75% of the anti-piracy discussions I see rarely blame companies like Nintendo or Disney and always try to talk about how piracy is immoral, and you should feel “dirty” for doing it. My question is why do people seem to hate those who pirate more than the bad practices of mega-corporations or the fact that they don’t want to preserve their media?
For me i’m always hearing people complain about these companies bad practices. What you hear is based off of who you listen to.
Alot of “official sources” are actually owned by alot of forprofit corporations, so of course you’re going to hear piracy bad from those outlets.
But if you follow some youtubers, like Yongyea, you will find voices that actively call out companies like Nintendo and ea’s bad practices.
Propaganda works.
The put out a lot of propaganda saying that copying files is stealing. They point to intellectual property rights laws as if that means intellectual property is justified because of the existence of laws.
It’s because they are paying money for something and you’re getting a better deal. See that’s not fair. Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high. They tell themselves that their money is going to the artists. And if you believe that, then piracy is harming artists in a very direct way.
Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high.
This “vegans have a superiority complex” take is a thought-terminating cliché ultimately rooted in projection. Since vegans make you feel self-conscious about the unethicality of your carnist tendencies, you divert to accusations of a “superiority complex” when that is just the result of you internally grappling with the cognitive dissonance you have when it comes to funding animal exploitation that you have no proper justification for.
Veganism is a justice movement, and vegans express disdain for non-vegans because they often double down on their oppressive tendencies that keep animals enslaved, exploited, and slaughtered. I don’t think I’m superior to you because, just like me, you have the capacity to understand why you shouldn’t support the oppression of sentient beings. Not only do you have the capacity to understand it, but you can take that to its logical conclusion and live in a way that is in accordance with said understanding.
Also, the framing is off here. A principled ethical vegan doesn’t see veganism as a “benefit;” we see it as a moral obligation and baseline. Saying that veganism comes with “benefits” is like saying that refraining from calling racial minorities ethnic slurs comes with “benefits,” when it’s actually just basic decency toward BIPOC.
There’s no projection. I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors. Zero. I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering. It’s not that I don’t understand vegans. I do. But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals. Because we differ on that fundamental belief, we can reach no understanding about the ethics beyond that.
And I think it is a fair comparison. People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume. And in both the case of vegans, and those who pay for streaming, the perceived benefit of that choice is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. But it’s really not a big deal to me. I was just trying to answer OPs question. I think your response only validates my analogy. Thank you.
I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors.
Appeal to tradition.
I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering
Objectively false belief. Source
Also, saying “I do not equate death or servitude with suffering” is just using an absurd personal opinion to invalidate objective considerations. It’d be like me saying, “I don’t associate shouting slurs at racial minorities with racism,” to validate such an act. In either case, neither distortion serves as a justification for this wicked behavior.
But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals.
False equivalence. One belief is speculative and far more abstract, but the other belief has legitimate concrete evidence to support it. Once again, read the very comprehensive analysis.
People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume.
Again, this is a false equivalence, and it seems that you are abusing the notion of morality being subjective in order to justify an immoral act. You could also easily say something like “People who refrain from assaulting innocent people see it as an ethical baseline, but I don’t” as a bad attempt at justifying assaulting innocent people, but it won’t hold weight on its own. You have to provide a solid basis for why such an equivalence actually makes sense, but you do not. You just state it like it’s plainly obvious and doesn’t need further details.
This is so copey that it hardly deserves a full-fledged response. Please know that this comment isn’t the “own” you think it is. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles. Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains. Birds and mammals are on a higher level of consciousness than a lot of the animal kingdom. But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock. Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that. My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles.
