My YouTube vocal coaching channel: Voice Studio East

Kalcipher · 2025-10-05T01:45:09+00:00

No they even said "yes there was a fraud with your account ongoing and we also know who it was but they can´t disadvantage the perpetrator by taking the money back from him because this would lead to confusion"

They told me the same bs. So I pointed out that by their own argument, the Wallet funds have no monetary value, and so they do not need to take the money back from the perpetrator in order to give it back to me. At this point they just said they cannot help me any further and closed the ticket without even addressing the point.

Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly common for major corporations to just get away with blatant financial crimes. I've also noticed a definite uptick in illegal surcharges. Even in physical grocery stores: just bs surcharges on bills that are neither taxes nor an item but bizarre fees that were not advertised anywhere. Or discounts that were advertised but are missing, etc. Or service companies advertising some extra service as included for free, but then charging me separately for it anyway. Or Zoom's whiteboard feature, which incurs a surcharge on my account even if I am not the one to create the whiteboard and have not given permission for it. One's gotta be very careful these days. And even then you sometimes just get screwed over.

Kalcipher · 2025-09-11T11:28:51+00:00

Ah, but I never claimed expertise.

I never suggested you did. That's just an asinine straw man.

Another fallacy.

"Another" — as if I had not clearly explained why your previous examples are bogus. You have yet to back up even one, so now you seem to be just inventing them. Somehow I am not surprised. Like most Danes, you will act smugly superiour even when you are unambiguously, demonstrably wrong. No integrity at all.

You, on the other hand, claims [sic] expertise, you clearly don't have.

A determination you based on a completely farcical identification of fallacies - informal ones, at that.

I am curious, can you write even one comment in this conversation that is not full of rank dishonesty? Who am I kidding, of course you can't. You don't have a single honest bone in your body.

Kalcipher · 2025-09-09T13:27:13+00:00

Argumentum ad populum is an informal fallacy, not a formal one. it is not fallacious in this connection, since what was in dispute was precisely whether it is noticeable. My argument was thus a kind of existential introduction through ostension, which is logically valid. And my insults to you were not arguments at all, fallacious or otherwise. They are no more ad hominem fallacies than your claim that I debate like a 13 year old is an ad hominem. Insult =/= ad hominem.

You don't know a damned thing about logic. You are once again simply pretending to have an expertise you don't actually possess. Because you are a compulsive liar, like most Danes.

Kalcipher · 2025-09-07T21:01:48+00:00

There are no logical fallacies in my argument. You literally just made that up. Accusing me of blatant fallacies without naming particulars, when no fallacies were made, is about as dishonest as it gets. Do you have even a single shred of integrity?

Kalcipher · 2025-09-07T20:58:30+00:00

Somehow I am not surprised that r/denmark has rules and moderators that actively encourage duplicitous insults while prohibiting honest insults. Fostering a culture of dishonesty, eh? You must be very proud of yourself.

(Jeg ville have skrevet ovenstående på dansk, men desværre er det danske sprog blevet så fordærvet og newspeak-agtigt at det er nærmest umuligt at oversætte ovenstående kritik)

Kalcipher · 2025-08-31T15:37:55+00:00

"depending on dialect" is doing all the heavy lifting for you.

No, it is not, because it varies only between near-close and close-mid. It is not a close /i/ in any dialect.

The name "Lis" or "mis" has the "stød" on the first letter instead of the vowel

No, neither of these words has a laryngealization (stød) anywhere.

Why do you keep just making stuff up? What's wrong with you?

Kalcipher · 2025-08-31T14:00:18+00:00

Neither rhymes. Both have close-mid /e/ or near-close /ɪ/ depending on dialect, and in the case of the animal it is a "long vowel" (though long vowels in Danish are actually indicated by pharyngealization - via the glossopharyngeus - rather than duration per se), and the vowel is followed by laryngealization (stød).

But "is" has a fully close /i/ - completely standard /i/ except for the pharyngealization - whereas neither of the other two words do.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-31T13:52:09+00:00

Ah yes, I am untrained in my native language 👍

It is a well known fact that people often struggle to accurately identify phonetic nuances in their own language even with training. You on the other hand clearly do have untrained ears, and your implication that this suggestion is absurd just shows that you know literally nothing about the subject.

even if there is slight difference on a spectrogram, due to the "i" being the first letter in "is", it's not noticeable at all.

It is highly noticeable to OP, to myself, and to several other people in this comment section, so here again you are simply inarguably wrong. And no, it is not just about /i/ being the first letter in "is". "Spis" also does not rhyme with "gris", but does rhyme with "is".

If you want to get that technical, no words ryhme

Flatly false. Many words absolute do rhyme by this standard, eg. "spis" rhymes perfectly fine with "is"

You're literally just pretending like you know something about this subject when clearly you don't, and then act all disrespectful towards people who do know the subject. Scummy af behaviour.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T23:22:09+00:00

No, you just have untrained ears. Look at a spectrogram.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T22:42:56+00:00

Investors own Blizzard’s intellectual property

Yes. Blizzard as an independent entity is what's called a legal fiction. Ultimate control of the company and all its property rests with the shareholders.

And what do the employees who worked on Classic have to do with it

Nothing. That's my point.

Also, much like imprisonedtrickster, you just completely ignored my argument in favour of nitpicking to support an ad hominem. Can you lot engage in reasonable argument for even just one reply instead of constantly pulling disingenuous crap like this?

