> Powell Jobs and Jobs' sister have said in a statement that the book "differs dramatically from our memories of those times."
I've learned from experience that people who aggressively denounce others publicly sometimes have stuff going on that isn't readily visible.
It's not that I want Jobs to be free of moral stain. I have no investment in it. But people should be cautious trusting a report of one person's disputed report.
Jobs was a raging asshole and misanthropist famous for treating his coworkers and employees like shit -- luckally he was able to deliver, and everyone forgets that shitty behavior.
it's not crazy to think he was like at that home, too.
I worked with some of them and have one as a friend on FB (we're all dying off). I was too young to get in on early Apple for a firsthand account. S.Jobs was universally known as a rageaholic, among his other qualities. This is portrayed well enough in much of the infotainment media produced about him.
There's no question in my mind that having kids gets in the way of single-minded vision that's required of the kind of career success that Jobs had.
It's unfortunate, but the reality is that having kids and actually caring for them in a way that gives the best chance to turn them into good, undamaged human beings requires a massive amount of attention that would heavily distract from lofty career goals.
If the drive for career success is strong enough, kids will be resented and treated as such. It sucks, and they probably shouldn't have had kids in the first place, but the biological imperative is incredibly difficult to overcome.
Being absent for work is different than being cruel.
As a counterpoint I would highlight Buffet, Branson, and others who have managed to fulfill their obligations to the next generation without failing to dominate their industries.
There is no excuse for cruelty to children, doubly so when they are your own. Jobs was an asshole because he was an asshole, not because he was driven.
Have you read the article? He didn't just ignore her. He combined periods where he ignored her with periods of caring only to hurt her in dark ways.
> Once, she says, as Jobs groped his wife and pretended to be having sex with her, he demanded that Brennan-Jobs stay in the room, calling it a "family moment." He repeatedly withheld money from her, told her that she would get "nothing" from his wealth — and even refused to install heat in her bedroom.
It's all very nuanced, but to put it overly bluntly: career-orientation is about power and control and self image. My understanding is that it's all mental illness related behavior.
Happy to be disagreed with, it's just my experience of the world.
> There's no question in my mind that having kids gets in the way of single-minded vision that's required of the kind of career success that Jobs had.
It's a common misconception because so many psychopaths become examples of "successful businessmen" but they're not successful PEOPLE. Steve's arrogance literally killed him, his insistence he knew better than everyone made him ignore his cancer until it was too late.
No one should try to be the next Steve Jobs. Be better than he was, better to your family, better to your employees, better to your friends. There's no one Steve didn't try to screw at some point. That's not success.
When Jobs was alive I could still play YouTube videos with my screen locked, I could listen to music with a set of conventional headphones, and iOS did not yet suffer from the storage bug.
> When Jobs was alive I could still play YouTube videos with my screen locked
I still can today. It's background mode, part of Youtube Premium.
> I could listen to music with a set of conventional headphones
You can still do that, too. USB-C to headphone adapters are easy to use and cheap. Lots of folks complain about the lack of headphone jacks, but if you have a cable from your headphones, 4 more inches for the adapter at the end is not a problem.
> and iOS did not yet suffer from the storage bug.
No but when he was alive it had lots of other bugs.
And Steve was still not a great person. So for all these allowances, we can't rewrite history.
I'm in no way attempting to do that. I live my life in the opposite manner, I have two great kids (that are my lifetime greatest achievement) and a "career" that pays the bills that I could totally take or leave (pending the ability to pay the bills).
it seems quaint to dunk on Jobs now...he seems like a saint in comparison, in light of Mao Zedong-style mass-murder-by-policy from the current crop of tech industry CEOs.
> Musk has pushed back against guardrails for Grok [...] Musk has “been unhappy about over-censoring” on Grok “for a long time.” [...] At one meeting in recent weeks before the latest controversy erupted, Musk held a meeting with xAI staffers from various teams where he “was really unhappy” over restrictions on Grok’s Imagine image and video generator
...how are the shareholders not in revolt over this?
