3 ms·

I should listen to the whitewashing of an insider (who at least financially benefited from Juul’s rise, at worst was personally involved in some of the very sha

by oefrha 4y ago

I should listen to the whitewashing of an insider (who at least financially benefited from Juul’s rise, at worst was personally involved in some of the very shady campaigns), instead of looking at cold hard evidence like the fact that they paid schools in order to talk to school children directly about their “health benefits”? I should take their word that their marketing was highly incompetent and couldn’t achieve anything, yet somehow accidentally trumped all competition and got millions of kids hooked on their product, opening up a whole new market segment, which would be any marketing team’s wet dream? Fuck no.

paisawalla 4y ago
It's insane to think that some of you value the words of a person - who has no relevant experience in anything being discussed, - works for an outlet which has shown countless times that it cannot reliably and accurately report on nearly any field and - whose primary experience has been in taking dictation from the FDA over one of your peers, who - has worked in the relevant industry, and the relevant company - puts his name next to his words, and - has given you a first person account of what he's seen and done, including acknowledging his own blind spots If your instincts are to invest immovable faith in the belief that the latter is absolutely lying, based on facts related to you by the former, you are epistemically ruined beyond hope.
- oefrha 4y ago
  I need exactly nothing from the former to see that the latter narrative doesn’t add up. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this kind of feigning innocence from “earnest” insiders. Well let’s be charitable and say they simply believe this “our marketing team was so incompetent their evil plans amounted to nothing, all the objectives were achieved through dumb luck” bullshit. Doesn’t change a thing. And no, whether they’re my peer or not adds zero credibility. This comes from someone who is deeply skeptical of and disagrees with a lot of NYT narratives. I just don’t start a thinly veiled crusade against them whenever they are mentioned.
  - paisawalla 4y ago
    1. It's not veiled at all. 2. So your opinion is based on even less knowledge than what that article contains?

by oefrha 4y ago

paisawalla 4y ago

It's insane to think that some of you value the words of a person - who has no relevant experience in anything being discussed, - works for an outlet which has shown countless times that it cannot reliably and accurately report on nearly any field and - whose primary experience has been in taking dictation from the FDA over one of your peers, who - has worked in the relevant industry, and the relevant company - puts his name next to his words, and - has given you a first person account of what he's seen and done, including acknowledging his own blind spots If your instincts are to invest immovable faith in the belief that the latter is absolutely lying, based on facts related to you by the former, you are epistemically ruined beyond hope.

oefrha 4y ago
I need exactly nothing from the former to see that the latter narrative doesn’t add up. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this kind of feigning innocence from “earnest” insiders. Well let’s be charitable and say they simply believe this “our marketing team was so incompetent their evil plans amounted to nothing, all the objectives were achieved through dumb luck” bullshit. Doesn’t change a thing. And no, whether they’re my peer or not adds zero credibility. This comes from someone who is deeply skeptical of and disagrees with a lot of NYT narratives. I just don’t start a thinly veiled crusade against them whenever they are mentioned.
- paisawalla 4y ago
  1. It's not veiled at all. 2. So your opinion is based on even less knowledge than what that article contains?