The Change My Mind Thread Anonymous 112395
As a general guideline, when you are replying to an anon ITT, try to post an unrelated opinion of your own alongside your reply, to keep the thread varied.
This is not an unpopular opinion thread. Simply post a belief you hold dear, and each of us gets a shot at shattering that belief.
>What hill would you die on?
>What hill would you die on?
Bit of a silly one to start a thread off with, but I really, truly, firmly believe that money is bad and using it at all is bad. To keep it short I'll leave it at that, try to change my mind because this disrupts my life, kek.
>>112397> I really, truly, firmly believe that money is bad and using it at all is bad
Instead of what, trading in goods and services only?
>What hill would you die on?
I don't believe in the freedoms that most western countries assert in their constitutions. They defy the entire idea of the nation/community. People don't band together to have more freedoms from on another.
Pedophiles deserve the death penalty, even the "non offending" ones. Probably isn't as much of an unpopular opinion, but definitely a hill i'll stand on. No regret, no remorse.
You kept it so short I don't even know what you mean. Do you take issue with anything above barter-trading or are you desiring post-capitalism world of no money and happiness?>>112406
They deserve the death penalty or they deserve to die? Those two are not the same thing. I understand the eugenics angle I don't understand the legal one.
The two are related, so I'll post both.
Victimless crimes is an oxymoron. There's no such thing.
Drawn porn of any kind hurts no one, there is no victim. Depending on the subject matter it can be weird, socially abnormal, undesirable, whatever word you want to use, but isn't harmful.
Women are better off alone than with most men and society is desperate to conceal this
Time 2 fight
im literally 90% of the mind that "there's someone for everyone" but the other 10% is this, finding my husband was the result of wading through shit throughout my 20s but those men are probably going to end up with someone regardless, and probably someone who would be better off alone
Does male/female separation include driving for anti-natalism "everyone voluntary stops perpetuating the human race" angle or are children just raised by one parent in this world?
Harmful is nebulous though…direct or indirect harm is still involve depending on the context. If not that, some negative effect; porn when consumed it has an effect on the brain, varying levels of uses cause harm because even a lil functions in addiction-like ways or degrade executie functioning. And depending on the level of masturbation involved, it can throw off emotional regulation and the reward system.
People tend to solely seek out extreme porn because they're desensitized.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust a guy who got off to porn involving murder, child porn, etc…even if it was just drawn. Because these things don't live in a vacuum–the fact that he even needs such stimuli and makes the choice to consume it is suspicious. Now, what I'm less sure about is how comparable of an effect it is to actual filmed porn on the brain - there's a lot of spicy stuff about how violent porn affects men - and how drawn stuff does.
>>112442>Harmful is nebulous though…direct or indirect harm is still involve depending on the context. If not that, some negative effect; porn when consumed it has an effect on the brain, varying levels of uses cause harm because even a lil functions in addiction-like ways or degrade executie functioning. And depending on the level of masturbation involved, it can throw off emotional regulation and the reward system.
All good and true, much like how other drugs can effect someone. Victimless process though.
>People tend to solely seek out extreme porn because they're desensitized.
True, doesn't make it harmful though.
>Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust a guy who got off to porn involving murder, child porn, etc…even if it was just drawn.
Glad we agree on this, doesn't make drawn porn harmful though.
Part of the society concealing it part is the implication that is that it's against the greater good. The anti-natalism is implied. You could maybe say that since it's bad for society…it's bad for women. But on an individual basis I think what I said about women being better off alone than with most men is true.
Like, the creep-sentiment that men go nuts (i.e., school shooter) without a woman is encroaching. I imagine this will only get worse and worse overtime. You can tell there's sects of people extremely desperate to suppress separatism.
I don't really have much of an opinion about the single parent part. I never really thought about it, but I feel like a group of female friends that live together could easily care for a child though that's a whole other can of worms with the child lacking a male role model.
Eh I won't dispute this then. Our ideas of harm and victimhood are completely different and I don't really want to play 3D chess just to bridge the gap. I'd call something like cocaine harmful. You wouldn't, etc. I also think it's possible for someone to victimize themselves. I don't think you think so nor will ever.
Fair enough, if it's any consolation, I would state that while these are not crimes, things like being addicted to cocaine and maybe MAYBE porn addiction should have programmes for institutionalization. To say someone who is consistently choosing cocaine is victimizing themselves is laughable to me, to state they are acting to their own detriment is completely plausible. One is to state they are are doing something legally (and, by most people's definitions, morally) wrong, the other is to state that they are resolving problems in a sub-optimal way and should be presented with better solutions.
>>112447>The anti-natalism is implied.
Just to make sure I understand, your position you are taking is an anti-natalist one or not?
>>112397> I really, truly, firmly believe that money is bad and using it at all is bad. To keep it short I'll leave it at that, try to change my mind because this disrupts my life, kek.
I will interpret this as money as an institution is a bad idea and not using would be a gesture of protest to support your values.
Money as a technological innovation is quite groundbreaking as it was first able to quantify a value of an object to a set of people observing the prices. No longer are objects worth other objects, but their worth a quantifiable, portable (more so now through the digitization of money) and safe ( backed by monopoly of force that is government) in a unidimensional fashion, meaning one object to be compared to, which eliminates tremendous calculation costs of every single person (do I want to sell/buy object). Further the value of an object is calculated through the chance of others buying it, that means everyone that is a potential consumer determines price through the actions of buying and not buying, which can also dynamically change the price. A good that is overpriced will lower its price, as no one is buying it and is buying other stuff. The production of money is usually generated as a consequence of market forces as well, as you are generally compensated on basis of accurate pricing of your work. Therefore generally your expendable income is proportional to your value to the global market wherein money is used. This upsets many as they are not too valueable to anyone and therefore have a low money worth. I understand that it is hard for people to be rejected, especially if they are doing something they believe in with all their hearts, but, as they say, you can’t buy love and appreciation for something, which is what many artist face in the economy, and that’s harsh, even tragic, but that’s reality. We need a language of expressing the subjective value of things, as a Teddybear is more valueable to a child than an adult f.e.. This is best done by calculating demand and availability going through judging nodes, leaving one with only a number. This works even better in the modern world, as the calculation of things is crazy fast thorough computers and the outreach of markets it insanely large (Amazon, online commerce). Do you disagree?
tbh it wasn't really the point of my statement. It's pretty much up to women whatever they do without men, no need to declare a stance.
feel free to drop how your reaction would change.
I personally think being a single mother is a bad idea but people also overrate how good men are at being a father/provider or don't consider why wives are often so stressed out.
I understand it isn't your main point, but it's a sub-part of your main point. As far as I can believe, the majority of women do in fact want to, like to, and enjoy having children. Finding immense meaning in the process. Whether they should be forced to is a different question, my only point is, on average, woman do in fact find meaning somewhere in having children. If your plan is full female/male segregation is to be enacted, you must respond around those women, who I believe certainly exist.
Assuming you are taking the single parent or "raised by communal mothers" route, I disagree on the stance that, as far as it can be measured, children raised in household with their own two biological parents outperform all other groups as far as lower abuse rates, less mental illness, and higher life satisfaction and performance, this includes girls as well as boys. So, even if the current group of adult women in your scenario would be happier, in the long term, mental health stability and overall life satisfaction would, as far as single mother household performance rates go, drastically lower, thus making more women miserable. This is not to say that most husbands aren't shit, but assuming "women" refers to the set of all women who are adults and all female children who would eventually be adults, current indicators show that your plan makes more women on average miserable in the long-run.
Assuming the anti-natalist stance, which is just "no more children" this brings back the group of women who do in fact want children, and they certainly exist, being miserably denied something that is inherently meaningful to them. I understand CC demographics don't favor mothers (though a few post here), but that just reinforces an echo chamber of a minority projecting their opinion on how life should be to the majority.
also I sincerely hope you aren't that one woman that implied a lack of women coupling with men is what is causing school shooters. Some of your talking points are super similar.
I'm sorry but it kind of looks like a super roundabout way of saying "women should settle if they want children even if it is bad for them." I noted that it wasn't all men in my initial statement, implying that there's always an option to find a man so you forcing this into a natalism thing is quite odd.
There's plenty of research on childless single women being on average happier than married mothers which BTFOs your point; yes, someone can in theory find meaning in having a child but the meme that it brings eternal fulfillment isn't the default. A lot of it literally is stuff like…people repeatedly beating into them the idea that kids will make them happy, which naturally makes more women want to have kids thinking that's the only way when in reality it's somewhat of a social construct, not just "biology."
And I didn't intend to compare this between a single mother v. married thing. You sound like someone who would say it's better to stay with a man that cheats if you have a kid with him tbh, you're just hiding your real power level.
lol, you're right. it's a tradwife redpiller giveaway to target women. redpillers in general screech a lot about women having to be x or y, but don't have the balls to say the same shit to men.
If men were stepping up and showing they want to be providers instead of the gold digger witch hunt they invented more women would actually fall into line and be stay at home moms. Most "trad" men care more about virginity and sex than anything else related to the family, and are mostly degenerates that don't have the virtues they look for. They don't value real motherhood besides the status of having a child. The "b-but virgins are 5% more faithful!" is actually "I only value women based off their superimposted rarity."
Married women with children are actually undervalued by everyone including their husbands, yet people like >>112472
act like some special intrinsic meaning will come out of having children. It's so desperate and reeks of people realizing they can't convince men to be real dads, nor to improve, and basically only have the option to gaslight women into believing children will give them eternal bliss.
is the reality for women that want something real and substantial.