The stock seems completely disconnected from the antics of Musk. I would think that having a CEO who is clearly a heavy ketamine user and spends more time playing politician than actually running the company would have a negative impact on the stock, but tesla's stock has been divorced from reality for a long time.
having the power to destroy a government agency that provides aid and actually going through with it is not morally equal to not donating a few dollars of your income
1 - the moral calculus is different if you were already doing so and then suddenly shut it off
2 - i was happy with the arrangement of the government doing it on my behalf, and in doing so making the united states stronger and have allies around the world
3 - elon musk did this illegally
4 - elon musk also caused additional deaths by virtue of supporting trump, rfk, and these other lunatics which he was definitely affirmatively a part of doing
While the quantification isn't inherently reliable, the reality of many dead at the hands at Elon Mush is a simple fact that's not up for dispute. The only question is how many he's killed so far. He cut off life saving meds to sick kids and food aid to the areas with food shortages, the deaths are known and reliably reported.
It is easy to prove, it is shown in the linked model. The model is simple. If I spend X amount of dollars feeding people, I can save Y lives. Since this model is obviously bunk, I'm sure you can easily articulate why this model is inaccurate, untrustworthy, or otherwise unhelpful.
Technically his department produced and advised on the data. It's just a government BI team. This is like blaming the BI team for the CEO's decision to fire people. Part of the process, sure. But this a decision made by the majority of Congress. Let's not forget who the bad guy is.
So the kids died as a result of the action taken (withdrawing meds from impoverished children), but the person who took the meds away from the sick kids who then died as a result is innocent? I feel like you might want to look at that word "sophistry" long and hard, and do a bit of soul searching.
African women dying of HIV did not contract it from Elon Musk. They got it from somewhere. I'm open to theories that do not involve blaming a pretentious billionaire who will inseminate anything except black women.
Subrogation could not be more central to the discussion if you're using blame to justify disbursement of money from parties with no obligation or responsibility to provide free healthcare to another continent.
USAID should never have been created; it serves no strategic purpose unless the purpose is exfiltration of wealth to NGO networks. Auditing government programs for efficacy is not a scam, it's accountability. Eliminating a program that benefits others at our expense is not homicide.
All of your arguments are made in bad faith. You don't really have one beyond emotional blackmail and ad hominems. Sophistry.
The argument is very simple, Elon Musk's decision led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and will result in millions more. Auditing government programs for efficacy is not a scam, but Elon Musk did not do that. He said he would do that but did not.
The USG spend is higher than it ever has been, most of the savings cited were fake, and thus he killed a lot of people for no reason.
Eliminating USAID led to deaths. Just because you don't like that it existed did not mean it was preventing deaths. Pulling the plug on someone is killing them, even if you didn't give them the disease and paying for their healthcare was expensive for you.
Your comment makes me interested in the hypothetical of how Jobs would have positioned Apple under the current administration.
I haven't read much about Tim Cook being anywhere near the level of sycophant, or raising the curtain to show the ugliness behind, as much as some of the others.
I thought it was already pretty well established that Torvalds is a jerk? Or, at a minimum, somewhat petulant.
But also a good example of someone’s accomplishments .. arguably being worth something even if that’s true. I made my whole existence off of Linus’s handiwork and owe him a debt of gratitude for it. I probably still get more in monthly residuals than 90% of the people who wrote anything I deployed. Who cares what I think of anyone personally?
I’d hate to be so deranged about anyone that I can’t see any good in their accomplishments. I’m not exactly Miss Manners in the professional or personal realm either, don’t let me cast the first stone.
Id even go as far as saying that Linus’s are way more important and that Steve’s destroyed society but that’s enough out of me. Even if that’s my opinion, I’m still saying that about a trillion dollar company and that’s still someone’s yardstick for success. Genius is genius, accomplishments are accomplishments
… and god what a grey and insecure and screwed up IT world this would be if neither of those people ever existed and Microsoft ruled the world. Either we wouldn’t even have functional cash registers let alone any other technical pillars or infrastructure… or we’d all be in our rightful BSD utopia right about now.
