Support NeoGAF

[Veelk]

Yeah, so you're completely amoral. No point in even bothering with this.

That's.....how do you even get that from....what?

 

[Chumley]

That's.....how do you even get that from....what?

"Anyone would fire him for that"

You're completely removing context from the situation like you did before, as if the psychological manipulation isn't a factor. How do you not realize how amoral that is?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Again: Chuck would be in the right if he actually fired Ernesto the first time instead of using him.

 

[Haly]

He's never in the right, he lost the right after he set up Ernie.

"I'm setting you up to fail, and after you fail, I'm going to punish you for failing by cutting you off."

 

[Veelk]

"Anyone would fire him for that"

You're completely removing context from the situation like you did before, as if the psychological manipulation isn't a factor. How do you not realize how amoral that is?

No, I'm not. I've mentioned the context several times. And under the context here, anybody would fire him, both for sabotaging him on his own volition in the hospital and under the prompting of Chuck.

Psychological manipulation does not remove culpability for being judged by your actions. Nobody would ever let you off for stealing from a store because you told them "By my boss told me not to steal from the store! He manipulated me with reverse psychology!"

For some reason, you think I'm trying to excuse Chuck's behavior, when I'm obviously not. But Chuck being manipulative doesn't change Ernie making the conscious decision to lie to his boss in order to cover up Jimmy's felony.

And yes, anybody would fire an employee for that.

Again: Chuck would be in the right if he actually fired Ernesto the first time instead of using him.

No, then the chorus would be "FUCK CHUCK, HE FIRED ERNIE WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF WRONGDOING, WHAT A CUNT"

 

[Haly]

And yes, anybody would fire an employee for that.

I think Jimmy wouldn't, if he pulled off a con that involved one of his own he'd forgive and forget. At least, he strikes me as that kind of person, and this is why people, not just the audience but the characters themselves, like Jimmy and not Chuck.

 

[Einchy]

I think Jimmy wouldn't, if he pulled off a con that involved one of his own he'd forgive and forget. At least, he strikes me as that kind of person, and this is why people, not just the audience but the characters themselves, like Jimmy and not Chuck.

I mean, you gotta be a real shitter to even be in the situation where you manipulate someone's caring nature and then fired them for what you made them do. Not everyone would fire Ernie in that situation since they wouldn't even get that far.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

No, then the chorus would be "FUCK CHUCK, HE FIRED ERNIE WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF WRONGDOING, WHAT A CUNT"

Veelk, if your response is "no, u".... come on, dude. You seem to think that you're fighting with people instead of talking about a TV show. Stop with the ad hom attacks.

Chumley, you're kind of helping in riling him up, too.

 

[Spikematic]

Kim is the best. Chuck is the worst. Mike is awesome. This show is so good!

 

[Chumley]

Veelk, if your response is "no, u".... come on, dude. You seem to think that you're fighting with people instead of talking about a TV show. Stop with the ad hom attacks.

Chumley, you're kind of helping in riling him up, too.

When he came out against a harmless gif with "you view Chuck as a cartoon character" after all the time I spent discussing this stuff with him last time, it was pretty annoying. But I'm not going to even bother engaging him anymore. I'm over it.

I mean, you gotta be a real shitter to even be in the situation where you manipulate someone's caring nature and then fired them for what you made them do. Not everyone would fire Ernie in that situation since they wouldn't even get that far.

Exactly.

 

[Veelk]

Veelk, if your response is "no, u".... come on, dude. You seem to think that you're fighting with people instead of talking about a TV show. Stop with the ad hom attacks.

Chumley, you're kind of helping in riling him up, too.

That's not a "No, U" nor an ad hominum. It's not even an insult. It's just an educated guess at what people would do if he did that (because it's the same line of reasoning people took with Skylar). And I'm not mad, I'm just exasperated at the stretches of logic people are taking.

That Chuck predicted and then took advantage of Ernie's willingness to sabotage him for Jimmy doesn't change that Ernie is willing to and has sabotaged him, nor does it absolve Ernie of the responsibility for the act of sabotaging him.

And any reasonable employer would fire their employee for that. Now, that Chuck went the extra mile to manipulate Ernie makes him a dick. I have repeatedly agreed that his manipulation wasn't moral. But his firing of an untrustworthy employee is positively mundane in how obvious and common sense a thing it is.

