3 ms·
Are you seriously equating an anonymous gadfly with a company conspiring to secretly ruin a public critic's life? I'm trying to determine whether the action it
by yummyfajitas 12y ago
Are you seriously equating an anonymous gadfly with a company conspiring to secretly ruin a public critic's life?
I'm trying to determine whether the action itself is "abhorrent" or whether it's only "abhorrent" because the person who discussed it is a tech dudebro that everyone loves to hate.
At this point I'm leaning very strongly toward the latter.
I thought you had something against anonymity because "...never have my colleagues nor I did such work under surreptitious means. We made our identities clear...". If that was merely a red herring, my apologies. I thought you brought it up because you believed it was relevant, and perhaps the source of Michael's actions being "abhorrent".
- danso 12y agoHmmm, yeah, I guess I'm not communicating very clearly here. In my worldview, actions should be judged along with the circumstances that led to the actions. For example, a human-wielded knife slashing across a human body to cause a bloody and gruesome wound. I consider that action relatively neutral without knowing more of the context. If the knife is being wielded by a mugger during an attempted robbery, then I consider it to be an unpleasant action. If the knife is being wielded by a doctor in an attempted c-section, I consider it to be a less unpleasant action, perhaps, even a justified and positive action. I mean Jesus Christ, do you really enter into these discussions with an objectivity that can't conceive of how events and actions can have different values depending on the given circumstances?
- yummyfajitas 12y agoI don't know why you didn't choose to explain the context, and instead focused on red herrings like anonymity. This makes me believe the real context here is "he's a douchbag, now I have a reason for my hatred".