I'm delighted to hear that this child is doing well, and I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children
Do you really think it's possible to have a comprehensive understanding of "Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children" based on this one little blurb? I mean, seriously... I can't help but think people are constructing a caricature of the man, based on a very limited understanding, and heavily influenced by their own preconceived biases and generic "Robber Barrons, evil, muwahahahaha" stereotypes.
I'm not saying that Tim Armstrong is a good person, as I don't know him. But I am very suspicious of this rush to judgment that seems to be going on here.
He chose to make it specific, rather than just saying 'employee medical insurance costs were higher than expected.' By using the specific medical problems of two families to cast management in a positive light and also to justify changing the firms pension contribution structure to be less generous, he made the decision to present these issues as a zero sum game in which the beneficiaries of medical insurance - something which is part of employee compensation to begin with - were presented as the cause of a reduction in the pension compensation of everyone else.
All of that may, or may not, be true. But none of it addresses the issue I was questioning, which is how anybody can claim to understand "Tim Armstrong's attitude towards the lives of his employee's children" based on nothing more than this one news article.
I'm saying we shouldn't be rushing to judgment, and creating this caricatured images of Armstrong (or anybody else) and basically screaming "off with his head", without sufficient information.
Again, I don't know him... never met the guy in my life. He may be a complete douchebag and a total jackass for all I know. But it would be premature to conclude any of that from this story.
You're just quibbling over semantics now. It's still just one "news incident" if you're prefer that lingo. And it's still a mistake for any of us to assume that we now know all about Tim Armstrong as a result.
You seem to think that the number of times someone makes a carefully prepared public statement needs to be greater than one to determine what they think on the subject.
I do not see how the logic follows there.
That it's reported in the news or published on his blog or written in a memoir or whatever is not the relevant fact here. The relevant fact is that it is something that he carefully planned to say and said, and that is sufficient information to have high confidence that it is what he meant to say and therefore what he thinks.
You seem to think that the number of times someone makes a carefully prepared public statement needs to be greater than one to determine what they think on the subject.
I do not see how the logic follows there.
Then there really isn't anything more to say. If you really think a person's attitude (which was the original issue under discussion in this sub-thread) can be thoroughly identified and analyzed and dissected based on one example of their speech, then so be it.
I happen to think human beings are far more complex than that, that context matters, that there are huge issues of subjective interpretation and nuance in play, and that it's a mistake for anybody to assume that they have some kind of deep insight into this guy, based just on this.
That it's reported in the news or published on his blog or written in a memoir or whatever is not the relevant fact here.
Nobody is claiming that. What I'm claiming is "insufficient data".
The relevant fact is that it is something that he carefully planned to say and said, and that is sufficient information to have high confidence that it is what he meant to say and therefore what he thinks.
The problem is going from "what he said" to "what you think he thinks". He said something very specific, and I see a lot of people making radical inferences and generalizations based off of that. What he said is what he said yes, but people aren't just talking about that, they're talking about their own interpretation of what he said, which is colored by their own biases and preconceptions... and, in this case, probably just a little bit of mob psychology.
Do you really think it's possible to have a comprehensive understanding of "Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children" based on this one little blurb? I mean, seriously... I can't help but think people are constructing a caricature of the man, based on a very limited understanding, and heavily influenced by their own preconceived biases and generic "Robber Barrons, evil, muwahahahaha" stereotypes.
I'm not saying that Tim Armstrong is a good person, as I don't know him. But I am very suspicious of this rush to judgment that seems to be going on here.