Tech Intolerance (Part 1)

There’s something I don’t understand… there is this thing that people do – a lot of people – that I just do not understand and I will likely never understand…it’s been going on for years, almost a decade now, and it just doesn’t make a lick of sense… It didn’t back then… It doesn’t now:

Why do people buy Apple products? (((A)t the end of the day, I just don’t get it… there are droves and droves of otherwise really intelligent and competent human beings out there that will line up for a tablet with a half-eaten fruit on the back… There is no amount of smoothness nor simplicity that is worth opening my wallet twice as wide… This has been called the “Apple tax” for as long as I can remember… It’s absolutely mind-blowing to me that anyone on this Earth and in this economy would buy an iPad mini and pay the Apple tax simply because it’s Apple…At the end of the day, I can’t stop folks from burning money.

If you think the opinions expressed in this article are an aberration, feel free to read the 255-plus comments.))

This is but one example of intolerance. It could easily be reversed and applied to the Apple fan who disparaged Android or to any one of an infinite number of intolerant assertions.

The Twisted Path Of Intolerance

In literature as in love, we are astonished at what is chosen by others.” ~ Andre Maurois

In tech, too, we are astonished at what is chosen by others.

PREMISE: It doesn’t make sense (to me);
THEREFORE: If doesn’t make sense (for anyone).

PREMISE: There is no reason (apparent to me);
THEREFORE: There can be no possible reason.

PREMISE: You are not using (the) reason (I would use);
THEREFORE: You are unreasonable.

PREMISE: Any intelligent person would think and act the way I do;
FACT: You are not thinking and acting the way I do;
THEREFORE: You are not intelligent.

There are two types of people. People like me. And people who want to be like me. ~ The Intolerant Credo


Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. ~ Ayn Rand

  1. Just because we don’t know, doesn’t mean it can’t be known.
  2. Just because we don’t understand, doesn’t mean that it can’t be understood.
  3. Just because we don’t have proof of its existence, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
  4. Just because we can’t see it, doesn’t mean that it can’t be seen.
  5. Just because we can’t fathom it, does not mean that it is unfathomable.
  6. Just because we don’t get it, doesn’t mean that it can’t be got.
  7. Just because it’s not right for us, doesn’t mean that it’s not right for anyone else.

Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure. ~ Reinhold Niebuhr


The fundamental contradiction contained in intolerance is one of locus. We don’t understand others. But we can’t be at fault because we are smart. So we employ a form of mental Jujitsu. If we can’t understand you and if we are smart then you must be dumb.

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality. ~ Ayn Rand

We do not hear a persuasive argument; we cannot articulate a reason that explains the actions of others; we don’t see sufficient proof to overcome our convictions, so we conclude that OTHERS, not ourselves, are deaf, dumb and blind.

get-a-brain-moransIt is the equivalent of concluding that if we do not understand the theory of relativity, that Einstein must have been a moron. Oh, pardon me — I mean, a ‘moran’.

Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason. ~ Ayn Rand

THEIR reason, not OUR reason.


For my grandfather, there were two kinds of people in the world:  Those who agreed with him, and those who hadn’t yet agreed with him.” ~ B. Spira

It’s the usual thing of tech obsessives mistaking their tastes for that of wider public. ~ Charles Arthur (@charlesarthur)

Whenever something gets easier for the masses, there will always be a neckbeard there to complain about it. ~ H.C. Marks (@HCMarks)

Intolerance is not about living as we wish to live. It is about asking others to live as we wish to live. ((Inspired by Oscar Wilde))

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~ Voltaire

The intolerant refuse to grant others the right to think and decide for themselves. And perhaps more importantly, the intolerant refuse to grant others the right to be mistaken.

Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right. ~ Mohandas Gandhi

The intolerant ask the wrong questions. They ask: “What is right and what is wrong.” But when it comes to personal taste, there is no one single answer to those questions. There are as many answers as there are individuals residing on the planet. It’s not a question of what’s right, it’s a question of what’s right for us.

There are no right answers to wrong questions. ~ Ursula K. Le Guin

— The intolerant place the onus on others.
— The tolerant place the onus on themselves.

— The intolerant ask: Why do you not understand?
— The tolerant ask: Why do I not understand you?

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. – Robert Heinlein


You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.

You cannot overcome ignorance with knowledge.

The voice of reason is inaudible to irrational people. ~ Dr. Mardy’s Aphorisms

It has been my experience that the less we know, the more certain we become.

