3 ms·

I would say that's a false equivalency. In the Apple case, it's possibly gaining via marketing and driving people to paid apps that Apple gains revenue from. P

I would say that's a false equivalency. In the Apple case, it's possibly gaining via marketing and driving people to paid apps that Apple gains revenue from. Please don't misread me though--I'm glad Apple is doing this, I just don't think they're heroes for it.

BoorishBears 6y ago
I like how you say it's false equivalency but then kind of fail to actually show that... maybe because it's not? In the real world there are few "heroic" deeds that don't benefit the entity doing them. The doctor doing the transplant gets professional acclaim that is not worthless, would you say the doctor did it to market themselves? Turns out doing good things can be profitable, it's not an either or. This tired cynicism any time a company does something good and people admire them for it (ie consider the action heroic) is not novel or useful. Companies at the size of Apple and co are never going to be pure forces of good with no bad deeds, but they are still capable of being heroes in a specific context. Right now Apple is being a hero of their customer's right to privacy
User23 6y ago
Hero has become something of a joke word these days. It's used to describe acts as mundane as getting out of bed in the morning and going to a salaried job. It's too bad, because it's nice to have a word to describe people of near godlike achievement. Chuck Yeager would be an example of what I consider a bona-fide modern hero. Alexander would be an example from antiquity.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  What people consider heroic is a personal choice. I had no issue with someone saying what Apple did isn't heroic, what I was against was the specific reason. After all, to me Chuck Yeager is less of a hero than someone who helps out at a soup kitchen every weekend. One was doing their job (and a questionable person honestly) and the other is taking their own time to help others.
  - User23 6y ago
    Thank you for illustrating my point.

BoorishBears 6y ago

I like how you say it's false equivalency but then kind of fail to actually show that... maybe because it's not? In the real world there are few "heroic" deeds that don't benefit the entity doing them. The doctor doing the transplant gets professional acclaim that is not worthless, would you say the doctor did it to market themselves? Turns out doing good things can be profitable, it's not an either or. This tired cynicism any time a company does something good and people admire them for it (ie consider the action heroic) is not novel or useful. Companies at the size of Apple and co are never going to be pure forces of good with no bad deeds, but they are still capable of being heroes in a specific context. Right now Apple is being a hero of their customer's right to privacy

User23 6y ago

Hero has become something of a joke word these days. It's used to describe acts as mundane as getting out of bed in the morning and going to a salaried job. It's too bad, because it's nice to have a word to describe people of near godlike achievement. Chuck Yeager would be an example of what I consider a bona-fide modern hero. Alexander would be an example from antiquity.

BoorishBears 6y ago
What people consider heroic is a personal choice. I had no issue with someone saying what Apple did isn't heroic, what I was against was the specific reason. After all, to me Chuck Yeager is less of a hero than someone who helps out at a soup kitchen every weekend. One was doing their job (and a questionable person honestly) and the other is taking their own time to help others.
- User23 6y ago
  Thank you for illustrating my point.