Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit
from the 2016-is-quite-a-year dept
As you may have heard, earlier this week, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out a ridiculous image comparing Syrian refugess to poisoned Skittles. No, really.
FWIW, this is an old and a dumb and meaningless meme. It’s not always Skittles, though. Last year failed Presidential contender Mike Huckabee used the same concept, but with Peanuts — and John Oliver mocked him for it, noting that “peanuts themselves have killed far more people than terrorist refugees.” Another version involved M&Ms, and it was used by a variety of groups — including a feminist “Yes All Women” campaign. Some are arguing that the switch from M&Ms to Skittles is even more racist, because it’s based on the fact that when Trayvon Martin was shot dead by George Zimmerman, Martin had a pack of Skittles in his pocket. And, of course, the Intercept argues that this meme goes all the way back to a top Nazi propagandist making sure that the meme is sufficiently Godwined.
But… of course, most of that has little to do with what we normally cover around these parts. But what we do often cover is copyright related issues — so it’s interesting to find out that the image used in that Skittles graphic that Trump Jr. posted was copied from Flickr, where it pretty clearly has an “all rights reserved” copyright notice on it. Oh, and the guy who took the photo, David Kittos, happens to be a former refugee himself, who is not at all pleased that his image is being used in this manner.
“This was not done with my permission, I don’t support his politics and I would never take his money to use it,” Mr Kittos told the BBC.
“In 1974, when I was six-years old, I was a refugee from the Turkish occupation of Cyprus so I would never approve the use of this image against refugees.”
So, yeah. But what can he do? Well, apparently he’s considering taking legal action, though he (rightly) notes that that may be a hassle:
“I would like the Trump campaign to delete the image, but they are probably not interested in what I have to say,” he said.
“I was thinking about getting lawyers involved but I don’t know if I have the patience.
“This isn’t about the money for me. They could have just bought a cheap image from a micro stock library. This is pure greed from them. I don’t think they care about my feelings. They should not be stealing an image full stop.”
While I might disagree on the use of the term “stealing an image” there, it certainly could create an interesting copyright legal battle — raising serious questions about fair use in political discussions. Thankfully, though, it seems unlikely that any lawsuit will actually happen. Instead, we can just sit back and think about the number of meetings and conversations that must have happened before Mars Inc., makers of Skittles, decided to put out this statement:
Skittles are candy; refugees are people. It’s an inappropriate analogy.
Indeed. But is it copyright infringement…?
Filed Under: copyright, david kittos, donald trump jr., memes, refugees, skittles
Comments on “Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit”
Skittles are candy; refugees are people. It’s an inappropriate analogy.
Simple, elegant and powerful reply. Sadly our rulers seem to see people as little more than Skittles that are made for their pleasure nowadays instead of the ones they should be caring about.
Re: Re:
Unless of course, Skittles are made of people. Fruit flavored #soylentgreen
Re: Re:
Disagree, they are analogies for a reason. Their attempt to call the analogy inappropriate is juvenile and ignorant. They should have just stated instead, that they support the refugee crisis and do no with for their product to be used as propaganda.
Now, on your other point. We ask our rulers to see us as little more than Skittles. We ask them to tell us how to live our lives, where to get health care now, we ask them to tell us what rights we have, and ask them to ensure our safety.
Sorry, no one cares about a bunch of cowards begging to be taken care of instead of doing what is necessary to take care of business themselves.
The real question… which skittle are you? The deadly one? The lazy one? The crazy one? The productive one? The cowardly one?
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdumhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well It seems like my link was posted twice. Anyway…
Re: Re: Re:
“Sorry, no one cares about a bunch of cowards begging to be taken care of instead of doing what is necessary to take care of business themselves.”
You’re an idiot.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I most certainly would recommend to Americans to take care of the terrorists trying to abolish the Republic of the United States of America as written forth in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
As long as they are too fucking lazy to take back their own country, they don’t have much too complain about refugees giving up on fixing theirs. And more often than not part of the reason their own country is hard to fix is because the nation’s resources have been handed over to the U.S. in exchange for weapons used for retaining the control over the national resources.
Re: Re: We could apply the skittles analogy to so many other situations.
For instance, whenever a company wants to create a big project to dig up some minerals or pump oil from the ground, if we were to give a serious assessment something will go disastrously wrong, and we’ll have the next Chernobyl / Exxon Valdez / Deepwater Horizon, then there’d be an awful lot of bad Skittles. The Bakken Pipeline after the mercs with dogs and the bulldozers screams of Skittle cyanide.
The notion is that even small risk makes things not worth it. Whenever you buy a literal pack of Skittles, there’s always a slim chance those skittles will mean your downfall. The same goes true with m&ms or tap water or pencils or your next phone upgrade. The same is true with your next crosswalk crossing, your next car refueling. Your next light-bulb change.
In the case of our Syrian refugee Skittles the dangerous skittles are rarer than in our than home-brew Skittles.
The problem with the analogy is that it suggests the risk of a given action is inflated, and it also assumes that not taking action (or taking different action) bears no risk when it doesn’t.
Re: Re: Re:
Now, on your other point. We ask our rulers to see us as little more than Skittles. We ask them to tell us how to live our lives, where to get health care now, we ask them to tell us what rights we have, and ask them to ensure our safety.
Black or white fallacy, appeal to emotion… the list of fallacies goes on and on. Okay, I’ll indulge you.
At no point do we ask our rulers how to live our lives. Never before have I seen such a campaign. If you’re referring to the various campaigns for gay marriage, etc., this is about people wanting to be treated equally by ending discrimination against them. That is not a request to be told how to live your life in any way, shape, or form.
As for healthcare, private options have always been available and if there was a US version of the NHS there would be a BUPA to go with it. Private healthcare is available in Britain, people!
We demand that our rights be respected and it’s their job to enforce the law and to protect us from enemies which ensures our safety.
The extreme individualism you are advocating means no police, no courts, and no army. Be careful what you wish for.
Re: Re:
Too bad Mike left out the whole reply by Mars. I really like the part about why they won’t comment further. Total class act.
Re: Re:
Makes me wonder if Trump is coming out of the closet with this one.
After all, “taste the rainbow” has all kinds of potential innuendos built in…
Re: Re:
“Sadly our rulers seem to see people as little more than Skittles”
The Donald Jr is not a ruler … yet and hopefully never will be put in such a position.
This does seem to be a regular occurrence – taking an image (or music, or something else) for use in a campaign and then discovering that not only did they not have permission, the people whose content was used are diametrically opposed to their political stance.
