|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My analysis of this article takes a somewhat different perspective, not so much from a men's rights point-of-view, but from and economic and free market point-of-view.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but MSN stands for Microsoft Network, correct? Or something similar. In other words, MSN is owned, operated, and hosted by Microsoft. So somebody please answer me this: Why in the blue hell is Microsoft giving a voice to those who would see their company destroyed? Or at the least, see it crippled?
Consider the words and phrases Mr. Daniel Gross uses. Throughout his article, he decries the evils of greed and riches, instead offering as virtue "the good of the nation" and "self-sacrifice". By what standard? Why, the good of the nation, obviously! Its an end to itself! It doesn't need a standard to be measured by! (Probably what he would say, anyway.)
Notice what he says about Microsoft itself: "technology's Evil Empire". Again, why in the hell does Microsoft give this guy a voice on their website when he would see them destroyed? Why would they help someone to destroy them? This guy is like all the other leftists who whine daily about Microsoft in particular, and big business in general.
"Ah, but they have an obligation to give him a forum!" someone will no doubt say. Hogwash! The First Amendment applies to government restricting speech, not private individuals or corporations. Mr. Gross certainly has a right to his opinions, and a right to speak his opinions. Microsoft, however, is not obligated to give him a microphone. They are in no way required to give him a podium at which to speak.
Just because I believe in free speech doesn't mean I have to let someone use my yard as a place to hold a rally.
What it boils down to is that Microsoft is essentially aiding their destroyer. By giving your opponent a voice, you essentially heap coals on your own head.
As far as the use of the word "men" in concerned, in this particular case it doesn't bother me in the least. Hell, I don't consider any of the scenerios presented by Mr. Gross to be vice. I can say proudly that I look up to and admire every one of those CEOs whom Mr. Gross so vilifies. I don't begrudge those executives one single penny that they've earned. (Through salary or otherwise.) Anything that pisses a leftist off can't be all bad.
It's similar to the use of "M$" by Bill Gates opponents to refer to Microsoft. Hell, if I were employed by Microsoft, I'd wear that designation as a badge of honor! As far as I'm concerned, the dollar sign isn't a vice, it's the purest form of virtue mankind has ever achieved. It means that instead of resorting to physical force to exchange goods and services, instead of looting under threat of force, one must instead engage in voluntary trade, to mutual benefit. The opposite of the dollar is the gun.
I realize that my post wasn't so much geared towards men's rights as it was towards property rights. But as Ayn Rand once said: "There is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights."
If the public wishes to curtail Bill Gates' profits (or any other executives' profits), they can easily do so: By refusing to buy the product.
Microsoft, quit aiding your enemy! If they destroy you in the process, then you get what you deserve.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is also another saying. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Everytime those "leftitsts" pull up MSN to read an article, they see a giant MSN stamp right on the page.
They aren't dumb, and they will cash in on the trends like any other and most newspapers these days.
I saw a full page add about getting your newspapers on line instead of reading the paper. It had a sharp executive looking woman with a laptop on one side of the bench and divided by good space a somewhat frumpy looking guy reading just a regular newspaper. He had a frown and the look of strain on his face. The woman had a smile and the look of ease and comfort.
I was trying to decide if it was an intentional bash at men. If its that they feel safe bashing men because men don't stand up to that type of shit. Or; if, women are just not technically inclined like men and they are really trying to push for more women to get hip to the internet.
I think I will write a letter to the editor and ask what their intention was on it.
In advertising there is the basic two model approach. The 'Winner' the person you would like to associate or identify with, and the 'Loser' the person you would not want to associate with. That variable has been done over and over, whether its from a racial perspective or a weight/body image perspective etc.. Now it seems that its men as the 'Loser' women as the 'Winner'in the majority of ads these days.
Then again, Microsoft may want total monopoly, a socialist government still needs computer software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 08, @10:47PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I have MSN as my 'homepage', for now.
...For now.
But in the short time that I have had it, I have noticed again and again all sorts of anti-male articles and such.
I go on-line to get AWAY from TV and it's endless male-bashing. Seems you can't escape it no matter WHERE you go.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
