Unanimous_anonymous

I'm generally a fan Swift's music, but I remember listening to this song and just thinking it was the feminine version of a white night incel. I get it's supposed to be the song "all of us" felt like when we were in middle school or high school watching a crush date someone, but anyone older should view the song as a "what not to do" song.

I assumed it was to sarcastically "twist" there idols. Kind of like the "Jesus being a dick" memes.

I think the difference can be drawn in parallel to cigarettes: an unfiltered cigarette is worse than a filtered one for smoking. Both are obviously bad for you, but if you're stacking carcinogens and other health concerns, eventually you'll reach someone's breaking point. I don't think anyone is claiming alcohol is healthy, but I also don't think the response should be "it's already unhealthy, so this isn't won't stop anyone". Every risk associated decision we make adds to the statistics pool for whether we get sick. Mitigating that might actually worry someone enough to switch to a healthier (not healthy) form of alcohol consumption.

Full disclosure, I agree. I also don't think he's actually going to see jail time. My comment was more along the lines of what I think will happen: we will cut all of these deals to catch him, and then nothing will actually stick. I would give my left nut to see him be sentence and serve time. I'd give my right nut to see it carry the full weight his crimes actually should.

But see, here's the thing. They, like, provided us information so we can really ~~formally convict~~ Slam™️ the Republicans they conspired with. That'll show them they were on the wrong side of history this whole time! That has to be worth, idk like, 500 years in jail, right? Waaay better than actually sending literal traitors to our country to jail.

This week, it's been A Farewell to Arms by Machine Head. The song just builds into something incredible.

In that vein, Devil in a Midnight Mass by Billy Talent is an easy go to when trying to "capture" their sound. Such a great band I finally got to see live for the first time this year.

I live in Florida, surrounded by red and I'm from a red state/area. To be clear, I think it's PERFECTLY VALID to hold the thought "my money and stuff are mine and I should have a say who gets to use it". And to your point about democrats: yeah that's effectively what I mean. Universal health care and paying for college are publicly funded from....other people's money. Most Republicans I've talked to wish we had either or both, but balk when taxes are raised. They would rather be the ones to decide who gets a portion of their paycheck from an understandable hesitancy to have the government be the one to decide who gets the money. Republicans see that prudence as necessary, and most democrats I know see that as an unwillingness to contribute to the "greater good".

I think the defining difference is whether that sharing extends to just friends and family, or if it becomes more egalitarian and extends to everyone. From my experience, Republicans tend to stop at the former, and Democrats tend to stop at the latter. There is also usually differences in what they're willing to share to both parties, namely money.

I think that comment is saying the opposite of what you're saying

FOSS is made because people want it to be made and made available. People who make games and art vary between it purely wanting to be made and wanting to make a profit off of that. If you're dense enough to think saying you value something at $0 and then still enjoying it like the other people willing to support the IP, then you're an asshole.

There is a balance between what the creator is allowed to value their idea and what people are willing to pay for that idea. If they can't find a middle ground, then the transaction shouldn't occur. If you force that transaction by stealing their idea and efforts, you're being a thief. What you use to justify your actions is up to you, but you're a thief nonetheless.

It is theft, but the argument is better framed as to whether or not it's moral theft. Most people who pirate feel comfortable pirating from larger corporations over small time creators/groups, with the usual justifications you've provided above. Personally, I've justified it at times because I couldn't afford to purchase the thing, which leads to another argument of "if I wasn't going to buy it in the first place, is it actually effecting them".

There is no argument to be made, however, where it isn't true that if you were to have purchased it, the owner of the idea will make more off of it. Whether you care or not about that owner getting more is a different argument, but you are robbing them of value for the idea, however little that value might have been.

I'm not arguing for or against pirating, but people in the comments saying it isn't theivery really seem to be arguing whether stealing is wrong or not. Call it what it is and go back to the argument people have been having for thousands of years.

Which, I realize I didn't address libraries. Taxes pay for libraries to operate, and then the library pays to have copies of the works. If no one wants to read my book, libraries aren't going to just go out and buy thousands of copies. And trying to tackle libraries would also start to erode arguments for reselling something. And to bring it back to the OP, I've read books in a library before that I enjoyed enough to purchase a copy of my own. I've also read books I haven't. But someone purchased that book for me to rent, and in a small part, I've paid for that book myself by paying taxes.