3 ms·

Can't take the CEO seriously because he isn't directly affected? That makes no sense. If course the CEo is mostly worried about his employees and customers. Did

Can't take the CEO seriously because he isn't directly affected? That makes no sense. If course the CEo is mostly worried about his employees and customers. Didn't seem like he his to worried about himself. But that's ok, ignore him because he is safe? And that fact that things started agree ago is a bit of a red herring. Because apparently (according to you) things were getting better, but lately they've gotten worse. So why have they gotten worse, recently? And what do we do to fix it?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> Can't take the CEO seriously because he isn't directly affected? That makes no sense. Can’t take him sincerely. He states his motivation in the article but it’s easily buried in insincere fluff and more than enough victim blaming. It’s clear he wants corporate employees back in the office, and wants to frame crime as the reason for that not meeting his preferred expectations. But crime, which he speaks of the same as overdosing and homelessness “issues” are what he’s addressing, rather than actual reasons people don’t want to work in his corporate offices. And more importantly to me, rather than addressing the real suffering homeless people and addicts are experiencing and real solutions to help them.
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  > And more importantly to me, rather than addressing the real suffering homeless people and addicts are experiencing and real solutions to help them. But why are you addressing your problems with what he’s addressing instead of addressing the real suffering homeless people and addicts are experiencing and real solutions to help them? /S Though to be real, yes, he’s addressing the problems he’s experiencing and that’s perfectly fine, we all should. If you hold people to the standard that no one can sound the alarm unless they have found solutions to the root causes then the only thing that would happen would be that there would be silence around the issue.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> Can't take the CEO seriously because he isn't directly affected? That makes no sense. Can’t take him sincerely. He states his motivation in the article but it’s easily buried in insincere fluff and more than enough victim blaming. It’s clear he wants corporate employees back in the office, and wants to frame crime as the reason for that not meeting his preferred expectations. But crime, which he speaks of the same as overdosing and homelessness “issues” are what he’s addressing, rather than actual reasons people don’t want to work in his corporate offices. And more importantly to me, rather than addressing the real suffering homeless people and addicts are experiencing and real solutions to help them.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago
> And more importantly to me, rather than addressing the real suffering homeless people and addicts are experiencing and real solutions to help them. But why are you addressing your problems with what he’s addressing instead of addressing the real suffering homeless people and addicts are experiencing and real solutions to help them? /S Though to be real, yes, he’s addressing the problems he’s experiencing and that’s perfectly fine, we all should. If you hold people to the standard that no one can sound the alarm unless they have found solutions to the root causes then the only thing that would happen would be that there would be silence around the issue.