Mojo, I don't know what happened here, but it looks like you didn't read the time line of events before wading in man. Take a deep breath, clear your mind, and try again.

Or, a summary:

Oatmeal notices FunnyJunk has a bunch of his stuff without attribution, notifies him about this, gets piss poor response, proceeds to mock FunnyJunk, and then goes about his business.

Months later, Oatmeal gets a letter from FunnyJunk threatening to sue him for defamation if he doesn't give FunnyJunk $20k. The defamation in question involved accurately describing FunnyJunk's business model. GingerJet has a post of the official response from the lawyer.

Oatmeal responds to the extortionous letter with a mocking one, including pointing out all the content from The Oatmeal that FunnyJunk still has loaded, an explanation of various things (including how search engines work), and ends with starting a charity as a way to help 2 causes he likes and as a fark you to the FunnyJunk people.

Oh, and the comics listed were subsequently removed, I can verify that the 10 or 20 I clicked when I first saw this were working. The Oatmeal response letter can be found here.

TL;DR: you're off the rails on this one Mojo.

rocky_howard: [derp]

Nice try Funny Junk guy.

The Oatmeal did laugh it off by making a comic about it and then went about his business. FunnyJunk came back all butthurt a year later and is now trying to extort $20k from him.

/ sorry for feeding the troll

mjjt: Dr. Mojo PhD:

One of the most interesting things on Fark is the insight into how people's minds work. (It's handed me many lessons in humility when I haven't thought things through.)

You apparently saw the charity as being the most important issue, whereas everyone else thought that the behaviour of the lawyer was the main concern.

There are plenty of examples of great thinkers being out of step with the rest - Galileo etc. So, my question is - do you see this as a galileo type situation - you're the only one with the correct interpretation, or is it one of those "when the world's against you, sometimes it isn't the world that's wrong" situation?

Well now you're getting a wall of text on this. So, first haha oh my the sheer hubris of comparing myself to Galileo over this. That's right out the window. But no, I don't think you're looking at it the right way, and I think you may be making the same error that I see others making here.

First, I don't think it's the behaviour of the lawyer so much. He's a lawyer, it's what they do. Everything Carreon does reflects more on FunnyJunk than Carreon. I think this because I don't seriously think lawyers are people who, you know, actively support crime when they take a criminal defence case or something, I think they're doing their duty to their client.

And I think every person (every client, to a lawyer) has a right to a voice in court, has a right to use a tort case to seek satisfaction for their grievances, and has a right to be represented in that. I give lawyers a wide leeway in their behaviour because they are, ultimately, mercenaries. Don't think that if FunnyJunk represented themselves pro se that they wouldn't be doing this exact same thing. Or worse, really.

So everything I see on Carreon's letterhead, I read as if it were coming from FunnyJunk itself. When FunnyJunk retained him, that's exactly what they were retaining.

Second, divorce the first thing (the cease-and-desist and pay-up while you're at it) from the second thing (let's raise money for charity). In the first case, FunnyJunk is clearly in the wrong, and there's interpretations to Inman/TheOatmeal's criticism that definitely are not defamation pro se by any stretch of the means (they stole virtually my entire site could mean they the administrators and hosts or they the community, and it's a broad and fair backlash based on observing some fair interpretation of reality), so good luck trying to get any money from that. They're wrong.

But it doesn't necessarily flow from that that any action then taken on TheOatmeal's part is therefore good or right. We know this, obviously. if Inman went out and killed FunnyJunk's lawyer in retaliation, we would know that this is, on its face, morally wrong. So this we know, that the moral move is on Inman's part. So, that said, my contention is this:

WHAT IS PERCEIVED AS ALTRUISM, IF IT IS MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO HARM ANOTHER, WHETHER HARMING OUTRIGHT OR IN DEFENCE, IS NOT ALTRUISM, IT IS EXPLOITATION IN A MANNER THAT IS ON ITS FACE ITSELF MORALLY WRONG.

This is because, well, let's explore it by way of analogy:

If you have a neighbour, and he harms his child, and you know this, and you only move to protect that child after your neighbour starts a street fight with you, you are not actually protecting the child, even though that will be the end result of your attempt to inflict harm on your neighbour.

You are clearly not a moral person. Or at least in this case your moral agency is particularly diminished. So with what that means to me out of the way, let's look at Inman's actions and motivations, which we can know from the chronology of this situation:

1. Inman's charitable nature did not derive from some personal impact on his life, such as a family member getting cancer, that would serve as a reasonable explanation for a sudden jump in empathy. We know this because it was directly motivated by a demand for satisfaction from FunnyJunk's lawyer, and so we can causally trace the motivation.

2. In choosing these two charities Inman knew they were, our would be perceived to be, worthy causes. He knew, prior to this event, the imperative of supporting these causes.

3. We know that Inman generates approximately $464,000 in sales per year for at least one year (methodology assumes sales figures are given at face value so "a typical day" generating $1000 in sales = 365 x 1000 + 70000 (the Black Friday yield) - 1000 (to account for the fact that Black Friday is still a day in the year and the typical day yield needs to be removed from this).

4. From this we know Inman makes enough revenue and has a wide enough audience to either support or encourage his audience to support two things which we also know he knew to be good causes before this kerfuffle.

5. Which means we can deduce that Inman permitted the stagnation of support for good and moral causes up until it was in his vested interest to exploit those causes to inflict harm on another party, however justified his motivation to cause that harm might be (ie: acting defensively).

6. From which flows the conclusion that Inman is acting immorally.

We can (and should) examine whether his selfish motivate discriminates it from other altruism springing from selfishness (in fact all acts are inherently selfish) and find that, in the examples offered up in this thread, it can be discriminated from these.

1. Take the example of two cancer fundraisers offered up in this thread as counter-evidence that selfish motivations are altruistic, one a marathon and the other a general fundraiser offered up. In both cases the incentive to support was (of course) selfish, but in neither case was the incentive to support the fundraiser a desire to harm another, no matter how rightly justified that harm may be.

2. Take the example of Westboro Baptist Church's anti-LGBT protests being answered with pro-LGBT fundraisers. Again we can discriminate between the two scenarios, because the party which caused the offence (WBC) specifically targeted the LGBT community. They, not the counter-protesters, involved that party in the squabble. Furthermore, since WBC presumably causes the LGBT community actual (though not physical) harm, efforts to support them are also efforts to partially mitigate the harm caused to another.

