View Story | 28 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The man cannot write with any semblance of eloquence, tact, or just general good humor -- it's all hate and bile.
I really, really don't like AmericaBlog.
But that's beside the point. The truth of the Microsoft situation is, aside from the usual corporation weasel-out-of-things-speak that's not really anything to begrudge them for, they've decided to not get political about this issue, and that's not the worst thing in the world. They're far from being the 'bad guys' worth our time to attack.
On the scale of 'things to get agitated and fight for', this ranks pretty low.
Corporations shouldn't have to get involved in politics (and thus alienate half of their customer base) if they don't want to.
If you think computers shouldn't be sold to Republicans, that's fine and dandy -- start a company based on that principle. But in the meantime, companies can perfectly defensibly remain neutral in the culture wars unless they explicitly choose to do otherwise (such as Ben & Jerry's) without being tarred and feathered.
Aravosis is just a shouter. And having met a real polemicist tonight (Christopher Hitchens! Be still, my beating heart), I can tell you that he's a C-list shouter at that.
I bomb atomically / Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses can't define how I be droppin' these.
by RealityBasedJoe on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:32:54 PM PDT
As for hate and bile, I can't say I see that and I usually check his site every day. It's the first site I check after Kos, and then I follow it with Buzzflash, to start. As for hate and bile, can't be any worse than some of the diaries that get posted here. "F'n religious right" , "F'n Catholics" , "F'n Evangelicals" , "F'n Republicnas" - to name a few of the phrases I see regularly on here.
I'm sorry - but when someone or something says or does something really stupid, and someone calls them out, that's not hate and bile. That's calling you out.
My signature beat up your signature.
by Stand Strong on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:39:15 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Exactly correct. This is a succinct and true representation of my position. :)
""As for hate and bile, I can't say I see that and I usually check his site every day. It's the first site I check after Kos, and then I follow it with Buzzflash, to start. As for hate and bile, can't be any worse than some of the diaries that get posted here. "F'n religious right" , "F'n Catholics" , "F'n Evangelicals" , "F'n Republicnas" - to name a few of the phrases I see regularly on here.
I'm sorry - but when someone or something says or does something really stupid, and someone calls them out, that's not hate and bile. That's calling you out.""
But that's the thing -- there's no humility (there, and on many of the diaries here) about maybe not knowing best on who's stupid and who's not. Self-righteousness is a big problem in much of the liberal blogosphere.
As for the diaries here -- I think many of them are egregiously bad in this regard. "The DailyKOS diaries do it too" isn't really a defense of AmericaBLOG except to say that we also need to get our own house in order.
by RealityBasedJoe on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:42:29 PM PDT
your diaires??
by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:40:59 AM PDT
by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:55:05 AM PDT
by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:23:46 AM PDT
by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:49:23 AM PDT
by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM PDT
Not that you care. Or should care, really. But I guess - you're on DailyKos for a reason - whether its to contribute, look around, or incite certain feelings.
Bottom line - it seems you've been labeled a troll by a few. It has the potential to follow you around, like in fact, it did here.
If you want people to listen to you, debate you, and take you seriously, it's something to think about.
That whole section in the "Microsoft backs out on gays (Psss..pass it on) diary where you were troll rated the hell out of I'm sure didn't go to well for you. And while I'm not a supported or censorship well...you prolly deserved it.
by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:08:32 PM PDT
If I were more selective about what I said so as not to rile people up (Which I think was what you meant), my purpose for being here would dwindle.
Not because I come here to get a rise out of people. In fact, just the opposite.
I come here because I believe the Democratic party's future is a liberal, progressive vision.
And in my eyes, there's no better representatives of that liberal, progressive vision than Tom Friedman, Bill Maher, Scoop Jackson, and yes, sometimes, Joe Lieberman.
I recognize that many here disagree with that -- but frankly, I think that's because the modern American left has become illiberal and regressive in many ways.
And I think it's time for true liberals and progressives to stand up and save the movement from itself, to some degree.
