And a possible fifth choice, as this is a privately owned site: As with the 'news stories', let the staff decide the stories to be covered in PRSI - i.e, have the staff post the thread title.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why stopped allowing comments after 11 comments on Cook letter story.
- Thread starter Expos of 1969
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
And a possible fifth choice, as this is a privately owned site: As with the 'news stories', let the staff decide the stories to be covered in PRSI - i.e, have the staff post the thread title.
I can see some being upset if it were to pass that PRSI loses the ability to be an open forum. Additionally what would be the difference with the "Political Forum"?
Oh, gosh, yes, so can I.
But, as a privately owned forum, I can see that the arguments for and against having to provide a space or a place for public debate (notwithstanding the whole first amendment stuff) don't really, or necessarily, apply, in this particular context.
The forum could simply decide to create threads, and set (and police, enforce, or patrol) parameters, or boundaries, of debate and discussion.
I'm not American; by stating that fact, I am simply - merely - making the observation that neither the First Amendment (nor the Second Amendment) define my life, and nor I do have any attachment whatsoever to them, emotional, cultural, or otherwise.
Having said that, personally, I'd hate to see PRSI curtailed or curbed.
For one thing, I've learned a lot from it.
And for another, - on top of the tech - I think it a little disingenuous for some to ask that only tech matters be considered on this forum, not least because Apple's labour and tax policies merit discussion, examination and interrogation, and I'm not entirely certain that such policies can be excluded from discussion of the specs and price (among other matters), without missing some of the wider dimensions to this discussion.
And, moreover, behemoths such as Apple earn far more than many national governments on the planet (and thus, exercise an excessive influence - political, economic, cultural, social, - on some of those national governments, and, more ominous still, are not accountable to the electorates and governments of some of those countries where they have a say on policies; I don't see how this can be over-looked in wider discussions of the whole tech industry - the old, notion that power comes - or ought to come - with responsibility, and so on.)
And, nor do I wish to see it transformed into a crude slug-fest, or a forum where insults can be traded in lieu of (preferably informed) discussion and/or debate.
While I think that the anonymity afforded by the online environment, and the increasing polarisation of (above all) US politics, - where political preferences also serve as a short hand for issues of cultural identity, - contribute to - and enable and facilitate - this coarsening of the socio-cultural-political environment, the forums where these "debates" take place merely reflect (and occasionally amplify) these differences; they don't cause them.
None, really.
As for Tim Cook's letter, and the story arising from that, well, given the ghastly and shaming horror of what has happened this week, and given his role (in Apple, i.e. not just a common or garden CEO, or captain of industry, but someone of importance in the Apple universe), perhaps the forum could consider a means of contriving or engineering or facilitating a discussion on the topic.
Last edited:
All I can say is MR's choice to remain silent on this issue speaks volumes. Not sure if it's because they don't want to offend those who see no problem with Floyd's murder or if someone on their staff has a personal view on it, but it's too bad.
Why is it so important to you, that a private tech forum make an official statement to you about the death of Floyd? Are you seeking an answer to determine whether or not you will keep using MacRumors, or are you expecting them to issue an official statement, because so many other celebrities and other private individuals have made a point to make a statement, even if said persons probably weren’t asked to issue a statement to the media and public at large?
I have to say that I don't understand how this "speaks volumes" about anything. I can see how a major newspaper or news agency, various organizations, police departments around the country, mayors of Amercian cities, or leaders of other countries, etc. would be moved to make a statement. Those institutions, individuals, and agencies are the type of place we often look to to set the agenda or expect to take an official stance on important events in the world.
But as has been pointed out, this is a private internet forum about tech. I don't think it can be compared to the sort of entity I mention above. It never occurred to me that this sort of place would ever issue an official statement about anything not directly related to its specific reason for existence.
It's fine that you would like a forum where you're a member to make some sort of statement when something important happens in the world. That's your right. But to say that the lack of such a statement "speaks volumes" about anything or is in any way related to a staff member's personal opinions or a presumed desire not to offend some unnamed party, is a stretch to say the least. You're making an assumption about motive, but lack a basis to do so.
Last edited:
And Apple is a tech company, yet they came out with a statement that was summarily locked here at MR.
Like or not, the decision to remain silent has stated your position.
Last edited:
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
First of all, you're comparing a huge company to a private tech message board. I don't think that's a reasonable comparison in most any context, let alone the context of this discussion.
Second, your opinion is that a lack of a statement says something about how we think, as a group or as individuals. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.
Since there was criticism, an opposing view is fair game.
To me, that there is a space here within MacRumors called PRSI, where an open discussion can occur is what "speaks volumes". Not that the site owner has declined to issue a broad based message of unity with respect to this unfortunate tragedy.
As far as locking the thread, site owner already commented. Agree or disagree, it's their choice.
And finally, letting you discuss this in an open forum without censorship, speaks volumes.
You are engaging in logical fallacy to try and paint the staff of MR as being guilty of some kind of action, that apparently you have already adjudicated.
Logical fallacy is not logical and MR has nothing to prove to you. MR staff don’t owe you, me, or anyone else a statement on the death of Floyd.
