3 ms·

> Not all of them are the same Arent they? If those 'not same's constituted any tangible statistics, the landscape would be different. But it is how it is. Th

> Not all of them are the same Arent they? If those 'not same's constituted any tangible statistics, the landscape would be different. But it is how it is. That is like saying "But there were good people among that overwhelmingly vicious bunch too!". Yeah, there may have been a small percentage of good people who never went along with the mainstream even in Nazi Germany, but the majority did and they did what they did. The example is not extreme - you can apply the same logic to every case in which someone tries to acquit an overwhelmingly negative majority by mentioning an insignificant number of positive minority gaming that majority.

try_the_bass 2y ago
But this is assuming that "bad" companies outnumber the "good" by a significant margin, which has been untrue in my experience. It's entirely possible the landscape isn't different because the "good" companies are inherently uncompetitive with the "bad", but this is not something to be solved by just writing every company off as "bad" and then blaming the resulting system on that. You have to start by understanding why, to paraphrase you, "the landscape is not different". I think writing off all companies as "the same" avoids answering that question entirely, which really cripples any logic you build on top of that premise, to the point where it leads to contradictory or invalid conclusions. I disagree that the "bad" companies represent "an overwhelmingly negative majority", because I do not see the necessary proof to support such a statement. It appears to be a generalization driven by motivated reasoning.