3 ms·

> "he almost always was right." Except when he died of treatable cancer because of his own arrogance and stupidity. Or when he denied paternity of his child.

by glogla 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomhoward 8y ago
Comments like this can really spoil discussion threads. There's nothing for anyone to learn here, it just panders to people's pre-established positions. Whether or not his cancer was so easily treatable (experts have written articles disputing this), "arrogance and stupidity" is a rough thing to say about someone facing a life-threatening diagnosis, dealing with all the fear and uncertainty that goes with that, and having to make a call on how best to confront it. The paternity thing was of course a black mark on his legacy, but he was young, and we just don't know what kind of fears and unresolved issues might have been influencing his behaviour at that stage. Whatever the case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The whole point of this discussion topic is to take a nuanced view of Jobs' conduct in a particular context. It could do without rage-bait comments like this.
- glogla 8y ago
  I am replying to a comment is basically saying "hey he was a fucked up abuser, but he was right some of the time, and he was rich, so he must have been doing something right, right? " If we, as a humanity, are to stay on this world long-term, we have to create a society where humanity is more important than success and money. We can't idolize abusers, manipulators and psychopaths because they are successful CEOs.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    > "basically saying" Your summary is a gross oversimplification of what was a very thoughtful comment. Like I said, the comment you replied to, and the original article, are valuable for their nuance. Your replies are deliberately lacking in nuance and therefore derail the discussion. Nobody is focusing on how "rich" or "successful" he was; in this discussion people are only talking about how he led his company to build many different products that many people care about and find extremely useful. As you point out, humanity has many important challenges to solve, and in order to solve them we need leaders who can get results. I can agree with you that it would be ideal if those leaders were good-natured people who treat others well. Finding the right balance between getting results and treating people well is an important, complex topic that needs to be discussed with care, not drowned in rage. Edit: For what it's worth, in the past 24 hours I've posted another comment defending people's right to criticise Elon Musk and invoking The Emperor's New Clothes as a demonstration of why it's important to be free to criticise powerful people, no matter how much they claim to be on a mission to "save the world". So I'm not against criticism of successful people. I just like it to be substantive, and of the kind that promotes interesting discussions and generates valuable new insights.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

> "he almost always was right." Except when he died of treatable cancer because of his own arrogance and stupidity. Or when he denied paternity of his child.

by glogla 8y ago

> "he almost always was right." Except when he died of treatable cancer because of his own arrogance and stupidity. Or when he denied paternity of his child.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tomhoward 8y ago

Comments like this can really spoil discussion threads. There's nothing for anyone to learn here, it just panders to people's pre-established positions. Whether or not his cancer was so easily treatable (experts have written articles disputing this), "arrogance and stupidity" is a rough thing to say about someone facing a life-threatening diagnosis, dealing with all the fear and uncertainty that goes with that, and having to make a call on how best to confront it. The paternity thing was of course a black mark on his legacy, but he was young, and we just don't know what kind of fears and unresolved issues might have been influencing his behaviour at that stage. Whatever the case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The whole point of this discussion topic is to take a nuanced view of Jobs' conduct in a particular context. It could do without rage-bait comments like this.

glogla 8y ago
I am replying to a comment is basically saying "hey he was a fucked up abuser, but he was right some of the time, and he was rich, so he must have been doing something right, right? " If we, as a humanity, are to stay on this world long-term, we have to create a society where humanity is more important than success and money. We can't idolize abusers, manipulators and psychopaths because they are successful CEOs.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  > "basically saying" Your summary is a gross oversimplification of what was a very thoughtful comment. Like I said, the comment you replied to, and the original article, are valuable for their nuance. Your replies are deliberately lacking in nuance and therefore derail the discussion. Nobody is focusing on how "rich" or "successful" he was; in this discussion people are only talking about how he led his company to build many different products that many people care about and find extremely useful. As you point out, humanity has many important challenges to solve, and in order to solve them we need leaders who can get results. I can agree with you that it would be ideal if those leaders were good-natured people who treat others well. Finding the right balance between getting results and treating people well is an important, complex topic that needs to be discussed with care, not drowned in rage. Edit: For what it's worth, in the past 24 hours I've posted another comment defending people's right to criticise Elon Musk and invoking The Emperor's New Clothes as a demonstration of why it's important to be free to criticise powerful people, no matter how much they claim to be on a mission to "save the world". So I'm not against criticism of successful people. I just like it to be substantive, and of the kind that promotes interesting discussions and generates valuable new insights.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]