Good action can also be a way for bad actors to buy good will so they can extend their other bad actions. Plus some of these actions are done on the interest of furthering the interest of the bad actors.
An example is Meta striking deals with telecom operators to offer unmetered access to Meta services making Facebook synonymous with the Internet in some countries.
>Good action can also be a way for bad actors to buy good will so they can extend their other bad actions. Plus some of these actions are done on the interest of furthering the interest of the bad actors.
We talking tech or Hell's Angels' teddy bear runs.
Oh, wait....
The second sentence of the first post was explication of the sentiment described and criticized by the preceding sentence. It is the sentiment I am calling out.
The first post could or should have been more clearly written with an em-dash, but then people would start calling me a clanker. /s
> Actor and action conflation is incredibly common these days — If someone is bad and worth condemnation, all their actions must also be bad.
My position: Bad person can do good thing for bad motives.
example: The evil wife beating doctor who saves a baby just because they get paid for it.
My "autistic" brain can recognize that saving babies is still a good thing. I don't have to like the doctor, or their reasons. For whatever reason, a large portion of people see a comparable situation and instantly start arguing that saving babies is bad.
An example is Meta striking deals with telecom operators to offer unmetered access to Meta services making Facebook synonymous with the Internet in some countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org
Actions and actors live in a context. Stop being so autistic and start looking at the bigger picture. You are not immune to propaganda.