It's all a shit show because actually men are pretty much the ones that have to pick up the slack if they want more trad moms in the world. But that will never happen.
You just made me realize that people always try to convince women to be mothers and saying it's a woman's job to have kids, but absolutely no one ever tries to convince men to be decent providers and fathers or starts discussion about that. damn.
you have your own theories of what that means in most cases, not those of you on the other side of that. just make that your own shit and say it's good that people use it. you know what fucking stupid shit if you think they're all gonna like this shit? just give it a try.
You also say that when one person speaks up on the subject of marriage equality, other people usually respond to that by looking for "their best possible response to that." this is ridiculous.
Yeah, you're making a point there. None says "a man's place is providing and being a good father and role model." Trad men don't care about the family structure, they just want to dominate women and will use whatever nit-pick revolutionary psychology study to prove their point. They don't care about being faithful and virgin themselves, they only want to own a woman through marriage and children. They're sickos. There's a lot of female virgins but they'll deny this in order to push the "all women are whores and that's why we can't respect them" narrative.
But that's generally rare. And part of the issue is that they rarely carry through with it.
>>112515>But that's generally rare.
It depends on many factors, like where you live or what's your socioeconomic status.
That's because that's the only way most men would want to be fathers, being constantly reinforced about it being respectable.
Incomprehensible response tbh.
Lol this is hilarious if you're >>112477 or agree with it.
lesbians can be fujoshi; straight men can jerk it to the occasional trap/gay doujinshi and still be straight; enjoying loli/shota doesn't make you a peodphile.
fiction =/= reality.
That a women's place is solely in the home? No. That a woman should be free to choose whether or not her place is in the home, and if it turns out that the majority make that choice voluntarily
there is nothing wrong with it. Yes.
I'm not in the business of deciding what makes people happy for them unlike puritanical Christian or rapid troon-loving progressives who think every major and every business needs a 50/50 split on the workforce.
I'll take a crack at it.
Most pedos are people who were molested. If you think about it, the only way to prevent pedos from popping up is to either protect children or to kill 'em off early.
i think it's possible to enjoy these things in art only however i do raise an eyebrow if they enjoy very realistically rendered images of it (especially if it's art of kids)
None of this makes sense tho anon. If a man only likes screwing women, what could he possibly gain from watching two men go at it? Same for a lesbian…?
Are you a gay woman who enjoys male on male action?
are you the same as >>112438
Y'all are really into moidish topics.
In any case the point was never "fantasy = reality." Or "what you jerk off to = your actions." More that it's super questionable to like such things, and that the line should be drawn somewhere as it does say something
about an individual.
I mean, obviously a pedophile would use drawn stuff if he couldn't get the real thing. Likewise, getting off to it does form connections in the brain in relation to it. Happens once? Whatever. But if it keeps on happening over and over again that says more about someone.
All in all, it's generally better if some things are simply discouraged. I won't call someone who jerks it to loli/shota stuff a pedophile immediately though I'd consider it pedophile-y.
And your example sucks because, yeah, like, we could instead say "well a guy that finds REAL child porn and jerks off to it isn't a pedophile automatically." Sure? But that'd also just be disgusting.
Also, aren't you the one that posted the NSFW of that character on a normal board? I don't trust you.
Hmm, what do you mean by majority make that choice voluntarily and there being nothing wrong with it? That most women vouch to become moms?
I hope you aren't the pic attached anon in any case.
>>112539>Hmm, what do you mean by majority make that choice voluntarily and there being nothing wrong with it? That most women vouch to become moms?
Yes, and on average they value being Mothers more than their jobs or careers. It's a commonly known problem that law firms have problems retaining high-performing women after age 30 or so, and they find having time to be a mother more fulfilling.
I have never seen that screencap or post before.
The shocking stance I am taking is gasp
the vast majority of women choose to be married, choose to have children and enjoy both of these things.
But the "enjoy these things" is subjective and your take. My point is that women often overrate how much enjoyment they get out of being married not because of children per se but because most men aren't viable/good fathers or husbands (at least in most countries).
And the example of mothers leaving work for children is silly because, like…it's not a matter of value first of all, but necessity and what's natural. That and getting a baby sitter is way more trouble than it's worth. I know I'd leave a job I valued more than mothering if I had a kid and had the option because, well, I have to tackle the kid no matter what. Not everyone can handle both. The burden of childcare/housework still falls on women and yes…this is actually shown to cause stress and less happiness in general, because it still stands even
when a woman is breadwinning. You're better off finding another example. https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-happier-in-the-long-run
for example goes over several studies, of which doesn't actually support your claims either.
Moreover, if what you said was objectively true, we wouldn't have other statistics like single women living longer.
Even if you denounce those studies in general, it seems more contingent on the country whether or not parents are happy on average as the results vary immensely depending. For the standards of my country, it's less true that "most women enjoy being married and having kids immensely." And my country is huge, and not someplace like Hungary.
Either ways I agree that healthy, quality monogamous families are better for people involved usually, but I'm suspicious of you because you seemed to ignore the fact that I wasn't saying "yes, female separatism!" yet you still forced it into the baby topic.
So all in all, people also find meaning in being single and enjoy the related things…just like having children. And people are going to get more happy with having no children overtime as the pressure wears off.
I rescind all previous complaints, having now learned that the questionnaire scale for adults responses between the options were "Very Happy", "Pretty Happy" and "Not Too Happy" and citing this as a legitimate source just makes me not want to engage anymore. What a garbage fucking questionnaire.
but most of the other ones are behind paywalls. @_@
in any case apparently you said there's no problem if most women vouch to be mothers…
…yet turn around and act like you aren't in the business of deciding what's happy for people. Probably needed to stop there with that obvious sexism.
>And the example of mothers leaving work for children is silly because, like…it's not a matter of value first of all, but necessity and what's natural.
I don't follow, what do you mean by this?
>I know I'd leave a job I valued more than mothering if I had a kid and had the option because, well, I have to tackle the kid no matter what.
I don't understand how you're using the word value here, because if given the choice between two things, any non-psychotic person chooses the thing they value more. In your scenario, you value the child more than your job, else you would keep the job and lower the effort put into the child, like a moid. Whether women should do that, or should not, I don't care, but this juxtaposition doesn't make sense to me.>>112557
Oh my fucking god, are you seriously trying to twist me thinking that "Pretty happy" to "Not too happy" is the most fucking retarded scale into a statement about me deciding what is best for women. I will address the first part: The scale should be, if anything "Very Happy", "Happy", "Somewhat happy and unhappy", "Unhappy" and "Very Unhappy" that would be an actually useful scale of fucking measure. The current one is incredibly imbecilic for the purposes that it places a hard fucking cut off and treats mothers who are actively having a bad time
being mothers from responding differently from mothers who are just neutral or close to it.
As for the second part, my point was, at no point in time at any fucking point in time, that having children makes women happier, it's that most women value having children and value being married and living with men and that they fucking exist. Full stop. I don't care if it's 1% of women or 99% of women, these women exist and have to be accounted for. I would strongly state that this applies to the majority of women, but I refuse to go done that rabbit hole with you, so I'll level with you and say it's a fucking coin flip if a given women enjoys, wants to, values, and does get active happiness out of being a Mother. Hard cut off at 50%. Your scenario still denies those 50% of women that happiness as far as marriage goes, and it induces more mental illness in children who would be raised in place without both biological parents.
Fuck off seriously.
Maybe you should have quoted it then you fucking dribbling retard.
>>112526>lesbians can be fujoshi
Agree, yaoishit rarely depicts realistic males and homosexual relationships (or even realistic sex), and it's most often written by (straight) women>straight men can jerk it to the occasional trap/gay doujinshi and still be straight
Agree but it depends, plus sexuality is too complex to put into simple "straight" or "bi/gay" terms, overall I think these straight men are rare exceptions tho>enjoying loli/shota doesn't make you a peodphile.
Disagree, the only people who don't have pedophilic tendencies but still enjoy that shit in some form must be VERY rare exceptions. Time and time again we see how lolifaggots always end up being supporters of real life pedophilia and/or pedophiles who are attracted to real children, the thing about them not liking real kids at all often turns out to be just a front, since admitting attraction to children would be way too dangerous for them, as I'm sure you already know because of certain unfortunate events (which was honestly what made me fully believe this; I used to believe the meme of "nooo but lolicons don't like real children and real pedos don't like cartoon children! plus they're just drawings!" courtesy of an /ic/ thread).
Technically speaking, enjoying loli/shota a couple of times alone doesn't make you a pedo, but the genre does attract a lot of them and will also make you into one if you consume too much of it; if you become obsessed with lolis/shotas, you'll be attracted to depictions of prepubescent bodies and innocent child-like characters and that will inevitably bleed into real life.>>112532>are you the same as >>112438
No, they have different posting styles.
I'm getting across that it's super stressful to handle both a child AND a job. A lot of women vouch to do both and their mental health tends to suffer. I guess I could say I valued the child more because FFS it's my child. Mothering a child? That I might not even value but it's necessary. But I'd still say this even if that job made me 100x happier than caring for that child. That's why I said it's not a good example; women have
to care for children with or without a job. Men rarely step up. It's not complicated and framing it as a matter of having to choose one is silly. Women are often forced to both care for a child and have a job and that just Goddamned Sux(tm).
Also idk what to tell you about valuing marriage/kids? Like, I assumed there was more to it? Like value is kind of an abstract term here.