Last edited:
Gonna agree with you here 100%. The company I work for also hasn't made a statement on the death. Nor has my local butcher nor family owned grocery store.
All that says to me if that there is no need for them to say anything.
Actually, it's their inaction that I'm referring to and like it or not it does make a statement. Additionally, shutting down responses to a story they chose so share on the actual subject matter only makes this statement stronger IMO.
Threads are closed for the following reasons, in my experience:
- They are duplicates
- They require so much moderation that we can't justify allocating all our resources to them.
- They are a reposting of a thread that has been shut down for reasons 1 or 2.
I hear that you disagree with our decisions and feel that they indicate a particular attitude. I'm saying this so that you are aware that you have made your position clear.
The only statement it makes, is that it may not be appropriate for an Apple rumors to post a message of unity. As someone else said, my local bagel store didn't either, but one could draw an inaccurate conclusion from that also.
Maybe the site owner will get this feedback and elect to send a message of unity from MR.
Fair enough, I appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to be heard.
Is it your position, that by not kowtowing to your logical fallacy expectation, MR is somehow becoming complicit in the death of Floyd? If that is what you are trying to shame people with, you have managed to make a complete pretzel of actual logic and facts for your own agenda, in my opinion.
I get where @ericgtr12 was coming from here. The death of Floyd has struck a major emotive chord with much of America - and for good reason.
Sometimes we, as a species gifted the ability to think and act based upon emotion and experience, tend to read more into a situation than there actually is.
I've personally lost track how many more times I've argued with my wife over something she didn't say, as opposed to something she did. And yes, most of the time the fault was mine for construing a deeper meaning into what she didn't say!
It's hard for us to grasp sometimes that the absence of a statement is noted often just an absense as opposed to an actual statement.
That's when the silence becomes deafening to some, fine to others.
Running a private commercial website can't be easy, and I know I've felt personally annoyed at the time when @Weaselboy has sent me the inevitable "stop being a ass" warning. However ultimately this is their site, and their rules, and I'm pretty sure they if I were to meet him face-to-face, we'd happily trade drinks as opposed to barbs.
So, in absentia a statement from @arn or @annk to the contrary, my belief is that there is no statement that needs to be made, so none will be made.
And that's fine by me.
Consider yourself invited over for a beer if you are ever in California!
Well stated, TT. While I do appreciate it when organizations actually do make a statement, that expectation may be a bit much and in the case of MR, they're not saying anything one way or the other which at least makes them appear neutral to the situation. I won't continue belabor that point and will agree to disagree as @annk offered up.
However, when one makes a statement on one side, while refusing to acknowledge the other, it speaks to the bigger picture. As you say that silence can be deafening and I've personally unfollowed friends on social media as a result. The current administration has emboldened some people to come out of the woodwork and put their bigotry on full display, as opposed to it being taboo only a few years ago. Something we're all contending with right now as a result, unfortunately.
All this said, if all the conversations in PRSI could be as civil as this thread the mods could take a day off.
I certainly disagree with this position, mainly because I assume that most other people are decent. Sometimes people need time to digest the information, sometimes they just want to stay silent and do hard work other ways (=me). Other times people don't want to comment because the environment is simply so polarized that if you post a "have a good day" some people will attack you and insult you (it happened to me, which is why I removed myself from social media again).
[automerge]1591899513[/automerge]
Personally I think that ALL the articles that would fall under PRSI should have the comment section blocked by default. If the users feel that it's worthy of further conversation, they can open a thread and do so, however the original article will not be tainted by the awful political comments, especially since the "Top Comments" section is right underneath the article.
Last edited:
Just an example, a friend of mine stays completely silent throughout the murder of George Floyd, the protests, etc. then a week later posts a meme with Blue Lives Matter, their flag and says "I stand on the side of the police!". That person is someone I no longer care to follow online. It's certainly their right to post it and it makes their position crystal clear. It's also just as much my right not to associate with who I consider to be racists.
That’s perfectly fair, but it’s slightly different than staying quiet.
I also have no idea why some people such as your friend see a contrast between supporting cops (in general) and acknowledging that what happened to Floyd was a brutal, unjustified, shameful, horrific murder by someone that shouldn’t have never been a cop. However that’s how political discourse is now - all a social media thing - and I am too old school for that.
I don't know his friend, but would put money on the fact that he DOES acknowledge that. He's simply reacting to the OVER-reaction against the police in general vs. the specific cops who are actually guilty. Doesn't make him a racist at all. I don't know why people throw logic out the window on these issues in their haste to accuse others of horrible things. People throw words like "racist" around WAY too loosely. I see a lot of "jumping on the bandwagon" mentality with this current situation by spreading hate and injustice, which is supposedly what they are against.
I think pretty much everyone agrees an injustice was done (and even more injustices in reaction by looters and rioters), but some people lose perspective/balance and make inflammatory statements and accusations in reaction, and then people react to THAT with other inflammatory statements and accusations, and it becomes a vicious cycle.
Last edited:
If one is going to take sides, a simple blurb acknowledging his death and that is was wrong goes a long way. They don't need to be outraged or over react in any way, any human being who watched that video and didn't feel something would have to be a monster IMO.
- Status