this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
520 points (98.0% liked)
196
16489 readers
3040 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You lead a rich inner life.
Your comment was such nonsense that it did not parse. I'm not about to peel apart what you intended, and what little it has to do with reality, when the premise is the central fucking opposite of what defines capitalism. Ownership is kinda the whole idea? Like, to an absurd degree. Addressing the equivocation needed to make your absolute declarations justifiable is even now a huge pain in my ass, when just saying 'what the fuck are you talking about?' is met with 'wowww nice counterargument' and wild grasping about... corporate red scare propaganda? Fuck off, guy.
All of this, because I suggested you obviously can and do own things... like mass-market products. Games, for example. Any game on a cartridge, you plainly own. You have to disappear completely up your own butt to insist otherwise. So when you insisted otherwise, out of fucking nowhere - a brief 'that doesn't even almost make sense' was being polite.
You could previously own things until capitalism did its thing and took it away, explain how exactly are you going to remove the profit incentive for perpetual profit.
This is what I'm talking about. You mean "inevitably," which, no. It's pretty evitable. Laws work, actually. Other mediums faced this exact same bullshit - everything from books to records to movies - and for a century, the answer was 'shut up, brand.' We can and obviously should restore that to software, the same way it still exists for, like, every other possible category of object. Even the spate of rent-seeking across other industries does not somehow make ownership impossible. It's a trend people hate, it's been stopped before without la revolucion, and it fucking obviously isn't "fundamental" if you now acknowledge things were different before.
And of course you follow up this sentence fragment with a completely unrelated demand for a total solution to a systemic obstacle described in broken English. Terse dismissal isn't "liberal brainrot." It's recognizing the bullshit asymmetry principle. You can spout this kind of single sentence assertion and demand, not even bothering to check your goddamn spelling, and then spit on any effort to address why it's just plain junk.
How exactly are other mediums preserved? Digital book liberaries are now considered illegal and many movies/shows no longer have a physical release. In addition for the majority of young people home ownership is impossible.
That's three non-sequiturs in a trenchcoat. You're picking topics that sound vaguely related, and then misrepresenting them as well, with the bare fucking minimum effort. And in all likelihood you're going to scoff at this comment not addressing your argument when what this comment is doing is highlighting how your argument is broken garbage.
Really, try forming a summary of any part of that. 'Because of rising home prices, it is fundamentally impossible to own a video game.' No. 'Because ebook piracy is illegal, the medium of books are not preserved.' Barnes & Noble is a hologram or something. Also, not letting you juke to preservation, when the topic is ownership. I've got a lot of shit preserved that companies would insist I don't own. They are wrong. 'Because digital goods have engineered scarcity, you don't morally own them.' Holy shit, that's almost on topic! And yet: wildly misses the point, by not grasping how a normative argument works. As it happens - I am against the obstacles to people preserving the digital goods they bought.
The existence of those obstacles doesn't mean they don't own it. It means they're being robbed.