To emphasize the difference between Linus and Steve. Steve seemed to be 100% an asshole when he wasn't performing, whereas Linus is (afaik) mostly very opinionated and doesn't care about being diplomatic at all, but not fundamentally a bad human being.
To make sure history doesn't only remember the good things like their accomplishments. He was often really mean in person, that's pretty clear from his biography (and I also heard from some people who met him). Seeing him remembered as a tech saint is weird then.
I'm glad I never worked for Apple while he was there. Though I have unfortunately worked for someone with very similar traits.
Even though he is dead and can no longer improve himself, people will use him as a role model and idolize all the bad stuff too.
> Seeing him remembered as a tech saint is weird then.
Hero worship is always pretty weird. I wish we would do less of it in general. But for Steve Jobs, I feel like negative reports about his character were pretty well known during his life and after his death. I don't feel like I've seen a lot of positive only content about him now that his death isn't so recent (maybe a little bit in the context of people hating on current Apple products), unlike some other celebrities where people seem to forget all of the misconduct (alleged or proven) during their lifetime.
I did work for Apple while he was there, and he was entirely decent.
I came to believe that there was a bratty entitled personality from his 20s that gave rise to most the jerk stories people reference, and that he wised up after being ousted (probably for being that jerk). He was essentially exiled for the better part of a decade.
The jerk was there from the beginning. A friend's mom was temp-hired by two young guys, both named Steve, to help them set up their first company office. She liked one of the Steves but declined the offer to join their new company as the first office manager because the other Steve was an a-hole.
depends on their legacy. If a a policy maker died but still has bills and laws in flight, it's an easy way to kill those. As well as any proteges that were running for office.
For me, it is important to know and reflect on these stories so we can collectively heal and learn from them, regarding child abuse, narcissism, and especially (what is also mentioned in the article) enabling such abuse. This is why I posted it.
If we bury these stories, and always only talk about it when people are long dead or not at all, we as communities will not evolve out of those patterns. A culture that "honors the dead" by not talking about the bad stuff they've done is catering to its abusers.
Today, we should talk about Trump, Musk, etc, also in the light of how they treat their children. And what we can and should do to protect those that cannot protect themselves.
We all have responsibility - the ability to respond. If we look away from the stories, we will also look away when something happens near us. And it should encourage us to grow in how we treat other people (especially children) around us. Yes, this can bring up difficult feelings about our own acts, and our own childhood experiences. And it should.
He is a canonized saint of Catholicism and revered as a virtuous defender of Christianity. More evidence based history instead indicates he was a narcissist primarily motivated to elevate himself politically in Alexandria which included wide spread murder and the destruction of the greatest intellectual institution the world had ever seen.
Really? I have heard plenty of "Jobs was an asshole" comments, every time his name comes up. The most consistent assessment seems to be "he was talented, lucky, and a real asshole to work for."
Jobs was idolised during his later life. (reality distortion field a-la the register) lots of founders and CEOs adopted his mannerisms, and cosplayed his stories, because they thought that was what made him _good_
Obviously there were dissenters, either people who were personally shat on by him, or didn't buy the "Jobs is better than jesus" stuff.
But, they made a fucking movie about him, thats how much he was idolised.
Interesting little detail buried near the end:
> Powell Jobs and Jobs' sister have said in a statement that the book "differs dramatically from our memories of those times."
I've learned from experience that people who aggressively denounce others publicly sometimes have stuff going on that isn't readily visible.
It's not that I want Jobs to be free of moral stain. I have no investment in it. But people should be cautious trusting a report of one person's disputed report.
Differing from your memory and differing from reality aren't the same thing.
Nor is it uncommon that "the stepmom doesn't like the estranged kids"
Nor is it uncommon that a deadbeat dad is an asshole.
Whether or not it's true, common sense and the available evidence certainly favor Lisa.
