4 ms·
Yes it does. Disparaging "companies" for bad decision-making adds almost nothing of value to a conversation. Now if you want to talk about perverse incentives
by clarkmoody 10y ago
Yes it does. Disparaging "companies" for bad decision-making adds almost nothing of value to a conversation.
Now if you want to talk about perverse incentives for first-line or middle managers in publicly-traded companies, etc, then let's have that conversation.
- grzm 10y agoIn your view is synecdoche every justified or useful? If so, can you provide an example?
- clarkmoody 10y agoAs I understand it, nobody has used synecdoche in this conversation yet. The closest thing is metonymy, and even then, "companies" is way to broad for that. I think toponyms are fun (Silicon Valley / Wall Street).
- maxxxxx 10y agoPersonally I think you have added nothing to the conversation. Are you also correcting people who say "the government", "silicon valley", "France" or "the economy"?
- stinkytaco 10y agoHis point is that the "company" didn't or can't (or wasn't allowed to) make a decision. A middle manager trying to save his job and his team's job made a decision. This "person" made a decision in his or her own best interest, not the company's. So yes, I think the semantics matter here.
- maxxxxx 10y agoIt's just pedantic.