What’s interesting to me here is not necessarily that there’s copyright and other rows about these so often, it’s how they seem to always pick work from artists who oppose them. The laziness of a campaign taking stuff off Flickr or using a song they incorrectly assume they a blanket licence/fair use right to utilise I can understand, it’s the rest of it that’s intriguing.
Re: Re:
1 law for them another law for the people beneath them. Very rare that those up top insist they be treated as those those below them.
Re: Re: Re:
Like I say, I understand the disregard for the law part of it even if it should be unforgivable in someone running for public office.
It’s just the way they always seem to pick content from people who will publicly oppose them based on political views that’s interesting.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe there is a lack of creative folk who gravitate toward the gop.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, I was trying to avoid another bunch of right-wing ACs coming in here focusing on the wrong point (as seems to be happening a lot recently and will only increase until the US election). But, yeah, judging by the creative standard of those who are openly supporting them, I fear that there’s not much local talent to pool from.
Interesting but Stupid
Well… I see that it has the Trump/Pence logo thingy on the image… BUT… did the Donald or his staff actually create it? Or is it a retweet of someone (obviously a Trump supporter) else’s image?
Regardless, I’m sure Twitter (left leaning that they are) would HAPPILY process a DMCA request on the image.
But, of course, it’s out there now, so good luck getting rid of it.
Of course, by arguing that his image was used without his permission in a work that is obviously transformative, wouldn’t he be making a case that Skittles actually owns the copyright because all he did was take a picture of them? Once you start argued about what is and what is not transformative, it’s a slippery slope.
Funny how people with copyrights (cough…DISNEY… cough) only like copyright when it’s on their side. They happily beg, borrow and steal and then once it’s there’s … YOU CAN’T HAVE IT!
Re: Interesting but Stupid
There’s plenty of fallacies and questions that are easily answered by reading there. But, the main thing that sticks out is how you seem to believe that a person who’s had their image misappropriated for a political campaign in a foreign country should easily be able to issue a takedown notice using that country’s laws, and believe that’s not a problem in any way.
Floating the idea.
It is interesting that he noted he was considering the legal option but didn’t have the patience. I wonder if he was floating the idea to see if anyone fancied taking it up on his behalf, I’m sure there are plenty of folks around who would be tempted just to mess with Trump.
Re: Floating the idea.
Messing with Trump makes as much difference as pissing in the sea. Where is the point in making him look like an asshole? That’s his campaign platform anyway.
Of course all the Skittles will kill you from the sugar.
Missed the point
Everyone is worried about the image and Skittles. Nobody is addressing the point Trump was trying to make. This is the left’s usual diversion technique: “If you can’t wow them with your wisdom, baffle them with BS.”
Re: Missed the point
That’s mostly because the point that Trump is trying to make isn’t accurate, isn’t relevant, and doesn’t remotely convey an accurate depiction of whatever threat or danger might exist from the taking in of Syrian refugees. I’ll give you an example of how to fix this analogy based on the actual danger involved and to keep the analogy consistent.
-I present you with a swimming pool filled with Skittles and inform you that you can eat them by the handful, but within this swimming pool of Skittles, there are roughly 100 or so that have just enough poison in them to destroy roughly .001% of the cells in your body. Would you eat them?
My answer is YES, I fucking love Skittles and my body can recover quite easily from the loss of a tiny amount of cells in my body. The pleasure of Skittles (or the pleasure of being kind to the downtrodden of the world) far outweighs the displeasure of losing some cells in my body (having some of the downtrodden kill an unfortunate by statistically infinitesimal number of American citizens). In other words, taking in refugees, or eating the Skittles, does more good than harm, all while living up to the ideals of American society.
The biggest of many flaws in this stupid Skittles analogy is that it uses multiple skittles to represent refugees, but only a single body to represent America, a body which can be permadeathed by a few poison skittles. That isn’t how this works, nor is it an accurate depiction of the situation and relevant dangers.
So, once again, the Trumps prey on the simple by playing con-man games. Cool candidate you have there, bro….
Re: Re: Missed the point
I would say you only wound up making your own message worse.
You just literally stated that it is okay for us to import potential terrorist refugees because they would only kill a small number of Americans.
You are a special kinda stupid… aren’t ya?
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
“You just literally stated that it is okay for us to import potential terrorist refugees because they would only kill a small number of Americans.”
What I said, had you bothered to understand it, is that the ideals America is to uphold are worth the lives of some patriots. Should you want to disagree with this, go ahead, but understand how cowardly you will appear in doing so.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
You’re wasting your breath, when this guy will say things like “I guarantee that over 90% of the “offended” little skittles would run like the cowards they are completely abandoning all those other skittles when threatened. It’s really easy to arm chair bash propaganda when you are not the one running for your life.” without a single hint of irony, it’s clear he’s not coming from any rational viewpoint. It’s pure emotion for him at this point.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
You would be incorrect.
When was the last time you watched a video of one of these events? You will find my statements are fairly spot on.
Re: Re: Re:4 Missed the point
You’re 100% right. That’s why it’s more than a little odd that you’d armchair bash the refugees in this circumstance, and I can only assume you’re not running for your life at the present.
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
to be fair, he probably thinks everyone is out to get him
Re: Re: Re:6 Missed the point
No one is out to get me. But there are plenty of idiots to talk too.
The problem is the assumption that the only way to help them is to just open the doors. That is stupid. The best way to help them is to actually help them… not move them to a foreign environment. You will find a lot more thankful people if you teach them how to fish instead of just throwing fish at them. And America has long been causing world trouble with its “helping hand” methods.
A lot of people do not know that just mindless giving is often more destructive than giving anything at all.
Re: Re: Re:7 Missed the point
“But there are plenty of idiots to talk too.”
Brilliant….
Re: Re: Re:8 Missed the point
We have the choice between Trump and Hillary for President. A thoroughly corrupt Congress, and out of control Judges allowing police to steal from citizens and murder them.
Why are so you sure there are not plenty of idiots to talk to? We would not be in this situation if the idiots were not in the majority.
Re: Re: Re:9 Missed the point
o
Re: Re: Re:7 Missed the point
Dude. No. You can’t fucking help them in any way other than offer them home because their place is being goddamn bombed to the ground. If you know how to solve it without, you know, making the goddamn problem worse then YES, YOU MUST AS A HUMAN BEING OFFER A SAFER PLACE. I’ve met Syrians here in Brazil and they are generally eager to rebuild their lives, contribute with the country and incredibly thankful we are embracing them.
