this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1206 points (96.5% liked)

memes

10435 readers
2453 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] marcos@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That phrase means "if you will make an enemy out of me and won't let me buy the kind of ownership I want, I'll take it and ignore paying you".

But notice that the full explanation is longer? That phrase captures perfectly well the antagonizing perspective, and nobody goes around making sure they pay fairly the people that treat them as enemies. It also fails to capture any other bit of the logic, but it's ok, the logic is simple and automatic once the antagonism is explicitated.

[–] ReginaPhalange@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

"You disrespect me when you use the word BUY when you mean RENT, I'll show you the same disrespect by denying you any monetary gain that you normally get from ghosting your customers"

Sometimes I wish I could have the skills to hack these websites - change every "Buy" to "Rent", add a " Why am I seeing this?" and then explain that the transaction is for "Digital key revocable at any time by (insert scummy corporate here)".
Then I'll happily laugh and watch their profits drop , while they try to publish a statement defending their position.

[–] Alk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I can see that, that's a good point. However, it's so easy to misconstrue that phrase into an objective statement of "the relationship between buying and owning directly creates the relationship between piracy and stealing" and the average person, lawmaker, etc can easily get confused when the "ones who own all the content" try to disprove that statement even though it's not the statement we're trying to make.

What is literally said in the meme is incorrect, even if it means something completely different. We need to say what we mean, not make a catchy analogy that's technically incorrect and easily used against us.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, I can agree with that. And somebody will eventually find some way to use that mismatch against people.

But the correct language doesn't have an impact, and we don't decide what gets popular anyway. I don't like that phrase either (I think it's too conservative), but it's here to stay.

[–] Alk@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

From all of these replies, I'm getting the feeling that people generally don't understand that the phrase is objectively incorrect, whether or not they agree with its sentiment (which they all do, at least around here). So I am questioning the overall effectiveness of sharing it. But like you said, I think it's here to stay specifically because everyone seems to agree with the sentiment behind it so much, without considering it objectively.

We're getting to a bigger picture here which I can't even speculate on, but at least I learned something about this particular narrative. I just hope this meme doesn't do too much harm when people get into debates with others that disagree.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You are getting bogged down in the details. The phrase is a slogan for the sentiment behind it. Sometimes it is more effective to capture the vibe behind something with an eight word phrase instead of writing an essay properly explaining it. We're discussing a meme not a legal document.

Your argument sounds like someone saying that you should never use "All cops are bastards" because it is an absolute statement and it is statistically likely that there could be at least one cop somewhere in the world that isn't a bastard and hasn't yet been drummed out or given up and quit. Sure, a more accurate phrase is: "The overwhelming majority of police officers are bastards and even the very few among them that are actively making an effort to be beneficial to society are still propping up and participating in an oppressive and highly problematic system" but you can't exactly print that on a coffee mug, can you?

[–] Alk@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's because it's the same argument. Both sayings are stupid, not because of the message behind them but because of their uselessness in actual conversation with anyone who might disagree. It's just circlejerking at that point, only shareable and discussable with people who already agree or know what it really is supposed to mean.

Do you know what someone who disagrees hears when I say ACAB? They hear me calling millions of people I've never met a mean name. It doesn't matter what I want it to mean. Even if I explain to them what it is supposed to mean (the conversation probably wouldn't even get that far), the fact stands that I called millions of people I've never met a mean name. And that's all anyone needs to dismiss my argument.

The whole point of these phrases is to spread the message to people who either don't care or disagree. And they are NOT effective at that very specific thing. These phrases are fine at letting people who already agree pat each other on the back though. These phrases push away the target audience.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 month ago

I don't disagree with anything you said but I wanted to point out that you are on lemmy.world, which is about 80% circle jerk, thats why its so common to see it here. The local posts in my instance are a lot less reactionary, once I turn on all is when I start seeing mob mentality type stuff.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Also, by the way, technically you can quote any predicate as a consequence of a false one.

I don't know if the people that made this phrase knew that, but it's technically correct :)