Doing that involves a lot of butting heads. Look at the front page right now. Look at how they're calling Tom Friedman childish names, Tom Friedman of all people! One of the leading lights of our movement, if ever there was one! And look at how they denigrate him.
There's a lot of work to be done.
""Bottom line - it seems you've been labeled a troll by a few. It has the potential to follow you around, like in fact, it did here. ""
I accept that. But steadying and focusing the direction of the Democratic party and the progressive movement is important enough to have some thick skin about. Which is why I keep coming back here.
I made a big long post on one of the previous names, a diary, called "Let's talk about civility of discourse at DKos." It received over 400 replies.
It was really good. It's a shame it's lost to history now.
by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:43:32 PM PDT
And if that doesn't qualify as a "thing to get agitated and fight for", as in, civil fucking rights for people just because of sexual preferences, who shouldn't even have to worry about whether or not they somehow "deserve" them regardless of what their job is, then maybe you should give us a clue as to something, oh, less annoying or bothersome to fight for?
Maybe you would be a "shouter" too if you had to constantly fight against bigotry and homophobia and right wing religious extremists all the time. Some of us get a little bit hoarse having to yell at people like you who say you "get it" but obviously don't, when we're busy having to yell at bigots and religious zealots and politicians and every other douchebag who keep trying to tell us we're less than human just because of our sexuality. It's the 21st century, not the Dark Ages, but it seems like a whole lot of people want it to be the Dark Ages all over again.
by mrradon on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:17:16 AM PDT
by ianrs on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:08:44 AM PDT
I curious - I'm too lazy to go get the link - as to your underlying stance on both the issue of gay rights, and this particular piece of legislation that Microsoft has done a complete 180 on that you yourself also said in a previous Microsoft diary of a few days ago, that you wished they had supported this bill, as you're a supporter of gay marriage.
Which in itself is ironic because now you're saying they shouldn't take any stance, but they did - going against what they've traditionally done - and taken a non-progressive political stance.
And an answer that wasn't a basic shoulder shrug would be more appreciated.
And if you would, also elaborate on what you said here...
...because well - they did get political about it. Initially, it was a progressive movement towards diversity and equal rights - now it's become a political stance, based on the woes of the religious right.
by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:25:53 AM PDT
But I haven't rated you yet because I'm curious as to what you're standpoint is.
I can't tell if you're conservative, central, liberal, or really anything. You haven't posted any diaries and a lot of your comments have gotten low marks.
But I'm still willing to listen, if you're willing to step up to the plate.
by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:38:28 AM PDT
In politics, very few things - Shouting just generally indicates a lack of self control and an unawareness of how to present oneself decently.
""I curious - I'm too lazy to go get the link - as to your underlying stance on both the issue of gay rights,""
My position is pretty much a mirror of Andrew Sullivan's. I support gay marriage wholeheartedly. Not a big fan of hate crime laws, in that in reality the costs of going down that slippery slope outweigh the benefits. A big fan of equalization under the law in all its forms. All the costs, all the benefits. All avenues should not descriminate.
""and this particular piece of legislation that Microsoft has done a complete 180 on that you yourself also said in a previous Microsoft diary of a few days ago, that you wished they had supported this bill, as you're a supporter of gay marriage. ""
Read my actual comment -- I didn't make it nearly so simple. I said that I support the bill, and so in my heart I have a simpleminded notion of "It'd be nice if everyone everywhere supported it", but in my head I know it's not a corporation's place to get involved in this sort of thing.
""Which in itself is ironic because now you're saying they shouldn't take any stance, but they did - going against what they've traditionally done - and taken a non-progressive political stance.""
Going against what they've traditionally done by withdrawing themselves is not 'taking a stance'. It's going from 'a stance' to 'an absence of a stance'.
""...because well - they did get political about it. Initially, it was a progressive movement towards diversity and equal rights - now it's become a political stance, based on the woes of the religious right.""
And now they feel it's better if they're not political. Nothing wrong with that, because it wasn't their role as a corporation to begin with.
