Unauthorized reproduction or copyright infringements is more scary and dramatic than theft in some ways. Just look at the punishment for copyright infringement vs theft. One is waaaaaay more severe. It's almost akin to saying "You stole his life!" Instead of "you killed him!" Since severity of punishment for copyright infringements is pretty much up there with murder.
I googled but could not find source. I only found more memes based on this graph. Which isn't to say it's fake, could simply be in some research paper hidden away under a paywall. 15k sample is a very big study though.
The graph alone is highly problematic to make any argument though as it doesn't specify other critical axis such as age which would highly change the meaning of this graph. The older you are, T levels fall, but your IQ increases. So age alone can potentially explain the phenomenon we're seeing here.
My attempt to find the graph only resulted in many counter points, however.
Wtf pepe is considered alt-right because alt-right uses them sometimes??? I hear they also use English! Maybe English needs to get banned!
Here's the origin article from torrentfreak. https://torrentfreak.com/modded-hardware-defendant-denies-nintendos-copyright-claims-in-court-241006/
Shitty IGN is just re-reporting based on torrent freak with less info.
Just pay for a good offline sudoku app. It probably costs less than a cup of coffee. Then we'll all be happier.
Not sure who these foolishly brave Americans are who think they can beat an elephant and a grizzly bear bare handed.
Article doesn't say no attorney would take the case. It says they talked to a lawyer. And they're in limbo. Meaning they're still deciding how to pursue this matter.
“We’re still in this process of figuring out what to do,” she said. “We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen.”
So they're looking for the best approach. Not that there is a lack of approach.
An attorney would happily take a losing case. They get paid either way. Their job is to get the best outcome possible, not to win a lawsuit--though that may end up being the best outcome.
It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.
That's not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.
Sure, I'll play this game.
The premise of the convincing is loaded. No one deserves shit. Steven Crowder made the format famous and therefore he is attributed to it.
Whether or not the person is a piece of shit is irrelevant and ad hominem. If Hitler said 1 + 1 = 2, Hitler is right. You don't get to deny that just because you hate the person. Shitty people can make correct statements and they can achieve things. Doesn't matter which name we apply to it. We must be able to argue on the merits of the statement or format without sorting to personal feelings on the person, lest you become the one who is intolerant.
Not sure what the meme is referring to, but this is actually true in some aspects.
If there are 100 people in a room and 1 person is just super loudly talking the entire time, it silences out 99 people. The ability to talk of the 99 is silenced by the 1. If you limit the amount the loudest can talk, you give the other 99 more freedom of speech. From a utilitarian view, you gained more freedom of speech as a whole by reducing the freedom of speech for one.
People who say things like these generally conflate the concepts of "I want to remove others' right to freedom of speech" with "my freedom of speech was taken away" when they often want to do the former.
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/2563385
This isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism isn't about using the words "what about", it's about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It's a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.
The person you're responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I'm not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.
Article states it's the cost of only the last and third subpoena. Since the first two were struck down in court already, they're arguing making the exact same request again for a third time afterwards is just waste of time for everyone.