The derpiest of animals

No clue

[derpymule]

If you believe in second chances only when the original crime happened under duress, then you don’t believe in second chances, you believe in extenuating circumstances.

[sailor-crusader-deactivated2025]

Everyone recognized that "owning" bored ape pngs was ridiculous. But "owning" a png of your art is somehow reasonable? And that its normal to be required to have, or even BUY permission to use these pngs?

[historiaetal]

I feel that this is ignoring a lot of nuance on the topic.

If you've put a piece of art on the internet for people to look at, yeah sure, they can download it. If people are downloading it and removing the signature, that's another matter entirely. Or if people are downloading art off of an artists Patreon and putting it on social media.

[arcedcurve]

That doesn't matter because piracy is awesome.

[nyxisnotafictive]

what do you think is the awesome part of piracy

[arcedcurve]

The awesome part of piracy is when people get free stuff & intellectual property """rights""" are violated.

[nyxisnotafictive]

okay, yes, very good, but what exactly is the issue with intellectual property and in what world does that not make it shitty to deliberately obscure who the small creator of a work is, or not shitty to rip from a small artists' patreon, as historiaetal described?

[arcedcurve]

Because you shouldn't make special exceptions for the petite bourgeois?

[nyxisnotafictive]

again i ask, what exactly is the issue with intellectual property and why is it an "exception" here?

also. patreon artists as petite bourgeoise. i have to laugh

[arcedcurve]

again i ask, what exactly is the issue with intellectual property and why is it an "exception" here?

I am a communist and oppose the defense of intellectual capital. Also, patreon artists are very much petite bourgeois (or artisans if we are being pedantic here, but it doesn't matter)

[nyxisnotafictive]

If you're being difficult on purpose, stop. We have a headache.

I am a communist and oppose the defense of intellectual capital.

Yes, okay, I got that part. Do you do that because that's what communists do, or is there some underlying belief about intellectual capital you have that motivates you to oppose this?

Also, patreon artists are very much petite bourgeois

I'm not saying you're not technically correct, but I feel like it is more correct to lump them with the working class as their conditions go. Especially since, with artists getting paid so little, many if not most of them are still earning at least 50% of their money through employment. Truthfully, it feels convenient to your point to call them "petite bourgeois", because of the connotations of such a classification, moreso than it feels like the most accurate grouping.

[arcedcurve]

Class does not have any relation to how much money you have.

[nyxisnotafictive]

Oops, snap reblog got a snap edit, too.

First, class does, in fact, have relation to how much money you have. It's certainly not a 1:1, not in the slightest. But to say no correlation whatsoever feels ignorant. It also doesn't contradict what I said.

Speaking of what I said, uh, hey?? What is bad?? About intellectual property?? Specifically????

[arcedcurve]

Class does not have a relation to how much money you have it is a description of relation to means of production.

[nyxisnotafictive]

Class is indeed, in part, a description of relation to means of production. And your relation to that means of production can inform how much money you have- you will tend to have less the lower your class. It's not for no reason that the average person thinks of class as it relates to income, and measures it as such.

Reducing class to this alone- as I feel we're pointing out right the fuck now- ignores all kinds of nuances on what that means for an individuals actual economic power. Still not contradicting 2 reblogs ago.

Also, answer the question lmao!

[arcedcurve]

Class is a relation to production, it does not have anything to do with how much money you have. Many petite bourgeois are poor, and this can cause them to be even more reactionary due to this strained position. Hence our beloved patreon artists, petite bourgeois or merely aspirational, start talking like disney executives when someone right clicks their monkey png. I cannot answer any questions until we get over this hurdle.

[nyxisnotafictive]

LOL you can't answer a question I asked before you made up a point to "refute"? It's cool, if you want to just be irritating and choose a different conversation to have, feel free I guess 🤷‍♀️. At least OP probably actually has some core beliefs behind her initial post.

