[flagged]
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.
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.
You explicitly did this earlier, actually:
The mere fact that there is a settlement says something to me.
"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]
That or he is a hypocritical self-aggrandizing liar when he claims the Fremont factory is not abhorrently and pervasively racist.
But did he instruct them before to seek victory? If he did, then your set of tautologies just contradicted themselves...
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.
I guess after this lesson of logic I need to take a lesson in proper reading, and you perhaps need one for writing.
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.
Nobody. Words cannot "punch" in any direction. Don't abuse language to try to conflate words with violence. Violence is physical. Words are harmless.
... Wait, my mistake. Yes it is.