First of all, current data on the sentience of insects, crustaceans, and mollusks are, at the most, uncertain regarding whether or not these animals have sentience, not definitively conclusive in the direction of them not having sentience. And even if they were to actually not be sentient, this is honestly just a red herring unless these are the ONLY animals that you are responsible for the enslavement, exploitation, and slaughter of, but you are clearly very disingenuous. Other animals that you endorse being exploited and tortured, such as cows and pigs, objectively have been confirmed to have consciousness (read the fucking study), so how is this even relevant? As far as the point about running them over with motor vehicles, some degree of animal suffering like this is inevitable, but to purport that the existence of inevitable unintentional animal suffering justifies deliberately funding farm animals being shoved into gas chambers just for personal pleasure is nothing more than an appeal to futility fallacy. Humans have died in the construction of houses, but I’m not seeing you say that it’s okay to deliberately murder humans to eat them simply because so many people are living in houses and they cannot guarantee that the construction of such houses did not cause any human death.
Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.
“I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.”
By you using such “I” phrasing, you are inadvertently admitting that you are not going off of scientific consensus (which you’ve already proved yourself to be really fucking bad at anyway), but rather “personal vibes about their tiny brains, bro.” Like, even this study provides support for this claim within the very first sentence of its abstract, in addition to all of the intricacies pertaining to the research conducted to gain this information, of course.
But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
This is irrelevant, as we don’t necessarily say that it is morally acceptable to take the life of a human so long as you do it in a painless way. In these scenarios, you are referring to a human going through a “dignified and painless death.” These often involve matters of consensual euthanasia and/or mental illness.
If someone went into your house while you were sleeping at 3 AM and did an instantly lethal, painless blow to your head with a firearm, would you consider that morally acceptable due to the “painless” nature of the death?
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
I am baffled by how much you can reach. You are claiming that because humans have been able to seize the wild ancestors of modern-day domesticated farm animals, that means these animals “gave their freedom away.” You’re so rhetorically illiterate that I keep thinking with each read of your words that I will not see mental gymnastics more absurd than what you’ve already put out, but you keep proving me wrong! This is also a baseless claim, as you obviously were not around to witness how humans went about capturing these wild ancestors. It reeks of a victim-blaming mentality as well, saying that “If the animals didn’t want humans to exploit them, they should’ve just escaped!” This is not shocking for someone who “does not equate death or servitude with suffering,” though.
As far as the animals we have today, domesticated animals cannot last in the wild, so escaping could lead them into a dangerous situation as well; that’s exactly why we call them DOMESTICATED. Exploitative humans have selectively bred and genetically modified these animals to be meat, milk, and egg-producing machines. By utilizing manmade restraining devices, such as those that are literally called r— racks. I should add, humans keep these animals unable to escape, but they still try to escape in whatever capacity they can.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Wait a minute. I thought that you did not believe in the sentience of animals, so why do you worry about dogs? You’re contradicting yourself! Also, yes, dogs are also victims of speciesism, human supremacy, and animal exploitation, so don’t support the pet industry, and if you want to be logically consistent, eschew the dairy, egg, and meat industry while you’re at it.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock.
There are studies that objectively indicate these things, but seeing as how undialectical and unscientific you are, you have deliberately chosen to neglect the actual peer-reviewed studies I have sent you because you know that being faced with information that makes a strong case against your already abhorrent rhetoric would strike too much of a nerve.
Saying “I feel no sorrow for livestock” is just giving your personal opinion on a matter, but lacking sympathy for another sentient being still does not serve as a moral justification for the exploitation and slaughtering of that sentient being. If a Klansman said, “I feel no sorrow for black people,” surely you wouldn’t think that his lynchings are now morally justified, right?
Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that.
Once again, this is an appeal to futility. Yes, we all cause some degree of harm and suffering just by existing, but that doesn’t mean deliberately going out of your way to uphold harm and suffering is morally acceptable, and it certainly does not make the slavery aspect of animal oppression morally acceptable either. This isn’t about whether or not you’re okay with these things. Morality is a two-way street, just like how the Klansman in that hypothetical isn’t morally justified by neglecting the interests of his black victims and only focusing on what he thinks alone.
