6 ms·

All this love on here for Arnold, but whenever I think of him, I can't get out of my head his debates and interviews during his campaign for Governor. He refuse

All this love on here for Arnold, but whenever I think of him, I can't get out of my head his debates and interviews during his campaign for Governor. He refused to let other candidates speak their turn, constantly interrupting with lots of bombast. He was rude and inconsiderate, and then I saw him on Ellen with his wife, and she had to physically cover his mouth with her hand because of the awful stuff he was saying. His wife eventually left him. So while this is a great little article, it is just that: a crafted, written piece, well-edited and promoted. Perhaps it is sincere, but it is not the whole picture. And "humble" is not the word I'd have ever used to describe Arnold.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
I'm pretty sure most of us come across better in writing, I know I do. Personally I would argue that's a better reflection of the person than the first thing that pops into their head when they're trying to entertain on TV.
- hellofunk 10y ago
  I disagree. Writing is a product of time. Give enough time or influence from others and your writing can be whatever you want it be, and it can be far removed from who you actually are.
  - idank 10y ago
    The same can be said about speech. There's an entire industry on how to be a good speaker. It is very much an acquired skill, perhaps more difficult to master, but very similar to being well written.
crististm 10y ago
I've read just yesterday about interrupting others (while looking for missed IRQ's :) and the thing is this: It is expected of politicians and high profile figures to talk over others or they will be percieved weak. Their setup is not on polite debate but on putting up a convincing show. As Jim Rohn used to say: you must understand how things are even if you don't like the way they are.
- projektir 10y ago
  Seems like if you understand how things are, you also enable how they are.
  - iamskeptic 10y ago
    You could have written something about how Arnold's behavior in interviews/debates is bad because of $reasons. You could have explained that while it's what's expected of high-ranking personalities/candidates, the outcomes of such debates are poor compared to $something. But you decided to call the person you're replying to a coward and conformist. Yeah...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - projektir 10y ago
      If that's what you wanted written, you could write it yourself. I deemed this more important. I didn't call the person I replied to any of these things. It's not about conformism, but about how much a person is driven by the system they accepted, or the perception of the system. A lot of things get propagated because they have always been this way, and often it's not even necessary, but nobody questions it. Then someone does and it falls apart. Most people who understand the system stay within it, it's essentially admitting defeat. To understand a system is to give it credit, to accept it, to make it valid. Poor systems should not be made valid, they should be rejected as the nonsense that they are. I expect more from people who claim they are extremely hard working and successful.
      - crististm 10y ago
        I don't feel like understanding a system automatically makes one part of it. Why not see it as giving power to over-through it?
        projektir 10y ago
SeanDav 10y ago
Almost everyone who achieves far beyond the average is "flawed" in some way, or in quite a few ways. Another example: Steve Jobs was an amazing man who achieved far beyond most mortals, but he was also a deeply flawed man.
- fmihaila 10y ago
  > Almost everyone who achieves far beyond the average is "flawed" in some way, or in quite a few ways. Another way to look at it is that everyone is "flawed" in some way, or in quite a few ways, but some also manage to achieve far beyond the average.
- duck2 10y ago
  s/flawed/sociopathic/
- kutkloon7 10y ago
  Steve Jobs was indeed a horrible man and sociopath. I don't think he did any good to the world, and I think it is bad for the world that he is admired by so many people. I read his biography, which is written by a biographer he explicitly chose to make him look good, and he still looks bad. He is basically Cartman in real life, but worse. He is all what is wrong with capitalism. He is responsible for directly and indirectly making a lot of people's life a hell. That he had a minor hand (he likes to take responsibility for good things that other people have done, and deny responsibility for bad things he has done) in making some ridiculously overpriced gadgets[1] is no reason to admire him. Someone who should be admired a lot more by the general public, in my opinion, is Steve Wozniak. He actively tries to make the world a better place, he loves teaching, uses his money to make the world a better place, and has respect for people. Also, he's the real Steve that made Apple great. [1] http://wccftech.com/iphone-6s-costs-apple-234-manufacture/ http://wccftech.com/iphone-6s-costs-apple-234-manufacture/
  - michael_h 10y ago
    Regarding the reference you linked, there's a tiny part of the phone that they did not include in the bill of materials: software. That might add a few bucks to the final price.
taneq 10y ago
So what I'm reading here is that he played to win, and he won?
- hellofunk 10y ago
  If that's all you read, then I didn't express myself well.
  - taneq 10y ago
    I was interpreting his behaviour during the campaign (as distasteful as it would be in normal interpersonal interaction) as nevertheless being something which gave him an advantage in his campaign. I'm not saying he's always a great human being but he always strikes me as acting in a fairly optimal manner with respect to his goals.
    - gjm11 10y ago
      Yup, no doubt he was acting approximately optimally for someone whose only goal was to gain power and who didn't have other goals like "don't be obnoxious". Most of us, most of the time, don't consider that a reasonable set of goals. In the same way, someone who robs a bank is (perhaps) acting optimally for someone whose goal is "get money" and who doesn't have other goals like "don't break the law" and "don't take stuff that isn't yours". And if someone sleeps with your spouse and then kills you lest you take revenge, then (provided they do it carefully enough) they may be acting optimally for someone whose goal is "sleep with that person I fancy" and who doesn't have other goals like "don't encourage people to cheat on their spouses" and "don't commit murder". If someone says "X acted obnoxiously" or "X acted immorally" then pointing out that there's some unpleasant/immoral set of goals X may have had that for which their behaviour was optimal misses the point of the criticism, which is to say "their goals apparently don't include being a decent person". hellofunk wasn't saying that Schwarzenegger was ineffective but that he was a bad person.
      - wufufufu 10y ago
        If you end up in prison (or have a likelihood of being ending up in prison), then you did not act "optimally". Your examples are strawmen.
gdulli 10y ago
He's also a serial molester of women who reformed in order to have a career in politics. The media doesn't look too hard at this because he makes movies that people like, and the Republicans propped him up and wrote off all accusations as political smears. He's lucky not to have had the Bill Cosby moment that he deserves.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