In neither case do these examples apply to TheOatmeal/FunnyJunk. Cancer patients and wildlife were not involved prior to their forcible involvement (and TheOatmeal's charity drive would be reasonably attributed to altruism if they had supported a party who was ancillary but still materially affected, such as other artists). FunnyJunk did not target cancer patients or wildlife for their attack (which would make TheOatmeal's actions at least reasonably attributable to protecting another party).

In neither case is such an attribution possible. So, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that TheOatmeal involved cancer patients and wildlife out of a base motivation of malice, which is exploitative; they did not care (though we know they reasonably could have cared) until caring provided the opportunity to inflict harm on another.

Of course Inman still has the moral obligation to follow through on his fundraiser, since he's now created a situation where failing to do so would cause the situation to be even worse from a moral position than otherwise.

And that is my position on it, in a nutshell:
- TheOatmeal/Inman wants to play at iconoclast
- FunnyJunk is Newgrounds lite
- They get into a stupid slapfight where FunnyJunk is clearly wrong
- Inman takes it a step further and exploits worthy causes for his own ends
- Consequently I find both of them morally bereft, in the same way that in wars like Iran-Iraq or USSR-Third Reich you kind of want them both to lose, or how I can think that the late Rodney King was a spousal abusing asshole without thinking that in any way justifies his own beating at the hands of the law.

I hope you've advised these charities of Inman's immorality. I dare say they would be horrified to learn that his intentions weren't 100% altruistic.

I also hope that one day someone exploits the fark out of me by raising $100 000 and not expecting anything in return.

Firstly, that gigantic wall-of-text is frankly worrying; you are taking this way, way, WAY too personally for reasons that are not clear at all to normal people. I'm forced to assume The Oatmeal sank your whaling ship and bit your leg off, and you've spent years seeking revenge.

Dr. Mojo PhD: - Inman takes it a step further and exploits worthy causes for his own ends

Nobody other than you sees it that way. No one. I doubt even FunnyJunk's lawyer would share that perspective. You have no idea whether or not Inman has donated to these charities before, and even if he hasn't, using this as an opportunity to do so is not immoral. I repeat for the third time:

Gunther: Gunther: I ran in a marathon a few years back, raising money for prostate research. My motives certainly weren't 100% charitable - I wanted to get fitter, and by enrolling myself in a marathon and taking donations from friends, I was using the social pressure from that to encourage myself to train. I got fitter, prostate research got a thousand bucks. Win/Win.

What Inman did was no different to this. I'd still like to know if you think I'm a goddamned monster for raising money for charity while my motives weren't 100% charitable.

Gunther: Firstly, that gigantic wall-of-text is frankly worrying; you are taking this way, way, WAY too personally for reasons that are not clear at all to normal people.

Somebody asked me for the source of my beliefs, I answered their question. It's only the quote that literally opens the post, so I can see why this is confusing.

Gunther: Nobody other than you sees it that way. No one.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Faulty reasoning doesn't appeal to me much.

Gunther: You have no idea whether or not Inman has donated to these charities before

And you have no idea if:

Gunther: The Oatmeal sank your whaling ship and bit your leg off, and you've spent years seeking revenge.

...yet you were "forced to assume" that. Hypocrisy in attempting to understand another person's motivations also doesn't appeal to me much.

Gunther: I'd still like to know if you think I'm a goddamned monster for raising money for charity while my motives weren't 100% charitable.

Perhaps if you had read that "gigantic wall-of-text" that frankly worried you so much you would have found your answer:

Dr. Mojo PhD: We can (and should) examine whether his selfish motivate discriminates it from other altruism springing from selfishness (in fact all acts are inherently selfish) and find that, in the examples offered up in this thread, it can be discriminated from these.

1. Take the example of two cancer fundraisers offered up in this thread as counter-evidence that selfish motivations are altruistic, one a marathon and the other a general fundraiser offered up. In both cases the incentive to support was (of course) selfish, but in neither case was the incentive to support the fundraiser a desire to harm another, no matter how rightly justified that harm may be.

I fail to see the point in asking me a question you already had the answer to, or would have had the answer to, if you'd bothered to read the wall-of-text that worried your delicate sensibilities so.

Which raises the interesting question that if you're demonstrably unaware of its content then what, exactly, caused you to worry? Was it its sheer volume, at a staggering 1238 words? If that's what sets you askew -- and if you like scares -- then might I recommend any book from this list.

At an estimated 1,200,000 words, Proust's In Search of Lost Time should really give you a case of the vapors.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Argumentum ad populum fallacy

To a normal person, having someone point out that nobody else can even follow their reasoning would give them pause. They'd stop and think "huh, maybe if everyone else thinks I'm acting crazy, I might want to re evaluate my current actions". You just soldier on, convinced that everyone else is stupid. Two sorts of people think like that; geniuses and crazy people. And I'm damn sure you aren't a genius.

Dr. Mojo PhD: ...yet you were "forced to assume" that. Hypocrisy in attempting to understand another person's motivations also doesn't appeal to me much.

That was a literary reference, you tool. Obviously I don't think The Oatmeal actually bit your leg off; I was comparing you to Captain Ahab, who became obsessed with the white whale that took his leg. It's pointed out repeatedly in Moby Dick that his belief that the whale is evil is ludicrous, yet he continues to ascribe evil intent to it without evidence, growing ever more obsessed with it, to the point where he makes gigantic wall-of-text rants about the whale on Fark.

Dr. Mojo PhD: I fail to see the point in asking me a question you already had the answer to

No, you just repeat yourself. I already know that you think it's wrong, I was asking WHY you think it's wrong. Why is it OK to raise money for charity in such a way that it benefits you by getting fitter, but wrong to raise money for charity in such a way that it benefits you by making a douchebag look like a douchebag? You state it a dozen different ways, but you never actually answer the farking question.

I mean, take that analogy you give where someone protects the child of an abusive neighbor - is that action wrong, even if it's motivated by spite for the neighbor? of course not, the only wrong they've done is to ignore the child's suffering beforehand. I still have no idea why you think differently.

