2 ms·
>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 r
by 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 agoYeah 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 agoAbsolutely, 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.