No you don't get what I'm saying, because I am explicitly telling you I am not playing your game. My ethics are my personal boundaries, not trivialities up for debate. OP wanted to know what they were, so I shared them. That does not make it open for debate, nor is my refusal to allow it to be put up to debate, up for debate.

Take the hint and go away.

It's reductive because it's not meant to convince you. It's simply what is. You asked me why I thought it is moral and those are my reasons why, and they're gonna stay that way whether you like it or not. They don't have to be reasonable or sensible or in line with your worldview. You don't have to agree with them. They don't even have to make sense to you. They're MY reasons, and they are valid simply because I hold them, because I say they are, because I decide what's ethical to me and what's not. That's all.

And you have to put up with that whether you want to or not.

Thanks for telling us you're just meaninglessly concern trolling and for proving debate is fucking pointless

It is to me. Most content is corporate generated consumerist garbage anyway so it doesn't matter. Our right to access content is more important than a creator's right to restrict access to it for profit. It's information and ideas. And we are entitled to all information and ideas. I am entitled to it simply because I say so, and if you want me to stop, you'll have to kill me.

It's as simple as that.

...Fair. But still

No I did not. Lies. Ick. Eww. I don't want to imagine Bitch Mitch in any respect

How the fuck is that even legal?

Us dying off wouldn't fix the climate and you and I both know that. Only human ingenuity can. My question is how. A lot of you all are speaking in bad faith, unironically calling for people to die over this as if it's going to fix anything. You all need therapy

This is true.

But it is about being intelligent, because people who use those terms are using them in earnest, you just accuse them of trying to sound smart because you want to silence them and make them feel bad for challenging or correcting you, and it works.

People like you destroy intellectual curiosity by doing that all the time, and not just to me. I've had to fight to regain what little I was able to, because of people like you. Anti-intellectualism is NOT okay. It is very much its own kind of bigotry, and extremely dangerous.

Society absolutely does tell people not to be smart and it does so largely through people like you. The only way nerdy people are fun to be around to you is when they don't show it, or only enough to benefit you and certainly never to expose the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

And I'm tired of it. I'm tired of having to walk on eggshells around people like you, shut the fuck up and deal with it when you're told with evidence you're wrong.

Being that kind of person isn't bad or a negative though, and framing being confident in having knowledge as a negative is what drives tyranny, discourages education and critical thinking, enables propaganda to be so effective, and destroys society.

That guy smugly bragging about reading a Wiki article could have legitimately never crossed it before and was genuinely excited in it for the sake of it, and here you are destroying legitimate intellectual curiosity just because society told you that was a no-no. Who's really more shameful?

And now the U.S. is facing a second civil war because material conditions have largely unchanged, and the slavery issue is still unresolved, because of those attitudes.

What would it take you to prioritize other people's rights over your desires for cheap shit?