Thaidakar - Deity of the Ghostbloods?

[Karger]

1 hour ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

It is highly unlikely that he is insane at this point as he A: is considerably younger and without the exacerbating factors of the heralds and B: has access to Breath.

True but he has two competing mythologies about him both of which are very far from his actual personality. 

1 hour ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I think the situation is simply that Kelsier canonically is a terrible administrator. He’s a very good figure head, but he’s actually a terrible person to RUN anything. He gets bored. He doesn’t consider little things like oversight and overhead.

That is also a very good possibility.  Kel is a master and finding and training talent but in terms of organization he is kind of terrible.  He is simply not patient enough.  I could easily imagine a scenario where he plots himself into a corner.  He trains a great organization goes off to do something for fifty years and when he gets back finds himself playing along with something he really can't control anymore.

[Pathfinder]

4 hours ago, Karger said:

I would also add 3. He is not their absolute leader and 4. He has a Herald's madness meaning his behavior can be super inconsistent without him actually being incompetent in the traditional sense.

Yeah i mentioned that in a prior post. Basically i break it down like this

 

1. Across business, military, governments, and societies, the leader is responsible and accountable

2. That means thaidakar is indisputably responsible and accountable for the ghost bloods and mraizes actions.

3. If the ghostbloods we have met are representative of the group on whole then thaidakar is a successful leader. We know they have direct contact with thaidakar. He has chosen the right representatives that carry out his will.

Or

4. If the ghostbloods we have met are NOT representative of the group on whole and operating outside thaidakar's will, then thaidakar is either 

a. A failure as a leader

Or

b. not the actual leader

 

I believe thaidakar is an effective leader, so the conclusion i have come to is that the ghostbloods are representative of the organization on whole. Any actions that mraize and the ghostbloods have taken, are with thaidakar's blessing, because as their leader, he is responsible and accountable.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Kingsdaughter613]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

Yeah i mentioned that in a prior post. Basically i break it down like this

 

1. Across business, military, governments, and societies, the leader is responsible and accountable

2. That means thaidakar is indisputably responsible and accountable for the ghost bloods and mraizes actions.

3. If the ghostbloods we have met are representative of the group on whole then thaidakar is a successful leader. We know they have direct contact with thaidakar. He has chosen the right representatives that carry out his will.

Or

4. If the ghostbloods we have met are NOT representative of the group on whole and operating outside thaidakar's will, then thaidakar is either 

a. A failure as a leader

Or

b. not the actual leader

 

I believe thaidakar is an effective leader, so the conclusion i have come to is that the ghostbloods are representative of the organization on whole. Any actions that mraize and the ghostbloods have taken, are with thaidakar's blessing, because as their leader, he is responsible and accountable.

I think we are arguing to what extent he is accountable. Neglect is not the same level of culpability as giving a direct order.

And we also disagree on Kelsier’s abilities as a leader. Canonically he is VERY BAD at the administration part of leadership, and it’s at the ADMINISTRATIVE level that the GBs have issues. Since Kelsier doesn’t administrate, his people are operating based on stated objectives with no rules, restrictions or oversight which is a TERRIBLE way to run anything.

Kelsier is not a good leader. He only manages as well as he does because he inspires deep loyalty in everyone and he is a good planner and has good ideas. He trusts people to carry out his instructions, but he doesn’t really check up on them. Look at the way he ran the MB Crew. ‘Okay, we need XY&Z. You do X, you do Y, I’ll do Z.’ No actual instructions beyond the original orders. No explaining how objectives are to be carried out. Kell just doesn’t think that way.

There is a REASON Vin said the entire thing would crumble without Dox. Dox did logistics. Dox made sure everyone had what they needed, where they needed, when they needed it. Dox did all the administration work Kell couldn’t be bothered with. Dox kept the Crew in line much more than Kelsier.

Long story short, Kelsier can lead, but in the long run he’s a terrible leader. Albeit a remarkably effective one due to his charisma and intelligence, but still a terrible leader.

[Karger]

2 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

1. Across business, military, governments, and societies, the leader is responsible and accountable

Well...

