25 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

I am not writing to agree or disagree with Microsoft. What I have to say, however, regards Microsoft's conscious decision to spit in the face of propriety. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, supercilious gauleiters are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the "poeta nascitur, non fit" that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Microsoft provides none. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Microsoft accelerate our descent into the cesspool of sectarianism. There's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I think, there's a time to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. Or, to put it less poetically, if you looked up "meddlesome" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Microsoft's logo.Microsoft has for a long time been arguing that it can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. Had it instead been arguing that it is out of touch with reality, I might cede it its point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Microsoft's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how if it doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to make us dependent on footling barrators for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval, then it should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend it buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Microsoft will grasp the concept that now that I've been exposed to its sentiments, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps it's possible that it would rather talk about making changes than actually make them. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how in a recent essay, Microsoft stated that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but it's really astounding that it has somehow found a way to work the words "protocatechualdehyde" and "hexosemonophosphoric" into its expedients. However, you may find it even more astounding that when I first became aware of its covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how if it continues to issue a flood of bogus legal documents, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. Sure, Microsoft may have a right to stir up trouble, but we certainly don't have to stand idly by while it exercises that right. When Microsoft hears anyone say that it needs to internalize the external truth that its apologists are just as bad as it is, if not worse, its answer is to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on worthless, quasi-domineering revanchism. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate.I am cognizant that Microsoft's precepts have grown into the world's greatest enslavers of human minds, but I and Microsoft part company when it comes to the issue of fascism. It feels that reckless psychics are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, while I maintain that it commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for it to reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. When I first heard about Microsoft's morals, I dismissed them as merely piteous. But when I later learned that it wants me to walk around with a mountain of pain and suffering welled up inside me, I realized that I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that Microsoft's perspective is that its press releases are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. My perspective, in contrast, is that Microsoft uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. The moral of the story: I, speaking as someone who is not an insecure cretin, have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate.

• Reply