Re: Re: Re:8 Missed the point
If you don’t know*
Re: Re: Re:7 Missed the point
The best way to help them is to actually help them…
Ah, so easy! Why didn’t we think of that before?
Re: Re: Re:7 Missed the point
The best way to help them is to actually help them… And America has long been causing world trouble with its “helping hand” methods.
Now I’m confused.
A lot of people do not know that just mindless giving is often more destructive than giving anything at all.
Lots of people are wrong, too. I’m pretty sure there are more options than the two you suggest, anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
No, you are. He said people are making a shitstorm over something that’s statistically inexistent instead of focusing in the human aspect of the thing.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Remember, just 1% out of 100 is still 1. And 1% out of 500,000 is 5,000. I am not sure you fully understand statistical insignificance.
Remember that next time you are thrown in a corner or body cavity searched when your name comes up on the no fly list at the air port. The things you find acceptable are not the same things others find acceptable.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
I’m sorry, but are you suggesting that the risk of terrorism slipping through refugee lines is 1 out of every 100 refugees? Because that’s fucking hilarious….
Re: Re: Re:4 Missed the point
I was addressing your statistical ignorance. Not claiming that 1 out of every refuge is a terrorist. I am pretty sure that that number is lower. The problem is how many of them will be a terrorist out of a million. Not only that, but these people have been culturally modified by terrorism so that they cannot combat it effectively. Which means that when a terrorist does slip in with them, they are not likely to call it out and will likely shelter them out of fear.
Then you compound that with the fear monger that America has become, its going to be a bad recipe. We are becoming Germany at this rate.
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
they are not likely to call it out and will likely shelter them out of fear.
Other than a big citation needed there is plenty of evidence the Muslims themselves don’t agree and actively fight against terrorists.
You are the ignorant one and not only in statistic insignificance but also in what’s effectively happening.
Re: Re: Re:6 Missed the point
Oh shit… not a student of history are you?
It is in mankind’s nature to endure repeated and numerous tyrannies. It was even written in the Declaration of Independence, and spoken about by George Washington. Had Muslims grown tired of there Terrorists, they would have smoked them out already the way American fought for independence from Britain. Instead, they allow the “terrorist’s you claim they disagree with” into positions of power lording over the weak and scared seeking to expand their dominion.
You have not read history, and are therefore doomed to repeat it.
EVERY NATION GETS THE GOVERNMENT IT DESERVES!
I have no desire to import a group of people that failed themselves. Help them yes, but import them… NO!
Re: Re: Re:7 Missed the point
Dude. No. You fail. That’s not how things work anymore.
And it’s not about importing, it’s about receiving those that fled. You fail.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
Now that’s something we can discuss. What’s the percentage of people that are having their rights violated and effectively dying because of the war on terrorism? Include the unconstitutional cavity exams sponsored by the TSA and other law enforcement there.
Are ~5000 deaths in 9/11 may sound significant but once you put in perspective the time frame and the total population it is insignificant. When you compare what 15 years of “war on terrorism” has done to the US and the world then it’s insignificant to the point it doesn’t exist. Instead, why aren’t we questioning the means we are using considering the ends not only were not achieved but created collateral damage several orders of magnitude greater than the terrorism threat?
Re: Re: Re:4 Missed the point
Thoughts flowed faster than hands and I failed at general English but I hope what I mean is clear..
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
That’s fine, leave the grammer nazi’s to the nazi’s, I understand the context you were getting at.
I brought up the TSA/No fly list issue as proof of how terrible those statistics can be. Just it happening one time is one time too many. I hate zero tolerance policies in general but if there is a good zero tolerance policy to have, it would be zero tolerance on allowing law enforcement to violate rights.
This game is so fucking old the Founding Fathers already told us it would come.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~ Madison
What better way to facilitate this than by directly importing that enemy under the guise of saving the innocent? We already see the cover job by Bush and the Saudi’s. I mean fuck, why are we letting government chose all of the worst possible ways to solve these problems? This is why the American Government has engaged in the war on Terror.
If I give a homeless person on the street some cash am I a fucking asshole for not letting them into my home? These people have a fundamental culture problem, and we bring it into our borders when we just let them in. Once that gravy train starts, far more people take advantage of it than are actually necessary. We are taking in far more young males than females. What do you think is going to happen when a bunch of young sexually repressed guys can’t get laid because American girls will not like their “women are property” culture?
If we do not protect our culture, we lose it. Just like if you do not protect your home, it will be lost as well. And if you do not like the collateral damage caused by the American war on Terror… I wonder what the collateral damage will look like when enough Muslims displace Americans and a war starts. Germany is a great example of the problem right there. We will see Germany tear itself apart right in front of our eyes if the German people do not stop Merkel.
Re: Re: Re:6 Missed the point
Dude, you are getting it wrong. Very wrong. The tyrany is coming from the inside. The guise is the war on terror. The biggest enemy the US face is themselves.
And while you are right that other bad choices caused the refugee crisis, blocking people fleeing from their country from finding a new place is NOT the right approach.
Your way of thinking is seriously twisted. Sure you don’t have to let them live in your home even if it would be nice of you (I wouldn’t) but why can’t we as a society let them rebuild their lives, buy their houses with a small initial push (the cash for instance)? And besides there are plenty of studies and initiatives out there showing that homeless people cost more on the streets than if you give them a place to live and dignity. Many studies found out that giving cash with no strings attached will produce awesome results with people generally using the money to improve themselves and their lives despite the inevitable drug addicted, vagabond that may be in the group.
Then there’s the cultural thing. No dude, no. Cultures can live together and America should be an example for you. We only need TOLERANCE. And in the end, the mix of cultures will produce wonderful results. Culture is not static. And it will die if it doesn’t incorporate new things.
Really, your way of thinking is severely twisted. And unfortunately, it’s not uncommon.
Re: Re: Re:7 Missed the point
Dude, you are getting it wrong. Very wrong. The tyrany is coming from the inside. The guise is the war on terror. The biggest enemy the US face is themselves.
In complete agreement there!
I am not saying BLOCK them, I am saying no free admittance and easy access as a refugee. Each refugee needs to be reviewed as a special case. Mass importation is an entirely different problem and you are actually conflating the two. There really is a difference between allowing in ACTUAL refugees and just letting unfettered mass immigration through FAUX refugee pretense.
Regarding the homeless. One cannot give dignity, that is a felonious statement on its face.
Tolerance. I am betting many here would be willing to murder me just to shut me up with their “Tolerance”. Sorry the ones calling for tolerance are often the MOST intolerant of all!
Re: Re: Re:8 Missed the point
No, that’s not the reason.
