4 ms·
> Why do you wish to homogenize the term [right to repair]? I dislike terminology that guides people towards dichotomies that aren't really there. You're eith
by least 5y ago
> Why do you wish to homogenize the term [right to repair]?
I dislike terminology that guides people towards dichotomies that aren't really there. You're either for repairing or you're against it. You're pro-life, or anti-life. You're pro-choice or anti-choice. You're for black lives mattering or you're against it. These aren't real dichotomies but it's still used as a political tool to ostracize and shame people for holding positions that differ from your own, and are sufficiently nebulous enough to avoid real scrutiny, because you can always redefine what it means to suit what is politically convenient.
"I am for right to repair and anyone suggesting Apple is correct to be anti-repair because 'it's hard to know which repair shop to trust' is the one being disingenuous."
The way you structured this sentence already makes presumptions like Apple is definitely anti-repair. This may be your assertion but you've already framed the argument around this being absolutely true, which is disingenuous. You've created a false dichotomy.
- passivate 5y agoAbsolute truth doesn't exist in my world. I'm stating my own beliefs. They are beliefs that are justified and thus are true to me. I don't know how else to state them. Apple has publicly lobbied against right to repair legislation. They purposefully go out of their way so repair shops don't have parts to service customers. Okay, maybe that's your typical hard-nosed Corporate America(TM) business style, but they have very clearly chosen a side. I don't know how much you're following the right to repair movement. Are you deeply involved and following the news around it or are you simply wishing to have a general conversation around it?