3 ms·

This is obviously an absurd situation but I don't understand why people seem personally offended by it. This isn't public money. It's their money to lose and i

by anm89 7y ago

This is obviously an absurd situation but I don't understand why people seem personally offended by it. This isn't public money. It's their money to lose and if they do it's they who suffer the consequences. It's their right to be stupid. As long as the do it on their and their non public investor's dime.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tinus_hn 7y ago
As long as they pay their taxes, employees and suppliers, you’re right. Otherwise they’re stealing and public is paying for it.
katmannthree 7y ago
>It's their right to be stupid. As long as the do it on their and their non public investor's dime. Perhaps, but from the outside it looks like at some point Adam decided that instead of running a real company he was going to pump and dump We and run off with as much cash as he and his wife could carry. SoftBank's action here, while possibly a good strategic choice for them at this point, looks from the outside to be rewarding antisocial behavior with more money than the vast majority of us will ever earn in our lifetimes. People aren't saying that SoftBank can't do it, they're just saying that it's very unpleasant to watch.
- anm89 7y ago
  Cool, so let them litigate if they so choose. A court can decide if the pump and dump broke securities laws and penalize accordingly. It still doesn't matter for any of the people acting personally offended. It's absolute within softbank's right to act "antisocially" as long as no specific laws were broken. What, should we take them to thought crime court for improper antisocial thought?
  - katmannthree 7y ago
    >It's absolute within softbank's right to act "antisocially" as long as no specific laws were broken. I'm not disagreeing with that. Just as it is likely his right to act in a manner many find to be antisocial, it is my and everyone else's right to be disgusted by Adam Neumann and to shame him online in whatever (legal) fashion I feel like. >It still doesn't matter for any of the people acting personally offended. Since you seem to prefer concrete takes on things, consider that I'm not judging Adam on some abstract moral basis. His actions on a broad scale represent a set of behaviors that are at odds with a healthy society. He has harmed softbank, but he has also harmed the employees at We. There are people who left stable jobs to work for him who are now out of work, and many more who will soon join them.
    - anm89 7y ago
      Yeah I think that's very fair. He has undoubtedly screwed a lot of people over here. On the other hand many of them were just as greedy as Adam was with the key exception that they did not position themselves in a winning matter. You could debate this but I would argue most of them understood that this was the game they were playing.
      - katmannthree 7y ago
        Absolutely, as far as people in his cohort go I don't think he's necessarily any more unethical or selfish than the mean. In fact, given that SoftBank's Vision Fund is backed by a nation with some fairly severe human rights issues, one could even argue that from a utilitarian standpoint he has done good. My issue with him is from my belief that a society filled with people who act like he has is destined to far less long term success than one where people are less self-serving.
dingo_bat 7y ago
When a murderer kills somebody 1000km away from where I live, it doesn't affect me, just like when a scamster gets paid a billion dollars. But I feel "offended" in both cases, for similar reasons.
dmode 7y ago
Strange thing not to understand. There are real repercussions - a number of people will be laid off who only a few months back were promised a healthy company and an absurd valuation. The people laid off may lose their health coverage. They will have to depend on unemployment to keep their families afloat. Many employees were probably given options, with an absurd valuation. Those are worthless. Early employees are probably wiped out. But - the one person who was made this false promises will walk off with $2bn.
- anm89 7y ago
  Everyone was there under their free will. Why did they join some hyper growth startup run by a guy rubbing crystals on himself while doing tequila shots? Because they wanted to make boat loads of money for minimal work. And it almost worked but it didn't so tough luck. I'm not saying this isn't bad, it obviously is bad or even terrible for many people involved. But they choose to be there and that's their right as adults in America. If you want to change that fact than make that case but then many people including myself start to take serious issues with those viewpoints. It seems to me that this is the current that underlines most of these complaints. No law was broken but I don't like it so it shouldn't have been allowed. If you want to make an argument there was fraud then make it. I'm sure people will. And I support them in trying. I don't have any evidence either way yet. But all of this moralizing achieves nothing. If you want a specific law to be changed than say what it is. Otherwise your left shaking your fist at the air. It's counter productive to real change.