Quote

Corporation noun. "An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

But otherwise yeah.  I feel like with immortality and an insane founder we might be dealing with some really weird stuff if we learn more about these GBs.

[Kingsdaughter613]

23 minutes ago, Karger said:

Well...

But otherwise yeah.  I feel like with immortality and an insane founder we might be dealing with some really weird stuff if we learn more about these GBs.

I doubt he’s insane, despite the two divergent mythologies. More likely it causes some subtle personality shifts, which he’s aware of. The Ghostbloods are far too in character to blame his actions on insanity.

[Pathfinder]

16 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I think we are arguing to what extent he is accountable. Neglect is not the same level of culpability as giving a direct order.

And we also disagree on Kelsier’s abilities as a leader. Canonically he is VERY BAD at the administration part of leadership, and it’s at the ADMINISTRATIVE level that the GBs have issues. Since Kelsier doesn’t administrate, his people are operating based on stated objectives with no rules, restrictions or oversight which is a TERRIBLE way to run anything.

Kelsier is not a good leader. He only manages as well as he does because he inspires deep loyalty in everyone and he is a good planner and has good ideas. He trusts people to carry out his instructions, but he doesn’t really check up on them. Look at the way he ran the MB Crew. ‘Okay, we need XY&Z. You do X, you do Y, I’ll do Z.’ No actual instructions beyond the original orders. No explaining how objectives are to be carried out. Kell just doesn’t think that way.

There is a REASON Vin said the entire thing would crumble without Dox. Dox did logistics. Dox made sure everyone had what they needed, where they needed, when they needed it. Dox did all the administration work Kell couldn’t be bothered with. Dox kept the Crew in line much more than Kelsier.

Long story short, Kelsier can lead, but in the long run he’s a terrible leader. Albeit a remarkably effective one due to his charisma and intelligence, but still a terrible leader.

I don't think we are arguing the level of accountability at all. I have provided numerous examples in our world where the leader of an organization is accountable, full stop. As i have already stated three times, a corporation doesn't get to use those excuses if an employee breaks HIPAA compliance. Its very clear cut.

Thaidakar is accountable and responsible full stop. This is a fact as far as i am concerned.

 

That is why by extension:

 

Ghostbloods and mraize are operating within thaidakar's parameters:

thaidakar is a good and effective leader, choosing the right people to operate under him.

Or

Ghostbloods and mraize are operating outside thaidakar's parameters:

Thaidakar is a failure as a leader and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him.

 

So if you mean to tell me that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is not a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a failure of a leader,  and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death 

If it is as i believe,  that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a successful leader, that chose the right people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death.

[Kingsdaughter613]

34 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I don't think we are arguing the level of accountability at all. I have provided numerous examples in our world where the leader of an organization is accountable, full stop. As i have already stated three times, a corporation doesn't get to use those excuses if an employee breaks HIPAA compliance. Its very clear cut.

Thaidakar is accountable and responsible full stop. This is a fact as far as i am concerned.

 

That is why by extension:

 

Ghostbloods and mraize are operating within thaidakar's parameters:

thaidakar is a good and effective leader, choosing the right people to operate under him.

Or

Ghostbloods and mraize are operating outside thaidakar's parameters:

Thaidakar is a failure as a leader and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him.

 

So if you mean to tell me that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is not a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a failure of a leader,  and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death 

If it is as i believe,  that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a successful leader, that chose the right people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death.

When you can find me proof that Ghostbloods killed the carriage driver we can discuss culpability. Innocent until proven guilty...

You’re also rather intent on ignoring the fact that Kelsier, canonically, is not a good long-term leader per WoB. 
 

Also: Corporation liability isn’t actually very complicated. Corporations are generally only directly liable for policy decisions. Anything else gets very, very complicated. There is a reason corporation law is so complex. Let’s put it this way: if you own Coca-Cola stock, are you liable in a lawsuit against Coca-Cola? You are technically an owner, after all. (No, btw.)

Culpability varies depending on circumstances and what is/can be reasonably expected. If a reasonable person could not be expected to, say, expect its employees to target children, then they would generally not be liable. Which is why the Board of Ed doesn’t get in massive trouble every time one of its teachers turns out to be a pedophile. It’s why hospitals don’t get (successfully) sued when one of their employees is found to be abusing patients.
 