You have this very odd notion in your head that once they're political about it, they must be political about it forever more, and cannot backtrack out of politics.
by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:07:53 AM PDT
by ianrs on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:12:53 AM PDT
And there's nothing wrong with their choice to do that, if it means they're not involving the law.
If they're changing company policy towards their employees in terms of compensation, that is risible. But changing their policy of which laws they support to a more neutral path is not, since it's not really their place to begin with.
""They've been brainwashed and scared by right wing religious extremists who are worried they are going to somehow estrange their Christian employees, by having had extended benefits to their gay employees, which they've been doing for years! And then they've extended a complete lack of support for a state law that they've previously supported in the past, when they didn't even need to. Now, enlighten us, how is that not political?""
It's precisely not political -- it's withdrawing themselves from a culture war they shouldn't have been involved in to begin with.
What benefits they offer their own employees is important, and worth fighting for -- but they shouldn't be getting involved in lobbying for cultural change laws.
""And if that doesn't qualify as a "thing to get agitated and fight for", as in, civil fucking rights for people just because of sexual preferences, who shouldn't even have to worry about whether or not they somehow "deserve" them regardless of what their job is, then maybe you should give us a clue as to something, oh, less annoying or bothersome to fight for?""
It's how you fight for it. When African Americans fought for civil rights in this country, they protested wearing their Sunday best.
You protest with, in this case, childish behavior.
""Maybe you would be a "shouter" too if you had to constantly fight against bigotry and homophobia and right wing religious extremists all the time. Some of us get a little bit hoarse having to yell at people like you who say you "get it" but obviously don't, when we're busy having to yell at bigots and religious zealots and politicians and every other douchebag who keep trying to tell us we're less than human just because of our sexuality. It's the 21st century, not the Dark Ages, but it seems like a whole lot of people want it to be the Dark Ages all over again.""
So if I don't agree with you on your methods, I don't "get it". Way to win supporters to your side with that tactic, chief.
Keep in mind: Your opinions are not monolithic. Hell, according to one figure I read, 25% of gays voted for Bush.
When it comes to issues such as outing, or whether corporations should lobby for cultural change laws, you are not the sole arbiter of morality.
by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:01:41 AM PDT
WRONG.
Microsoft pulled out of the coalition pushing the bill at somewhere around the last minute at the impetus of a wingnut preacher.
This isn't a neutral act, this is betrayal of trust. If MS had decided not to participate in the legislative process with respect to this to begin with, people might grumble but businesses don't have to lobby everything.
Their change in position can be considered certain to have affected at least 1 vote, MS is the 600 pound gorilla of WA politics and has entirely too much political influence in the rest of the nation. Well, that legislation lost by one vote.
They have chosen to ally with the Religious Right and they figured nobody would notice.
Perhaps this doesn't bother you, but the fact that it doesn't tells us something about you.
It's also pretty stupid in a business sense. There really isn't much of a downside to switching to the Mac OS for the great majority of people, all most people have to lose is vulnerability to Windows viruses / trojans / spyware.
The groups they have chosen to blow off in favor of the Religious Right are in general, groups that have higher percentage of computer users, better educated, and know that there are other choices than Windows.
The threat of the wingnut preacher was an empty one. Unless you can see fundies switching to a computer company with the kind of liberal image Apple has.
The place to hurt MS is in the bank account. Switch to Apple, or stay with MS and don't be in any hurry to upgrade your OS and applications.
Avoiding MS completely in the business world is somewhere between difficult and impossible, but we can certainly conduct our business and personal computer use in ways that will make MS a lot less money.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:30:15 AM PDT
So? The religious right are their customers, just as we are.
It's not their place to get involved in the culture wars.
The fact that at one point in the past, they got involved on our side, does not make a difference to that.
by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:09:07 AM PDT
Just as we are. What's your problem with our making decisions in the marketplace to drastically reduce the use of Microsoft products?
It isn't like there's really a downside to this, all most users really have to lose is susceptability to viruses, Trojans, and spyware.
by alizard on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:50:03 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 28 comments