Currently Online 
EpicRandy said:
I feel like the pro and cons actually argue on different things. I keep (as others do, you included) speaking about the ins and outs of this transaction specifically but keep getting replies about a generalization of large-scale buyouts, and big-tech as cons. I've seen little, and that's a politically correct way to say none, well though cons argument or even a well though contradiction of a pro argument. It's been like that since the beginning of course but in that thread, there's a particular emphasis on avoiding the details with the cons position now. It's like we're supposed to keep pretending we don't know anything of that transaction specifically and so should rely on over-generalization and gut feelings more akin to a political take than a critically thinking things true. Maybe after a year, they found out the cons argument is nothing but weak in this case so purposefully avoid them and that's why they are relying on generalization. At the very least, and surprisingly so, the conversation level is not degrading and flaming attempts are mostly left ignored so it's still kind of nice to engage. |
This is partly why I'm tired of arguing this in general, it feels like I'm often debating with people who haven't followed the case and I've been doing it for the whole year and it's just so tiring to keep arguing the same points but the rebuttals often make me feel like my entire effort goes to waste in trying to inform and debate because they're frankly a bit hollow most of the time (big tech bad).
It's like people not following the case and then complaining about Judge Corley's son working at Microsoft 👀
