• 2 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle



  • Remember the premise, cheating is lying about the situation, and acting on those needs without consent.

    There is no world where that is healthier than whatever mutual agreement the couple could end up in, after honestly sharing their situation.

    If the care for the needs of the child is real and actually shared between the parents, anything ranging from a sexually open marriage, to a divorce with uninterrupted coparenting, is leagues better than pretending you want to be there while actually both having a bad time around your child’s other parent, and constantly lying.


  • If you don’t care about a relationship, the other person still might, and them being hurt should matter to you.

    End the relationship since you don’t care about it anyways, to let the other person move on with the least lies and sense of betrayal, and then fuck everyone you wish.

    Cheating isn’t a way to end a relationship, cheating is lying in order to keep it longer.











  • I’m getting the sense that you didn’t actually watch the whole video, because your only two points in this comment,

    In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they’d also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

    And

    It’s really important to know that the vast majority of people aren’t going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it’s even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

    , are answered during the video, and I don’t see you arguing the points made by him, you’re just straight up stating the opposite.

    And your first point,

    Right now, a majority of creatives don’t own their IP in the legal sense, and they can’t stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result.

    , is about how the current system doesn’t work to protect actual artists, yet does work to protect large IP-pimping companies.


  • “Reasonable control” is only possible in the legal sense, not the real sense, so I doubt artists care about it, outside of monetisation, which is what we’re attempting to replace.

    Right now as we are speaking, the art of thousands upon thousands of those creators is being stolen constantly by legally gray AI scraping by huge companies, or illegally by smaller merch leeches.

    The internet makes data protection impossible.

    The law, only prevents the most egregious kinds of ‘monetisation with someone else’s art’, and is unable to stop the rest, for practical reasons.

    If artists didn’t have to worry about being compensated enough… Would they still want to have “reasonable control”? Would we still “risk” them being “demotivated”, from being unable to forbid others specifically from making money with their ideas?

    I think the human drive to create isn’t that neurotic. I think this kind of “demotivation” only happens for the kind of human who has been abused for years by the rules of the absurd economy we live in. And that’s what we’re saying should change.