The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it. ~ Ayn Rand

It’s hard enough to acquire knowledge when we’re actively seeking it. It’s all but impossible to acquire knowledge when we’re actively resisting it.

There is nothing you can’t prove if your outlook is only sufficiently limited.” ~ Dorothy Sayers

Our ability to learn and change is, perhaps, only surpassed by our refusal to do either.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. ~ Douglas Adams


Men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all. ~ Voltaire

Why bother to counter the Trolls if we know that they are impervious to reason?

I can think of at least two reasons, one noble, one practical. First the noble.

The phrases that men hear or repeat continually, end by becoming convictions and ossify the organs of intelligence. ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

It may sound overdramatic, but I truly do fear the memes of this world. There is reality and perception and in the world of nature, reality is the only thing that matters and perception is merely its shadow. But in the minds of men (and women), the laws of nature can be reversed: the shadow can engulf the substance, and perception can become reality.

It is therefore, in my opinion, crucial that we contest nonsense and falsehoods lest they be perceived as truths merely because they are repeated over and over again.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. ~ George Orwell

Falsehoods must not be sanctioned either in word or in deed, but most insidiously, by one’s silence.

Evil requires the sanction of the victim. ~ Ayn Rand

Next Week

Next week I shift the focus to how we treat our customers — how our intolerance for the very people we are supposed to be serving undermines their satisfaction and sabotages our success. Further, I will attempt to introduce a time-tested method used to counter our all-too-human tendency to disparage our customers.

Published by

John Kirk

John R. Kirk is a recovering attorney. He has also worked as a financial advisor and a business coach. His love affair with computing started with his purchase of the original Mac in 1985. His primary interest is the field of personal computing (which includes phones, tablets, notebooks and desktops) and his primary focus is on long-term business strategies: What makes a company unique; How do those unique qualities aid or inhibit the success of the company; and why don’t (or can’t) other companies adopt the successful attributes of their competitors?

63 thoughts on “Tech Intolerance (Part 1)”

  1. It looks more like you are talking more about brand intolerance than tech intolerance.

    This kind of brand intolerance occurs everywhere. I am a bit of a car nut and read a lot of car forums, and exactly the same thing happens. Every brand has fans and detractors.

    Apple gets a bit more detractors in computer circles because it stands alone, it runs it’s own OS, that it doesn’t share.

    It would kind of be like: if all the car companies on earth only produced Gasoline powered cars, and only one company produced Diesel powered, and they only produced Diesel powered cars. Fans of every Gas powered brand would have the diesel company as it’s main target.

    1. Apple also…

      -Locks out competing stores (anticompetitive, anti-consumer, limiting)
      -Censors (as a consequence)
      -Imposes itself as it’s users IT department. (Both a value proposition and burden).
      -Has the least hardware versatility
      -Is an industry leader that can push through the above.

      These things (can) go against the values of what we perceive to be “fair play”. We wouldn’t tolerate them from out political leaders (I hope), why would we from our tech providers? No, I’m not talking about Apple against it’s competitors, I’m talking about the impact on customers.

      The first two points are the most egregious, and I can’t fathom support for them. This was mentioned in the article. If you want to only buy from the App Store, that’s your right. Why would one care about, much less support, restricting where fellow users do their shopping?
      As far as censorship, it’s indefensible.

      1. “…go against the values of what “we” perceive to be “fair play”.”

        I think you meant to type “I”.

        A walled garden ecosystem is likely a benefit it most users. Protecting user from malware, and developers from piracy. It’s part of the reason Apple has the strongest and cleanest app ecosystem.

        1. It’s likely a benefit if they choose it. I have no objection if it’s the default state, as in Android, but again who, other than the user, is to decide?

          1. Dictatorships exist because they are efficient, in fact the most efficient form of government ever. What fails in a dictatorship is the quality of men, not the form of government. The overwhelming majority of people on this planet would gladly accept a benevolent dictator in charge of the whole shebang. The problem is in finding someone with the level of nobility and sacrifice to rule justly. And even if you found one, s/he wouldn’t live forever. You’d face a problem of noble leadership every lifetime.

            As for your points re: Apple, I often ask myself why fans of Android are content to allow themselves to sacrifice their privacy and, thus, their freedom to become commodities. But there are some people who would choose to become slaves if they had the option. Apple’s “walled garden” is a sensible trade-off for many, indeed a “benevolent dictatorship.” It’s efficient and gives people a manageable level of personal choice. I don’t view Android as a superior option because it supposedly gives you “choice.” Indeed, you may be able to choose from a greater range of devices but, if you want the true Android experience, you have absolutely no choice in becoming a commodity for Google to sell.

