3 ms·
Labeling him a sociopath implies that, had he never done it, nobody would have done it. In the article, he mentions that, if he wasn't the first, someone else w
by cowsup 3y ago
Labeling him a sociopath implies that, had he never done it, nobody would have done it. In the article, he mentions that, if he wasn't the first, someone else would've done it in time. I agree with that belief.
Directing attention to your business, even without permission, is older than the Internet itself. We've had generations of TV, radio, and newspaper advertisements, as well as stickers placed on lamp posts, flyers in shop windows, or menus placed on doors of homes or hotel rooms. Some advertisement is welcome and paid for, others are done without being caught. But it's all in the name of profit.
- autoexec 3y agolabeling a serial killer a sociopath doesn't imply that if they hadn't killed someone nobody else ever would have. It's people who refuse to act responsibly in a community because they have zero regard for the negative impact they have on others that matters here, not which particular asshole would be first to act purely out of selfishness. "Directing attention to your business" isn't a problem either, any more than "setting down your butchers knife" is a problem. It's when, where, and how you do those things that can make it a problem. It's the difference between plunging your butchers knife into your dishwasher, and plunging it into someone else's chest. People can advertise, with or without permission, without polluting the internet and turning their selfish behavior into a multi-billion dollar a year problem for everyone else to clean up.