Hacker News Reader

Comment by loceng | Hacker News Reader

Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip, e.g. there is no lacking in incompetence and integrity in many systems, organizations, companies, communities, families. It starts with the individual which requires someone caring about how they look, about accountability, chain of command/responsibility.

How do we solve this though? Who is the CEO responsible to - who do they care, if anyone, about how they appear to? How do we shift this behaviour for the examples of CEOs and politicians who maybe haven't been outed yet by such a security breach but are vulnerable to such lacking of a rigid structure of command/responsibility?

Edit to add: I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people.

View on HN

> Edit to add: I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people.

Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.

> Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.

Wut? Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics. He said nothing about the politics of Cruz, he compared the Senator shifting blame onto his kids with this CEO blaming an intern. Don’t be like that.

(Edited to correct typo)

Thank you for pointing this out - it's unfortunate that people can be immediately triggered to react after simply seeing a name that prevents/blocks them from continuing on to understand or critically think to understand what's actually said; it's definitely a sign of the times and state of our health and our thinking ability as a society.

This is uncharitable. First, you assume people were offended (and you used the loaded term 'triggered' to describe it). Then you go on to assume this means that society must be degrading, because so many people are losing their ability to think (the implication being that you are not part of that group).

A much simpler explanation is that people who read and comment on HN do not want to see every conversation degenerate into yet another political fistfight, since it seems to have infected every other part of our lives. One of the core values of this community is that we mostly manage to avoid that.

My perspective is valid, you've done nothing to prove it's not - other than putting your own "much simpler explanation;" where you're also making assumptions. Hope you enjoyed the thought exercise writing out your reply.

It's interesting how I can reference, with no personal opinion attached to it, a factual, recent situation that's comparable to the thread - about a well-known person who happens to be a politician - happens to be a politician, and as you said, because you're exhausted of hearing about them, you'd prefer they be censored/avoided in conversation. It's interesting to say the least.

P.S. Triggered is a valid word, I used it in the correct context - and you were in fact triggered by using it and are trying to gate keep its use.

What you are doing here is a pretty good real world demonstration of Russell conjugations. Also very non-productive, so I don't think there is any reason to try continuing the discussion. Have a great day!

Re: Russel conjugations - there was no "spin" to anything I said, I stated facts that were neutral - yes, that neutrality which is certainly a better light than you're appearing to believe Ted Cruz deserves (which has nothing to do with my own perception of him - it's your own belief or reaction you're applying to the facts). There is a difference - and if you read the examples at Google for searching "what is russell conjugation" - https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/ - then none of them fit what I said because I was just listing fact, so my points still stand and I wasn't using any fallacies or bad faith arguments. I won't analysis the conversation further because it'll become inflammatory. I'd love for you to show exactly where I am applying bias to the facts I listed.

> Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics

Of course it is, why would you think otherwise? By calling out a particular politician by name, especially a controversial one, OP introduced a political slant to the discussion. Could just as easily have said "this is a problem we commonly see with politicians, or other people in leadership positions" without calling a particular one out.

> Don’t be like that.

Like what, exactly? OP made a comment, and when it started to go grey he maligned the HN commentariat as a whole as being full of lazy people. All I did was help him understand what aspect of his comment was the likely trigger for the downvotes. HN by and large does not like political discussions, it's even right there in the moderation rules.

Your comment was down voted because it mentioned a political figure. In today's hyper-polarized society, any mention of politics in a discussion about something apolitical preemptively draws silence or disregard. No one wants to be dragged into an adjacent unproductive argument.

Looking at your other posts, it also seems that you easily show a pessimistic attitude, similar to how old people will complain about younger generations. No one responds positively to such generalizations.

What you seem to be claiming as generalizations I can only assume you speak to the holistic view that I often speak from.

Mentioning a political figure doesn't necessitate baiting one into a conversation - however yes, it's clear that people are tired, exhausted - and no longer actually read to comprehend, stunting critical thinking throughout what they're reading - and then making an assumption as to what they're reading, and then doing a lazy downvote for a dopamine hit to feel fulfilled - as if they were diligent, reaffirming their assumptions.