Regardless of anything else, Chuck is left with a guy who has two counts of backstabbing against him. Seriously, what is he supposed to do? Reward him? Thank him? Let him continue working for him hoping that Ernie won't screw over his case against Jimmy again if he gets the opportunity? What?

What exactly is Ernie's job, anyway? I thought it was just getting supplies for him, a job where sabotaging wouldn't even enter into it. Chuck is involving Ernie in shit that he isn't even supposed to be involved in unless part of his job description is fucking Jimmy over.

No idea, actually. He and Omar just seem to be assistants, which apparently entails "Do whatever the lawyers need you to", given the versatility of tasks they're left with.

Nevertheless, whatever their actual job description, Chuck is trying to build a case against Jimmy, and Ernie deliberately sabotaged it. Regardless of whether he was acting within the rules of HHM, there needs to be basic trustworthiness between boss and employee that Ernie destroyed.

 

[Haly]

But his firing of an untrustworthy employee is justified

Only in a vacuum, or exclusively from Ernie's perspective, yes, but the only person who gets to pass that judgment is Ernie, no one else. Chuck forfeits his justification through his own moral transgression.

something anyone would do.

But this is simply not true. A trivial example is nepotism, whereby familial bonds take precedence over mundane business considerations. Any number of factors might take priority over the material act of Ernie's sabotage of his employer, like the example I gave with Jimmy, who is someone that, despite his frequent breaking of the law and addiction to cons, still considers himself a "good person". I just don't accept the assertion that Ernie's transgression against his employer is universally indefensible. You have people in this very thread who're taking his side, that is as literal as you can get for evidence that, no, it's not actually something "anyone" would do.

Only specific, cruel and/or unsympathetic people.

 

[Veelk]

Only in a vacuum, or exclusively from Ernie's perspective, yes, but the only person who gets to pass that judgment is Ernie, no one else. Chuck forfeits his justification through his own moral transgression.

What? Only Ernie gets to judge whether he is trustworthy or not? Am I misreading this? (Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely confused what your saying by this.

But this is simply not true. A trivial example is nepotism, whereby familial bonds take precedence over mundane business considerations. Any number of factors might take priority over the material act of Ernie's sabotage of his employer, like the example I gave with Jimmy, who is someone that, despite his frequent breaking of the law and addiction to cons, still considers himself a "good person". I just don't accept the assertion that Ernie's transgression against his employer is universally indefensible. You have people in this very thread who're taking his side, that is as literal as you can get for evidence that, no, it's not actually something "anyone" would do.

Only specific, cruel and/or unsympathetic people.

You don't want to accept it's universally something that everyone would fire a person over, either through nepotism or Jimmy's niceness or anything, fine, but you're taking my wording overly literally then. I'm saying most people, assuming their both reasonable and not influenced by external factors like nepotism, would fire an employee for demonstrating such untrustworthiness.

First, the fact that Ernie sabotaged him at the hospital. I don't understand why people are acting like there's some kind of statute of limitations on this thing that he could only fire Ernie at the time of his lie (When he had no material proof that it was a lie). Ernie covered up Jimmy's felony out of friendship. That doesn't disappear just because Chuck decided to make use of that tendency before throwing him out. So, regardless of anything else, he has one unprompted act of sabotage against him. As for the second...

The general argument that you and others seem to espouse is that Chuck's moral transgression somehow invalidates Ernie's actions against him. That his use of reverse psychology means that Ernie has no culpability. That, I soundly disagree with, for the same reasons that Chuck being a dick doesn't change the fact that Jimmy is a conman who abuses people's good will towards him to profit.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. That Ernie chose to sabotage his employer is grounds to fire him on. That Chuck manipulated him into doing it a second time by planting the idea that Jimmy is in danger in no way changes that. Ernie is still responsible for his sabotage. That's basically what it comes down to, people have to own the shit they do.

And I've asked this a few other times, but what is Chuck supposed to do here? Ernie has now proven that he is willing to lie and disobey direct commands to help Jimmy. Knowing this, what, is Chuck supposed to keep him around? No, Ernie needs to go. I suppose he could have just told Howard to reassign him someone else, but really, why would he let Ernie's transgression go unpunished? Not only is that out of character for him, where he wants to see wrongdoing punished, but also the basic fact that by helping Jimmy, he hurt Chuck on whats a personal journey for him. Ernie is not Chuck's friend anymore than Chuck is Ernie's, so why go out of his way? That's not being cruel. Maybe unsympathetic, but this latest episode shows that he understands liking Jimmy perfectly well. Duckroll on the last paged summed up his character as someone who insists on doing things right or not at all. That's how I imagine he saw Ernie's firing: You betrayed my trust, so you're not worthy of this job.

