You haven't provided any meaningful counterclaims or additional perspective. You seem to be upset just because I think c-suite executives are not morally respec

You haven't provided any meaningful counterclaims or additional perspective. You seem to be upset just because I think c-suite executives are not morally respectable. You claim my way of looking at things is "broken" but you fail to provide any rationale as to why. I claim that execs are incentivized to preserve an inequitable system because they directly benefit from it. Talking about their "psychopathy" and "evil" is a hyperbolic way to illustrate that they put profit over people, which anyone with a single functioning cell behind their eyeballs could tell you is patently obvious. My use of these terms was in direct response to the OP tweet, which already dumbed down the discourse to the level of "evil" and "good"—blame the nincompoop exec for bringing the conversation to this level, I am merely operating on it. > The reality is that remote work meant a massive drop in productivity. By what measure? Across all companies, or only for a few? How do you define "productivity" in a general sense without measuring against a specific goal? Speaking of propaganda, you sound like someone who has bought into the current status quo so deeply that you find it anathema to even think about alternatives as being possible. If "thinking for yourself" means to blindly follow the status quo, not question the distribution of wealth in society and to not consider whether or not we can better leverage our current capabilities to the benefit of more people, then yes, no thanks, I'd rather not think for myself. I don't listen to podcasts. I read books and I think beyond my immediate experience. You should try it sometime. It might help you realize how foolish you are to defend people that actively exploit you and your labor.