Now, if it turns out someone knew and covered it up, then they’re liable. If a boss orders his employee to commit an illegal act, then they’re liable for any actions resulting from those orders. And if it turns out that they SHOULD have known, but didn’t, they may be guilty of criminal neglect. And there are a bunch of levels in between. Like I said: complicated. It’s not nearly as cut and dry as you’d like it to be.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Kingsdaughter613

[Vessel of Theory]

On 12/21/2020 at 6:48 PM, Toaster Retribution said:

We know from previous books featuring Thaidakar (I am avoiding his real name in case some people haven't read the other books featuring him) that he likes to have people worshipping him. And then I started thinking about this quote from Mraize, during his last communication with Shallan in RoW:

This does, at least to me, remind of how many religious people speak of interacting with God: in terms of not being worthy. Now, I realize this isn't much to go by, and Mraizes choice of words do not have to mean that he is worshipping Thaidakar. But, I still feel that it is an interesting thought. 

I didn't see a very direct answer, or at least one that I agreed with, so here goes.

Thaidakar is not the deity, nor religious figure, of the Ghostbloods. He is a Cognitive Shadow, and the Ghostbloods, as Worldhoppers and people who are at least partially Cosmere-aware know the difference between that and a Shard, or Adonalsium, or the God Beyond, etc. The Fused are Cognitive Shadows, just like the Heralds(were?).

Additionally, if Thaidakar is who we believe him to be, we cannot truly claim that he "likes to have people worshiping him". His goal was to kill the Lord Ruler, and maybe all of the lighteyes nobility. He knew that his plan might not work, so he made another one that wouldn't contradict his original - do things, tricky things, to get people to make a religion out of him. He did it out of necessity, not desire for worship.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on it. 

[Kingsdaughter613]

1 hour ago, Vessel of Theory said:

I didn't see a very direct answer, or at least one that I agreed with, so here goes.

Thaidakar is not the deity, nor religious figure, of the Ghostbloods. He is a Cognitive Shadow, and the Ghostbloods, as Worldhoppers and people who are at least partially Cosmere-aware know the difference between that and a Shard, or Adonalsium, or the God Beyond, etc. The Fused are Cognitive Shadows, just like the Heralds(were?).

Additionally, if Thaidakar is who we believe him to be, we cannot truly claim that he "likes to have people worshiping him". His goal was to kill the Lord Ruler, and maybe all of the lighteyes nobility. He knew that his plan might not work, so he made another one that wouldn't contradict his original - do things, tricky things, to get people to make a religion out of him. He did it out of necessity, not desire for worship.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on it. 

He does tend to create cults of personality though, intentionally or not. At least some of the GBs do see to have an almost religious like devotion toward him.

[Pathfinder]

On 12/25/2020 at 3:28 PM, Kingsdaughter613 said:

When you can find me proof that Ghostbloods killed the carriage driver we can discuss culpability. Innocent until proven guilty...

The book clearly states it. Don't need any further proof. It is plain as day. 

On 12/25/2020 at 3:28 PM, Kingsdaughter613 said:

You’re also rather intent on ignoring the fact that Kelsier, canonically, is not a good long-term leader per WoB. 
 

Not ignoring anything. I made my position very clear. 

On 12/25/2020 at 3:28 PM, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Also: Corporation liability isn’t actually very complicated. Corporations are generally only directly liable for policy decisions. Anything else gets very, very complicated. There is a reason corporation law is so complex. Let’s put it this way: if you own Coca-Cola stock, are you liable in a lawsuit against Coca-Cola? You are technically an owner, after all. (No, btw.)

Stock holder is different than leader. Stock Holders have vested interests in companies. You are thinking of Chief Executive Officers and the such. But even then that is immaterial as per law Corporations are now considered people. If an employee messes up, the corporation is held liable. Open and shut. 

On 12/25/2020 at 3:28 PM, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Culpability varies depending on circumstances and what is/can be reasonably expected. If a reasonable person could not be expected to, say, expect its employees to target children, then they would generally not be liable. Which is why the Board of Ed doesn’t get in massive trouble every time one of its teachers turns out to be a pedophile. It’s why hospitals don’t get (successfully) sued when one of their employees is found to be abusing patients.
 