And I disagree that "no one responds positively to such generalizations" - it doesn't make them untrue, and usually I also reference the solution, policy proposals, to solve the problems.

> I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people.

> Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip...

I'll bite. (Stick with me; I'll get to the point after some analysis that may be objectionable or seem unrelated.)

He's got responsibility to two parties: the citizens of his state and his children. Both are important in different ways, and the needs of each conflict in certain circumstances.

Did he want to get somewhere warm? Probably.

Did his children want their father with them? Probably.

Was he unable to advise while in Cancun? Doubtful.

Was he unable to legislate while in Cancun. He was not.

So, despite the inappropriate optics of his trip (and reflection of poor character for a leader of the state), it appears as though he made a judgement that favored his family and his self, presumably because he judged no apparent harm to the state by his actions.

I bring all this up because it's relevant to the parallel you bring: he blames his children for the choice. The problem is, neither you nor anyone else I'm aware of have demonstrated harm by his choice. So his "blaming" his children appears to reflect his choice between two conflicting priorities.

The intern, on the other hand, caused demonstrable harm and the CEO blames his own decisions on said intern.

Cruz did not blame lack of preparedness on his children. He blamed bad optics on his choice to acquiesce to his children. Far as I can tell, you're bringing a straw man to a knife fight.

I don't think your assertion is incorrect, that incompetence and lack of integrity are responsible for the CEO's choice, but I don't think you demonstrated that properly with your parallel. I find Ted Cruz to be pretty unpalatable, but I believe the hype around his trip is exaggerated, and your use of it to affirm your assertion is misplaced.

However, in an effort to make this more interesting, let's say the parallel is appropriate. I would, for the sake of argument, challenge that the fault, instead, lies in the hands of the people of Texas. If "the buck stops here", then let us remember that there is an entity above that of Ted Cruz, and that is the people of Texas.

If we truly believe that mistakes are not the fault of the individual who made the mistake, but rather the person at the top of the chain, then it stands to reason that politicians are not at fault, but rather the citizens that voted that politician in.

Since voters have ultimate responsibility to decide the way in which their community is governed—just as a CEO makes choices that bubble down—then it seems to me the people are ultimately responsible.

And in this context, your parallel seems even more misplaced, because the people of Texas (and the rest of the country) are blaming the "little guy" when those in charge of actually deciding who's hired and who's fired are the responsible parties.

Personally, I find the ultimate lack of integrity in "the people", because everyone blames "government" when "government" goes wrong, but fail to acknowledge that they are, in fact, said government.

I charge you to challenge my assertion and justify your parallel.

> they are, in fact, said government

Great! where do we sign up to vote on legislation?

I see this, though I've exhausted my mental focus for today - I have severe chronic pain to contend with every day. I promise you I will respond likely by tomorrow, perhaps only will get a draft done and then Monday will reply. First though, thank you for taking a bite and spending energy engaging - I appreciate that alone.

Thank you, and I hope you feel at least a little better tomorrow.

I'd like to clarify one thing that I think was nebulous in my post: while I think "the people" are the responsible party, I meant to suggest that choosing who is the responsible party at all is close to arbitrary.

That is to say, arguments over who's held responsible more reflects who we want to be responsible than who may actually be responsible, which is in fact shared among several people. (The CEO, the intern, the person who gave the intern the password, the person who configured the system to require a password that could be leaked, etc.)

We choose the CEO (or Ted Cruz, or whomever) because of our own biases, in spite of the fact that responsibility is shared, and in spite of the fact that who's "in charge" is nebulous at best.

We do the same when blaming the 12 US billionaires (or however many there are) for income inequality in the country, or blame all white people for racial injustice, and so on.

That doesn't mean there aren't responsible parties, or that people and groups should be free from criticism. The truth of the matter is that—no matter how justified it is to assign blame—it's exceedingly rare for anyone to take responsibility for their own failings.

This shouldn't necessarily contort to whom and how we assign blame. But, rather, it should inform us of the breadth of the problem, our own contributions to it, and help us become better citizens, instead of shift the blame as the CEO or Cruz did.