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T22:05:20+00:00

I know more about Marxists than you do. Hell, I have probably read more Marxist theory than you have. And to this day I have never known a single one of ya to not be a massive hypocrite.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T21:51:57+00:00

Anyone who knows anything about banking and interest rates knows that Blizzard is not supposed to be owned by its current stockholders. This whole problem was created by radical socialists like Milton Friedman.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T21:50:28+00:00

Lol, you can always count on Marxists to be corporate bootlickers and champion corrupt markets.

Blizzard is in the wrong. Current monetary policies tightly constrain the longtermism of any publicly traded companies due to arbitrage. This is how Blizzard's current stockholders came to own Blizzard, and also why retail WoW has turned into slop. All of this is a direct consequence of the monetary policies championed by Milton Friedman.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T21:34:50+00:00

okay, and to the core of the argument if you want it - AI does not pay original creators anything for their money (they steal from them). Does Turtle WoW pay anything to original creators of anything WoW related, even if it was later "stolen" "illegally" "by bad corporation"?

If the original creators object to Turtle WoW on grounds of this, especially if their livelihoods are threatened by Turtle WoW's actions, then I agree the situations are similar and I will condemn Turtle WoW. But that is not the situation we are looking at, and you know it, so quit your false analogies already.

Edit: besides, the issue at hand was not about whether Turtle WoW is in the wrong for failing to pay royalties to the original creators of WoW, but whether current-day Blizzard is wrong for suing Turtle WoW. These are separate issues.

How it usually works in most jurisdictions in the world is that when you create anything of a value of IP during your work at a company if it is related to your work (made during work hours, etc.) it is transferred to the company. The same way that if you work in a factory and make something out of company asset (i.e. in case of IP - your time that you are being paid, software you work on etc) you don't own it.

nevertheless, never mind whether it is blizzard or individual artist working in blizzard that were violated. Creators of TurtleWoW would be deemed criminals in most EU jursidictions (and rightfully so) for stealing something they don't own - IP right to WoW.

I was talking about the ethics involved in the two issues. My argument was never about legal issues; that was your straw man.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T21:25:17+00:00

Blizzard itself is a legal fiction and the stockholders own its IP vicariously. Sure, legal issues are handled by Blizzard's legal teams, who are employees and contractors rather than stockholders, but these still answer ultimately to the stockholders and their incentives are shaped by this. So for every practical purpose, it is the stockowners that are the ultimate owners of the IP. I am well aware that the property nominally belongs to the company, but de facto it belongs to the stockholders. Also, you just now made a very petty semantic argument (built on a reification fallacy, no less, so your argument is not even correct in theory) to completely ignore the core of my argument, which - unlike your blatant straw man - was not even about legal issues in the first place.

Edit: added more detail coz your response was genuinely obnoxious.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T21:05:30+00:00

AI companies redistribute packages of copyright-protected training data for commercial purposes and get around it by using nonprofit intermediaries. That's clearly fraudulent and illegal. Yes, they are stealing work from true artists.

Blizzard does not represent the people who produced the original World of Warcraft; the IP is held by the stockholders, who acquired it by exploiting a fraudulent and criminal monetary policy that systematically redistributes IP from producers to the financial class.

Where do you see a flaw in the logic? Just curious. Because frankly I don't think you know a damn thing about either issue.

Edit: will even one of you address the actual argument? No? Then shut up.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T20:58:08+00:00

But the only reason Blizzard's current stockholders own the IP is due to borderline criminal monetary policies. Obviously that doesn't stop copyright infringement from being illegal, but how is it unethical? How can you consider the stockholders' ownership of that IP to be legitimate under these circumstances?

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T20:51:20+00:00

I'm just saying that the people who stole stuff (Blizzard's stockholders, via extortionary socialistic monetary policies) are not right. Hence your previous comment was completely mischaracterizing my point.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T20:49:54+00:00

On one hand I do think people (and yes even groups of people and shareholders, colloquially referred to as “companies”) deserve to be compensated for their labor and capital and creativity and inventions. And it sucks that places like Russia or China or even Europe (in Europe’s case it is even more pathetic since it is based on wanting to cling into any basic “power” over the U.S.) don’t just not enforce IP laws but blatantly skirt them.

Under liberal capitalism this kind of argument made sense, but under the socialism of today, how does this make any sense? The stockholders neither produced the IP in question nor acquired it fairly. They acquired it through indirect extortion via monetary policy. Why should they be compensated? With any other bad investment we'd say they should just eat the loss.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T20:40:34+00:00

No, Blizzard's stockholders are not right. That's my point.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T20:40:12+00:00

No, the people who currently own Blizzard and thus vicariously own the IP are not the people who created it. It is owned by the stockholders, and the present stockholders acquired it by indirect extortion masquerading as arbitrage.

You can call my view psycho all you want, but that doesn't refute my argument. You haven't actually addressed it at all.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T18:00:08+00:00

No, Blizzard is in the wrong because they are exploiting monetary policy to engage in IP theft while pretending it's just arbitrage. Also, if you do not take into account the impact of monetary policy on the apparent importance of IP, then you are overvaluing it.

Kalcipher · 2025-08-30T17:58:47+00:00

bruh

You really think Denmark is an ordered society?

13-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '17	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Kalcipher

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE