MacOS: the choice of fuzzy thinkers!

[chipotle]

So I went to Joel Spolsky's Blog and saw a link to another blog criticizing the Mac Over-Faithful, which in turn led me to somebody else's blog--Brian Tiemann, a FreeBSD hacker and arguably one of the Mac Over-Faithful.

Reading this entry, I came across this fascinating analogy:

You want to know what it's like to be a Mac user? Watch some guys drinking Budweiser and marveling to each other in hushed tones about its bouquet and its body and bite. Or listen to someone who drives a Civic, gushing in rapture at its horsepower and its handling.

Better yet, listen to someone ascribing "moral equivalence" to the Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli forces bulldozing the homes of terrorism suspects, or claiming that 9/11 is no more reprehensible than the bombing of Afghanistan, because such a position is more comfortable for someone trying to fit in with the International Community?, regardless of how such a view might clash with our most deeply-held ideals.

Is it just me, or does anyone else get that run-off-the-road feeling, like you've asked a butcher to get you a couple pounds of ground beef and while he's feeding the meat through the grinder he's suddenly dropped into flashbacks from 'Nam, so even though you only set out to get stuff to make a nice cheeseburger you're afraid you're about to start having to duck semi-automatic weapons fire?

I read a bit more of Brian's blog, and--pardon the impending sentence construction--it hits one of my beefs about the way a lot of conservatives seem to express their beefs with liberals: arguments get reduced down to black and white, us versus them, or as George W. might say, "with us or against us." The idea that people might condemn suicide bombing and responding to bombs by razing the homes is evidently completely alien. And the possibility that people could simultaneously think the WTC/Pentagon attacks were horrific and that the bombing campaign against Afghanistan was an unjustified response? The hell you say! Couldn't happen!

No offense, Brian (not that I expect he'll read this), but this boils down to a very old, clichéd moral principle: "two wrongs don't make a right." I don't think Israel's responses in the ongoing intafada have been helpful, at all. That's not a statement of support for Arafat's leadership (which by any realistic measure has been abysmal). And while I don't think there are many people anywhere, including most of the Muslim world, shedding tears for the Taliban, that doesn't automatically mean the war against them was a "just war," to borrow a Catholic phrase--and America's continued operations in the region seem to increasingly be misdirected against civilian targets (as intelligence provided to us by Afghan political factions vying for power against one another becomes increasingly unreliable). Does anyone really think that acknowledging that means that I support blowing up office buildings?

Even if I come out and assert that America's Middle East policies have heightened tension in the region, do you think that means I think terrorism isn't reprehensible?

And just how did we make the leap to this from the funny (and logically defensible) Civic and Budweiser examples? That has to do with people being unable to tell the difference between the pedestrian and the superior, which is what Mac zealots usually claim about PC partisans. The same logic doesn't apply to the second examples. Flying passenger planes into skyscrapers is, when measured against acts of terror and war committed against civilians, certainly not pedestrian. And "violence should not be met with violence" may not be a statement you agree with, but it's pretty obviously not in the same category as "all beers taste the same" or "my Civic is as good as your Porsche."

And what the hell does any of this have to do with the Macintosh?

Comments

[chastmastr.livejournal.com]

Wow. :O Yes, run-off-the-road feeling, indeed!

I love Macs and see them as very much better than PCs. But... eeee...

Who can sit there and be unmoved by the sight of someone writing text into Microsoft Word-- with a pen?

I can. Oh, my God! It's -- so awe-inspiring! My heart -- it can't take this excitement! I can't bear it! Oh! Oh! Whups, just had a spontaneous orgasm at the very thought! Oh, here comes another one! A PEN! My God! A PEN!! A PENNNNN!

A bit over the top, isn't he?

"We want to see Apple's efforts recognized. We see them as a lone guy bailing out the Titanic with a bucket-- no matter how hopeless it may look, he's still pumping away, jaw set, teeth clenched, ignoring the jeering lifeboats full of people who just want to feel more secure in the choice they've made."

Oh dear. This is just Not The Best Analogy. I jolly well hope he's not being prophetic.

"Almost nobody who has anything bad to say about Apple has any facts to back it up. It's all just paranoia and ignorant sloganeering, and just as we refuse to buy it when protesters burn American flags in Gaza and publish Jew-killing tracts for the exhortation of their neighbors..."

