Carrolade

Personally I think it's okay so long as you give proper credit somewhere to the original artist, and are willing to stop if they ask you to.

Yes, there probably are. Is that important?

Don't feel bad about it. He's basically saying he thinks you're too cool to actually be real, so you must be fake. Seems like a compliment to me.

No, it's been around for awhile. In US law, any book over 95 years old is considered public property, and can be shared for free. So, there's volunteers that take old books and scan them, then put the digital versions online for everybody.

If you'd like to make digital copies of things from your native language/culture and add them to the collection, I imagine that'd probably be fine. I'm not part of the project though, so I don't know the details of how these are submitted/who you need to talk to/etc.

Sure. The problem is we're too decentralized to make enforcement practical. They can try to come for, say, lemmy.world if they want, that's totally fine. That won't get them very far with all of Lemmy though. Too many servers can be housed in places where western law cannot easily reach, and regulating just those servers located in western countries accomplishes very little.

Advantages of being structured differently.

edit for grammar

Y'know, it just occured to me, but this push towards child safety opens up another opportunity for Lemmy to grow at the expense of reddit. If reddit puts in age verification, the kids will still need somewhere to go to get answers to stuff like video game questions and random tech support problems. They won't be able to use major platforms though, they're going to be effectively banned from those. They can't be banned from all of our servers though, that's just impractical. So, they could potentially ask their questions and get answers here if they wanted, assuming we're good enough at providing answers.

How do they treat those that are "beneath" them? Customer service workers, pets, kids, etc. Anyone that they should have some sort of authority over.

Honestly, no I wouldn't automatically call that person stupid. I'd think they had trouble regulating their emotions, but would not judge their overall intelligence based on just that. There are many things that can lead to inability to handle anger in a healthy way, that have nothing to do with intelligence.

Sometimes your tolerance for hearing something becomes saturated. When this occurs, it no longer matters what context you might be hearing it in again, you will dislike hearing it regardless of the context.

Not to excuse the audience or anything, they should know better. They could have just walked out if they were unhappy. It's a little disingenuous to call their reaction stupidity though, I'm pretty sure they do recognize fiction from reality. They probably just weren't willing to hear that speech, delivered in a fictional or any other context.

Personally I've encountered this with film before. The movie Django Unchained had enough casual, laid back racism in its plot and dialogue, that I just got fed up and quit watching. I wasn't enjoying myself, so what's the point? It's almost worse when it's casual too, I'd rather watch something like Schindler's List where it gets more gravity.

What counts and what doesn't is pretty fuzzy. I'm just including everything that could reasonably fit, just to keep it simple.

25 years is pretty extreme, it's not like we need to wait decades for whole fields of research to occur before we have our own opinions--we're not academics with a responsibility to not spout random bullshit. Being randos on the internet, spouting bullshit is actually one of our primary activities.

4 years is probably sufficient to keep the volume reasonably balanced.

When you put it that way, it is kinda sad.