Jobs was a raging asshole and misanthropist famous for treating his coworkers and employees like shit -- luckally he was able to deliver, and everyone forgets that shitty behavior.
it's not crazy to think he was like at that home, too.
> treating his coworkers and employees like shit
I worked with some of them and have one as a friend on FB (we're all dying off). I was too young to get in on early Apple for a firsthand account. S.Jobs was universally known as a rageaholic, among his other qualities. This is portrayed well enough in much of the infotainment media produced about him.
There's no question in my mind that having kids gets in the way of single-minded vision that's required of the kind of career success that Jobs had.
It's unfortunate, but the reality is that having kids and actually caring for them in a way that gives the best chance to turn them into good, undamaged human beings requires a massive amount of attention that would heavily distract from lofty career goals.
If the drive for career success is strong enough, kids will be resented and treated as such. It sucks, and they probably shouldn't have had kids in the first place, but the biological imperative is incredibly difficult to overcome.
Being absent for work is different than being cruel.
As a counterpoint I would highlight Buffet, Branson, and others who have managed to fulfill their obligations to the next generation without failing to dominate their industries.
There is no excuse for cruelty to children, doubly so when they are your own. Jobs was an asshole because he was an asshole, not because he was driven.
Have you read the article? He didn't just ignore her. He combined periods where he ignored her with periods of caring only to hurt her in dark ways.
> Once, she says, as Jobs groped his wife and pretended to be having sex with her, he demanded that Brennan-Jobs stay in the room, calling it a "family moment." He repeatedly withheld money from her, told her that she would get "nothing" from his wealth — and even refused to install heat in her bedroom.
This isn't just a career driven person
It's all very nuanced, but to put it overly bluntly: career-orientation is about power and control and self image. My understanding is that it's all mental illness related behavior.
Happy to be disagreed with, it's just my experience of the world.
The guy had issues, and "driven to build a company" was not the cause.
Ironic that he blamed his biological father for abandoning him, and then tried really, really hard to do the same to his daughter.
She wasn't a product of "trying to have kids". It just happened, and he denied she was his daughter for years.
Jobs was an IT guy, perhaps a good one, but that didn't give him the right to treat anyone the way he did.
The worshipping is completely out of line.
To be clear, I'm no worshipper, nor Apple fanboi. In fact, I try to avoid that ecosystem entirely.
I'm a praiser of good parents and good people and Steve was definitively neither, it would seem.
> There's no question in my mind that having kids gets in the way of single-minded vision that's required of the kind of career success that Jobs had.
It's a common misconception because so many psychopaths become examples of "successful businessmen" but they're not successful PEOPLE. Steve's arrogance literally killed him, his insistence he knew better than everyone made him ignore his cancer until it was too late.
No one should try to be the next Steve Jobs. Be better than he was, better to your family, better to your employees, better to your friends. There's no one Steve didn't try to screw at some point. That's not success.
When Jobs was alive I could still play YouTube videos with my screen locked, I could listen to music with a set of conventional headphones, and iOS did not yet suffer from the storage bug.
> When Jobs was alive I could still play YouTube videos with my screen locked
I still can today. It's background mode, part of Youtube Premium.
> I could listen to music with a set of conventional headphones
You can still do that, too. USB-C to headphone adapters are easy to use and cheap. Lots of folks complain about the lack of headphone jacks, but if you have a cable from your headphones, 4 more inches for the adapter at the end is not a problem.
> and iOS did not yet suffer from the storage bug.
No but when he was alive it had lots of other bugs.
And Steve was still not a great person. So for all these allowances, we can't rewrite history.
So, the trains ran on time?
The implication being that Steve Jobs was the leader of a genocidal regime and I am his supporter?
Excusing abusive parenting because he prioritize career over child rearing is pretty awful.
I'm in no way attempting to do that. I live my life in the opposite manner, I have two great kids (that are my lifetime greatest achievement) and a "career" that pays the bills that I could totally take or leave (pending the ability to pay the bills).
