3 ms·
oh, sorry dude... I wasn't expecting the indirect insult to be the only thing you read... my intent was less for you to take offense, and more to point out how
by grayhatter 1y ago
oh, sorry dude... I wasn't expecting the indirect insult to be the only thing you read... my intent was less for you to take offense, and more to point out how you're arguing against something I never said and don't believe. I would have been interested in the reasoning behind the claim, and the parallels you saw, but was unwilling to tolerate the strawman.
- labrador 1y agoThanks. I'm sorry I jumped to the conclusion that you were making the doomer arguement. I see now your argument is much more subtle and raises some interesting points. If I understand it correctly, it's like what if one company owned the internet? But worse than that, what if one company owned access to intelligence? I'm old so I remember when AT&T owned the American phone system. We couldn't hook up anything to the phone jack without permission, so intuitivly I did understand your argument, but my opposition to doomer arguments (pause research! regulate!) got in the way.