I already said one could say someone "values" being single and etc, because there's also a specific set of perks to it? I'd value being able to have more experiences hanging out with my friends and stuff like that if I don't have a child. Even if I don't want I'd also choose to value my child because that's the right thing to do. An individual decides what they value in life. People also adapt.
So this whole thing is roundabout and it seems like the one thing you're arguing more isn't pragmatic well-being but, well…that having a kid is special in its own right. Also you saying "enjoying" is easy to conflate with happiness so…idk what to tell you about me thinking it was a happiness/well being thing. What does enjoyment entail? You keep on saying it but apparently it has NOTHING to do with happiness. So is it contentment? v_v
And I really wish this topic just stayed to marriage ffs. I didn't want to talk about children. My actual sentiment is that healthy, faithful, happy monogamous marriage > single > bad, distant, or depreciating (i.e., she gets old and he gets cold) marriage. And yes I think most marriages aren't ideal but I don't want to argue about that.
Guess what though? I didn't say marriage was shit or had 0 value. People can value even horrible arrangements. I just implied being married to most men is overrated.
And I didn't goddamned have a """scenario"", like, you made it into some creepy as shit "one or another" thing. Women should go out and seek out men if they want children, sure. It's just my entire point is that they need some really high (character) standards and that it's really dumb that it even has to be a gamble.
Also you acting like I deny happiness in implying most men aren't good options (because apparently you think the majority of women should get with men and have children)…like I said it's not mutually exclusive. The "sexist" part is implying that women are condemned to horror without kids or something, I mean for one thing you made this whole thing into an argument of deterministic pro-natalism trying to pull half or the majority of women into it.
*horror or a lack of fulfillment or a lack of valuing their current lives
idk what your point about what most women should feel about being childless is anyway.
Narrator: .."and this anons mind was not changed"
Lol what the hell.
Gay women who jill off to cartoon gay men = still lesbians
People who get off to loli shit = absolutely pedos no exception.
??? I'm not saying loli shit is acceptable, however your perspective is all kinds of conflicting. It could be argued that in anime, kids don't really act like kids, just like how you argued men don't really behave like men in yaoi.
tbh when people say stuff like anon did about yaoi guys being gay I take it as being offhanded and not applicable to everything. yaoi guys are yaoi because they're being gay. yaoi can ascend time and space as being a passionate tango between giving and receiving. it isn't like you're wanting to throw yourself on a guy's dick.
loli girls will always be young girls sexualized because they're young girls. how they act is pretty irrelevant to why sexualizing them because their appeal is set in stone (though anon is still right that it can condition someone to sexualize innocent behaviors). also, she did note there might
be exceptions. it's just in her experience it's a front to cover creepier things.
*being gay and not acting like regular gay guys
I love that you are arguing this. I hate yaoi girls too. They are hypocrites who look at shota.
But being a yaoi girl isn't the same as looking at shota?
uhh, that's not the definition of yaoi though.
yaoi with shotas exist but 13 year old boys isn't the default.
I mean I googled it. Most pictures didn't show shotas. Are you counting 16-19 yos as shotas?
in any case can we all please agree to hate boku no pico? is that something we can agree on? plz?
>OP: "to keep the thread varied."
>The thread: shotacon vs loli
Are you happy that you started this discourse OP? Having a little laugh right now?
I hate shotafags as much as lolifags
They think they are above lolifags for some fucking reason when they're both disgusting pedophile trash
cry about it.
though i agree alot of zoomer shotafags are hypocrites and have double standards,i remember joining a discord server of a game i like and there was fanart of 2 of the young boys from that game kissing and nobody bat an eye about it but when somebody else posted a fanart of one of the young girls all the autistic fujos started reeing and going " umm this is problematic sweetie :// creep " i don't understand how they think their fetish is different from lolifags when its essentially the same exact thing
>>112406>commit wrongthink, get death penalty
This is actually retarded
The lesbians who enjoy yaoi are obviously an exception. I don't know for sure whether it's a minority or a majority of lesbians who like it, but it's obviously made and consumed primarily by women who are attracted to men. So yes, some
women who like yaoi are not attracted to real men, but the vast majority are.
On the other hand, the main audience for lolishit is male pedophiles or men with pedophilic tendencies, and the exception in this case would be people who aren't attracted to real kids. This is what >>112526
So yeah, you could say that being a fujo most certainly means you're a straight/bi woman, liking trap/gay doujin as a man most certainly means you're not straight, and liking loli/shota most certainly means you're some sort of pedophile.
Also, to be honest, there are a few important differences between yaoi and loli/shota.
For example, the former is voyeuristic (the audience is not meant to focus on just one of the characters or self-insert as either of them, we are meant to focus on the two guys and their relationship), while the latter is for self-inserting pedos (most loli is straight so the male is inevitably meant to represent the viewer, for instance). Not only that, but yaoi is more about feelings, drama and romance (in addition to sex), than loli/shota which is 99% of the time about raping children and nothing more. They are almost entirely different things.
Another difference would be that yaoi portrays the guys in an unrealistic or highly idealized way, without the personality traits or physical flaws that real men have that the author/audience doesn't like, and the guys are most often androgynous and beautiful or even feminine (hence why some lesbians aren't put off by it). We are supposed to empathize/sympathize with the characters in addition to finding them cute/hot. Plus, they're gay, so some lesbians might relate because of that.
On the other hand, loli/shota depicts kids as kids, the personality matters little, and what's more important is that they're children and their child-like traits are emphasized and sexualized. These depictions aren't very detached from reality and many loli/shota stories have nothing more than abuse fantasies as the plot (adults in positions of power raping/grooming kids in realistic settings like kindergarten or elementary school or at home), the only thing you could say is truly unrealistic about it is that, depending on whether it's a rape story or not, the kids are more precocious than in real life (usually the darker works have the kids behave less sexually on their own to make it even more realistic), but a huge appeal of loli/shota is that they act like real, innocent kids and their curiosity is portrayed as child-like… Not to mention the fact that their bodies and school uniforms are sexualized as fuck (as in, that's a huge part of the appeal). And please don't bring up the "500 year old loli vampire" excuse, even that shit has numerous explicit references to pedophilia (aside from the obvious as fuck child anatomy, of course). Loli/shotafags don't think "wow I wish real kids were more like this so that I could fall in love with one", they're more likely to think "wow, I wish I could groom and fuck a sexy kid right now". If that's not being a fucking pedophile, I don't know what is.
If you're curious about the lesbians who like yaoi, feel free to ask on /media/'s yaoi thread, I think a couple of them have already discussed it. It is a mystery indeed. But in my opinion it makes more sense for them to like seeing two gay male characters who look and act less like actual men and more like how a woman wishes men were, than hetero romance where the female is meant to represent you.>>112574>>112573
Fujos might sexualize teens around 16, but rarely do they go for the actual kids (which is most of the shota age range)
Most of them prefer young adult characters, although it's true that early yaoi featured teens more than now.
different anon but i've read posts from fujoshi lesbians and they explained that a lot of them like yaoi for the story or relationship dynamics, and can artwork of it because anime style is not realistic and rarely looks like actual men. i don't like yaoi but when i look at some popular ones, some of them do look like girls until the pants come off. i've also read from straight men who enjoy trap/femboy/futanari etc art that the presence of a penis on the characters allows them to relate and self-insert onto it
meanwhile a lot of people who enjoy loli/shota pull the defense that it "needs" to exist so actual pedos have an "outlet" that isn't abusing real kids. that doesn't sound like solid reasoning divorced from real life attraction to me, but if anyone has alternative insight i'm willing to listen
i'm the anon who says i think it is possible to enjoy these things in art only, but i do find it suspicious if they like it very realistically rendered.
interesting take, can you explain? is it because most men are taller than most women?
Besides the historical context of men being the first wearing high heels?
Well, it's not only the increased height but also the stature. Women who can walk in them flawlessly give off really confident vibes (think of a dominatrix or a strict teacher). If not masculine, they appear more mature. Plus the loud sound of heels banging the floor makes any beta male shiver.
i forgot that men initially wore high heels historically, that's a good point
Nta, my mind has been slightly
ngl I'm 6 feet tall and have been called a tranny b4. I keep feeling insane because people keep telling me it's a plus when not once in my entire life has a guy expressed finding me cute/feminine or liked my height (most made fun of it). I always felt masculine.
stuff like this is at least kind of validating.
Being a 6' girl on the spectrum, I always acted "masculine" or "tomboyish". When a girl confessed to me, everything changed, I realized that I didn't need men to be happy.
It's contributing to the needs of your country and countrymen. People who complain about it should have their citizenships stripped, and they should be tossed in no-man's land.
Contribute or gtfo.
Imagine doing this much mental gymnastics
I mean, most of her points were decent. What do you disagree with?
I didn't even read it so can't say
So you're just disagreeing with people not liking pedo stuff?
Also this is mental gymnastics: the thread.
if you don't like taxes you should also be against private property
nta, I strongly agree with this one (can the loli shit go away, this is more in line with the thread topic anyway)
I don't like to bring up my gender as a first point of conversation, but I feel like the only people I've been able to talk to about certain feelings surrounding loli/shota are men, which is nice, it's nice knowing others feel the same and I'm not alone, but it would be nice to have other women to talk to about these things, so I was wondering if there were any women here to talk to.
I'm not against talking to trans women either, but figured I'd ask.
as I kept on saying but being ignored my point wasn't really female separatism like the other anon forced it to be about and then used as a soapbox.
