Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
from the just-'cause-your-horse-is-high-doesn't-mean-your-road-is dept
Whenever you hear someone talking about “taking the high road” in regards to a controversial issue, it normally means they’ve got something to sell you. In the case of the Burns Auto Parts Blog (not associated with auto parts in any way), what Leslie Burns is trying to sell you is a one-way “discussion” peppered with sidelong swipes at the “anti-IP crowd.”
She desperately wants to claim the high road, but she can’t even make it into the second paragraph before it all falls apart:
Although it is incredibly tempting to want to, oh, smack freetards upside the head (or worse), we have to keep our fight above such tactics. Leave the bullshit attacks to them and rise above it.
“Freetards?” Really? In a post about the name-calling leveled at Jay Maisel for his legal scuffle with Andy Baio, it seems a little suspect to toss out “freetard” so quickly. But we’ll give her the benefit of a doubt and see if she can still locate this “high road”:
What can we do? Calmly and articulately post comments and blog posts everywhere we can, defending Maisel and intellectual property rights in general.
That’s better. Everyone likes a calm, articulate discussion. Even those of us who’ve “agreed to disagree” can get behind that. What else should we do?
Fight against CC and the Lessigites (including groups like Public Knowledge and EFF) and call on your professional organizations to come out 100% against these IP-weakening “tools” and the groups which support them!
Holy blindside! What was that? “IP-weakening tools?” “Fight against CC?” It’s odd that a post that starts out decrying the name-calling leveled against Maisel would suddenly veer into an attack on Creative Commons licensing, but I guess Leslie feels that attacking something unrelated out of the blue is clearly warranted and in no way “a bullshit attack.”
Back to the debate about the debate:
Don’t call names (okay… “freetard” is acceptable I think, but not much worse) but instead focus on the importance of IP in the global economy and on your personal economy. Make the case-you only can make your art if you are paid and IP rights are how that happens, etc.
Really? “Freetard” is “acceptable”? Since when? The only reason it gets a pass here at Techdirt is because we’ve completely co-opted it. But seeing as “freetard” is simply a modified “retard”, it still offends some readers when it gets used. Check out this comment thread to see just how upsetting it can be.
Obviously, this isn’t the only thing wrong with this paragraph. “You only can make your art if you are paid?” Well, Leslie, my condolences to all your readers who will be unable to enjoy the thrill of creating unless someone happens to be standing nearby waving money. I’ll go inform all the artists who create for the joy of creating that they’re “doing it wrong.” Not only that, but these artists might also like to know that the IP laws you’re so fond of are often known to hamper artists.
But Burns continues, adding insult to injury to stupidity:
These people, the freetards, the anti-strong-copyright people are tough enemies. They hide often behind anonymity. They are adept at spinning the rhetoric to make it sound like any strong copyright laws are an attack against free speech.
Yep. All of us “freetards” hide behind our “anonymity.” Why, look at that Mike Masnick guy. Or Chris Rhodes. Or Timothy Geigner. Nina Paley. Marcus Carab. Glyn Moody. Bas Grasmayer. Blaise Alleyne. Take a look at our comment threads, filled with named accounts.
And as for attacking free speech? It’s been pointed out here time and time again that these laws, which are being put into place to protect certain industries, are exactly that: attacks on free speech.
And what do you care about “free speech,” Leslie? Because as far as I can tell, you’re only interested in listening to the choir:
I will not approve any anonymous and/or freetard comments. I give you no space on my blog to “share.” Don’t even bother trying, okay? Thanks.
Nice. Say what you will about opposing opinions being “shouted down” or whatever here at Techdirt, but at least the opposing opinions are allowed to get in the front door. Over at the Burns blog, opposing views are locked out, which makes a complete mockery of the post’s claim of taking the high road in this debate.
Having a discussion does not mean locking out dissent, Leslie. What happened to the “calm, articulate comments” you were encouraging your readers to leave? Is that something only those you agree with are welcome to do? This street doesn’t run both ways?
If that’s the case, then your attempt to “raise the level of debate” is every bit as disingenuous as your favored industries’ attempts to “level the playing field.” And your frequent use of the word “freetard” indicates that you’ve already written off those opposing opinions as unimportant at best and mentally challenged at worst.
Filed Under: attack, copyright, creative commons, freetards, leslie burns
Comments on “Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'”
Remarkably, her posts read a lot like your own, only taking the other side of the argument. It’s really too bad you can’t seem to grasp what you read like to the other side of the debate.
Re:
Tim, however, is intentionally sarcastic, like a shock comedian. This woman is completely serious…
Re:
Nice. Say what you will about opposing opinions being “shouted down” or whatever here at Techdirt, but at least the opposing opinions are allowed to get in the front door. Over at the Burns blog, opposing views are locked out, which makes a complete mockery of the post’s claim of taking the high road in this debate.
Reading comprehension fail, anonymouse.
Re:
Tim may be intentional sarcastic, but under the sarcasm is the same crap mirrored from what this other person posts.
The strident shills on either side don’t add anything to the debate, they just get us concentrating on the 1% at either end of the debate.
the funniest part is that she has like 3 comments per post
the funniest part is that she has like 3 comments per post
It's really quite remarkable...
…to note the vehemence with which those connected to the dead and dying enterprises cling to the past. Their obvious inability to put the greater good — sharing of culture and knowledge on a planetary scale, now possible at very little cost — ahead of their personal profits is striking. And it seems worst among those who have the most, that is, those who have profited immensely and could live comfortably for the rest of their lives with no effort at all…yet they are not satisfied, and must have more, more, more, always more, no matter the long-term impact on the other several billion people on this planet.
Re:
And you are doing your best to pad the comments here. 😉
Re:
Honestly, I don’t mind a bit of snark from either side of the debate, as long as it can be backed with some facts and substance. That however, seems to be lacking in this “high road” discussion.
Jesus!
Holy crap Mike! Extremist Muslims would love her if she wasn’t a girl.
High level debate? What debate? She’s even criticizing CREATIVE COMMONS for God sake! It is PRECISELY one form of the copyright she glorifies. I’m betting she doesn’t have a clue about what she’s talking about.
No really, I know you posted that for our amusement. Epic success Mike 😉
Meanwhile I’m going to Jamendo to check on independent, free music created with no money in mind ;))
Tim. Please add “thin-skinned Nancyboy” to the list of insulting traits of piracy apologists.