My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who literally rejected fish sentience on the basis of pure vibes rather than evidence. If you’re going back to what you said about insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, then once again, I challenge you to tell me exactly how that justifies what you’re doing to animals that are not within those categories. You also seem to have sympathy for dogs even though you literally stated, “I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering,” so whose lines are arbitrary again?
I nearly spared you this because you are so deeply unserious and one of the worst instances of a rhetorically illiterate carnist who spouts absurd takes in an effort to come off as some degree of logically consistent, but quite frankly, it’d truthfully just be far more honorable for you to own up to your shortcomings here.
You didn’t even have to bring up veganism to begin with, as the original thread has nothing to do with it. You brought it upon yourself because you saw a sliver of some chance to cope. If it’s striking that much of a nerve that you need to grasp at so many straws to attempt to defend carnism this poorly out of nowhere, then go vegan for fuck’s sake.
Thank you for the very detailed response. This is a discussion about piracy. It’s interesting to speak of coping and projection. You know a lot of the most hateful homophobes keep coming out of the closet as gay? I think this kind of hate is very prevalent in our society. Basically you hate that somebody who doesn’t share your moral restrictions, who is out there enjoying life without a care in the world. A kind of moral jealousy. “I have to live with this burden and it’s unfair for somebody else to live without it”. I said it in my original comment and now I will emphasize it in response to your wall of text. Your contempt for me is the same as closet gay homophobes. In this analogy my love for cheese is gay sex, and you think you hate it because your religion (your moral code) is correct, but you actually hate it because you are deprived of it, and it’s unfair that I can enjoy it without guilt. This brings us full circle to the original question about why I think some people view piracy negatively.
It seems you think that all non-vegans must be ignorant. “If only 90% of the population would read the scientific literature or if they were aware of how their animal products came to market, they’d all be vegan”. I am aware of the indirect consequences of my actions and I carry on so I must be some kind of monster. Clearly I am not your brother in Christ, rather a spawn of Satan or perhaps worse. Perhaps I’m just a creature of this earth. A natural consequence of everything up until now.
It is absolutely futile. Being a vegan is like recycling. If it makes you feel better about your life, good. But anybody with the privilege to debate such things, with the worldwide industrial grocery selection to even contemplate veganism, has a huge wake of environmental destruction associated with existing. All the fuel that’s been burned, all of the lumber, loss of habitat for your dwelling. Every time you bathe a freshwater fish or amphibian dries up. Don’t worry about it. I forgive you. It’s not your fault. It’s not your burden. You are a worthy allocation of this planets resources. Thank you for your insight.
This is a discussion about piracy.
You’re the one who brought up veganism you complete fucking clown
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness.
You are a disgusting human. I’m actually appalled reading the shit you’re writing. It’s not often that I read such concentrated evil. You don’t think death and servitude cause suffering? You think domesticated animals choose to stay in factory farms? You’re a fucking ghoul.
I am sorry your world view is causing you anguish.
Hypocrit.
Don’t pretend to have empathy for me, shithead
OOC if I had a pet pig. Loved it. Gave it a full and happy life safe and warm in my house until one day it died of old age. Would it be okay to give the body to my destitute neighbours so they can feed their dogs?
Edit 21hrs later: Your silence speaks volumes
No because their dog is also morally inferior for eating meat and should also be punished.
Why do you think animals do not have consciousness? Do human animals have consciousness? And are non-human animal brains not remarkably similar to our own? Did we not come out of the same stuff, live on the same earth, and evolve from the same common ancestors? It seems the logical default to assume that non-human animals do experience the world in much the same way you or I do.
I do not believe animals to be sentient
And why do you believe that?
I do not equate death or servitude with suffering.
So you wouldn’t have any objections if you were taken as a slave and worked to death, right? Because those aren’t suffering?
I do not equate death or servitude with suffering.
Holy mother of red flags.
And here’s that exact superiority complex on display for all to see.
How so? I literally stated that they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation. Such an understanding isn’t hard to grasp, and I’m no ascended, especially enlightened person for being vegan. If I believed myself to be, I’d have no reason to hold others to the same standard. The incentive lies in the fact that carnism comes with victims; veganism isn’t about me.