Dr. Mojo PhD: what, exactly, caused you to worry? Was it its sheer volume, at a staggering 1238 words?

Well yeah; for an argument over a meaningless internet slapfight, that length is worryingly indicative of obsession bordering on crazy. It also consists of you just restating your belief that "it is immoral to help someone in a way that hurts someone that deserves it" without ever farking explaining why you think such a stupid thing. As far as I can tell, you just instinctively believe that it is, and can offer no rational explanation for your belief, just pointless analogies and vitrol at those who question it.

Let's just cut the shiat here and get down to this:

Gunther: Well yeah; for an argument over a meaningless internet slapfight, that length is worryingly indicative of obsession bordering on crazy.

So just to be clear:

You want a rationale explained:
Gunther: I already know that you think it's wrong, I was asking WHY you think it's wrong.

But when somebody explains a rationale:
Gunther: Well yeah; for an argument over a meaningless internet slapfight, that length is worryingly indicative of obsession bordering on crazy.

...you cry like a farking baby that it's too long. You seem to want your answers every which way. According to you they should be short when they're long and long when they're short. Which seems to me like structuring your argument so that no matter how your opponent attempts to answer it, you can claim they're wrong because of it.

If they take the time to answer with a single sentence, you go "BUT WHAT I DON'T GET IS WHY? WHY? WHY?" and if they answer with several paragraphs in an effort to anticipate all the "why why whys" you go "WOW YOU ARE OBSESSED AND CRAZY."

I'll make you a deal. You pick the format you want your questions to me answered in, and in my responses to you I will stick to that format. You want short sentences? I'll do it. Paragraphs? I can do that too. Diagrams, drawings, I'll fire up MS Paint just for you.

I'm happy to answer your questions as long as you do it sensibly. So if you like a couple of sentences for your answers, that's fine, but don't ask me a question that takes a novel-length answer to address and expect to get that in a single sentence, either.

Don't draw wild and irrational conclusions like if I think Party A acted bad today I must think Party B acted right the day before. If I answer a question, don't repeat it expecting a different answer. You can ask me to clarify, and that's a thing I can do, and it's fair to ask. But getting all hectoring with me and looking to start another slapfight is going to get you that slapfight and, if you're honest about wanting answers to this, that's not the way to get them.

We can even go back to a cordial tone for a nice back and forth. Exciting.

mjjt: Interview does give an idea of his thought processes, and a bit of insight.

Some people, such as Aspergers/Autistic end of spectrum, understand the world in terms of formal rules.

Carreon basically thinking in terms of "I can use these tactics for which there are precedents, to achieve my aims (win a victory for my client and make a bit of money), and I know most people will just pay up rather than fight a more expensive legal battle." And he continues the legalistic approach in trying to shut down the charity because he thinks it doesn't obey the rules. And his client is in the right because Inman didn't complain according to the rules.

He seems to be genuinely baffled by people wanting to apply social rules and unconventional remedies.

(Doesn't realize that society regards his letter as extortion, and he doesn't realize that it doesn't require an organized and led campaign to produce revenge attacks)

I work and live with autistic children and as much as it could be considered an insult to them, I have to say this sounds right on the money.

This situation with FunnyJunk's lawyer sounds to me a lot like like putting a hard-core, rule-lawyering Dungeons and Dragons player from the mage class in the room with an engineer who's never played the game, but knows how things work in the real world. Engineer guy hasn't memorized eleventy-five source books, but he does know how to blow stuff up, so he proceeds to exploit the artificer class and the named materials from the book into making perfectly game-correct and absolutely real-world-possible, but unexpected and highly creative ordnance. This unconventional fix to a problem is sufficient to let the rogue and the thief in the party take out a big-bad simply by using Engineer Guy's character's modified arrows and hurling what amounts to glass vials of Greek fire with a sling, thus doing some twenty times the damage as Mage Guy who, in a clumsy attempt to roleplay, scorned the artificer's help and stuck to Magic Missiles.

Mage Guy is at once pissed that his memorizing the rules didn't earn him as much XP and admiration from fellow players as some outside-the-box amateur with a completely different skillset who apparently just knew how to do that and hadn't put in any of the work he had. He is stunned when the DM says, faced with something too balls-out cool to ignore, that it's good and the action stands, and he demands to see Engineer Guy's justification, which results in two pages of hastily-drawn notes from during dinner, including chemistry, physics and aerodynamics work at a grad-student level.

It's not even an attempt to show him up and the notes are hours old, simply because Engineer Guy is a grad student and while everyone else was adding their XP from the previous game and assigning the newest level's points earlier in the evening, he was absently devising weapons on his dinner napkin 'cause that's what he does. Dogs lick their balls, cats sleep in the sun and Engineer Guy invents ways to get shiat blowed up. Might as well curse the animals.

And then when the rest of the party agrees with the DM in favor of Engineer Guy over Mage Guy's opinion that the scene should be played over, even if Engineer Guy is trying to be nothing but nice and explains that the chemistry section of the notes involved was something he hoped to show the rogue, who is in a real-life chemistry class, needs a paper topic and brought her tutor, Engineer Guy, to the game in the first place, the Mage Guy goes batshiat.

It does not end well for Mage Guy. He is thrown out of the D&D group and replaced with a nice lesbian couple who play a cleric and a ranger and who bring homemade cookies to meetings.

Matthew Inman is like Engineer Guy. He does what he does, he reacts to situations and his main effectiveness comes from audacity.

FunnyJunk's lawyer is like Mage Guy. He is shocked, stunned and outraged that things haven't gone his way, and though he has technicalities and source books on his side, the party and the DM are on Engineer Guy's side.

The DM is the law, in this case, as in most D&D metaphors.

The party is the Internet, and their affections and enthusiasm can vary as wildly.

And the rogue, well, the rogue is like a person who knew of FunnyJunk, but rather liked The Oatmeal before the kerfuffle started and who, after the dust-up, will never have anything to do with FunnyJunk again and instead get rather more fond of The Oatmeal.

In my case, I was the one playing the rogue, and I banged Engineer Guy's brains out that very night, dated him for some years and married him. Also a much bigger fan of The Oatmeal since this mess.

/good LORD, what a nerdy farking response
//see? I told you I work and live with autistic kids. Every night is D&D night in summer time and look what it's done to my metaphors!