[arcedcurve]

I answered your questions as plainly and with a bit of humor i might add. What more do you want from me?

[nyxisnotafictive]

[arcedcurve]

Just because i refused to operate on your stupid logical basis does not mean its bait. You are just really mad at things i find trivial to say.

[nyxisnotafictive]

you said "i will not answer your question" and the subsequently said "i have already answered your question". you literally told someone else you're being irritating on purpose. forgive me for seeing the things you say and acting as if you've said them.

[aunt-agony]

hey stranger just letting you know that this person is in fact correct about marxist class structures being about relationship to production not about personal wealth. also intellectual property is a form of private property which is why it is stupid and bad. if you'd like some links to info about marxism I'm happy to help as you seem confused about it here. that's not a judgment per se but when someone tells you what system of economic analysis they are speaking of and you keep talking past them people usually assume you're being obtuse on purpose rather than out of ignorance. hope that helps

[nyxisnotafictive]

i seem to be misunderstood, maybe that's what i get for arguing while exhausted.

i want to reiterate first that this discussion alone was already derailing what i was saying. i was noting that artists tend to be employees first and artists second. i noted artists' low pay, not to say "they CAN'T be of this class!", but to say "they spend most of their time selling their labor to an employer".

but, class as discussed indeed most directly about relationship to production- it does not inherently say anything about personal wealth. all i've said over and over is that they tend to correlate. and these correlations can be useful for discussion.

i feel like we're still kind of going "well because communists are against private property!" and still not really directly spelling out what the issue is, but i'll grant that this is more reasoning than i've been given so far. ill cut to the chase and say- yes, ideally, intellectual property or anything that mimes it is bad, and stupid, and not needed. but as it stands, artists are broke as hell folk, making things of value, under capitalism. it is just a different situation than pirating, fuckin, lilo and stitch. everyone who worked on lilo and stich has (at least i assume) been paid, and the pockets it'd line the most were you to buy it legally, is disney. who cares.

and that's not to say money is somehow more *owed* to small artists who don't have it to spare, you don't owe anyone anything. but i think saying it's faux pas to not compensate or at least credit them for it, is not fundamentally the same as techbros getting mad that you save the shitty pngs they bought receipts for.

also i was NOT the one talking past anyone, are you kidding lmao?

[derpymule]

This is, in fairness, one of the most defensible arguments for intellectual property. I’m going to posit that the reason the people you’re arguing with are being so frustrating is that most common similar arguments are not nearly as good, but people stick to them regardless, so usually that’s what this argument devolves into anyway.

But more to the point of your actual argument, yes it is generally a nice thing to do to credit artists when you use their art. But it is fundamentally *only* a nice thing to do, not a moral requirement, and not crediting is at worst a morally neutral act.

This is because stealing art without credit does not materially harm the artist. The artist still has their art. They are still entirely capable of making just as much money from it as they originally could have. Anyone who was going to see the art anyway will still see it, anyone who wasn’t going to see it is utterly irrelevant, because there can be no loss if there wasn’t going to be anything to begin with. There is no negative outcome for the artist, only a lack of a positive one.

Depending on your personal philosophy, you could consider choosing not to help someone at minimal cost to yourself as a moral wrong. But that’s not what most people are talking about when they say that “stealing art is bad.” They’re implying that some actual, measurable harm is done, and that’s fundamentally untrue. I would agree that not crediting is a dick move. But I don’t think that doing it makes you a bad person, nor that it should be enshrined in law.

[derpymule]

I’ve had this thought for a long, long time, but it only really crystallised after watching Jacob Geller’s most recent video. It’s about the concept, and ultimately the failure, of revenge as an ideal. One of the more maligned tropes I see in fiction these days, especially in fandom spaces, is the idea that revenge solves nothing, gives you nothing, and is an ultimately futile pursuit. People love to say things like “Okay, but revenge sure feels great,” or “It’s good, because the victim got justice in the end.”