by anm89 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tinus_hn 7y ago

As long as they pay their taxes, employees and suppliers, you’re right. Otherwise they’re stealing and public is paying for it.

katmannthree 7y ago

>It's their right to be stupid. As long as the do it on their and their non public investor's dime. Perhaps, but from the outside it looks like at some point Adam decided that instead of running a real company he was going to pump and dump We and run off with as much cash as he and his wife could carry. SoftBank's action here, while possibly a good strategic choice for them at this point, looks from the outside to be rewarding antisocial behavior with more money than the vast majority of us will ever earn in our lifetimes. People aren't saying that SoftBank can't do it, they're just saying that it's very unpleasant to watch.

anm89 7y ago
Cool, so let them litigate if they so choose. A court can decide if the pump and dump broke securities laws and penalize accordingly. It still doesn't matter for any of the people acting personally offended. It's absolute within softbank's right to act "antisocially" as long as no specific laws were broken. What, should we take them to thought crime court for improper antisocial thought?
- katmannthree 7y ago
  >It's absolute within softbank's right to act "antisocially" as long as no specific laws were broken. I'm not disagreeing with that. Just as it is likely his right to act in a manner many find to be antisocial, it is my and everyone else's right to be disgusted by Adam Neumann and to shame him online in whatever (legal) fashion I feel like. >It still doesn't matter for any of the people acting personally offended. Since you seem to prefer concrete takes on things, consider that I'm not judging Adam on some abstract moral basis. His actions on a broad scale represent a set of behaviors that are at odds with a healthy society. He has harmed softbank, but he has also harmed the employees at We. There are people who left stable jobs to work for him who are now out of work, and many more who will soon join them.
  - anm89 7y ago
    Yeah I think that's very fair. He has undoubtedly screwed a lot of people over here. On the other hand many of them were just as greedy as Adam was with the key exception that they did not position themselves in a winning matter. You could debate this but I would argue most of them understood that this was the game they were playing.
    - katmannthree 7y ago
      Absolutely, as far as people in his cohort go I don't think he's necessarily any more unethical or selfish than the mean. In fact, given that SoftBank's Vision Fund is backed by a nation with some fairly severe human rights issues, one could even argue that from a utilitarian standpoint he has done good. My issue with him is from my belief that a society filled with people who act like he has is destined to far less long term success than one where people are less self-serving.

dingo_bat 7y ago

When a murderer kills somebody 1000km away from where I live, it doesn't affect me, just like when a scamster gets paid a billion dollars. But I feel "offended" in both cases, for similar reasons.

dmode 7y ago

Strange thing not to understand. There are real repercussions - a number of people will be laid off who only a few months back were promised a healthy company and an absurd valuation. The people laid off may lose their health coverage. They will have to depend on unemployment to keep their families afloat. Many employees were probably given options, with an absurd valuation. Those are worthless. Early employees are probably wiped out. But - the one person who was made this false promises will walk off with $2bn.

anm89 7y ago
Everyone was there under their free will. Why did they join some hyper growth startup run by a guy rubbing crystals on himself while doing tequila shots? Because they wanted to make boat loads of money for minimal work. And it almost worked but it didn't so tough luck. I'm not saying this isn't bad, it obviously is bad or even terrible for many people involved. But they choose to be there and that's their right as adults in America. If you want to change that fact than make that case but then many people including myself start to take serious issues with those viewpoints. It seems to me that this is the current that underlines most of these complaints. No law was broken but I don't like it so it shouldn't have been allowed. If you want to make an argument there was fraud then make it. I'm sure people will. And I support them in trying. I don't have any evidence either way yet. But all of this moralizing achieves nothing. If you want a specific law to be changed than say what it is. Otherwise your left shaking your fist at the air. It's counter productive to real change.