This has been quite the entertaining meltdown on Mojo's part.

Dr. Mojo PhD: I'm happy to answer your questions as long as you do it sensibly promise to stop disagreeing with me.

FTFY.

Forecaster18: Dr. Mojo PhD: I'm happy to answer your questions as long as you do it sensibly promise to stop disagreeing with me.

FTFY.

I don't give a fark if he disagrees with me. He can do it sensibly, or he can do it unreasonably. I'm very sorry if "don't disagree with positions you imagine I hold" upsets your imagining that I'm having some "meltdown" to the point where you have to strike through a statement of mine so you can disagree with a position you imagine I hold.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Forecaster18: Dr. Mojo PhD: I'm happy to answer your questions as long as you do it sensibly promise to stop disagreeing with me.

FTFY.

I don't give a fark if he disagrees with me. He can do it sensibly, or he can do it unreasonably. I'm very sorry if "don't disagree with positions you imagine I hold" upsets your imagining that I'm having some "meltdown" to the point where you have to strike through a statement of mine so you can disagree with a position you imagine I hold.

Just keeps getting better.

vygramul: fredklein: Dr. Mojo PhD: INMAN is a HYPOCRITE because he made a comic RATIONALIZING THE VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT and at another time made a post FRUSTRATED AT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION which are TWO MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY MORAL POSITIONS.

He 'rationalized the violation of copyright' in cases where the original work was not available legitimately.

He was 'frustrated' at people making money off violating his copyrights.

Apples/Oranges.

Your second point is accurate. Your first suffers from the fact that the original work IS available legitimately - just more expensive than he's willing to pay.


It wasn't available at the time he made the comic.

"There were plenty of great counterarguments as well, and subsequent arguments to those counterarguments. Many of them based their retort on the fact that Game of Thrones would ship from Amazon on March 6th and I just needed to wait longer. Truth be told, the show started airing almost 40 weeks ago -- I just happened to publish my comic right around the corner from when it was being released... "

Now that it is available, "I already ordered a copy and eagerly await its arrival."

Forecaster18: Just keeps getting better.

Mmm, of course it does. You aren't, by the way, offering much in the way of argument for this. It seems to me you're guilty of your own sin:

Forecaster18: Dr. Mojo PhD: I'm happy to answer your questions as long as you do it sensibly promise to stop disagreeing with me.

You disagree with me, but you can't say why. Whether you can't put it into words or what, I don't know. So your recourse is to call what you disagree with a "meltdown" and just keep insisting it's so.

There's degrees of disagreement, boss. People can disagree with reason: "I see your arguments but don't agree with them because I believe they're wrong."

And people can disagree with stupidity, like Kar98 did when he claimed that I was "whiteknighting [Carreon]" because even though I said over and over -- and well before that -- I disagreed with FunnyJunk stupid idea that they can host other people's content without complaint, I found TheOatmeal's response distasteful.

So you're happy to use words here, right? I mean you're making responses, after all, so I figure you can type. Should I be respectful towards that? Should I acquiesce and say "Yes clearly if I don't agree with what I see as a distasteful use of charity, I must necessarily agree with FunnyJunk's original position despite the fact that I said I didn't?" Should I coddle that mentality and reward it? You clearly wouldn't; why should I?

Christ, man, you're looking for a fight, when the guy you call out steps into the circle and starts stretching his neck, don't be a pussy standing on the outside calling taunts when he calls you over. Step in, man up, and take the fight you came looking for.

Dr. Mojo PhD: According to you they should be short when they're long and long when they're short. Which seems to me like structuring your argument so that no matter how your opponent attempts to answer it, you can claim they're wrong because of it.

No. My problem is that your answers consist of three things: Short, declarative statements:

Dr. Mojo PhD: WHAT IS PERCEIVED AS ALTRUISM, IF IT IS MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO HARM ANOTHER, WHETHER HARMING OUTRIGHT OR IN DEFENCE, IS NOT ALTRUISM, IT IS EXPLOITATION IN A MANNER THAT IS ON ITS FACE ITSELF MORALLY WRONG.

Analogies that don't farking answer the question:

Dr. Mojo PhD: If you have a neighbour, and he harms his child, and you know this, and you only move to protect that child after your neighbour starts a street fight with you, you are not actually protecting the child, even though that will be the end result of your attempt to inflict harm on your neighbour. You are clearly not a moral person.

And bouts of deranged, nonsensical ranting:

Dr. Mojo PhD: So you're happy to use words here, right? I mean you're making responses, after all, so I figure you can type. Should I be respectful towards that? Should I acquiesce and say "Yes clearly if I don't agree with what I see as a distasteful use of charity, I must necessarily agree with FunnyJunk's original position despite the fact that I said I didn't?" Should I coddle that mentality and reward it? You clearly wouldn't; why should I?

See, all your arguments, no matter how long or how short, have one thing in common; they don't farking answer the question. You just take it for granted that if someone helps a third party in order to screw over someone who deserves it, they're in the wrong. You won't farking say WHY they're in the wrong. You could answer this in a novel or in a twitter post, it wouldn't bother me as long as you gave a cogent farking answer to the question.

Also; we're all calling this a meltdown because you're clearly having a farking meltdown.

Gunther: You just take it for granted that if someone helps a third party in order to screw over someone who deserves it, they're in the wrong. You won't farking say WHY they're in the wrong. You could answer this in a novel or in a twitter post, it wouldn't bother me as long as you gave a cogent farking answer to the question.

Alright, well, in fairness, I'll try again.

I find cause-based marketing distasteful. I find the idea of companies or businesses using charities as PR stunts distasteful and exploitative of people who are vulnerable, and I think this because they're making a profit. Even if that profit isn't directly monetary like a tax break, I think the appearance of magnanimity and charity for the purposes of public relations itself profits the company. And I think what Inman is doing here is a PR stunt; in fact I know it's a PR stunt.

Would you like to hear my personal motivation behind it? I've watched a lot of people in my family die of cancer. My grandmother died of cancer, and when she was drugged out of her mind on morphine, screaming at her grown children to beware of invisible enemies, I watched the cancer and the treatments for it sap her strength.

