It was not acceptable but it was very much understandable.
And honestly I don’t think it’s Thompson’s fault. He’s just doing what’s expected of him as the CEO of a profit-oriented company. The one at fault are the Legislators that let this happend and the laws/conventions of the stock market that prioritize revenue and growth above all.
If anything, Legislators and Investors should have been shot, not Thompson.
If murder of a minority group was legalized and someone decided to murder their innocent neighbors and steal their stuff to make a buck, would all of the responsibility really fall on the legislator and none on the murderer?
Imo an immoral act stays immoral whether or not it’s encouraged or discouraged by the government or social environment. I find it somewhat more understandable how people can carry out something cruel if it’s legal and completely normalized, but “It’s not their fault” is much more apologetic than I’m comfortable with. Especially when they make millions off the suffering and deaths of other people (due to inadequate medical care).
I have to disagree here. We all have a moral responsibility to not be evil, murderous dickheads. I’d even go so far as to say that we all have a moral obligation to at least attempt to help our fellow people when we can.
Just because nobody stopped him from doing evil doesn’t mean that it’s not his fault for doing evil shit. Others may be complicit, but he sure as fuck was guilty the evil he committed.
It was acceptable. It’s not like poor Brian Thompson had no other choice. He was making fat stacks at that position, and I’m sure he had other career opportunities.
It also feels kinda on point of what CEOs are sometimes supposed to be. I am not sure where I got this image from, but how I often viewed CEOs for companies where the CEO is not also the founder, is that those CEOs are the figureheads for what the company is doing, take on the responsibility of all the good and bad that is happening.
Like, usually those CEOs are shackled by the boards decision, so they are the face and “risking their neck and reputation”. At least I heard that explanation used to explain why CEOs get so much money.
Yeah, that’s how I have come to understand it as well. They are the public figure of a company, and are paid “insurance money” to take the fall if needed.
It was not acceptable but it was very much understandable.
And honestly I don’t think it’s Thompson’s fault. He’s just doing what’s expected of him as the CEO of a profit-oriented company. The one at fault are the Legislators that let this happend and the laws/conventions of the stock market that prioritize revenue and growth above all.
If anything, Legislators and Investors should have been shot, not Thompson.
If murder of a minority group was legalized and someone decided to murder their innocent neighbors and steal their stuff to make a buck, would all of the responsibility really fall on the legislator and none on the murderer?
Imo an immoral act stays immoral whether or not it’s encouraged or discouraged by the government or social environment. I find it somewhat more understandable how people can carry out something cruel if it’s legal and completely normalized, but “It’s not their fault” is much more apologetic than I’m comfortable with. Especially when they make millions off the suffering and deaths of other people (due to inadequate medical care).
I have to disagree here. We all have a moral responsibility to not be evil, murderous dickheads. I’d even go so far as to say that we all have a moral obligation to at least attempt to help our fellow people when we can.
Just because nobody stopped him from doing evil doesn’t mean that it’s not his fault for doing evil shit. Others may be complicit, but he sure as fuck was guilty the evil he committed.
Yeah personally I’ve never bought into the “but everyone else was doing it” excuse.
It was acceptable. It’s not like poor Brian Thompson had no other choice. He was making fat stacks at that position, and I’m sure he had other career opportunities.
It also feels kinda on point of what CEOs are sometimes supposed to be. I am not sure where I got this image from, but how I often viewed CEOs for companies where the CEO is not also the founder, is that those CEOs are the figureheads for what the company is doing, take on the responsibility of all the good and bad that is happening.
Like, usually those CEOs are shackled by the boards decision, so they are the face and “risking their neck and reputation”. At least I heard that explanation used to explain why CEOs get so much money.
Yeah, that’s how I have come to understand it as well. They are the public figure of a company, and are paid “insurance money” to take the fall if needed.