bertiewhykovich

"Silicon Valley seems to have lost a bit of its verve since the Presidential election. The streets of San Francisco—spiritually part of the Valley—feel less crowded. Coffee-shop conversations are hushed. Everything feels a little muted, an eerie quiet broken by chants of protesters. It even seems as if there are more parking spots. Technology leaders, their employees, and those who make up the entire technology ecosystem seem to have been shaken up and shocked by the election of Donald Trump."

As loathsome as Trump is, I do look forward to having our collective nose rubbed in our collective shit.

This is moronic.

- Psychotherapy can take years to work. Three months is nothing.

- What in the fuck?

- lol yeah sedate your spouse. Careful you don't get ripped off! Mother's little helper should be cheap.

- get your prescriptions from a black-market psychiatrist. nothing could go wrong.

- has this ever worked

- It's not; it's highly addictive and very likely causes brain damage with regular use -- like every other pharmaceutical in its clade.

Shlock. The writer is satisfied with the world he inhabits, is not particularly aggrieved by the powers that be, has not been particularly failed -- and therefore takes umbrage at the suggestion that the established order might not be both benevolent and competent.

But guess what? This isn't the general experience! Most people are constantly, crushingly immiserated and failed -- a societal "failure mode," as he so charmingly terms it, has already come to pass. It's unclear, in fact, that we've ever /not/ been in a failure mode -- begging the question of /why/ things are so consistently fucked up.

> If they're all rational

I feel you, but that assumption is where this argument diverges from reality.

While there's a grain of truth to this, to insist on this generalization is to twist Stallman's meaning to suit your own purposes. It's quite clear that Stallman is, here, speaking /quite specifically/ about corporations -- inveighing against them, in fact. I am sure that he would agree that governments can engage in similar behavior, but the target of his criticism here is corporations alone. Forcing governments into the conversation is a way of derailing specific criticism of corporations.

"If corporations dominate society and write the laws, then each advance or change in technology is an opening for them to further restrict or mistreat its users."

Also, you definitely can, tongue-in-cheek, call a general statement a "law." It's not meant to be taken in a literal sense; it's meant for humorous or broadly pragmatic effect.

I very much disagree that they do nothing to promote constructive discussion. They put a fine point on the absurdities of the position mocked -- hardly unconstructive.

It's good and not at all insane that I make $100,000/year for dicking around on a computer every day. Those poors just aren't creating value.

Conveying sarcasm may not be one of yours.

God forbid those proles vote, or -- horror of horrors -- have one of the most fulfilling human experiences! They should all be disenfranchised and sterilized.