Re:
Either her blog is THAT interesting that no1 reads it OR her extremism is not shared by the general public 😉
Re:
i didn’t mean to 🙁 it was an accident, my work internet is suppy buggy cause they force me to use ie5 and some awful webfilter that doesnt do much but remove pictures
Re:
*SO* interesting… Damned linguistic differences Y_Y
Ooooh, boy. Can’t wait until that auto parts blogger notices this.
* Fetches popcorn *
Re:
IE5??!?!?!?
Where do you work? A Cave?!?
On a more serious note, I worked on an air force base as a civilian contractor and am quite familiar with mandatory “safe” outdated software and over powering firewall systems.
Re:
I’m pretty sure the “smack freetards upside the head (or worse)” bit from this woman was an attempt at humor.
This just looks like two low-roaders flinging mud at eachother.
Re:
You missed the parody. Truthiness is at Wikipedia.
Re:
No, there is a difference. For one thing, our free speech position is backed by the fact that we allow anyone to comment. IP maximists position is backed up by attempts to censor free speech whenever possible. To IP maximists, free speech only applies to their position, while opposing criticisms get censored. It’s why the big pro-IP corporate media has no problems delivering pro-IP propaganda, despite the completely indefensible nature of our current IP laws, while they censor any criticisms. It’s partly why these government established monopolists use their government established control over various information distribution channels to censor dissenting views. They know that their position is indefensible and so they can not tolerate criticism.
Re:
“Tim may be intentional sarcastic, but under the sarcasm is the same crap mirrored from what this other person posts.”
Frankly, Tim’s sarcasm really isn’t the point. I don’t really have a problem with the strong opinions voiced by Leslie. If she’s Pro-IP, good for her, she has a right to her thoughts and to voicing them. Cush does as well.
The issue is this woman is an idiot. She proclaims the need for one thing and then does the other. Do not call names, except Freetard because that’s somehow okay. Engage in reasoned, calm discussion, except we won’t allow dissenting opinions on this particular blog.
It’s classic do one thing say another behavior and it’s irritating, disingenous, and stupid. I therefore have to conclude that Leslie isn’t actually a reasonable human being, she’s a pod-person named Mynock that regularly feeds on the blood of small Catholic children.
Wait…scratch that. She’s just an insignificant pain in the ass….
Re:
“I’m pretty sure the “smack freetards upside the head (or worse)” bit from this woman was an attempt at humor.”
I marked this as funny.
Re:
She’s clearly learned the lesson of the US Government and the MAFIAA; Simon Says but doesn’t Do.
Jesus!
You mean, “Tim”?
Mike writes a lot, but not every article. And Tim Cushing, AKA Capitalist Lion Tamer, (I believe), wrote this particular article.
Trademark infringement?
http://www.burnsauto.com/
Just sayin’….
She’s not even that creative. Her websites cutesy idea, a turn on “auto parts” and the various departments, such as “parts,” where she sells shirts and merch, and her blog is called “Super Premium” with some old gas pumps at the top, isn’t even related to her field of “expertise” which is photography.
I can say this as someone who HAS run a themed website in a mildly similar fashion. I used to run a website for rave/party culture and the “sections” of the site were things related to the layout of a club or a party: the “lobby” was the main entrance of the site past the splash page, the “phone booths” are were I kept the Production/Promotion companies phone numbers.. I can’t remember the rest and the wayback machine isn’t pulling all the images, so I can’t recall the rest, but at least my site design had some association to the content.
Re:
See the post below yours… MAFIAA? Pot, meet kettle.
Have a look around Techdirt, it’s packed with not so subtle insults and rude references. The level of discussion sunk at both ends.
Oh, yeah, for me “freetard” is on par with “copyright maximalist”. Both of them are a little over the top. Not everyone who supports IP is a “maximalist”, it’s a slight against people who don’t have the same opinion as the Techdirt crowd.
How is CC a copyright weakening tool?
CC (Creative Commons licensing) is a tool to grant permissions on a large scale.
Why is it wrong for creators to use CC to give out permissions for use of their own creative works? How does that affect any other copyright owners?
CC depends upon the strength of copyright.
Without strong copyright, I can’t sue someone for going beyond the bounds of the CC permissions I gave them (thus infringing my copyright).
If Jon Doe makes his creative work available under a CC license, how does that weaken copyright for Jane Doe?
I would appreciate a calm and articulate reply.
Re:
my moneys on the later.
Re:
“Have a look around Techdirt, it’s packed with not so subtle insults and rude references. The level of discussion sunk at both ends.”
No, there are rude references at both ends of the debate, and if you can get past the seriously small amount of vulgarity and rudeness, you’ll find a great deal of worthwhile discussion on BOTH ends. That’s the point. The discussion is open. And you won’t find all that much in the way of folks really crying about being called names around here, because no one really cares. The only reason her use of Freetard is worthy of mention is because it comes a few words after her saying that people shouldn’t resort to namecalling. That’s just stupid.
“Oh, yeah, for me “freetard” is on par with “copyright maximalist”.”
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, as silly as it might be. Copyright maximalist is descriptive (sometimes falsely so) without being derogatory. Freetard is descriptive AND derogatory. Hence the significant difference.
Jesus!
We have two Tim’s, Dark Helmet and C.Li.T.
I always forget which last name belongs to who, but since this one didn’t have any penis jokes I think you are right and its C.Li.T.’s post
I wonder if she gets paid to express her opinion? If not, SHE’S A FREETARD*!!!
* I read somewhere that it is ok to call her a freetard, as long as I don’t call her anything worse.
Re:
Well, you’re just being mentally freetarded now.
Jesus!
This is awesome. I’ve been reduced to penis jokes and Cush is C.Li.T.
I’d argue…but you know….man-sausage….
Re:
Techdirt doesn’t censor their comments or approve only comments they like.
POW!
Whew! You sure told him.
Re:
Look, just because you’re freetarded doesn’t mean that you don’t understand the concepts going around here. You’re staying willfully stupid about the issues. The law is the law, the party is over, and there is no free lunch.
Since it seems that most people didn’t understand whether my comments yesterday were sarcasm or not:
Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
And why post about their nonsense? It only gives them exposure for poorly articulated, reactionary, and idiotic ideas.
Look, maybe I missed the IP-argument boat; I don’t even know who this lass is. Her bio makes her out to be a creative professional with a law degree.
News flash, most lawyers don’t know much about copyright or IP generally. (It’s not a required course at any law school I know.)
Perhaps she does, but she doesn’t have any good arguments about it. I’d doubt she’d have much luck in real copyright litigation. And I don’t see her publishing anything except poorly written blog posts.