            BTW, I don’t own ANY Apple products.

          2. Lest you think I’m an Android fan, I do own Android (and Surface 2 Pro, and Macbooks, and iPhones, and Sony, Lenovo and Samsung laptops, heck my wife even has an iPad), let me inform you that I’m not a fan of any company at all. In Apple’s case, I’m an anti-fan.

            As far as dictatorships go, they are vulgar. When control of my property and my content are controlled by someone other than me, unwillingly, it is vulgar. No matter how efficient you claim it to be.

            Why do you care where I might shop? What does it matter to you? How does what I do with my device impact you one iota?

            As far as Google goes, I’m not here to defend them. The fact remains, however, that everything Google does is entirely OPTIONAL. They give away free goods in exchange for eyeballs and attention. It’s not required within any platform that you use their products. Apple, on the other hand SELLS you product AND imposes what you can or cannot do with it.

          3. “everything Google does is entirely OPTIONAL”

            I must be missing the Optional part here:


            “Google to block Windows users from installing browser extensions not in Chrome Web Store

            The company has announced that it will prevent Windows users from
            downloading and installing Chrome extensions from any source other than the company’s own Chrome Web Store.”

            This looks like EXACTLY the same thing Apple is doing with some of their products.

            So will you be hating on Google next? Or do you have a double standard?

          4. Okay. Thanks for the reference. I wasn’t aware of that. It’s JUST as contemptible then, and does not invalidate anything I said about Apple. But on that platform (PC) I do have a real choice on using Firefox, or IE, Opera, etc. without having to change hardware. And, oh, “One more thing”, Apple showed the Google’s and Microsoft’s of the world that they can get away with this crap.

          5. “One more thing”, Apple showed the Google’s and Microsoft’s of the world that they can get away with this crap.”

            Not true at all. Microsoft was the king of anti competitive behavior and destroying competition by any means, by changing there software so that the competition could not run there browser on there os as proven by there convictions in this country for anticompetitive behavior and in the EU.

          6. I agree with everything you said. No question, just one exception. Microsoft never, ever, explicitly forbade a program.

          7. As others, particularly Defendor, have pointed out, Apple is not unique in this behavior and Google is not exempt. I really don’t have a problem with your position, I just wanted to point out that:

            1) it isn’t unreasonable for some people to trade some level of choice for efficiency. In fact, in many circumstances, it’s completely rational and;

            2) Google is no angel. Using Google products is akin to having to give a pint of blood every time I go to the largest supermarket chain in town. Sure, I could go to another chain but they don’t offer bread, eggs, milk or meat.

            I happen to agree with your general point that “choice” in many situations, such as the one you’ve outlined, is a matter of semantics. But that applies to using Google products as well.

            BTW, the analogy isn’t great but I hope the meaning is at least discernable.

          8. The one thing that’s unambiguous is that on PC’s (yes, and Macs) this is entirely a non-issue. The platform is open and unrestricted. I don’t have to buy a new device to run Firefox, Openoffice, or anything else available. Even more importantly, there’s no policing of what’s available. There’s no reason mobile devices can have that latitude.

            Also, just because I slam Apple, does not mean I’m willing to defend other’s. Apple is simply the most egregious IMO.

          9. @klahanas:disqus ” There’s no reason mobile devices can have that latitude.”

            Really. No reason, or benefit at all from a curated ecosystem? That is a completely one sided view. This is again another example of the problem under discussion. I see both sides, pros-cons to either system. Detractors can only see the cons.

            “Apple showed the Google’s and Microsoft’s of the world that they can get away with this crap”

            Apple didn’t introduce closed ecosystems, Microsoft was there in with the Xbox in 2001. Years before iOS existed. But I get it, Apple is the great evil force that introduces the ideas you don’t like.

          10. And I submit to you that forcing curation as the only option is the one sided view. No one is forcing openness, or even suggesting it. It should be there for when you want it though. Would you be as okay with curation as the only option on your PC?

            Oh… you’re drawing analogies to gaming consoles? Really? That’s one of the reasons they aren’t a productivity computer. (Though some hackers did load Linux onto them). I trust you don’t hold mobile devices to that standard.

          11. No one is forcing you to buy an Apple device, and there is no secret that they have a walled Garden

            You continue to ignore the advantages of a walled garden.

