'The point is that most people here don't critique or analyse what is put in front of them, they just spout off the usual "bad government" or "good copyright violator" crap without a second thought.'
Could you be more specific; am I one of those people?
"Fair enough, but what about things like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". If that's OK, then it's an OK word to use."
I can't say I've ever watched the show, but from what little I know about it I wouldn't want to use it to defend anything. Regardless, some people use the word as an endearment, usually friends or those who aren't heterosexual themselves (see usage of the word nigger for a comparable case). Two of the Queer Eye creators are openly gay. It can be an offensive word though, even the dictionary agrees with me on that.
"Also, someone being called a faggot or pansy does not always imply that someone's a homosexual, nor does being a homosexual imply that you are a faggot or a pansy."
It wasn't my intention to imply that those words refer specifically to homosexuals. They were merely brought up as examples of commonly heard offensive terms.
"They still may sound grating to you"
They don't sound grating to me, what I meant was that I find the commonly offensive usage of the words grating. Unless you're being ironic then queer is an offensive word to refer to gays. If you're being ironic then it helps to make sure you're distinguished from those who use the word offensively. A show devoted to gays, by gays, is damned obviously using the word ironically.
"No, I was trying to make the point that humor is humor, and someone being hypersensitive about something does not negate or change the intent or meaning. "
But context does distort it. Your intention doesn't matter if the audience is unaware of it. While I admit to being the one at fault for missing the context, it serves as an example of using irony to mock something then potentially backfiring and having the opposite effect. You apparently don't like people making homophobic comments, or you probably wouldn't mock them, so I would hope you find it equally important to not seem homophobic yourself.
"I'm not sure why for me to not care if someone is gay or not, that I would also need to "respect" them if they were (or were not). I respect people based on their behaviors and accomplishments, not because of their sexual orientation, race, hometown, favorite sports team, etc."
I think you're muddled about my use of the word respect here. I mean respect as in treating equally, not treating better.
'For example, one of my heroes, someone I do respect, James Randi came out as being gay somewhat recently. I feel bad for the pain that he felt having to hide himself, but when it comes down to it, I don't care... His sexuality wasn't something that I ever wondered about. So no, I don't "respect" that someone is gay, the same way I don't "respect" when someone is straight.'
You can care about the fact that he was oppressed without caring about the fact that he's gay. I'm not sure why you believe that you don't respect when someone is straight. You seem to be using an overly narrow definition of respect.
"I used the term 'kink' to make it more of a general statement that I honestly don't care what consenting adults do to each other. "
Referring to homosexuality as a kink implies that it is merely an abnormal sexual practice, rather than a wider issue. You also say that you honestly don't care about what consenting adults do to each other, which implies that the issue is about a decision only adults can make. Obviously that wasn't your intention, but by narrowly defining the issue as something to do with sex between adults you have completely disregarded all gay children. That shows a lack of respect.
"Either way, I'm going to punch out on this one, because well, this is a discussion to be had over a good six pack... and if we did meet over a sixer, I'm sure you'd find we had more in common than you may realize."
I would find that prohibitive as I don't drink alcohol.
"I absolutely can not believe that this comment did not win the funniest comment of the week award. I thought it was hilarious, I definitely voted for it and was expecting it to win."
Maybe I didn't find it as funny because I'm not a big Facebook user, but I think the more likely reason is that it was posted so late in the week. I didn't even see that article until today.
"it appears to me that as soon as someone expresses a dissenting opinion they are called names and run out of town."
I can't say that I've noticed such a thing (at least no more than anywhere else). Personally, I tend to take a much more open and easygoing approach to people who aren't regulars and aren't posting anonymously and I've noticed others doing the same. If you feel you're being victimised then it may be because you post anonymously and people aren't as inclined to treat you as an individual.
'I am a firm believer that good critics help any cause. Critics force people to think rather than just posting the usual rhetoric and "preaching to the choir."'
Good critics don't need to hold diametrically opposing views. I would argue that you're more likely to get criticism which will actually refine your ideas from people who mostly agree with you than those who don't agree with you at all. Both are good to have, but neither are as important as the ability to analyse and communicate.