I'm pretty sure most of us come across better in writing, I know I do. Personally I would argue that's a better reflection of the person than the first thing that pops into their head when they're trying to entertain on TV.

hellofunk 10y ago
I disagree. Writing is a product of time. Give enough time or influence from others and your writing can be whatever you want it be, and it can be far removed from who you actually are.
- idank 10y ago
  The same can be said about speech. There's an entire industry on how to be a good speaker. It is very much an acquired skill, perhaps more difficult to master, but very similar to being well written.

crististm 10y ago

I've read just yesterday about interrupting others (while looking for missed IRQ's :) and the thing is this: It is expected of politicians and high profile figures to talk over others or they will be percieved weak. Their setup is not on polite debate but on putting up a convincing show. As Jim Rohn used to say: you must understand how things are even if you don't like the way they are.

projektir 10y ago
Seems like if you understand how things are, you also enable how they are.
- iamskeptic 10y ago
  You could have written something about how Arnold's behavior in interviews/debates is bad because of $reasons. You could have explained that while it's what's expected of high-ranking personalities/candidates, the outcomes of such debates are poor compared to $something. But you decided to call the person you're replying to a coward and conformist. Yeah...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - projektir 10y ago
    If that's what you wanted written, you could write it yourself. I deemed this more important. I didn't call the person I replied to any of these things. It's not about conformism, but about how much a person is driven by the system they accepted, or the perception of the system. A lot of things get propagated because they have always been this way, and often it's not even necessary, but nobody questions it. Then someone does and it falls apart. Most people who understand the system stay within it, it's essentially admitting defeat. To understand a system is to give it credit, to accept it, to make it valid. Poor systems should not be made valid, they should be rejected as the nonsense that they are. I expect more from people who claim they are extremely hard working and successful.
    - crististm 10y ago
      I don't feel like understanding a system automatically makes one part of it. Why not see it as giving power to over-through it?
      - projektir 10y ago

SeanDav 10y ago

Almost everyone who achieves far beyond the average is "flawed" in some way, or in quite a few ways. Another example: Steve Jobs was an amazing man who achieved far beyond most mortals, but he was also a deeply flawed man.

fmihaila 10y ago
> Almost everyone who achieves far beyond the average is "flawed" in some way, or in quite a few ways. Another way to look at it is that everyone is "flawed" in some way, or in quite a few ways, but some also manage to achieve far beyond the average.
duck2 10y ago
s/flawed/sociopathic/
kutkloon7 10y ago
Steve Jobs was indeed a horrible man and sociopath. I don't think he did any good to the world, and I think it is bad for the world that he is admired by so many people. I read his biography, which is written by a biographer he explicitly chose to make him look good, and he still looks bad. He is basically Cartman in real life, but worse. He is all what is wrong with capitalism. He is responsible for directly and indirectly making a lot of people's life a hell. That he had a minor hand (he likes to take responsibility for good things that other people have done, and deny responsibility for bad things he has done) in making some ridiculously overpriced gadgets[1] is no reason to admire him. Someone who should be admired a lot more by the general public, in my opinion, is Steve Wozniak. He actively tries to make the world a better place, he loves teaching, uses his money to make the world a better place, and has respect for people. Also, he's the real Steve that made Apple great. [1] http://wccftech.com/iphone-6s-costs-apple-234-manufacture/ http://wccftech.com/iphone-6s-costs-apple-234-manufacture/
- michael_h 10y ago
  Regarding the reference you linked, there's a tiny part of the phone that they did not include in the bill of materials: software. That might add a few bucks to the final price.

taneq 10y ago

So what I'm reading here is that he played to win, and he won?

hellofunk 10y ago
If that's all you read, then I didn't express myself well.
- taneq 10y ago
  I was interpreting his behaviour during the campaign (as distasteful as it would be in normal interpersonal interaction) as nevertheless being something which gave him an advantage in his campaign. I'm not saying he's always a great human being but he always strikes me as acting in a fairly optimal manner with respect to his goals.
  - gjm11 10y ago
    Yup, no doubt he was acting approximately optimally for someone whose only goal was to gain power and who didn't have other goals like "don't be obnoxious". Most of us, most of the time, don't consider that a reasonable set of goals. In the same way, someone who robs a bank is (perhaps) acting optimally for someone whose goal is "get money" and who doesn't have other goals like "don't break the law" and "don't take stuff that isn't yours". And if someone sleeps with your spouse and then kills you lest you take revenge, then (provided they do it carefully enough) they may be acting optimally for someone whose goal is "sleep with that person I fancy" and who doesn't have other goals like "don't encourage people to cheat on their spouses" and "don't commit murder". If someone says "X acted obnoxiously" or "X acted immorally" then pointing out that there's some unpleasant/immoral set of goals X may have had that for which their behaviour was optimal misses the point of the criticism, which is to say "their goals apparently don't include being a decent person". hellofunk wasn't saying that Schwarzenegger was ineffective but that he was a bad person.
    - wufufufu 10y ago
      If you end up in prison (or have a likelihood of being ending up in prison), then you did not act "optimally". Your examples are strawmen.

gdulli 10y ago

He's also a serial molester of women who reformed in order to have a career in politics. The media doesn't look too hard at this because he makes movies that people like, and the Republicans propped him up and wrote off all accusations as political smears. He's lucky not to have had the Bill Cosby moment that he deserves.