Then my uncle got cancer and fought it over the better part of a decade. It got the point where the iris of one eye was ringed in red, from what I don't know. When it spread to his liver his skin turned jaundiced and was hanging off of him like rags. One foot was so swollen he couldn't walk. I was there when he died. Have you ever seen a person in Biot's breathing while they're in a coma? Or heard of Biot's respiration? You wouldn't forget it if you had. If you haven't, imagine a person breathing a ragged, deep, gasping breath about once every ten to twenty seconds from a mouth that's just gaping open, the head lolled back at an impossible angle, the comatose eyes wide open and staring at absolutely nothing.

When he was alive, when he'd hobble around with his bad foot, sometimes he'd tell me -- when his wife and son couldn't hear -- how he wished he had a bullet to end it all.

Then my mother got cancer. It started in her kidney. She wasn't able to eat. And then she wasn't able to move. By the time the nephrectomy was done it had spread to her lymph nodes and from there her lungs and her prognosis was go home and die. We sat around rubbing her lugs, swollen with edema because she couldn't walk. I remember sitting in the hospital room while she lay in the hospital bed. I wouldn't sleep when I was with her, so that I could make sure she didn't pull off her oxygen mask and suffocate herself. When she would, I would slip it back on. I remember one morning she woke -- she slept a lot -- and her voice was so tiny and so afraid, like a child. She asked me to talk to her. She just wanted to hear somebody's voice, to know somebody was there and she wasn't alone. I used this vibrator thing the hospital had to give her a chest rub, rubbed her arm, and told her to go back to sleep; I was exhausted after months of that sleep schedule, from the end of April to the end of July. It wasn't the last time I talked to her, not by a couple of weeks, but the guilt of turning her down still eats at me. The last time I talked to her was saying goodbye after I made her breakfast, getting ready to go home for some sleep while my sister took over. I made her peanut butter on toast, and then I kissed her goodbye, and told her I loved her. As I left, she asked my aunt if she'd had breakfast yet. It was the last conscious words I ever heard her speak.

That night, I held her hand while she was in a coma, like my uncle had been. Her eyes were half-open, little olive-coloured dots. Staring at nothing, again. At one point in that night while we kept vigil, she had trouble breathing, her chest was rattling, so we had her aspirated. I had her aspirated, to try to relieve it. Only a few minutes later, she stopped breathing. Her chest fell, and it didn't rise again. I remember my sister calling out for her mother.

And then I remember the blood and came out of her nose and mouth.

We called the family, and they said their goodbyes, and when they left, we said our goodbyes. She was cold by then, like cold to the touch. Her dead eyes kept staring at nothing, and I had to ask the doctor to close them.

Of course, all this was happening while my aunt had cancer. Lung cancer, she'd been diagnosed first. She would show off her radiation burns like a champ, and for a while she looked to be in remission, but still I would visit with her and it drew her strength out too, until she was bald and laid up in a hospital bed in her own living room. The immobility of it sent blood clots to her stomach, so that on top of the cancer she was doubled over in agony. The remission didn't last; the cancer spread to her liver and a month after my mother died, she died. After I'd gone and told her she couldn't, 'cause I didn't want to lose an aunt after I lost my mother.

And that's just me. That's a pattern repeated over and over with countless other people.

When I see some unfunny attempt at an iconoclast pull some PR stunt so he can swaddle himself in his little superhero cape and turn up his nose and feel all magnanimous about himself because some shiatty third-rate eBaum's world knock-off and their Hunter S. Thompson wannabe lawyer got his ovaries in a knot with their bullshiat cease-and-desist nonsense, going "OH LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M THE HERO OF CANCER! BETCHA WISH YA DIDN'T WAKE THE DRAGON NOW, HUH?!" as a way of telling them to fark themselves (and which will (entirely by coincidence, I'm sure) generate revenue for him), that is a thing I find incredibly exploitative of human suffering.

That suffering, that pain, is not some trump card to play in your gay Internet slapfights over unfunny comics and the unfunnier sites that steal them when it's convenient and you want to feel nice and tingly. Hope and charity and alleviation of pain aren't things to dangle like a carrot on a stick so you can call somebody's mother a bearfarker and feel like Jesus farking Christ laying his hands on the lepers while you do it.

vygramul: It just wasn't available in a format he approved of at a price he was willing to pay. That is not the same as "legitimately unavailable."

Read the strip.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

Pay particular attention to the top line of the 3d panel. "Dang, it's not available for streaming or as a DVD."

As I said, it wasn't available.

fredklein: Pay particular attention to the top line of the 3d panel. "Dang, it's not available for streaming or as a DVD."

As I said, it wasn't available.

The third panel about how it wasn't available in streaming or on DVD from Netflix? Ok, now count 12 and 13 panels down from that, and read those.

As vygramul said, it was, just in a package he didn't like.

I get that you want to defend him (and fark I agree with the stance the comic illustrates) but seriously, why just make things up or not verify them?

Dr. Mojo PhD: I've watched a lot of people in my family die of cancer

You have my sympathies. I've also lost people I care about to cancer. It's a horrible, undignified way to go, and I feel terrible about finding your reaction to this funny earlier. But this:

Dr. Mojo PhD: When I see some unfunny attempt at an iconoclast pull some PR stunt so he can swaddle himself in his little superhero cape and turn up his nose and feel all magnanimous about himself because some shiatty third-rate eBaum's world knock-off and their Hunter S. Thompson wannabe lawyer got his ovaries in a knot with their bullshiat cease-and-desist nonsense, going "OH LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M THE HERO OF CANCER! BETCHA WISH YA DIDN'T WAKE THE DRAGON NOW, HUH?!" as a way of telling them to fark themselves (and which will (entirely by coincidence, I'm sure) generate revenue for him), that is a thing I find incredibly exploitative of human suffering.

...Is just not a fair summary of what happened. I've read The Oatmeal's posts on this, and I don't think he was intending to exploit peoples' suffering. He found a way to spite an asshole (seriously, did you see the follow-up thread where lawyer guy decided to sue the charities as well? what an unbelievable asshole) and at the same time raise $200,000 for cancer research, and I just don't have a problem with that.

I still don't think you're really capable of judging this purely rationally, but I was wrong to take amusement from that. My apologies.

Dr. Mojo PhD: The third panel about how it wasn't available in streaming or on DVD from Netflix?
That panel doesn't specifically say "from Netflix", but I agree it is implied from the previous panel.