Whether or not a corporation can successfully dodge a suit does not change the culpability. Congrats, they can afford expensive lawyers. Does not change the letter of the law. HIIPA is the best example but there are countless more. Thaidakar is responsible and accountable. Full stop. 

On 12/25/2020 at 3:28 PM, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Now, if it turns out someone knew and covered it up, then they’re liable. If a boss orders his employee to commit an illegal act, then they’re liable for any actions resulting from those orders. And if it turns out that they SHOULD have known, but didn’t, they may be guilty of criminal neglect. And there are a bunch of levels in between. Like I said: complicated. It’s not nearly as cut and dry as you’d like it to be.

As I said with HIPAA, an employee can knowingly and on purpose steal employee information with intent to sell, completely contrary to the company's stance on the practice, and the company will still face fines and penalization. They should have hired and trained better, as well as have had better safe guards in place. And that is not me saying it. That is literally the law. Look it up. 

So once again Thaidakar is either:

1. incompetant and responsible

or

2. effective, and responsible. 

[Kingsdaughter613]

7 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

The book clearly states it. Don't need any further proof. It is plain as day. 

Not ignoring anything. I made my position very clear. 

Stock holder is different than leader. Stock Holders have vested interests in companies. You are thinking of Chief Executive Officers and the such. But even then that is immaterial as per law Corporations are now considered people. If an employee messes up, the corporation is held liable. Open and shut. 

Whether or not a corporation can successfully dodge a suit does not change the culpability. Congrats, they can afford expensive lawyers. Does not change the letter of the law. HIIPA is the best example but there are countless more. Thaidakar is responsible and accountable. Full stop. 

As I said with HIPAA, an employee can knowingly and on purpose steal employee information with intent to sell, completely contrary to the company's stance on the practice, and the company will still face fines and penalization. They should have hired and trained better, as well as have had better safe guards in place. And that is not me saying it. That is literally the law. Look it up. 

So once again Thaidakar is either:

1. incompetant and responsible

or

2. effective, and responsible. 

Reread that section. Shallan assumes the GBs killed the driver. She did not witness the crime. No one else witnessed the crime. There was no evidence circumstantial, physical, or eye witness, implicating the Ghostbloods. There is no evidence that they committed the crime, aside from Shallan’s assumptions. Which are not evidence.

[Pathfinder]

4 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Reread that section. Shallan assumes the GBs killed the driver. She did not witness the crime. No one else witnessed the crime. There was no evidence circumstantial, physical, or eye witness, implicating the Ghostbloods. There is no evidence that they committed the crime, aside from Shallan’s assumptions. Which are not evidence.

I did already. Shallan clearly states why it is the Ghostbloods. Open and shut.

Side note: I was going to update my last comment to include this, but since you already replied, you were thinking the board of directors, not stock holders. Stock holders elect a board of directors who lead the company. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Kingsdaughter613]

Just now, Pathfinder said:

I did already. Shallan clearly states why it is the Ghostbloods. Open and shut.

Side note: I was going to update my last comment to include this, but since you already replied, you were thinking the board of directors, not stock holders. And they are accountable and responsible. Just like Thaidakar is. 

How many Shardblades did Shallan use in that book? She told us she used Pattern to kill her mom, right? She also very clearly saw Jasnah’s dead body, didn’t she? Shallan is obviously very observant and deeply trustworthy...

She is making an assumption regarding a murder she didn’t see with no evidence whatsoever. That isn’t proof of anything at all.

[Pathfinder]

4 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

How many Shardblades did Shallan use in that book? She told us she used Pattern to kill her mom, right? She also very clearly saw Jasnah’s dead body, didn’t she? Shallan is obviously very observant and deeply trustworthy...

She is making an assumption regarding a murder she didn’t see with no evidence whatsoever. That isn’t proof of anything at all.

Her recall has nothing to do it. She states very clearly why it is the Ghostbloods. Again open and shut.

Any actions the Ghostbloods and Mraize take is accountable and responsible to Thaidakar. 

