Hacker News Reader

Comment by fpig | Hacker News Reader

If he was sexually assaulted and they're banning him to cover their own ass, that's way worse than victim blaming as it suggests they are aware the victim is not at fault yet they punish the victim anyway. An economic incentive does not excuse immoral acts. It's disgusting how quick people are to defend this kind of behavior. Anyone who was involved in making that decision is a worthless piece of shit.

View on HN

I always find it sad when an explanation of the reasoning behind some immoral behavior is treated like a justification or defense. I find it sad because it discourages understanding opinions you disagree with, and because I think that understanding is important. If Equinox acted that way simply because they are an evil corporation, nothing could be done about it; but if they followed an economic incentive, then changing the incentive structure can prevent that kind of behavior in the future.

Very few people harm others because they're simply "evil", this type of cartoon evil is not really common if it even exists.

Harming others for selfish reasons is practically the definition of "evil" in the real world. So all involved are evil.

Sadism is more common than you're supposing IMO, but agreed that incentive based "evil" is probably more common.

They are evil though. They harmed someone and instead of making good for it they only protect themselves. There is no "both sides" to this.

Also if Equinox followed and an economic incentive by banning the guy even though he's a victim, he should perhaps return the favour by suing them for some large sum even though the problem probably wasn't really their fault. Such are the wonders of the legal system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com