To those people, I want to ask: have you ever successfully gotten revenge on someone before? Now to be clear here, I don’t mean some petty, ‘got back at them for stealing my lunch’ nonsense. I mean, have you been damaged, deeply and permanently, scarred forever, by a very specific person or group, and managed to take revenge against them? Have you lost a loved one to murder and seen the murderer locked up or worse before your eyes? Have you had a long term abuser that left psychological or physical scars that will never heal, and ultimately brought them to ‘justice’? Have you, truly, experienced the kind of revenge that is talked about in fiction?

Because I haven’t! I doubt very many people truly have. But there are people out there who have. There are stories, public and private, that I’ve heard people tell. And the consistent result is that revenge, true revenge, almost never seems to be gratifying, or satisfying, or really all that happy at all. At best, you’ll get grieving family that are glad that nobody else will be forced to suffer like them, or an abuse victim with one extra way to soothe themself. At best, it’s cathartic. At worst, it’s just one more reminder that all the ‘justice’ in the world can’t bring back what’s lost.

Revenge *is* meaningless. It *is* futile. That’s not a cheesy moral made for children’s stories, that’s just how real life works. “Justice” *is* an incoherent concept, because if it doesn’t help the victim, then what is it even for? And on the other side, there’s the one thing that is most ridiculed when it happens in fiction, and also the only thing that ever truly seems to help real victims: forgiveness. In all the stories I’ve seen and heard, forgiving the perpetrator is the one thing that actually brings satisfaction, certainly far more than revenge ever does. It isn’t childish, nor is it naive to forgive those who have harmed you deeply. It’s quite literally the healthiest thing you can do.

[derpymule]

Hey, I don't appreciate you saying what I believe without even knowing me. I'm Ancom, I don't believe Capitalism provides anything but starvation wages for anyone except the rich fucks at the top. However I am pointing out that while we are *stuck* in this situation, stealing from another artist, not some corporation but an artist, is kind of shitty and taking what they could possibly need to survive.

By your logic, Disney could take someone's artwork, copy it and make it their own, with no payment, no need to do anything. Said artist could be surviving paycheck to paycheck, barely scraping by, or not even surviving paycheck to paycheck, needing medical/financial help, and they're desperately trying to get commissions in order to get it. But hey it's just art and it didn't *steal* the original, right? So Disney shouldn't have to pay or do anything, right? That artist should just get fucked because they put all that work into something, and someone else came along, scooped it up, and just claimed it as their own. Personally I'd rather corporations like Disney didn't exist, but this is the world we currently exist in.

My counter is this: what exactly has the artist lost in this situation? Their followers will still know they made the work first, so there’s no loss there. People who would have found it will still find it, and if it’s posted online they’ll have proof to show those people that they made it first. It’s not like the copy entirely replaces the original, both exist and the original will remain exactly as popular as it would have been anyway.

But, there’s an added aspect. These days, if a corporation steals fanart or something, they get massively called out. The company takes a reputation hit and the original artist gains a massive following from the publicity the drama produces. This is, unequivocally, a loss for the copier and a win for the original artist, no copyright law needed. Now, why exactly do you think this wouldn’t happen in a world without copyright law? Companies may try to steal works, but they will basically always get called out on it. And even if they didn’t, they’re still introducing a large amount of people to that specific kind of art, people who may very well search for more of the same and find that original artist. And even if only something like 1 in 1000 people do this, those large corporations regularly get 10s-100s of thousands of engagements, which means 10s-100s of people redirected to this artist.

To follow up on that: is this not a huge gain for the community? If it’s art good enough that a large corporation is willing to associate it with themselves, that means it’s art that will enrich many people who see it. This would have been art only a few people saw, but now it will reach several orders of magnitude more people who may be inspired or encouraged. Imagine if the Mona Lisa, or any other incredibly influential work, had been made by a tiny artist with a negligible following. Would it not be far preferable if a larger artist, one capable of corralling a large audience, displayed it among their own work? Would that not be far, far better for the entire art world? Do you not wonder how much work, how many cultural shifts have been lost to time because a small artist was too protective of their work and so it died with them?

I should clarify, this still isn’t optimal. In the best case scenario, big corporations would take fan works and display them, but they would credit the original artist. And I personally believe this would be how it would generally go in a world without copyright law, out of fear of reputation hits if nothing else (it’s not like it costs corporations anything to credit). But my argument here is that even in the worst case scenario, where corporations “steal” art with absolute abandon, there is still no real loss to the original artist, in fact in most cases there is gain, and there is always gain for the wider community. There is literally zero downside to this scenario for anyone but the corporations themselves, who will lose their stranglehold over IP.

[derpymule]

The worst part about modern purity culture and moral absolutism is how absolutely boring it insists the world is. They’ll point at anyone who does something they see as immoral and say they must just be bad people and there’s nothing more to them. But every single person out there has an entire life behind them that motivates everything they do. Why did this guy kill an innocent man? Why did that woman go on a vitriolic racist rant in public? Why did those parents abuse their child? Just saying “because they’re evil” is such a meaningless answer. Each and every person has a whole list of reasons why they do the things they do, and as much as it’s useful to understand those motivations, it’s also just an interesting story.

Perhaps that man killed someone out of desperation to steal his money and feed his family, or perhaps it was in a fit of anger because the victim had hurt him before. Or perhaps he simply enjoyed the thrill of committing such a heinous act, and had previously been unable to find a healthy outlet. There is no such motive as “he was evil”. Even the cruelest people have a story, have a reason. Nobody outside of fiction comes out of the womb planning a murder, there is always a long thread of events and people that lead up to that point. And thinking otherwise has always disappointed me, because you have such a fascinating story right in front of you, and you instantly try to reduce it to a single word. It’s lazy, being unwilling to give any deeper thought towards it, but it’s also cowardly, being afraid to inspect those neat little boxes you’ve placed the world in and find you’ve made a mistake. And there will be mistakes, because human beings are vast and fascinating and beautiful and are all completely different from each other in so many ways, and it’s impossible to cram everything a person is into such a tiny space.

[roadhogsbigbelly]

[jade-do-stuff-deactivated202410]

How dare you to hide this in the tags.

[thetrainticket]

I understand the grey aspect of the issue, but I’ve heard experts say that kids should be at least 16 before joining social media, and as a former teacher I agree. Rumors spread ten times when students have their phones. You will run into harmful things like a personal filming an autistic kid having a rage moment and putting it online, to actual illegal things like filming their friends in the bathroom. The amount of times I had to tell my students in my Pride club not to take pictures or film because not all these kids are out at home…

I’m not saying that the solution is to cut off the internet entirely, but we aren’t teaching any real boundaries because adults are equally addicted to smart phones and the internet, to the point where schools are trying to cut it off cold turkey. Many middle and high schools are banning cell phones altogether, not just because of how the kids use it to harm one another but because the distraction is one of the many, many reasons education is shit right now. Kids will legit just play games and watch movies during class, and this is the first generation where smart phones are powerful enough to be able to handle it

I don’t think elementary kids need chrome books. I don’t even think middle schoolers need chrome books, not ones that they need to bring around to every class. I also agree with the cell phone ban. Parents will argue that they need to get ahold of their kid, but literally every generation prior has managed with parents calling the school. Also, I witnessed first hand how parents will just. Text their kids all day long, even though they’re at school and the parents are at work. This is just routine

I’m not pinning this on the kids, if older generations had smart phones, we would’ve used them. But since this is the first generation with smart phones, there needs to be talk about real solutions to the absolute addiction the world is in currently

[derpymule]

Issue is none of this is smartphone-specific. Kids will make dumb decisions, spread cruel stories and rumours, do genuinely illegal and harmful things, and be distracted in class without phones or any sort of devices (and the last one is very much on the teacher, either make your lesson more engaging or be more observant about distracted kids). And that point about kids getting along just fine with parents calling the school… do you know the rate of abuse from teachers in the past? Do you know the rate now? Granted, not all the change is from phones, but it definitely limits the ways teachers can abuse kids.

