That's reasonable
Senal
joined 1 year ago
it's Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes
I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"
Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he's actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn't necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?
Or did you just want to slip in the "stereotypical white guy" dog whistle?
If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.
imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.
Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.
Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.
Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.
I'd imagine that's why some people care.
Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?
A quick perusal of comment history makes it seem more like a "day ending in y" kind of deal
Unless you're a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the "cost of doing business" tax.
If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.
So, not a good faith take then, oh well.
"Logical" is not a binary position. It's a spectrum.
Agreed, not sure how it's relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.
OK, so let's assume that's a good faith literal interpretation.
Let's try it this way.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren't generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.
I wouldn't expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who'd threaten kids over a videogame.
Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.
Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.
Brazil (1985)