5 ms·

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordere

by robbiep 10y ago

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment

croon 10y ago
> If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish. I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely: * That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job? or * That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition? > I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment The comment or validity thereof?
- robbiep 10y ago
  I am a CEO. And yes I recognise the foolishness of poor management practices, as well as acting in a shortsighted or criminal manner. Perhaps we should differentiate between insubordination/disloyalty, which is what the parent comment is about, and some version of the Nuremberg defence, namely, I was told to do it and failed to process that it was an immoral or criminal act. Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't. great chat.
  - croon 10y ago
    So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? Like you said in the parent comment. This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.
    - troisx 10y ago
      If Uber or Airbnb counsel refused to defend some of the dubiously legal practices that both companies practice, they'd be fired that minute.
      - croon 10y ago
        That's a false equivalence. It doesn't suggest that their respective CEOs disregard the counsel's input. If it's still relevant to pursue their corporate interest in very fresh legislative ground afterwards, that's another thing. While I might be persuaded in general that amendments should be made and the constitution not be static, immigration isn't a new frontier. And in that area, it's not in need of revision.
    - robbiep 10y ago
      >So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that. You are inferring that I am because of your pro-trump bias and because i responded to the parent with insert generic content, which could be construed as being neutral/pro-trump. For the record, I think the mess Americans have created for themselves serves them right; is a sign of a broken democracy, an ignorant and uninformed populace where only extremism will get people to the polls. Unfortunately Australia is part of a world where the actions of a bigoted maniac will affect us; and I can hardly say that our political leadership is any better (although our democracy is significantly stronger with compulsory voting and preferential voting)
      - croon 10y ago
        > >So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? > At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that. But you literally wrote this in your original post: > If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. How else are we meant to interpret that? On the last part I only have this to say: I don't have pro-trump bias. I am very anti-trump, but not as a premise, but rather as an end result of my rationality.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
The US has a Constitution. Being President/General/CEO doesn't mean you get to assume you're above the law.
- robbiep 10y ago
  Although it doesn't stop people from assuming that; and sometimes the law has a long lag time. I would also like to append my comments here I made Lowe down regarding the difference between insubordination/disloyalty (parent comment) and Nuremberg defence style actions

by robbiep 10y ago

croon 10y ago

> If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish. I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely: * That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job? or * That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition? > I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment The comment or validity thereof?

robbiep 10y ago
I am a CEO. And yes I recognise the foolishness of poor management practices, as well as acting in a shortsighted or criminal manner. Perhaps we should differentiate between insubordination/disloyalty, which is what the parent comment is about, and some version of the Nuremberg defence, namely, I was told to do it and failed to process that it was an immoral or criminal act. Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't. great chat.
- croon 10y ago
  So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? Like you said in the parent comment. This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.
  - troisx 10y ago
    If Uber or Airbnb counsel refused to defend some of the dubiously legal practices that both companies practice, they'd be fired that minute.
    - croon 10y ago
      That's a false equivalence. It doesn't suggest that their respective CEOs disregard the counsel's input. If it's still relevant to pursue their corporate interest in very fresh legislative ground afterwards, that's another thing. While I might be persuaded in general that amendments should be made and the constitution not be static, immigration isn't a new frontier. And in that area, it's not in need of revision.
  - robbiep 10y ago
    >So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that. You are inferring that I am because of your pro-trump bias and because i responded to the parent with insert generic content, which could be construed as being neutral/pro-trump. For the record, I think the mess Americans have created for themselves serves them right; is a sign of a broken democracy, an ignorant and uninformed populace where only extremism will get people to the polls. Unfortunately Australia is part of a world where the actions of a bigoted maniac will affect us; and I can hardly say that our political leadership is any better (although our democracy is significantly stronger with compulsory voting and preferential voting)
    - croon 10y ago
      > >So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? > At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that. But you literally wrote this in your original post: > If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. How else are we meant to interpret that? On the last part I only have this to say: I don't have pro-trump bias. I am very anti-trump, but not as a premise, but rather as an end result of my rationality.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

The US has a Constitution. Being President/General/CEO doesn't mean you get to assume you're above the law.

robbiep 10y ago
Although it doesn't stop people from assuming that; and sometimes the law has a long lag time. I would also like to append my comments here I made Lowe down regarding the difference between insubordination/disloyalty (parent comment) and Nuremberg defence style actions