I just realized. He's basically the same logic he is using for Jimmy. Jimmy committed a felony, so he should be disbarred.

 

[CoffeeExpress]

Plot twist, Chuck is running a drug empire. FuckChuck is his Heisenberg.

but seriously, this show is the best on TV.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Great episode. I knew as soon as Chuck started wavering that it was a ploy to go after Jimmy's law license. Mike doing his New Mexico Batman stuff, as usual. I love his intricate plans. The writers must have a field day coming up with this stuff.

So now it's gonna be Jimmy & Kim vs the New Mexico Bar Association. Started to get a little concerned there because you know Jimmy is going to pull something slippery to circumvent Chuck's buddies. Hope Kim doesn't get caught in the crossfire, they're dancing with people who can take away their license to practice law.

 

[Theorry]

Mike was great. Really had no clue what his plan was.
So that opening was a flash forward. With Gus now using that route because it opened up.

 

[Rymuth]

Mike is such a prankster

 

[BobTheFork]

I assume if you were disbarred, you couldn't just change your name and keep practicing.

So maybe his license survives and he refuses to practice law as a McGill.
Or he does lose his license and something else big happens that allows him to stay in the same city with a new name and not miss a beat.

 

[Saganator]

Good episode, although the previous 2 episodes spoiled me with all the amazing shots and this one didn't have as much eye candy.

The shot deliberately showing Jimmy stomping on the cigarette seemed kind of significant, perhaps an indication Jimmy is done being brothers with Chuck, or done being Jimmy, and Saul is about to be born. Perhaps I'm reading into that shot too much.

Just want to say that I love Kim, not looking forward to the inevitable split between her and Jimmy, I'm really hoping Kim just wasn't in BB and they don't split up.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

It's 9:16am, Tuesday morning



FUCK CHUCK

 

[IronRinn]

- the opening scene is a flash forward to some point during Breaking Bad, but before the end of S4. Those worn out shoes are the same ones we see Mike throws onto the wire. We know that Gus will take over operations in New Mexico for the cartel since Hector gets confined to a wheelchair prior to BB.

Oh DUH! Fuck, I should have made that connection.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

I wonder if they'll draw out Hectors stroke, or if we'll see it by the end of the season. Too much symbolism to not show it.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I explained this to duckroll but it's clear to me now that Chuck is as much of a con artist and manipulator as Jimmy, the main difference between them being Chuck works within the bounds of the law, and in so far as he's concerned, doing so morally justifies his actions, while Jimmy doesn't respect the law, and operates on his own moral code.

My wife made this same observation last night, as Chuck was playing the prosecutor in order to get what he wanted.

 

[Carl]

Caught up with the new ep. So good to have this back again.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Re: Ernie

I can give a real-life example, as an employer.

I had a good employee who, in order to cover for somebody, did something against some serious rules.We had a serious talk with her, about the magnitude of the issue, and she is still with the company. She completely understood, was contrite, and and has been a trustworthy and successful employee ever since.

Now, that's without the mitigating circumstance of having been entrapped into a situation which would make breaking the rules seem like a good idea.

So I would say that firing Ernie is capricious, as it's not a matter of practical real-world trust, but rather proxy action against Jimmy.

Even if it were, the act of manipulating events to encourage somebody to break rules itself is a morally reprehensible act. There was a study that shows that virtually everybody will cheat on a test given the right conditions. Intentionally pushing somebody to that point is immoral. Firing them for it is just icing.

 

[RangerX]

This episode was an absolute masterpiece. The very last scene between Jimmy and Kim was heartbreaking because I know that shit is going to go downhill from here and Kim will get dragged down. She's so supportive and good natured that I don't want anything to happen to her. Although there is some validity in what Chucks done taking away Jimmy's career and aspirations is so petty. Mike's scenes were great this episode too. That plan was pretty ingenious.

 

[Veelk]

Re: Ernie

I can give a real-life example, as an employer.

