Say what you will about Nintendo’s franchises never evolving and Nintendo’s draconian approach to copyright and shit, but at least it’s not trying to make people feel like they never have to leave Neverland (or the Mushroom Kingdom, in Nintendo’s case) by way of building a planned community.
“Motte, bailey”. It seems like something a fair number of our right wing–supporting trolls have tried to turn into a “gotcha” phrase to shut down arguments.
Who are those censorial asshats that want you … to shut up?
Well, I dunno about censorial, but you definitely wanted me to shut up by using the motte-and-bailey fallacy to insinuate that I had no actual argument.
You can’t and won’t shut me up by trotting out a simple catchphrase and thinking you’ve “won”. The only two ways to shut me up are to kill me or pay me, and I doubt you have the money to afford either option.
Rogan's persona isn't journalism, it's an "entertainer" who chats with "interesting" people.
He doesn't even really chat with some of those people. He lets them spew dangerous nonsense, nods his head, and does little-to-nothing in terms of pushback against or a deeper exploration of what was said. He doesn’t give a shit about the extraordinary responsibility that comes with the extraordinary power he has by virtue of his podcast being as popular as it is.
I’ve no doubt that Rogan’s podcast being available in other places helped its reach, but Spotify putting its corporate weight behind that podcast certainly helped lend it the credibility it needed to truly explode its audience. The exclusive nature of the deal likely helped sell the podcast as a “this is a Super Important Thing” podcast to people who’d probably never had any experience with podcasts before.
I could be wrong, but when a show like his is literally valued at millions of dollars, it does tend to make that podcast seem like a much bigger deal than it was before the sell-out.
You can trot out that catchphrase all you want. It doesn’t scare me and it won’t shut me up. (And you can’t afford my asking price for shutting up, anyway.)
If one person is spreading scientific information and another person is spreading easily disproven disinformation, and they’re both talking about the same topic, for what reason should we consider both “sides” to be equal in credibility? And for what reason should we try to find a “compromise” between the two that gives even a spark of credibility to that disinformation?
The same reasoning behind those questions also applies to the one I asked above: When an issue involves one relatively benign position and one extreme position, for what reason should we seek a “compromise” that gives the extremist position any weight as a possible solution to the issue?
the podcast in question provided just another point of view on our problems
You sound like someone who thinks the solution to every problem is always “in the middle” and always involves some form of “compromise”.
If one group of people is saying “queer rights” and another group is at least implying (if not outright saying) “the state should execute queer people”, what sort of compromise between those two positions would satisfy both groups?
Copyright law says that the writing needs to be in some medium. Thus deadlines are needed
I could write a short story right now and wait a decade to release it in some form, and I could still get a copyright on that story because copyright law doesn’t have a deadline on when you can obtain a copyright. Did your mother drop you on your head as a child, or did your idiocy develop later in life, you Nazi schmuck?
Important thing to remember: Spotify didn’t only give Rogan a bigger platform—it paid many millions of dollars to make his podcast exclusive to that platform. Even if Spotify doesn’t agree with or condone everything Rogan has said (and that’s a questionable claim in and of itself), it sure as shit deserves some responsibility for funding Rogan’s ability to spread dumb bullshit.
There’s a conspiracy in Congress to destroy the Internet.
Considering how the Internet puts all the information about the prior positions held by all Congressfolk at the fingertips of both the press and the citizenry at large, such that they can better hold Congress accountable for its bullshit? Of course there is.
It’s also a backdoor to banning encryption and a foot in the door to banning either certain kinds of speech or the moderation thereof on social media services. Nothing good will come of this bill being made law.
why have juries at all if a judge can dismiss a jury verdict at his discretion
Judges aren’t supposed to routinely dismiss jury verdicts as if the jury is meaningless. Such dismissals are meant to be used when a judge believes a jury either incorrectly applied the law in reaching its verdict or reached a verdict that no reasonable jury would’ve reached based on the evidence. In this sense, judges are meant to be a check on the powers of the legal system.
What is the purpose of a Jury Trial in American society?
To have a jury of one’s peers determine the outcome of a given legal proceeding according to the presented evidence and the laws of the pertinent jurisdiction.
James Madison saw juries of common citizens as a critical check upon government excesses and those of powerful private interests.
And they still are. But when juries go astray by following something other than the law, a judge is an additional critical check upon the abuse of power in the legal system. No jury or judge ever gets it 100% right, nor should we expect that of them.
A judge suddenly dismissing a case while the jury is still in deliberation -- is an outrageous miscarriage of legal Due Process.
As the article notes, the judge ruled on the matter of law and the jury ruled on the matter of fact. Granted, the notice of dismissal regardless of the jury verdict is unusual. But nothing I’ve heard about the case says the move violated her civil rights.
A formal Jury in America always has the final say & judgement on both the facts and law in a court case before them.
Judges can set aside jury verdicts. Show me the law that says they can’t.
A judge formally declaring his final decision on a jury case still in jury deliberation -- amounts to criminal Jury-Tampering.
The judge announced his decision when the jury was out of the courtroom. Unless evidence proves that the decision both got back to the jury and unduly influenced the verdict, the decision—while unusual—doesn’t amount to anything approaching a criminal act.
I’m sorry that one of your conservative icons didn’t get to upend 60-plus years of defamation law over an honest mistake. But look on the bright side: At least this clears her schedule for more reality TV show appearances.
On the post: Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry
Say what you will about Nintendo’s franchises never evolving and Nintendo’s draconian approach to copyright and shit, but at least it’s not trying to make people feel like they never have to leave Neverland (or the Mushroom Kingdom, in Nintendo’s case) by way of building a planned community.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
You.
