3 ms·

That's not the problem. The problem is that ones opinions regarding the entity responsible for issuing their paycheck are inherently less valuable, and this con

That's not the problem. The problem is that ones opinions regarding the entity responsible for issuing their paycheck are inherently less valuable, and this context is important for others reading. You might think you are completely objective and unbiased, as do most others, and maybe you are. But, most people are fooling themselves a little. Nobody will admit to themselves, let alone others, that they work for someone evil. So really, if you want a place of real discussion and debate, it's important to tie people to their companies in cases where they are participating in discussions about these companies.

DannyBee 9y ago
"he problem is that ones opinions regarding the entity responsible for issuing their paycheck are inherently less valuable" No, they aren't, and it's horrendously biased to say that. "So really, if you want a place of real discussion and debate, it's important to tie people to their companies in cases where they are participating in discussions about these companies. " No, it isn't, precisely because your premise is wrong. It's not just wrong, it's startlingly bad to me. If your default position is "people's opinions are less valuable because they work for X", you really aren't going to do a good job of seeing multiple perspectives. But given what you've written here, maybe you don't want to?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Eventually you'll find that making an issue of this, is a mistake. I was inclined to favor Google in this case, since TFA was published in the AMZN-CIA Post, but your unsavory contributions to this thread (not your original comment, but rather the clueless hole-digging that followed) have mostly changed my mind.
  - pferde 9y ago
    "Unsavoury" does not mean the same as "something I do not agree with".
  - bmon 9y ago
    >I was inclined to favor Google... but your comments have changed my mind That doesn't even make sense. The op made no argument for or against google in any of this thread, and has only tried to clarify that. Defending yourself against the Google hating bandwagon is clueless hole digging? Did you even read any of the op's comments?
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  You'll want to quote the entire statement, since what you've selectively quoted changes the meaning drastically. People are less objective about an entity who is paying them. There is nothing controversial about this. I'm surprised someone like you would even convince themselves otherwise.

DannyBee 9y ago

"he problem is that ones opinions regarding the entity responsible for issuing their paycheck are inherently less valuable" No, they aren't, and it's horrendously biased to say that. "So really, if you want a place of real discussion and debate, it's important to tie people to their companies in cases where they are participating in discussions about these companies. " No, it isn't, precisely because your premise is wrong. It's not just wrong, it's startlingly bad to me. If your default position is "people's opinions are less valuable because they work for X", you really aren't going to do a good job of seeing multiple perspectives. But given what you've written here, maybe you don't want to?

jessaustin 9y ago
Eventually you'll find that making an issue of this, is a mistake. I was inclined to favor Google in this case, since TFA was published in the AMZN-CIA Post, but your unsavory contributions to this thread (not your original comment, but rather the clueless hole-digging that followed) have mostly changed my mind.
- pferde 9y ago
  "Unsavoury" does not mean the same as "something I do not agree with".
- bmon 9y ago
  >I was inclined to favor Google... but your comments have changed my mind That doesn't even make sense. The op made no argument for or against google in any of this thread, and has only tried to clarify that. Defending yourself against the Google hating bandwagon is clueless hole digging? Did you even read any of the op's comments?
lawnchair_larry 9y ago
You'll want to quote the entire statement, since what you've selectively quoted changes the meaning drastically. People are less objective about an entity who is paying them. There is nothing controversial about this. I'm surprised someone like you would even convince themselves otherwise.