I think "womyn's land" is a bad idea, also the lesbian thing is silly.
I love the idea of a coven, it's just I feel like it'd be counterproductive and dangerous in this current political climate. groups of women can cohabitate anywhere. there was a cute story of a group of longtime friends buying a mansion together and it was adorable.
twitter is literally full of women like you, wyd (granted most of them are TIFs but still)
fuck, had a better one but forgot it.
anyway, here's a hot potato: the "Jew overlord" paranoia is silly to me but I absolutely think there's some sort of oligarchy of rulers that pretty much decide and design what happens in politics and society in many nations, and much of the divides in society are also involved as they're a manufactured means of splintering people into subgroups that will always distrust and hate one another, so they're easier to control.
side note: I don't fully believe this, it's just hmm-worthy.
Men don't tell men to do other things because men are more cutthroat. Whether another man succeeds or fails is mostly irrelevant to most men, indeed if other men fail that simply means more spoils for the victors. If men were to give each other lectures about being a provider and how important it is etc then maybe men might take notes, and then that cute girl you have been thinking about gets into a relationship with one of those "reformed men" and not with you. You have made your life harder. Men would rather hoard messages themselves and let the weak be trampled underfoot so that they can maximise their own benefit.
Society does tell men to be a certain way, but it is less explicit. It mainly comes in the form of constant reinforcement of the idea that a good man is a useful man, either from some action hero dude that saves the day, scientists or engineers who make some new gizmo or some high powered businessman who makes money move. All of male oriented media is centered around the idea of being useful and needed by society for some particular reason, there is no need to explicitly state it. Men would never do so anyway, they much prefer being thought of as "naturally like this", exposing the programming would make them seem weak.
>>112640>Besides the historical context of men being the first wearing high heels?
The original high heels were basically just platform shoes with a slightly raised heel. They bear little resemblance to modern womens heels, with more exaggerated lift and smaller heel width.
> Women who can walk in them flawlessly give off really confident vibes (think of a dominatrix or a strict teacher). If not masculine, they appear more mature.
That is because heels, by becoming exclusively associated with women, have become a sex symbol for men. It is not about power or confidence or maturity as much as it is about a display of sexuality. Powerful women have always been a target for male obsession, as those who fancy themselves as dominant will want to "tame" her and those who are submissive will want to submit to her. Wearing heels makes any women seem more sexual to men, and therefore powerful women wearing heels has become a common image in media.
I remember being disappointed by the MRA movement because it's a manifestation of men wanting their victimhood to have status but without really having the impetus to address the ways in which men sabotage other men.
The MRA movement will continue to fall flat because men have little empathy for other men, and have little tolerance of perceived weakness. Men will just assume that any problem men suffer is mainly due to the weaknesses of the man suffering it and leave them. The men will look at the suffering man, quietly examine him to find out what happened and how they can avoid the same fate, and then step over them.
geez, makes me remember hearing about a guy that got terminally ill and all his male friends and coworkers ignored him while the women didn't or even made it a point to help him more.
Men will help each other if they perceive a moment of weakness to be that, a moment. IF their friend became permanently crippled they would just kill him if given the chance.
Women have their own money now, so you have to be more appealing than being alone if you want a relationship with one.
Cis women cursed with heterosexuality can live with other women and order a toy that performs better than 99% of any hookup. They can even go to a sperm bank and DIY their own child if they still crave motherhood.
I don't believe in separation or anything, but I do believe a lot of men don't understand how a lot of women enjoy their own company and won't be baited out of a comfortable life by a dude who doesn't enhance it. They get annoyed when women who say they want cream in their coffee refuse theirs, but they cream they are offering is actually uhh… I don't know, cum or something. Food analogy.
You do talk sense, but there is one thing that bothers me:>heels (…) have become a sex symbol for men>display of sexuality
I don't know, I think it's impossible for men to NOT sexualize anything associated with women. Anything feminine makes men horny.
>>112824>I don't know, I think it's impossible for men to NOT sexualize anything associated with women. Anything feminine makes men horny.
this reminds me of a take i saw from a terf that said most men are actually not heterosexual (in the sense they are attracted to biological females only), they just have a paraphilia for femininity. which i think makes sense since you see men who claim to be straight but admit attraction to drag queens and TIMs who got extensive surgery, but would be repulsed if a woman they would otherwise be attracted to had body hair or was wearing no makeup
I'm so surprised by this take, but it makes so much sense
I think that's a bit harsh. They wouldn't kill him, they would however leave him behind and slowly distance themselves from him
You can't "steal" art, especially digital art lmao
"Plagiarism" and "rip-off" (when directed at art, including literature and other media) is just another word for "I don't like it"
I also hate this "pls don't repost my art or I'll get upset and delete my entire gallery pls" kind of artist, it's not like a disclaimer like that will stop people from reposting anyways LOL
Every artist should say "you are free to repost and do whatever the fuck you want with my art, copy or trace or edit or print it", it would just be acknowledging what already happens. If it makes more people happy to see your art, even in unexpected places, what the fuck is wrong about letting people share it freely? Why wouldn't you be happy that people overseas are enjoying your art thanks to a random repost?
The usual "I really don't want artists to make money and be protected, but I really want to keep enjoying what they make" take
you sound very entitled.
weirdoes on the internet like you pick something to get annoyed by and then proverbially mine for annoying or hypocritical shit about it.
Hah, I am an artist. People will continue to share the paid art freely whether you agree with my take or not. At the same time, people will continue to pay for the art, despite it being available "illegally" elsewhere. Plus, for commissions you gotta pay for the piece to be made
, after that you don't have to pay to see it (usually), so it's impossible for a commission piece to be "pirated" before it's made.
The fact that people will still do something illegal is not an argument to say we whould legalize it. People are less and less paying for art actually, for a lot of art they instead use subscription system which are not rewarding at all.
Plagiarism doesn't exist? Yeah great, say that to the girl who made a great song and got it stolen by a label. Same with books, painting, movies, or anything else.
The only piece in existence are not commission.
The main issue there, of course, is money.
Oh and also I was talking mostly about free art, not art that you gotta pay for. When money is involved, as long as we live in this system of money, the issue will be more complicated than just "using each other's ideas" or "freely sharing content".
What makes me mad is that artists who post their stuff for free get upset that someone decides to show it to more people out side of the specific site the artist posted it on. Like, why, what is the point of getting upset at that?? You're just reaching a bigger audience.
I don't know if this is a dig or if you're agreeing, but yes, the main issue is money.
In a post scarcity whatever-you-want utopia, yeah, let's all see each other works, it's cool.
It's also about recognition. How would you feel if you made a really, really great painting, and your client took it, added a little blue somewhere, and then said it's my own painting, and then he was acclaimed as the new van gogh? It's your painting, you're the genius that everyone loves, but he say it's his painting, and plagiarism doesn't exist so you can't fight it.
These kind of law are not there to protect us of nice and good people, but to protect us for people who are malevolent and ill intentionned. Of course, if everyone was nice and money was not a problem and everyone would recognize you for your work, sharing everyone else art for free would be okay. But that's not the world we live in.>>112851>Like, why, what is the point of getting upset at that?? You're just reaching a bigger audience.
yeah, like, that I can understand. It seems at best short sighted and dumb. But still, it's your own work you know. It's yours, you should be the only one deciding what to do with it.
I remember that when I was a teenager I wrote poem and I posted it on a little writer forum. I never wanted them to reach an audience, I just wanted to share them with friends I made on the internet, and the poems were all very personal. If someone started to share them everywhere, why couldn't I be upset about it? It's not theirs, it's mine, and I never wanted it to be shared that much.
I 100% get that it's dumb, because everything you post on the internet risk going to be shared a lot, but you still have the right to be upset about it.
IDK, I guess I've just grown up very attached to the idea that everything should be freely shared with everyone, particularly education, culture and entertainment. The the idea of "owning" a drawing, for example, is just dumb although yes, you can draw for yourself and not for others, but if you decide to publish it, it becomes other people's art too.
And yeah, I definitely sympathize with smaller artists and composers, etc. who are screwed by big corporations or whatever, so I try to support small commercial creators whose work I really enjoy whenever and however I can, even though said laws are really shitty right now as they end up protecting rich and powerful people and big companies more than regular people. But that's another subject entirely.
I understand where you're coming from but I really disagree with the "it becomes other people's art too" take. I really hate this take, and it seems very american to me, or at least american influenced. I'm talking about the US because in most country in Europe you have laws that protect the "moral" rights of the author and work of art are seen as something special, more special that just any product. It's not really the case in the US.
Like for exemple, in my country if you write a theater play and you only have woman character and some comedians decide to play it but with men in all the role, you can sue and you're going to win because your work was not respected (it's an actual case I saw when I studied IP rights in college)
For me when I make something it's like my "child", I put a lot of my emotions and myself in it. I want to share it, yes, but you don't suddenly own what I make because you consume it. It's still mine, even if it's published.
For this kind of stuff I think it's better to imagine the most fucked up thing someone could do legally with your art if it's not your own anymore, because that's the point of the protection. Like suddenly, MRA and incels, the far right, trans, nazis, or anything you hate take you art and modify it slightly to use it as a meme or whatever, and you can do absolutely nothing legally because well, you don't own your art anymore!
I would be really, really hurt if I wrote something very personnal about my life and struggles, published it so other could read it, and suddenly people take it and use it in media or the internet and associate it with the most vile things you could imagine and I had absolutely zero way to stop them.
