Why be like that? Whether you think their position is silly or not, this person obviously gets called out on this a lot.
Well, at least he’s being more polite about it than this guy …
“I will be shitting on you and your stupid fucking license vociferously from here on out because you’re an arrogant egotistical asshole.,”
But yeah, didn’t think responding with informative links would be considered as disrespecting someone. 🤷♂️
And rather than pitch a fit over being needled about it for the umpteenth time, they responded with links that ought to satisfy any genuine curiosity. Considering the times I’ve seen an empty “Go educate yourself!” as a response from petulant children, I’d say buddy did us a solid. They don’t owe us a personalized response.
Originally I was just telling people to look through my chat history, as I had discussed the same topic many many times before, and didn’t want to detail the conversation by having to talk about it again.
But I was told that that was rude of me to do, and someone suggested I supply links instead. So I did. But apparently that’s not the right thing to do either.
I actually have been trying to work with the community about this in good faith, but each thing I do something as a compromise it seems to be complained about anyway, never satisfying those who dislike me having a license declaration.
At this point I’m just sticking with the smaller font and using links when someone asks me about the license, there’s nothing else I can do to satisfy those people who object, and I’m NOT going to discontinue licensing my content.
For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.
For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.
I disagree. And last I checked, I have awareness on the subject. It’s been discussed very often with me here on Lemmy (much less on Reddit for some reason).
Your measurement of what is content is not legally factual. One’s opinions, of any length (and I think it’s safe to say that my opining has not been short in nature) is legally considered as content.
You may not like my content, but it doesn’t mean you can disavow it as content in the first place.
And once more, as a friendly reminder. If you feel my content is not content, feel free to block me.
Well, at least he’s being more polite about it than this guy …
But yeah, didn’t think responding with informative links would be considered as disrespecting someone. 🤷♂️
Originally I was just telling people to look through my chat history, as I had discussed the same topic many many times before, and didn’t want to detail the conversation by having to talk about it again.
But I was told that that was rude of me to do, and someone suggested I supply links instead. So I did. But apparently that’s not the right thing to do either.
I actually have been trying to work with the community about this in good faith, but each thing I do something as a compromise it seems to be complained about anyway, never satisfying those who dislike me having a license declaration.
At this point I’m just sticking with the smaller font and using links when someone asks me about the license, there’s nothing else I can do to satisfy those people who object, and I’m NOT going to discontinue licensing my content.
Appreciate the civility support, thank you.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.
I disagree. And last I checked, I have awareness on the subject. It’s been discussed very often with me here on Lemmy (much less on Reddit for some reason).
Your measurement of what is content is not legally factual. One’s opinions, of any length (and I think it’s safe to say that my opining has not been short in nature) is legally considered as content.
You may not like my content, but it doesn’t mean you can disavow it as content in the first place.
And once more, as a friendly reminder. If you feel my content is not content, feel free to block me.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
😿 so sad
If my comments make you feel sad, feel free to block. 🤷♂️
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0