All phones do is introduce new ways for kids to be dumb and cruel, which just means teachers need to learn those ways so they can learn about them and stop them. As a teacher in training myself, the only other teachers I see complaining about them are ones that are too stuck in their ways to, y’know, do their jobs and learn these new risks.

[patricia-taxxon]

there's this trick that racists/queerphobes/etc do, it's really slick. let's just do a little dialogue as an example, the names have been obscured but I've seen this exact exchange happen before.

Stephanie mc. Influencer: "And furthermore, body positivity intersects with black liberation, as black women are often held to unattainable eurocentric beauty standards"

Suave Replyboy Jr: "Lmao, you leftists always tell on yourselves, did you really just say black people are ugly??"

You see the trick here? it's kind of complicated, like, Stephanie is arguing from the perspective that beauty standards are arbitrary and subject to change, Suave understands beauty as an objective hierarchy, so he dunks on Stephanie safely from the inside of that standard. To him, and likely to many people who haven't thought about their own assumptions very much, the only reason black people would want their own body positivity movement is because they're ugly. Bonus points if Stephanie is white, and you can rile her community against her with claims of racism.

I've been getting some replies like this on my posts about sexual trauma, kink, and queerness. Like... I say that sexual deviance of all forms can intersect and correlate with queer identity, and dozens of Suave Replyboy Jrs come out and dunk on me from the other side of the glass, from inside the false universe I'm trying to discredit, the one where "sexual deviance" is immoral and associating queer sexuality with deviancy is an insult. I'm not saying queer people are dangerous perverts, that's you.

[zendayaimdb]

tumblr thinks that me interacting with this idiot’s post sarcastically one time means that i want to see their every thought on my FYP, and like … of course they are on here using black women as a rhetorical pawn and getting thousands of notes from the socially maladjusted and racist white women on this website.

op also said on another post “maybe being black is a little queer too idk i’m white”. they got this from “talking to a black woman at a film festival”. like you literally cannot make this shit up, true, but i believe it because when i talk to white queer and trans people i can see them thinking about how they’ll use me as an example “black woman i spoke with” in future conversations.

trans and queer white people like op have difficulty articulating any authentic feelings about their experiences because their identity is a performance. so they latch onto black women as the ultimate signifier of abjection and insist that their experiences are like ours as a way to lend a veneer of respectability to their movement without actually doing the work. andrea long chu wrote that “black women are trans women” linking the struggles of each group rhetorically without acknowledging the intersection of racism and sexism (misogynoir). additionally this rhetorical trick subsumes the experiences of black women as mere examples of transmisogyny and/or “being queer” (which, to these people, are the ultimate forms of oppression).

i will note that many of my white college students identify as trans and queer, yet none of them ever say this shit in class when discussing the intersections of gender and sexuality and race. i think that is because they inherently understand that this kind of discourse is at best inappropriate and at worst straight up hate speech.

[derpymule]

Just saying this is the exact language exclusionists use, I see plenty of people trying to argue ace people like me shouldn’t be part of the LGBT+ using the exact same talking points. First off, the experiences have far more similarities than they have differences, but that whole argument misses the point anyway. The point is that regardless of how similar the experiences are, both groups are victimised by society. It makes no difference whether one group is more of a victim or a different kind of victim, the goal (in theory) of both groups is to stop the victimisation. There is no downside to grouping together the experiences unless you’re the type of person that simply wants to continue being a victim because it gives you a platform for attention, which tends to be the motivation hidden behind most terfs and others.