Regardless, this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché. It’s a loophole to avoid engaging with ideas via focusing on the people expressing such ideas instead. Do you have any actual insight regarding the assertions I’m making or is it just cope?
they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation.
This is a “begging the question” logical fallacy
this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché.
veganism is a moral obligation
carnism comes with victims
is it just cope?
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they’re morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You’re projecting here.
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can’t help but talk about how superior their choices are.
This is a “begging the question” logical fallacy
How is asserting “It doesn’t seem morally superior to hold others to the exact same moral standard as me” circular reasoning? Explain in detail; don’t just say it like it’s obvious and a “no shit” kind of take.
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they’re morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You’re projecting here.
You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice. And once again, this isn’t about whether vegans are “morally superior” or not. You can engage in ideas without using such an ad hominem as a cushion for your own guilt, but you are still actually refusing to do so. There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a “superiority complex” than any other subject. For instance, I take it and hope that you wouldn’t say “anti-racists think they’re so superior to racists 🙄,” but doing so holds the exact same amount of weight as what you’re doing right now with veganism. You’re using a thought-terminating cliché to degrade the person asserting an idea rather than discussing the idea itself.
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can’t help but talk about how superior their choices are.
There is a reason why I said “veganism isn’t about me.” You are committing victim erasure by glossing over the fact that I made very clear that veganism is a justice movement that takes a stand for victims. And once again, you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans “self-righteous” and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the “superiority of their choices” rather than engage in and advocate for a justice movement.
Explain in detail; don’t just say it like it’s obvious and a “no shit” kind of take.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your morals are the “correct morals” while everyone else who doesn’t align with you is incorrect. That’s a textbook definition of this fallacy.
You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice.
That’s exactly what it is. Disagree? Explain in detail; don’t just say it like it’s obvious and a “no shit” kind of take.
There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a “superiority complex” than any other subject.
Where has that happened here? I challenge you to quote the comment stating as much. Seems like you’re strawmanning here.
I said “veganism isn’t about me.”
you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans “self-righteous” and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the “superiority of their choices”
“Veganism isn’t about me, but if you criticize me personally, you’re criticizing veganism!”
This is hilariously illogical. It reads like someone whose brain is short circuiting from all the cognitive dissonance.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your morals are the “correct morals” while everyone else who doesn’t align with you is incorrect. That’s a textbook definition of this fallacy.
No, “begging the question” refers to circular logic. What you’re stating is actually called a belief in moral realism, which is a different subject altogether. How are you going to throw out an accusation of a fallacy so damn smugly and then proceed to say that I engaged in a textbook example of the fallacy when you clearly struggle to even know what said fallacy means?
Furthermore, if you’re appealing to moral relativism, you could easily reductio this to some absurd conclusions, like saying “My personal morals justify SA, so stop thinking you’re superior for opposing SA!”
That’s exactly what it is. Disagree? Explain in detail; don’t just say it like it’s obvious and a “no shit” kind of take.
That’s not what veganism is. Veganism is a deontic stance against animal exploitation, and this is common knowledge for many people, even if not for an overwhelming majority of carnists. Not going to zoos, not wearing leather, boycotting the pet industry, and abstaining from riding horses have nothing to do with diet, but they are still aspects of a vegan lifestyle. Acknowledging these things, however, would come with a more explicitly ethical consideration, so you avoid such an acknowledgement because you’re unable to narrow these things down to this trivial dietary choice you’re framing veganism as.
Where has that happened here? I challenge you to quote the comment stating as much. Seems like you’re strawmanning here.
None of your comments discuss veganism in the context of it being a philosophy and a principle, but every single one of your comments have tried to drive home this ad hominem.
Examples:
And here’s that exact superiority complex on display for all to see.
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they’re morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another?
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can’t help but talk about how superior their choices are.
“Veganism isn’t about me, but if you criticize me personally, you’re criticizing veganism!”
