3 ms·

Most of these employees believe they're elite, they aren't. The natural aristocrats are unaffected, not because they get away with abusing the system, but beca

Most of these employees believe they're elite, they aren't. The natural aristocrats are unaffected, not because they get away with abusing the system, but because they don't abuse them. One has to be remarkably pathetic and morally bankrupt to abuse this in the first place. Meta is simply correcting their mistake of hiring a fundamentally unqualified peasant.

ffsm8 2y ago
After reading your comment multiple times I can confidently state that the best thing about it is that I am still unsure if you're sarcastic, trolling or actually believe that
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  Let me rephrase for you what he meant: "If you steal, don't get caught." The rich and powerful are simply much better at breaking the rules without getting caught, that's how they're rich, while the poor are usually not, that's why they stay poor.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    I doubt he'd agree that he meant that ( • ‿ • ) It's also undisputably false, unless you exclude all the people that don't adhere to your thesis. But at that point, you're just grasping at straws and cannot admit to being wrong. I.e. P Diddy as a very notorious recent example that was both rich and effectively powerful (how else would he have gotten away with it for decades) and has now crashed. The inverse exists as well, where people publicly commit crimes and get away with it, just because they can. Very frequent for politicians for example, I don't think you need specific examples for that?
    - infamouscow 2y ago
      You've misunderstood my point: "most of these employees believe they're elite, they aren't." This isn't some clumsy No True Scotsman fallacy. It's a straightforward observation of human nature. In any large organization, the delusion of competence is widespread. Now, let's assume, as you suggest, that I'm wrong and Meta has fired a true natural elite for abusing company perks. If that's the case, Meta's failure is obvious. However, if they really were elite, and Meta valued them accordingly, the abuse would be irrelevant. Elite performance forgives small transgressions—always has, always will.
      - ffsm8 2y ago
        I never claimed to have understood your point, so no, I didn't. ಡ ͜ ʖ ಡ My examples addressed FirmwareBurner, who made a very different argument

ffsm8 2y ago

After reading your comment multiple times I can confidently state that the best thing about it is that I am still unsure if you're sarcastic, trolling or actually believe that

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
Let me rephrase for you what he meant: "If you steal, don't get caught." The rich and powerful are simply much better at breaking the rules without getting caught, that's how they're rich, while the poor are usually not, that's why they stay poor.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  I doubt he'd agree that he meant that ( • ‿ • ) It's also undisputably false, unless you exclude all the people that don't adhere to your thesis. But at that point, you're just grasping at straws and cannot admit to being wrong. I.e. P Diddy as a very notorious recent example that was both rich and effectively powerful (how else would he have gotten away with it for decades) and has now crashed. The inverse exists as well, where people publicly commit crimes and get away with it, just because they can. Very frequent for politicians for example, I don't think you need specific examples for that?
  - infamouscow 2y ago
    You've misunderstood my point: "most of these employees believe they're elite, they aren't." This isn't some clumsy No True Scotsman fallacy. It's a straightforward observation of human nature. In any large organization, the delusion of competence is widespread. Now, let's assume, as you suggest, that I'm wrong and Meta has fired a true natural elite for abusing company perks. If that's the case, Meta's failure is obvious. However, if they really were elite, and Meta valued them accordingly, the abuse would be irrelevant. Elite performance forgives small transgressions—always has, always will.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      I never claimed to have understood your point, so no, I didn't. ಡ ͜ ʖ ಡ My examples addressed FirmwareBurner, who made a very different argument