I never said it was blameless. Just seems silly to focus on blaming a corporation like Apple for a social issue when you could choose from so many other options.
Splitting hairs about how you projected emotion as a dismissive tactic is also a dismissive tactic.
So is treating any response to “calm down, honey” as proof of the necessity in saying “calm down, honey.”
What you’re doing is bullying.
You’re ignoring the content of the argument to wind someone up, and treating any response as retroactive justification for whichever attack you’ve chosen. The correct response becomes some combination of “fuck” and “you,” but nobody can actually deliver that response, because you’re already pretending that’s the tone, and furthermore, that the argument is only a dishonest expression of that emotional outburst. These are tactics of emotional abuse. You need to stop using them.
If you’re not doing this on purpose, and instead genuinely picture some frothing caricature typing out this detailed explanation of why your comments are indistinguishable from bad-faith trolling, you still need to stop. It’s plainly incorrect. Reassess what led you here and do better next time.
On the actual point:
The first thing I said to you was, this feature Other-izes users of the competing brand, and your comment treats the company as totally blameless, even though the impact is exactly the behavior it’s designed to influence.
And you called that measured assessment “lazy and irresponsible.” Because you’re acting as though total singular blame is the metric. To such an obvious degree that you think ‘I blame the individual’ is a sensible approach to widespread issues, like they all coincidentally made the same rational choice, instead of being influenced by manipulative companies for monetary gain. Like that’s not a whole industry built on predictable human shortcomings.
Also, like it’s not instantly undercut by adding ‘I also blame the parents.’ So I guess hooray for figuring out blame can be shared.
“That feature specifically to Other-ize users of the competing brand is totally blameless for the behavior it’s designed to influence.”
I never said it was blameless. Just seems silly to focus on blaming a corporation like Apple for a social issue when you could choose from so many other options.
Please don’t try and put words in my mouth.
Please don’t play dumb about this company’s role in a visible trend.
You are explicitly blaming parents, instead of Apple. If you meant anything else then you fucked up.
Yeah, remember when Canada Goose caused all these people to get mugged for their jackets.
For the way their children behave? Yes.
You do realize before there were text bubbles kids bullied each other over other things, right? The right clothes, shoes, bike, sports equipment etc.
It’s lazy and irresponsible to blame a social problem on a company. Particularly when there are far more legitimate complaints about the company.
No problem has two causes, apparently. All or nothing. One or the other. Blaming parents instead of Apple, or else blaming Apple instead of parents.
No way these known assholes could bear any responsibility in yet another problem.
I guess I’m just not as emotionally involved as you.
When I see or hear about a person behaving poorly I blame the person, and in the case of children I blame their parents too.
How dare anyone put words in your mouth, but calling an argument emotional is fine. Hypocrite.
Hypocrite pretending systemic issues aren’t real.
I called you emotionally involved, not the argument.
This reads as emotional, specifically angry. As does the comment I’m replying to.
Splitting hairs about how you projected emotion as a dismissive tactic is also a dismissive tactic.
So is treating any response to “calm down, honey” as proof of the necessity in saying “calm down, honey.”
What you’re doing is bullying.
You’re ignoring the content of the argument to wind someone up, and treating any response as retroactive justification for whichever attack you’ve chosen. The correct response becomes some combination of “fuck” and “you,” but nobody can actually deliver that response, because you’re already pretending that’s the tone, and furthermore, that the argument is only a dishonest expression of that emotional outburst. These are tactics of emotional abuse. You need to stop using them.
If you’re not doing this on purpose, and instead genuinely picture some frothing caricature typing out this detailed explanation of why your comments are indistinguishable from bad-faith trolling, you still need to stop. It’s plainly incorrect. Reassess what led you here and do better next time.
On the actual point:
The first thing I said to you was, this feature Other-izes users of the competing brand, and your comment treats the company as totally blameless, even though the impact is exactly the behavior it’s designed to influence.
And you called that measured assessment “lazy and irresponsible.” Because you’re acting as though total singular blame is the metric. To such an obvious degree that you think ‘I blame the individual’ is a sensible approach to widespread issues, like they all coincidentally made the same rational choice, instead of being influenced by manipulative companies for monetary gain. Like that’s not a whole industry built on predictable human shortcomings.
Also, like it’s not instantly undercut by adding ‘I also blame the parents.’ So I guess hooray for figuring out blame can be shared.