The point is, he wants a u>Digital (download or streaming) copy of GOT. All the places he tried...didn't have one. Thus, it was not available. The fact that it may have been available in a different format is irrelevant. If you don't provide it in a way that your customers want, you can't get pissed when they get upset at you. Or do you consider a movie is "available" when it's only released on LaserDisc in Bulgarian?

" ...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.' But the plans were on display...' on display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.' `That's the display department.' `With a torch.' `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.' `So had the stairs.' `But look you found the notice didn't you?' `Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'

Ok, now count 12 and 13 panels down from that, and read those.

"Um" "AHEM" tappitty tappitty tap?

Dr. Mojo PhD: blah blah blah

Keep screaming, chief. This has been a riot to watch.

fredklein: Dr. Mojo PhD: The third panel about how it wasn't available in streaming or on DVD from Netflix?
That panel doesn't specifically say "from Netflix", but I agree it is implied from the previous panel.

The point is, he wants a u>Digital (download or streaming) copy of GOT. All the places he tried...didn't have one. Thus, it was not available. The fact that it may have been available in a different format is irrelevant. If you don't provide it in a way that your customers want, you can't get pissed when they get upset at you. Or do you consider a movie is "available" when it's only released on LaserDisc in Bulgarian?

" ...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.' But the plans were on display...' on display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.' `That's the display department.' `With a torch.' `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.' `So had the stairs.' `But look you found the notice didn't you?' `Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'

Ok, now count 12 and 13 panels down from that, and read those.

"Um" "AHEM" tappitty tappitty tap?

Well the bulgarian bit is a bit much, shall we say. The comic itself indicates that GoT was available streaming from HBO Go. It required HBO cable. This was considered too expensive. tada.

He indicated that it was available but that the expense (i.e. buying HBO and having cable which he did not want) was too much for him. That is equivalent to saying there is a film i want to watch. It costs more money and effort than i would like to pay. Thus i shall take it for free. That is a fundamentally different argument than lack of availability. That could be charitably discussed under poor sales policy or possibly even market failure. But it is clear that it was available but at a price he did not feel like paying.

Gunther: I've read The Oatmeal's posts on this, and I don't think he was intending to exploit peoples' suffering.

I don't think so either. I really don't think that was his intention. I don't think he sat there twirling his moustache with cartoon villainy or anything. But I think he failed to think through his actions completely, and I think a little forethought and maturity would lead a reasonable person to conclude that dragging charities into an immature (well-deserved as it was) response to something wasn't appropriate, and I think there's a level of responsibility there just not to do those kinds of things unless there's a good reason, like that charity happens to benefit the kind of people FunnyJunk was targeting, like struggling artists or something.

Gunther: (seriously, did you see the follow-up thread where lawyer guy decided to sue the charities as well? what an unbelievable asshole)

Oh yeah I saw it. It's incredibly off-the-wall. When I said this:

Dr. Mojo PhD: First, I don't think it's the behaviour of the lawyer so much. He's a lawyer, it's what they do.

Well, I retract that. He had the leeway before when he was representing his client. Now he's just gone off the farking reservation. If you read it (I assume you have) you'll note he's also representing himself pro se (according to PopeHat, anyway), so any veneer of "I'm just doing one for my client" that I use to frequently excuse lawyers' behaviour is out the window. Now he's his own client! And he's actually suing the charities! What in the actual fark is he thinking?

Remember like a paragraph ago when I said I thought that TheOatmeal's actions were more negligent than malice.

This is malice. Like this is just straight up lunatic-level malicious.

Gunther: I still don't think you're really capable of judging this purely rationally, but I was wrong to take amusement from that. My apologies.

Meh fark it. I don't agree with your take, I still don't... in fact this is what I mean by negligence, this is what I mean by involving parties that weren't involved before, because then this psycho goes and does this shiat and now the charities stand to get harmed.

I mean I think that's a rational outlook on this, to say "yes FunnyJunk Carreon punched the charities in the balls, but you dragged them into the fight, Inman, you brought them into this." I still disagree with you, I disagree with your rationale in thinking the blame is 100% on FunnyJunk on the basis of them throwing the first punch, but I don't think you're being irrational about it.

I will apologize for getting way too angry with you in particular though. You may have noticed that I have a pet peeve for blatant logical fallacies, like they make my blood boil. I get accused enough of "supporting" FunnyJunk enough in this because I disagree with the particular way Inman did it, and I got cranky, which wasn't fair to you since you weren't the one that did it. So for that I do apologize.

Last I'd just like to say don't back down from your position if you disagree with me just because people I know have died. That's just silly.

vygramul: He just rejected the one way it was legitimately available

In the comic, there is no indication that it was available at all. All the different ways he tried didn't work.

fredklein: vygramul: He just rejected the one way it was legitimately available

In the comic, there is no indication that it was available at all. All the different ways he tried didn't work.

"it won't let me buy just this one show. It wants me to upgrade my entire cable service, but the reason I use all these other websites is because I dont HAVE or WANT cable." Hence it is available from HBO Go. streaming. Right there. But the cost is too high because he doesnt "HAVE or WANT cable."

While you may argue that having HBO to stream GoT is stupidly expensive. It is still available. Right there. Especially for a guy who is not poor. he just believed that the cost of it is too high. The cost of getting premium cable.

Teiritzamna: The comic itself indicates that GoT was available streaming from HBO Go. It required HBO cable. This was considered too expensive. tada.

He indicated that it was available but that the expense (i.e. buying HBO and having cable which he did not want) was too much for him. That is equivalent to saying there is a film i want to watch. It costs more money and effort than i would like to pay.

"Oh, we have free widgets available... you just need to purchase a monster truck."
"But I don't need a monster truck. Why can't i just get the widgets?"
"Because fark you, that's why."

...is not "making widgets available".

That is a fundamentally different argument than lack of availability.

Availability takes into account things like format, model, color, options, etc. If the car dealership doesn't have any blue Ford F150's, then the fact that they have green Ford F250's is irrelevant. Yes, they may have "trucks", even "Ford Trucks". But they don't have what I want.

By the same token, if a movie studio doesn't have a particular movie in the format (or language) I want, it's not available. The fact they have it in other formats (languages) is irrelevant to the fact they don't have what I want. It's not available.

