Are you saying you don't? I would if I'd done that. If you don't you might want to start doing.

Those who care about good judgement and not having unnecessary surface area for blackmail or other exploits.

No one is calling him a sinner.

Can't blackmail if nobody cares.

I think that's what the pedophiles are trying to do, move the overton window so it's not such a big deal.

Pedophilia is illegal, and that's not changing no matter how many grotesque articles are written. Adults having consensual sex with other adults is not illegal.

Sorry I see how my point can easily be missed as I brought this up kind of randomly in a thread about otherwise legal behavior. My point is the normalization of deviance.

I'm struggling to understand what you are trying to say. Why did you bring up pedophiles?

In media for stories surrounding Epstein and that class of people, we often hear of 'underaged girls' instead of 'children'. That is part of the shift of the overton window. Modern media is replete with children being put into adult situations (not necessarily media targeted at children, mind you) and that only helps to blur the line.

Okay cool. Maybe next time you have a thought related to raping children, maybe consider seeing if it relates at all to the thread you're in before you start typing.

The whole point is reducing the care. You can't blackmail what people don't care about. Your response is pretty callous. Saying "next time you have a thought related to raping children" like what the fuck?

If I said "you can't blackmail people for littering because people don't care, but littering is still wrong.", would we be making the same point, or is there a connection between this and Epstein that I'm missing?

If there was an effort to downplay littering in media then yes but I'm not aware of it. There's no direct connection to Epstein beyond blackmail. I regret bringing it up, I thought it would make for interesting discussion.

It just seemed to come out of nowhere, and following that guy saying he doesn't care about adults having affairs, it sounded like you were trying to say that anyone who doesn't care about this is somehow condoning child abuse? Which is why I was sure there was an Epstein connection I was missing, and also why I had a hostile reaction.

Now that I know where you're coming from, yeah, that is interesting.

There's a saying, and I have no idea if there any truth to it, that you can't blackmail French CEO's and government officials this way. Their wives already know they are cheating on them and the public expects it.

Chinese also the same. Super rich Chinese typically expected to have mistresses with the legit wife controlling access. It is abnormal for super rich Chinese not to have mistresses. Historically only one Chinese emperor did that monogamy thing, but he died young, so that probably the real reason. Western kibgs are bizarre monogamous by Chinese culture standard even today.

I believe this is true yes, you would have a hard time getting anyone to care. You should be worried anytime you are in a union with a French man (or Lady). See Cardinal Richelieu and French alliances behind the backs of the Catholic League.

I say this as a Brit and we are the same, only we are just as perfidious (maybe worse) but hide it from are selves and others so we are easy to blackmail.

Even if you don't care about the adultery aspect, or the spying aspect(!), having sex with the people who report to you is a huge problem. First of all the power imbalance complicates questions of consent. Secondly, even if that's all fine, there are legitimate questions that could be raised by other employees about objectivity and favoritism. And for all of these reasons and more, it reflects very poorly on a leader in terms of their judgement and impulse control, which are reasonable traits to want a CEO to have.

If you think that is the only crazy/insane/bad thing involved in these situations, I have a bridge to sell you.

Notably, it does get folks incensed, and it’s a good way to take out a senior leader if all other leverage fails.

Who said it’s the only one? We can criticize them all.

I just find the pearl clutching on this particular topic hilariously naive. Especially with the Epstein files having been such a big topic for years and years now.

It’s clearly some kind of hit piece. Dumb of Huang to have stepped on whatever landmine he did, let alone allow himself to get this exposed, but whatever.

I wonder if it’s someone trying to short Nvidia?

As someone who doesn't cheat on their spouse or have unethical relationships with subordinates, it's frustrating to see bad behavior from powerful people and have the reaction be "There's a lot more where this came from, so it's not a big deal. This is just a hit piece."

Is it that hard to keep your wiener out of people who report to you? Why is the reaction "this is really common and it's unfair to target this guy" and not "at least one of them is finally seeing some consequences, now let's hope there's more to follow"? Apparently having and expecting basic ethics is "pearl clutching." Fuck that. If powerful people are commonly awful and I expect better from them, that's a problem with them, not with me.

Oh you’re wildly misunderstanding my point.

Of course he should be fired for this.

The reality - at these levels - is that to rise to these levels typically requires that others involved feel comfortable they have enough leverage on you that they can force you out ‘quietly’ if they need to do so.

Which is what is happening.

I’ve seen some wild things that were allowed to continue because the math was paying out at the time.

Somewhere the math changed, and this is the consequence.

Post election ‘cleanup’ in approach?

Change in expectations on future growth trajectory?

Someone with their own interests (shorting the stock) got too much leverage?

This is already costing individual folks billions, and shareholders hundreds of billions. that kind of thing often involves someone’s ‘chess moves’, even if it’s just them blowing up in their faces.

I'm not sure I understand your point any better now. Are you saying that "should" is irrelevant to what actually happens and that it's all about what makes money? I'd completely agree with that. But I don't see what that has to do with "I just find the pearl clutching on this particular topic hilariously naive." or "If you think that is the only crazy/insane/bad thing involved in these situations, I have a bridge to sell you."

Those of us with a moral compass?

[delayed]