Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Techdirt

from the yakkety-yak dept

We’ve got a double winner this week, with two comments from That One Guy taking first and second place on the insightful side. First up, it’s a response to the news of farmers facing 12 years in prison for selling seeds:

‘Buy from us or go to jail, your choice’

So if they use the same seeds they always have, they face insane fines and jail time. Or they can buy from scum like Monsanto, every single year, if they want to be able to sell anything, which is going to take a hefty chunk out of any profits they might have been able to make, and give said scum huge ‘negotiating’ ability since the farmers either buy from them, buy from them, or buy from them.

Oh yeah, this is absolutely going to help the farmers… right into bankruptcy. That it came as a result of ‘If you want help, you get it on our terms’ that essentially handed over the farming industry to private companies just makes it even more disgusting.

Next, it’s a response to the congressman who took it upon himself to remove some police-critical artwork:

Head, meet desk

Why do otherwise reasoned individuals-despite evidence before them to the contrary-become reflexively critical of police?

Pretty sure it’s the ‘evidence before them’ that causes people to be ‘reflexively critical of the police’, in particular the police unions which are ‘reflexively defensive of police’, no matter what they do, and making it clear that they prioritize their own over the public.

How can a member of Congress jump to the twisted conclusion that it is okay to hang a painting that adds to the divide in our country and attacks law enforcement?

Likewise, if he wants to talk about the ‘divide’ between the police and the public he needs only look into a mirror, and his beloved boys and girls in blue who decided to treat the public as the enemy and act accordingly. Or the legal system which bends over backwards to give them ‘rights’ that members of the public could only dream of.

Public safety requires a strong two-way partnership.

In which case maybe tell the police to stop treating the public as the enemy and stop defending the absolute worst among you. Just a suggestion. If the public doesn’t feel like it can trust the police a ‘partnership’ isn’t going to happen.

At a time of our country facing rising crime…

The FBI would beg to differ, but hey, what do they know right?

… we need to make it clear that depictions of law enforcement officers as pigs in our Nation’s Capital are not acceptable.

Because nothing supports a ‘strong, two-way partnership’ like saying one side isn’t allowed to be criticized.

The dedicated men and women who put on a uniform daily, who serve to protect our communities, deserve all the support the community can possibly provide.

They get as much support as they earn. If that’s not ‘enough’ then it’s on them to demonstrate that they deserve more.

Meanwhile, we always knew the “fake news” freakout would be most powerful as a tool for suppressing unwanted truths, and this week we got a good example when the president of the National police Union dubbed concerns over asset forfeiture to be exactly that: fake news. Our first editor’s choice comment on the insightful side comes from That Anonymous Coward in the form of some extrapolation:

I’m sure that the cases of cops raping minors is just fake news.
I’m sure that the cases of cops getting witnesses killed is just fake news.
I’m sure that the cases of cops stealing from cop charities is just fake news.
I’m sure that the cases of cops covering up & lying in shootings is just fake news.
I’m sure that the cases of cops beating handcuffed people is just fake news.
I’m sure that the cases of cops running black sites is just fake news.
I’m sure that the cases of cops claiming unarmed suspects made them fear for their lives is just fake news.

Only thing I think I am sure of is this guy is a liar, who is issuing statements devoid of fact to score points with a barrel that defends its bad apples.

Next, we’ve got Thad with an excellent summation of another freakout — “Russia hacked the election”:

Thanks, Mike; I think this is a pretty good rundown of the central dilemma here, which is that (1) Russia is probably responsible for the attacks but (2) the intelligence agencies have done a piss-poor job of providing evidence of that, and a reasonable person should not accept something as true just because the CIA said so.

(With a side dish of (3) saying that Russia attempted to influence the election is not the same as saying Trump won because of Russia, and (4) we should evaluate stories like this based on facts and not based on our own political leanings.)

Over on the funny side, we start out on our post about a woman’s problematic lawsuit targeting search engines over revenge porn results. Mattshow won first place by noticing an especially bizarre part of the filing:

What about the part of the filing where it states that

“21. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, GOOGLE was and still is a web search engine operated by MICROSOFT.”

Microsoft must have been thrilled to learn this!

For second place, we head to our post about Donald Trump’s latest attacks on press freedom, where some discussion of his pick of Rudy Giuliani to head up cybersecurity efforts was discussed, and Roger Strong offered the only viable defense of his bona fides:

Seems plausible. Judging by his claims over the last couple years he’s obviously an expert in virtual reality.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out by giving Roger Strong one more nod, since that wasn’t the only Giuliani quip he had up his sleeve:

In His Defense…

I’m sure that Rudy Giuliani’s judgement on cybersecurity is every bit as good as his judgement on who should be made President.

And finally, in response to Verizon’s argument that nobody really needs unlimited data, TechDescartes played a classic substitution game:

Find and Replace

“So, while unlimited air may sound attractive, there is no practical effect of oxygen limits on the majority of users. Understanding this should bring rationality to a discussion that is often held on a ?gut feeling? level. Keeping adequate partial pressure of oxygen while allowing all users to share the limited commodity we call air is the fair way to deal with breathing. And ultimately, that is what is beneficial for air-breathing humans.”

That’s all for this week, folks!