this is all g.r.r.m.'s fault, anyway

[rone]

Let's be clear: i don't like The Oatmeal.  I found Matthew Inman's humor juvenile but inoffensive at first; even in the cartoons that had material that i liked, his delivery seemed off in the way that the dorkiest of nerds have when they overtell or overexplain a joke.  He finally lost me with his issues-revealing Utilikilts cartoon, and that's colored everything else that i've had the misfortune to witness (and you'd call me an idiot for continuing to follow links there, and you'd be right).  His approach to things in his life is relentlessly adolescent, and his current comic about how HBO has forced him to torrent the "Game of Thrones" series, which has been pounded across my social network with much delight by my so-called friends, is a prime example of this: entitlement and rationalization in the face of unenlightened self-harm (and, yes, the fact that it's about the much overrated "Game of Thrones", which book many of my friends inexplicably love and consequently turned them into morbidly obsessed fans of the HBO series, doesn't help).

Here's the thing: HBO doesn't owe anyone the "Game of Thrones" series outside of the terms in which they make it available (i.e., pay a shitload of money a month to the local cable monopoly and be glad that they deign to convey their munificence to your hovel).  Is Inman truly advocating that we should we bend or break the rules every time an incompetent business doesn't offer us their product in a timely fashion after we've declined to adhere to their idiotic terms and conditions, simply because we really, really want it?

If you're going to torrent it, torrent it, but don't waste time rationalizing it.  Just because the MPAA is acting like Javert doesn't mean that you're Valjean, and "Game of Thrones" isn't a piece of bread.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

Right, but why should I care, other than the possible risk of getting caught and sued? Following laws isn't an end in and of itself, as far as I'm concerned. Are you really saying it's morally wrong to desire to see a movie? If so, you are a much better Buddhist than I am.

Or is it about breaking the law? Pot smokers are motivated by pure desire too, when they break the law. Should they be ashamed?

It's quite possible that The Oatmeal is lying about his motivations, but I don't have any actual evidence that that's the case, which is why I'm a bit reluctant to grab the pitchfork and light the torch.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

It's morally wrong to give in to the desire to see a movie if that incurs breaking a law. Sure, pot smokers should feel some sort of spiritual discomfort for breaking the law (not unlike, say, underage drinkers). And, no, there is no actual evidence that he's lying; it is my conclusion based on the things he's saying, and how he's saying them. I could be utterly wrong.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

OK, well, I disagree that breaking laws is necessarily morally wrong, whether out of selfish desire or for any other reason.

Maybe I could be convinced otherwise, but I'm not optimistic about your chances.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

It's not important that i do so. It might be better in person, over a good amount of liquor.