I can tell you don't have anyone in your life suffering from debilitating disease, so I'll assume flippancy rather than malice here.

That's what wartywhoa did to a commenter who was in no way suggesting a fascist view.

That's not worse faith, that's simply pointing out that aligning your ideological opponents with Hitler is intellectually dishonest.

In this you and I agree: "dismissing all criticism because it draws a parallel you don't like isn't reasonable."

Yes, you've shown yourself quite ambivalent to any notion of truth. You'd just as soon call someone Hitler and be on with it rather than try to understand another human's perspective. Pat yourself on the back, friend.

It's a spectacular bit of pride in oneself to try to silence someone's opinion because you found an abstractly-similar statement made by an evil man. Why probe the idea when you could just assign Hitler's evil intentions directly to them?

It's gross. It's tired. I wish people cared more to engage in good faith.

If Mao had said it, it would've been "absolutely communist", if Washington had said it, it would've been "absolutely Patriotic".

Oi. Discussion on this site gets more difficult each day. Instead of pointing out where you disagreed you just pulled out the most egregious appeal to authority and said, "oH yEaH?"

All of these arguments presuppose we're losing something that's not worth losing.

I want someone to start one square earlier and argue to me why that matters. I've read enough of these "your skills are atrophying!" arguments; I'm also making like 10x as much revenue as I did through a business that delights my clients. Why should I care about my "skills" if I'm still able to make money, pursue hobbies, and enjoy life?

I just don't think it's that serious.

It's not pretty, it doesn't look very functional. The selling point is "a bigger screen", but never once in my life have I looked at my phone and thought "Make it bigger."

Indeed, which is to say not clean at all.

"Only slightly dirty" and "much dirtier than mine" are fine judgements to console yourself of your involvement, but if you intend to indict a man, you'll need much stricter standards than this.

To be completely clear: I agree with your moral assessment. I too would not work for Facebook due to my moral qualms with the company. However, it is a terribly dangerous game to begin judging a man's choices when you know nothing about him.

Before long you'll convince yourself that you're the only decent man around and the rest are less-than-human.

While we may say the cowardly bystander has less moral character than the one who would risk their life to attempt to stop the murder, surely you cannot mean the witness is as guilty of judgement as the murderer? You cannot mean they deserve the same sentence.

I will, for the sake of my own sanity, assume you mean that the witness is a coward. You are indicting their moral character. There is a degree of self-sacrifice that you might personally find more or less agreeable in a man. Fine.

But merely witnessing the murder is not complicity, just as merely working at Google is not complicity. Whether society is "ok" with the cowardly bystander not preventing murder is not, in my eyes, what this discussion is about.

What next? Will we compel all men to live to our standard?

Go on, next you'll tell me about how your hands are clean. You've never so much as touched a product that made someone's life worse.

Somehow those who cry nonstop about the rich are even more insufferable than the rich.

There is not a single vehicle produced by Ford, GMC, or Chevy that I'm interested in owning.

You are correct and yet it's a straw man. At no point did the author advocate for everyone knowing everything.

He IS advocating that everyone know something. A position that is increasingly, comically, tragically untrue.