[etaerc]

Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion? I'd argue torturing people is more in their interest than actual public opinion. With the latter they just try to stay above zero as long as possible to continue with their actual addiction, getting hard-ons from watching people suffer.

That's also why such people can under no circumstances really succeed with businesses. It's not the same kind of personality as Steve Jobs for instance. Jobs also hurt people, but the goal was always to increase public opinion and make money.

The differences between a sociopath (Jobs) and a parasite (this dude here).

And knowing that he's a parasite and not a sociopath, why keep him on as a CEO? The secretary or toilet cleaning person would have a lower chance to screw everything up.

[pm90]

> Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion?

Its more common than you imagine.

Its incredibly clear that the CEO dude is super insecure person who feels some kind of inadequacy and a constant need to control everything. If you read the daily beast article showing the actual interaction, it shows. If he stopped thinking all about himself for a little while he could have done a much better job. But he has so far not faced consequences for his toxic behavior (his co-founder sounds shady af too and that person actually died of a drug overdose... what a mess).

[HenryBemis]

+1

And on top of that, he probably thinks that thing that what got him "here" will also get him "there".

Maybe being vocal made it to the first mile so if he continues his act (and get louder) he believed it would get him to the finish line (the one he has in his mind).

One f-bomb makes a comedy. A thousand make zero ratings and lawsuits. He didn't realize he crossed the line being a sociopath and making is increasingly difficult to receive the messaging.