I’m saying you summarized incorrectly. I’m not accusing you of being too succinct, I’m accusing you of being wrong.
You refuse to argue the subject matter and rely on attacking the person. I’m not here to defend Cory, I don’t know the person. I’m here to say your opinion is bad and I want other people to think about it because you clearly haven’t. International copyright law is a tool nations use to make trade beneficial to both sides theoretically, yes? The US is in a trade war with its allies, which I’d like to point out is not supported by anyone qualified on the subject matter that I can find. So wouldn’t it make sense for countries at war to reconsider all trade tools during a trade war? That seems like a pretty fuckin basic concept. Pretty related to the conversation wouldn’t you say - copyright laws and trade wars?
Whether you or I agree or disagree with the approach, well that’s interesting if a bit meaningless because I assume neither of us is an elected representative. But at least it’s interesting. What would be a good tool for those under attack to use for the benefit of the most people? I’d like to know that. Maybe if I did I could advocate for it, or do more research and spread the knowledge, or generally better my own understanding of society.
Instead I’m arguing with you about whether or not a person should be allowed to have an opinion on a community built on peoples opinions. It’s a stupid position to have when the content is value added. He has a platform because he writes and he writes enough that he’s bound to get attention if his material is good enough and it happens to have been good enough multiple times. Idk why that makes you so upset. It feels small to try and pair down a person’s success, however minor, to one single thing. Especially while ignoring their contributions. Again I repeat, you’re a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution.
If you want more opinions posted from reputable sources fuckin post em. But you come off as condescending and wrong when you assume people aren’t listening to voices “with experience” just because they engage with voices you disagree with. Most people are capable of taking in multiple sources and coming to the correct conclusion, including but not limited to weighing educated specialist opinions more than random blogger’s opinions.
I love that you’re seeing what you want to see here but I can promise you that I have no love for pop figures. That’s again, a weird old person assumption. People should listen when experts talk. That doesn’t mean they should ignore all other voices. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
I’m saying you summarized incorrectly. I’m not accusing you of being too succinct, I’m accusing you of being wrong.
You refuse to argue the subject matter and rely on attacking the person. I’m not here to defend Cory, I don’t know the person. I’m here to say your opinion is bad and I want other people to think about it because you clearly haven’t. International copyright law is a tool nations use to make trade beneficial to both sides theoretically, yes? The US is in a trade war with its allies, which I’d like to point out is not supported by anyone qualified on the subject matter that I can find. So wouldn’t it make sense for countries at war to reconsider all trade tools during a trade war? That seems like a pretty fuckin basic concept. Pretty related to the conversation wouldn’t you say - copyright laws and trade wars?
Whether you or I agree or disagree with the approach, well that’s interesting if a bit meaningless because I assume neither of us is an elected representative. But at least it’s interesting. What would be a good tool for those under attack to use for the benefit of the most people? I’d like to know that. Maybe if I did I could advocate for it, or do more research and spread the knowledge, or generally better my own understanding of society.
Instead I’m arguing with you about whether or not a person should be allowed to have an opinion on a community built on peoples opinions. It’s a stupid position to have when the content is value added. He has a platform because he writes and he writes enough that he’s bound to get attention if his material is good enough and it happens to have been good enough multiple times. Idk why that makes you so upset. It feels small to try and pair down a person’s success, however minor, to one single thing. Especially while ignoring their contributions. Again I repeat, you’re a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution.
If you want more opinions posted from reputable sources fuckin post em. But you come off as condescending and wrong when you assume people aren’t listening to voices “with experience” just because they engage with voices you disagree with. Most people are capable of taking in multiple sources and coming to the correct conclusion, including but not limited to weighing educated specialist opinions more than random blogger’s opinions.
I love that you’re seeing what you want to see here but I can promise you that I have no love for pop figures. That’s again, a weird old person assumption. People should listen when experts talk. That doesn’t mean they should ignore all other voices. Those things are not mutually exclusive.