I had a good employee who, in order to cover for somebody, did something against some serious rules.We had a serious talk with her, about the magnitude of the issue, and she is still with the company. She completely understood, was contrite, and and has been a trustworthy and successful employee ever since.

Now, that's without the mitigating circumstance of having been entrapped into a situation which would make breaking the rules seem like a good idea.

So I would say that firing Ernie is capricious, as it's not a matter of practical real-world trust, but rather proxy action against Jimmy.

Even if it were, the act of manipulating events to encourage somebody to break rules itself is a morally reprehensible act. There was a study that shows that virtually everybody will cheat on a test given the right conditions. Intentionally pushing somebody to that point is immoral. Firing them for it is just icing.

Okay, fine, then let me rephrase the whole thing.

Would you agree that an employer firing someone for having sabotaged them twice over (one of which was without the encouragement) is reasonable and within the employer's rights, even if the generous thing were to sit down with them and have a talk?

And

Does someone being put in a situation where they could (and did) cheat mean they do not bear the responsibility for the act?

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

great episode, probably the best one so far this season

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Okay, fine, then let me rephrase the whole thing.

Would you agree that an employer firing someone for having sabotaged them twice over (one of which was without the encouragement) is reasonable and within the employer's rights, even if the generous thing were to sit down with them and have a talk?

And

Does someone being put in a situation where they could (and did) cheat mean they do not bear the responsibility for the act?

I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about what's the right way to act. We've already established that Chuck acts within the law, but that his morality is wack.

Remind me of the first transgression. Because firing him for the second is absolutely a dick move in context.

 

[OldMan]

Kinda crazy how Saul's office goes from what it is now to this

 

[Veelk]

I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about what's the right way to act. We've already established that Chuck acts within the law, but that his morality is wack.

Remind me of the first transgression. Because firing him for the second is absolutely a dick move in context.

So am I. It's generous that you had the sit down with your employee, but had you fired her for whatever serious rule breaking she did, would you have been in the wrong to do so, morally speaking? Generousity and forgiveness are good things that can pay off, but forgoing them in cases like sabotage is clear doesn't really seem morally wrong to me.

The first sabotage is when Ernie lied to Chuck at the hospital about calling Jimmy to the print shop where Chuck lost consciousness, explaining his sudden presence. It's the entire reason that Chuck needed to do the tape recorder scheme in the first place, or else Chuck would have had him dead to rights through his own deductions.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So am I. It's generous that you had the sit down with your employee, but had you fired her for whatever serious rule breaking she did, would you have been in the wrong to do so, morally speaking? Generousity and forgiveness are good things that can pay off, but forgoing them in cases like sabotage is clear doesn't really seem morally wrong to me.

If I had set her up to make the bad choice in the first place? Absolutely. Pushing somebody to a limit and then firing them for failing is definitely an immoral act, the way that Chuck did to Ernie this season.

The first sabotage is when Ernie lied to Chuck at the hospital about calling Jimmy to the print shop where Chuck lost consciousness, explaining his sudden presence. It's the entire reason that Chuck needed to do the tape recorder scheme in the first place, or else Chuck would have had him dead to rights through his own deductions.

How was this sabotage? I'm trying to remember, but isn't it Ernie claiming he called him, when Jimmy was actually across the street? What's being sabotaged by Ernie? And does Chuck even know about it to feed into any justification of screwing over Ernie?

 

[Veelk]

How was this sabotage? I'm trying to remember, but isn't it Ernie claiming he called him, when Jimmy was actually across the street? What's being sabotaged by Ernie? And does Chuck even know about it?

Yeah, more or less. He said he called Jimmy BEFORE Chuck went to the Print Shop to question the Print Shop cashier. He didn't.

This happened in the course of Chuck trying to prove that Jimmy doctored the Mesa Verde files. There is no other explanation for why Jimmy would be there across the street and Jimmy didn't have an explanation until Ernie swooped in with the lie to cover up for him.

Lets be clear here, though I doubt Ernie knows it, he's basically helping cover up Jimmy's felony. Chuck's trying to prove that Jimmy defrauded Mesa Verde, and Ernie gave him an out he shouldn't have had.

And yes, Chuck knows this for a fact at this point. Not only did Jimmy's confession, by it's very nature, mean that Ernie was lying, but Jimmy even specifically stated that yes, he did indeed bribe the cashier, just like Chuck guessed, which torpedo's any plausible deniability Ernie might have to the affair.