Dr. Mojo PhD: I think there's a level of responsibility there just not to do those kinds of things unless there's a good reason, like that charity happens to benefit the kind of people FunnyJunk was targeting, like struggling artists or something.

Just donating to a charity isn't a good enough reason to...donate to a charity?? You need to donate to a charity that "happens to benefit the kind of people FunnyJunk was targeting"??

fredklein: Teiritzamna: The comic itself indicates that GoT was available streaming from HBO Go. It required HBO cable. This was considered too expensive. tada.

He indicated that it was available but that the expense (i.e. buying HBO and having cable which he did not want) was too much for him. That is equivalent to saying there is a film i want to watch. It costs more money and effort than i would like to pay.

"Oh, we have free widgets available... you just need to purchase a monster truck."
"But I don't need a monster truck. Why can't i just get the widgets?"
"Because fark you, that's why."

...is not "making widgets available".

That is a fundamentally different argument than lack of availability.

Availability takes into account things like format, model, color, options, etc. If the car dealership doesn't have any blue Ford F150's, then the fact that they have green Ford F250's is irrelevant. Yes, they may have "trucks", even "Ford Trucks". But they don't have what I want.

By the same token, if a movie studio doesn't have a particular movie in the format (or language) I want, it's not available. The fact they have it in other formats (languages) is irrelevant to the fact they don't have what I want. It's not available.

But how is this different from saying that a DVD at 10 dollars is more than i want to pay so infringing is cool? I want a 1 dollar movie. Its the thing i want. You do not want to give it to me so i shall get it for free. Not tring to be attacky, just want to see where you are coming from.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Last I'd just like to say don't back down from your position if you disagree with me just because people I know have died. That's just silly.

Well again; I still think your position is flawed, and borne more out of emotion than reason, but I realize I was getting carried away myself. Arguments are just somehow more satisfying if you call the person you're arguing with a retarded douchecanoe.

Too much time arguing with trolls in politics threads, I guess.

Teiritzamna: fredklein: vygramul: He just rejected the one way it was legitimately available

In the comic, there is no indication that it was available at all. All the different ways he tried didn't work.

"it won't let me buy just this one show. It wants me to upgrade my entire cable service, but the reason I use all these other websites is because I dont HAVE or WANT cable." Hence it is available from HBO Go. streaming. Right there. But the cost is too high because he doesnt "HAVE or WANT cable."

While you may argue that having HBO to stream GoT is stupidly expensive. It is still available. Right there.

And a movie released on LaserDisc in Bulgarian is "available", too.
A movie released with a $1,000,000 price tag is "available", too.
A movie released with the requirement that you devote your life to God as a Missionary in the Congo before watching it is "available", too.

How far must things go before it becomes obvious that the movie really isn't available?

Teiritzamna: But how is this different from saying that a DVD at 10 dollars is more than i want to pay so infringing is cool? I want a 1 dollar movie. Its the thing i want. You do not want to give it to me so i shall get it for free.

Welcome to the Free Market. Price things higher than (potential) customers are willing to pay, they don't buy. Sell things in formats that your customers don't want, they don't buy.

Solution: Sell things in formats your customers want, at prices they want.

fredklein: Teiritzamna: fredklein: vygramul: He just rejected the one way it was legitimately available

In the comic, there is no indication that it was available at all. All the different ways he tried didn't work.

"it won't let me buy just this one show. It wants me to upgrade my entire cable service, but the reason I use all these other websites is because I dont HAVE or WANT cable." Hence it is available from HBO Go. streaming. Right there. But the cost is too high because he doesnt "HAVE or WANT cable."

While you may argue that having HBO to stream GoT is stupidly expensive. It is still available. Right there.

And a movie released on LaserDisc in Bulgarian is "available", too.
A movie released with a $1,000,000 price tag is "available", too.
A movie released with the requirement that you devote your life to God as a Missionary in the Congo before watching it is "available", too.

How far must things go before it becomes obvious that the movie really isn't available?

Sigh. Ok. It appears we are at one of those places where discussions over the internet break down, so i shall try to clarify. You are indicating that requiring people to sign up for HBO is the functional equivalent of there being no streaming available at all. If that is not your argument, please forgive and bear with me as i address that.

1) HBO has decided that they are ok with putting a price on their product. The price they have decided to put on their product is the cost of HBO. That is a monetizable thing. In my area with comcast i think it is about $70 a month. So we can say, initially that The product was out there in the market, but at a price he did not feel like paying. We can make analogies to insanely high barriers to purchasers, such as 1,000,000 price tags and such, but in fact it was 70. I think that is too high. I would not buy it. But that does not mean i am justified in taking it either.

There are many luxury goods in the world that are highly rare and/or expensive. This is not a justification for taking them. It may be a justification for not buying them, but not taking them.

2) this is a bit of a preemptive point, but i shall do it anyway. HBO has the right to set whatever price or policy or requirement on their IP. They have the right to not sell the IP at all if that is their desire. They can make it as rare or as ubiquitous as they feel like. It is their property and they may dispose if it as they see fit. Now as an American i have the right to think they are morons for their use of their IP. I can discuss their stupidity. I can agree wholeheartedly that if they were much smarter they would make it such that i would be willing to pay for their stuff so they could get my money. But the fact that they want to charge more than i feel willing to pay does not make my decision to infringe any more moral or legal. There are not two options here: Pay a ton or infringe. There are three: Pay a ton, infringe, or go without. Only two of these are the moral or legal choice. The third is attractive, or course, and convenient. but we are all smart people here, lets not lie about what is happening here.

fredklein: Teiritzamna: But how is this different from saying that a DVD at 10 dollars is more than i want to pay so infringing is cool? I want a 1 dollar movie. Its the thing i want. You do not want to give it to me so i shall get it for free.

Welcome to the Free Market. Price things higher than (potential) customers are willing to pay, they don't buy. Sell things in formats that your customers don't want, they don't buy.

Solution: Sell things in formats your customers want, at prices they want.

i address this above actually. This is 100% correct. That is the proper diad. They buy, or they go without. You are suggesting that this justifies a different point. In an open market if you price your products highly, then people are justified in stealing or infringing (depending on the goods). They are not. They can buy. They can go without. Those are the choices of the market.

fredklein: Dr. Mojo PhD: I think there's a level of responsibility there just not to do those kinds of things unless there's a good reason, like that charity happens to benefit the kind of people FunnyJunk was targeting, like struggling artists or something.