You can say it's a bit like that already, and yes I agree, but that's just a problem for me, not something you shold accept.
power metal is the shittiest metal genre
No, and fuck you. Power metal is fucking awesome. The shittiest metal genre is actually glam metal.
seethe harder, bland ass corny genre with shitty album covers. The superhero movies of metal lmfao. Glam is somewhere in there also, though.
I can tell you're not an artist. You're not entitled to other people's creations. My art is MINE, I put that work in, so I should be the one who says what happens to it. Don't like it? Make your own shit.>>112847
Not because people will still do something it means it shouldn't be illegal. People kill each other all the time, but I don't see you advocating for legalizing murder.>>112851
Not everyone wants a bigger audience, you know? Some people want to control how their art is used and shared. You're not the one to judge if they're being reasonable about it, it's not your art, it's theirs. I don't want my art to be reposted by racist groups, for example, shouldn't I have the right to choose by who and how my art is shared?
You know , when you think about it the reason pedophiles are deserving of hatred is simply that they hurt children . Kids are not prepared for sexual interaction and even consuming CP makes CP producers have an incentive to keep making more ( aka abuse more kids… ) .
But if these elements weren't a part of the equation then there wouldn't really be any reason to hate a pedo .
For example , your typical greasy neet /a/ user that jerks off to loli may be disgusting , but if they aren't abusive towards kids and don't consume real CP ( because drawings are just fucking drawings , fucking americans holy shit ) then they aren't really hurting anybody , and I personally believe that there's something wrong about hating a person just for being gross.
We hate people that hurt other people , and we hate these people even more if the people that they happen to hurt are the most vulnerable in human society , but without this aspect there's no real reason to hate.
Most people aren't worth shit , only about 10% of women and 2% of men are worth talking to .
America treats drawings of children differently on a state by state basis. Theoretically on the federal level it's legal, but no ones ever pressed the case for the obvious reasons.
>>112900>shouldn't I have the right to choose by who and how my art is shared?
1. I am none of those miners you responded
2. I am also an artist
I think what you meant to say was that men are not told to be around/a loving figure, they are only told to provide, which I agree.
>>112918>I create something>Others get to decide what to do with it
You don't get the right to do whatever you want with something that another person created just because you think it's pretty
I partially agree with that, fuck these bitches.
I am an artist myself, I make music, digital painting crude animations etc and I did got one song re uploaded somewhere else. if one person who listened to it got some sort of "connection" to it, they can search for me.
"Oh, so I should starve?" let's take a second to think about the reality of the internet.. Nowadays, everything is uploaded FOR FREE on youtube or instagram, there are MILLIONS of content creators sharing it at all times.
BITCH, ain't nobody gonna pay 25 bucks to hear your music or buy your comic book or your animation just to FIND OUT if they like it or not.
did I ever worked "for exposure?" - YES
do I regret it? - FUCK NO
1.it is out there.
2.I am proud of my work.
3.I had fun doing it.
4.I hope it inspired at least one kid.
Alan Moore is a big inspiration of this. He influenced a generation of creators, he made a powerful social movement…and nobody fucking knows who the fuck he is!
BECAUSE IT SHOULDN'T MATTER! YOUR ART MATTER!
the art. is bigger. than the artist.
so, should you starve? NO. Get a real job. work at McDonalds.
but I do disagree with plagiarism. I want to share and inspire, but copycats are worms, they are not creating anything.
>>112955>get a real job at McDonald's
I kind of agree since I hate being known on social media and recoil at the idea of receiving money for my artwork. Instead I'm opting for a career in accountancy so I can be free to draw whatever I want with no restraint.
But are you fully against career artists of all kinds? That's a wild stance.
Working in the industry of animation, comics, etc. at a rate that actually produces something within a reasonable time frame should be compensated in my opinion.
Change my mind, I guess.
>>112956>are you fully against career artists of all kinds?
I'm not against making money, specially if it is making what makes you happy. The only "career" I would be against, is if you create an image for yourself, and you change that image solely for money. A.k.a. selling out.
"I hate this gamer-bro culture people should enjoy what they enjoy without falling into stereotypes"
to a week later be:
"Hello Gamers! it's me superSlayer3000! The people at Disney™ hired me to play-test this new superDuper game and I just have tears in my eyes"
As an artist, once you put something in the world it is separate from you. Others should be able to freely transform it however they want as long as it isn't monetized, and even if it is monetized, there's a certain threshold that person needs to hit before it's worth actually doing something about it. At worst it's literally free advertising.
if it isn't you, apparently several anons have repeated this same talking point. creepy. even if it is valid and you aren't a moid, it's such a mega-cuck move. imagine defending the normalization of child porn for degenerate men.
also the idea of shoehorning all hate into hating people that directly harm others is a childish take.
Fantasizing about fucking a kid is the same thing as fantasizing about murder or torture. Sure, you may never really hurt anyone IRL, but your fantasies are inherently violent and malignant, you are getting sexual pleasure from the demise and pain of others. If you get sexual pleasure from something that would ruin someone's life forever, then that will cause a knee-jerk reaction of disgust in any sane person.
I agree that there would be no basis for punishment or elimination of these people, but that should never be confused for destigmatization or normalization of these violent fantasies. This argument is usually used for the latter, not the former.
Okay, and why is this not true for absolutely everything then?
You make an excellent and innovative product? Fuck your copyright, an enormous company steal your idea, market it, sell it, and make millions with it. You're still poor in your little garage.
The ONLY instance where everyone accept to literally steal and do anything they want with something that someone else created is art. You make a peer published article in a science journal? Oh yes, it's absolutely okay if I steal it and say it's mine. Oh wait, it's not! But if it was writing? Yeah of course, do it, you can even tweak it and make it shittier, after all it's art, nobody cares.
It feels like people just want to force every artists in the world to abandon the ownership of anything they make. I make something, and you should be able to freely transform it? And why? Why should you have that right? Why did you do to deserve it, except acting like a parasit and steal my work?
At worst, it's not "free advertising", it's "you end up starving and you see your amazing work of art in an enormous production that make millions of money and is admired by critics all over the world, no one know it's actually your work, but nobody cares because a bigger company/artist stole it from you"
This "worst" is actually why IP law were created in the first place, centuries ago. They're good. The fact that internet has fucked the perception of everyone about digital content doesn't make it untrue.>>112955
And then when one artist actually wants to be paid for his work, he get the answer "well you have exposure…"
It's awfully skewed by all the people doing drawing too, never really thinking about comedians, classical musicians, novelists. It's always "I draw" or "I sing"
You make a play, it's amazing, people love it, but suddenly nobody comes anymore and the theater stop it. Why? A fucking asshole taped it and shared it on the internet. But be happy about it, it got good comments on facebook! You're out of job, but well, fuck you, art should be free.
You're never thinking about the people that get fucked by the "art is free" mantra, always thinking about how "art is noble, you should do it for free anyway and everyone should enjoy it!" because it doesn't take times at all to create and it's never a deeply personnal work and you can't ask about recognition because that's selfish or something.
>>112979>Okay, and why is this not true for absolutely everything then?
It should be true for everything.
>You make an excellent and innovative product? Fuck your copyright, an enormous company steal your idea, market it, sell it, and make millions with it. You're still poor in your little garage.
Makes sense I suppose, in the past have you had corporations steal your art?
>The ONLY instance where everyone accept to literally steal and do anything they want with something that someone else created is art. You make a peer published article in a science journal? Oh yes, it's absolutely okay if I steal it and say it's mine.
Reposting someone else's art and claiming you made it != transforming someone else's art
>Yeah of course, do it, you can even tweak it and make it shittier, after all it's art, nobody cares.
Correct. If you're insulted by people making shittier copies of your art I can't say I understand the feeling at all. Why does it upset you? Doesn't that just reinforce you are the better one?
>It feels like people just want to force every artists in the world to abandon the ownership of anything they make. I make something, and you should be able to freely transform it?
Yes.>And why? Why should you have that right?
Right? Are you arguing from a legal perspective now?>Why did you do to deserve it, except acting like a parasit and steal my work?
Imagine calling people making derivative work from you "parasites" Jesus Fucking Christ.
>At worst, it's not "free advertising", it's "you end up starving and you see your amazing work of art in an enormous production that make millions of money and is admired by critics all over the world, no one know it's actually your work, but nobody cares because a bigger company/artist stole it from you"
This happened even with current IP law you are describing. The scenarios you're talking about occurred when under contract artists working for big companies sold the rights of their work to someone else via contract. A very noteworthy example is Disney losing access to Oswald the Rabbit when he left Universal Pictures.
>This "worst" is actually why IP law were created in the first place, centuries ago. They're good. The fact that internet has fucked the perception of everyone about digital content doesn't make it untrue.
For someone who despises copyright law you sure like the current iteration that supports corporate entities.
I'm honestly shocked your ego is big enough you think you'll ever produce something good enough that corporations will steal your shit. If you're not worried about corporations stealing your shit, who are you concerned about? Little Susan, doodling in her notebook? You gonna file a lawsuit when he copies it?
i agree; i don't believe in thoughtcrimes and think policing them is a useless endeavor but i also think if someone goes public about having thoughts like that, other people have the right to distrust or believe they're a potential danger
>in the past have you had corporations steal your art?
>I'm honestly shocked your ego is big enough
And as usual, you only think of yourself. You say every work of art should be shared. That include the next Picasso, the next Mozart, the next Da Vinci. That includes everyone. I know it's really easy to make personal attack, but it's low.
And besides, yes, in fact, I had art stolen by a publishing company. Shocking, a big corporation that want to fuck over artist, it's not like it happened for hundred of years before, right?
I'm arguing for legal perspective because when you say you want every work of art shared you say fuck IP rights.
And yeah, when you steal the work of someone else and call it your own, or you make "derivative" work you're a parasite. You take the work of other, claim it your own, and fuck it up however you like, not caring a single moment for the one that actually made the work. It's parasitic.
>This happened even with current IP law you are describing.
Way less than before, and this shit happens way, way more in the US where you have fucked up IP rights law because you don't respect artists.
>>112984>You say every work of art should be shared. That include the next Picasso, the next Mozart, the next Da Vinci. That includes everyone.
Yes, correct.>That includes everyone. I know it's really easy to make personal attack, but it's low.
This is the most whiny sentence I have ever read on cc and that's pretty damn impressive.
>And besides, yes, in fact, I had art stolen by a publishing company. Shocking, a big corporation that want to fuck over artist, it's not like it happened for hundred of years before, right?
And you sued right? Or did you perhaps run into the wall that is current copyright law that unfairly serves large businesses as opposed to small ones?
>I'm arguing for legal perspective because when you say you want every work of art shared you say fuck IP rights.
Yes, so is your argument not "Art should
n't be shared in a manner I don't like" or "Art can not
be shared in a manner I don't like". One is judgement of what is
and one is a judgement of what ought be
. If your argument this entire time has been "current IP law states I that it's illegal to repost my art without my permission" than yes you are correct. Congrats. Now, do you believe that should
be the case?
>Way less than before, and this shit happens way, way more in the US where you have fucked up IP rights law because you don't respect artists.
If I had to argue for a nation that has the most incredibly specific and intricate legal system for claiming, defending and persecuting IP laws, it would probably be the US. Heavily in favor of corporations, but I thought that was what you wanted wasn't it? Robust IP laws?
>So you're basically arguing in favor of big corporations fucking everyone else, because anyone who create something should just give it for free.
I don't see how that has to be the end conclusion at all. Though again I feel like I am missing a beat between "someone reposting my art and claiming they made it" with "someone being inspired by my art and making their own" which these two things don't even cross over in my mind at all.
>And you sued right? Or did you perhaps run into the wall that is current copyright law that unfairly serves large businesses as opposed to small ones?
Did you actually studied IP law once in your life? And are you aware not everyone is american on this website?
>If I had to argue for a nation that has the most incredibly specific and intricate legal system for claiming, defending and persecuting IP laws
No, you didn't.
Robust IP laws that actually protect artists exist all over the UE. The US in not the best in this, it's actually the worst of the developped world, and corporations continually search new way to fuck over the artist and make art only an economical product.
>which these two things don't even cross over in my mind at all.
Because you don't think about the consequence of what you say.
Okay, we authorize derivative works, great. What counts? I changed very lightly the color on some part of the drawing. It's derivative works, now it's mine. It doesn't count? Okay, but what count then? How do you distinguish the real work between a derivative work? How do you make certain what you want isn't abused?
Your argument is either dumb or naive, because you never think for a second that someone will abuse it and do everything in his power to fuck you over. That's why IP rights exist.
>blablabla you're whiny blablabla I don't understand
lmao, try more
>>112989>Your argument is either dumb or naive, because you never think for a second that someone will abuse it and do everything in his power to fuck you over. That's why IP rights exist.
Did those IP rights help you?
>>112979>why is this not true for absolutely everything then?
like anon said, it should.
>you can even tweak it and make it shittier, after all it's art, nobody cares.
YES. it's called Sampling.
>he get the answer "well you have exposure…"
you CAN work for money, I'm not against that.
>A fucking asshole taped it and shared it on the internet.
GOOD. you can still pay to see the live experience.
>because it doesn't take times at all to create and it's never a deeply personnal work and you can't ask about recognition because that's selfish or something.
if you don't enjoy doing it, why are you doing it at all? it seems like the only purpose for you to have a broadway show is "holy shit, look at all this money!">>112984>your ego is big enough
I mean, we are saying you should put the art above you, so, in reality, you are the egocentric.
>Picasso, the next Mozart, the next Da Vinci. That includes everyone
YES. All their artwork is available for free on the internet. All the people who are, after all these years, inspired by them should NOT have the right to witness it without paying hundreds of dollars to the louvre museum?
you're going to die one day anon, people should not have to witness what you created because of YOUR EGO? your bragging rights, your money and your pride?
ANON, if food was supplied for you at all times, would you simply given up art? it really seems to me you don't really care about it. It is just a job.
Yes. Next question?>>112991
I'm talking about money and recognition because it's the two main thing of "your art shouldn't be stolen".
Of course I care about the artistic value. But you can care for two things at once. When you say "put the art above you", what you're really saying is "artists should starve, or not produce art at all because it takes too much time"
And I NEVER argued for eternal IP rights nona, you're putting things in my mouth now.
And no, actually, if food and money was supplied to every artists all the time, and there was a 100% guarantee that they would be recognized for their work, I would be against IP rights. Because yes, if no one is at risk of dropping art altogether because they don't have the money to sustain it (which happened to me several times in my life, and hopefully won't happen again), and no one is at risk as seeing it be stolen by an malevolent asshole (which also happened to me several times in my life), you can make every work of art free. But that's not
the world we live in, unfortunately.
>>112984>And besides, yes, in fact, I had art stolen by a publishing company.
What did you do in response?
I sent a a registered letter quoting the IP rights of my country, proof of my claims, and threat of legal action. They folded and we made a deal.
I did the exact same thing when my employer when I worked in theater didn't feel like paying us because "he was short on money" and "we should be happy to even go on stage!"
It's not really about IP rights, but it's in the same tone: people trying to fuck over artists, because you should do it for free even when you're literally starving
>>112995>It's not really about IP rights, but it's in the same tone: people trying to fuck over artists, because you should do it for free even when you're literally starving
As anyone's stance in this thread been "you should not be paid for your art"?
I agree, nobody should take what I create and claim it was theirs, that's Theft.
I'm in favor of sharing it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, arts and ideals have the same value for me. so, sharing an art piece, (for me at least), would have the same value of sharing my opinion. the world doesn't NEED it, per se, but I'm glad people like it and it inspires them.
if somebody elaborated on a quote of mine and made it stupid, I wouldn't care.
>artists should starve, or not produce art at all
I said it over here: >>112955
art is not suitable as a job for anybody. It doesn't make money.
If you want to be an artist, the only grated reward is self gratification, if you want money, don't WORK with it.
How do you get paid, then, if your art is free for everyone?
If you're arguing for free art for everyone but
artists are paid by benefactor like the patreon system, fine by me. I'm okay with this system, as long as the artist get paid, and can stop someone for doing something they don't want with their work.
>>112998>If you're arguing for free art for everyone but artists are paid by benefactor like the patreon system, fine by me. I'm okay with this system, as long as the artist get paid, and can stop someone for doing something they don't want with their work.
Now you're understanding "free" as in "freedom" not "free beer".
>>112997>art is not suitable as a job for anybody. It doesn't make money.
It can. It does, for a lot of people. Not everyone, not at all, and it's very difficulty. But it can work.
I had to wait ten years to make it work, but it work today, I'm living entirely off my art. It's great, it's satysfying, it's amazing. But I will never forget all the time people tried to fuck me over and make me almost quit because I thought "I'm never going to make money of this, this is silly, why am I doing this?"
I'm okay with being inspired by art, but some people can just be insulting with the way they use your art. There was a feminist play in my country when all the roles were for women, and some asshole director just came along and decided to do the play on stage, but did it with all men and laced it with heavy mysoginistic shit. And because we have good IP rights, the writer of the play sued, and won, because the director changed the "essence" of the work without the author agreement.
That's why I want good IP rights, to be protected from asshole. The teenager writing a raucy fanfiction? Nobody cares, it's fun. But she's not the only person in the world
>>113000>There was a feminist play in my country when all the roles were for women, and some asshole director just came along and decided to do the play on stage, but did it with all men and laced it with heavy mysoginistic shit. And because we have good IP rights, the writer of the play sued, and won, because the director changed the "essence" of the work without the author agreement.
Wait he just stole the play and did it somewhere else or he properly paid for the IP and then played it somewhere else?
He properly paid for the IP and played it somewhere else. But in the UE, and especially in France, we have a long tradition of "humanist" IP rights, when you can't sell the "moral", or "intellectual" IP rights (I don't have the legal word in english, sorry)
So EVEN if you bought the thing, you STILL can't fuck with it as you please.
If you buy a painting for exemple, and you burn it? You're going to get sued and you're going to lost.
You buy a painting and you trash it, drawing dicks on it?
You're going to get sued, and again, you're going to lost.
So yeah, IP rights can actually be good, and they're not only for disney in UE land
Actually to not be confusing, he bought the right to represent the play. Because in France you can't buy 100% of the IP rights. You can only buy a right to own the physical object, or a right to publish a book, a right to make money off merchandizing, a right to do a representation.
But the "intellectual" IP rights can never be sold, even if the author wants it, it's illegal. It's ALWAYS considered to be owned by the artist.
I would love to take a look at your artwork.
not trolling. you put up a fight.
Reading this made me literally physically ill, the number of batshit interpretations this concept can have actually made me nauseous just thinking about the implementation. What a horrible fucking state of affairs Jesus fucking Christ.
I can at least understand where our intellectual divide is because you find this a positive. Fucking disgusting.
