Lol. Similar common phrases = plagiarism?!?

Shall we go over Trump's constant actual plagiarism?
His books, not written by him. Plagiarism.
His contracts, never written by him and rarely read, he cannot even understand them, as he's proven under oath multiple times. Plagiarism.
His speeches, every rational one was written by others, when he uses his own words they always come back to bite him as insane lies. Plagiarism.
His attempts at taking credit for laws signed by Obama, not him. Plagiarism.

Shall we talk about Melania plagiarizing Obama's entire speech word for word, not just one phrase?

From someone who himself has never had an original thought, and who worships someone who also has never had an original thought, it's hilarious hearing you cry about it. So sad, little Bobby. Did bad man make Bobby cwy hurt by repeating a common phrase? At least Joe isn't repeating white supremacist dogma....Trump is..... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, then denying he knew who he was plagiarizing from, like David Duke.

BTW, since you seem ignorant of the facts here, build back better has been an internationally widely used phrase since at least 2006. Derp.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Back_Better#:~:text=Building%20Back%20Better%20(BBB)%20is,2015%2C%20in%20Sendai%2C%20Japan.

Yeah, pretend to be highly intellectual by using an educated-sounding British person.

Maybe get a thesaurus while you're at it? Or at least learn the difference between things like "adverse" and "abject". Such mistakes show the lack of intellectual rigor here. And don't try to tell me it's on purpose, ALL poverty is inherently adverse, and "abject poverty" is the common phrase (also that's not the only screw up of that type).

Not at all from my read.
To me, it's like trademarking the word "news!", forcibly removing any videos labeled "news!", and insisting anyone that posts one pay them 1/2 the revenue they might make...and probably taking it too far and going after those making 'news' claiming they're also infringing and forcing them to pay or defend themselves in court.
It's not at all as specific as you claim.
I see the difference in your analogy, but I totally disagree with your characterization. It's far more like trademarking 'news!' than trademarking 'news filmed and broadcast from a window of a bathysphere sitting in your swimming pool'. If it were that specific, there would be no outrage.
If they didn't come up with it, it's not their idea...and 'humans react to' videos is NOT distinctive enough by far, IMO, and in the opinion of MOST people. If they actually limited it to videos with the exact format of people watching unseen videos at an angle, and the exact same title of "Kids React!" they're still over reaching to control something they did not invent and should not own. Kids reacting was a genre of video/photograph LONG before they started making them, and if the reaction is exciting, using an exclamation point is normal English, as is capitalization of all words in a title.

They have no right to 'protect' something they didn't invent by taking other people's money, first that's not protection, it's simple extortion, second, it's theft, since it's not even their idea in the first place.
They don't have to be the first, possibly, but they certainly shouldn't be able to trademark a common phrase that existed before their company, or a format that existed long before their company, which is what they did.
If they want to 'protect their brand', they need to re-name it something that's not already a common phrase, otherwise they're trying to co-opt a commonly used phrase (that they didn't come up with in the first place) and extort money from those who commonly use it under threat of lawsuit. They also need to steer FAR away from attempting to enforce it against ANY video not in their EXACT format, including font, capitalization, punctuation, stated video format, content, etc. It a video doesn't meet EVERY standard there, they should leave it alone. I'm fairly certain that's NOT their intent, as it would make it impossible for them to extort money and make this move useless.


EDIT: Can we at least agree that, if a company is going to do something like this that COULD be a huge over reach and could easily be abused to both extort money and remove any competition, and their spokes people do such a piss poor job of explaining what they're doing that it sounds like they're using the law to steal property and money from actual content creators and erase those they can't control, while creating absolutely nothing themselves, and offering nothing for the money they forcibly take, that that company deserves ALL the ridicule and losses that follow, and their best move left would be to drop the entire thing rather than continuing and making numerous failed attempts to explain themselves?

@lantern53

Since it is glaringly apparent you don't know what a straw man argument is, here's the definition from Wikipedia:

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Your very first comment in this thread was a straw man argument. To paraphrase, you argued that the idea of everyone who has the same job title must receive the exact same amount of pay (without regard to how much work they actually do) is stupid . Which it is.

Except (as has been pointed out to you several times) that's not what this video is saying.

That's CLASSIC straw man. Wikipedia could use your comment as as a prototypical example of the straw man fallacy.

Now, let's talk about trolling...

Several times on this comment thread people have shown how your arguments are flawed (strawman, not based on evidence, etc.). Instead of conceding, you resort to ad hominem attacks--or to use the more common phrase: insults.

It would seem then that your purpose in this thread is not to have a meaningful discussion with people but simply to enrage them instead.

That is, by very definition, trolling.

I'm curious what your endgame here is. Keep insulting people until they stop replying? Convince everyone how dumb they are because they don't agree with you (despite the fact you haven't provided any evidence for why they should agree with you)? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish?

>> ^CheshireSmile:

>> ^spoco2:
What's with all the talk about 'hate'?
I never said I hated her, never said anything of the sort. What I was railing against was the general issue of people ascribing good deeds/scientific breakthroughs/amazing engineering to 'miracles'. Hell, just her saying 'thank god' probably wouldn't have rankled that much as it is, as many of you have said, just a common phrase now really. But as soon as someone throws in 'it's a miracle', that usually is leaning on a stronger personal faith that quite often equals an actual belief that these things are the result of god's hand, and not lowly humans doing amazing things.
No hate, just sadness that a mystical being is still being given credit for the good being done (and yet somehow absolved for all the horror).

we have the words "ungrateful cunt" on a video comment in the happy channel. that's the hate i'm talking about.


