5 ms·

> I think Apple would be an even more interesting company if he were still around There is no way Jobs would have been at the helm of Apple, even if he was sti

by GDC7 5y ago

> I think Apple would be an even more interesting company if he were still around There is no way Jobs would have been at the helm of Apple, even if he was still alive. He'd have been canceled, matter of fact he'd have been one of the first people to get canceled given that he'd be occupying a spot wanted by basically everybody, plus he had made so many enemies....and finally let's not dabble around it: guy had so many personal flaws and his personal relationships are a mine field. He'd have been #metoo'd or singled out for abusive behavior towards subordinates or some other thing. He was the one guy who could be taken down by basically every strain of SJW. They'd have had the time of their lives dragging him in so many battlefields of the culture wars, and he'd have lost on all of them. From a legacy standpoint death was the best thing for Steve Jobs, much like his idol John Lennon. Death freezes the public perception and stops people from digging dirt.

planb 5y ago
Interesting idea. But Musk and Bezos are still in charge…
downandout 5y ago
You are correct that Steve, like most high profile CEOs, would have been vulnerable to the cancel police. I think this is one reason that many high net worth Bitcoiners choose to stay under-the-radar: not being vulnerable to the whims of the social media masses seems like the ultimate luxury. Bill Murray, the actor, had a prescient quote about this in an interview that occurred before metoo and the rest of the culture wars heated up: ”I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'Try being rich first.' See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job." I think people today want more money and less fame, having watched many of the people they looked up to be publicly destroyed by the masses. Everyone makes mistakes, but famous people pay outsized prices for them.
- GDC7 5y ago
  Oh for sure. Being famous today in the US is not worth it. Given how litigious the US is and how every surface of attack is exploited by the mob (offline or online) is simply not worth it. My prediction is that people have a natural desire to be appreciated , so Americans might look to find some social relevance in other countries. English speaking countries which are less litigious such as South Africa, Dubai, Singapore, New Zealand, the Caribbean etc.
burnished 5y ago
You're talking about the idea of some one who hurts and abuses other people no longer being allowed to be a part of polite society, and the people that want that to be the case, like its a bad thing. It is just mind boggling. Do you read your own comments?
- GDC7 5y ago
  > You're talking about the idea of some one who hurts and abuses other people no longer being allowed to be a part of polite society, and the people that want that to be the case, like its a bad thing. No , the bad thing is that when somebody is dragged out in the court of public opinion all the positive contributions of that particular individual are not taken into consideration. I am now a wide eyed utopian, I am a very practical person. As a practical person I tell you that if society doesn't let the good things that one does offset the negative flaws that one might have....then people will ask themselves if it's worth to do good things at all. The SJWs I mentioned (and suspect also you) would retroactively cancel Richard Feynman because he grabbed by the waist some Brazilian dancer while he was teaching in Rio. Even if that meant succumbing to Hitler's Nazi Germany. Dick Feynman earned the right to dance with as many Brazilian girls as he wanted.
  - bigbillheck 5y ago
    You're going to have to explain what the Manhattan Project had to do with victory in Europe. And after that, please explain why Feynman's contributions to it were so critical. Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945. That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! Society feels comfortable in canceling people because these people already gave their contribution and for sure the person being canceled can't retroactively destroy all their contributions. If they could that'd be a powerful weapon of self defense, some sort of dead man switch against the mob. But they don't, hence society is emboldened to destroy that person because it's the path of least resistence towards getting what it really wants: Separating the contributions from the person who made them, thus making sure that they cannot benefit from them, socially or financially. Society would think long and hard before canceling people if it also meant automatically removing all their contributions. I bet you society would have not canceled Harvey Weinstein if it also meant the complete disappearence of: - Reservoir dogs - Pulp Fiction - Kill Bill - The Aviator - Gangs of New York - Wolf of Wall Street . . . Hypocrisy

by GDC7 5y ago

planb 5y ago

Interesting idea. But Musk and Bezos are still in charge…

downandout 5y ago

You are correct that Steve, like most high profile CEOs, would have been vulnerable to the cancel police. I think this is one reason that many high net worth Bitcoiners choose to stay under-the-radar: not being vulnerable to the whims of the social media masses seems like the ultimate luxury. Bill Murray, the actor, had a prescient quote about this in an interview that occurred before metoo and the rest of the culture wars heated up: ”I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'Try being rich first.' See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job." I think people today want more money and less fame, having watched many of the people they looked up to be publicly destroyed by the masses. Everyone makes mistakes, but famous people pay outsized prices for them.

GDC7 5y ago
Oh for sure. Being famous today in the US is not worth it. Given how litigious the US is and how every surface of attack is exploited by the mob (offline or online) is simply not worth it. My prediction is that people have a natural desire to be appreciated , so Americans might look to find some social relevance in other countries. English speaking countries which are less litigious such as South Africa, Dubai, Singapore, New Zealand, the Caribbean etc.

burnished 5y ago

You're talking about the idea of some one who hurts and abuses other people no longer being allowed to be a part of polite society, and the people that want that to be the case, like its a bad thing. It is just mind boggling. Do you read your own comments?

GDC7 5y ago
> You're talking about the idea of some one who hurts and abuses other people no longer being allowed to be a part of polite society, and the people that want that to be the case, like its a bad thing. No , the bad thing is that when somebody is dragged out in the court of public opinion all the positive contributions of that particular individual are not taken into consideration. I am now a wide eyed utopian, I am a very practical person. As a practical person I tell you that if society doesn't let the good things that one does offset the negative flaws that one might have....then people will ask themselves if it's worth to do good things at all. The SJWs I mentioned (and suspect also you) would retroactively cancel Richard Feynman because he grabbed by the waist some Brazilian dancer while he was teaching in Rio. Even if that meant succumbing to Hitler's Nazi Germany. Dick Feynman earned the right to dance with as many Brazilian girls as he wanted.
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  You're going to have to explain what the Manhattan Project had to do with victory in Europe. And after that, please explain why Feynman's contributions to it were so critical. Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945. That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! Society feels comfortable in canceling people because these people already gave their contribution and for sure the person being canceled can't retroactively destroy all their contributions. If they could that'd be a powerful weapon of self defense, some sort of dead man switch against the mob. But they don't, hence society is emboldened to destroy that person because it's the path of least resistence towards getting what it really wants: Separating the contributions from the person who made them, thus making sure that they cannot benefit from them, socially or financially. Society would think long and hard before canceling people if it also meant automatically removing all their contributions. I bet you society would have not canceled Harvey Weinstein if it also meant the complete disappearence of: - Reservoir dogs - Pulp Fiction - Kill Bill - The Aviator - Gangs of New York - Wolf of Wall Street . . . Hypocrisy