8 ms·

Separate the work and the man and you can keep your admiration without having to spend your time condoning or condemning everything else the man does you disagr

Separate the work and the man and you can keep your admiration without having to spend your time condoning or condemning everything else the man does you disagree with. I think this is necessary for most historical figures (even many living ones) given popular modern ethics. (Edit: with separation you can also work with your coworkers professionally even if they have different politics.)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kzhahou 10y ago
No this is not about separating the work from the man. We're not talking about personal stuff. In his capacity as a senior leader of a major silicon valley company, he actively worked to limit people's employment opportunities. That tarnishes his record as a great leader.
- santaclaus 10y ago
  > senior leader of a major silicon valley company Pixar is in the East Bay, not the valley!
  - kzhahou 10y ago
    SV colloquially refers to the entire region comprising SF, the peninsula, San Jose, and East Bay.
    - santaclaus 10y ago
      No, it does not. Try telling a Berkeley resident they live in the valley and you'll get corrected hella quick.
sk55 10y ago
What large tech company during his time did not engage in that practice? I am not saying it was the correct thing to do, however, if it is that common in the industry, then it is a systemic defect versus a personal defect and should be treated as such.
- Keyframe 10y ago
  He was in a position where he was not really a part of the system. Pixar had its own production and a distribution deal with Disney (at the time). They weren't client-oriented service machine like others. No thin margins for that whale. He could've made an impact, a change in the system other companies were challenged with. Exploitation by studios, which ultimately brought down many VFX houses down and shaked a lot of people's lives. What he did was align with what VFX houses did, where he didn't had to because he was not in the same business as them at all. Lazy approach at best, evil at worst. I still respect all his work he has done though. There is no doubt in that.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kzhahou 10y ago

No this is not about separating the work from the man. We're not talking about personal stuff. In his capacity as a senior leader of a major silicon valley company, he actively worked to limit people's employment opportunities. That tarnishes his record as a great leader.

santaclaus 10y ago
> senior leader of a major silicon valley company Pixar is in the East Bay, not the valley!
- kzhahou 10y ago
  SV colloquially refers to the entire region comprising SF, the peninsula, San Jose, and East Bay.
  - santaclaus 10y ago
    No, it does not. Try telling a Berkeley resident they live in the valley and you'll get corrected hella quick.

sk55 10y ago

What large tech company during his time did not engage in that practice? I am not saying it was the correct thing to do, however, if it is that common in the industry, then it is a systemic defect versus a personal defect and should be treated as such.

Keyframe 10y ago
He was in a position where he was not really a part of the system. Pixar had its own production and a distribution deal with Disney (at the time). They weren't client-oriented service machine like others. No thin margins for that whale. He could've made an impact, a change in the system other companies were challenged with. Exploitation by studios, which ultimately brought down many VFX houses down and shaked a lot of people's lives. What he did was align with what VFX houses did, where he didn't had to because he was not in the same business as them at all. Lazy approach at best, evil at worst. I still respect all his work he has done though. There is no doubt in that.