Re: Re: Re:8 Missed the point
And you’d be wrong about that, as you have been wrong about just about everything else. (To be honest I can’t remember anything you’ve been right about — factually, morally, or otherwise — in this discussion but I’m open to the possibility I might have missed something.)
Re: Re: Re:8 Missed the point
I am not saying BLOCK them, I am saying no free admittance and easy access as a refugee. Each refugee needs to be reviewed as a special case.
That’s exactly what we’re doing. Any claims by Trump or anyone else that we have no idea who we’re letting in are hogwash. The screening is of course imperfect but we didn’t just throw the doors open, and we are bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, not millions.
Re: Re: Re:9 Missed the point
From what I understand, the screening for those claiming refugees status is much tougher than for those claiming standard tourist, student and employment visas. Even throwing open the doors probably wouldn’t be as much of a risk as letting European tourists over as they currently do without fear, even those from countries like France and Belgium, who have recently harboured actual ISIS operatives.
Yet, I’ve never heard anyone calling for an end to European tourism or for tougher checks on those visiting Disney World, even though many of those tourists don’t have to apply for a visa at all. There must be a shade of difference somewhere.
Re: Re: Re:6 Missed the point
Are you proposing some kind of “final solution “? You fucking monster.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
Maybe its you who is a special kind of stupid.
Automobiles kill a large number of Americans each year.
A refugee has the potential to kill only a small number of Americans.
Which one would you ban to save the largest number of lives?
Any way are you afraid of the smallest threat but not afraid of the larger threat?
In the USA:
From 2001 to 2014 over 500,000 people have died in automotive related accidents.
From 2001 to 2014 3,064 have died from terrorism ( that includes 9/11 )
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
Abortion kills 1 million per year yet you would prefer to go after guns which kill only a few thousand. Which should be banned?
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
The person you’re replying to didn’t say anything about guns.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
You can’t argue about life with a liberal because the only life they care about is their own. He doesn’t care about Americans getting killed because the odds are it won’t be him. How can someone who doesn’t care about the lives of unborn children care about the lives of anyone else? They can’t and they don’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
You can’t argue about life with a liberal because the only life they care about is their own.
Statements like that are a great way to make sure you will not have a productive discussion.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
Perhaps you are referring to an individual you know personally that happens to be on the so called left, however – one data point (or even a few hundred) do not implicate the entire stereotype. It’s sad that this needs to be pointed out.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
“Perhaps you are referring to an individual you know personally that happens to be on the so called left”
Judging by other comments here, he’s referring to a fictional stereotype that gets talked about in conservative echo chambers as if they’re real and has never actually engaged a “liberal” in conversation in real life. Or, at least not one that’s not ended with them quickly trying to humour and/or avoid the lunatic ranting at him rather than challenge the wild fantasies he’s projecting on to them.
Re: Re: Re: "they would only kill a small number of Americans."
That is what we generally expect from any demographic, including the local ones. Any sufficiently large population is going to contain some people who are murderous enough or clumsy enough or drunk enough to destroy someone else.
In fact, first generation immigrants tend to have a lower rate of violent crime, whether they are Syrian or Mexican or Italian.
Unless you’re looking at the English colonials. They were particularly harsh on the native population when they moved in. And the societies they’ve erected haven’t yet properly apologized to the nations they displaced.
Re: Re: Re:2 "they would only kill a small number of Americans."
And the societies they’ve erected haven’t yet properly apologized to the nations they displaced.
Happily, that is no longer blanket true!
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people/apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples
Well, you could argue that “properly apologizing” involves more than just words, but it was a pleasant change not to be embarrased about our leaders for a few days.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
“You just literally stated that it is okay for us to import potential terrorist refugees because they would only kill a small number of Americans.”
No, that was not stated nor implied.
The post to which you replied made an effort to correct the prior bad analogy, not create a new one.
Re: Re: Missed the point
moron
Re: Missed the point
They dislike the nature of the analogy so they attack it in a juvenile way implying that the comparison of candy to people is somehow offensive.
Just look at how people react to an active shooter situation. Everyone runs for cover and no one waits to find out which skittle is holding the gun. I think we all will find out how full of shit people like Ninja are when faced with that situation.
I guarantee that over 90% of the “offended” little skittles would run like the cowards they are completely abandoning all those other skittles when threatened. It’s really easy to arm chair bash propaganda when you are not the one running for your life.
Re: Re: Missed the point
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Ninja is a coward because… he would look for cover when being shot at rather than try to learn more about the shooter?
Re: Re: Missed the point
“Everyone runs for cover and no one waits to find out which skittle is holding the gun. “
Not so.
There have been many active shooter situations in the past few decades, in several of them there were those who stood up to the shooter, did not run away, and in some cases disarmed the person (not skittle – what kind of ass are you anyway?)
If we are all skittles, then wtf are you?
Re: Missed the point
No, I think we got Trump’s point: he’s a racist, a bigot, and a xenophobe who is stoking fears of terrorism by blaming refugees AND, by using this particular image (which as noted in the article is a popular meme among those who support sociopath and murderer George Zimmerman), is sending out a dogwhistle to his base: white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
For the record: the chance of an American being murdered in an attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. See Terrorism and Immigration – A Risk Analysis.
Re: Re: Missed the point
he’s a racist, a bigot, and a xenophobe
Excellent trifecta! I enjoy a good round of ad hominem attacks but you need to put more meat on your message to gain some traction.
We do not have to WAIT around to find out what refugees will do when they get here. We can just look at Germany right now, and that country is coming out of its seems. You seriously wish that upon America as well?
If we want to support refugees, then we do it in their nation. If their plight is SO FUCKING TERRIBLE then we need to take military action. Oh forgot, you are a fucking cowards that would rather see America fall. How about you open your home directly to one of these guys! According to your numbers, you should be perfectly safe!
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
It’s not a logical fallacy to call someone a racist, a bigot, and a xenophobe when their behavior demonstrates that this is true. Nor is it a logical fallacy to see that a person’s racism, bigotry, and xenophobia will lead them to distorted thinking, particularly when we have ample evidence of it right here.
We’re facing the worst refugee crisis since World War II, tens of millions of people have been driven from their homes, and the son (and leading advisor) of the Republican nomineee for president is retweeting Nazi memes.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
When the accusations are true.
But everyone knows those accusations are used in place of “I do not like his policies”.
If you hate Obama, its because you are racist.
If you hate illegal immigration, its because you are a xenophobe.
If you hate hold a view the left does not, then you are a bigot.
Do you see how this works? There are no actual or real argument. Just accusation and it is only making the left look bad. In fact it has given Trump’s campaign more energy than the paltry republicans ever could. They are the cause of their own demise, empowering that which they hate but using rhetoric they publicly speak against. I find very little tolerance in the party that preaches tolerance.
Those cards have been so watered down, the mean nothing any more. They have cannibalized their own positions and refuse to even acknowledge it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
“the left”
Conversely, when someone whines about this, I tend to presume they haven’t actually considered the objections or arguments being made, and are just using a handy term to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them. Funny how that happens on both “sides”, even if you do stupidly reduce the entire political spectrum to a false dichotomy.
“I find very little tolerance in the party that preaches tolerance.”
Two quick facts: “the left” is not a party, and intolerance of intolerance is not a negative thing.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
See my African American over there?
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
“We’re facing the worst refugee crisis since World War II”
And we had a significant hand in the causation of same.
The insanity will not stop because someone is making a lot of money causing it.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
Yes, their plight is terrible. That’s why they’ve risked their lives to flee.
And as for your “military action” solution… Do you propose that millions of refugees be driven back into their home countries so that they too can enjoy the bombs? Yes, military action in some cases may be part of an effort to reduce the risk of future refugee crises, but war — however justified — inevitably creates refugees. And in the meantime… Tens of millions of people are ALREADY refugees, and they need immediate humanitarian assistance.
Developing nations — those who can least afford it — currently host 80% of the world’s refugees*, while we sit here comfortable and safe in our wealthy countries freaking out about the minuscule risk of helping a few thousand people. Talk about cowardice. It’s fucking disgraceful.
*http://www.unric.org/en/world-refugee-day/26978-new-report-developing-countries-host-80-of-refugees-
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
I see, people that DID take care of business are responsible for those that REFUSE to take care of business. I have seen this before. Nothing new in fact.
Let me ask you. What have you done to help? I bet you still have a house. I bet you have MORE then you need to survive. Go and put your money where your mouth is and give it ALL away to stand for your principals. Right now all I see is you telling everyone else they have to support while only paying a pittance yourself.
Every Nation gets the Government it deserves. The problems those refugees face are of their own making. Every time a coward rolls over for a bully they only invite more bullying. Of course those bombs are fucking scary as hell, all war is scary as fucking hell!
No, it is not disgraceful in the least to wish to protect the place that my children will inherent. If they want a country that works for them, then they should take a page from the the US Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If you cannot get off your own fucking ass and do something for your fellow man… you have ZERO fucking right to beg for assistance from others. They have a fucking DUTY to throw off their Government and to provide new guards for their future security.
This is the problem with Americans like you. No respect for the prosperity YOU have that YOU NEVER EARNED! It was given to us, and like a spoiled bratty rich child you are willing to squander it in very wasteful ways!
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
For anyone who’s reading, if you’re wondering what privilege looks like, this is it, right here.
The hubris to look at the suffering of millions of people and declare that they deserve it. The smug certainty that you — not by lucky circumstance but by virtue of your own intelligence and fortitude — will never find yourself in such a situation.
Christ, what an asshole.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
Ah, yes, the true spirit of America: “Fuck you, I got mine.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Missed the point
No, I am not saying fuck them in the least. I am saying importing them is the WRONG solution.
We definitely should help, just not in the worst possible way.
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
Re: Re: Re:6 Missed the point
Yea, I said we should bomb them… that was a my whole message.
/Sarcasm… But you are too stupid to understand it.
You and I have very different opinions on helping, and that is fine. I am just saying your method is terrible and you are implying I want to bomb people.
Apparently you are just fine with letting a tyranical government rape, murder, or enslave it’s people. Some are too scare to even flee, what about those people? I am the terrible person here? I want to kick a bully’s ass, you want to run away and only help those that were successful in fleeing.
Between the two of our solutions (assuming both would go well), who saves more?
Re: Re: Re:7 Missed the point
No, I didn’t mean to imply that.
Our Gov way of helping is to bomb their cities, and then when people are fleeing looking for help, we (the people the Gov represents right?) tell those fleeing they aren’t welcome and go back home.
So, what is the solution? Do we the people accept that our foreign policy is causing some of this? Do we continue turn a blind eye when people we (as a country) put in power turn out to be tyrants and do things we think they should be kicked out of power for, just because it’s in our short term best interest that they are in power?
Tell me, what is the solution to help them? Overthrow the leader again and hope this next one is going to be better than the last we helped who was a tyrant, but said what we wanted to hear at the time?
Side note: We didn’t put Assad into power, but in the 50’s? we helped overthrow an elected president with someone who was a tyrant, and he did everything you said about “letting a tyranical government …,” just because the guy said he’d recognize Israel, he was the choice.
Then that guy got overthrown in another coup… and you have this continuing mess.
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
We definitely want to offer them just one last solution is what you are saying. Yeah we get it. Christ what an asshole indeed.
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
your way is the worst way, causing much more pain and suffering on the whole…
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
If you are incapable of recognizing that Trump is a racist, a bigot, and a xenophobe (in addition to being a misogynist and a homophobe) then you have simply not been paying attention to his own statements and actions over the last 40 years — OR you are a very stupid person.
If you haven’t been paying attention, then perhaps you should.
If you’re a very stupid person, then please remain silent while those who are superior to you are speaking and writing: you are not worthy of the privilege of commenting.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
Lol, no Trump is no more racist, bigoted, or xenophobic than you are.
You, and many like you, suffer delusions of grandeur. Let me assure you that my inferior self is not the lease bit fooled by your ignorance. And since I am so inferior, how much more inferior is your message that I can see right through it?
I have been paying much more attention that you or many others have from the looks of a few things.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
Does anyone else see how stupid this guy is being? Clearly he thinks he’s top dog, but is trying to act all modest about it.
You just countered his “Trump is Racist” comment with:
“No, YOU’RE Racist”
Please. just stop trolling around and trying to get the last word in, in EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION.
Re: Re: Re:4 Missed the point
“No, YOU’RE Racist”
Standard fare in junior high school debate team – lol
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
I’m going with “stupid person”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
“Lol, no Trump is no more racist, bigoted, or xenophobic than you are.”
Then why does he make so many racist, bigoted or xenophobic statements, while I’ve seen no such words stated by the Ac you’re replying to? That seems rather strange if they’re as bad as each other, don’t you think?
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
If someone is running for president shouldn’t we take into account their personalities? I mean it’s not really an Ad Hominem if the attacks against the person are actually part of the conversation.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
If their plight is SO FUCKING TERRIBLE then we need to take military action.