If I had set her up to make the bad choice in the first place? Absolutely. Pushing somebody to a limit and then firing them for failing is definitely an immoral act, the way that Chuck did to Ernie this season.

And if you didn't?

(also, I can't help but feel Chuck's set up is overstated. "Pushing someone to a limit" is hardly what happened. I've been trying to avoid saying that because I don't want to defend Chuck on a thing he definitely did morally wrong....but at the same time, it's not like Chuck pushed him into making that choice. In fact, he pushed him away by encouraging him not to tell Jimmy. His 'set up' is that he made it appear Jimmy was in some kind of legal danger when he actually wasn't, and he counted on Ernie to protect Jimmy by informing him of it, like he protected him earlier. And yeah, that is a set up, but it's baffling that people consider this to be controlling enough to remove Ernie's culpability in this action. Had the situation been engineered so that Ernie had cause to fear for his job (or legal) security if he didn't tell Jimmy, then I'd be 100% in agreement with you, that's all but straight up entrapment. However, all Chuck did was pretend there was a legal case being made when there wasn't. He wasn't enticing Ernie to tell Jimmy, he just created an opportunity to do so, and that's a big difference maker. That feels less "Set up to fail" and more "Set up, and he'll probably fail even with the warnings" because the way to beat this game was very, very obvious. Hell, the only reason Ernie delayed in telling Jimmy as long as he did was because he was worried about the legal consequences that Chuck warned about, and why he ultimately went to Kim. So Ernie is just a hop, skip and jump away from sabotaging Chuck whenever Jimmy's neck is on the line, not someone who would only do this as a last resort).

 

[Arkeband]

This latest episode had some nice shots (the "M" silhouette at the end) but it was kind of boring. Like it took all episode for Jimmy to clarify that he could be debarred for this. If he was panicking about that from the get-go it would have been more tense, but it's hard to care when he seemed not to care that much.

It's also hard to be interested in the other half of the show, Better Call Mike, because most of what he does is long, drawn out machinations that only become clear after a lot of film is spent on making the viewer wonder what the fuck he's up to.

Hopefully things pick up.

 

[PantherLotus]

what if -- stay with me here -- what if characters like Chuck and his many analogues in the BB universe are intentionally complex people who are neither singularly good or singularly bad?

What if you are supposed to have these conflicted feelings about these characters?

Wild idea, right.

 

[typist]

Nice episode. My only complaint is the needlessly convoluted thing with the drugs in the shoes on the cable. There's too many uncontrollable variables, it's just dumb and impractical. Did Mike know exactly where the truck would park? How could he possibly know that? And if he did know that, then he would have to throw the shoes to the perfect position on the power cable, and we already saw that just getting the shoes to any position on the cable was difficult enough. And then if the wind isn't perfect you're still screwed.
The cardboard box method would have been a hundred times simpler and more entertaining.

 

[Cornballer]

It just makes their inevitable falling out / tragedy even more painful:

Also, a shot of Dr Goodman from Breaking Bad:

 

[Mariolee]

Hedge your bets now. Does Jimmy become Saul by the end of this season?

 

[minor effort]

what if -- stay with me here -- what if characters like Chuck and his many analogues in the BB universe are intentionally complex people who are neither singularly good or singularly bad?

What if you are supposed to have these conflicted feelings about these characters?

Wild idea, right.

It's absurd.

As much as an asshole Chuck's been the past several episodes, there have been times when I've still been angrier with Jimmy.

The viewer roots for Jimmy because he's the protagonist, but he still seems doomed to be the one to ruin Kim's career, which makes it difficult to totally like him.

Chuck is the antagonist, but I can't disagree with his view that Jimmy isn't fit to practice law. His methods of trying to get Jimmy disbarred and screwing over others around him (Kim, Ernesto) are indefensible, but he has his limits.

 

[stenbumling]

Hedge your bets now. Does Jimmy become Saul by the end of this season?

Absolutely. By name at least.

 

[Eridani]

Nice episode. My only complaint is the needlessly convoluted thing with the drugs in the shoes on the cable. There's too many uncontrollable variables, it's just dumb and impractical. Did Mike know exactly where the truck would park? How could he possibly know that? And if he did know that, then he would have to throw the shoes to the perfect position on the power cable, and we already saw that just getting the shoes to any position on the cable was difficult enough. And then if the wind isn't perfect you're still screwed.
The cardboard box method would have been a hundred times simpler and more entertaining.