Unfortunately, maybe it was in part due to Steve's personality that nobody talked him out of following quack home remedies for curing cancer.
it seems quaint to dunk on Jobs now...he seems like a saint in comparison, in light of Mao Zedong-style mass-murder-by-policy from the current crop of tech industry CEOs.
Don’t forget the child porn generator.
> Don’t forget the child porn generator.
Details reported today suggest to me he's more than just a billionaire edgelord:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/tech/elon-musk-xai-digital-un...
> Musk has pushed back against guardrails for Grok [...] Musk has “been unhappy about over-censoring” on Grok “for a long time.” [...] At one meeting in recent weeks before the latest controversy erupted, Musk held a meeting with xAI staffers from various teams where he “was really unhappy” over restrictions on Grok’s Imagine image and video generator
...how are the shareholders not in revolt over this?
The stock seems completely disconnected from the antics of Musk. I would think that having a CEO who is clearly a heavy ketamine user and spends more time playing politician than actually running the company would have a negative impact on the stock, but tesla's stock has been divorced from reality for a long time.
The shareholders have always been revolting. The question is why are they not rebelling.
Do we have mass murdering CEOs now? What did I miss?
[flagged]
Every day you decide not to donate a fraction of your income to medicine in Africa. How many deaths are you responsible for?
You are. We are. With our powers, and money is one of them, comes responsibility. We can decide how and if you respond, but it's still ours.
having the power to destroy a government agency that provides aid and actually going through with it is not morally equal to not donating a few dollars of your income
1 - the moral calculus is different if you were already doing so and then suddenly shut it off
2 - i was happy with the arrangement of the government doing it on my behalf, and in doing so making the united states stronger and have allies around the world
3 - elon musk did this illegally
4 - elon musk also caused additional deaths by virtue of supporting trump, rfk, and these other lunatics which he was definitely affirmatively a part of doing
That article cites nothing other than someone's model. There is no hard evidence in what you linked.
Someone's model says that if you detonate a nuclear bomb in Manhattan, millions will die. There is no hard evidence tho.
While the quantification isn't inherently reliable, the reality of many dead at the hands at Elon Mush is a simple fact that's not up for dispute. The only question is how many he's killed so far. He cut off life saving meds to sick kids and food aid to the areas with food shortages, the deaths are known and reliably reported.
Then it should be easy to prove, instead of saying "it isn't up for dispute" or citing a person's model.
It is easy to prove, it is shown in the linked model. The model is simple. If I spend X amount of dollars feeding people, I can save Y lives. Since this model is obviously bunk, I'm sure you can easily articulate why this model is inaccurate, untrustworthy, or otherwise unhelpful.
True, feel free to Google "deaths attributed to end of usaid", lots to read and learn about there. Have at it.
You’re implying that you have evidence to support your argument without actually providing any of it.
nemo literally just supplied it. But since you insist:
https://www.google.com/search?q=deaths+due+to+end+of+usaid
Technically his department produced and advised on the data. It's just a government BI team. This is like blaming the BI team for the CEO's decision to fire people. Part of the process, sure. But this a decision made by the majority of Congress. Let's not forget who the bad guy is.
We're not. Blame and guilt are not limited resources; more than one bad guy exists.
> a simple fact that's not up for dispute
We used to say the same about the male/female binary.
> He cut off life saving meds
Sophistry. Forcing charity is literal enslavement. Withholding charity is not homicide.
So the kids died as a result of the action taken (withdrawing meds from impoverished children), but the person who took the meds away from the sick kids who then died as a result is innocent? I feel like you might want to look at that word "sophistry" long and hard, and do a bit of soul searching.
[flagged]
You can read more here: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/making-foreign-a...
[flagged]
1 - obviously you're a terrible racist, 2 - subrogation is not relevant, 3 - deaths can have multiple causes
African women dying of HIV did not contract it from Elon Musk. They got it from somewhere. I'm open to theories that do not involve blaming a pretentious billionaire who will inseminate anything except black women.