Something that worked perfectly in Afghanistan and Iraq…
Oh forgot, you are a fucking cowards that would rather see America fall.
Says the person concerned about a 1 in 3.64 billion chance.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
If we want to support refugees, then we do it in their nation. If their plight is SO FUCKING TERRIBLE then we need to take military action. Oh forgot, you are a fucking cowards that would rather see America fall.
So lemme get this straight…the refugees are refugees primarily because they’re fleeing the fighting in their own country.
And you want to address that plight with MORE military intervention?
Not really certain you’ve thought this through, there, Skippy.
Re: Re: Missed the point
why help foreign refugees when you could be helping your fellow homeless citizens?
Better we get our countries in order before we try to heal the world. You cannot save everyone.
I want to help everyone but the reality is only a few can be helped.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
Those refugees are potential votes. Those votes are more important than the nation. We are destroying ourselves and I only see a push for more destruction. It’s amazing that those standing against Trump are the very reason he is becoming successful.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
If you define “nation” via tracing your ancestors’ countries, you’ll make Native Americans very happy because they can then ship you off back to Europe, Africa, or Asia and have a large country back to themselves.
But that ship has sailed: the American nation defines itself by allegiance to the American Republic, funded on principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Now the Americans themselves cannot be bothered all too much about their Constitution any more since they have become all too complacent about it. Particularly the government.
So it would be good to get some fresh blood for which the declaration of all men being created equal and endowed with inalienable rights still carries meaning, hope, and promise, and who strive to live under an order obeying those principles and actively participating in it.
The majority of refugees are a better bet in that respect than a lot of incumbent U.S. citizens.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
Actual Native American here. Not a full blood but I have enough blood to qualify for the Dawes Roll and can live on reservation. I look like pasty white ass though.
The Native Americans have shat their Heritage away. I am rather upset that my own have languished the way they have.
And you MIGHT be right that many of these refugees would appreciate American freedoms more than the jackasses that walk our soil but that is not the point here. Saying that Americans deserve to be culturally replaced because they do not respect it is the same problem as letting them over here. Those refuges did not respect their own culture enough to fight its own dregs, choosing to run away instead of standing up for their rights and principles.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
Because we’re one of the wealthiest nations on earth and we can afford to do both.
Because no nation can insulate itself from the effects of a global problem.
Because god forbid we should ever find ourselves in such a situation and need help.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
What exactly makes our nation worth preserving if we choose not to act in the face of the worst global humanitarian crisis in 60 years?
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
Because we’re one of the wealthiest nations on earth and we can afford to do both.
Well that is a lie.
Because no nation can insulate itself from the effects of a global problem. Actually you can, this is pro globalist propaganda. While is it certainly helpful to participate on the Global Scale, there are many ways to insulate ones self against a global problem. A problem is global because everyone has decided to participate in the problem, or directly allowed people to force you into participation.
Because god forbid we should ever find ourselves in such a situation and need help. Ha ha… if a nation like America was in such a situation, there WILL be a WWIII.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
Wait… your way is the ONLY right thing to do? I get it… the Dunning-Kreuger effect. You think you know more about the problem then you actually do and therefore have decided to double down on the stupid. We are nothing more than a bunch of arm chair assholes running our fucking mouths. You are nothing special, I am nothing special… but you sure as fuck so not mind talking asking like your shit does not stink! There is more than one fucking way to skin a damn cat. In most cases our own interference is what is causing the problem to get worse. For every ounce of solution you provide there is a rich and powerful shadow player laying down a ton a trouble because they get rich off of it. You are advocating for those rich assholes to continue spreading misery because the Americans will dump money and resources on the problem without addressing the problem. And THAT is a huge fucking problem!
Re: Missed the point
“Nobody is addressing the point Trump was trying to make”
This is the wrong place to come if you want an in depth commentary on the political rather than tech/copyright part of the story. Maybe “the left” are just better at finding appropriate paces for discussion and this confuses you?
However, I’ve seen plenty of commentary on the point being made, and it usually boils down to either “he should stop scaremongering and victimising and encouraging bigotry and focus on actual issues instead” or “you were more likely to be killed eating your breakfast than by a Syrian refugee”.
Re: Re: Missed the point
You are right. A few refugees are not a huge problem. But we are not just talking about a few are we? The plans are to mass import millions. This means while the numbers are small now… they soon will not be.
Right now I am more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, but I still want terrorism to be properly addressed. Right now our solution is pure security theater. And the government knows if we can pull in MORE terrorism the faster the Americans will sacrifice their liberties!
The governments only activity for the past few decades is to take a small problem and make them bigger, while never addressing the root of the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
This is simply false. No candidate is planning to bring millions of refugees to the U.S.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/15/politifact-says-trump-right-criticism-hillary-clintons-support-500-percent-increase-syrian-refugees/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/14/clinton-resettle-one-million-muslim-migrants-first-term-alone/
Over time it will be. So whether or not it will be false will be similar to the idea of “we have to pass the bill, so find out what is in it” bullshit you guys are so fucking fond of.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
Do you have a link from a website other than one that still thinks Obama was coming for your guns? I mean, you still have your guns, don’t you?
Why not just protect yourself?
Re: Re: Re:4 Missed the point
This better?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-let-500-pe/
Look we can slap this around forever. But I am sure someone just like you ran around telling the Germans that Hitler was NOT coming for their Guns until he actually did. And someone like you ran around telling the Jews that Hitler was not not gassing them either… until he actually did. Idiots like you have a mental disease where you have to wait until the government has gained so much power they CAN do that until you wake up. The point is to prevent that ball from even getting started rolling.
Come back when you have a full deck of cards bro!
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
There’s a black hole where your soul’s meant to be.
Re: Re: Re:5 Missed the point
Black holes aside…
From Politifact
Yes, Hillary Clinton’s plan includes taking in more refugees. Refugees who are already subjected to … well.. EXTREME vetting. This is the most screened group there is.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
You wrote earlier how you’ve read so much more about thsi than the rest of us.
Then you cite Breitbart.
It’s about quality, not quantity. If you cite a site that regularly just makes shit up, your credibility goes out the window.
To save everyone from linking to that site, here’s how Breitbart pulled some numbers out of their ass to arrive at ZOMG ONE MILLION REFUGEES
So… First off. The 149000 number is “immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries”. Note the word missing: “refugees”. Meaning, this is ALL immigration from these countries.
Second, there is no justification for the extrapolation to ONE MILLION REFUGEES OH NOES. It is the logical equivalent of:
Yesterday, I had a bowl of ice cream as a meal. (It was dinner.)
