This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is PaulT with a comment about Ed Sheeran filming his songwriting sessions to avoid copyright complaints, in response to a commenter saying it’s unfair to malign the copyright holders who went after him, because they legitimately own the rights they own:
The legitimacy of the copyrights does not excuse them being used to make false claims against him.
In second place, it’s an anonymous commenter on our post about the Supreme Court lowering the bar for malicious prosecution lawsuits, responding to another commenter who was filling the comments with cop apologia:
Let’s all remember that davec is the guy who thinks that people celebrating Derek Chauvin’s arrest are the cause of police fearing for their lives and leaving the job in droves.
He’s the guy who thinks that anyone calling out police brutality should be made to serve and put in the system, i.e. the echo chamber that has proven to intentionally weed out the heroic and enforce the status quo.
He’s the guy angry that the police get frowned on for making mistakes when, in his own words and beliefs, doctors and nurses get away with it if patients happen to die on their watch, and the only resolution should be shrugging off police accidents.
Get ready for him to shit up another thread.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more anonymous response to that same commenter, this time in response to the assertion that cops who face accountability will take a “why risk it?” attitude towards helping people:
So much for being the brave warriors protecting us from total anarchy, huh?
Maybe you’re touching on something significant after all…that most cops are not the altruistic heroes we want them to be, but calculating cowards who’d rather shit themselves in the patrol car while claiming a paycheck for their ‘hazardous work.’
Next, it’s Rekrul with another comment on the Ed Sheeran post, responding to our observation that interfering with the creative process and reducing creative output is the opposite of the intent of copyright law:
On the other hand, it’s the EXACT result intended by the copyright industry.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment about the New York Times telling its journalists to care less about Twitter:
Media Websites: We hate the comments section so we’re removing ours. Please use this other site that no one reads to comment on our articles.
Twitter appears.
Media Websites: No, not like that.
In second place, it’s yet another anonymous comment, this time offering a healthy dose of sarcasm for police complaining about restrictions:
Yeah! We really need some sort of mechanism to allow police to legally obtain entry to private property whenever they suspect a crime might have happened and need to find some actual evidence of it.
We have to make sure they can only use this power when they’re searching for proof of a specific crime, though. Like if a citizen calls 911 and tells them about it.
Maybe we could call it a “warrant”, since such a search would be warranted under those sorts of circumstances.
Man, something like that would be super helpful for these poor police officers, who are just trying to keep defenseless kids safe from abusive invasions of their privacy.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with BernardoVerda and a comment about Fox News falsely claiming that a study showed Gmail is biased against conservatives:
But… this is trivially simple to explain.
The rather more accurate, alternative headline — which of course is the take that FOX “News” would never consider using — would read something like this:
“Google confirms that Right Wing candidates send more spam”
Finally, it’s one last anonymous comment, this time in response to Elon Musk demonstrating his poor understanding of content moderation:
Remember, it’s illegal to cry fire in a crowded tesla
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon