I was making reference to this.

I know. Typos are different than incoherent grammar, though. Obviously, you got my point, as well.

I never said you can’t compare.

Umm, you claimed that it’s a false equivalency to claim that both reps and dems don’t give a fuck about the people.

The establishment dems suck for many reasons. None of which you can find here.

The meme never claimed to be comprehensive. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. No one claimed that both were “the same”.

I think I will.

You’re free to be wrong.

The Dems have put on rallies to stop it.

I doubt that the main resistance comes from the dems.

stroke much?

I guess you never make typos, then. Huh? /s

seriously, this isn’t a “fair comparison” because it doesn’t address any sort of nuance nor is it supposed to.

I’m sorry that I slandered ghonorrea by comparing it to pancreatic cancer. Clearly I forgot the nUaNcE between these two horrible sicknesses. /s

Wait. How can there be any “nuance” if you can’t compare the two parties? Is a comparison of apples with oranges flawed because of the “nuance”?

It’s supposed to make people go: “yeah the dems suck too” rather than understand anything about what’s going on.

That’s what you think the intent is. I think that it’s supposed to state that the US democratic system is not suitable for a fair and equitable world and the Dems are not the solution of the mess the US is in.

You can have your own interpretation but don’t assume that this was OP’s intent.

No need to #bothSides to split the Dem vote anymore – it’s already over.

You’re the one who brought lost elections into this.

One side are literal fascists and the other is the former’s enables.

FTFY

Nobody said the Dems were perfect OR not bad through the chain.

Never claimed that someone claimed that. Again: how is the original post wrong?

Two parties in a two party system is no case of “apples and oranges”. That’s as close to a fair comparison as you’re gonna get.

Ghonorrea and pancreatic cancer are two things I don’t want to have. Is this “false equivalency” as well?

What are you talking about the initial argument is completely insane to be begin with. I think Biden came into office and reduce child poverty or hunger or something by half as his first action.

Are you having a stroke? I don’t follow your point and/or syntax.

We’re gonna compare that to Trump destroying the economy, removing due process, open up national parks to logging, letting DOGE cut departments with corruption, invading other countries?

What do you want from me? Obviously we agree that Trump is worse than the Dems.

That still doesn’t make the Dems “not bad”.

Are you denying that the Dems are shit? Just because the Reps are worse and currently in power?

What kind of an argument is that supposed to be?

Wake up, Neo

Are you trying to imply doubling the available workforce is not good? Its usually a good thing.

Women not being forced to do the reproductive labour in the family? Good.

Families being coerced into having two incomes to make ends meet, meaning they don’t get as much time with their children as they like? Bad.

Here’s the wikipedia definition

Plagiarism is the representation of another person’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work.

So, I’m afraid that my definition is closer to consensus than yours.

If word gets out that you used a ghostwriter, you’re gonna get in trouble for plagiarism. That’s the thing they’ll accuse you of.

While consent is a part of why plagiarism is shitty, it’s not what makes something plagiarism. You can check it the other way around: if I’m legitimately quoting someone, do I need explicit consent, or is it implied (if it’s published work)?

About the BSD stuff: yeah, it might not be illegal and consential, but both of these things aren’t necessary for plagiarism.

What are you talking about? I’ve given you several examples of plagiarism outside of a legal concept, which means that there are non-legalistic definitions.

Here’s another one: copying someone’s homework is plagiarism. It’s not illegal, though.

I’d argue that most acts of plagiarism are actually legal, but can result in getting your title revoked. That’s not because of an IP law violation, since you don’t have ownership of an argument in an academic text.

Letting a ghostwriter write an academic paper is plagiarism, too, btw. How would that make sense in an IP law context, if the ghost writer not obtaining the IP is the whole point?

I think your legalistic view of the world is quite limiting.

It’s not illegal to rephrase what someone wrote in a book and pass it off as your own work. You can’t “own” a cultural analysis. It’s still plagiarism.

There’s more than a legal definition of plagiarism.

Plagiarism is when you sell the work of others as your own without attribution. There are bucketloads of examples of legal plagiarism.

I’m pretty sure that everything H. Bomberguy discussed in his plagiarism video was legal, for example.

Ok, then call it “plagiarising”.

Spare me with your idealist excuses.

That’s easy to solve:

Are the workers in control of the means of production in China? Not as far as I know.

So, no: It’s not.

You’ll be lucky if it’s even hosted on random hosting sites and not some discord channel.