So stop doing her a favor and stop responding to nonsense. This doesn’t seem to be a lady who’s copyright ideas should be taken seriously.
Re:
Sounds like working in finance.
Re:
The “other side” is willing to sacrifice anything, even freedom of speech, to “win” the copyright argument.
If anyone has any doubt, they just need to look at their actions: questionable domain seizures, broken laws, illegal action, smear tactics… Anything goes to protect the monopolies. And everyone can see that NONE of their actions is meant to protect the artists, only the middleman, who are the one who are really hurt by the removal of copyright.
Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns’?
Because unlike her, we think discussion entails actually talking to people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGXFdXyOBw&feature=related
Burn!!!
Re:
Of course, YOU get to make that observation. We the readers can’t make such observations on her post, Mr. Anonymous….
Re:
“MAFIAA”
yes how dare we offend organized criminals and their families and loved ones by comparing them to the RIAA and MPAA
more serious note, I think the major difference is the original post was claiming to be a high road attempt at civil open discourse and is anything but. the ability to say name calling is bad and then use a variation of retard in the next sentence or the other hypocrisy deserve to be called out.
This post pretends to be nothing but calling barns out on her bullshit. While it isn’t the most civil, balanced or high road post it also never claimed to be. Also it doesn’t attack an entire side of the debate, just one misinformed, close minded, high horsed debater
Re:
> Oh, yeah, for me “freetard” is on par with
> “copyright maximalist”.
Except one is a play on a grossly insulting term used to refer to people struggling with with actual disabilities. The other is “copyright maximalist”.
Re:
Speaking of free lunches, why is healthcare free under this administration but culture isn’t?
Re:
You’re staying willfully stupid about the issues.
Project much? So copyright maximalists don’t live in a constant state of willful stupidity about economics, scarcity/abundance/rivalrous/non-rivalrous, changing markets, customer desires, civil liberties, constitutional issues, original stated intent of copyright, and common sense?
The law is the law,
Unjust law is no law. Laws which cannot be enforced without significant harm on innocents are unethical and immoral.
the party is over,
The party will never be over.
and there is no free lunch.
Where have any of us freetards said there was?
Re:
“She proclaims the need for one thing and then does the other.”
To be fair, that’s sort of what Cushing did in the trolls = drunks thread, post, right?
Re:
Hoth, for the name calling, it’s a question of “the high road”. If this side of the debate slides into “maximalist” and “MAFIAA”, the other side is just as justified to use freetard or pirate to describe what they see.
There is no high road over here, so complaining about the lack of a high road on the other side isn’t exactly meaningful. Clean up the techdirt backyard first, and then moan about others.
Re:
“why is healthcare free”
Hate to break it to you, but it’s not.
Jesus!
Not that I don’t like your posts DH, I just find that you both have similar styles, albeit very different voices. I usually can’t tell from the post who it is if I am not clear on whose name is what. Unless of course their are penis or fart jokes than I am sure its you :). Thats not necessarily a bad thing, i still enjoy potty humor and use it liberally, and your humor is not limited to dick jokes its just not afraid to stroke the boundaries of sophomoric humor(hehe i said stroke). Otherwise I do a quick scan of the comments and look for the blue poster.
And isnt CLiT so much more fun than CLT
Re:
“the law is the law” so we should just accept it as being absolutely the best thing? Too bad you weren’t around earlier. That way women could still be denied the right to vote in the U.S.
But I’m still confused how all the art throughout history managed to get made before the recent IP laws.
There are bad laws. There used to be laws making it a crime for a black man to cross a state line with a white woman in the car and they certainly couldn’t get married. People went to jail because of it. Saying that something is right because it is law is just plain flawed.
The debate over the effects of IP is not only valid but necessary. If disputes about the value and validity of new laws are to be summarily dismissed, you will eventually find that rights you once had are taken from you and you will not be permitted to say anything about it.
Experiment: Can I write a pro-copyright comment that is so inaccurate and inflammatory that she will moderate it?
Re:
by pointing to a study that some anonymous posters on forums act in a manner similar to heavy intoxication? How insulting and hypocritical.
Comment thread hijack
So I posted a comment that took the pro-IP side and went over the top. Maybe if we all attempt to post pro-IP comments with enough absurd hyperbole that the blog will appear neo-copyright maximalist. Here is what I wrote (still awaiting moderation, mind you):
I, along with the other four people who agreed with you in the last 8 days, feel that these free people just can?t grasp that I would never produce any art unless someone was handing me a dollar for my work. What is the point of doing art if I won?t get paid for it? They are so worried about free speech, but what about my right to be paid money endlessly for creating something one time with the expectation to be set for life from my weeks work of creativity? If they want art for free then they should make it themselves and be sure not to copy true artists. They can enjoy their sub-par art for free. I would rather live in obscurity and nobody own my art than for someone get it for free and gain notoriety for my skills. Keep up the fight??til the death!
cc tags
“…Fight against CC and the Lessigites…”
“…These people, the freetards, the anti-strong-copyright people are tough enemies. They hide often behind anonymity…”
In response to these comments, this anonymous freetard (who hides behind his own name and portrait) is going to add a “creative commons” blurb to the bottom of his website’s image gallery.
I’m getting sick of middlemen and hacks claiming that all artists need strong protections.
1. Getting noticed is hard
2. Ideas that spread win.
How does copyright help with either of these?
Re:
Here, have some free lunch.
“If you’re like me and always looking to check out new music then here’s your chance to download 26 FREE songs from the Pitchfork Music Festival!!
These songs are from amazing indie bands like Fleet Foxes, Cut Copy and many more … and while you’ve probably never heard of them this is your chance to get all caught up on the music festival scene!”
http://blog.urbanoutfitters.com/features/pitchfork?cm_mmc=Social-_-FB-_-blog-_-uoxpitchfork
Re:
“To be fair, that’s sort of what Cushing did in the trolls = drunks thread, post, right?”
Well, I will try to be fair in saying that I can absolutely see how one would arrive at that opinion. I happen not to share it, though I’m obviously biased in that I like Tims in general and Cush in particular, but here’s how I see it:
Tim’s Trolls piece wasn’t trolling in that he wasn’t actually trying to rile Techdirt’s trolls up, in my opinion. Rather, he saw a study that seemed to explain why some folks engage in that kind of behavior. His purpose was to be funny, not enrage or annoy. He linked to the study that was relevant to his position. Perhaps most importantly, he was posting that piece on a blog he writes for with his name attached. So review:
1. Intention was not trollish
2. Actually linking to back up his point lacks trollitude
3. Not posting on someone else’s site
To me, those things equal “not troll”. Your experience may vary….