"So, here is a plea to AC, AJ, et. al. Please step it up a notch. We are counting on you to make TechDirt stronger."
I'm not so sure it's a problem. If you're critically analysing the people you tend to agree with as much as the ones you don't then the us V them concept should be irrelevant. If people aren't critically analysing the people they tend to agree with then they should be, as much as they should be critically analysing their own views.
"None of it is true censorship. Censorship is really when an otherwise legal point of view is shut off, so people cannot get any access to that point of view."
Using any position of power to exert control over information may be considered censorship. You have the issue the wrong way around when you say people cannot get any access, as it is not the person accessing the information who is censored. If someone doesn't read an article because it comes up with a government mandated warning saying 'don't read this article' then that is censorship.
"You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law."
The two are not mutually exclusive.
"If you consider this censorship, then you consider all laws to be censorship, which would be silly."
Censorship is not really an inherently bad word. The reason it tends to be considered bad is because people tend to believe free speech to be important, so censorship is treated with caution. Laws that require advertisers to tell the truth are technically censorship, but you may not find the same people arguing against them as might argue against censorship on this issue.
"More importantly, if you consider it censorship, then the Kool aid is having the desired effect"
That's what you consider to be the more important part of your post?
"How you can hire someone to do a job for you give them money AND THEY RETAIN THE RIGHTS TO THE WORK YOU PAID FOR"
Think about it in terms of record contracts. While when you're commissioning a specific work it seems obvious that you want to be able to claim ownership of that work, the reverse may also be true for artists under general contract. Just because you do something while being paid doesn't necessarily mean the person paying you should be able to claim ownership.
'I wrote the song while waiting for the gig to start, but I was writing it for my solo album'.
"Unlike child porn, which is criminal no matter what."
I think it's worth pointing out here that something has to be judged as child porn for the term to apply. A picture of a naked child may be variably defined as porn or not.
Not that it impacts your point in any way, just worth pointing out.
"The gardens were cultivated and authored. The plants were cultivated and the layout was authored."
You missed my point. I agree with your statement, which is a fair summary of my first point. Then I went on to explain why it doesn't matter because they clarify the issue in the rest of the judgement. So, really you've made that point too, by failing to acknowledge the second half of my comment.
"I don't think the fact that people sometimes lose money legally is relevant at all."
Feel free to leave the discussion any time.
"More to the point, I don't think that something must be measurable to an absolute certainty to be worth considering and weighing, even against a cost that is more certainly measurable."
Neither do I. But we're not weighing carefully thought out economic estimations here, we're weighing the words of organisations who are notorious for lying (or being 'creative') about anything to do with money.
"I mean, if that were the case, we wouldn't consider the future lost earnings of someone paralyzed in a car crash, because we'd care more about the defendant's measurable legal expenses."
We're not comparing future lost earnings, we're comparing supposed previous lost profits. Plus, in your example the equivalence would be whether there was an injury, not the damages involved.
"That is to win a case, not to file a case and proceed to the discovery process."
From West's Encyclopedia of American Law on prima facie: "A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff".
An IP address only provides evidence of the subscriber, not the infringer. You cannot say that it is presumed that the subscriber is also the infringer, because that's a baseless assumption.
"I'm not saying it is, but I don't think that's necessarily some absurd proposition. I wonder what the percentages actually are. In other words, is the person who signed up for internet service usually (i.e., more than 50% of the time) the one using that service and associated IP address. "
Given that the burden of proof starts with the plaintiff, I would hope that they could tell us. Regardless, here's a start: "The number of one-person households has been on the increase worldwide. In 2006, the number of single households worldwide reached 202.6 million (up from 153.5 million in 1996), accounting for 11.8% of total households."
It goes on to say that the percentage for North America is just under 27%.
"There are certainly lots of reasons for that, but I'm not aware of anything suggesting that failure to meet the low standard needed to simply file a lawsuit and proceed to discovery, based on an IP address, is the reason."
Perhaps you could offer some other possible reasons. I'm sure they're there, but to assess the possibilities I would need to know them.
