EatATaco

It's about the principal of throwing out our own principals because we hate someone!

despite everyone’s obvious anecdotal experiences that are just too bullshit to ignore.

I spent a month with my wife talking about cat food whenever we would remember to. Never got an ad for cat stuff.

Also one time I was thinking about traveling to the Caribbean, and I got an ad for the Caribbean. Do you think they were reading my thoughts?

It's a type of bias where you notice when something does happen, but not when it doesn't. Have you ever thought about the hundreds of things you talk about every day that you haven't gotten an ad for?

They don't need to listen to your convos. Obviously they would love to but it's far too risky, but the information Google has is plenty to make pretty decent guesses as to what you have been recently exposed to and (subsequently) may have spoken about.

But you've already poisoned the well (another logical fallacy) and labelled any dissent as coming from neck beards, so it can be safely ignored. Good for you.

I was hoping when I came over here it would be more like the good old days of reddit. And i think it is, but barely. Plenty of the low quality shit made the jump as well.

Just look at this thread. Sort by top. The top post is circle jerking about people left reddit for here. The next top post is a vomiting emoji. A fucking emoji. I haven't even been here that long and the comments in this thread were predictable in the same exact way.

But it's not like they would think they could block vpn users and no one would notice and complain. The fact that they fixed it means the nefarious explanation doesn't pass the sniff test.

My guess is that it's something like that in the process of trying to stop scraping, their filter was cast too wide and it snagged more VPN users than it meant to.

I haven’t had an in-person conversation with someone that disagrees with me that is even remotely attempting to find common ground in a very long time.

It's because it's not only untrue, but almost the exact opposite of the truth. Humans tend to defend themselves when they find their beliefs threatened, not open themselves up.

This is the heart of a lot of lots of couples therapy: learning how to express your discontent without making it about your partner. If interested, read up on "I" statements. And we're talking about people in committed relationships shutting themselves down to each other. Imagine how easy it is to do when you label the person as "the other team."

Normal human behaviour is to try and find common ground and build from there.

This is wildly untrue. Even outside the confines of the Internet. People tend to circle the wagons when their beliefs are threatened, rather than try and find common ground. Which is why the way we debate ( and I'm debating now) is so ineffectual. You need to guide the person to come to the conclusion themselves (which is why the Socratic method is so widely respected), not tell them they are wrong and you are right and here's why. It's a low success method.

On the Internet, it's even less true. Now I'm just a dehumanized bunch of words, not even an individual, so your mind is rushing to try and figure out to categorize me so you can make assumptions about me. This just compounds the above issues.

Your argument seems to rest on the claim that this is atypical human behavior. This is a false assumption, and thus conclusions based on it are faulty.

How do you know they're actually bots? 90% of the time, when I'm debating with someone who is passionately defending their position, they'll at some point accuse me of being a bot or a shill. I also can't recall any time I've debated someone and have been convinced they are a bot.

I'm just skeptical as it's a convenient ad hominem.

What's so special about iMessage?

That was just a long winded way - s very long winded way - of demonstrating my point. Don't get me wrong, weve followed a similar path and probably a major reason why we both say "fuck these assholes" and don't feel bad about it.

But at the end of the day you said nothing to change the point that this is a luxury good you want, but don't want to pay the price, so you take it.

I don't have a problem with it morally because for things like what happened with Sony where people reasonably believe they bought something and would have access to it forever, but no. So fuck these companies I don't give a shit about them.

But you're absolutely right, and you'll be downvoted for it. I want a luxury good and don't want to pay the price, so I take it. It's the same for virtually every other pirate. It's not justified, it's just morally ambiguous. But people need to convince themselves that they are justified, because they don't want to admit they are commiting a bad act. Literally someone else in this thread is arguing its moral imperative to pirate. Lol

You want something, but you don't want to pay the cost (either monetarily or because they have made it too hard) and so you take take it. Fuck these assholes companies who try to milk people for every last penny, so I have no moral qualms with piracy, I do it myself.

But, fuck, can we stop trying to paint it as some noble thing? Effectively zero pirates are doing it to perseve culture, instead it's fulfilling personal desire.

This is chaotic neutral at best, not neutral good.