Marc Benioff
He's the CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based Salesforce, one of the world's largest software companies, which owns the popular messaging service Slack and is worth nearly $300 billion. He also owns Time magazine.
When I ask Benioff about the properties in the anonymous LLCs, things seem to take a turn. He starts speaking more quickly and fidgets with a piece of paper in his hand. He's reluctant to go through the holdings, and his adviser on the Zoom call jumps in to say we can discuss later.
A couple of days before the interview, Benioff texted the same NPR colleague again, asking for intel on my story. Then he called me and demanded to know the title of this piece. During that call, he also mentioned he knew the exact area where I was staying. Unnerved, I asked how he knew, and he said, "It's my job. You have a job and I have a job." During the interview, he brings up more personal details about me and my family.
I leave the meeting disconcerted and still unclear about what exactly is happening with his land in Waimea.
The following day, I drive around with a photographer to take pictures of the town and Benioff's projects. We go to the property he described as a community center and are confronted by one of his employees. The photographer explains we're there to take photos of the outside of the building. Shortly afterward, I get a text from Benioff. His employee seemed to think we were "snooping," and he says he's escalating the incident to NPR CEO John Lansing. Lansing confirmed he spoke with Benioff, without going into detail — the NPR newsroom operates independently, and the CEO is not involved in editorial decision-making. Benioff didn't respond to my question about the purpose of this call.
He's also done more than I or most people on the planet have done to harm. For instance I've never flown to Epstein's Island and raped children. Becoming charitable later in life doesn't wash away your past and make you suddenly good. Context matters, you simpleton.
There's a few issues with what you've said.
The claims that he has raped children is completely unsubstantiated and is just attacking his character. If there was evidence great. But one ride on a plane is hardly strong evidence.
Have you ever watched or heard of les miserable? I suggest you watch/read it, because yes - people can murder, steal, rape Etc. And that doesn't mean that they're an awful person for life. I'm sure you've severely hurt people in your life, are you unreedemable because of those few times?
The argument of more harm VS more good is interesting. I personally don't see it and it would be super hard to substantiate. Having a successful company/monopoly is not in itself bad.
And if billionaires are bad, you could make the argument that Bill Gates stopped another billionaire from taking the helm, so he actually stopped a billionaire which makes him good. It's all circular bullshit regardless, but until you can show some strong evidence of the wrong he's done its far easier for me to show you the good.
Holy shit you have no idea what Les Miserables was about! 😂😂😂😂
Here you go since you have no idea what you're talking about from chatgpt and I'm lazy:
Yes, one of the themes of Les Misérables is that criminals can be redeemed. The novel shows how Jean Valjean, a former convict who spent 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, is able to change his life and become a good person after he receives kindness and forgiveness from a bishop. He then devotes himself to helping others, such as Fantine, Cosette, Marius, and even Javert, his former enemy. The novel suggests that redemption is possible for anyone who is willing to repent and love, and that society should not judge people based on their past mistakes, but rather on their present actions and intentions.
Which is exactly my point... So thanks for showing your ignorance.
Don't be so lazy that you use an LLM to have your arguments for you. It defeats the point of these being discussion boards.
Yes, I am being lazy because I read books, provide arguments, and get responses like "LOL no u are wrong! Idiot!"
Why would I spend more than 2 minutes replying to that when it's clear they've spent no time thinking through their response and I can easily show they're wrong?
I get it though, if you don't have an argument then attack the person for being lazy. Ad hominem attacks are good at changing the topic. But I am still right at end of day.