I eat three meals a day.
There are 365 days in one year.
Therefore, I will eat 1095 bowls of ice cream in the next year. OMG I’m gonna die.
If you want to claim authority, cite a source that isn’t a bullshitting liar who’s also no good at math.
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
Breitbart is a poor, hugely biased source. But even then, from your first link:
“A jump to 65,000 would be a 550 percent increase,” Politifact says.”
You are aware that 65,000 is a long way short of a million, right? You claimed “millions”.
As for the second:
“Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year, means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as President.”
Trying to conflate Syrian refugees with all Muslim immigrants, then what follows is uncited extrapolation, which makes the who thing rather untruthful.
In other words – you lied. Clinton is not going to import 1 million refugees. It’s possible that there’s going to be something shy of 1 million Muslim immigrants, some of whom will be Syrian refugees, but that’s not what you claimed. You lied, or were misdirected by the known liars at that source.
Here’s a tip for the future – consider your sources, base you claims on facts and address reality.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
You talk as if countries are actively ‘recruiting’ refugees instead of those refugees actually fleeing from their places and ending up in said countries. I think you are confused.
Re: Re: Re:2 Missed the point
You might be starting to get the idea finally.
While these countries are NOT ACTIVELY recruiting them, they are 100% recruiting them. Judge all things by the fruits of their labors.
When a group of poor and destitute people see something better, you do not have advertise it to attract attention. It is the same principal when a business allows 1 regular employee a special request for a larger monitor. You have get everyone a larger monitor then. It is just human nature, and you intentionally ignore it because you would rather double down on stupid than admit you might be wrong.
Hell I WISHED I was wrong, but history makes it clear I am spot the fuck on!
Re: Re: Re:3 Missed the point
Man, they are fleeing from a goddamn hell. It’s different from usual migrations looking for opportunities. No, really. You are disgusting. There are plenty of ways to make this be awesome. Treat them as newborns in your own country, take care of them, give them opportunity and soon they’ll make your place a better place. See the Italian, Japanese, Lebanese immigration to Brasil. We are still fine after over a century of heavy immigration.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
“The plans are to mass import millions.”
Citation needed.
“Right now I am more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, but I still want terrorism to be properly addressed.”
True. Do you honestly think that properly addressing terrorism should involve demonising and attacking innocent refugees, and denying them hope and shelter, because a few terrorists might sneak in with them?
“The governments only activity for the past few decades is to take a small problem and make them bigger, while never addressing the root of the problem.”
A huge amount of which involves the US’s invasions and other military interventions in the middle east, which have helped destabilise the region and encourage the rise of radical Islam.
Maybe you should start there, rather than attacking the victims of such events?
Re: Missed the point
We get the point but it is half complete. Where are the inspectors to sift through the candy to isolate the poisoned ones?
Re: Re: Missed the point
What if that bowl represents the refugees POST background check?
I know like Pokemon you gotta catchem all, but someone will always get past the system.
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
I know like Pokemon you gotta catchem all, but someone will always get past the system.
Who are the cowards, the ones so afraid they’re not willing to let refugees into their country, or the ones willing to accept some risk in order to do something good for fellow human beings in need?
Re: Missed the point
Hmm? I’m not sure which argument you’re making here.
Mike covered the other point in his introduction. Here, we’re focusing on the copyright aspect, as this is TechDirt.
If you want to see more about the original point, check out the John Oliver piece Mike linked to — I actually just watched it again last night, so I found this article interesting. One of the points made by J.O. is that even if you skip the fact that refugees are people not food and go for the “danger” equivalence, the level of danger is off by several orders of magnitude. Out of 200,000 refugees, 3 were linked to terrorist acts, and none of those acts were on US soil. I didn’t see 200,000 skittles in that bowl.
So it seems to me that this is more the right’s usual diversion technique of describing apples as oranges that failed quality control, than the left’s technique of throwing facts and figures at an argument to distract from the point being made.
Back to the copyright issue: this could get really messy. On the one side, the guy clearly asserted his copyright on the original image. On the other side, the use of the image was transformative, and used for political speech. Then again, political speech doesn’t really promote science and the useful arts, just speech. So where exactly should their appropriation of someone else’s work sit? Does that depend on whether Politics is considered a useful art, or does it fall under fair use due to free speech protections?
And if the original art is also considered speech, this is in effect a politician taking the speech of one person and transforming it into speech that is diametrically opposed to the views of the original artist. This is a standard debate technique. Should we accept it only when we agree with the views of the person making the transformative work?
Re: Re: Missed the point
Cato (yes, I’m linking to Cato) has a good piece on this:
http://www.cato.org/blog/trump-jrs-terrorism-skittles-bowl-analogy
Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
Cato (yes, I’m linking to Cato) has a good piece on this:
Sounds like actually eating Skittles is probably more risky than letting in refugees.
Re: Missed the point
I wonder if the image is sufficiently original for a copyright in the first place. I think not.
Re: Re:
The law and photographers do not agree with you.
It’s a bowl of Skittle’s. Wouldn’t it have been easy enough to just take your own picture. Then you don’t have to worry about any copyright. It wouldn’t have been that hard and cheap enough to do. As for music, do you really need any? Play some classical that’s not under copyright. Unless you get in writing that you can legally use a song. In many of these cases, they do legally get the song and PAID for it’s use, but the artist doesn’t like it. Who gives a F about that! Playing fair by the rules and yet they cry like little baby’s because their hate for the Republican party runs so deep to them. Cry me a river. It’s almost worth just sticking to songs under no copyright. Then you don’t hurt some poor artist feelings. Goo, goo, gaa,gaa.
Re: Re:
Play some classical that’s not under copyright.
The composition is not under copyright but generally the recording would be. (generally – sometimes classical music is released as public domain)
I don’t think the Trump’s can Taste The Rainbow when it comes to immigration.
Was the United States ever that great?
Re: Re:
By comparison. Once other countries started catching up we look worse.
Re: Re:
First created I am sure the idea was novel.
A country run by the people for the people, instead of by royalty and nobility.
Of course the “people” were rich white men and no one else.
I’d rather the money and effort used to help Syrian refugees be used to help homeless veterans, but maybe that’s just me.
Re: In contrast to our crazy military spending...
…both together would be ridiculously cheap. I bet if we scuppered the CIA drone strike program (which is useless except for massacring civilians) we’d have enough for both relief programs and to send some officials on a junket to Vegas.
How much for a image of a bowl with some skittle crumbs in it I’ve got some captions ready:
“What? I’m not that gullible”
“Sorry, did you say something?”