[Kingsdaughter613]

1 minute ago, Pathfinder said:

Her recall has nothing to do it. She states very clearly why it is the Ghostbloods. Again open and shut.

Any actions the Ghostbloods and Mraize take is accountable and responsible to Thaidakar. 

Since you aren’t bothering to listen, I’m done debating you.

[Leuthie]

2 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Stock holder is different than leader. Stock Holders have vested interests in companies. You are thinking of Chief Executive Officers and the such. But even then that is immaterial as per law Corporations are now considered people. If an employee messes up, the corporation is held liable. Open and shut. 

Corporations are protected by the first amendment in the same way people are (and can use money to exercise that speech like people do). People who disagree with that like to spout "corporations are people now". Political bickering does not make things law. Corporations are not people. CEOs are not held responsible for the mistakes people who work for their organizations make.

And legality has nothing to do with ethics. If Kaladin were ethically pure and a perfect leader, he'd make sure the people in his organization were ethically pure. He's neither, so he will neither mess with their ethics, nor have the ability to do so if he wanted to.

[Kingsdaughter613]

32 minutes ago, Leuthie said:

Corporations are protected by the first amendment in the same way people are (and can use money to exercise that speech like people do). People who disagree with that like to spout "corporations are people now". Political bickering does not make things law. Corporations are not people. CEOs are not held responsible for the mistakes people who work for their organizations make.

And legality has nothing to do with ethics. If Kaladin were ethically pure and a perfect leader, he'd make sure the people in his organization were ethically pure. He's neither, so he will neither mess with their ethics, nor have the ability to do so if he wanted to.

Thank you.

[Pathfinder]

17 hours ago, Leuthie said:

Corporations are protected by the first amendment in the same way people are (and can use money to exercise that speech like people do). People who disagree with that like to spout "corporations are people now". Political bickering does not make things law. Corporations are not people. CEOs are not held responsible for the mistakes people who work for their organizations make.

And legality has nothing to do with ethics. If Kaladin were ethically pure and a perfect leader, he'd make sure the people in his organization were ethically pure. He's neither, so he will neither mess with their ethics, nor have the ability to do so if he wanted to.

What does freedom of speech and religion have anything to do with HIPAA compliance? 

[Leuthie]

5 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

What does freedom of speech and religion have anything to do with HIPAA compliance? 

Lovely troll. 'A' for effort.

[Pathfinder]

5 minutes ago, Leuthie said:

Lovely troll. 'A' for effort.

Huh?

Someone's personal medical information is not protected by the abuser nor the institution as free speech, nor religion, nor press. I am really at a loss at how that is pertinent to the discussion 

[Leuthie]

You said "corporations are people now" which is really only used as a deflection away from campaign finance issues where courts have treated corporations as entities covered by the first amendment, barring Congress from making laws that restrict free speech for corporations. I wasn't following your HIPAA argument, so it came out of nowhere in that post. 

You're right. HIPAA has nothing to do with the First Amendment, nor "corporations as people" nor this conversation in any way. Kelsier wasn't selling nor otherwise spreading his organization's personal health information, nor is he restricted by any real world regulations. He would be all for HIPAA for others, but probably wouldn't care about it if it kept him from reaching what he thought of as greater goals. He would happily sell your health information to get what he wants, but would be pissed if he heard of health information on him or the people he cared about being sold to benefit others. That's the ethics issues I was talking about.

[Kingsdaughter613]

1 hour ago, Leuthie said:

You said "corporations are people now" which is really only used as a deflection away from campaign finance issues where courts have treated corporations as entities covered by the first amendment, barring Congress from making laws that restrict free speech for corporations. I wasn't following your HIPAA argument, so it came out of nowhere in that post. 

You're right. HIPAA has nothing to do with the First Amendment, nor "corporations as people" nor this conversation in any way. Kelsier wasn't selling nor otherwise spreading his organization's personal health information, nor is he restricted by any real world regulations. He would be all for HIPAA for others, but probably wouldn't care about it if it kept him from reaching what he thought of as greater goals. He would happily sell your health information to get what he wants, but would be pissed if he heard of health information on him or the people he cared about being sold to benefit others. That's the ethics issues I was talking about.