Subrogation could not be more central to the discussion if you're using blame to justify disbursement of money from parties with no obligation or responsibility to provide free healthcare to another continent.
USAID should never have been created; it serves no strategic purpose unless the purpose is exfiltration of wealth to NGO networks. Auditing government programs for efficacy is not a scam, it's accountability. Eliminating a program that benefits others at our expense is not homicide.
All of your arguments are made in bad faith. You don't really have one beyond emotional blackmail and ad hominems. Sophistry.
The argument is very simple, Elon Musk's decision led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and will result in millions more. Auditing government programs for efficacy is not a scam, but Elon Musk did not do that. He said he would do that but did not.
The USG spend is higher than it ever has been, most of the savings cited were fake, and thus he killed a lot of people for no reason.
Eliminating USAID led to deaths. Just because you don't like that it existed did not mean it was preventing deaths. Pulling the plug on someone is killing them, even if you didn't give them the disease and paying for their healthcare was expensive for you.
Your comment makes me interested in the hypothetical of how Jobs would have positioned Apple under the current administration.
I haven't read much about Tim Cook being anywhere near the level of sycophant, or raising the curtain to show the ugliness behind, as much as some of the others.
Jobs was a terrible person on a personal level, all the other tech CEOs are terrible people on a societal level.
Just from afar, I'd imagine someone like Zuckerberg is terrible all around. Are there any stories of him doing anything for the greater good?
I think Zuckerberg is just wet. We've not seen his final form yet.
Musk is malevolent and Theal is a malevolent shit, but has the ability to be discrete about it.
Supposedly Zuck is good to his family.
Aside from his first wife, you mean?
Are you confusing Zuck and Elon?
His duet cover of "Get Low" with T-Pain is pretty fire.
That’s largely because Jobs didn’t care about the societal level. Creating consumer products was “changing the world” enough for him.
I can't wait to hear stories from Linus' kid's childhoods.
Totally different. Linus is a jerk for justice, Steve was just a narcissistic asshole.
I believe the point here is to evaluate if we're cool with how we treated our kids being part of our legacy.
So you think now. A few years after Linus is dead maybe the real truth will come out, when he won't be around to defend his legacy.
I thought it was already pretty well established that Torvalds is a jerk? Or, at a minimum, somewhat petulant.
But also a good example of someone’s accomplishments .. arguably being worth something even if that’s true. I made my whole existence off of Linus’s handiwork and owe him a debt of gratitude for it. I probably still get more in monthly residuals than 90% of the people who wrote anything I deployed. Who cares what I think of anyone personally?
I’d hate to be so deranged about anyone that I can’t see any good in their accomplishments. I’m not exactly Miss Manners in the professional or personal realm either, don’t let me cast the first stone.
Id even go as far as saying that Linus’s are way more important and that Steve’s destroyed society but that’s enough out of me. Even if that’s my opinion, I’m still saying that about a trillion dollar company and that’s still someone’s yardstick for success. Genius is genius, accomplishments are accomplishments
… and god what a grey and insecure and screwed up IT world this would be if neither of those people ever existed and Microsoft ruled the world. Either we wouldn’t even have functional cash registers let alone any other technical pillars or infrastructure… or we’d all be in our rightful BSD utopia right about now.
To emphasize the difference between Linus and Steve. Steve seemed to be 100% an asshole when he wasn't performing, whereas Linus is (afaik) mostly very opinionated and doesn't care about being diplomatic at all, but not fundamentally a bad human being.
There were things about Jobs around before he died, I'm pretty sure.
The denial of paternity of his first born being one of them.
(I think that was relatively well known well before he died)
Eh, pretty sure it would be out by now.
When someone is long dead, what is the point in one-sided accusations about their character?
To make sure history doesn't only remember the good things like their accomplishments. He was often really mean in person, that's pretty clear from his biography (and I also heard from some people who met him). Seeing him remembered as a tech saint is weird then.
