Quote:
Originally Posted by saskflames69
At the end of the day, all moral bs aside, it's about money. Do I really care if those big companies lose money?
|
Which is a concern on both sides. Companies don't view individuals as people, but simple walking sacks of cash which they can pull income off of. As such, they feel free to attack as they please. On the flip side, people don't view the people in companies as people. They view them as heartless automatons. Each of the guys working there (well, most) return to their family each and every night, like the guy scraping together a living who just got his pants sued off him. Not to mention, if the companies turn south, the first to lose their jobs probably are the same work-a-day people in the company, who are also just trying to make a stable income. As unfortunate as it is for those seeking change, raging against a company will first kill the lower-tier jobs, then work its way up as the company fails to generate profit.
It's a real fascinating topic and the concept of Dunbar's number plays a unique roll in this I think. The theory itself suggests that we can only view so many meaningful social relationships (Wikipedia sites 100-230. I have seen it go up and down). From this, we can see in human nature that, in order to comprehend individuals past this mark, we have a tendency to stereotype and make 2D characters out of people in order to attempt to accommodate it. I'm sure most people reading this have difficulty imagining an individual writing this, the same way we may have difficulty considering that [insert your least favourite CP member] is actually a a person at the end of the day. Cracked.com's "Monkeysphere" article provides an extremely good background on the concept in this connection.