Re:
i was saying Boourns 🙁
Re:
“There is no high road over here, so complaining about the lack of a high road on the other side isn’t exactly meaningful. Clean up the techdirt backyard first, and then moan about others.”
Ugh, how can you have missed the point here!!?? We aren’t claiming some moral highroad with regard to what language people use, SHE did. I’m good with namecalling. I think most of the people here don’t really care either.
The issue is that she said people shouldn’t resort to namecalling out of one side of her mouth and then said Freetard out of the other. In other words, she blatantly contradicted herself. It’s the contradiction I hate, not the namecalling….
Trademark infringement?
Any chance of them sending her a C&D?
Comment thread hijack
I actually decided to come at her calmly… much like she said…
As a business person who is deeply involved in using public forums (such as Facebook) in the business world, I have to say you’re quite wrong about the ‘need’ to censor that space. If you post your opinion in a public place and filter out any dissenting opinion, you come off as insincere and fearful of being proven ‘wrong’.
I help insurance agents set up their Social Networking space… one of the things I teach them is to NEVER delete derogatory posts. If an irate customer (or ex-customer, as would probably be the case) posts insulting things that calls to question business ethics, et al, it is far better to respond politely and rationally to the concern and invite them to discuss it further (usually in person or on the phone)
Deleting offensive language is a different matter. That’s just respect for other readers. But it would be far better again to repost an ‘edited’ version of the origional post which removes the one or more offensive words.
This is your blog and you’re welcome to handle it as you wish. But when you state that calm, rational ~discussion~ is needed to convince others that you’re right… it’s best not to completely silence those who may disagree with you. It makes you seem like someone who is afraid to actually have to defend her position and would rather surround herself by like-minded yes men.
Funny thing… I gave my own name and none of what I said is untrue.
So who wants odds on her not allowing the post?
Re:
I think somebody beat me to it:
“Neal May Says:
July 13th, 2011 at 10:57 am
I, along with the other four people who agreed with you in the last 8 days, feel that these free people just can?t grasp that I would never produce any art unless someone was handing me a dollar for my work. What is the point of doing art if I won?t get paid for it? They are so worried about free speech, but what about my right to be paid money endlessly for creating something one time with the expectation to be set for life from my weeks work of creativity? If they want art for free then they should make it themselves and be sure not to copy true artists. They can enjoy their sub-par art for free. I would rather live in obscurity and nobody own my art than for someone get it for free and gain notoriety for my skills. Keep up the fight??til the death!”
Comment thread hijack
I laughed a lot when I read your comment. I can’t believe it did not get moderated. Mine if much more inflammatory so I’m still waiting.
Re:
It’s no use explaining, “copyright maximalists” (apparently a term as offensive as retard) don’t use logic in their reasoning, only blind faith. They have faith that she was taking the high road so it doesn’t really matter if she took the high road or just insulted people like a petulant child.
Your arguing with someone who is incapable of critical thinking and as such is unable to comprehend what was written, the irony involved, and the responses to said irony.
Re:
Hmmm…She doesn’t have a paywall on her own blog? Isn’t that basically an unspoken admission that she’s wrong?
Re:
A trade union that racketeers, and tries to skim both ends of the cream?
Sounds similar to that other oirganisation, only this one has THE POWER OF LAW!!!!!! Also, it’s an apt alternate Acronym for the two roganisations combined:
Music And Film Industries Association of America.
Comment thread hijack
She approved you comment. I give you a funny for that.
Re:
what DH said.
We never claimed the high-rode so we don’t have to ride it.
I’m more like a an over logical 12 year old than a pious scholar. PENIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cush wasn’t trying to say we are better he is just calling out hypocrisy and spreading of false information, he did it here probably in part because he can’t do it there and he knows she will still probably read it.
Feel free to call out all hypocrisy and false info you see on techdirt, i believe they have a comment section for you to do so
Freetard?
As I said before a freetard is a type of Saint – somewhere between a Holy Unmercenary and a fool for Christ’s sake.
It seems odd that some people regard simple-mindedness – which used to be regarded as virtuous – even holy – and a willingness to share and to give things away as negative things – so sad…
Re:
Too Funny! But she caught on! It disappeared even as I was reading it!
Re:
That’s brilliant satire there.
Trademark infringement?
We can send a takedown request on their behalf according to the Daily Mail
Comment thread hijack
Aaaand it wasn’t approved. How… telling.
Comment thread hijack
Still not there. This is what I posted.
Just a quick note: ‘Freetard’ is a derogatory term used by certain aspects of the copyright maximalists, often meaning ‘someone who disagrees with me’. So I find it amusing that you would find it acceptable to use a term meaning ‘mentally disabled about “free”‘ to try and insult people who disagree with you. Yes, copyright is a difficult and complex area of law, but would you prefer that the business you were working with adapted somewhat to meet its customers’ needs, or one that was absolutely intractable?
You also refer to “smacking freetards upside the head (or worse), we have to keep our fight above such tactics.” There is no justice in making threats. That just shuts down the discussion, which you stated is not your intent.
Re:
Wow, talk about missing it!
I don’t think she is on the high road, I think she is bit of a road apple, actually. But that isn’t the key. She claims the high road (and fails), but a post on Techdirt about it is like pissing down from on high, as if Techdirt is somehow the high road.
It’s a double fail, the old double facepalm thing as both sides mark themselves as incapable of accepting the other side might have something useful to say.
POW!
STRONG LIKE FRERTARD!!!
Tried to sneak this in
But the comments were closed by the time I hit the post button. Dang it, some of my best snark yet! Note the first sentence initialism.
————————-
So, always this is really important, critical and logical.
I am also getting pretty sick of these freetards fighting for their so-called “fair use.” Law abiding citizens know that real fair use is to only create wholly original works, unless you receive permission from the original creator. I’ve seen so many lazy freetards copy whole paragraphs into their “original” blog posts, without ever having asked the original writer for permission how is that possibly fair?
And agreed on Creative Commons, or as it’s more accurately described, Creative Communism. This whole idea that artists should have the right to license their work for free, to let people copy or even sell their creations without first asking for permission, that is the very death of creativity in our society. If more untalented freetards keep licensing their own creative work with Creative Communism, then there will be no reason to ever pay professional artists for their own work. With so much crap out there, why bother paying for something good!
