[forrestthewoods]

This is so disappointing. I've always really respected Catmull. He has given many presentations and speeches with incredible value.

His actions here are, I think, by definition evil. Decisions made with selfish intent with willful disregard to the negative consequences it has on others. That's my definition at least, everyone has their own. How utterly disappointing. :(

[chris_mahan]

Agreed. I'm reading his book Creativity Inc. right now, and it's chock-full of goodness. Except that now, I question the very motives and integrity of the author, so the whole thing is completely suspect, and I might just not continue reading.

[cookiecaper]

We're too fast to discard people in this community. The linked article is heavily editorialized; it doesn't represent anything like even-handed coverage. We should give important figures in our community the benefit of the doubt, and learn how to respectfully disagree with one another. Even if something is illegal, it's not necessarily self-evidently immoral, and Catmull et al easily could've made anti-poaching pacts without the intention of suppressing employee wages.

We're only getting one side of the story here: the story of the DOJ, which has its own political interests. And in typical fashion with these highly sensationalized scandals, bullying and shame are deployed to force people into one camp or the other. People are discouraged from finding a middle ground, trying to empathize with both sides, etc. They're told, "X is bad, and Y did X! How can you still act in any reasonable manner toward Y? He must be banished!"

We need to be careful and we need to quit feeding our own to the wolves. We need to back off of our hair-trigger. So far, I know of no documentation that shows clear mens rea on the part of Catmull, and even if that is shown, it doesn't mean all of his contributions should be thrown out the door. That's very simple-minded, silly thinking.

[chris_mahan]

Once you've demonstrated you have no integrity as a human being, the onus is on you to demonstrate, through your actions, that you have changed.

[shiven]

Sorry to invoke Godwin's law here. But now your defense of Catmull is quickly devolving into "What about all the good things Hitler did?".

[cookiecaper]

Do you understand how absolutely absurd it is to compare the perpetrator of one of the world's most expansive genocides to two executives that agreed they wouldn't actively poach each others' employees?

Also, what about all the good things Hitler did? I think that's a historical perspective that's often lacking. It can be satisfying to paint people who've committed crimes as Satan incarnate, but that's not realistic, and selling a fantastical version of history as definitive can have serious long-term consequences.

[shiven]

Also, what about all the good things Hitler did?

None of the good deeds matter anymore once the level of bad deeds exceeds a moral threshold. Just as there is redemption for exceeding your past bad deeds with present and future good deeds, so there is damnation for doing the opposite.

Now, we can argue till we are blue in the face about what the moral threshold should be, but it varies from person to person, society to society and civilization to civilization. In this day and age, Ed Catmull (arguably with intent) conspired to harm other human beings' earnings, something that not only affects those humans directly, but indirectly their immediate families as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to speak from the perspective of someone who is financially all set, without monetary concerns that can adversely affect your children's education (public vs private schooling, college vs no college), a family member requiring expensive healthcare (chronic disease, terminal care) or concerns about home ownership. In my mind, you being free of such burdens (for whatever reason), are free to take the other (higher/lower) road of thought. But just because you are not affected by someone artificially limiting your income, does not mean others who are affected should shut up and suck it in without calling out the perpetrator for what they did. In their mind, and for many here, Ed Catmull is now damned.

You are welcome to call it silly minded and simplistic, but that does not change the facts of this case.

[cookiecaper]

I think it's absurd to place the moral event horizon [1] somewhere in the obscure fineries of anti-trust law. This is what I mean when I say that no-poach agreements are not an egregious or blatant moral crime.

Did you know there are real people living among us that don't agree with anti-trust law? They don't think it should exist, they think it's unfair legislation meant to disadvantage successful players. Are all of these people also "damned", to use your elegant and gracious terminology?

I'll reiterate, as I have many times up to this point, that Catmull may have been wrong, that he may have been breaking the law, and that his actions may have had the indirect side effect of suppressing overall industry wages (even if mens rea is eventually shown and an email wherein Catmull explicitly states that his goal is to depress employee wages emerges, the effect of the no-poach agreement would still be indirect). But there is another side to this story that people refuse to recognize because they now have it ingrained in their heads that this is a good v. evil, corporate bigwig v. innocent little guy case, and they won't allow themselves to empathize with the other side in fear that they may be considered guilty by association (as some in this thread have already done with me).

At its root, such feelings are the result of rhetorical tactic to win the case by shame. People will cast events like they could only be perpetrated by the dirtiest scoundrels alive, but it's not a reflection of reality. This kind of thing is the bread and butter of political pundits. We should be able to see through those tactics here, but over and over again, it's proven that most of us can't, as we lead witch hunts to drive industry luminaries away simply because people in this industry can't understand how to disagree in a civil manner. It's very discouraging.

I hope that you reconsider the case with a broader, kinder perspective.

[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon

[bsimpson]

You've had a handful of very insightful responses in a thread that is otherwise busy sharpening their pitchforks. Thanks for keeping it real. =)

[samstave]

I think the thing is that while people can do good things, they can also do really bad/weird things to others when all of their hierarchy of needs is met.

I he has money, power, comfort, is top-of-his-game -- then its very easy to really act as though it is a game and his actions only strengthening his position and the position of the system that supports his position (the company).

So in his mind, he is just being efficient/business minded/shrewd etc... and doesn't realize he is actually fucking up the lives of others -- he is only seeing it from his own perspective; that he is an effective person making shit-tons of money.

Utter lack of compassion/human perspective.

[chris_mahan]

Exactly right.

They think it's just a game.

Bastards.

[sitkack]

We are all our best when we are a _little_ hungry.

[chaostheory]

Just because someone made a mistake, it shouldn't automatically make all of their work 'evil'.

[bcoates]

If someone lies about the things you can check, you should automatically assume the things you can't check are lies too.

[kabdib]

A public apology might be nice.

I'm not going to burn my graphics books, but I'm really disappointed with Pixar right now.

"This needs to be nipped in the bud." Um, yeah.