GAH. Goodness. This person Has Issues. Or needs a decent handbook about proper use of analogy.

Maybe he needs a religion or something. Only, if he were promoting mine, I'd be really embarassed.

I love Apple, Mac, etc., but for God's sake, it's only a computer.

Arguments with conservatives...

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

It's a matter of black and white, as you say. People like that cannot differentiate among different colors. If you disagree with one iota of their position, then you obviously agree with the exact opposite of their position.

I wouldn't normally worry about them, except that they have the bad habit of getting elected.

Cryptonomicon, or the New Hotness

[dmlaenker.livejournal.com]

My Civic may not be anywhere near as good as your Porsche, but it runs on regular, gets about five times better fuel economy, and is not, for some reason known only to God, hermetically sealed with the hood welded shut.

Also!

[dmlaenker.livejournal.com]

One thing that you have to understand about blogs, blogging, and bloggers is that, in perhaps diametric opposition to LiveJournalists, the most popular ones are usually the most conservative.

[prickvixen.livejournal.com]

It's occurred to me that I ought to support conservatives in their every endeavor, because with their lack of vision they're more likely to bring about the downfall of mankind.

[kareem.livejournal.com]

I was going to write a nice, wryly cheerful comment in reply to Brian and Mac-elitists until I checked out some more posts in that blog. Unfortunately I came across one post which was made on Sunday, July 7, 2002, entitled, 17:56 - Moooom, make the freaky Muslims go away. So I think: okay, so this guy's got the tact equivalent of sending in a dog lover to the intensive care ward of a children's hospital and explaining to one child's parents who's daughter was brutally ravaged by a rottweiler that there aren't any bad dogs, only bad owners.

In this post he cleverly dissects a letter written by a Muslim fanatic--conveniently forgetting all the Christian fanatics the world has spawned--with highlights and his own carefully thought out sub-text before coming to the ultimate conclusion that all Muslim’s clearly won't be happy until all Jews are dead and Christianity is abolished. His final solution remains unspoken, though he pretty much advocates military action against a third world nation filled with relative innocents, the majority that have an extremely low literacy level and no access to current events. He even makes a reference, comparing the Qu’ran’s account of the Jews trying to kill Mohammed to a child crying about his favourite Pokemon character dying in a battle for Christ’s sake! Does he spend much time watching Pokemon, or better yet, around young children!? But let’s not get personal.

The problem here, essentially, is that it’s easy for someone to take an objective view of a situation when they’re sat behind their 21in flat screen or in their parents basement (I get a twinge of irony as I’m writing this from my parents conservatory, though I don’t have a flat screen monitor) but to take a multiple-subjective view of a situation is infinitely more humbling. How would you feel if you were the father---or mother--- of a son who was shot ‘accidentally’ by Israeli soldiers? After your own offspring were killed, would you freely offer yourself to the local terrorist faction as a simple bomb laden puppet and step onto a bus filled mostly with Israeli soldiers? Hell, would you even bother to wait until the bus got there, it’s not as if you’ve got much to live for past your mud hut and three goats?

But no, I don’t agree with people blowing themselves up as an act as retribution, but I won’t pretend I can’t imagine why they do it. Even Tony Blair’s wife said; “While the Palestinian youth have no hope, they’ll keep blowing themselves up.” You can imagine the fuss that caused. The next day headlines hinted she was a terrorist sympathizer that then prompted a weary looking Prime Minister to spend hours at press conferences using the straw man technique to bail his wife out of the dirt. Amazing.

I guess this is my long winded way of saying I think this guy’s a jerk.

[prickvixen.livejournal.com]

>Reading this entry, I came across this fascinating analogy:

>>regardless of how such a view might clash with our most deeply-held ideals.

What is this 'our'? I've never been part of 'our'... have you? I'm sorry, but a phrase like 'our most deeply-held ideals' is to me equivalent to 'once upon a time' or 'the land of the sugarplum fairies.' Whenever somebody makes a statement like that you can pretty much write them off as narrow-minded. 'I shall assume all of you believe what I believe, and if you don't you're clearly scum.' Who is the possessor of 'our most deeply-held ideals'?

Or maybe I'm just a mutant. Do you wake up some mornings and feel yourself struck by realization that you're surrounded by retarded children with guns?