We need to strengthen copyright laws, to put an end to abominations like Creative Communism which, while being presented as an optional method for artists to license their work, is clearly a evil freetard plot to dismantle copyright protection for all. No more 3rd party protection for copyright free-fire zones like YouTube, eBay or Flickr… for now on, service providers should be required to ascertain the provenance of artwork before allowing the possibly stolen videos or photos to be posted online. No more anonymous comments, or unmoderated comments! Let’s make blog publishers stand behind every word posted on their sites, so we can end this tyranny of slander plaguing our discourse!
End unfair use. End Creative Communism. And let’s put the old gatekeepers back in place to make sure that amateur so-called artists don’t destroy the ability of real artists to make a living.
Comment thread hijack
it appears to have been taken down
Re:
The law is the law, the party is over, and there is no free lunch
yes, the law is the law. but perhaps you may want to review your history (hell, even take a highschool government class for that matter) and it will tell you that the law is not always the law. as a society changes its laws change. such is always the case. sometimes those laws are changed by means of citizen actions, sometimes those laws are changed by means of force (e.g. revolution, social unrest).
it seems that you may WANT the laws to be the laws and never change. but that is not how the world… nay any society at all that has ever been around in the history of ever actually works.
Re:
I would say that in normal terms, you are drunk on the koolaid. If that is your logic and thinking, you already lost the argument all by yourself.
by all means, take the moral high road.
all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target.
She updated the post with a link to why she doesn’t allow dissenting opinions:
http://www.burnsautoparts.com/blog/2011/03/10/managing-your-message/
Re:
Ok, maybe you have a point, but the real point of the article was to point out this Dumb Dizzy Bitch’s hypocrisy, and to Tim’s point, your comments are still showing up despite the fact that you share the opposite viewpoint… so, do you have anything to add to the discussion, or did you just come here to vent?? (Either way is acceptable, I’d just like to know so I can ignore you if you’re simply screaming for the sake of screaming…)
Having read every comment, here's the sum:
Title: “Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word ‘Freetard'”
Whereas here at Techdirt, debate means opening up comments for trivia, insider chatting, and completely unnecessary vulgarity, so you guys don’t even have “Raising The Level Of Debate” as a goal.
I’m looking at you, “Dark Helmet”:
“This is awesome. I’ve been reduced to penis jokes and Cush is C.Li.T.
I’d argue…but you know….man-sausage….”
Except that you’re not “reduced” to it: surely you CHOSE what to write. It’s a particularly glaring flaw after the “Troll” piece: you guys are trolling your own site!
Re: Having read every comment, here's the sum:
“Whereas here at Techdirt, debate means opening up comments for trivia, insider chatting, and completely unnecessary vulgarity”
It’s not like IP maximists, like yourself, don’t contribute to this.
Re:
Speaking of free lunches, why is healthcare free under this administration but culture isn’t?
this administration was brought to you in party by hollywood, so IP is a huge deal. the last one was brought to you in part by AT&T, so net neutrality was a huge deal.
in 2013 the huge deal will be either IP or net neutrality, depending on who wins.
Re:
Remarkably, her posts read a lot like your own, only taking the other side of the argument. It’s really too bad you can’t seem to grasp what you read like to the other side of the debate.
That would be a good point except there’s no debate over there. See also: locked-down comment thread.
Over here, anyone can come in and tell me how wrong I am. Even if I’m just the polar opposite of Leslie Burns, to visiting readers, it looks like she’s well-liked and has the undying support of 3 or 4 people.
Here, however, anybody “just visiting” is able to see how many people dislike me and wish I would go back to my day job and etc. They’ll also be able to see commenters pointing out factual errors or questioning my logic.
That’s a big difference especially if you’re staking a claim on the “high road.” (Something I’m not going to do. I’m not going to hold others to a standard I’m not able to keep.)
Re:
Have a look around Techdirt, it’s packed with not so subtle insults and rude references. The level of discussion sunk at both ends.
That’s true, but I don’t believe we’ve ever run a post stating some “higher standard” that we’re going to hold ourselves or our commenters to.
Plus, what DH, Hoth and others said. The hypocrisy you’re looking for isn’t here, especially when you’ve got the freedom to point it out in an open comment thread.
Having read every comment, here's the sum:
Yeah,b tu at least we have a discussion. The comments have now been closed.
Re:
To be fair, that’s sort of what Cushing did in the trolls = drunks thread, post, right?
As DH has said, the main intention of the trolling post was to be funny. Obviously, when the subject of trolling comes up, plenty of commenters (both trolls and non-trolls) will have plenty of loaded language in their comments.
I was no different. I trolled right back at a few commenters, if for no other reason than the post was about trolling. I don’t normally do this sort of thing, but in this case, I was more than willing to splash around in the mud.
As DH has also pointed out, this wasn’t some anonymous anti-troll bomb delivered at the doorstep. I wrote it. I attached the links to various examples of trolling. And, despite all the protests that “this doesn’t matter because everyone online is a sock puppeting liar”, my name is permanently attached to both the post and my comments.
So, for all of those people who claim that having a name/profile attached to comments and posts is “meaningless” (because of the “sock puppet/liar” thing), answer me this:
How would you have been able to point out my hypocritical trolling if I didn’t have an account and a name?
That is how that works. See?
Having read every comment, here's the sum:
DH didn’t write this article.
His comment above is in reference to me saying I can tell he didn’t write it because there are no penis jokes. Your argument is invalid.
Re:
Just as funny as when she says “freetards” is an acceptable term to use? But “not much worse?” (Whatever that means.)
Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
Talking to people willing to talk, sure. But people who don’t have ideas, but rather throw out polemical grenades, don’t deserve being part of the conversation.
In short, she’s a nobody, with no original ideas, no persuasive arguments, and nothing to recommend her.
There are plenty of folks who are so-called “pro-ip” with ideas, with original thoughts, and persuasive arguments that should be recommended.
Jesus!
Well, if I can’t compete on dick jokes, at least I’m still inappropriately abbreviated as one of the most sensitive of girl parts.
I’m forwarding this particular thread to my Mom!
Re:
I’d forward that on to Leslie, but it appears the comment threads are closed. 🙁
Streisand Attack
We’ll see if this works. Based on the idea that Google returns results based on keywords (yeah, I know… not that simple), I posted this http://angryhuman.blogspot.com/2011/07/spreading-word-about-leslie-burns-of.html to see if I can come up above her own blog. We shall see. And even if it doesn’t, at least I got to say my piece and others can spread the word. 🙂
How to take the high road in a debate:
-Try to understand your opponent’s point of view
-Be sympathetic
-Use reason and logic
-Keep an open mind
How to “take the high road” in a debate:
-Dismiss your opponent’s point of view
-Be insulting
-Use emotionally-charged rhetoric
-Assume you are right and your opponent is wrong
Re:
We really should start selling popcorn here…
That's alot of self loathing....
free?tard ˈfrē ˈt?rd
1. Not costing or charging anything to slow up especially
by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment
2. Slang: Disparaging .
b. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in the concept of expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object.
