Accountability for actions that effect people other than yourself is necessary for a healthy democracy. Your problem is mistaking accountability for persecution.

See what they actually mean is that they’re not really autistic, but they say they are because they think it’s a good excuse for antisocial behavior.

The real estate tycoons who lease out the office buildings are the reason for the return to office push by the media. They must continue to justify their existence at all costs.

Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly?

Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.

Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain

You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.

If copyright was not tradeable or transferable

Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.

And, after enough time, I’ve come to know Harris enough to trust her.

Keep your guard up, pal. Election years are mentally exhausting and when the dust clears you might start seeing things more clearly.

At the root of this cognitive dissonance is who benefits and who doesn’t. Copyright law is selectively applied in a way that protects the powerful and exploits the powerless. In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor, but due to the power imbalance inherent to capitalism it is instead used only to protect the interests of capital. The fact that AI companies are granted full impunity to violate the copyright of millions is evidence that copyright law is ineffective at the task for which it was purportedly created.

It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.

But why? That’s a very hard sell and a very inefficient use of your time. At best you could convince some anarchists of the harm reduction argument, but you could never convince anarchists to be enthusiastic about voting for Kamala, which is what those very absurd memes seem to be trying to do.

Edit: And very ineffectively I might add. I still can’t make heads or tails of what those memes are trying to say.

My issue with ground news is it doesn’t give any weight to funding sources when making its’ bias ratings, which makes it easy for billionaire-funded media conglomerates with a “neutral and unbiased” front to fly under the radar.

“Just here in my garage…”

*camera pans over to Lamborghini

“with my new Lamborghini!”

*camera zooms back to face close-up

“But you know what I like more than my new Lamborghini?”

*rapid pan to bookshelves

“Knowledge!!!”

I’m sorry I had to get this out of my head like an earworm.

It’s because they’re strange. The message they’re communicating is inscrutable.

Wtf

The solution to athlete’s foot is to chop off your toes. Harder to get foot fungus without all those pointless crevices.

Stop concern trolling. The ridiculous nature of the “threat” makes it obvious they’re being completely unserious.

Alright, I’ll play along.

Claim:

The document titled hamas human shields released by NATO Strategic Communications is propaganda.

Argument:

Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as-

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

Let’s break that down. To determine whether the NATO StratCom document hamas human shields meets the criteria for propaganda we need to answer the following:

Q: Does the item in question contain ideas, information, or rumor?

A: Without having to verify any claims you can still confidently state that the document contains at least one if not all of these. Statements of opinion can be classified as ideas, and statement of fact can be considered either information or rumor depending upon the amount and veracity of supporting evidence.

Q: Was the item in question spread for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person?

A: By posting the document on a public forum for the purpose of defending NATO’s actions, you yourself fulfilled this criteria. Prior to that, NATO StratCom also fulfilled it, as they have an implicit interest in defending the actions of NATO (which this document serves to do)

For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.

I don’t dispute this.

Unless you disagree with the meaning of the word propaganda then everything I said is a statement of fact, not a personal opinion. What do you mean when you say propaganda (and don’t just give examples, actually define it).

All value is subjective. I happen to believe humans’ ability to empathize across species is both beautiful and beneficial for the long-term sustainability of our species. Having empathy for other species helps us to understand the role nature plays in our lives, and to assert agency over the role we play in nature. Lacking empathy for animals allows us to see them as property, and humans tend to have an extractive and ultimately self-destructive disposition towards property.

there’s nothing “propaganda” about NATO

You can’t be serious. Everyone does propaganda, propaganda is everywhere. Just because you happen to agree with NATO propaganda doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda. Your original comment is propaganda, the responses to it are propaganda, this entire comment section is full of propaganda. Anyone disseminating information reflecting the views or interests of any doctrine or cause is engaging in propaganda.

Edit:

I misread your comment, that’s my mistake. I thought you were saying that trans rights no longer being under attack is why you wish you would stop hearing about them.

trans rights are no longer under attack.

Yes they are, you’ve just stopped hearing about it because the Democrats mostly stopped playing defense for them. Turns out a tiny minority has a very small voice when it isn’t being amplified by people with access to power and privilege. It’s similar to the way Democrats now support right-wing border policy despite paying lip service to leftist ideas about the border and immigration. It’s just another cause the Democrats cynically co-opted until it was no longer convenient.