Ahh, yeah, ok I hadn't re-read rottenseed's comment. It was harsh as hell and doesn't really have a place in civilised discourse!

>> ^spoco2:

What's with all the talk about 'hate'?
I never said I hated her, never said anything of the sort. What I was railing against was the general issue of people ascribing good deeds/scientific breakthroughs/amazing engineering to 'miracles'. Hell, just her saying 'thank god' probably wouldn't have rankled that much as it is, as many of you have said, just a common phrase now really. But as soon as someone throws in 'it's a miracle', that usually is leaning on a stronger personal faith that quite often equals an actual belief that these things are the result of god's hand, and not lowly humans doing amazing things.
No hate, just sadness that a mystical being is still being given credit for the good being done (and yet somehow absolved for all the horror).


we have the words "ungrateful cunt" on a video comment in the * happy channel. that's the hate i'm talking about.

What's with all the talk about 'hate'?

I never said I hated her, never said anything of the sort. What I was railing against was the general issue of people ascribing good deeds/scientific breakthroughs/amazing engineering to 'miracles'. Hell, just her saying 'thank god' probably wouldn't have rankled that much as it is, as many of you have said, just a common phrase now really. But as soon as someone throws in 'it's a miracle', that usually is leaning on a stronger personal faith that quite often equals an actual belief that these things are the result of god's hand, and not lowly humans doing amazing things.

No hate, just sadness that a mystical being is still being given credit for the good being done (and yet somehow absolved for all the horror).

>> ^dgandhi:
Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning. You’re quoting phrases from other ideologies without establishing how it has any relevance to the video. You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting. Quoting other ideologies and then saying those quotes contradict themselves—that has no relevance to liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.
Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise. I don’t deny Rand believes in liberty, objectivism goes beyond just believing in liberty. That’s 0 for 2.
>> ^dgandhi:
I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.
Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.
>> ^dgandhi:
I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Then you have no point. Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Social convention: Property is taken from individuals to serve the collective.
>> ^dgandhi:
I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.
No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.
>> ^dgandhi:
I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.
False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.

>> ^dgandhi:
You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.
False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me. I only seek a social contract as a means of collective force to protect myself and other individuals from unlawful action.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

>> ^marbles:


I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.

If you can point out even one point made by the video that diverges from Rand, then you can make a distinction, otherwise I'll continue to call it what it is.

>> ^marbles:
From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.

>> ^marbles:

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Value is also an arbitrary social convention, you will find that it will not help you here.

>> ^marbles:
Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!



I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.

>> ^marbles:

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.
You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.


I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.

You are attempting to get an ought from an is, while completely disregarding the why of the is, or the other things that are for the same reason. The fact that social contract property looks like Randian property 99.999% of the time does not make it the same thing.

You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.

Not that I'm defending the Democrats, since I think both parties suck. But. Has there ever been an instance where a Democrat pundit or a clearly left-leaning organization ever changed the terminology of a commonly accepted phrase or concept in order to manipulate public opinion?

Because the whole Estate Tax/Death Tax, Public Option/Government Option, Torture/Enhanced Interrogation Techniques phenomenon where common phrases get changed to make people change their opinion on things seems to clearly be a Republican thing.

It just reminds me of the video of the Rand Paul supporter curb stomping the MoveOn.org protester. Has there EVER been an instance where the opposite is true and you have a left-leaning supporter committing violence or even threatening violence to a right-leaning person?

I love how the reporter has to explain that "Praise God" is a common phrase, and mention that Darwin was a scientist. It's like they've gone beyond writing for idiots, to people who have never been on this planet before.

all the perfect elements of a heckle clip come together... this simple outline has been devised by watching and submitting heckler clips:

1.) An actual comedian with real material in the middle of a set. (more famous the better, but sometimes not totally necessary)

2.) A drunk audience member near the front. THIS IS KEY.

3.) Build up to an incident involving unique personal insults or brilliant presentation of common phrases as retort.

4.) Moment of Ownage shared by all other audience members and viewers.

5.) Fin.

This is called cold reading. It's quite clear from the last encounter. The thing about being panic struck and something involving water when you were small is a very common phrase that most cold readers do. This is a very general memory, and if you think about it, you probably have a memory like it yourself.

Biden often opens his mouth before he's done thinking. I'm sure Obama was more aware of this than McCain was aware that Palin was under investigation for corruption in Alaska and had a pregnant daughter. Biden is actually a pretty chill dude, I've always liked him, but he does gaffe it up from time to time. That's always been true.

That McCain ran lipstick on a pig ads and not "Biden called Obama a clean cut black man" ads pretty much proves once and for all that all that shite Biden got for that comment was nowhere near as racist as people made it out to be. Obama wisely distanced himself from that crap, if memory serves. Calling a compliment racist sure would have seemed petty. Almost like complaining about your opponent using a common phrase like "lipstick on a pig."