When I was in high school in the '70s, we discussed "Man's inhumanity to man".[1] Things have improved in the last few hundred years (and even in the last 40 years), but clearly we have a ways to go.
At least the guy in the article was able to get $35,000 in back wages. At the risk of bringing Godwin's law into the discussion at first post, this is a major improvement over WWII when prison guards gassed Gypsies and Jews during the week, then went to church on Sunday.
At least he was able to get $35000? How does make a difference? None of what happened to him can be fixed with money. You should have stopped at the first sentence.
Godwin's law should be taken out the back and shot along with the person uttering it. Is a lazy form of attempting to neutralize any argument a person makes by simply mentioning Godwin's law.
References or comparisons to Hitler are nearly always a lazy appeal to emotion made because the speaker is unable or unwilling to provide any better way of stating their position. And that kind of argument often gets made as a discussion over a contentious drags on and one side or the other is eager to just "win" the debate.
And, of course, you know who else thought people and things should be taken out back and shot...
I'm sure Godwin's law was introduced because of a genuine problem with lazy comparisons to Hitler. That said, any time I want to make a genuine comparison to something Hitler or Nazi Germany did, I have to go out of my why to find some other historical figure who did the same thing, just to avoid wasting time arguing about whether a comparison Hitler invalidates my argument.
At least the guy in the article was able to get $35,000 in back wages. At the risk of bringing Godwin's law into the discussion at first post, this is a major improvement over WWII when prison guards gassed Gypsies and Jews during the week, then went to church on Sunday.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_inhumanity_to_man