“Politicians think we are idiots.”
The largest terrorist threats to the US are...
1. US citizens
2. male
3. Caucasian
Not only are these the people responsible for most of the in-country attacks, not coincidentally, this is the demographic group also responsible for most police officer shootings/deaths.
Worrying about refugees isn’t just xenophobic, it’s insanely stupid, BECAUSE THAT’S NOT WHERE THE THREAT IS.
Of course all the Trumpsuckers who are white male US citizens don’t want to admit that their own demographic houses the biggest problem. Nope. They want to blame refugees or brown people or black people or yellow people or women or anybody who’s not them. And Trump is perfectly happen to accommodate them.
Re: The largest terrorist threats to the US are...
This is the most racist comment I have ever read. You spew your bigoted remarks while claiming that a specific group are racist and bigoted. The double standard makes me sick.
Re: Re: The largest terrorist threats to the US are...
Then clearly you’ve not read much.
“Some are arguing that the switch from M&Ms to Skittles is even more racist, because it’s based on the fact that when Trayvon Martin was shot dead by George Zimmerman, Martin had a pack of Skittles in his pocket”
If a sentence is starting with any variation of “some people”, you know it’s garbage.
This is exactly what Trump uses to make his statements, why is TechDirt using it?
Re: Re:
If a sentence is starting with any variation of “some people”, you know it’s garbage.
There’s a big difference, namely opinion vs. fact. Saying that some people have an argument to make that something is racist could be meaningful depending on the strength of the arguments, because whether it’s racist is not a factual matter. When Trump says it, it’s about facts. “Lots of people are saying X” where X is an event that did not in fact occur. The number of people saying something factually incorrect is irrelevant.
I agree that this is offensive. Skittles are great and do not deserve to be compared to Syrian refugees.
This seems like a decent response to the people who are in this thread stupidly supporting the incredibly misleading Skittle analogy.
https://twitter.com/DeathBoy/status/778570758213820416/photo/1
Re: Re:
Also, this:
https://trackchanges.postlight.com/my-co-founder-the-skittle-cbb3555f9cf3#.t2kkkgucm
Not letting in good people harms America. That’s a big deal. My entire family came to America between 100 and 130 years ago fleeing oppression elsewhere. And they’ve built huge things. Turning our back on others now is profoundly stupid and short sighted.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m willing to bet any amount that none of your family or fellow immigrants from 100 and 130 years ago had the stated purpose of destroying western civilization.
Whereas a non-zero percentage of the population of Syria, and the middle east in general, do have the stated aim of destroying western civilization.
Well, considering many of them were denigrated and blackballed and threatened for being “communists” (whether true or not), I’d say you’re wrong.
Just thinking out loud.
Nah.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You may have missed it in the history books, but there was this little thing called ‘The Red Scare’ about how communists/communism was going to destroy the west and demolish america, the Constitution and apple pie. If anything the scaremongering would put communism higher than terrorism, I mean what’s a few deaths and blown up buildings compared to the destruction everything that makes a country great?
Applying the same logic you seem to be using then anyone from a communist country should have been kept out, because hey, how can you possibly tell the difference between the ‘good ones’ from the ‘bad ones’?
Or using your own words, ‘I’m not trying to tar all communist immigrants with the same brush, but how do you differentiate between the ‘good ones’ and the ‘bad ones’?
How many people did your ancestors shoot? How many bombs did they detonate? How many buildings did they demolish? I’m willing to bet it’s none.
The same can’t be said of modern day immigrants from the middle east.
I’m not trying to tar all middle eastern immigrants with the same brush, but how do you differentiate between the ‘good ones’ and the ‘bad ones’?
Yeah, you’re not fooling anyone with that last line. You don’t get to make a general statement about how middle east immigrants are blowing up buildings and gunning down people and then try to pretend you’re doing anything but taring the entire group. Drop the transparent wordplay, if you’re going to assert or imply that middle east immigrants are a threat because they’re making bombs and killing people the least you can do is be honest about it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Bull. Shit.
These refugees whom you demonize — THEY are victims of terrorism. They are not detonating bombs and demolishing buildings — That is what they are trying to escape.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your arguments were horseshit the last time people used them, they are still horseshit to this day. Here’s a huge influx of people’s whos stated purpose was destroying western civilisation and they fit in just fine. So shut sit down and read a real book you ignorameous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_refugee_crisis
Re: Re: Re:
“Not letting in good people harms America. “
This is the part I struggle with. How do you define “good people”? How do you ensure that the people you are letting in are good? Would you not have to have some type of vetting process? If you did, and no matter how you do it; regardless of the criteria used, and regardless of the process in place, the decisions made by the people doing the vetting will be bigoted and racist. Any process at all will be attacked.
If I had a bag full of Cheetohs, and I told you that just three of them would give Donald Trump a spray tan, would you lose your fucking appetite?
And in other news,
Photographer whose photo was used in the famed Trump Skittles meme sued by Amazon for patent infringement for taking a picture of something against a white background.
The copyright issue is clear. The image is copyright protected. The use of it without permission or a license is infringement. An argument can be made for fair use but is putting words over the picture truly transformative? Is it commentary? I’d argue neither. It also can be argued the market for this photo has been damaged by the political use of it. I am seeing infringement and fair use failing in this instance.
Re: Re:
An argument can be made for fair use but is putting words over the picture truly transformative? Is it commentary? I’d argue neither.
While it might be in some cases such a parody, where you slap a contrasting or humorous bit of text using the pic as part of the message meant, in this case I’d agree with you, it probably isn’t fair use.
The picture was used simply as a backdrop, an illustration for the saying, and could be replaced just as well with another picture of candy without anything really changing, meaning there’s nothing about the picture itself that’s important to the message, it’s just there.
It’s not being used for parody or commentary, it’s not being added to or subtracted from to make something new, it’s just being used as a visual aid to the comment itself, and that doesn’t really strike me as the kind of ‘creativity’ that fair use is meant to cover.
That's a big twinkie.
I did some math.
Trump’s bowl of Skittles would be 3.13 metric tons (Skittles are measured in metric) and about 500 liters (or half a cubic meter).
We found three of them that might be bad. No one has been successfully poisoned from this bowl of Skittles.
I stole this one from Twitter
If there was a bowl of Skittles…
And one orange Skittle…
said that he wanted to deport all the green Skittles,
and that all the purple Skittles were rapists,
Should you vote for him to be President?
Donald trump Ceci est votre premier post (message publi.é en ligne). Vous pouvez le modifier ou le supprimer, puis commencer à
Donald trump