"Look at the up and coming use of the term Ginger. It could be used as a compliment, an insult, or as a flavor/ingredient. "
Which is why context is important. Having not seen your other comments (or connected it with Anon's previous comment which was further up the thread), your comment seemed homophobic. In future I will endeavour to make more effort than reading the parent post to get the context.
As for the meaning, while the exact origin of gay being used as a general derogative seems unknown, it came about around the same time that the gay community made widespread use of the word to describe themselves. While both uses might be OK for people not sensitive to such issues, for the rest of us it's as grating as hearing someone called a faggot, or queer, or a pansy. The people who defend such usage tend to ignore the fact that none of those using it seem to be aware of an origin other than homosexual or happy. Generally words used as a disparagement are meant as a comparison, saying something is shit implies that your opinion of it is on par with your opinion of faeces.
"Just about all jokes, regardless of intent or subject matter, can be seen as offensive to someone. "
I love offensive jokes. I watch South Park, Sarah Silverman and many other edgy comedy shows and acts. What they tend to have in their favour though, is that it's obvious they're mocking the very idea that's offensive because that is part of their comedy persona. I'm also a big fan of freedom of speech, including the freedom to call people morons when they're being bigoted, whether it's funny or not.
"the offensive content that you detected said a lot more about your background and sensibilities, than it did any of my thoughts on homosexuality"
No, it didn't. You are building the idea that challenging humour only happens because someone is hypersensitive. That is bullshit, not least of which because the only reason I thought your comment needed challenging was because I didn't understand the context. That may say something about my observational skills but it says nothing about my sensibilities, which are coincidental. Had the same comment been said by someone who wasn't being (apparently obviously) sarcastic then I would have no reason to apologise for suggesting it was homophobic.
"which by the way, is I don't care what someone's kink is"
Homophobia isn't always about hate, often it is merely a lack of respect. For example, referring to homosexuality as a kink implies a lack of distinction between sexual orientation and lifestyle choice. That doesn't make you homophobic, but it does suggest a lack of understanding about the issue.
Technically, books are written and authored. I don't think the distinction between cultivated and authored is the point, as much as the distinction between cultivated and written, painted and recorded. For your point to hold you'd have to ignore the rest of the judgement, which further clarifies the point.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you be more specific; am I one of those people?
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't say I've ever watched the show, but from what little I know about it I wouldn't want to use it to defend anything. Regardless, some people use the word as an endearment, usually friends or those who aren't heterosexual themselves (see usage of the word nigger for a comparable case). Two of the Queer Eye creators are openly gay. It can be an offensive word though, even the dictionary agrees with me on that.
"Also, someone being called a faggot or pansy does not always imply that someone's a homosexual, nor does being a homosexual imply that you are a faggot or a pansy."
It wasn't my intention to imply that those words refer specifically to homosexuals. They were merely brought up as examples of commonly heard offensive terms.
"They still may sound grating to you"
They don't sound grating to me, what I meant was that I find the commonly offensive usage of the words grating. Unless you're being ironic then queer is an offensive word to refer to gays. If you're being ironic then it helps to make sure you're distinguished from those who use the word offensively. A show devoted to gays, by gays, is damned obviously using the word ironically.
"No, I was trying to make the point that humor is humor, and someone being hypersensitive about something does not negate or change the intent or meaning. "
But context does distort it. Your intention doesn't matter if the audience is unaware of it. While I admit to being the one at fault for missing the context, it serves as an example of using irony to mock something then potentially backfiring and having the opposite effect. You apparently don't like people making homophobic comments, or you probably wouldn't mock them, so I would hope you find it equally important to not seem homophobic yourself.
"I'm not sure why for me to not care if someone is gay or not, that I would also need to "respect" them if they were (or were not). I respect people based on their behaviors and accomplishments, not because of their sexual orientation, race, hometown, favorite sports team, etc."
I think you're muddled about my use of the word respect here. I mean respect as in treating equally, not treating better.
'For example, one of my heroes, someone I do respect, James Randi came out as being gay somewhat recently. I feel bad for the pain that he felt having to hide himself, but when it comes down to it, I don't care... His sexuality wasn't something that I ever wondered about. So no, I don't "respect" that someone is gay, the same way I don't "respect" when someone is straight.'
