Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

Post by celdon25 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

rconti wrote: post #201

celdon25 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll have to agree to disagree on point 1, as there's plenty of common knowledge out there that I don't need to muddy the thread with. The parent comment was referring to the general election of 49%, and the "grab by the pussy" story broke after the primary was over, so point 3 is a straw man argument. Edit: Sometimes I underestimate how in the dark people really are on the subject so I did a quick search to find th…

Point 3 is not a straw man argument; he was objectively a horrible person before that quote came to light. It wasn't remotely surprising to anyone.

Post by microtherion » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #169

loganfrederick wrote: post #79

I really liked Ben Horowitz's new book "What You Do Is Who You Are". However, the only passage that I disliked and stood out to me is when he defended David Drummond for his ability to thrive at Google for a long time despite the corporate culture changing. This was after Drummond was called out publicly for abandoning his kid he had with a subordinate: https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/25/report-alphabet-c...…

> but it's not like Google couldn't find a great legal chief who also wasn't a terrible person. This is actually an argument I wish would come up more often in cases where prominent people are fired or lose opportunities due to misconduct. Critics invariably react as if there aren't hundreds or thousands of qualified people for the position who didn't conduct themselves inappropriately, but I would argue that there a…

Post by theli0nheart » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

glogla wrote: post #198

Waterluvian wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Success as a business person has nothing to do with success as a moral or ethical person. In fact it's probably easier to be one when not being the others. Being good at business does not make you a "good person".

Some could argue, that under sufficiently corrupt or inherently unfair regime, business success is mutually exclusive with being moral/ethical person.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #149

rayiner wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing that needs to be squared. People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. We hold women and men equally accountable when their having sex produces a child. The fact that women, by virtue of their right to control their own bodies, can abort a baby before it is born, doesn’t change the analysis for either. Both are still responsible for a baby that is born. The fact that the…

>The fact that the woman has additional options to avoid the consequence doesn’t absolve the man of responsibility I disagree. Having more options does in fact alter the level of responsibility.

Post by glogla » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:32 AM UTC

theli0nheart wrote: post #206

glogla wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some could argue, that under sufficiently corrupt or inherently unfair regime, business success is mutually exclusive with being moral/ethical person.

I completely disagree. Power and influence allow one to be a shitty person without having to deal with the consequences that other folks might, so the situations where that happens are outrageous and rightfully get a lot of exposure. However, this is a consequence of the fact that you already need to be powerful. Unless you get lucky, or otherwise hit the jackpot, you generally have to be a nice person to work your w…