I really don't understand why. Art are not products, they're essence of the soul. You put a little of you in it. There's no reason why someone else should be able to claim 100% ownership of it and trash it just because they bought it.
And I 100% believe the batshit interpretations you have are not true>>113004
Thanks! That's very nice but I'm really uncomfortable sharing it on an imageboard, sorry
But this isn't even true, men are encouraged to be around and shamed if they go full absentee. They still get away with it obviously, or think they get daddy points just for being around their kids still even if they aren't functioning has fathers.
The "they're told to provide" also isn't true in many countries now. In America it's basically shamed for a woman to want a man to be any kind of provider, even if she wants a kid.
About the art argument: can anyone's mind here be feasibly changed? Like >>112843
just came across like shit-flinging from someone who really doesn't care about artists. Go to unpopular opinions if you just want to state things. >>113006
also smart, don't share. people might reverse image search you.
>>113006>I really don't understand why.
I'll get back to you when I can verbally explain why myself. All I can report is reading your post gave me real physical pain in my stomach and made me want to vomit. I can hardly stand. I find myself being made physically I'll just being exposed to such a concept. As someone who makes art too, it's disgusting.>Art are not products, they're essence of the soul.
Are you religious?>There's no reason why someone else should be able to claim 100% ownership of it and trash it just because they bought it.
There's no reason they shouldn't be able to either. This just reminds me of bullshit practices with John Deer tractor software.>well you bought our product but if you want to fix it you have to do it OUR way
>And I 100% believe the batshit interpretations you have are not true
I have no doubt you do, if I were anywhere near your frame of mind I wouldn't be able to conceive it any way either. To claim the essence of something in such a manner. You've made me so physically I'll just trying to process your thoughts I don't have the energy to even really argue. I just want to vomit and lay down.
You know what? You're right. I had multiple threads open and I just responded to something I saw. Maybe it's the wrong thread>>113009
I'm not religious, but when I'm saying essence of the soul I want to say you put something in you in it, it's a very personal work. It's not a shitty pasta maker you made to make some money.>There's no reason they shouldn't be able to either.
Yes, there is, because it's disrespectful to the artist and the work of art, and it's bad for everyone. You think it would be good if some rich asshole bought the mona lisa and painted a big dick in her mouth because it's funny?
It's not comparable to software or any other product. You don't buy art to "use" it or alter it. You buy it to enjoy it. If someone wanted to buy my books to use as a toilet paper, I would tell him to fuck off. It's the same mentality. A lot of artists don't want to sell their arts so someone can just shit on it.>I have no doubt you do, if I were anywhere near your frame of mind I wouldn't be able to conceive it any way either.
I'm mainly saying that because people often think unreasonable interpretation when they hear how some legal thing works. Almost everytime they're wrong
I joined the discussion more or less to understand the mindset of the people who don't agree with me. it definitely helped me.
I'm open minded, if somebody told me something that I never really though about, I would change my mindset.>>113009
see, I was on your side before.
I do believe we should respect the art piece.
a 3d model or a photography of the statue of David could be manipulated on photoshop, but to physically smash the real statue with a hammer is to cause irreversible damage to it.
destroying the real art would have the same problem as refusing to share it: you taking it away from people.
>>113010>I'm not religious, but when I'm saying essence of the soul I want to say you put something in you in it, it's a very personal work.
Then I understand even less. If you actually meant a proper soul I could at least give credence to the beginnings of the idea, but as is, it, again, disgusts me.>It's not a shitty pasta maker you made to make some money
I've met plenty of artists who press out dog turds for money as well as "shitty pasta makers" who pour their heart and soul into the product, art isn't special in this regard.>Yes, there is, because it's disrespectful to the artist and the work of art
I suppose, doesn't sound like a "reason" as much as an "emotion">and it's bad for everyone.
Oh god that nausea creeping back in.>It's not comparable to software or any other product. You don't buy art to "use" it or alter it.
Speak for yourself.>If someone wanted to buy my books to use as a toilet paper, I would tell him to fuck off.
I would tell them to do so gladly because the physical book is not the idea of the book.>A lot of artists don't want to sell their arts so someone can just shit on it.
I don't understand these artists, but yes I was aware they existed. Very narcissitic types, like Neil Breen who makes absolutely dog shit, but refuses to allow theaters to advertise his movies as "so bad they're good" even though that's all they're good for.>I'm mainly saying that because people often think unreasonable interpretation when they hear how some legal thing works. Almost everytime they're wrong
Very true, do you ever believe you fall victim to this or are you immune?>>113012>destroying the real art would have the same problem as refusing to share it: you taking it away from people.
What did "people" do to "deserve" having the art shared with them other than, and I quote>acting like a parasit
?>but to physically smash the real statue with a hammer is to cause irreversible damage to it.
Then I hope it never falls into private hands that would do such a thing, shouldn't be illegal to if it was properly purchased though. Pure icon worship.
>>113013>Very true, do you ever believe you fall victim to this or are you immune?
I'm immune because I went to law school, in my "what I'm doing with my life? phase. It does make you understand that a lot of the times, law are actually quite reasonable.>nausea creeping in
I mean, you're the talking about emotion too. Having someone just destroy and trash my art because they think it's fun disgust me, at least as much as it disgust you to not share it.
The "idea" of the book, but what if it's the only copy? The only painting, the only statue? Someone can just trash it because they want, and fuck you, they own it.
I do find it quite funny that before, I only wanted to do it for money, and now, I'm too emotional about art! Yes, they're a part of your soul, and I'm an atheist. Maybe it's because I write and do theater, and not painting, but even with painting I had friends who did some very deep and introspective work. It's not just a pasta maker.
If you do think art is just a product, indeed, we can't be in agreement.
And please, don't put things in my mouth. People who just enjoy the art are not acting like parasites. People stealing it, making it free when the artists has no money, trashing it because they can, and making insulting derivative work are the one acting like parasites. Only them.
>>113013>shouldn't be illegal to if it was properly purchased though. Pure icon worship.
You're literally advocating in favor of some crazy billionaire buying all the most wonderdul work of art in the world and setting them on fire after shitting on it.
And you talk about sharing art for everyone? I don't get you
>>113013>acting like a parasite
I didn't said that. not even sure what she meant.
>What did "people" do to "deserve" it
what are you talking about?
what's the point of art then?
art belongs to the people! if it doesn't, then why should art exist? aren't you an artist? why are you?
the point I was making was that art is priceless not that "art have no value"
>>113014>I'm immune because I went to law school, in my "what I'm doing with my life? phase. It does make you understand that a lot of the times, law are actually quite reasonable.
Ah, I've talked to you before that explains why this conversation feeling like a repeat. Glad you're immune to it, must be awfully convenient knowing you're right all the time.
>I mean, you're the talking about emotion too. Having someone just destroy and trash my art because they think it's fun disgust me, at least as much as it disgust you to not share it.
I was the one advocating for sharing art at the beginning of this conversation don't you remember? What's making me nauseous isn't the sharing component it, it's the "I won the generalized concept and if you follow all legal procedures correctly yet fail to do my art correctly you're in contempt" that makes me nauseous. I'm fine with art being shared, not with the original artist owning the [french word you were unable to translate]. Doubly so if it's anyone who isn't a religious person positing it. I feel like I'm getting a better grasp of what idea you're expressing that's utterly repulsing me now, so I thank you.
Furthermore, when I'm telling you I'm utterly disgusting by the concept, that is merely a report, not a request for empathy. I am merely making you aware of the fact your thinking processes make me sick. I don't expect you to change them, I don't expect you to stop making me sick. If anything making me sick is probably the correct thing to do so I can properly get over this nauseous tumor I feel growing inside me as this discussion goes on.
>The "idea" of the book, but what if it's the only copy? The only painting, the only statue? Someone can just trash it because they want, and fuck you, they own it.
Yes, yes and yes. One should be very careful who they sell their shit to. To claim anything else makes the concept of "owning it" a farce, just skip the middleman and put it straight in a museum if that's the proper procedure. No need for the faux-ownership.
>I do find it quite funny that before, I only wanted to do it for money, and now, I'm too emotional about art!
They one critiquing you for "only wanting to make money" wasn't me. If anything that would be a noble and understandable reason for your approach. I could tell from the start this wasn't the case, as the argument would have been different. I'm also not saying you're too emotional about it, I just don't understand what you're invoking when you say "soul" if you do not literally mean a "soul". Are you using "soul" to refer to your emotions then?
>Yes, they're a part of your soul, and I'm an atheist.
And? Unless you meant "I'm not religious". You can be religious and an atheist, ask the Buddhists.
>Maybe it's because I write and do theater, and not painting, but even with painting I had friends who did some very deep and introspective work. It's not just a pasta maker.
That says more about your views on the pasta maker than it does the art.
>If you do think art is just a product, indeed, we can't be in agreement.
Took you long enough, and here I thought you were supposed to be the smart ex-lawyer.
>People stealing it, making it free when the artists has no money, trashing it because they can, and making insulting derivative work are the one acting like parasites. Only them.
I understand you view these people as two distinct groups, I do not. Either both are parasites or neither are to me. They are interchangeable.>>113015>You're literally advocating in favor of some crazy billionaire buying all the most wonderdul work of art in the world and setting them on fire after shitting on it.
If they can do so legally? Sure.
