3 ms·

You can however question platforming an entity with such a shitty history or at least contextualise it like in the op.

by awild 5y ago

slibhb 5y ago
Is playing a computer game "platforming an entity"? It's really fascinating how these neologisms evolve.
- awild 5y ago
  No, but recommending it to a lot of people is. Literally.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  No more fascinating than the root-level claim that >Guilt by distant association is an abhorrent concept that should not be validated - using someone's products does not imply supporting the company's policies or leaders/owners personal behavior or political actions eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. I can't think of a more meaningful way to support something than to give it money...
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Perhaps I chose an inexact word - buying from them is not a gift but a business transaction, it does not imply endorsing those aspects. IMHO the core concept of a civilized society is the ability to have reasonable interactions even if people strongly disagree or hate each other - thus the legitimacy of doing business with, supplying products to everyone and using everyone's products. To use a different controversy as an example where both sides are somewhat large, we do see both ends of the abortion debate consider each other as grossly unethical, sufficiently unethical to justify asking for a boycott of vocal supporters of the opposite side. That's understandable, you have freedom of association and you can not patronize someone you despise, however, once you start to demand that others join your boycott and say it's an ethical duty or "with us or against us" IMHO that's crossing the line of how a civilized society should behave; people holding all kinds of opinions (including various opinions I despise and consider harmful) are still part of our society, and we should be able to combine criticizing the abhorrent opinions while still allowing those people to participate in society - i.e. buying from them, selling to them, employing them, working for them, renting them apartments and renting from them as landlords - and "platforming entities" as well, even if they are from your "enemy outgroup". I very much do not want internet service providers or pamphlet printing companies or fast food deliveries to start refusing service to my political opponents vocally advocating for things I consider ethically despicable - that form of exclusion is simply not appropriate, and I would not consider it fair if I was on the receiving end, so what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Asking for a proper exclusion of an unliked group or opinion reminds me of all kinds of centuries-old historical issues of boycotting shops because they were ran by [people from the political party hated in this neighbourhood] or [someone who doesn't go to the same church as us] or [this ethnic group with whom we had/have war], which (at least in retrospective) seem unethical - IMHO it's much safer to draw the line at excess inclusion rather than excess exclusion.
    - revolvingocelot 5y ago
      >I very much do not want internet service providers or pamphlet printing companies or fast food deliveries to start refusing service to my political opponents vocally advocating for things I consider ethically despicable - that form of exclusion is simply not appropriate, and I would not consider it fair if I was on the receiving end, so what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Why not use this logic to justify buying from a supplier who uses slavery, because what if you were the slaver? Is there anything someone can do to justify another's refusal to buy from them in future? I assume you wouldn't buy from someone who ripped you off somehow; would you consider this to be a moral failing on the part of the seller? Is slavery a moral failing? >Asking for a proper exclusion of an unliked group or opinion reminds me of all kinds of centuries-old historical issues of boycotting shops because they were ran by [people from the political party hated in this neighbourhood] or [someone who doesn't go to the same church as us] or [this ethnic group with whom we had/have war], which (at least in retrospective) I don't think "C-suite execs who use slave labour to save a buck" is the sort of protected group that you're invoking here, and IMO comparing them is hideous. You're suggesting that "someone doing something unethical" is the same as "someone doing something I don't like", and therefore boycotting either is essentially the same thing. >IMHO it's much safer to draw the line at excess inclusion rather than excess exclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
      - lelanthran 5y ago
        > You're suggesting that "someone doing something unethical" is the same as "someone doing something I don't like", and therefore boycotting either is essentially the same thing. "Ethical" is subjective, not objective, so yes ... "someone doing something I don't like" is literally the same meaning as "someone doing something unethical". > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance My observation is that everyone who quotes this link hasn't read the original source, or else they'd know that it doesn't support their argument, and instead is a support against their argument.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    I agree with the parent's claim. This kind of consequentialist thinking is highly fashionable and increasingly vacuous. We should be less concerned with consequences and more concerned with actions in themselves. Buying an iphone is not "supporting slave labor". Paying taxes is not supporting your government's foreign policy. Turning on the heater is not killing the planet. > eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. No, it's literally paying money in exchange for a good or service. > I can't think of a more meaningful way to support something than to give it money... You can't? That's somewhat shocking.
    - revolvingocelot 5y ago
      Buying a product of slave labour isn't supporting slave labour? If no one bought the slave labour object, would the slaves continue to make them? >>> eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. >No, it's literally paying money in exchange for a good or service. No, it's supporting the company. The company wouldn't exist if buying things from it didn't support it. Companies need money to support their supply chains, workers, and management, in order to sell things in order to make money. What does "supporting a company" mean to you? Taking it out to the pub after a bad breakup? Ridiculous. Companies, the general economic unit of our capitalist world, are fed by money, be it VC or customer. "Vote with your dollar" is woefully inadequate to address the problem, but beyond building pipe bombs it's the most efficacious tool we as individuals can wield.
      - slibhb 5y ago
        Buying something is not "literally supporting anything," it is exchanging money for a good or service. It is reasonable to not buy something from a company because you dislike the company (hopefully for some factual reason). It isn't reasonable to equate buying something with "supporting slavery". Your moral thinking is so impoverished that you conclude by recommending "building pipe bombs". Back to the drawing board.
        5y ago

You can however question platforming an entity with such a shitty history or at least contextualise it like in the op.