You can care about the fact that he was oppressed without caring about the fact that he's gay. I'm not sure why you believe that you don't respect when someone is straight. You seem to be using an overly narrow definition of respect.
"I used the term 'kink' to make it more of a general statement that I honestly don't care what consenting adults do to each other. "
Referring to homosexuality as a kink implies that it is merely an abnormal sexual practice, rather than a wider issue. You also say that you honestly don't care about what consenting adults do to each other, which implies that the issue is about a decision only adults can make. Obviously that wasn't your intention, but by narrowly defining the issue as something to do with sex between adults you have completely disregarded all gay children. That shows a lack of respect.
"Either way, I'm going to punch out on this one, because well, this is a discussion to be had over a good six pack... and if we did meet over a sixer, I'm sure you'd find we had more in common than you may realize."
I would find that prohibitive as I don't drink alcohol.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re:
Maybe I didn't find it as funny because I'm not a big Facebook user, but I think the more likely reason is that it was posted so late in the week. I didn't even see that article until today.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
I can't say that I've noticed such a thing (at least no more than anywhere else). Personally, I tend to take a much more open and easygoing approach to people who aren't regulars and aren't posting anonymously and I've noticed others doing the same. If you feel you're being victimised then it may be because you post anonymously and people aren't as inclined to treat you as an individual.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re:
Good critics don't need to hold diametrically opposing views. I would argue that you're more likely to get criticism which will actually refine your ideas from people who mostly agree with you than those who don't agree with you at all. Both are good to have, but neither are as important as the ability to analyse and communicate.
"So, here is a plea to AC, AJ, et. al. Please step it up a notch. We are counting on you to make TechDirt stronger."
I'm not so sure it's a problem. If you're critically analysing the people you tend to agree with as much as the ones you don't then the us V them concept should be irrelevant. If people aren't critically analysing the people they tend to agree with then they should be, as much as they should be critically analysing their own views.
On the post: PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Today on Name That Fallacy we have the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Using any position of power to exert control over information may be considered censorship. You have the issue the wrong way around when you say people cannot get any access, as it is not the person accessing the information who is censored. If someone doesn't read an article because it comes up with a government mandated warning saying 'don't read this article' then that is censorship.
"You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law."
The two are not mutually exclusive.
"If you consider this censorship, then you consider all laws to be censorship, which would be silly."
Censorship is not really an inherently bad word. The reason it tends to be considered bad is because people tend to believe free speech to be important, so censorship is treated with caution. Laws that require advertisers to tell the truth are technically censorship, but you may not find the same people arguing against them as might argue against censorship on this issue.
"More importantly, if you consider it censorship, then the Kool aid is having the desired effect"
That's what you consider to be the more important part of your post?
On the post: PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Care to contribute?
On the post: PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
I remain ignorant of both.
On the post: Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo
Re: WTF?
Think about it in terms of record contracts. While when you're commissioning a specific work it seems obvious that you want to be able to claim ownership of that work, the reverse may also be true for artists under general contract. Just because you do something while being paid doesn't necessarily mean the person paying you should be able to claim ownership.
'I wrote the song while waiting for the gig to start, but I was writing it for my solo album'.
On the post: Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: missing for how long ???
Your evolution reference is an example of ignorance in action. Is it evolution you don't understand, or the effect of medical inventions?
Be warned that if you reply then you may end up with a lecture on basic evolutionary principles.
On the post: Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Welch Bunk
I switched the option for email notifications off at some point and can't find where to switch it back on =/
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That does nothing to address my points.
"Not a trial. If you don't like how the law works, ask your congressperson to change it."
I don't have a congressperson, I'm not an American.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
I think it's worth pointing out here that something has to be judged as child porn for the term to apply. A picture of a naked child may be variably defined as porn or not.
Not that it impacts your point in any way, just worth pointing out.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Where are all the lawyers?
Half-wit. I'll have to remember to add that to my CV.
On the post: Millennium Park Garden Deemed Not Copyrightable, Because Gardens Are Not Authored
Re: Re: Re: Word Play
You missed my point. I agree with your statement, which is a fair summary of my first point. Then I went on to explain why it doesn't matter because they clarify the issue in the rest of the judgement. So, really you've made that point too, by failing to acknowledge the second half of my comment.
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feel free to leave the discussion any time.
"More to the point, I don't think that something must be measurable to an absolute certainty to be worth considering and weighing, even against a cost that is more certainly measurable."
Neither do I. But we're not weighing carefully thought out economic estimations here, we're weighing the words of organisations who are notorious for lying (or being 'creative') about anything to do with money.
"I mean, if that were the case, we wouldn't consider the future lost earnings of someone paralyzed in a car crash, because we'd care more about the defendant's measurable legal expenses."
We're not comparing future lost earnings, we're comparing supposed previous lost profits. Plus, in your example the equivalence would be whether there was an injury, not the damages involved.
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From West's Encyclopedia of American Law on prima facie: "A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff".
An IP address only provides evidence of the subscriber, not the infringer. You cannot say that it is presumed that the subscriber is also the infringer, because that's a baseless assumption.
"I'm not saying it is, but I don't think that's necessarily some absurd proposition. I wonder what the percentages actually are. In other words, is the person who signed up for internet service usually (i.e., more than 50% of the time) the one using that service and associated IP address. "
Given that the burden of proof starts with the plaintiff, I would hope that they could tell us. Regardless, here's a start: "The number of one-person households has been on the increase worldwide. In 2006, the number of single households worldwide reached 202.6 million (up from 153.5 million in 1996), accounting for 11.8% of total households."
It goes on to say that the percentage for North America is just under 27%.
"There are certainly lots of reasons for that, but I'm not aware of anything suggesting that failure to meet the low standard needed to simply file a lawsuit and proceed to discovery, based on an IP address, is the reason."
Perhaps you could offer some other possible reasons. I'm sure they're there, but to assess the possibilities I would need to know them.
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why context is important. Having not seen your other comments (or connected it with Anon's previous comment which was further up the thread), your comment seemed homophobic. In future I will endeavour to make more effort than reading the parent post to get the context.
As for the meaning, while the exact origin of gay being used as a general derogative seems unknown, it came about around the same time that the gay community made widespread use of the word to describe themselves. While both uses might be OK for people not sensitive to such issues, for the rest of us it's as grating as hearing someone called a faggot, or queer, or a pansy. The people who defend such usage tend to ignore the fact that none of those using it seem to be aware of an origin other than homosexual or happy. Generally words used as a disparagement are meant as a comparison, saying something is shit implies that your opinion of it is on par with your opinion of faeces.
"Just about all jokes, regardless of intent or subject matter, can be seen as offensive to someone. "
I love offensive jokes. I watch South Park, Sarah Silverman and many other edgy comedy shows and acts. What they tend to have in their favour though, is that it's obvious they're mocking the very idea that's offensive because that is part of their comedy persona. I'm also a big fan of freedom of speech, including the freedom to call people morons when they're being bigoted, whether it's funny or not.
"the offensive content that you detected said a lot more about your background and sensibilities, than it did any of my thoughts on homosexuality"
No, it didn't. You are building the idea that challenging humour only happens because someone is hypersensitive. That is bullshit, not least of which because the only reason I thought your comment needed challenging was because I didn't understand the context. That may say something about my observational skills but it says nothing about my sensibilities, which are coincidental. Had the same comment been said by someone who wasn't being (apparently obviously) sarcastic then I would have no reason to apologise for suggesting it was homophobic.
"which by the way, is I don't care what someone's kink is"
Homophobia isn't always about hate, often it is merely a lack of respect. For example, referring to homosexuality as a kink implies a lack of distinction between sexual orientation and lifestyle choice. That doesn't make you homophobic, but it does suggest a lack of understanding about the issue.
On the post: Millennium Park Garden Deemed Not Copyrightable, Because Gardens Are Not Authored
Re: It is inconsistent
How so? Do you believe that a garden is a fixed medium?
On the post: Millennium Park Garden Deemed Not Copyrightable, Because Gardens Are Not Authored
Re: Word Play
Technically, books are written and authored. I don't think the distinction between cultivated and authored is the point, as much as the distinction between cultivated and written, painted and recorded. For your point to hold you'd have to ignore the rest of the judgement, which further clarifies the point.
Next >>