You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-68 points

“Stealing I can accept, but having an opinion that’s different from my own is where I draw the line.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points
  1. Piracy isn’t stealing, primarily since the victim still has the pirated goods and can continue to sell them, but doubly so since people who pay for those goods legitimately don’t own them and are at the complete mercy of the company to continue to access them. History is rife with examples of companies removing access to digitally paid for goods with no explanation or recourse. Look at the recent PlayStation fiasco, or Warner Brothers cancelling Infinity Train and Inside Job (and pulling the completed seasons from streaming services) because they wanted a tax write-off.
  2. Questioning the validity of science and half the global population’s worth of empirical evidence and endangering oneself and others purely to be contrarian, and, more importantly, continuing to support someone who calls immigrants vermin and quotes Mussolini in his campaign speeches goes beyond “having a different opinion”
permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Warner Brothers cancelling Infinity Train and Inside Job (and pulling the completed seasons from streaming services) because they wanted a tax write-off.

WHAT THE FUCK, as if the cancellation wasn’t bad enough, I only now learned they removed Infinity Train from streaming. Fuck you WB

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This is one of the reasons why piracy exists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They also cancelled the completed film Coyote vs ACME with John Cena, for a tax write off. I’m surprised it hasn’t found its way to the seven seas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-38 points
  1. Questioning the validity of science is precisely how science is done. You form a hypothesis and design an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Reading papers and just believing everything they say, taking for granted that the people who wrote them carried out the experiment(s) exactly as described, didn’t fudge any numbers, and declared all their conflicts of interest and sources of funding accurately and unbiased, isn’t.

  2. Making your own discussion platform because you don’t like the other ones that are available is no worse of an offense than going to a different room. Lemmy literally IS such a place that was created because people didn’t like what was happening on reddit. Basically, what you’re saying is that YOU deserve a safe space because your opinions are valid and correct, and other people don’t because theirs are wrong. I don’t know, man… sounds kinda fascist if you ask me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Scientists do not question the concept of science. They challenge results of tests by performing new ones to replicate the proposed results.

I think maybe you need to retake some high school classes

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*
  1. Questioning the conclusions that scientists before you have reached is something that is good to do if you have the tools to do your own primary research and publish your own study. If you don’t have the tools to do your own study, looking at the hundreds of papers out there in peer-reviewed journals (peer-reviewed meaning multiple independent teams of scientists did the experiment as described and got the same result the authors did) all showing the same results are about as good as you can get. If you don’t trust Big Science, just look around you. Take for example the question of whether the vaccine is safe to get. A common argument I heard was that people didn’t want to be guinea pigs, which would have been fair were it not for the fact that half the global population had already gotten it and less than 1% had any ill effects. As for whether it protects people from the virus, one need look no further than the endless stories from healthcare workers about the people they kept alive. All of the life threatening cases were from people who hadn’t gotten the shot.

Acting as though the conclusions scientists before you have reached are false because a podcast you follow said they were, without supplying any data to suggest such a thing, is a wholesale rejection of the scientific method.

  1. The person you replied to never said anything about Parler itself, let alone whether platforms that don’t follow the popular consensus should exist. That is unambiguously good. What they said was that the people who run Parler are fascist bootlickers, which, now that Trump has said in as many words that he plans to be a dictator, is true of anyone who still supports him.

  2. Can’t help but notice your response didn’t address the piracy issue. Can I assume we agree on that?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 8.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 264K

    Comments