by awild 5y ago

You can however question platforming an entity with such a shitty history or at least contextualise it like in the op.

slibhb 5y ago

Is playing a computer game "platforming an entity"? It's really fascinating how these neologisms evolve.

awild 5y ago
No, but recommending it to a lot of people is. Literally.
revolvingocelot 5y ago
No more fascinating than the root-level claim that >Guilt by distant association is an abhorrent concept that should not be validated - using someone's products does not imply supporting the company's policies or leaders/owners personal behavior or political actions eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. I can't think of a more meaningful way to support something than to give it money...
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Perhaps I chose an inexact word - buying from them is not a gift but a business transaction, it does not imply endorsing those aspects. IMHO the core concept of a civilized society is the ability to have reasonable interactions even if people strongly disagree or hate each other - thus the legitimacy of doing business with, supplying products to everyone and using everyone's products. To use a different controversy as an example where both sides are somewhat large, we do see both ends of the abortion debate consider each other as grossly unethical, sufficiently unethical to justify asking for a boycott of vocal supporters of the opposite side. That's understandable, you have freedom of association and you can not patronize someone you despise, however, once you start to demand that others join your boycott and say it's an ethical duty or "with us or against us" IMHO that's crossing the line of how a civilized society should behave; people holding all kinds of opinions (including various opinions I despise and consider harmful) are still part of our society, and we should be able to combine criticizing the abhorrent opinions while still allowing those people to participate in society - i.e. buying from them, selling to them, employing them, working for them, renting them apartments and renting from them as landlords - and "platforming entities" as well, even if they are from your "enemy outgroup". I very much do not want internet service providers or pamphlet printing companies or fast food deliveries to start refusing service to my political opponents vocally advocating for things I consider ethically despicable - that form of exclusion is simply not appropriate, and I would not consider it fair if I was on the receiving end, so what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Asking for a proper exclusion of an unliked group or opinion reminds me of all kinds of centuries-old historical issues of boycotting shops because they were ran by [people from the political party hated in this neighbourhood] or [someone who doesn't go to the same church as us] or [this ethnic group with whom we had/have war], which (at least in retrospective) seem unethical - IMHO it's much safer to draw the line at excess inclusion rather than excess exclusion.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    >I very much do not want internet service providers or pamphlet printing companies or fast food deliveries to start refusing service to my political opponents vocally advocating for things I consider ethically despicable - that form of exclusion is simply not appropriate, and I would not consider it fair if I was on the receiving end, so what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Why not use this logic to justify buying from a supplier who uses slavery, because what if you were the slaver? Is there anything someone can do to justify another's refusal to buy from them in future? I assume you wouldn't buy from someone who ripped you off somehow; would you consider this to be a moral failing on the part of the seller? Is slavery a moral failing? >Asking for a proper exclusion of an unliked group or opinion reminds me of all kinds of centuries-old historical issues of boycotting shops because they were ran by [people from the political party hated in this neighbourhood] or [someone who doesn't go to the same church as us] or [this ethnic group with whom we had/have war], which (at least in retrospective) I don't think "C-suite execs who use slave labour to save a buck" is the sort of protected group that you're invoking here, and IMO comparing them is hideous. You're suggesting that "someone doing something unethical" is the same as "someone doing something I don't like", and therefore boycotting either is essentially the same thing. >IMHO it's much safer to draw the line at excess inclusion rather than excess exclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - lelanthran 5y ago
      > You're suggesting that "someone doing something unethical" is the same as "someone doing something I don't like", and therefore boycotting either is essentially the same thing. "Ethical" is subjective, not objective, so yes ... "someone doing something I don't like" is literally the same meaning as "someone doing something unethical". > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance My observation is that everyone who quotes this link hasn't read the original source, or else they'd know that it doesn't support their argument, and instead is a support against their argument.
- slibhb 5y ago
  I agree with the parent's claim. This kind of consequentialist thinking is highly fashionable and increasingly vacuous. We should be less concerned with consequences and more concerned with actions in themselves. Buying an iphone is not "supporting slave labor". Paying taxes is not supporting your government's foreign policy. Turning on the heater is not killing the planet. > eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. No, it's literally paying money in exchange for a good or service. > I can't think of a more meaningful way to support something than to give it money... You can't? That's somewhat shocking.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    Buying a product of slave labour isn't supporting slave labour? If no one bought the slave labour object, would the slaves continue to make them? >>> eliding the simple fact that buying products from a company, shitty or otherwise, is literally supporting that company and its owners. >No, it's literally paying money in exchange for a good or service. No, it's supporting the company. The company wouldn't exist if buying things from it didn't support it. Companies need money to support their supply chains, workers, and management, in order to sell things in order to make money. What does "supporting a company" mean to you? Taking it out to the pub after a bad breakup? Ridiculous. Companies, the general economic unit of our capitalist world, are fed by money, be it VC or customer. "Vote with your dollar" is woefully inadequate to address the problem, but beyond building pipe bombs it's the most efficacious tool we as individuals can wield.
    - slibhb 5y ago
      Buying something is not "literally supporting anything," it is exchanging money for a good or service. It is reasonable to not buy something from a company because you dislike the company (hopefully for some factual reason). It isn't reasonable to equate buying something with "supporting slavery". Your moral thinking is so impoverished that you conclude by recommending "building pipe bombs". Back to the drawing board.
      - 5y ago