Yeah, this.

OP has misunderstood the joke being made (“haha this is an unfortunate picture”) and is using it to be cruel to a stranger (“bUt ShE PrObAbLy WoN’t mAkE bEtTeR cHoIcEs”) .

Go fuck yourself, OP. You’re the one that needs to make better choices.

Do you deny climate change on the same basis?

That’s a lot of words to avoid saying you’re talking out your ass.

“Yeah, I could totally tell you. Honest. Promise. No I can’t because… uh… I’d have to kill you.”

Are you joking?

Veganism and vegetarianism is massively on the rise and firmly in the mainstream. McDonald’s does a plant based burger ffs.

PETA have even managed to position themselves as a certification agency for “cruelty free”. If getting companies to self-regulate and accept you as the rule maker for that regulation isn’t above your standard of “working” then I don’t know what is.

How are you struggling with this? This has already been explained to you.

He’s a YouTuber that makes videos about gay culture. He is a “gay YouTuber”. In the same way a YouTuber that makes videos about video games is a “video game YouTuber”.

His actual gayness isn’t important.

Sexuality

When people talk about “LGBT Pride”, they’re not talking about the “a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements” definition, they’re talking about the “confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized” definition.

It’s almost like words can have more than one meaning.

Not celebrities - historical figures.

How many can you name that have been dead for at least 50 years?

It’s also a very culty behaviour to hate apostates even more than nonbelievers.

If the extremist freaks are going to target anyone with violence, it’s going to be the perceived “traitors” who “stabbed them in the back”.

I’d like to respond, but I’m going to need you to read 5,000 words on my personal philosophy towards online commenting before I do.

Are you aware how obnoxious it is to spam a 5,000 word article while refusing to provide any summation or distillation of its thesis?

I think you’re telling on yourself that you can’t possibly imagine a reason for studying something other than “What will get me a job?”. Which is sad.

Aside from that - it’s a postgraduate degree. It’s primary function is to bridge the gap between undergraduate study and a career in academia.

So yes. Obviously degrees like this are geared toward someone who has a cross-discipline interest in a particular field or topic.

Shit take, tbh.

Coursework will include the study of Western dragons in lore, literature and art; archaeology theory; the depiction of women in the Middle Ages; the practice of deception and illusion; and the philosophy of psychedelics. Through the lenses of Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions, lecturers will explore how magic has influenced society and science.

Do you also object to degrees in literature, art, archeology, sociology, philosophy, theology and history? Or is it this specific combination that’s objectionable for you?

No, it fucking doesn’t and every mouthbreathing moron who parrots this needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

Ronald McDonald House is a good charity. Pays for parents to stay near their sick kids’ hospital. They do good work.

Stop trying to discourage people from donating to charity. You’re actively making the world worse through your own ignorance.

or even half of it

I mean they basically do. $20m vs the $56m raised by customers.

But don’t let facts get in the way of you frothing at the mouth.

Sounds like you’re trying to school a highly qualified professional in something that you’ve only just googled 5 minutes ago. I see Lemmy is just like Reddit in that way.

Nobody is “schooling” anyone, friend. You brought up IP, I attempted to engage with you because I thought you wanted to talk about it. And now you’re crying about nobody can disagree with a “highly qualified professional” and have turned a request for you to share your thoughts and experience into a confrontation.

just trying to think about sensible policy that’s workable in reality

That’s literally what I’ve been trying to do. To get you to tell me what you think sensible policy is.

I think I’m upsetting you, so I’m going to disengage now. Hope your day gets better, mate.

Far more fit for purpose than scrapping the concept altogether as this graphic suggests.

But they are broken though, aren’t they? Like there aren’t any authors going “Oh gee, if I couldn’t guarantee the rights to my works for over half a century after I dead then I’d pack in this writing lark and go and work at the widget factory”.

You see laws evolve when they are deemed to no longer be fit for purpose, IP laws are constantly reviewed through case law.

We’re talking about revolution, not evolution. Legislation, not interpretation. I’m asking if you were told to rip out the laws and start again, what would you do? Is that not a more interesting conversation than explaining to me how case law works?

I mean if you want to play “I work in IP LOL Lefty snowflake tears” then sure. Do that. Hope you have a nice time with it. Seems boring though.

Do you think what is essentially “Oooh, I bet that upsets you” is conducive to good faith conversation? Or even just general pleasantness?

If I asked you “Are you lashing out from fear that you won’t survive the revolution?”, that would be unkind. It would come across as hostile, confrontational and I would be presupposing your own thoughts on society and your relation to it.

Instead, I’ll engage with you as close to your own terms as I’m able: Do you think your country’s intellectual property laws are fit for purpose?

It acts as a filter so that people are only expending time and resources on ideas that will likely take hold and provide value to society.

Do you actually believe that this filter is working as intended? Or do you think it ought to work like that?

In a spherical society with no air resistance I can agree with you but it feels like it would be condescending for me to point out how this system that supposedly maximises value to society is in all likelihood going to kill your children’s children.

I can think of a worse future than one where our rapid advances in technology and productivity afford us the ability to create more art and beauty without fear of destitution.

Firstly, if that is your biggest concern, then we agree far more than we disagree and we’re quibbling over details (which I’m happy to do).

Secondly, who said they do?

It of course depends on what you mean exactly by a"slice of the pie" but there’s lots of ownership models to choose from. Direct ownership is one. An employee owned trust is another. These are to a large extent solved problems - mutuals and co-operatives walk among us now, after all.

Thirdly, you mention the risk of setting up a company. If you’re not rich, why do you have to gamble your dignity and livelihood to participate in innovation? Would the world not be a better place if you could invent and create and innovate and fall back on a basic income if it falls on its face?

Finally, even if we accidentally make things a bit too equal by giving Jim the new starter the same voting rights as Bob the grizzled veteran - is that not better than the system we have at the moment where incomprehensible hoarded wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few?