Kell in a nutshell.

[Lunu’anaki]

On 12/22/2020 at 8:18 PM, Pathfinder said:

I honestly don't get the whole anything negative his organization does is not on him because they either misunderstood him or he cannot possibly keep them in line. It makes no sense to me. It comes off to me as then only two possible conclusions. Either:

 

1. Thaidakar is an effective leader and therefore responsible, so the organization IS reflective and indicative of his current policies

Or

2. Thaidakar is so ineffectual, ignorant and easily duped that an organization can function in ways so totally contrary to what he thinks and acts that the outside observer is supposed to divorce the founding man from the very group he leads

 

Its pretty clear i think its number 1.

 

That's a very black and white viewpoint to take on a character who has always been morally gray and consistently contrary to coercive power structures. Why can't it be somewhere in between?

Not even the most effective of leaders has complete control of their people, and its unlikely Thaidakar sent Mraize to Roshar with much more than a couple of prime directives... most likely of which are "Get Stormlight off Roshar" and "Find out how cognitive shadows can move around." Unless he has changed a lot....

 

 

EDIT: I missed the entire second page of this topic. apologies if I'm being repetitive...

EDIT EDIT:

On 12/25/2020 at 3:03 PM, Pathfinder said:

I don't think we are arguing the level of accountability at all. I have provided numerous examples in our world where the leader of an organization is accountable, full stop. As i have already stated three times, a corporation doesn't get to use those excuses if an employee breaks HIPAA compliance. Its very clear cut.

Thaidakar is accountable and responsible full stop. This is a fact as far as i am concerned.

 

That is why by extension:

 

Ghostbloods and mraize are operating within thaidakar's parameters:

thaidakar is a good and effective leader, choosing the right people to operate under him.

Or

Ghostbloods and mraize are operating outside thaidakar's parameters:

Thaidakar is a failure as a leader and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him.

 

So if you mean to tell me that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is not a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a failure of a leader,  and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death 

If it is as i believe,  that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a successful leader, that chose the right people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death.

Okay, after reading everything else, this argument makes more sense to me. I would honestly say that by your definition of effective leadership that Thaidakar is and always has been a failure of a leader, since he puts moral decisions on the heads of his followers quite often.

Edited December 31, 2020 by Lunu’anaki
I can't do anything right x2

[Pathfinder]

20 hours ago, Leuthie said:

You said "corporations are people now" which is really only used as a deflection away from campaign finance issues where courts have treated corporations as entities covered by the first amendment, barring Congress from making laws that restrict free speech for corporations. I wasn't following your HIPAA argument, so it came out of nowhere in that post. 

You're right. HIPAA has nothing to do with the First Amendment, nor "corporations as people" nor this conversation in any way. Kelsier wasn't selling nor otherwise spreading his organization's personal health information, nor is he restricted by any real world regulations. He would be all for HIPAA for others, but probably wouldn't care about it if it kept him from reaching what he thought of as greater goals. He would happily sell your health information to get what he wants, but would be pissed if he heard of health information on him or the people he cared about being sold to benefit others. That's the ethics issues I was talking about.

So there seems to be a lot of confusion and conflation going around here, so maybe some examples will help clarify.

 

Jeff Bezos of Amazon who represents the company, lets say states that "I don't like poor people.". That is his free speech. Even though he is representative of the company, his statement is protected. Now there is still the consequence that his customers may not like a person who says such things, and doesn't want to support him, so by extension will choose to no longer purchase from Amazon. But the speech is still protected

 

Chick-Fil-A's head is religious and decided to close all their stores on sunday so their staff can go to church if they so choose. Religious freedom protected, no problem.

 

Where things are different however......

Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who represents the company, swears racist epithets at an employee or a present customer, is not protected and the company is liable.

