Let's see your report about how Phil Knight has exploited poor people in 52 countries to make himself a mega-billionaire. Let's see your review of the documentary about how he staged a hostile takeover of an animator's business for Knights son.
Thanks for your comment, Ariel. I have no report about either what you call Knight's exploitation, or the documentary. If those things are true, I certainly do not support them. I also was unaware of them, so thank you for pointing them out.
But you raise an interesting question: can we learn things from people who have done or said or stand for things we don't agree with, or even abhor? And if we can, must we point out every bad thing they've ever done at the same time?
It's a hard question and I think it's reasonable to take what seems to be your position on that question, which, I take it, is that we cannot benefit from lessons from one who has done things we don't agree with with at least drawing attention to those other bad things.
I take the opposite position. I think we can learn from anyone with a good idea, even if most of their other ideas are bad, offensive, or even objectively destructive.
For instance, there's good evidence that Henry Ford was antisemitic. As a Jew, that's offensive to me. However, I still choose to learn from how he revolutionized labor, production, and his lessons as an inventor and entrepreneur. F Scott Fitzgerald was an alcoholic and at times not a great husband, but he had insights about the world few others have. Marissa Mayer (Yahoo) was voted one of the least liked CEOs in the country, but does that mean we cannot learn from her as one of the most capable women in tech history? We don't even need to into the slave practices of the Founding Fathers.
I think the reason why I take my stance, is that I believe people are, on the whole, trying their best, and mean well, even if their wrong or totally deluded. And so, one one or a lot of their ideas turn out not as great as maybe they thought, I try not to hold it against their good ones.
If we get rid of the good ideas, we're not hurting the idea thinker, we're hurting ourselves.
Next to everyone promotes Nike, with no concern over Phil Knight's greed and disregard for other human beings. You can't promote Nike without promoting Nike's sweatshop means to a lucrative end. What is your stand on Substackers Against Nazis?
Let's see your report about how Phil Knight has exploited poor people in 52 countries to make himself a mega-billionaire. Let's see your review of the documentary about how he staged a hostile takeover of an animator's business for Knights son.
Thanks for your comment, Ariel. I have no report about either what you call Knight's exploitation, or the documentary. If those things are true, I certainly do not support them. I also was unaware of them, so thank you for pointing them out.
But you raise an interesting question: can we learn things from people who have done or said or stand for things we don't agree with, or even abhor? And if we can, must we point out every bad thing they've ever done at the same time?
It's a hard question and I think it's reasonable to take what seems to be your position on that question, which, I take it, is that we cannot benefit from lessons from one who has done things we don't agree with with at least drawing attention to those other bad things.
I take the opposite position. I think we can learn from anyone with a good idea, even if most of their other ideas are bad, offensive, or even objectively destructive.
For instance, there's good evidence that Henry Ford was antisemitic. As a Jew, that's offensive to me. However, I still choose to learn from how he revolutionized labor, production, and his lessons as an inventor and entrepreneur. F Scott Fitzgerald was an alcoholic and at times not a great husband, but he had insights about the world few others have. Marissa Mayer (Yahoo) was voted one of the least liked CEOs in the country, but does that mean we cannot learn from her as one of the most capable women in tech history? We don't even need to into the slave practices of the Founding Fathers.
I think the reason why I take my stance, is that I believe people are, on the whole, trying their best, and mean well, even if their wrong or totally deluded. And so, one one or a lot of their ideas turn out not as great as maybe they thought, I try not to hold it against their good ones.
If we get rid of the good ideas, we're not hurting the idea thinker, we're hurting ourselves.
Next to everyone promotes Nike, with no concern over Phil Knight's greed and disregard for other human beings. You can't promote Nike without promoting Nike's sweatshop means to a lucrative end. What is your stand on Substackers Against Nazis?