BoulevardBlvd @ BoulevardBlvd @lemmy.blahaj.zone Posts 0Comments 104Joined 1 mo. ago
I'm guessing it's whatever the next 7 poorest states are but hard agree they should list them
It would be very strange at this point to not see him be forced to spin them off. I mean, this is the trump admin. Anything is possible, but this is egregious (and also it would benefit musk if he was forced to do so)
Containment was a myth. They've been everywhere else the whole time. They're just forced to keep quiet on sites with moderation. This is only positive
There is no policy which discord could enact that could protect children because they're not in the room with the child. What they want discord and other websites to do is impossible and not their job
I mean, it would make no sense to call me a bot so yeah
Wait I'm confused. Did you just admit to being a bot account?
North Korea is balmy too. I just don't get why anyone would risk it
Being South American doesn't make it any less likely to be put into a concentration camp for jaywalking
Despite recent events, the camps weren't built with holding North Americans in mind...
I mean I guess but I'm more disturbed by the fact that they have so much tourism given the fact they've had concentration camps for years
Who the fuck was going to El Salvador?
Anyone genuinely considering ever touching poilievre again is a traitor to their country. Britain fell to them, the US fell to them. If anyone still can't take the hint they're genocidally stupid.
Gestures vaguely at 2011 socal and then vaguely at today socal
More specifically Maga didn't exist and conservatives were far less damaging, or at least less overtly damaging such that it was less socially acceptable to overtly despise them.
But again, I was a child and that at least colors my memory of 2011
Joy... Thank you for your help
The recontextualisation of this piece 14 years later is crazy
We were so naive (with the added context that I was still a child when this came out, lol)
Weird. You called me evil when I suggested it as the correct way to pay creatives and everyone else. Maybe your problem with my argument is your own reading comprehension.
Sure, call me evil because I can see the harm it will do. That's easier than having to think about what I said and consider the fact you might be wrong. But if I'm evil then you are the literal devil. That kid who wants that tuberculosis medicine, how do you think we got that medicine? A company invested millions to research it. So when the next disease comes around and it's killing millions and no one is willing to just burn millions to find a cure because they have no IP, those deaths will be because of people like you. You have this childish mindset that after IP is gone everyone will magically have meds in their hands and everything will be perfect. No, you're just as dumb as you are evil. New diseases will come up, no one will invest in curing them because they will lose money, and people will die. The difference between me and you is I can see more than 1 month into the future on how this would effect things.
Prove it cunt. Show me a single fucking time in all of human history where people didn't try to cure disease because they couldn't make money. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You buy dumb shit like this hook line and sinker. You're an idiot who thinks they're smart and it's killing children. There is absolutely zero evidence proving anything about IP is responsible for any disease cure. There are no actual studies proving it because it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition to say altruism doesn't exist. But you're so fucking braindead at this point you actually believe it
No. IP does not improve the healthcare system in any way. Spreading these lies is why I called you evil. Because they're the reason children are dying. You're correct I am also evil. Our body counts are identical. I just have the human decency to feel shame about it.
And there it is! Finally! You entered a discussion of theory: a discussion on what the ideal is. A discussion where no one is talking anything about the mechanics of getting there and you decided to completely ignore that and start talking about "compromises" and "reality" as though it made you smart to completely miss the discussion actually taking place.
No, I will not "join you in reality" (i.e. Talk about policy) because we are not discussing policy, we are discussing theory. That is what was posted, that is what everyone around you is talking about.
The question posed is "what should be?" You don't get to pretend that's a discussion of what is and walk away like you made a point.
Also, no shit the ancient Greeks paid for art. I wasn't making a claim about the Greeks. I said before the industrial revolution as in "just before the industrial revolution" and no, even then it wasn't perfect. But both that and the Greek system was a completely different beast to what we have today and you know it!
Stop being a smug asshole and actually engage with the discussion or fuck off. Nothing you are saying is relevant to the actual discussion. I'm advocating for a completely different social structure and you're saying "but that wouldn't work under our current system"! It's not a compelling argument, it's the whining of a child who is choosing not to comprehend what's being said because it makes you uncomfy
No. Before the industrial revolution participating in art wasn't something you did to make money, it was a prerequisite to a full human existence. Art isn't a job art is humanity. Art isn't pointless, art is the point. I'm not arguing against art. I'm arguing against "creator" existing as a social function or identity. Look into the concept of commodification. You'll learn a lot
I'm saying that people shouldn't "be able to live" off of art the same way they shouldn't "be able to live" off breathing and further.
I am ignoring the ripple effects on people's lives because those effects only hit them as far as they have allowed themselves to participate in the selling off of their humanity.
And no. It doesn't extend to free speech because free speech isn't an argument solely used to prop up a system that shouldn't have ever existed at all.
Art is not pointless, but it shouldn't be something you buy or sell. Many things we buy or sell today are the same. Art is not unique.
But the argument that an artist in the Netherlands keeping their job because otherwise they'll starve is a justification for a child in Sierra Leone dying of tuberculosis when the person paying for the art has the ability to give the artist food and the child medicine is evil. And make no mistake, that person is you.
IP abolition is one single part of a much larger reform we need, and anyone who is arguing against it is missing the forest for the trees. That is my argument.
Wanting artists to be able to be paid for their work obfuscates the much larger, actually important issue that they'll starve in our society without their art. That is evil.
That's what I was thinking! Except last time I heard it a decade ago there wasn't any actual evidence and it was only antivax homeschool weirdos talking about it. I'd love to hear from anyone who read the actual study to see if this is real this time. Not about to trust the same people that ran "a glass of wine a day is good for you" at one point. US news doesn't have actual science communicators and their popsci headlines are universally trash
Edit having now read the guardian article: only proved my point. The only thing they cite is the California prop 65 which is absolutely useless as evidence of possible harm. I'm genuinely asking for the real paper or someone who read it here because nothing from OP is of any use and the guardian doesn't cite their sources (which sucks! because it might be genuinely dangerous and I have no idea! I don't want to poison myself but this very well could be bullshit!)
Why on earth does every interpretation you have start with the assumption that people advocating for the destruction of IP are not also simultaneously arguing for the destruction of any company who could find a workaround? You're approaching this from the silliest angle ever. The person you're arguing against doesn't exist. Anyone who is truely against IP also wants any company who is currently profiting off of IP to be destroyed along with it
It's such a weird take. Also, "creator" shouldn't be a job. Nothing that isn't critical to human survival should be part of the monetary system. Art should only exist for arts sake and everyone should be afforded enough time to pursue it fully without worrying about survival
No IP + universal income is the only moral way forward