If an employee of Amazon, while in the uniform, on the property, or in some other manner identified as an Amazon employee swears racist epithets at a customer or individual, is not protected and the company is liable

If Chick-Fil-A states that it will not serve any other religion at their stores, that is not protected and the company is liable

 

HIPAA was used to illustrate corporate responsibility. It can be applied in many other instances I have mentioned. Further the location is immaterial as I have stated. Let us take another real world example:

 

Loot boxes in gaming. It is considered legal in some countries, strictly regulated in other countries (percentages must be made public), or now illegal in others. The corporations don't get to say "hey how were we to know you don't like it where you are at? Where we are its legal and fine." They are still accountable and responsible 

 

Thaidakar's responsibility is clear and irrefutable. The only question that I am discussing is whether or not Mraize and the Ghostbloods are operating in a manner counter to Thaidakar. 

If they are operating within expected parameters of Thaidakar: Thaidakar is an effective and good leader and is responsible.

If they are operating outside expected parameters of Thaidakar: Thaidkar is a failure as a leader and is responsible.

 

17 hours ago, Lunu’anaki said:

That's a very black and white viewpoint to take on a character who has always been morally gray and consistently contrary to coercive power structures. Why can't it be somewhere in between?

I think there is confusion on this point. I am not taking a moral stance on Thaidakar. I am saying he is responsible for the actions of his organization full stop. I am not saying whether his actions or the actions of his organization is moral/ethical or not. That is up to the individuals who decide to weigh those actions when they judge the character, but regardless the moral implications ascribed to those actions, those actions are still accountable and Thaidakar is responsible to those actions. 

17 hours ago, Lunu’anaki said:

Not even the most effective of leaders has complete control of their people, and its unlikely Kel sent Mraize to Roshar with much more than a couple of prime directives... most likely of which are "Get Stormlight off Roshar" and "Find out how cognitive shadows can move around." Unless Kel has changed a lot....

As I said before, that is not an excuse. But it seems below you missed it, so no worries. 

17 hours ago, Lunu’anaki said:

 

EDIT: I missed the entire second page of this topic. apologies if I'm being repetitive...

EDIT EDIT:

Okay, after reading everything else, this argument makes more sense to me. I would honestly say that by your definition of effective leadership that Kel is and always has been a failure of a leader, since he puts moral decisions on the heads of his followers quite often.

I am not sure whether considering this is a stormlight thread, whether or not it is allowable to refer to Thaidakar as another name, but going on how business has been conducted in the past, Thaidakar was an effective leader. He chose the right people to carry out his will. When you looked at the actions the people he chose took, they represented him. When one of the individuals took an action outside of what Thaidakar indicated, and hundreds of his people died, Thaidakar took responsibility. He owned up to it. He stated he gave the individual too much power too soon. That he should have been watched longer, and etc. Those deaths were on Thaidakar's head and he confirmed it. 

That is why my conclusion is that Thaidakar is an effective leader and everything Mraize and the Ghostbloods do is in line with the Thaidakar. My conclusion is he as an effective leader, has chosen the right individuals to work under him. Those right individuals have chosen the right ones under them, and so on. The chain of responsibility all the way back up to Thaidakar

So again, Thaidakar's responsibility was never in question. It is whether or not Mraize and the Ghostbloods are operating within Thaidakar's structure. I believe based on everything we have seen across all the books, they are. Thaidakar is a responsible leader, and Mraize and the Ghostbloods actions are done with his approval.

[Leuthie]

No one is confused about your arguments but you. You're talking about regulations created to protect people within organizations in our real world. If Thaidakar were screwing over the people in his own organization, the arguments would have some application. If there were a larger entity that was charged with keeping the Ghostbloods on the straight and narrow and Thaidakar was ignoring them, there would be some weight to your arguments. Since no one is accusing him of hurting his own people or ignoring far reaching regulatory requirements, there is no real relevance to your arguments.

We're talking about Thaidakar's personal ethics and his ability to apply those ethics across a multi planetary and multi realm organization. The only disagreement is with his ability to apply his own ethics to his team. Even that disagreement is one of semantics now. We all agree that he's not the most solid ethical person. We all also agree that he is a poor administrator, anyway, so even if he had the ethics to avoid random killing and he saw such ethics as more important than the results he's seeking, he'd be unable to keep his charges from killing people.

So what the hell are your arguments supposed to be convincing people of, anyway? That real world Thaidakar (CEO) should be held accountable for someone working for Mraize (local General Manager) possibly killing someone? Who cares?

Edited December 31, 2020 by Leuthie