“Motte, bailey”. It seems like something a fair number of our right wing–supporting trolls have tried to turn into a “gotcha” phrase to shut down arguments.
Well, I dunno about censorial, but you definitely wanted me to shut up by using the motte-and-bailey fallacy to insinuate that I had no actual argument.
You can’t and won’t shut me up by trotting out a simple catchphrase and thinking you’ve “won”. The only two ways to shut me up are to kill me or pay me, and I doubt you have the money to afford either option.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
A fair point.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
He doesn't even really chat with some of those people. He lets them spew dangerous nonsense, nods his head, and does little-to-nothing in terms of pushback against or a deeper exploration of what was said. He doesn’t give a shit about the extraordinary responsibility that comes with the extraordinary power he has by virtue of his podcast being as popular as it is.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
I’ve no doubt that Rogan’s podcast being available in other places helped its reach, but Spotify putting its corporate weight behind that podcast certainly helped lend it the credibility it needed to truly explode its audience. The exclusive nature of the deal likely helped sell the podcast as a “this is a Super Important Thing” podcast to people who’d probably never had any experience with podcasts before.
I could be wrong, but when a show like his is literally valued at millions of dollars, it does tend to make that podcast seem like a much bigger deal than it was before the sell-out.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
You can trot out that catchphrase all you want. It doesn’t scare me and it won’t shut me up. (And you can’t afford my asking price for shutting up, anyway.)
If one person is spreading scientific information and another person is spreading easily disproven disinformation, and they’re both talking about the same topic, for what reason should we consider both “sides” to be equal in credibility? And for what reason should we try to find a “compromise” between the two that gives even a spark of credibility to that disinformation?
The same reasoning behind those questions also applies to the one I asked above: When an issue involves one relatively benign position and one extreme position, for what reason should we seek a “compromise” that gives the extremist position any weight as a possible solution to the issue?
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
You sound like someone who thinks the solution to every problem is always “in the middle” and always involves some form of “compromise”.
If one group of people is saying “queer rights” and another group is at least implying (if not outright saying) “the state should execute queer people”, what sort of compromise between those two positions would satisfy both groups?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
It isn’t their problem to solve. It’s yours.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
I could write a short story right now and wait a decade to release it in some form, and I could still get a copyright on that story because copyright law doesn’t have a deadline on when you can obtain a copyright. Did your mother drop you on your head as a child, or did your idiocy develop later in life, you Nazi schmuck?
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Important thing to remember: Spotify didn’t only give Rogan a bigger platform—it paid many millions of dollars to make his podcast exclusive to that platform. Even if Spotify doesn’t agree with or condone everything Rogan has said (and that’s a questionable claim in and of itself), it sure as shit deserves some responsibility for funding Rogan’s ability to spread dumb bullshit.
On the post: Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
Again: Who gives a fuck what you think.
On the post: The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer
The problem lies in how Republicans eventually become the very “absurdity” they own.
On the post: Blackburn & Blumenthal Introduce Terrible, Dangerous Bill To Make Sure Children Are Constantly Surveilled Online
Considering how the Internet puts all the information about the prior positions held by all Congressfolk at the fingertips of both the press and the citizenry at large, such that they can better hold Congress accountable for its bullshit? Of course there is.
On the post: Blackburn & Blumenthal Introduce Terrible, Dangerous Bill To Make Sure Children Are Constantly Surveilled Online
See also: Elf on a Shelf.
On the post: The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer
I’m surprised he didn’t edit the picture to have him doing a certain other salute for maximum outrage.
On the post: Whatever Problem EARN IT Is Trying To Solve, It Doesn't
It’s also a backdoor to banning encryption and a foot in the door to banning either certain kinds of speech or the moderation thereof on social media services. Nothing good will come of this bill being made law.
On the post: Judge And Jury Say Sarah Palin Failed To Prove 'Actual Malice' In Defamation Case Against The NY Times
Sir, this is a TGI Friday’s.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar's Next Unconstitutional Speech Control Bill: The NUDGE Act
Please seek professional medical help for your obvious delusional state.
On the post: Judge And Jury Say Sarah Palin Failed To Prove 'Actual Malice' In Defamation Case Against The NY Times
Judges aren’t supposed to routinely dismiss jury verdicts as if the jury is meaningless. Such dismissals are meant to be used when a judge believes a jury either incorrectly applied the law in reaching its verdict or reached a verdict that no reasonable jury would’ve reached based on the evidence. In this sense, judges are meant to be a check on the powers of the legal system.
To have a jury of one’s peers determine the outcome of a given legal proceeding according to the presented evidence and the laws of the pertinent jurisdiction.
And they still are. But when juries go astray by following something other than the law, a judge is an additional critical check upon the abuse of power in the legal system. No jury or judge ever gets it 100% right, nor should we expect that of them.
On the post: Judge And Jury Say Sarah Palin Failed To Prove 'Actual Malice' In Defamation Case Against The NY Times
As the article notes, the judge ruled on the matter of law and the jury ruled on the matter of fact. Granted, the notice of dismissal regardless of the jury verdict is unusual. But nothing I’ve heard about the case says the move violated her civil rights.
Judges can set aside jury verdicts. Show me the law that says they can’t.
The judge announced his decision when the jury was out of the courtroom. Unless evidence proves that the decision both got back to the jury and unduly influenced the verdict, the decision—while unusual—doesn’t amount to anything approaching a criminal act.
I’m sorry that one of your conservative icons didn’t get to upend 60-plus years of defamation law over an honest mistake. But look on the bright side: At least this clears her schedule for more reality TV show appearances.
Next >>