Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–227 of 227 posts

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#221

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rhizome wrote: post #218
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True - for all businesses in which there is only capital involved and no people [or animals, or environmental concerns, or ...]. Capital may be amoral, but the people using it certainly are not.

People can be amoral. The word wasn't coined only to apply to things that aren't people.

Seems I'm wrong. I was working on amoral as meaning without morality rather than without concern for morality, so excuse my ignorance. Under my (wrong) definition I was expressing that people's actions always have moral consequences as that appeared to me the contrary of what the parent was suggesting.

Thanks for calling it out

The sibling comment by s73ver however remains valid I feel, capital is unconcerned with morality but people are concerned with it in general (not being so is considered a mental illness).

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#222

Post by jerf »

coolgeek wrote: post #214
jerf wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't right wing. This is just crony capitalism. Find the "right winger" of your choice and ask them what they think about this. Part of the way the cronies keep us in line is to direct our fire at "the other wing", instead of at them. There is approximately nobody in this country going "Hooray, finally our right to be spammed by telemarketers on the phone that I pay for is being respected!"

I'll put Tom Wheeler (or any Democratic appointee) up against Ajit Pai, Michael Powell (or any other Republican appointee) any day when it comes to which side is more pro consumer and which is more pro big monopoly. > Part of the way the cronies keep us in line is to direct our fire at "the other wing", instead of at them And part of the way the right wing justifies its atrocities is to claim that "both sides do it",…

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant a right-winger that you know in real life, or can find on the street if that is the empty set, not some politician.

"And part of the way the right wing justifies its atrocities is to claim that "both sides do it", "both sides are the same" or some similar flat out bullshit."

Both sides may not be the same, but both sides do do it... because in a lot of ways, they aren't "both" sides but the same side wearing different masks, at that level. That is, again, that high rarified Federal level, not the people on the streets. You're not "seeing through" their game... you are right where they want you to be. You're even strongly suggesting that you're fine if your side does it as long as you get to yell at the other side and dismiss their claims about what "your side" does. Unsurprisingly, "your side" is suited just fine by your willingness to do this, and they take you up on your offer quite often.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#223

Post by coolgeek »

jerf wrote: post #222
coolgeek wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll put Tom Wheeler (or any Democratic appointee) up against Ajit Pai, Michael Powell (or any other Republican appointee) any day when it comes to which side is more pro consumer and which is more pro big monopoly. > Part of the way the cronies keep us in line is to direct our fire at "the other wing", instead of at them And part of the way the right wing justifies its atrocities is to claim that "both sides do it",…

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant a right-winger that you know in real life, or can find on the street if that is the empty set, not some politician. "And part of the way the right wing justifies its atrocities is to claim that "both sides do it", "both sides are the same" or some similar flat out bullshit." Both sides may not be the same, but both sides do do it... because in a lot of ways, they aren't "both" sides but…

> not some politician

tl;dr No True Scotsman.

> they aren't "both" sides but the same side wearing different masks, at that level

I showed you irrefutable evidence that one side is pro consumer and one pro business. And yet, you still insist that they're the same.

I mean, it was even your example (FCC Chairs), so it's not like I went out cherry picking

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#224

Post by s73ver »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #215
s73ver wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't care. There are extremely few instances where that's actually the case. And it still doesn't excuse the fact that the job is evil.

But it is something to take into consideration when you're punishing someone. You're actively making someone's life worse - you can argue that it's for a good cause, but you can't look away from the collateral damage, even though it's small.

No, it isn't. And I'm not doing a thing. They made the choice to do evil. They are the ones that made their life worse.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#225

Post by Sir_Substance »

threeseed wrote: post #138
kaslai wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All phones services I've used charge for total usage, regardless of the initiator. If someone calls me, I still get dinged for every minute I'm on the line, same as if I placed an outgoing call. (Granted, I've only used pay-as-you-go type services, so perhaps other services are different.)

Apparently only the US and Canada charge the phone owner for incoming calls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_services#Incoming_calls Europe, Asia, Australia etc all charge the caller.

Wow, dick move. Getting charged for the incoming call is something I associate with getting ripped off by roaming call charges.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#226

Post by rhizome »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #221
rhizome wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can be amoral. The word wasn't coined only to apply to things that aren't people.

Seems I'm wrong. I was working on amoral as meaning without morality rather than without concern for morality, so excuse my ignorance. Under my (wrong) definition I was expressing that people's actions always have moral consequences as that appeared to me the contrary of what the parent was suggesting. Thanks for calling it out The sibling comment by s73ver however remains valid I feel, capital is unconcerned with mo…

(not being so is considered a mental illness)

It absolutely is not. Here's just one example, and note that the defendants did not plead insanity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

I can find many, many more examples of both overt and subtle rejections of moralities you appear to think is a requirement for a functional life in society, but even without that we can find capitalist amorality all day every day in the form of fraud.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#227

Post by kaybe »

dentemple wrote: post #124
kaybe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is getting a new number a bad option for you?

It never helps.

I seem to have a very good number. I never got a call from telemarketers. Might be the German laws or the fact that I have had that number since the dawn of mobile phones.
Post reply on HN