Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I am a CEO. And yes I recognise the foolishness of poor management practices, as well as acting in a shortsighted or criminal manner. Perhaps we should differentiate between insubordination/disloyalty, which is what the parent comment is about, and some version of the Nuremberg defence, namely, I was told to do it and failed to process that it was an immoral or criminal act.

Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't.

great chat.




So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? Like you said in the parent comment.

This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.


>So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again?

At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that.

You are inferring that I am because of your pro-trump bias and because i responded to the parent with insert generic content, which could be construed as being neutral/pro-trump. For the record, I think the mess Americans have created for themselves serves them right; is a sign of a broken democracy, an ignorant and uninformed populace where only extremism will get people to the polls. Unfortunately Australia is part of a world where the actions of a bigoted maniac will affect us; and I can hardly say that our political leadership is any better (although our democracy is significantly stronger with compulsory voting and preferential voting)


> >So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again?

> At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that.

But you literally wrote this in your original post:

> If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well.

How else are we meant to interpret that?

On the last part I only have this to say: I don't have pro-trump bias. I am very anti-trump, but not as a premise, but rather as an end result of my rationality.


I mis-typed; it is clear that you have an anti trump bias from Your posting history. My previous comment should be interpreted as me feeling that you have reacted strongly against me under the assumption that I was pro trump, an assumption I have only weak evidence for.

>how else are we meant to interpret that

You are assuming malevolence in my theorised intentions and actions without having any basis for it. I think the best way to interpret that would be that I have a not unreasonable expectation of loyalty. Remember here that the parent comment specifically said

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty.

Where we are in fact talking about loyalty and not the potential criminality or morality of the executive orders of a man who is has the best chance in a long while of taking us all into a world war


> You are assuming malevolence in my theorised intentions and actions without having any basis for it.

The only basis I have to possibly assume things from is what you write.

You made the comparison from someone disobeying an order based on a professional assessment that the order was unconstitutional - to an employee disobeying an order.

The only comparison in that case that would be apt would be an employee that is more knowledgable in their field than the CEO issuing the order.

If this is not what you meant, then you shouldn't have written it. It's not based on any bias from my side.

> Where we are in fact talking about loyalty and not the potential criminality or morality of the executive orders of a man who is has the best chance in a long while of taking us all into a world war

If this is from Trumps perspective, I might be inclined to agree, but if so, your original comparison makes even less sense. Dictators rely on loyalty, leaders listen to council, regardless of business or politics.

There's a difference between disobeying an order out of pettiness and out of your professional assessment.

You said you mis-typed, which is fair, I'm just not sure what you meant to say.

And on bias:

bias

noun

inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

No, I do not have a bias. I judge anyone only on what they say and do.


inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair. No, I do not have a bias. I judge anyone only on what they say and do.

Great, we would probably enjoy each other's company.

The only basis I have to possibly assume things from is what you write. You made the comparison from someone disobeying an order based on a professional assessment that the order was unconstitutional - to an employee disobeying an order.

Well I think we are interpreting the parent paragraph and my reply in totally different lights. As I point out elsewhere, I think there is a difference between a sackable offence through disloyalty, and not following an order because you don't agree with the validity of it, expert or not. I am not making any claim regarding the actual substance of the executive order; or whether trump's use of disloyal is 'correct' (I personally think it's a beatup) ; only that disloyalty is undermining and is a fireable offence..

>Dictators rely on loyalty, leaders listen to council, regardless of business or politics.

Mate, the whole fucking world revolves around loyalty; also known as friendship or cordial business relations to change spheres again. It holds democracies together just as much as dicktatorships. Doesn't make disloyalty any less of a fireable offence.

there's too much strong systemiser here on both sides. Anyway, not my country, and probably won't be one for much longer, which is going to have some pretty profound implications. Enjoy the fireworks and stay safe.


If Uber or Airbnb counsel refused to defend some of the dubiously legal practices that both companies practice, they'd be fired that minute.


That's a false equivalence.

It doesn't suggest that their respective CEOs disregard the counsel's input. If it's still relevant to pursue their corporate interest in very fresh legislative ground afterwards, that's another thing.

While I might be persuaded in general that amendments should be made and the constitution not be static, immigration isn't a new frontier. And in that area, it's not in need of revision.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: