Grishnakh isn't comparing apples (Microsoft) to oranges (Hitler), (s)he is saying that comparing apples (Microsoft) to apples (Sony) is like comparing oranges (Hitler) to oranges (Stalin).
You are correct. He is, however comparing Apple vs Microsoft to Hitler vs Stalin. Which is exactly the kind of pointless hyperbole over basic, boring corporate decisions that keeps him a virgin.
Ah yes, this is the quality analysis I come here for: comparing two large companies who use time-honoured methods to benefit their bottom line to two of the worst mass murderers of the twentieth century.
Keep doing business with megacorps that censors because free speech is an antiquated idea that should be burned. It's not like megacorps are the gatekeepers to the internet or anything.
Hey, I'm a leftie, screaming my lungs out about corporate power, regulatory capture and monopolies is my bread and butter. So I'm hazing you for being late to the party you precious little snowflake.
"I care more about the label on the boot that's on my neck than the boot itself."... You're a tool.
Nice strawman. Now go vote for some communists who'll actually try to break apart the googles of this world, cuz the GOP sure as shit isn't going to bother.
That's not what he said. what he said was basically a variation on this:
Beaverbrook asked the lady: Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds? She said she would. And if be paid you five pounds? The irate lady fumed: Five pounds. What do you think I am? Beaverbrook replied: Weâ(TM)ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.
The point being, we've heard, over and over again about the "evils" of government from conservatives for decades now. But the thing is, apart from some real fringey types, everybody agrees there needs to be some sort of central authority that reflects the will of the people. The only difference then between a liberal and a conservative, is how much. So, when you start using black and white language (like 'evil') to describe the difference between you and those who believe in a more proactive government, you're either being disingenuous or stupid.
Well yeah, because being against slavery is soo 2017...
They were a product of their time and to judge them against our morals is wrong.
Actually, if you look it up, quite a lot of these monuments got erected decades, even a century after the war. They were certainly a product of their time, just not the one you think.
You miss the lessons learned. You miss the motivations. You are ignoring history.
In order: The South got off easy. They wanted slaves. They lost. None of these monuments make any of that clear, so I fail to see what's being lost.
Robert E. Lee isn't the monster the left make him out to be.
This should be fun. Please explain to me how someone who owned slaves and decided to commit treason in order to be able to continue having slaves is not a monster.
All of the founders had slaves
Yeah, veneration of the founders has always baffled me too.
Are we to burn the constitution and abandon the ideals because they have because we judge them with today's standard?
What a bizarre argument considering the 15th amendment is sitting right there.
yet not realize that it was slave owners that wanted slaves to be counted equally!
ROFLMAO! Yes they did. Can you tell me why, though?
ISIS destroys antiquity because blasphemy. We do it because offense. I see no difference.
Well, one group thinks those statues desecrate their entire worldview. The other group thinks that celebrating treasonous slaveowners is not what modern democracies do. The fact that you can't see the difference says a lot more about you than either of those 2 groups.
By destroying them and moving them out of sight we forget our past.
Nah, I'm pretty sure the thousands of books, movies, history classes and artifacts from the era will manage to take up the slack.
We lose a part of us that help us become better.
Please explain to me how one statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, let alone several, accomplishes this goal.
At least with moving it is still there but out of sight out of mind does not challenge you to understand it.
And I've yet to meet a leftist that has a problem with this solution.
Do you realize that if you keep antagonizing moderate on your right by calling them nazi, they might actually become such [and run over leftist cuckholds without shame] ?
Dafuq? "Liberals called me mean names and now that means I have to be an extremist murderer!"
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, the second one was alright, and the third at least had its heart in the right place, it's just that the execution wasn't great.
Nah, he already cleared that achievement with Prometheus and Alien:Covenant. At least with this, he's only producing, not directing.
It's a time-honoured tradition for nerds to flaunt their superiority by proudly enumerating all the mainstream things they don't do.
Grishnakh isn't comparing apples (Microsoft) to oranges (Hitler), (s)he is saying that comparing apples (Microsoft) to apples (Sony) is like comparing oranges (Hitler) to oranges (Stalin).
You are correct. He is, however comparing Apple vs Microsoft to Hitler vs Stalin. Which is exactly the kind of pointless hyperbole over basic, boring corporate decisions that keeps him a virgin.
Ah yes, this is the quality analysis I come here for: comparing two large companies who use time-honoured methods to benefit their bottom line to two of the worst mass murderers of the twentieth century.
Stay classy, slashdot!
Meh, you build yourself a little block shed separated from your house. Problem solved.
Nah, I've read it. It was a while ago, though. So I've moved on. Living in the past is for suckers.
and i am sure you read that commenting history, right?
