3 ms·
There's a difference between apologetics and explaining
by ReactiveJelly 4y ago
There's a difference between apologetics and explaining
- fartcannon 4y agoTo explain, you'd need to know the truth, which you don't. So you're just assuming they're innocent when history has proven time and time again that Microsoft is an active troll/bad actor.
- dspillett 4y ago> To explain, you'd need to know the truth Unless you have some imagination, in which case you can explain a hypothetical or a possible truth. > So you're just assuming they're innocent The post you are responding to does not really suggest innocence overall, just perhaps they are guilty of something else (laziness or incompetence) in this instance and perhaps that they are covering that up.
- throwaway894345 4y agoI don't have a dog in this fight (the only MS thing in my life is my xbox, everything else is Apple/Google/Amazon/OSS), but can we dispense with the low-effort flame bait posts?
- kyriakos 4y agoSimilarly you are assuming that they are is an evil intend behind these issues without information. We truly can't know why (unless someone in Microsoft runs an investigation) but we can think of potential reasons.
- josefx 4y agoThe language used is positive. For example instead of "good business decision" one could say more neutrally "maximally lazy, standard breaking and anti competitive". In the context of mega corps it means the same but doesn't try to present it in a positive light.
- ask_b123 4y agoThat is not more neutral. Perhaps it is as neutral, but in the opposite side of the neutrality spectrum.
- omniglottal 4y agoA neutrality "spectrum" does not have sides any more than the autism spectrum has "100% neurotypical". Imagine a gearbox - neutrality is a Boolean, either in gear or definitively not.