He knew the truck would park somewhere around there, since it's where they stash their guns (I don't remember if he saw the other truck do the same, but it's not something that would be hard to find out with some research). That means that they were basically guaranteed to drive under the cable slowly enough for the plan to work. Then he just needs to throw the shoes so that they are above the road and that's that, which is hardly all that difficult.

Yeah, the wind could still screw him up I guess, but you can just say he deliberately chose a very non-windy day.

 

[BizzyBum]

I'm still floored every week on how good this show is.

Definitely have to rewatch all of BB once this is over.

 

[RecRoulette]

Finally caught the episode.

Chuck is an asshole master manipulator at every step of the way and it's glorious. Even manipulating the prosecutor on his case, bravo Chuck

Jimmy telling Chuck he was going to die alone also great.

Also great seeing his buddy from the earlier seasons.

Mike's stuff was also fantastic. In your head you're thinking of some crazy convoluted plan when in reality it's something simple and painless.

Best episode of the season so far.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

And if you didn't?

I think that's covered by my real life example. A fair person would give somebody a chance, legally bound to or not. I dunno, maybe Ernie is a terrible employee and this is just icing on the cake. I'd be fine with it in that case.

(also, I can't help but feel Chuck's set up is overstated. "Pushing someone to a limit" is hardly what happened. I've been trying to avoid saying that because I don't want to defend Chuck on a thing he definitely did morally wrong....but at the same time, it's not like Chuck pushed him into making that choice. In fact, he pushed him away by encouraging him not to tell Jimmy. His 'set up' is that he made it appear Jimmy was in some kind of legal danger when he actually wasn't, and he counted on Ernie to protect Jimmy by informing him of it, like he protected him earlier. And yeah, that is a set up, but it's baffling that people consider this to be controlling enough to remove Ernie's culpability in this action. Had the situation been engineered so that Ernie had cause to fear for his job (or legal) security if he didn't tell Jimmy, then I'd be 100% in agreement with you, that's all but straight up entrapment. However, all Chuck did was pretend there was a legal case being made when there wasn't. He wasn't enticing Ernie to tell Jimmy, he just created an opportunity to do so, and that's a big difference maker. That feels less "Set up to fail" and more "Set up, and he'll probably fail even with the warnings" because the way to beat this game was very, very obvious. Hell, the only reason Ernie delayed in telling Jimmy as long as he did was because he was worried about the legal consequences that Chuck warned about, and why he ultimately went to Kim. So Ernie is just a hop, skip and jump away from sabotaging Chuck whenever Jimmy's neck is on the line, not someone who would only do this as a last resort).

I never said that. Ernie can be responsible for his own actions *and* Chuck can be a dick for using him in a way that gets him fired. Responsibility for something is not finite and binary.

Now that you pointed out that he knows Ernie covered for Jimmy, this is not as egregious. But it is more akin to revenge than personnel management. Take it from somebody who manages a large group of people.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's absurd.

As much as an asshole Chuck's been the past several episodes, there have been times when I've still been angrier with Jimmy.

The viewer roots for Jimmy because he's the protagonist, but he still seems doomed to be the one to ruin Kim's career, which makes it difficult to totally like him.

Chuck is the antagonist, but I can't disagree with his view that Jimmy isn't fit to practice law. His methods of trying to get Jimmy disbarred and screwing over others around him (Kim, Ernesto) are indefensible, but he has his limits.

Agreed with all of this. I only get riled up when Vleek defends Chuck's actions as not only legal (which they are) but somehow the *right thing*.

 

[Veelk]

I think that's covered by my real life example. A fair person would give somebody a chance, legally bound to or not. I dunno, maybe Ernie is a terrible employee and this is just icing on the cake. I'd be fine with it in that case.

So, you're saying that the only moral action an employer would have is to offer a second chance? They cannot morally fire an employee for a grievous transaction on first strike?

I never said that. Ernie can be responsible for his own actions *and* Chuck can be a dick for using him in a way that gets him fired. Responsibility for something is not finite and binary.

That's basically what I've been arguing. Yeah, fine, Chuck is a dick, but that doesn't automatically make Ernie a blameless victim. I feel that Ernie's actions, nice guy he may be, earned him being fired.