The only interesting thing to read on the internet is comment threads, so pretty much, yeah.
You don't know any position I have or held particularly so on this topic.
You do know your entire commenting history is available at the click of a button, right?
Having said that, I apologize. I didn't realize you were an ardent anti-monopolist. We'll get those megacorps eventually, comrade!
You are why we can't have nice things.
Jebus! Go find your safes space already.
Nah, that was BS cooked up by right-wingers because France didn't want to join the 'coalition of the willing' back in 2002.
Pffft, what we really want to know is if he can run Crysis.
Trump's successes
Say what now?
Keep doing business with megacorps that censors because free speech is an antiquated idea that should be burned. It's not like megacorps are the gatekeepers to the internet or anything.
Hey, I'm a leftie, screaming my lungs out about corporate power, regulatory capture and monopolies is my bread and butter. So I'm hazing you for being late to the party you precious little snowflake.
"I care more about the label on the boot that's on my neck than the boot itself."... You're a tool.
Nice strawman. Now go vote for some communists who'll actually try to break apart the googles of this world, cuz the GOP sure as shit isn't going to bother.
Schrodinger's Bannon.
Thanks for illustrating my point. You're a pal.
OMG a megacorp likes censorship! Fucking knock me over with a feather.
What's so horrible about google?
That's not what he said. what he said was basically a variation on this:
Beaverbrook asked the lady: Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds? She said she would. And if be paid you five pounds? The irate lady fumed: Five pounds. What do you think I am? Beaverbrook replied: Weâ(TM)ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.
The point being, we've heard, over and over again about the "evils" of government from conservatives for decades now. But the thing is, apart from some real fringey types, everybody agrees there needs to be some sort of central authority that reflects the will of the people. The only difference then between a liberal and a conservative, is how much. So, when you start using black and white language (like 'evil') to describe the difference between you and those who believe in a more proactive government, you're either being disingenuous or stupid.
Again and again I see the argument made that if you do not agree that unlimited government is necessary then you must be in favor of no government.
In a country that still pees itself a little whenever the word 'socialism' is uttered, the fuck you do.
What we do get, over and over again, is how the slightest touch of democratic government is 'immoral', which is the exact opposite.
there's no way for you or I to verify whether or not it really was - or, if it was, just _how_ hateful and whether it really deserved its fate.
Only if you're not technical enough to hit the dark web. Daily Stormer's not going anywhere, they're just changing addresses.
Do you advocate tearing down the Korean War memorial in DC? The Wall for those killed in Vietnam?
I was going to give you shit for more stupid false equivalency, but it's late, so my answer is: Sure, why not?
Stannis, actually.
By re-framing it through the morals of the day
Well yeah, because being against slavery is soo 2017...
They were a product of their time and to judge them against our morals is wrong.
Actually, if you look it up, quite a lot of these monuments got erected decades, even a century after the war. They were certainly a product of their time, just not the one you think.
You miss the lessons learned. You miss the motivations. You are ignoring history.
In order: The South got off easy. They wanted slaves. They lost. None of these monuments make any of that clear, so I fail to see what's being lost.
Robert E. Lee isn't the monster the left make him out to be.
This should be fun. Please explain to me how someone who owned slaves and decided to commit treason in order to be able to continue having slaves is not a monster.
All of the founders had slaves
Yeah, veneration of the founders has always baffled me too.
Are we to burn the constitution and abandon the ideals because they have because we judge them with today's standard?
What a bizarre argument considering the 15th amendment is sitting right there.
yet not realize that it was slave owners that wanted slaves to be counted equally!
ROFLMAO! Yes they did. Can you tell me why, though?
ISIS destroys antiquity because blasphemy. We do it because offense. I see no difference.
Well, one group thinks those statues desecrate their entire worldview. The other group thinks that celebrating treasonous slaveowners is not what modern democracies do. The fact that you can't see the difference says a lot more about you than either of those 2 groups.
By destroying them and moving them out of sight we forget our past.
Nah, I'm pretty sure the thousands of books, movies, history classes and artifacts from the era will manage to take up the slack.
We lose a part of us that help us become better.
Please explain to me how one statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, let alone several, accomplishes this goal.
At least with moving it is still there but out of sight out of mind does not challenge you to understand it.
And I've yet to meet a leftist that has a problem with this solution.
Do you realize that if you keep antagonizing moderate on your right by calling them nazi, they might actually become such [and run over leftist cuckholds without shame] ?
Dafuq? "Liberals called me mean names and now that means I have to be an extremist murderer!"
Calm down already, you little snowflake.
What history is getting rewritten? The South lost. Losers in wars don't get statues. History's not being rewritten, it's finally getting right.