Just donating to a charity isn't a good enough reason to...donate to a charity?? You need to donate to a charity that "happens to benefit the kind of people FunnyJunk was targeting"??

Well that's just one example I can think of where I could plainly say he wasn't being negligent and tacky dragging cancer (or some other charity) into this pissing match. If it's a charity that in some way would have suffered from FunnyJunk's demands, that would be OK, like a charity that supports artists or independent artists or even in that case artists with cancer or something. Or if he'd gone to FunnyJunk and responded with, "look, why don't we settle our differences like men, and we both pick a charity and see which one of us is the most popular for a good cause." There's other examples as well.

What happened today with FunnyJunk's lawyer Carreon going bugfark psycho is exactly why you don't do what Inman did. To be honest I expected it more from FunnyJunk than Carreon, but the fact of the matter is it was kind of predictable.

If you take a person whose demands you think (and frankly are) completely unreasonable, deliberately antagonize them, deliberately provoke them in return, and do that while dragging cancer patients into the fray. You've just handed them their balls and tried to prove your moral superiority to them. To people you know to be ravenous assholes. And now you've put those people in a position where they have nothing left to lose, where there's going to be a desire to go down swinging as much as possible.

This is what I'm talking about, how it's tacky, how it's using them as a shield. The implication of using them as a shield is that the other person is going to be the one to shoot them.

And no, the people actually doing the donating, TheOatmeal's audience, haven't done anything wrong; they're taking the opportunity given to them to pool their donations and there's nothing wrong with that.

Teiritzamna: You are indicating that requiring people to sign up for HBO is the functional equivalent of there being no streaming available at all.

I guess. Making people jump through hoops to get something is different than offering it freely. I refer you to the Hitchhikers Guide quote earlier.

We can make analogies to insanely high barriers to purchasers, such as 1,000,000 price tags and such, but in fact it was 70.

It costs you $70 for cable and HBO? Remember, the comic character didn't have cable at all, so he'd have to buy basic cable, and then add on HBO.

I think that is too high. I would not buy it. But that does not mean i am justified in taking it either.

Of course it doesn't justify taking it. But...

HBO has the right to set whatever price or policy or requirement on their IP. They have the right to not sell the IP at all if that is their desire. They can make it as rare or as ubiquitous as they feel like. It is their property and they may dispose if it as they see fit.

Of course. But, if they choose to not make it available in a format/at a price their customers want, they lose the right to whine when people don't buy it. They made the choice to (not) offer it as they did, and they have to face the results of that choice.

There are not two options here: Pay a ton or infringe. There are three: Pay a ton, infringe, or go without. Only two of these are the moral or legal choice. The third is attractive, or course, and convenient. but we are all smart people here, lets not lie about what is happening here.

You are of course, correct about there being 3 choices. But, I fear you are mistaken about the clearness of the morality. I'm not going to re-create all the many arguments here, but many people don't believe it wrong to make a copy of something. This belief is even stronger when the 'legit' copies are not available, or the source material has already been widely broadcast.

Teiritzamna: They can buy. They can go without. Those are the choices of the market.

Obviously not. The digital age has opened a 3rd choice.

vygramul: Buy cable service (or DISH or FIOS). Log in. Stream. In fact, I bet he could have done it within an hour if it was still during business hours. Certainly, he could have done it faster than ordering DVDs from Amazon even if they were available at the time he looked.

You live in a funny world where someone without cable can order cable and have a tech come out and install it "within an hour". From me experience, it takes a week or more to get an appointment.

It was available legitimately. He did not want to pay for what it took to get it.

I also refer you to the HitchHikers Guide quote above. Would consider the plans "available" "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard""?? I mean, DentArthuDent just 'did not want' to do what he needed to do to find them earlier, right?

fredklein: Teiritzamna: You are indicating that requiring people to sign up for HBO is the functional equivalent of there being no streaming available at all.

I guess. Making people jump through hoops to get something is different than offering it freely. I refer you to the Hitchhikers Guide quote earlier.

We can make analogies to insanely high barriers to purchasers, such as 1,000,000 price tags and such, but in fact it was 70.

It costs you $70 for cable and HBO? Remember, the comic character didn't have cable at all, so he'd have to buy basic cable, and then add on HBO.

I think that is too high. I would not buy it. But that does not mean i am justified in taking it either.

Of course it doesn't justify taking it. But...

HBO has the right to set whatever price or policy or requirement on their IP. They have the right to not sell the IP at all if that is their desire. They can make it as rare or as ubiquitous as they feel like. It is their property and they may dispose if it as they see fit.

Of course. But, if they choose to not make it available in a format/at a price their customers want, they lose the right to whine when people don't buy it. They made the choice to (not) offer it as they did, and they have to face the results of that choice.

There are not two options here: Pay a ton or infringe. There are three: Pay a ton, infringe, or go without. Only two of these are the moral or legal choice. The third is attractive, or course, and convenient. but we are all smart people here, lets not lie about what is happening here.

You are of course, correct about there being 3 choices. But, I fear you are mistaken about the clearness of the morality. I'm not going to re-create all the many arguments here, but many people don't believe it wrong to make a copy of something. This belief is even stronger when the 'legit' copies are not available, or the source material has already been widely broadcast.

Ah so this is a standard there should be no copyright or patent law (or the much more popular on the internet - "infringement is moral!") therefore i can copy whatever i want argument. Well fine go for it. I have fought in the trenches of too many of those arguments to know that i will sway someone who sticks to the side argument that "infringement is not conversion" as if that means anything. I will make a sketch of the proper responses: 1) true also wrongful death is not offensive touching; slander is not trespass, nuisance is not false imprisonment - so what; 2) what system would you have in place to ensure that there is an economic motive for the creation of such public goods? But i shall not assume that anything productive will happen.

I will note however that this goes somewhat to Mojo's central point that your rationale is that infringing someone's IP is not morally wrong and thus is the basis for the choice to download GoT in the strip, but that it then feels somewhat disingenuous to complain when someone else does the same thing.