|
|
|
|
|
|
by viridian
304 days ago
|
|
|
In the spirit of assuming good faith on HN, I'd like to critique a particular line of thought you keep repeating, that is continually met with hostility. You continue to generalize criticism of Jobs as an attack on cancer patients as a whole, despite people citing specific behaviors and actions unique to jobs. I can't interpret this as anything but emotionally manipulative sophistry that reads to the viewer as you shielding Jobs behind a vulnerable group, and that isn't ever going to be received well. If there's another way to read this in light of the facts, I'd appreciate an explanation. |
|
|
That could have been an interesting position to discuss were it not infused with so much judgment (ironic) for the commenters--making it personal and putting everyone on the defensive.
Because I think the fundamental disagreement is whether anyone considers themselves to be "judging someone [Jobs] for their reaction/choices in the face of cancer." I can see that point, but as you say, I disagree that's what is happening.
I might counter with, "does having cancer make a person immune to criticism? If not, then where is that line?" Indeed I think the other issue is treating criticism as equivalent to judgment (something maladaptive but all too common).
But I think you have the general idea: the tricky part (as you allude to) is that people are making criticisms/observations about Jobs (as a whole) and the story of his cancer is, well, part of his story too.
This thread was borne of the story of Steves Woz and Jobs. One takeaway was Woz was "naive", Jobs was shrewd, Jobs took advantage of Woz: don't be like Woz and get taken advantage of. What I was pointing out was, well that may be so, but who was better off in the end? Often one's strengths and one's weaknesses are two sides of the same coin (like with Musk).
Steve's friends pleaded with him and said what he was doing was bullshit. Were they morally repugnant too?