If we find that unpalatable, but don't acknowledge our own complicity, then all we've achieved is a pitchfork-laden witch hunt, and not actual direction towards resolution.

Cruz had a choice: 1) Flee the state and do nothing 2) Stay and do ANYTHING to help

He chose 1.

Cruz using his children as an excuse shows either of these:

1) He's a pushover and his children, that we can assume he loves, he doesn't have control or authority over them for whatever reason; and in fact they'd have control over him.

2) He's using his children as an excuse to avoid taking accountability, and the problem down the whole line is a lack of accountability.

I agree the necessity of being in-person is debatable, however regardless, the lack of common sense to understand how it would be easily perceived is quite astonishing.

You're blaming the intern here - in fact it was the policies and protocol that allowed that whole shenanigans to unfold how it did: it shouldn't have been the interns responsibility to begin with - protocol should have prevented it, protocol and process that in a chain of command/accountability should reach the CEO if the protocol is adequate.

Of course the hype about his trip is exaggerated, that's to be expected - perhaps we've all been attempted to be gaslighted by Trump for so long that this doesn't seem like a big deal, voted in representatives not being actively engaged in military fashion to protect and help "his" people. We're so used to unqualified, inadequate, incompetent politicians being voted into power - that this seems okay - how many people died so far, how much damage was caused leading to economic damage and reducing productivity of those harmed - especially if they have to fight insurance companies for damage; it speaks to Eric Weinstein's commentary that it's only during wartime that the true leaders appear out of necessity.

Indeed, the people of Texas have been manipulated, arguably controlled subtly for many decades, directed by the duopoly - crafted heavily by industrial complexes - to put relatively bad people into the spotlight, for the mainstream media complex, controlled by a handful of conglomerates, to then amplify the two main narratives of either side of the duopoly. So is it really the people's fault? Yes and no, of course with the right policy proposals all of this can be countered strongly, and the change will cascade quickly, exponentially - policy proposals such as Andrew Yang's core policies; it's all the yin-yang dance of the universe, people need to suffer to learn - to pay attention, and hopefully we're at a part of a cycle where healing and creation is rapidly approaching, hopefully this isn't just a foreshock - where Trump's wave is still building to a tsunami - and we're yet awaiting the major earthquake before everything destabilizes and perhaps we're going to lead into a civil war - and perhaps even global war will start in parallel, if democracies can't be stabilized enough to create multi-lateral trade agreements to economically funnel resources away from the known bad actors who aren't behaving or falling in line to peace and freedom.

It's complex, there are systems that most don't know or understand or consider - and these systems self-perpetuate like a virus to keep counter attacks at bay; the autonomous immune system of America and the world is failing, inadequate. Luckily the purpose and value of distributing power, control - separating Federal government from the States - and further diversifying risk via having many States with their own varying rules - allows neighbouring States to shine light/the truth onto the States that have been darkened, influenced, lead too far astray by bad actors (domestic and foreign).

It's a lack of integrity in the systems - these flows that lead to multi-generational trauma, karma - action, consequences - passed down from one generation to the next. It's why my focus for all my projects is health: there are still ripples passed through stress-trauma of parents of war onto their children, and onto their children, and so on. We are generating new active trauma while not doing enough to support new people born or migrating to our more/relatively stable countries - and not enough to heal the existing population.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the parallel question. I do however think it's an elected person's responsibility to counter any claims - arguably by showing he was doing everything in his power he could help the people, and that there was nothing more he could have been doing + with proof to back it up; let alone traveling during a pandemic, where most people are prevented from traveling - that alone is terrible role modelling vs. AOC doing a social media effort to raise $5 million for the people of Texas. The issue is really the contrast is sickening - from the weak inadequacy of doing what's ideal and right vs. not - we need to purge the system ideally through non-violent means, America needs to throw up - clear all of the shit - the whole "clear the swamp" idea, the mantra that Trump misappropriated to rally and align with mainstream media narratives of demonizing the unknown - when in fact it's the devil himself who's managing and rallying the swamp; allowing those not blinded by or manipulated, indoctrinated into their control and lack of critical thinking and reasoning, and skills for integrity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com