3 ms·
It's kind of bizarre that people here would rather have shitty experience talking to their friends just to defend the honor megacorporations. Apple and Google
by izacus 3y ago
It's kind of bizarre that people here would rather have shitty experience talking to their friends just to defend the honor megacorporations.
Apple and Google ARE NOT PEOPLE. They do NOT HAVE FEELINGS you need to defend. Jesus.
Being able to send a rich message from iPhone to Android and back (including location, pictures, videos) is really not something that will cause you pain and Apple won't lash out and punish you for it.
- randomdata 3y ago> Apple and Google ARE NOT PEOPLE. That's incorrect. Apple here refers to a group of people, not the fruit. Google here too refers to a group of people, not the software that provides search features. > They do NOT HAVE FEELINGS you need to defend. Their feelings need to be defended as much as any other person. Which, logically, is not at all, but as you are defending your own feelings here what is logical is already violated, so...
- izacus 3y agoLet's use the term "corporate entity" instead of "group of people". Because corporate entities do not have human emotions or human properties and actively work on suppressing them to generate (or extract) value.
- randomdata 3y agoA 'corporate entity' is just a group of people. Those people absolutely have emotions.
- dragonwriter 3y agoYes, but the corporate entity does not; the (possibly contradictory) emotions of the people who have some role in a corporation are not features of the corporate entity.
- randomdata 3y agoYes, but the corporate entity is not a thing in and of itself. It is just a language device used in communication to identify the actual thing: People.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Yes, but the corporate entity is just another way to say group of people No, its not. Its more like a grouping of a subset of the actions of a group of people in some contexts, and a shared subset of the interests of a different (narrower, but overlapping) group of people in others. But its not generally simply a way of referencing a group of people.
- randomdata 3y agoRight. Like you say, a group of people. Now, why do you think those people are void of feelings?
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Like you say, a group of people. No, that's exactly what I said it was not. A subset of the actions of a group of people, or a subset of the shared interests of a group of people, is not a group of people.
- randomdata 3y agoYou suggested that is what it is not, but then went on to say that is what it is. You just did it again.
- dragonwriter 3y agoNo, I didn't, but if you can't understand language enough to recognize that there is no point in further discussion.