This is really one of those 'easy answers to stupid questions' things. Of course doing something you normally wouldn't due to personal emotion is hypocritical. What else would it be?
Unarticulated reasons are not always "personal emotion". I person who answers all questions based on formal logic and first principles is worse than retarded, he's an Any Rand style Objectivist. Moral reasoning (actually, problem solving in general) starts as pre-verbal intuition. The right has been using accusations of hypocrisy to use people's desire to be fair against them. They become cut off from their intuition and spend more time arguing for the rights of scoundrels than they do on behalf of the weak. I'm so jaded by it that I don't really even care anymore when I sound hypocritical. I'd rather be a hypocrite, than a moral retard.
Hauser admitted up front that he had infringed Furie's copyright.
Well, there's your first mistake.
I feel like this is one of those cases where, if you had enough money, you could win because Pepe's creator has a long history of letting Pepe be used without making any sort of copyright claim. It's not like he's made a claim every single time a right leaning meme comes out using Pepe.
Also the only common traits between the original and this one is that they're both green frogs and have the same name. If he had just changed the name I don't think he would have gotten in any trouble.
Alright, here's my universal policy: I support an author's right to prohibit his work from being used in anti-social ways, but he does not have a right to prohibit socially valuable activity. Racism is anti-social, so the author can prohibit his work from being used for that. I apply the same rule to myself. When I want to express racist ideas, I will yield to a copyright holder's demands.
/u/joe462, mind giving me a definition of social valuable, and who determines it? Because I'm pretty sure the alt-right would categorize children's books normalizing their motifs as "socially valuable."
"Socially valuable" in this context is being used as the counter-term for anti-social. Anti-social in a leftist context usually means a thing or idea that would harm an oppressed class in society. Socially valuable, then, would mean that it would help these oppressed classes. These classes could be based on gender, race, economic class, etc.
Some Marxists would disagree and say that "class" only refers to economic class, but in this context, that's how the term is being used.
You're close, but not really quite correct, I don't think. What is and isn't anti-social activity wouldn't change if oppressed groups accomplished a revolution and became oppressors. Something is anti-social if it works against social (cooperative, to mutual benefit, everyone wins, people get along, people hold themselves to moral conduct) and instead promotes bad behavior (indifference to the weak, people act without any moral restraint, promotes distrust, justifies dog-eat-dog practice, might makes right). I'm not sure that's a good final definition, but I think most people have a sense for when people are behaving pro-social (idealistic, greater good, possibly altruistic) and anti-social (callous, jealously guarding against even minor sacrifices to the benefit of others, greedy, violent).
You can ask me to make explicit definitions forever, but who's playing word games? It's implicit that I consider racism anti-social. The author only needs to convince the court that the use is truly against his conscience, rather than motivated by some selfish aim.
35 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-08-30
This, but unironically.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 ThatDamnedImp 2017-08-30
Yes.
This is really one of those 'easy answers to stupid questions' things. Of course doing something you normally wouldn't due to personal emotion is hypocritical. What else would it be?
1 Namenamenamenamena 2017-08-30
Well, we are talking about a retard who put "I think slaughtering innocents is wrong" in the unpopular opinions subreddit.
/r/joe462
How did you end up this retarded?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-30
It's /u/joe462
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-30
Ironic.pdf
1 Namenamenamenamena 2017-08-30
I'll never recover.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-30
I was joking lol. No way he's fucking insane 😂. 10/10 retard.
1 joe462 2017-08-30
Unarticulated reasons are not always "personal emotion". I person who answers all questions based on formal logic and first principles is worse than retarded, he's an Any Rand style Objectivist. Moral reasoning (actually, problem solving in general) starts as pre-verbal intuition. The right has been using accusations of hypocrisy to use people's desire to be fair against them. They become cut off from their intuition and spend more time arguing for the rights of scoundrels than they do on behalf of the weak. I'm so jaded by it that I don't really even care anymore when I sound hypocritical. I'd rather be a hypocrite, than a moral retard.
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zozzle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zozzle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-30
zozzle
1 80BAIT08 2017-08-30
Poor guy. It must be like his daughter running away with a gang. Needs to accept Pepe isn't his anymore.
1 botchlings 2017-08-30
Well, there's your first mistake.
I feel like this is one of those cases where, if you had enough money, you could win because Pepe's creator has a long history of letting Pepe be used without making any sort of copyright claim. It's not like he's made a claim every single time a right leaning meme comes out using Pepe.
1 Roxor99 2017-08-30
Also the only common traits between the original and this one is that they're both green frogs and have the same name. If he had just changed the name I don't think he would have gotten in any trouble.
1 chaosakita 2017-08-30
Why would anyone care about a cartoon frog not named pepe?
1 Roxor99 2017-08-30
Seeing as he only made about $1500 I don't think people care either way.
1 cheers_grills 2017-08-30
We are going back to Blepe then.
1 ndizzIe 2017-08-30
but then you couldn't do the "adventures of Pete and Pete" joke that he called up with
1 thebuscompany 2017-08-30
Everyone knows that it's not hypocritical when your side does it.
1 Pretentious_Nazi 2017-08-30
/u/joe462, mind giving me a definition of social valuable, and who determines it? Because I'm pretty sure the alt-right would categorize children's books normalizing their motifs as "socially valuable."
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-30
These types of justifications are so retarded
1 Pretentious_Nazi 2017-08-30
dude what are you worried about, we'll only punch nazis! also everyone who disagrees with this is a nazi
1 loverthehater 2017-08-30
"Socially valuable" in this context is being used as the counter-term for anti-social. Anti-social in a leftist context usually means a thing or idea that would harm an oppressed class in society. Socially valuable, then, would mean that it would help these oppressed classes. These classes could be based on gender, race, economic class, etc.
Some Marxists would disagree and say that "class" only refers to economic class, but in this context, that's how the term is being used.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-30
Is your flair a transexual Marxist dildo or just a warning for some sort of zombie virus?
1 joe462 2017-08-30
You're close, but not really quite correct, I don't think. What is and isn't anti-social activity wouldn't change if oppressed groups accomplished a revolution and became oppressors. Something is anti-social if it works against social (cooperative, to mutual benefit, everyone wins, people get along, people hold themselves to moral conduct) and instead promotes bad behavior (indifference to the weak, people act without any moral restraint, promotes distrust, justifies dog-eat-dog practice, might makes right). I'm not sure that's a good final definition, but I think most people have a sense for when people are behaving pro-social (idealistic, greater good, possibly altruistic) and anti-social (callous, jealously guarding against even minor sacrifices to the benefit of others, greedy, violent).
1 joe462 2017-08-30
You can ask me to make explicit definitions forever, but who's playing word games? It's implicit that I consider racism anti-social. The author only needs to convince the court that the use is truly against his conscience, rather than motivated by some selfish aim.
1 Orsonius 2017-08-30
me in our lwoe discord on this
1 Lysander-Spooner 2017-08-30
really made me think
1 Hammer_of_goofiness 2017-08-30
property rights are human rights
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-08-30
"human rights" are state property getting uppity
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-30
I was joking lol. No way he's fucking insane 😂. 10/10 retard.
1 glmox 2017-08-30
rly maeks u tink
1 MyChemicalWedding 2017-08-30
Literally no courage in their convictions. Just convenient targets.