I'm glad I never worked for Apple while he was there. Though I have unfortunately worked for someone with very similar traits.
Even though he is dead and can no longer improve himself, people will use him as a role model and idolize all the bad stuff too.
> Seeing him remembered as a tech saint is weird then.
Hero worship is always pretty weird. I wish we would do less of it in general. But for Steve Jobs, I feel like negative reports about his character were pretty well known during his life and after his death. I don't feel like I've seen a lot of positive only content about him now that his death isn't so recent (maybe a little bit in the context of people hating on current Apple products), unlike some other celebrities where people seem to forget all of the misconduct (alleged or proven) during their lifetime.
>To make sure history doesn't only remember the good things like their accomplishments.
This horse has been beat to death. Every reddit post that has Jobs name in it covers this. Same with John Lennon.
I did work for Apple while he was there, and he was entirely decent.
I came to believe that there was a bratty entitled personality from his 20s that gave rise to most the jerk stories people reference, and that he wised up after being ousted (probably for being that jerk). He was essentially exiled for the better part of a decade.
The jerk was there from the beginning. A friend's mom was temp-hired by two young guys, both named Steve, to help them set up their first company office. She liked one of the Steves but declined the offer to join their new company as the first office manager because the other Steve was an a-hole.
that fits the early Steve vs post humility of firing Steve that we there after NeXT merged
You worked for a multi-thousand-employee company, and therefore can certify the moral fiber behind closed doors of the CEO?
Jobs' daughter has made assertions about Jobs' behavior.
You are literally questioning why we are bothering to try to learn historical facts.
if Steve Jobs wasnt famous would you have anything negative to say about a person writing a memoir describing their cruel dad?
depends on their legacy. If a a policy maker died but still has bills and laws in flight, it's an easy way to kill those. As well as any proteges that were running for office.
For me, it is important to know and reflect on these stories so we can collectively heal and learn from them, regarding child abuse, narcissism, and especially (what is also mentioned in the article) enabling such abuse. This is why I posted it.
If we bury these stories, and always only talk about it when people are long dead or not at all, we as communities will not evolve out of those patterns. A culture that "honors the dead" by not talking about the bad stuff they've done is catering to its abusers.
Today, we should talk about Trump, Musk, etc, also in the light of how they treat their children. And what we can and should do to protect those that cannot protect themselves.
We all have responsibility - the ability to respond. If we look away from the stories, we will also look away when something happens near us. And it should encourage us to grow in how we treat other people (especially children) around us. Yes, this can bring up difficult feelings about our own acts, and our own childhood experiences. And it should.
My go to example for this is Saint Cyril.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria
He is a canonized saint of Catholicism and revered as a virtuous defender of Christianity. More evidence based history instead indicates he was a narcissist primarily motivated to elevate himself politically in Alexandria which included wide spread murder and the destruction of the greatest intellectual institution the world had ever seen.
Except it compensates for the one sided praising of the guy.
Really? I have heard plenty of "Jobs was an asshole" comments, every time his name comes up. The most consistent assessment seems to be "he was talented, lucky, and a real asshole to work for."
I would not say Steve Jobs received only praise during his life or after his death.
> not say Steve Jobs received only praise
Jobs was idolised during his later life. (reality distortion field a-la the register) lots of founders and CEOs adopted his mannerisms, and cosplayed his stories, because they thought that was what made him _good_
Obviously there were dissenters, either people who were personally shat on by him, or didn't buy the "Jobs is better than jesus" stuff.
But, they made a fucking movie about him, thats how much he was idolised.
The article made a lot of sense in 2018. If I was Lisa I would want my story to be heard. And so in turn I empathize and want to hear her story.
I’m not sure why it is being reposted in 2026, though.
Some people just want to see the world burn, destroy culture etc.
Some culture touchpoints are based on misinformation. It's usually moral to point out historic inaccuracies and to portray humans as they are.
> destroy culture
If the truth destroys your culture, it says more about your culture than it does about the people destroying it.