What is nuance? You are criticizing vegans for advocating for the victims of their movement, which is a criticism of veganism in and of itself, even if you do not realize this and do the pseudo-respectful, “I don’t mind you being vegan as long as you don’t push your lifestyle onto other people!” You clearly don’t agree with veganism ethically because you support animal exploitation and slaughter, so my point is that, instead of actually trying to argue a case for why veganism is ethically incorrect, instead, you decided to just adhere to the classic ad hominem tactic that carnists abuse the shit out of all the time. Also, you have a very one-dimensional, myopic way of thinking. Even in cases where a justice movement isn’t about the supporters of a movement itself, insulting the supporters of that movement still comes with the negative connotation of undermining the validity of the movement. For instance, if you insulted a male feminist, a cishet ally of the LGBTQ+ community, and a white advocate for racial justice for being “pushy” about their beliefs, you are giving away an indication that you disagree with the advocacy of their respective movements on some level.
This is hilariously illogical. It reads like someone whose brain is short circuiting from all the cognitive dissonance.
This is hilariously ironic. It’s starting to read like parody even!
I have no issues with someone not supporting animal torture, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can’t help but talk about how superior their choices are.
There is no functional difference between your original text and my bolded replacement. To be a carnist is to, through your actions, support animal torture.
Hmm. Claims to not support animal torture yet joins hexbear and tortures all of us mammals on Lemmy any time one of you “writes” a comment. I’m seeing a disconnect in your reasoning here…
This is such a shitty “joke”. Fucking hell. I hope you experience even half of the suffering a dairy cow experiences during their life. You won’t, because the world isn’t fair, but if I could imprison you and exploit your reproductive system until you’re too old and worn out to be worthwhile and then kill you, I would do so.
Carnists don’t count
Lets say you see a moral wrong that others ignore, often while admitting that they’re wrong to do so, and you alone act against that moral wrong despite it being hard and being mocked for your decision. How else would you feel? If you felt that being vegan was morally equal then you wouldn’t have become a vegan for ethical reasons in the first place. So by definition, you must believe yourself (in this specific area) morally superior, and based on that one data point, it’s probably safe to generalize that you’re morally superior to the majority of non-vegans, just like how you probably consider yourself morally superior to people who litter or hit their kids.
Oh my, I literally read the comment you’re replying to backwards! I thought they said that carnists hate vegans. I’m glad you’re here to read properly and give a great response!
Oh my, I literally read the comment you’re replying to backwards! I thought they said that carnists hate vegans. I’m glad you’re here to read properly and give a great response!
Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high.
Nah, that’s not why we hate you
When Netflix was just in, their subscribers got the better deal. But currently, tech companies are doing their best to squeeze customers dry for every cent.
Tech corps made the deal bad, piracy didn’t change
Meanwhile, Steam is raking it in by continuing to offer a better product than piracy. The Steam Deck is making that even more true; it’s so much more convenient to have games in the Steam library than try to keep a repack updated with new patches/content.
I just realized… steam is why I stopped pirating
Bootlickers…
hell yeah i’m the villain of the story, and i love being immoral
As opposed to everyone else calling them bootlickers, I think there is likely a subset of people like this who are not considering piracy against the big corporations as unethical, but the “trickle down effect” of piracy towards smaller business/individuals.
For example, if you were to pirate Starfield, no one would really care. If you were to pirate something like BlackOps, most people wouldn’t care (and those that do are corporate bootlickers). However, what about pirating indie games, or music VST’s, or circumventing a patreon from someone with under 100 supporters?
There’s two camps when I see anti-piracy comments; the bootlickers, and those that have the idea that pirates pirate everything relentlessly. The fact of the matter is that piracy does not hurt big corporations, but we cannot say that is also true for small developers publishing their game on their own, and vocal anti-piracy, or rather artist-in-mind individuals, will let the world know that we should support independent artsits and not pirate.
Now, whether or not indie games are getting pirated is a whole different story. And really, what this comes down to is just having the opportunity to purchase in a way that supports the pirates ease of access.
Also, it completely ignores the ethical aspect of piracy which is why support a company that doesn’t have your interests at the forefront of its business practices. Which is a very similar reason to decide to not pirate – I enjoy It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, I would like to see more if it, I will pay Hulu and watch the show to tell them to make more IASIP.
If you like something, don’t pirate it if you want more of it. It’s actually very simple. If you do like it but can’t support it for personal reasons, don’t expect to get more of it.
Which of course, for the anti-piracy crowd is another sentence for, “you didn’t pay to watch it so they cancelled my favorite show!”
Tl;DR - A poor crossover between an individuals enjoyment of corporate content and an supporting independent artists living wage.
This is the best insight on this subject I’ve seen in years. Good stuff.
Because they’re consoomers. Consoomers don’t like people who supposedly threaten their product that they shall consoom later.
And consoomers don’t want to make the hand that feeds them angry so they’ll buy into any and every lie that’s been pitched for years about piracy.
“And consoomers don’t want to make the hand that feeds them angry” oh god this is so true. I see a lot of youtubers/bloggers who act on this statement, and it really pisses me off… they can’t even mention “piracy” without saying it’s illegal within the first few seconds of mentioning it, many of these people I feel have already sold their souls to big corporations and others I feel live like they have a gun pointed at them, and so they can only say what is “allowed” and nothing more.
There’s propaganda, definitely. Also, there are people who simply don’t care what they watch. They’ll just open Netflix and watch whatever they see on the home screen. It’s hard for them to understand why I might wanna watch some Iranian movie from the 80s.
Ignorant idiots who can’t think for themselves will always follow the narrative that is forced down their throat.
See also “The war on drugs”. The majority of the people who will demonise you for choosing to use “illegal” substances will also be smashing their livers with alcohol which is more detrimental to both themselves and society than a lot of other drugs on a weekly or often daily basis.
Just because it is legal they feel like they are fine to not do their own independent research into what these things actually do to them and how fucking addictive they are.
They’re just outsourcing their ethics.
Man, i love Recettear: An Item Shop’s Tale. I’m always happy seeing it referenced.
I feel like I could probably use that one reference in every other negative thread about the world these days, great game though!
I dont think using drugs regularly is comparable to pirating software. Pirating isnt going to affect your ability to reason or think. I also wouldnt use the legality of alcohol as an excuse to do other drugs, especially opioids.
It sounds like you are frustrated that people who also do bad things will judge you for doing other bad things, which makes them hypocrites. But it also means you agree with them to a degree that what you are doing is a bad thing, doesnt it?
Lol wut.
I wasn’t comparing regular drug use to pirating software, I was comparing the disinformation campaigns that are used to present bare faced lies as facts to make people feel bad about the decisions they make in life to further serve their controlling narratives.
To be more specific when writing that comment I was mainly thinking about the racist, oppressive campaign that has been perpetuated around weed and its use when compared to alcohol. Weed was originally made illegal due to predominantly the United States campaign of hate against people of colour and specifically pushed in an attempt to oppress those communities. These campaigns have been based on disinformation and lies all whilst alcohol has been pushed as a thing you should partake in.
In actuality alcohol is more addictive, harmful to your body and society in general than weed ever has been or ever will be. That isn’t to say that weed is entirely harmless, I dont mean to suggest that either but really my comment wasn’t meant to begin a debate on the safety or lack of for any specific drugs, more to draw a parallel in terms of how people are lied to and manipulated in the ways that they think to then judge or look down on others because they are so wrapped up in believing the false narratives that are pushed.
Sticking with weed some of the world is now turning it around but yes I am frustrated to still live in a country that puts weed alongside stuff like opiods which are not even comparable in terms of addiction and damage that they do to peoples lives. So maybe you are getting a sense of frustration from that fact but I also couldn’t care less if anyone is judging me for doing any kinds of drugs. I have heavily researched any substances I have taken before I’ve taken it, I have looked into positives and negatives from as many independent sources as I could, tested me shit and everyone should have unbiased information to be able to do the same in their lives and choose what they want to put in their body.
You say bad things like drugs are bad things, I dont believe that so I couldn’t possibly agree that by taking drugs anyone is doing a “bad thing”. I believe that proper education with actual facts and a solid culture of harm reduction should be in place for people to make educated decisions with what they put in their bodies will always be the best possible route to take rather than prohibition.
The majority of negative experiences, deaths etc stem from people not knowing what they are doing, not knowing proper dosages and from having to buy from a black market where you could in reality be getting any fucking thing rather than what you may want which adds in so many variables and possibilities for it to go wrong. People will always get high and who the fuck is anyone to tell anyone else that they can’t, a regulated system where people don’t have to put themselves in danger buying from the streets would negate so many of the perceived negatives of drug taking.
I also don’t believe at its core piracy is a “bad thing” either so your whole second paragraph is kind of moot to me. Sounds to me you might just be close minded in terms of thinking these things are “bad” so I guess the propaganda has worked on you to a degree also.
Drugs are a great thing coupled with reliable and factual knowledge so judge me all you want for partaking in getting high, having fun and doing what I want in a safe and educated manner :)
I still see people parroting these narratives about stuff like weed even after it has been legalized. Some people are too far down the propaganda rabbit hole.
just conversely, I think people were a bit too convinced that weed is totally harmless for a while there. i think in more recent years there’s been some healthy pushback on that and people understand the science a bit better. obviously it should still be legal.
I’d argue those people were necessary, what with how public opinion works.
If we’re in a tug of war and you’re pulling with 10 pounds of force, I can’t beat you with 2 pounds of force. In context, you won’t beat “ITLL MAKE YOU GO BLIND AND KILL YOU” with “heeey, like, jot always, maaaannnnn.”
As always, reality is somewhere in the middle, but we wouldn’t have had the progress we did without the other extreme being loud and out there.
It’s law and order with a bit of “thou shall not steal”. There’re people who never question the root cause.
I can hate bad corporate practices and also think that piracy is stealing. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Why do people seem like they hate pirates more, to you? Likely a bias because you are a pirate, and not working for a corporation.
In my opinion I hear more critiques of big business than of piracy. I also dont find these threads full of people saying negative things about piracy, but thats a matter of perspective.
I also pirate, but theres a reason I’d rather pay for it if I can afford it.
I also dont find these threads full of people saying negative things about piracy, but thats a matter of perspective.
In my experience, people who are annoyingly judgmental about Piracy irl are not the ones using Text-heavy social media.
In my experience, pirates who are annoyingly trying to find moral reasons to pirate are mostly the ones using text-heavy social media.
Because if you aren’t the bad guys then they’re just essentially the low level stooges of the evil mastermind just doing mundane evil shit for no discernable reason.
Where as if you’re the bad guy they’re virtuous principled people just doing what’s right (allowing them to have complete dominion over the moral high ground)
Or so they think.
Many think streaming services went more expensive because of piracy ( less people paying for same content = content price needs to be higher, where I believe it is other way around (higher price for less content = more pirates).
The market of distribution of films and series is just fucked. The fight with competitors using exclusive content leads to worst way of distribution since company with exclusive content has monopoly of that content. Streaming services should not be the one owning the content but should be in competition with other distributors offering the same content.
I think the politics have forgotten that we need at least social capitalism if we not want to create cyberpunk dystopia.
People buy into the BS sold by companies, they eat it all up without thinking twice about it. It’s easier to point fingers at each other than at companies when companies are paying so much money to attack end-users.
Capitalism does a very good job at making people who do not and never will hold capital into sheepdogs for the cause. You get someone addicted enough to your slop, they’ll advertise for you, they’ll evangelize for you, they’ll even come report to you who didn’t pay ‘their fair share’ for entry.
They’re well-trained dogs, incog. Might as well ask why a dog chases cars.
