| ▲ | tdeck 14 hours ago |
| For those who only skim things, it might be worth scrolling down to read the "Editor Comments" section which is the actual article. |
|
| ▲ | MathMonkeyMan 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I feel like that section ruins the joke. |
| |
| ▲ | SilasX 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe it’s just me, but I fundamentally disagree with the mentality that we should prioritize the “feeling of being special” among those who already get the joke (and corresponding point) at the expense of those who have yet to appreciate the message. You can still laugh at the joke with the section there, you’ll just have fewer confused people to correct, and be in one less elite club. | | |
| ▲ | GuB-42 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone. Imagine in real life, someone starts making a joke, and then suddenly starts cursing and yelling. I wouldn't be comfortable with what feels like a lack of self-control and I will try to move away before things get violent. Either do the "joke" style or the "angry rant" style, not both. The joke can be explained calmly if there is a need to. | |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dullcrisp 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, but the point of critical thinking club isn’t really its exclusivity. In this case if you don’t know which specific header this is parodying that’s completely understandable. But if you really think this is about computers stabbing people and can’t laugh at yourself about it when you find out that it isn’t then I don’t think we will be able to engage on this topic in a mutually rewarding manner. | | |
| ▲ | SilasX 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think it’s about computers stabbing people, but that’s not relevant. The issue is your willingness to keep people in the dark so you can feel good that you got a reference without it being explained. | | |
| ▲ | dullcrisp 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But thank you for demonstrating how it’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who takes everything literally. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Timwi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I feel the need to comment on one sentence in it: “companies are god damn children and must be told no explicitly by every person individually.” While it's true that children will often go out of their ways to test boundaries, I have no trouble giving them the benefit of the doubt and saying that children are innocently experimenting. Companies, meanwhile, are doing this with fully deliberate malicious intent. They do this because capitalism rewards it. We need to say this, and keep saying it, until everyone gets it. Companies cannot be reared like children. Companies do not “mature” to become well-behaving, ethical citizens. With the profit motive in effect, companies have every incentive to work around every legislation and regulation and screw us at every opportunity they get. The profit motive must go. |
|
| ▲ | grahamj 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I bailed before that so thanks for pointing it out. I couldn't agree more, both with the point implied by the RFC and with that directly stated below. |