>And you talk about sharing art for everyone? I don't get you
Ownership is ownership. The physical painting can be sold and exchanged, but the generalized idea of the painting should not be restricted in distribution. If you mistake the icon for what the icon is signifying I understand your confusion. The hell of french copyright is apparently that the generalized idea always belongs to the person who made and they can arbitrarily make injunctions on whether or not "people do the right things with it" despite a fluffy legal process. Might as well cut out the middle man and just have the ability to threaten lawsuits post-facts. Thought I would love it clarified if this "ownership" only lasts the person's lifetime and ONLY that person can enact it. If the truth is that as time goes by the 'spirit' of the work is still handled differently post-death at that point I would just fully come to terms with why France was such a shitty place to be in when I visited.>>113017>what are you talking about?
I'm talking about if ownership is properly established you should be able to do what you want with it, if you can't do so, you don't "own" something, it's just being "leased" to you as far as I can tell.
>what's the point of art then?
Definitely not stroking an artists ego, I can tell you that much. As far as my understanding the purpose of art is an act of exploration towards embodied behavior patterns attuned towards increasing the chances of survival of humans (not humanity) as a whole pushing the gamestate forward.
> if it doesn't, then why should art exist?
art exists? Hell if I know, as far as my understanding nothing should
exist, it just does. The best argument I've been able to make contrary to this standpoint is "it would be boring otherwise".
>the point I was making was that art is priceless not that "art have no value"
These two states are functionally identical for me.
ladies, we just found ourselves in a real Mexican stand off now.
Anon N°1 thinks art is an expression of the artist, the value is what the artist allows it to have.
Methinks arts and ideas have a mutual indefinable value.
Art is above the artist
Anon N°2 thinks "value" by itself has no real definition.
Art is an mere expression of existing
>>113023>Anon N°2 thinks "value" by itself has no real definition.
Value exists, it's just from my viewpoint something that is "priceless" is as tangible useful as something that is "worthless". If anything good art gets more valuable
as time goes by, as opposed to just being in a static state of "priceless".
>>113020>blablabla you're so arrogant I'm better than you
Sure you are nona
Oh, and no, we havent talked before, and I'm not an ex-lawyer, I just went to law school. Keep talking about arrogance with your agressive and holier than thou tone, it's very fitting
Are should be shared, but art is just a product? Then why do you want special rules for art if it's not different than everything else? And if you want everything
to be shared, why are you sperging about ownership being so important? Pick a side.
>blablabla France is awful and proof that I make illogical conclusions about law
Aren't you sure it wasn't because of your sunny disposition?
>art is an act of exploration towards embodied behavior patterns attuned towards increasing the chances of survival of humans
You have the spiritual capacity of an ant
>>113036>Are should be shared, but art is just a product? Then why do you want special rules for art if it's not different than everything else?
If you had reading capacity you'd notice I'd already said this >>112981
so I guess I understand why your law career never went anywhere.
>and if you want everything to be shared, why are you sperging about ownership being so important?
It's entirely consistent. If I own something, I should be able to transform it however I wish. Period. Else I don't own it, it's just a fucking farce. As far as the sharing of ideas and abstract concepts. You, and, apparently, the concept of IP law in France states that no one else but the original creator can own and use an idea, even if copyright is properly negotiated and fulfilled via contract. Again, same reasoning as before with the John Deere tractors and that filth.>b-but art is different from a mere product
If you're religious maybe, but you're an atheist so, as you say, "pick a side". The abstract idea of something is not the something. The something should be treated however the owner wishes, the abstract idea of it is not bond by the same laws whatsoever.>Aren't you sure it wasn't because of your sunny disposition?
Given the fact that Japan and Hong Kong were lovely… no. Pretty sure it was just France. And that's really saying something because some parts of Hong Kong were horribly shitty.
>You have the spiritual capacity of an ant
This coming from a self-proclaimed atheist sounds like a compliment if anything.
Vegans are dumb and they're commiting mass atrocities and perpetuating the system of commodification, prospecting, and endless industrial destruction that they somehow, with a straight face, maintain a superficial dislike for. To default to considering convenience and "ease" above other living creatures makes you no better than you were before and commodification isn't going to solve the issues that commodification created, duh?
samefag tldr: if you're vegan and buy food and live a generally industrial lifestyle, you're a dope, good luck changing my mind
Change my mind:
Women shouldn't be in the military.
Yes, they should. They shouldn't be in the male dominated and male designed military wherein every aspect of the structure and culture is rigidly built to be against them (and maintained to be as such, it's not just the default).
Source: military family. women are better than man at a shockingly long list of things and the progress and advancements military technology is missing out in as a result of fucking over one half of the population is laughable
i'm against the military (or at least i'm against nationalist propaganda that frames imperialism as a good thing and actively tries to recruit poor teenagers into it) so a part of me thinks no one should be in it, but that's not feasible, so at the very least there should be sex-segregated military sects or ops only for women
>>113008>Like >>112843 just came across like shit-flinging from someone who really doesn't care about artists.
I literally said that I'm an artist lmao
I'm more or less like >>112955
and she has actually changed my mind on the plagiarism part along with >>112862
Don't people here like fujoshi and support their way to enjoy works in their own way? Fujoshi appropriate other people's works, and turn straight boys into gay boys despite many objections from other fans and sometimes even the authors. It's the same with all art that is shared, the audience has the ability to interpret and transform the work as they please, and make their own version of it. This is something that cannot be avoided at all. Once you publish something, people with their own copy will be able to do whatever they want with it, whether you agree with it or not.
I grew up on anonymous imageboards, where contributions belong to the community, and was raised with anti-capitalist views, plus I'm a third worlder who has lived with piracy all her life. My natural attitude towards publishing my art is that I'm happy to see others, even in unexpected places, genuinely enjoy and share it, and that I want it to be shared forever by people so that it won't disappear easily. I like to contribute, even if anonymously (or rather, preferably anonymously), I like to make others who share my tastes happy. Demanding your art be enjoyed only in the specific way or the specific website you want, so that potential fans are unable to see it, is quite selfish, and I can't stand that.
Furthermore, artists who do commissions or have a Patreon and such aren't being screwed over by all of this, they're being screwed over by the system, which, by the way, also affects their fans' ability to pay for their art. The system restricts art, artists and those who enjoy art.
Sounds like you're just sexist really. A man could make the same argument that 'men are better than women at a shockingly long list of things'. I know where I am, I'm just saying this is a poor argument with no backing.
Do you believe a female military based on female strengths could beat a male one from a foreign country? >>113208
I am also against the military. But I feel if someone should die, it should be the sex that's built for it.
How many of you are in the military or closely know women that are? It's not sexist to say that women can do a lot more than men allow us to, since all men can do better than us is Be Big and Go Die. We can be small and live, that's far more useful to the future of mankind? Men have no foresight and only care about prospecting and greed, women care about actually helping, and peacekeeping nations that actually provide help and on-ground assistance without committing yankee coup shit have a lot more women in them, and are successful. You can attribute a lot of modern peace to both sexes working together rather than one singularly working against the other.
Good military conquests or peacekeeping missions don't involve dying, are you around a lot of moids?
If your idea of war and peace is to go off somewhere and die, and you don't consider the endless list of jobs and tasks women are more than capable of fulfilling on all ends, it's just a shame to consider that ignorance and the impact it has on the world, surely?
samefag, saorry but if you look at any active zone of war the women are not commiting the same kind of brutality against civilians. Anecdoteally, they go in, get the job done, and get out.
There is absolutely no arguement in your favour, by any metric you're the sexist one if you think women can't or should be in any form of military let alone the common one. Sorry anon Im sure you're nice but its a bit sad to consider you really believe that kind of thing that is directly holding women and society back. War isnt about death, ultimately it should be about peace and accepting women into the areas of the world that they would help most with the same willingness to give up their lives, is common sense?
>>113240>Men have no foresight and only care about prospecting and greed
This is a HUMAN trait. Women are not special and somehow above greed. Not all women are peacekeeping tree huggers. I would not attribute the current level of peace to the sexes working together. This amount of peace is thanks to military strength and everybody being frightened of everybody else. Women (neither men, really) are to thank. This is a product of fear. >>113242
Also to answer your samefag- War isn't about death???
Well if we can't even agree on that much, oof. Has there ever been a war free of it? Name one that was solved without death and violence. Wars are won by throwing people into meat grinders for selfish bull shit reasons. Rarely are they anything else.
My mind isn't really changed.
*women are not to thank, but neither are men. Bleh, fingers.
Anyway anon you seem fine. And I would like to point out that I am sexist, but against both sexes. I just feel a lot of sexist people refuse to admit it. You seem to be a misandrist, which is nothing unusual on crystal cafe.
The problem is that there's a lot of evidence showing how men are on average greedier and less prosocial than women and this usually manifests in damaging if often invisible ways in the long-run (it's debatable whether it's learned or nature). Aesthetic egalitarianism (or forcing two different things to be the same) is why so many "woke" men or people ended up obsessed with stuff like Karens. It isn't that women have insane outbursts in society more, but because it's cathartic for many to see because to many, it is the worst thing they will ever seen a woman do in their entire life.
Plus it's also just hatred of older/unattractive women daring to act out.
And to them it makes women, in general, as bad or even worse than men.
Hell, I've seen women being bitchy be used to one-up a conversation about…men raping…it's fuckin weird. Granted I'm 99% sure it was a guy.
Anyway, yeah, I see a lot of people doing the "but women are no better" thing in response to women getting any credit for doing almost all the most horrific things in the world much less than men do. And it's kind of silly bc rarely is it actually suggested women are perfect…I don't think women are perfect, oftentimes I find them to be cucks and saboteurs–often in the name of that "fear" you mentioned.