Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always 🔥
-
Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always
@mayorbeetles if i know anything about Dr. Tingle & his oeuvre, it's that he has no peer when it comes to eloquently describing things that are very hard.
-
Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always
This is the argument I've always made against "cancel culture" bullshit; So people should HAVE to buy things they don't like?
This goes for boycotts too. I'll tell people I don't shop at a certain store and they'll insist I justify it. Meanwhile they don't shop at a certain store because they don't like the lighting, or the parking, or they don't have to justify it at all.
People have been conned into thinking they can't care about things.
-
Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always
@mayorbeetles he is really an astonishingly eloquent person and it gives us great joy that he chooses to focus that eloquence on the topics he does (mostly butts)
-
Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always
@mayorbeetles it's not really a hard concept if you're not talking to total idiots. But hats off to Tingle for his patient explanation
-
@mayorbeetles if i know anything about Dr. Tingle & his oeuvre, it's that he has no peer when it comes to eloquently describing things that are very hard.
-
Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always
Agree completely.
I would like to add how in addition of something being harmful, there's also *identifying* something as harmful to us/community/society/etc. AND being in a position to do something about it.
Is Rowling more harmful than petrol cars (for society, community/environment)? Certainly not, but it's easier to opt out from Rowling, and not buying books is legal unlike blowing oil pipes.
½
-
Agree completely.
I would like to add how in addition of something being harmful, there's also *identifying* something as harmful to us/community/society/etc. AND being in a position to do something about it.
Is Rowling more harmful than petrol cars (for society, community/environment)? Certainly not, but it's easier to opt out from Rowling, and not buying books is legal unlike blowing oil pipes.
½
2/2
At the same time I would hope people would ne reasonable with their dislikes. Sometimes these things get separated from their roots and start living their own life.
See: shit piled upon the non-binary author SenLinYu for having written a story that started its life as a Harry Potter -fanfiction. Rowling didn't get a cent from that, and in general I do think it's a good thing when characters gain indepdence from their creators.
-
2/2
At the same time I would hope people would ne reasonable with their dislikes. Sometimes these things get separated from their roots and start living their own life.
See: shit piled upon the non-binary author SenLinYu for having written a story that started its life as a Harry Potter -fanfiction. Rowling didn't get a cent from that, and in general I do think it's a good thing when characters gain indepdence from their creators.
3/2
(
Also there's something to be said how copyright is de facto assumed to cover scenarios, character names or characterisation, etc. It doesn't. And trademark is about first-party marketing, not content or way-of-mouth.But this is separate topic.
) -
This is the argument I've always made against "cancel culture" bullshit; So people should HAVE to buy things they don't like?
This goes for boycotts too. I'll tell people I don't shop at a certain store and they'll insist I justify it. Meanwhile they don't shop at a certain store because they don't like the lighting, or the parking, or they don't have to justify it at all.
People have been conned into thinking they can't care about things.
@billyjoebowers @mayorbeetles I like to troll right wingers by saying that it's not cancel culture, it's the invisible hand of the market - the collective impact of consumers making decisions which are, to them, rational.
-
Agree completely.
I would like to add how in addition of something being harmful, there's also *identifying* something as harmful to us/community/society/etc. AND being in a position to do something about it.
Is Rowling more harmful than petrol cars (for society, community/environment)? Certainly not, but it's easier to opt out from Rowling, and not buying books is legal unlike blowing oil pipes.
½
@iju @mayorbeetles I think she's more harmful than petrol cars, or at least the class of people she belongs to is as a whole. They're what build the political climate that makes it near impossible to end things that harm the climate, on top of the direct personal harm they do to the targets they scapegoat.
-
@iju @mayorbeetles I think she's more harmful than petrol cars, or at least the class of people she belongs to is as a whole. They're what build the political climate that makes it near impossible to end things that harm the climate, on top of the direct personal harm they do to the targets they scapegoat.
Yeah, the global promille is of course the main problem.
How well JKR fits that group is another thing: you don't jump from an unemployed single mother into the lizard illuminati, no matter how well your books sell as films.
That's partly why her actions are so easy to identify as toxic: she doesn't have the [connections/experiences/generational status] to work behind the scenes, like the Koch and Ellison brothers, to name just four.
-
Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always
@mayorbeetles I wonder what the world would be like if we applied that same logic to people who eat meat.
-
@mayorbeetles I wonder what the world would be like if we applied that same logic to people who eat meat.
Well, being transphobic and being vegan share a lot of the same DNA, so to speak. Both are borne out of a sense of moral superiority that is completely unfounded, both make arguments that cannot sustain themselves when scrutinized, and neither are willing to accept any evidence that their position is actually wrong on a fundamental level. Also, both are lifestyle choices that their adherents choose to frame as universal truths. I would classify them as being equally harmful to themselves and those around them. They're a cult.
-
Well, being transphobic and being vegan share a lot of the same DNA, so to speak. Both are borne out of a sense of moral superiority that is completely unfounded, both make arguments that cannot sustain themselves when scrutinized, and neither are willing to accept any evidence that their position is actually wrong on a fundamental level. Also, both are lifestyle choices that their adherents choose to frame as universal truths. I would classify them as being equally harmful to themselves and those around them. They're a cult.
@WarmasterPalak @mayorbeetles From that response I can only assume you failed to understand my point.
-
Dr. Chuck Tingle putting difficult things into words as always
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
