plaintiff settled the case with Telsa.
How can you judge what is harmful to me? You personally are no general metric to all mankind. In fact, what you just wrote made me suicidal now since your words hurt me very badly and triggered massive childhood trauma which I barely survived but haven't told about to anybody due to shame. Your words hurt me that much. You can't question it, since you have no idea what is happening on my side. If you try to diminish the harm you have already done, you are causing me even more harm.
To compensate this harm, I am suing you for 3 billions $$ + legal fees, since I know you are not poor and come to HN. My lawyers will contact you.
And there you go, you just did exactly what you criticize on others and put yourself above somebody else. Hell, that's another trauma for me, now its 4 billions since I have panic attack now from your toxic posts.
Of course, none of that is actually going to happen, there is no general legal basis for "Someone owes me money because they said a thing that made me sad online in a debate website I voluntarily visit in my leisure time for (one assumes) entertainment or educational value," and your explanation of why it would happen indicates massive ignorance of the legal framework relevant to this thread topic.
I always find it interesting when people who are willing to accept the arbitrariness of the LISP interpreter or JavaScript's market dominance or the C++ curiously recurring template pattern get shocked or surprised that the United States' framework of law and legal precedent is arbitrary and path-dependent and does not conform to their (also arbitrary and path-dependent) sense of fairness.