            I submit that MOST users are happier with a stronger-cleaner ecosystem, and MOST developers are happier with almost no piracy.

            You have choice in the Market, to buy into a walled garden, or not. There are pros/cons to each approach.

            You want it only your way and see no benefit to the alternative. Exactly the problem the article is highlighting.

          12. “The fact remains, however, that everything Google does is entirely OPTIONAL.”
            Are you truly that self-deceived? Google makes its money off of your very identity, and the identity of all thus multitudinous others who, knowingly or not, give their identity over to Google. In the past, we watched TV and had commercials shown to us that were not directed at us specifically. With Google, that is no longer the case.

            For a person so very determined to maintain their “freedom”, you have an odd way of demonstrating it.

          13. If you read my reply to Defendor, you will see that I modified my statement. I wasn’t yet aware of that news, as it broke that day. I’m not compelled to defend Google.

          14. the superiority of Android in my opinion comes from its versatility and the fact that anyone can put it in almost anything

          15. Dictatorships, even benevolent ones, fail because they become intolerant of that which would change things. Efficiency is far from being everything beneficial. Indeed, Communism basically morphed into a kind of dictatorship, and presumed that it would be benevolent as well. The result was, however, not benevolent and intolerant of change. “Democracy”, OTOH, messy and often inefficient as it is, is tolerant of change.

            klahanas is wrong because he’s saying that Apple is a benevolent dictatorship. It isn’t. If it were the only choice that people had, like Microsoft used to be, then he might have a point. As it stands, however, it’s just ridiculous to say that Apple is, dictatorially speaking, another Microsoft.

          16. “Efficiency is far from being everything beneficial.” – Sacto_Joe

            This is a straw man. I mentioned efficiency as ONE reason some would choose a “walled garden” such as the Apple ecosystem. I wasn’t presenting that as a negative, quite the opposite. I think efficiency is a pretty good reason to choose an ecosystem and I have no problem with those who view the Apple ecosystem as attractive.

            As for dictatorships and democracy, they pretty much fail in equal measures. Every major democracy in history has devolved to dictatorship. I’m fairly certain that no major dictatorship has withstood the test of history either. Efficiency is a distinct advantage of dictatorships, for good or ill. Tolerance of change and adaptibility is a distinct advantage of democracies and republics.

            Apple could be viewed as a “benevolent dictatorship” metaphorically speaking to those who choose to reside in its ecosystem. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The point I was trying to make is that even dictatorships by their very nature are not “bad,” just different. There are advantages to a benevolent dictatorship as there are to democracies. Calling Apple a “benevolent dictatorship” should not be an insult. Some people prefer an efficient, highly-managed system. The phrase has negative connotations but the actual form of government is about as good or bad inherently as every other political system. The failure is in the people, not the systems themselves.

          17. You can’t choose to play in somebody’s backyard and then claim its a dictatorship. You chose to play there, not the “dictator.” You can’t blame the owner for enforcing rules.

            Nobody forces anybody to purchase anything. You have the freedom to choose Apple products or one of its competitors. You also have the freedom to change your mind and switch products any time you like. However, if you choose to play in Apples backyards, then its not a free-for-all. Implementing rules does not equate to a dictatorship.

          18. I’m not playing in someone’s backyard. I paid money and I own it.
            There’s also the flip side of things…
            I may choose to buy more if things weren’t this way.

          19. Herding_sheep is right, klahanas. You’ve chosen to grouse about a product that you yourself chose to buy with your eyes wide open.

            Sell your hated Apple product, then, and go buy an “open” product from another brand. Ironically, when you do that, you’ll be getting back far more than you will should you ever choose to sell your “open” product.

            Apple’s decisions that you’ve chosen to see as locking you personally in are actually freeing people every day. That you are completely blind to that tells me in no uncertain terms that you fit perfectly the very definition of one who is technologically intolerant.

          20. If being technologically liberal makes me technologically intolerant, then I don’t know what to say to you.

          21. “A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship.” – klahanas

            A dictatorship involves force. Unless a government intervenes, no company in a free market has any ability to force you to do anything. One has to voluntarily purchase their products or services.

            Words have meanings. It’s important to use them correctly. (See my thoughts on “memes”, above.)

          22. Force is but another form of coercion. If I have iOS devices, and I do, I am coerced into purchasing exclusively from the App Store, due to lack of options. Jailbreaking is not an option since I can a) potentially void my warranty b) potentially violate the DMCA. Both these are Apple claims.

