- cross-posted to:
- privacyguides@lemmy.one
- cross-posted to:
- privacyguides@lemmy.one
Proton: “We’re consolidating our social media presence due to limited resources and no longer posting on Mastodon. Follow us on Reddit for the latest updates”
Proton: “We’re consolidating our social media presence due to limited resources and no longer posting on Mastodon. Follow us on Reddit for the latest updates”
Very easy to understand. But why should we (the customers, citizens, etc.) care? My interest is to have that knowledge, it’s the shareholder interest to have the business succeeding, and they take care of that. So why from your words you seem to imply that it’s “better” if they keep their mouth shut (and therefore protect the businesses)?
Unnecessary ad-hominem, which is also easily proved wrong. I hear the opinions of Musk, of Bezos (but also of Zuckerberg, of the Nvidia guy, of Altman and many others) and I am happy because with that information I can (and do) distance myself from their companies. In this case, I feel differently and therefore I take another decision. I like to think that I can critically evaluate situations, but if the conclusion I end up with is different from yours it doesn’t mean that mine is wrong by definition.
You are clearly wrong about this. I have nothing to prove obviously, but you can easily also see that by just browsing through other posts on my blog, for example this. I will even go a step further and say that the purism and localism (as defined in this book) that emerges from your words is something I explicitly want to distance myself from, because it has proved to be a complete failure in terms of political battles.
I am referring at things like:
I don’t. I actually can’t care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself. Please don’t assume other people’s positions.
You can only see better from your point of view that you want more knowledge. Keeping their mouth shut is what leaders do everyday to protect their business, their profits, their coworkers, etc.
I suppose you have to be a knowledgeable leader to understand this. We often thrust people into leadership positions and we end up with people like Andy as a result.
I don’t pretend to the arbitrator of what is right or wrong, but I have learned a lot in my lifetime and calling a spade a spade is something I believe is important. You take all this so personally and thus show a certain level of immaturity as you probably feel I display as well.
Your proof of your political commentary only supports my assertion that you are very technically minded. Your critique of cloud computing shows your technical understanding is profound, but does little to forward a feeling that you are politically minded. You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.
I start to perceive a pinch of bad faith, and an excessive amount of paternalism. Your arguments are mostly ad hominem, so far you didn’t produce much coherent criticism of ideas.
Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that understanding that “leaders” (BTW, you seem to use this term seriously like if we were on LinkedIn) keep their mouth shut is different from understanding my (ours) role into this dynamic.
I don’t need any proof, that was just an example, from a very limited sample of my life which is this alias and that blog. I have nothing to prove or anything to defend from baseless accusations of a random internet person with lacking knowledge (about myself, which I hope you will agree).
Here is the bad faith I was talking about. A sentence which clearly is out of context used for a very patronizing ad hominem.
Please don’t lecture me about bad faith as you engage in bad faith. I will restate my premise that you came across as an apologist. This was a objectively true from my viewpoint as well as your perhaps inadvertent devil’s advocacy (I am being generous here because maybe you have never thought about your behavior in this regard).
He was simply wrong for this statement. It was a half baked political opinion that did more harm than good. This is from the standpoint of an actual leader who has started businesses from the ground up.
You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith. Your emotions get the better of you and it becomes about your ego at this point. Your lack of self reflection in this matter is unbecoming.
I specifically quoted the part that I considered bad faith. I am OK with you thinking I am an apologist. I don’t consider it bad faith (although I consider it wrong). What was bad faith was purposefully misinterpreting a sentence that was in a clear context so that you could use it for that patronizing statement.
Nothing to say, it just sounds ironic to me. Again, I have no problem with your subjective judgment.
And I respect your opinion.
Now we ended up in an argument that has to do with result? I have never said that it was a good move. That it benefit the company or anything like that. What argument are you trying to challenge? I am judging the action based on my own morality, not based on whether it benefit him or his company.
Strike two. Go re-read the sentence. I said that I didn’t know anything about him before this debacle and that I ended up learning about him whole informing myself about it. For your convenience I will quote my own words:
This behavior (patronizing, intentionally misunderstanding other person sentences) for me is clearly a demonstration of bad faith. As usual, your accusation of bad faith did not specify any reason or quoted any part and i challenge you to do that.
Not that it matters to you, but next similar behavior and I will block you and move on.
I will happily block you. You are a incapable of not personalizing this whole conversation and any future discussions with you will likely lead to the same outcome.
That takes courage to say, after 90% of your comments have to do with (speculations on) me.
Anyway, good riddance.