You could easily have phrased that to avoid coming across as reverse psychology - "Since when is HN so defensive of <bigco policy> and shareholder interests at the detriment of users" etc - as a few other posts in this thread have done. Note how most of them are not tremendously downvoted. You, on the other hand, mention voting down your post three times in a single paragraph, each time attacking potential reasons - not covering every reason of course, only the ones that everyone sane should agree are Bad Things. Philosophy class is a bit far now, but isn't this a classic red herring?
"And the people who vote down against the good of people in favor of the good of the corporate body are the enemy."
Clearly meant to make people think that if they vote you down they are the enemy of the Good of the People, rather than letting them form their own responses based on the merits of your argument. Bullshit rhethoric likes this is what has no place here. Discuss the facts or the ethics of matters as you will, but please leave karma-baiting rhethoric out of your posts.
An interesting response. Thanks. My wording was lame and included unnecessarily expressed social forum fears.
However, it's incorrect that I'm karma baiting. Rightly or wrongly I mention that I essentially worry I'll be attacked. But my central, and I admit strongly worded point, is genuine and I stand by it. I think that we as a society have allowed the corporate mindset to dominate us in a way that our civilization will hopefully grow out of at some point.
While my rhetoric is abrasive, what I'm specifically opposing is the corporate dehumanization that is considered normal and even good by many people. It's very hard not to be abrasive when talking about such things. On the one hand you have a person who's fired for a technical breach of contract when it's clear that he was operating reasonably and in good faith, and on the other you have many people who's eyes glaze over at the injustice and harm to an individual's career because, hell, he screwed up and he breached his contract.
How to unglaze those eyes? I think one way is by making them take a side in the issue.
That whole "freedom isn't free" doesn't just apply to sticks and guns, but also to ideas, as you clearly know. It costs to say strong things, for me it costs me fear that people just won't like me.
"And the people who vote down against the good of people in favor of the good of the corporate body are the enemy."
Clearly meant to make people think that if they vote you down they are the enemy of the Good of the People, rather than letting them form their own responses based on the merits of your argument. Bullshit rhethoric likes this is what has no place here. Discuss the facts or the ethics of matters as you will, but please leave karma-baiting rhethoric out of your posts.