          23. If one prefers yellow but only has red or blue from which to choose, it’s semantics to claim that s/he has a “choice.”

            I wouldn’t completely discount the economic dynamics or market distortions that “force” (and I use that word very carefully) consumers to make arbitrary compromises.

          24. “If one prefers yellow but only has red or blue from which to choose, it’s semantics to claim that s/he has a “choice.””

            In this instance, one is easily able to pick yellow. In this context, it’s sold by Apple’s competitors. What you seem to be railing about is that you can’t force Apple to give you an Apple product that is “yellow”.

            If I make a car, and you rail about its inability to be used as a boat, then that doesn’t make me a tyrant. It does, however, make you look pretty darned silly.

          25. Actually I wasn’t railing about anything and your argument is a strawman. My point is that “force” takes different forms. It can be strongarm or coercion or it can be based on market dynamics that limit choice. Force isn’t always arm-twisting, sometimes it’s encouraging arbitrary compromises.

          26. But doesn’t your opinion go back to intolerance ?
            You feel that Apple is committing atrocities against you and you can’t imagine why anyone else can’t see this (your opinion). So you question why apple users would put up with this. When in REALITY Apple users see the walled garden as a very big reason for owning apple.
            Again intolerance.

          27. If I’m intolerant, it’s being intolerant of intolerance…
            Again, if Apple had their suggested defaults, their suggested vision, as they impose now, what forces YOU to change it? If Apple frowns on Flash, what forces YOU to run it? If Apple allowed alternate stores, what forces YOU to shop elsewhere?
            The answer to all this, of course, is absolutely nothing. But by IMPOSING these requirements, and being INTOLERANT to options, it is this position that’s intolerant.

      2. “As far as censorship, it’s indefensible” – klahanas

        Censorship is done by governments or its done by force. Any individual or corporation has every right to pick and choose what it buys and sells. This is not censorship. Again, definitions matter.

        1. I don’t say this sarcastically, I respect you too much to pull a dictionary definition.
          Apple has every right to censor their own store. They have every right to decide what they sell. Where they become de facto censors is when they make themselves the only allowed store on the platform.
          Further, the late Steve Jobs, single handedly banned all Wiley publications on iOS because he vainly objected to one book they published about him. I’ve been informed that the ban was temporary, but what disturbs me was that it was even possible.

          1. I agree with you but I think this is more a flaw with capitalism in its curent incarnation than Apple. It’s related to a complex set of circumstances that leads to a distortion in the market.

      3. “-Locks out competing stores (anticompetitive, anti-consumer, limiting”

        Untrue on the face of it. Plenty of stores other than Apple stores sell Apple products. And Apple does not undercut their prices; quite the contrary.

        “-Censors (as a consequence)”

        Apple products are often used by the young. Censorship to protect their formative minds is essential.

        “-Imposes itself as it’s users IT department. (Both a value proposition and burden).”

        Again, untrue on the face of it. Not four blocks from my local Apple store is an Apple-authorized private repair store.

        “-Has the least hardware versatility

        Your basic unmitigated hogwash. Apple is far more integrated, and thus far more versatile, than any other competitor.

        “-Is an industry leader that can push through the above.”

        Was it always thus? Apple won this capability by dint of superior effort and ingenuity. Unlike several of its competitors.

        What you perceive as going “against the values of…fair play” is in fact the very essence of fair play, unlike so many of the strategies that have been leveled against Apple by its competitors. And its customers are the clear beneficiaries. That you are blind to that makes FalKirk’s point.

        1. -Obviously, I was speaking of the App Store. I’m quite aware of both Best Buy and Apple stores.
          -On censorship, if that’s your point, I rest my case.
          -Permitted software, no filesystem access, general control of device is an IT function.
          -Absolutely least upgradable devices in each of it’s classes. That’s what makes it least versatile. Can’t even modify RAM or swap HD post purchase on most MBP models for instance.

  2. “There is reality and perception and in the world of nature, reality is the only thing that matters and perception is merely its shadow. But in the minds of men (and women), the laws of nature can be reversed: the shadow can engulf the substance, and perception can become reality.”
    I absolutely love this statement! Thanks for the thought.