Now that you pointed out that he knows Ernie covered for Jimmy, this is not as egregious. But it is more akin to revenge than personnel management. Take it from somebody who manages a large group of people.

Maybe. I'm never argued that it was entirely impersonal. Chuck is way too invested in this case to be detached from how Ernie screwed him. However, nevertheless, I just don't see most employers being as generous as you were with the second chance. Nor can I agree that they'd be bad people for doing so. Deliberate sabotage feels like something that most people would take personally.

Agreed with all of this. I only get riled up when Vleek defends Chuck's actions as not only legal (which they are) but somehow the *right thing*.

I defend his actions as moral in the sense that Chuck is acting in accordance to an actual set of morals. He's not just a spiteful shitheel, he actually, truly believes that what Jimmy did was wrong and the proper course of action is that he suffers the weight of the law for it...which, really, isn't an unreasonable philosophy by which to live your life. What Jimmy did was wrong, by any reasonable set of morals, and there isn't really a reason he shouldn't be subjugated to the legal ramifications of committing that wrong.

The reason laws get made, or atleast the way it's supposed to work, is that everyone agrees that a given moral action is wrong, so they made a rule we can use to punish people when they do that morally wrong thing. There is a distinction between whats legal and whats moral, but these two things are kinda joined at the hip as well.

The problem is that sense of genuine justice is mixed in with his personal hangups about Jimmy, an element in which he has struggled much of his life. Plus a whole bunch of complications concerning whether Chuck has Jimmy pegged right, how much influence Chuck had over Jimmy's development, etc.

That's what I mean when I say that Chuck does what he believes to be the right thing, and his interpretation is not entirely without merit, while not being spotlessly clean either.

 

[Pryce]

God, this show is so damn good.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So, you're saying that the only moral action an employer would have is to offer a second chance? They cannot fire an employee for a grievous transaction on first strike morally?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. If telling Jimmy about the tape were his first offense, yeah, I would consider it immoral to fire him for it. You'd have to convince me that taking away a man's livelihood for an offense that small merited that reaction. There's a case to be made that it puts him in serious doubt, but one-and-done is too big.

That's basically what I've been arguing. Yeah, fine, Chuck is a dick, but that doesn't automatically make Ernie a blameless victim. I feel that Ernie's actions, nice guy he may be, earned him being fired.

Yeah. Chuck's an ass for setting him up, but that's Ernie's second strike (as you reminded me) and Ernie's pretty dumb to do it twice. Although I suppose he didn't know Chuck knew about the first one. But that doesn't matter, it establishes a pattern.

Maybe. I'm never argued that it was entirely impersonal. Chuck is way too invested in this case to be detached from how Ernie screwed him. However, nevertheless, I just don't see most employers being as generous as you were with the second chance. Nor can I agree that they'd be bad people for doing so. Deliberate sabotage feels like something that most people would take personally.

I think referring to it as deliberate sabotage is an issue. More like "not helping a guy screw over his brother, after that brother screwed over the first brother, who himself had screwed over the second brother before that." Ernie wasn't testifying in a court of law when he lied to Chuck. He's not obligated to help Chuck make a case against Jimmy.

I defend his actions as moral in the sense that Chuck is acting in accordance to an actual set of morals. He's not just a spiteful shitheel, he actually, truly believes that what Jimmy did wrong and the proper course of action is that he suffers the weight of the law for it...which, really, isn't an unreasonable philosophy by which to live your life.

The problem is that sense of genuine justice is mixed in with his personal hangups about Jimmy, an element in which he has struggled much of his life. And Jimmy's respect of Chuck and his influence over him bring into question how much of Jimmy being what he is was due to how Chuck never gave him a real chance.

That's what I mean when I say that Chuck does what he believes to be the right thing, which is not entirely without merit, while not being spotlessly clean either.

The issue is that Chuck is using his moral code as a cover for a personal vendetta. That's especially reprehensible to people who *do* live by a moral code.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Completely aside, what's the deal with Kim sleeping in the office and getting ready at the gym? I get that she's working long hours, but wouldn't she go home? ABQ isn't that big.

 

[Sectorseven]

Completely aside, what's the deal with Kim sleeping in the office and getting ready at the gym? I get that she's working long hours, but wouldn't she go home? ABQ isn't that big.

She has a huge office too. Could have had them install a shower and treadmill.