3 ms·

Whataboutism is super cool, no need to ever address or discuss anything with left wing extremists, it just ends up being WHAT ABOUT SO AND SO THEY DID THIS FIRS

Whataboutism is super cool, no need to ever address or discuss anything with left wing extremists, it just ends up being WHAT ABOUT SO AND SO THEY DID THIS FIRST. Left wing radical Marxism is already played out, just wait and see.

eesmith 4y ago
Your argument is something like: "companies shouldn't get involved in politics otherwise politicians will react negatively." My observation is that companies often get involved in politics. And don't expect politicians to react negatively, contradicting your argument. The missing connection in your argument is "companies shouldn't disagree with powerful politicians who expect fidelity to their cause." That's got the proper amount of both-siderism to it, as it includes T.R.'s trust busting too. T.R. was such a left-wing radical Marxist, with his FDA, stronger ICC, and pro-natural conservation attitude. But hey, let's talk about the bill. 1) Who agrees with the bill? Hawley doesn't even have a co-sponsor. 2) The bill violates the Berne Convention ("sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it has not been shown within 50 years after the creation."), which we are signatory to. 3) The hyperfocus on Disney violates the Berne three-step test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test) which says exceptions 'cannot "do disproportional harm to the rights holders"'), so would also violate TRIPS Agreement, which we are signatory to. You think Disney won't bring a lawsuit to the WTO? Or won't win? I wonder what trade sanctions might be placed on the US should Hawley's temper tantrum become real law. If it's all bark and no bite, then it's performative.
- midislack 4y ago
  Fascinating little diversion there, do you give lessons? We've all read Alinsky at this stage so this kind of argumentation becomes more amusing every time I see it.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I didn't realize my little distraction was enough to derail the conversation! I would rather discuss how this proposed law affects our international copyright treaty obligations than read more from Wikipedia about some guy I've never heard of who died 50 years ago. Surely you must recognize that this law violates the Berne convention and TRIPS. The US can of course pull out of those agreements, but the loss of international IP protection on everything from drugs patents to software copyright surely doesn't seem like a well-conceived plan to knock Disney down a notch.

eesmith 4y ago

Your argument is something like: "companies shouldn't get involved in politics otherwise politicians will react negatively." My observation is that companies often get involved in politics. And don't expect politicians to react negatively, contradicting your argument. The missing connection in your argument is "companies shouldn't disagree with powerful politicians who expect fidelity to their cause." That's got the proper amount of both-siderism to it, as it includes T.R.'s trust busting too. T.R. was such a left-wing radical Marxist, with his FDA, stronger ICC, and pro-natural conservation attitude. But hey, let's talk about the bill. 1) Who agrees with the bill? Hawley doesn't even have a co-sponsor. 2) The bill violates the Berne Convention ("sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it has not been shown within 50 years after the creation."), which we are signatory to. 3) The hyperfocus on Disney violates the Berne three-step test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test) which says exceptions 'cannot "do disproportional harm to the rights holders"'), so would also violate TRIPS Agreement, which we are signatory to. You think Disney won't bring a lawsuit to the WTO? Or won't win? I wonder what trade sanctions might be placed on the US should Hawley's temper tantrum become real law. If it's all bark and no bite, then it's performative.

midislack 4y ago
Fascinating little diversion there, do you give lessons? We've all read Alinsky at this stage so this kind of argumentation becomes more amusing every time I see it.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I didn't realize my little distraction was enough to derail the conversation! I would rather discuss how this proposed law affects our international copyright treaty obligations than read more from Wikipedia about some guy I've never heard of who died 50 years ago. Surely you must recognize that this law violates the Berne convention and TRIPS. The US can of course pull out of those agreements, but the loss of international IP protection on everything from drugs patents to software copyright surely doesn't seem like a well-conceived plan to knock Disney down a notch.