3. Expectation of recieving any remuneration for services or work they did not perform or provide.
Examples of Freetard
“This fucking freetard incorrectly labels and insults others whose efforts produce works based on common concepts and ideas or personal experiences, while the freetard has not actively contributed and insists on undue compensation for other’s works”
“I cannot believe this freetard intends to stop business if they do not recieve payment for work they did not perform.”
Re:
It’s not the internet without a Simpson’s reference. +1 Google Points and whatnot!
Having read every comment, here's the sum:
OOTB –
Have you spoken to Mike about having that byline moved to somewhere more noticeable? Perhaps the comment box?
Except that you’re not “reduced” to it: surely you CHOSE what to write. It’s a particularly glaring flaw after the “Troll” piece: you guys are trolling your own site!
That may be, but I’m fairly sure neither Penis Joke or myself will ever claim that we’re “taking the high road.” And that’s the difference. You can’t claim the high road and travel the low-to-medium road and expect not to be called out on it. (I guess. I suppose you could always [theoretically] close the comment threads…)
Having read every comment, here's the sum:
“That may be, but I’m fairly sure neither Penis Joke or myself will ever claim that we’re “taking the high road.””
Quite the opposite, in fact. I’ve found that if you go out of your way to take the low road it gives a much better view up the skirts of everyone above you….
Re:
Bah, my sarcasm tag didn’t take and I didn’t preview it. Sorry folks, massive failure on my part.
The Lunch is free after it's expiration date.
>> and there is no free lunch.
>
> Where have any of us freetards said there was?
Lunch is free after it’s expiration date.
THAT is how the system was intended to work.
People that spout “free lunch” rhetoric are just grossly misrepresenting the nature of intellectual property in general. Anyone that asks for nothing more but some old school balance gets quickly smeared as a “freetard”.
Re:
Be quiet, you hypocritical, trolling freetard.
Jesus!
I am the master of the C.Li.T. Remember this fucking face. Whenever you see C.Li.T., you’ll see this fucking face. I make that shit work.
-Jason Mewes
Liberty is a virtue.
Liberty is messy sometimes. It can also be quite difficult to the point where you could consider it a virtue. Defending someone else’s right to be heard or defended can be very dangerous sometimes.
Fortunately, we have a very long history in these parts of allowing for and defending the unpopular, or despised, or just plain radical.
Since 1770 at least, probably longer than that.
Re:
“I like Tims in general and Cush in particular”
I didn’t realize you were Canadian. I personally prefer Country Style over Tims and I believe it is spelled Kush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kush_%28cannabis%29
Re:
I can point it out, and get shouted down right or wrong. All this woman did was shut off the comments so she didn’t have to filter out all you “freetards” (her term) who would show up and make a mess of her site. It’s her choice, the magic of owning the forum. Her home, her rules.
If you don’t like her rules or find them somehow hypocritical, that’s fine. But open comments on this site doesn’t mean that any site who doesn’t leave comments open is somehow less correct in their views.
[but instead focus on the importance of IP in the global economy and on your personal economy]
My “personal economy” …well in that case, I’m happy to give away lots of stuff for free. I’m not sure I care that much about global economy in terms of art.
[you only can make your art if you are paid and IP rights are how that happens, etc]
Where did that come from? So very NOT TRUE.
I can (AND DO) make my art anywhere, anytime for any purpose, with or without pay.
Why should IP decide when and where I can make my art, or whether I can make it at all? It doesn’t now, it hasn’t in the past, and it sure as hell won’t in the future.
Only I have the right to decide whether or not I make any art at all.
I am not actually “anti-copyright” or IP, I am however “anti-stupid”. I believe in copyright to a point, I believe in creative processes, I believe in an artist being able to make money for their work…I just don’t believe in the way copyright and IP current works…er, the way it doesn’t work.
Am I a freetard…no and yes. You figure it out.
Goodnight “Burns Auto Parts”.
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn9NbZecLI0
Comment thread hijack
Yes, I read it there and now it is gone. DELETE DELETE DELETE she says about differing opinions.
Comment thread hijack
But I was completely agreeing with her!!! =]
Re:
C’mon man. His post was a lot more than “pointing to a study.”
Let’s not be disingenuous.
Re:
“His purpose was to be funny, not enrage or annoy. “
I may give you “enrage,” but I think he at least knew, if not intended. he would be annoying to some.
Re:
Anonymity aside, I think a trolling anti-troll post fits what I was talking about earlier re: “say one thing; do another,” especially since here whole “freetard” comment *does* appear to be an attempt at humor.
Re:
That would help the corn farmers.
Ready for more irony?
On her blog, the entry below this linked one titled “The ONE Thing,” states:
“There is one thing you can do, today, on Independence Day (USA), that is absolutely free and will improve your business on a fundamental level. Anyone can do this, and in so doing, you will see an improvement in your business.
What is it? What can you do?
Stop blaming anything external for the state of your business.”
http://www.burnsautoparts.com/blog/
Re:
Disingenuous? Like comparing Tim’s post about a study that was delivered in a sarcastic light while still leaving the whole thing up to discussion…
To a hypocritical, self-centered bitch who thinks that only her opinion should be heard (or at least only those who echo hers) while trying to hop on a high-horse about how we need open discussion and those ‘freetards’ just won’t discuss it rationally?
Yeah… great example of being genuine.
Comment thread hijack
She thought so as well. Until she re-read it or saw it here.LOL
Re:
Sorry, but her use of ‘freetard’ appears to be an attempt at humor to you… to me, it appears to be an attempt to feel superior to those who disagree with you by using a [sic]derogatory term to describe them.
My posts
are all from me. I’m logged in at home and it appears that my image isn’t wanting to play right. 🙁
My posts
Or, it could be that was neither signed in, nor paying attention to the fact that my name on the comment box was typed in the anonymous box. [facepalm]
Disregard this sub-thread.
Re:
Can’t it be both? That’s exactly the sort of “silly maximalists” humor Tim Cushing provides.
Re:
Yet, one of mine is being held for moderation. Go figure.
It’s comical too!
Re:
I didn’t provide an example of being genuine. I called your post disingenuous. You then changed the subject.
I take that to mean you are, in fact, just a disingenuous person, and I don’t care to continue conversing with you.
Re:
I didn’t say it *was* funny, but an attempt at humor.
Fuck the high road
You know, I don’t usually post on public forums. I tend to stick to lurking and quietly interjecting here and there. But the more I do, the more I get tired of people attacking me because of what I believe. I wonder if perhaps it’s time we stop trying to be “nice”, and begin to take the fight to them as they fight with us. With violence. With stealing their liberties. Let us go beyond simple name calling, let us begin to use their tools against them, and show them how it feels to be punched down into this position.
In the future, when we face the sorts of threats like we do from this Leslie Burns person, I believe we should begin to start calling for justice. Leslie Burns and her ilk are terrorists. They do nothing but destroy the liberty and freedom of the American citizen. Burns and those she supports commit treason and sedition against the United States of America and this country’s best interests.
Perhaps it’s time to quit being nice. Perhaps we should consider calling for the internment of these people, as they have done against us. Leslie Burns should go to the deepest, darkest hole we have, charged and convicted – Guilty without the chance to stand trial – with terrorism, treason and sedition. These people deserve to FACE the threats against their God-given rights and freedoms, just as they threaten and attempt to jail us.
Re:
She is so far off the high road that she is standing on the corner of
Brain St & Dead Ave
Fuck the high road
Uh, no. No on pretty much everything.
I say let Leslie talk and let those that think like her talk. In fact, talk even louder. The reason this stuff is allowed to happen is because it’s mostly done in the darkness. If Leslie wrote this on the front of the NY Times, THEN you’d get a visceral reaction out of people.
Shutting up dissention does NOT work, because the cause of the dissention is still there unaddressed, whether that cause is just or not. Bring it all out into the open for a fair fight in the light and let the chips fall where they may….
Fuck the high road
No, nono. This isn’t to shut up dissension. There is no fair fight anymore, DH. There hasn’t been for a very long time. Why should we fight fair against those with considerably more power to entirely shut us out?
Even if we had the chance to plaster this inhuman, disgusting piece of refuse all over the media, she’d only come out on top and a large voting majority of the United States would either not care or vote for their rights to be stolen from them. All because SHE and her industry would twist it against us.
This isn’t about violently forcing the close of dissension. No, this is about violently replying against them, just as loud and destructive as they are against us. We haven’t hurt anyone, and we do not terrorize our own. They do. Leslie Burns is a terrorist, and she should be forced to go to the same correction facilities she and her kind believe we all belong in.
Re:
-sigh- try to keep up with me here…
You tried to insinuate that Tim’s post about drunk trolls is as bad as this woman’s blog post…. when I disagreed and stated that it was pointing to a study that was done (read: not just Tim’s opinion) you called me disinginuous.
So, i called you out for being disinginuous for making the comparison in the first place. Sorry if I confused you by using whit and sarcasm to express my point. Didn’t mean for you to think I changed the subject.
You can feel free to no longer converse with me… but I do want to point out how lucky you must feel to be able to read context into anything you don’t like so that you can feel morally justified in dismissing and ignoring it. Taking the high-horse to the high ground as it were… hmmm…. Leslie, I presume?
@Tim
Lulz I got a shout out (in part), even if it’s for being sensitive.
Good post Tim.
Re:
If you don’t like her rules or find them somehow hypocritical, that’s fine.
Agreed. I don’t and I do. In that order.
But open comments on this site doesn’t mean that any site who doesn’t leave comments open is somehow less correct in their views.
It doesn’t mean they’re necessarily “less correct,” but leaving your comment threads open to only those who support you is intellectually dishonest. Either close them completely or leave them wide open. If you’ve got problems with trolls, deal with your trolls. But don’t half-ass it by letting in only those who want to tell you what a great job you’re doing.
Like you said, it’s her site and she can run it however she wants. “Protect the brand” or whatever. But to anyone not completely enamored with her, it just looks like someone running a crooked game.
Re:
Well, then one helpful thing would be to provide a different name that describes yourself and like-minded individuals. It would have to be accurate though, otherwise it won’t be used and would simply be the object of more ridicule.
Until then, freetard is likely going to stand.
And like it or not, makes this blog a “freetard blog”.
How is CC a copyright weakening tool?
I’d have to say that in reality some see Creative Commons as more of a “profit weakening tool”, and “profit” is what copyright is all about, to some anyway.
For example: When looking for a photo to put in a article you are writing, you only manage to find two images that will work perfectly. One that is CC BY and the other only usable by paying a licensing fee to the copyright holder. If you chose to use the CC BY photo, it just “cost” the copyright holder of the other “licensing fee” photo a sale.
That’s bad for business, and anything that is bad for their business is evil, to them. It only weakens copyright in the sense that it weakens “their” ability to make money. That is the real crux of the matter here, and they are deathly afraid of it because they see themselves as incapable of competing with “free”.
Re:
I am so very close to agreeing with you on this. Without being a mindreader, I would probably lean towards her using it as an (attempted) joke early on. But once she gets warmed up, it sounds as those the humor is completely gone:
These people, the freetards, the anti-strong-copyright people are tough enemies. They hide often behind anonymity. They are adept at spinning the rhetoric to make it sound like any strong copyright laws are an attack against free speech. We have a hell of a battle ahead, but the tide is, in my opinion, starting to turn for the better.
This doesn’t sound like she’s being funny. She sounds pretty serious here and yet, the term “freetard” makes another appearance.
Re:
@Dark Helmet: in case you hadn’t noticed, blogs are not democracies.
The blogger / author can run it anyway he or she pleases. If you disagree with her, feel free to write your own blog and do things differently.
It’s called freedom of choice . . .
Fuck the high road
You know, I don’t usually post on public forums.
You might want to keep that policy going.
I tend to stick to lurking and quietly interjecting here and there. But the more I do, the more I get tired of people attacking me because of what I believe. I wonder if perhaps it’s time we stop trying to be “nice”, and begin to take the fight to them as they fight with us.
That’s a plan that will certainly backfire badly.
With stealing their liberties. Let us go beyond simple name calling, let us begin to use their tools against them, and show them how it feels to be punched down into this position.
Escalation is no plan to accomplish anything productive.
In the future, when we face the sorts of threats like we do from this Leslie Burns person, I believe we should begin to start calling for justice. Leslie Burns and her ilk are terrorists. They do nothing but destroy the liberty and freedom of the American citizen. Burns and those she supports commit treason and sedition against the United States of America and this country’s best interests.
I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous. She’s no terrorist. She may be silly, but she’s expressing an opinion. Deal with it.
Perhaps it’s time to quit being nice. Perhaps we should consider calling for the internment of these people, as they have done against us. Leslie Burns should go to the deepest, darkest hole we have, charged and convicted – Guilty without the chance to stand trial – with terrorism, treason and sedition. These people deserve to FACE the threats against their God-given rights and freedoms, just as they threaten and attempt to jail us
Honestly, when I read this, I actually think you’re a Leslie supporter, just *trying* to make others look bad. This is a stupid idea.
Sad
This is a bad way to handle this sort of issue. The comment issue alone pretty much destroys the argument. Name calling is also fairly pathetic.
Methinks this lady doth not understand the concept of faire yuse.
Tried to sneak this in
Just use Google Side Wiki. I am going to post some things there.
Re:
Where was it claimed that TD was taking the high road? I’m not even reading that as being inferred, just claimed by you.
Re:
Yes, she has that choice. None of us are arguing that point. However, she says she’s taking the high road in a discussion that doesn’t welcome any sort of discussion except the side she supports. That’s neither a ‘high road’ or a ‘discussion.’ Frankly, it seems more like mental masturbation.
Re:
What part did he fail to comprehend? Support your, errr… argument. And it was Tim, not anonymouse. Is there an anonymouse account here? Hrmm.
Re:
That is an automated system designed to catch spammers, bots and the like. Mike regularly goes through them and clears it out, so your comment should show up at some point.
Re:
…or state his disagreement on this blog. Which appears to be what he’s doing.
It is indeed called freedom of choice. Problem?
Fuck the high road
Why should we fight fair against those with considerably more power to entirely shut us out?
Because they *don’t* have the power to shut us entirely out. Remember who has strength in numbers.
I understand your frustration, and won’t respond nearly as rudely as Mike did, but as it stands now, this is a cultural war, but not a physical one. Patience will pay off.
Tried to sneak this in
Not compatible with Firefox 5.0, sadly.
Re:
“”3 comments per post””
because the majority of comments are filtered , to leave only the ones that agree with her.
Is funny.
Re:
Nice piece of CWF + RTB:
1- Ignite the fury of Pro-IP bloggers
2- Sell Popcorn
3- Ka-ching (formerly known as ???)
4- Profit
Re:
I’m insane, what’s your excuse? I gave a possible explanation for the acronym, and I’m the one drinking koolaid?
Re:
“…and there is no free lunch.
Oh really? WRONG. Living in one of the highest welfare states in the nation, I assure you there is not only a “free lunch” but free housing, free cell phones, tons and tons of free food and “free” money. Only us taxpayers are being destroyed by all the “Freebies”.
You want to see the face of a real “freetard”? Look at Barack Hussein Obama.
Re:
Most, if not all, opinions or views will annoy/offend/enrage SOMEBODY, letting them air their annoyance, though not manditory, can help to clear up the issues between the annoyer and the annoyee…
Locking them out and further name calling is a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of the annoyee, and by the looks of this particular post, quite an effective one too.
Fuck the high road
Its very very very easy to say, oh well since they not fighting fair lets not bother fighting fair.
Lets assume for a moment people stop fighting fair and we go after and we silence all these people then what? Another thing will come up and we silence them as well? Its just a cycle that will never end. It comes back to the saying you reap what you sow. If we sow seeds of discord and things like this then we will reap exactly that.
As frustrating as it is to see people blinded by their own opinion that they can’t see sometimes we just got to let it go and show them that we won’t go down the same road as them.
Another thing is that I prefer discussion on any topic from both sides because if everyone is open minded enough they will get a good view of the opposing side and hopefully it will lead to something better.
So just leave her be and keep calm. She maybe silly but don’t ever let anyone get under your skin.
Re:
“…it just looks like someone running a crooked game.”
Exactly. Of it’s her decision what she “allows” on her blog; however, if someone posts a respectable dissenting opinion she should be happy to allow it because if she’s so sure she’s right, this would also give her opportunity to state her case – some more.
Furthermore, if she had an open mind, she would take opposing viewpoints into serious consideration – not just dismiss them as wrong. That’s narrow minded.
It does her more damage than anyone to censor dissent. Which makes this whole thing rather laughable, IMHO.
Re:
Renaissance Faire Yuse?
No, she clearly does not. I would even go so far as to say that she is a blind shill.
Comment thread hijack
So now she’s back to only four people agreeing with her.
Fuck the high road
“Honestly, when I read this, I actually think you’re a Leslie supporter”
I’d go one further myself…
Fuck the high road
A classic case of: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Fretards and Burns blog
Excellent article – well thought out and reasonable.
This reminds me of an interview I saw once of a student at Bob Jones University – he said they were “very openminded”, even having debates pitting the “Bible against evolution” – as if evolution was anti-Bible!
He then went on to say “the evolutionists always lose, of course”.
Very open minded, intelligent debate – better than the Burns blog, though.
Why read badly written blogs like Leslie Burns'?
Talking to people willing to talk, sure. But people who don’t have ideas, but rather throw out polemical grenades, don’t deserve being part of the conversation.
Taking a queue from John Locke (of the founding fathers fame, not the Lost fame,) free speech isn’t about allowing speech that everyone wants to hear or agrees with, but specifically about allowing the worst ideas and most revolting discussions be heard, so that they can be dismissed.
If you aren’t willing to give the soapbox to the town idiot, then you don’t deserve the soapbox yourself. Whether she deserves to be listened to, that is one thing, but she deserves the soapbox.
Fuck the high road
This is getting ridiculous! You’re calling the woman a terrorist just because she turned off comments on her blog???
Fuck the high road
Leslie Burns and her ilk are terrorists.
Astroturfing extremists provocateur. We see what you did there.
Re:
Not everyone who supports IP is a “maximalist”, it’s a slight against people who don’t have the same opinion as the Techdirt crowd.
That’s provably false, why do you make this up? By far not all people who promote IP here on the blog are adressed as maxmalists. Not to mention the fact, that the vast majority of ppl starting with insults are ACs that are on the pro-IP side?
Re:
It’s called freedom of choice
Which he acted upon by pointing out (not on her blog obviously) that she is promising one thing and doing exactly the opposite.
Re:
In your twisted view which is actually pretty telling. Since Techdirt stands for more reasonable IP laws instead of the maximalist view, shilltards like you try to paint Mike as an IP abolisher every chance you get.
Newsflash, your attempt is as transparent as it is a failing.