3 ms·

I guess I just don't see how that's a meaningful distinction in this situation. Size and power are pretty obviously correlated. GP's question wasn't "Are large

I guess I just don't see how that's a meaningful distinction in this situation. Size and power are pretty obviously correlated. GP's question wasn't "Are large corporations powerful?" it was "Why aren't large (powerful) corporations given the benefit of the doubt?"

throwanem 7y ago
Phrasing the question in terms of size makes it easy to ignore the power differential, and ignoring the power differential is the only way that question seems to make sense. The first rule of firearms safety is that the gun is always loaded, because any other assumption will far too easily betray you into deadly error. The first rule of electrical safety is that you always keep one hand behind your back, because it only takes a few milliseconds for a cross-body current to stop your heart. Economic power, similarly concentrated, is differently risky, but not less so. Some things - no matter how useful they may be when properly handled - are simply too dangerous to ever be trusted.
- gwright 7y ago
  You seem to be asserting that all that is needed to determine who is right or wrong in any particular situation is to assign some sort of "power" metric to both sides and then conclude that the powerful entity must be wrong and the weaker entity must be right without actually considering the particular issue at hand. This seems like pretty lazy thinking to me.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    What it seems like to you is your business. But, to extend a metaphor from my prior comment, you're going to need to go a lot further than you have to convince anyone that the guy with the shotgun needs to be worrying about the guy he's pointing the shotgun at, and who is also obviously unarmed. It's not impossible to convince people of that, but you're going to need to work at it, because you're asking them to believe something that's the direct opposite of the situation they're actually seeing with their own two eyes. If you want to call something lazy, why not start with the kind of thinking that takes such a mealy-mouthed, "we can't know for sure until all the facts are in" approach to that?
    - gwright 7y ago
      All I said was that the particular facts of a situation are relevant. Hard to believe that is a controversial point.

throwanem 7y ago

Phrasing the question in terms of size makes it easy to ignore the power differential, and ignoring the power differential is the only way that question seems to make sense. The first rule of firearms safety is that the gun is always loaded, because any other assumption will far too easily betray you into deadly error. The first rule of electrical safety is that you always keep one hand behind your back, because it only takes a few milliseconds for a cross-body current to stop your heart. Economic power, similarly concentrated, is differently risky, but not less so. Some things - no matter how useful they may be when properly handled - are simply too dangerous to ever be trusted.

gwright 7y ago
You seem to be asserting that all that is needed to determine who is right or wrong in any particular situation is to assign some sort of "power" metric to both sides and then conclude that the powerful entity must be wrong and the weaker entity must be right without actually considering the particular issue at hand. This seems like pretty lazy thinking to me.
- throwanem 7y ago
  What it seems like to you is your business. But, to extend a metaphor from my prior comment, you're going to need to go a lot further than you have to convince anyone that the guy with the shotgun needs to be worrying about the guy he's pointing the shotgun at, and who is also obviously unarmed. It's not impossible to convince people of that, but you're going to need to work at it, because you're asking them to believe something that's the direct opposite of the situation they're actually seeing with their own two eyes. If you want to call something lazy, why not start with the kind of thinking that takes such a mealy-mouthed, "we can't know for sure until all the facts are in" approach to that?
  - gwright 7y ago
    All I said was that the particular facts of a situation are relevant. Hard to believe that is a controversial point.