    1. That’s a darn good reason.

      Unfortunately, it’s more often the case that our heads are the ones that are exploding. 😉

  3. the thing is those who love Google and Android are mainly fan of technology, the majority of them are geeks and techies who want to advance technology in the most open way to as many people as possible.
    while on the other hand, those who love Apple are mainly Apple fan, they are in love with what Apple does or doesn’t do period hence the disconnect

    1. This is actually a pitch perfect example of the kind of unthinking intolerance that the article is talking about.

      PREMISE: Any intelligent person would think and act the way I do;
      FACT: You are not thinking and acting the way I do;
      THEREFORE: You are not intelligent.

      You can’t grasp the benefits of Apple products, so you just label the buyers as unthinking sheep that blindly follow Apple.

      The problem is actually your inability to perceive those benefits, and put yourself in anyone’s shoes but your own.

      1. I do not think that it is a matter of not grasping the benefits of Apple products, but rather the attitude of those who promote it as superior using the most trivial argument,

        1. And your attitude is somehow better? ONLY Google and Google fans “care” about advancing technology? Do you even realize how obnoxious that statement is? Passionate Apple fans and Apple themselves don’t care equally about advancing technology?

          Your view is so incredibly narrow and one-sided that you’ll do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to fool yourself from facts.

          1. my point was simply that those who love Google and Android, the Loudest voice are primarily Geeks and techies, who are obsessed with open source projects, open system, new Features, Low or cheap, price, and big corporation that spend a lot of money to help bring new technology to as many people as possible,

            contrast that with those who love Apple
            the Loudest voice are analysis, business minded folks etc. who Love the quality of Apple product, his dominance and it’s statue symbol,

            can’t you see the disconnect between the two group

  4. I find that, sometimes, people who have used technology for a long time still get angry with people using technology in a way that they feel is not the “proper” way. i.e. “You use your iPhone as your camera? You really should get a DSLR.” I think this is because so many domains that used to require specialized knowledge, like photography, now require almost none, thanks to technology advances. The people who built up the specialized knowledge to be successful in those domains are now trying to maintain their status as the elites in that domain as it is democratized.

  5. “It may sound overdramatic, but I truly do fear the memes of this world.
    There is reality and perception and in the world of nature, reality is
    the only thing that matters and perception is merely its shadow. But in
    the minds of men (and women), the laws of nature can be reversed: the
    shadow can engulf the substance, and perception can become reality.” – John Kirk

    When I get into a ponderous exchange, I do it for others who may read it, not the one with whom I’m having an exchange. They’ve generally already made up their minds.

    1. Precisely.

      When I spent way too much time on Usenet arguing with woo woo peddlers and Creationists, I gave up on any idea that I was ever going to convince a “UFOs built the Pyramids” idiot to change his mind. But there was no question in my mind that these empty a-historical fabrications had to be seen to be challenged at every turn by people who may not even be participating but where certainly reading.

      Many in tech blogs decry the fray because it occurs in the rarefied atmosphere of virtual mediums, but I know for a fact that the worst characterisations of Apple, it’s products and it’s customers leech down to the rank and file of consumers. Couple it with partisans in big box stores (conversations staff have with consumers regarding HiDef TVs and sound systems make me want to burn all Best Buys to the ground) and the nonsense that friends and family routinely parrot back to me is infuriatingly wrong.

  6. Memes: contagious mental constructs, the causes of Rhetorical Fever[1], that mental illness that renders its sufferers both impervious to reason and zealous in their desire to infect others. Worth being frightened of.

    [1] The term “Rhetorical Fever” is lifted from Doris Lessing’s novel Shikasta.

  7. “There is reality and perception and in the world of nature, reality is the only thing that matters and perception is merely its shadow.”

    Until you start thinking in terms of quantum theory.

    In Relativity perception is reality.

    I think I got this quote from you, JK:
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” –George Bernard Shaw

    So in reality (sorry, I couldn’t resist that) is intolerance reasonable and more likely reality? Or is it the unreasonable (such as yourself) trying to change reality?


    1. “Until you start thinking in terms of quantum theory.”

      That’s why I don’t think about quantum theory. 🙂

      “So in reality is intolerance reasonable and more likely reality? Or is it the unreasonable (such as yourself) trying to change reality?”

      I think intolerance is the norm and its not going away. But – as I hope to show in my series of articles:

      “When you change the way you look at things; the things you look at will change.” ~ Wayne Dyer

      1. “”When you change the way you look at things; the things you look at will change.” ~ Wayne Dyer”

        Ahh! See? Perception is reality. 🙂


        1. Actually, the very act of observation, of measurement, alters the reality. You saw where it WAS at the time you saw it…
          Don’t blame me, blame nature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *