Sure, the guy who says his friend likes girls on the younger side and that they are okay with it deserves the benefit of the doubt. Excuse me while I throw up.
For sure, because I know exactly what you mean because I have already lived it.
I did not say I support it, just that it has always been conservative. I am pretty sure I was agreeing with you just elaborating on a point.
Nope, the real lie was SCOTUS was becoming liberal instead of just making a few liberal rulings here and there. This was used as a battle cry to put in more conservatives, remember the "activists" judges they were wringing their hands about. So now we don't even get a few liberal rulings sprinkled here and there.
Full stop, SCOTUS has always been conservative. History has already proven this
Ah yes, tolerate their intolerance. Sounds like resignation to me.
We are all in an abusive relationship with our government here in the US. For some reason we are accepting being lied to, gaslight, and manipulated by our ruling class.
For all their faults the Democratic party is the only one doing something about it. From trying to hold police responsible to protecting our most vulnerable people.
Meanwhile Maga is repealing transparency laws, taking away women's rights, and othering people at an alarming pace.
The two side of the same coin rhetoric grows old and at this point is only here to blur the lines and continue to give conservatives control due to apathy.
This guy won't even pay people who legitimately do work for him. You think he is going to pay someone $130,000 for doing nothing?
What I find most surprising about this election is all the people talking shit about how old Trump or Biden is. Ronnie literally had advanced Alzheimer's for the last two years of his presidency. Full stop, his mind was gone.
The fact that our country allowed this to happen speaks volumes about what our President actually means.
Scotus has always been conservative. Get out of here with this bullshit. You think a few liberal rulings sprinkled over the cake of conservatism means anything? History has already proven otherwise.
They are not. It is past time to call them on their psychological manipulation bullshit. Addictive feeds are also just the tip of the giant shitberg that corporate run social media has become.
That is some good stuff actually. All the haters can focus on non-existent AI and the rest of us can work on improving society while they are distracted. Perfect scapegoat.
Translation: US automakers are worried about Chinese imports servicing a sector they have abandoned.
It should be illegal to tease people like this.
First, how do you account for all the art made before copyright existed. Second, what about all the art created everyday where the creator does not pursue copyright let alone try to enforce their rights in a court of law. These two scenarios disprove your assertion that art needs copyright.
Perhaps you are under the misconception that artists need to make a living. Art is an expression of our culture and it is not inherently tied to making money. How many people are creating art right now without the intention to sell it. I will clue you in, there is a lot of people, millions who do this everyday.
The amount of art created for personal use dwarfs that of commercial use by a thousand fold. Copyright does not need to protect these artists at all. Read that, the majority of artists do not need or ever use copyright.
All art is iterative. This means every piece of art is built upon the art that came before it. Copying is literally how it is done. You know Led Zeppelin just copied a bunch of old blues songs? Oh you didn't because you think artists create stuff out of thin air apparently.
Stealing is depriving someone of their property. Copying does not do this at all. You are pushing a false narrative to prop up your flawed argument. Plain and simple.
Humanity as we know it existed for ten of thousands of years without copyright. Copyright is the anti-thesis to creation. Everything humans create is iterative. Copyright along with the rest of intellectual property seeks to pervert creation for personal gain.
Art does not need copyright to survive and I would argue that intellectual property is not needed to promote the arts or science. It is designed to do the opposite which is limit creation to the benefit of the individual.
What makes this worse is the individual is now the corporation. Do you know that a lot of successful artists, particularly musicians, don't even own their own works?
Corporations benefit disproportionally by copyright. They have lobbied for decades to further pervert the flawed intention of copyright and intellectual property to the breaking point. Simply put, going down the road of trying to prove who created what was first is wrong.
Creation does not happen in a vacuum. Pretending that we create is isolation is farcical. We are great because of all those that came before us.
The telephone was invented by multiple people. The Wright brothers had European counterparts. These issues around intellectual copyright are a lot more complex than we are ready to admit.
We have billions of people now. Stop trying to pretend any idea, drawing, tune, or writing is unique. Rude wake up call, it is not.