If it destroys the market for illustrators then it effectively kills any future innovation in the field.
5,880 karma · joined August 11, 2009
You're implying here that a significant number of women would want to report genuinely respectful men for an unstated reason.
Would you be able to posit a reason why so many would do this?
How long until someone differentiates themselves on the market by not having the light?
> they would all be for it.
Would they? "They" being people you imagine don't drive (with whatever that implies to you personally, it isn't made clear) based on their appearance.
Maybe take a step back and focus on what can actually be confirmed instead of leading with multiple layers of conjecture.
It's there in much diminished market, one that has been saturated overnight on a scale previously unfathomable. Their art is still there but it has been used against them to obliterate the playing field.
> nor are the people involved selling it back in any form.
Aren't all of these AI companies selling subscription models for people to create derivative art?
> And let's not forget what we got back for this
Get back for what, exactly? Didn't you just argue that no theft or sellback has occurred?
The UK was spoken of in the particular because of its long and violent history in Iran. We could point to any number of things like Anglo-Persian oil, the 1941 occupation or the 1953 which was previously mentioned.
Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history in the Iranian context. Of course if we were speaking about somewhere like Indonesia then we would foreground other colonial powers.
There is also of course much that should be said about broader colonial history but the question above was why do we bring up British wrongdoing rather than ancient Persian history.
> but talking about Iran and their specific bad behavior
"Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them.
> and how authoritarian governments point to random historical injustices to justify their own repression.
No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues.
Sure, but that will require more than 20 people, 5 million USD and the sole will of the Iranian government.
People often ask these questions as if they're unanswerable or as if any answer would essentially be arbitrary.
What you need to do is look at contemporary global systems of inequality and consider their roots. For this it would seem British imperialism is often a sensible place to go to, in this case almost certainly.
I'm the same but never had an issue with music theory, because I came to it backwards from just playing. I learned to play by having fun with the instrument, and then the theory I learned afterwards felt like just being given names for the things that had become obvious through playing. What I'm saying is it will click if you let the music be your first principle.
It is. The Romani aren't vagrants and they're doing nothing illegal. Calling them vagrants is charged and misleading.
> Vagrants and transients are often dangerous and mentally ill.
That can be true. Again the Romani aren't vagrants and using the word to describe then implies a level of danger and/or mental health issues that isn't evidenced.
> It is reasonable to use state violence to suppress crimes.
No-one has asserted otherwise.
> the control of dangerous animals being similar to the control of dangerous people is not extreme.
It's generally accepted the dehumanising a people or culture is extreme, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. There are any number of alternative metaphors that could have been used (not to mention that the argument could have been built on its own weight) that wouldn't have involved comparing an entire people to a pest that needs to be controlled with lethal force.
> This has predictably led to these foreign vagrants setting up camp ...
> Copenhagen is the Danish capital. It's repeatedly been named the safest city in the world in recent years. Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants ...
It would be easier to ask how this is a normal way of speaking? Gypsies is already a derogatory word, vagrant implies something criminal rather than cultural about their behaviours, and he's making an issue of them not being local vagrants (what?). The decisions he's incredulous about came about democratically and the debates involved were carried out by public representatives and are publicly actually. The incredulity is just rhetoric and the implication that they're dangerous because they're foreign or live transiently surely has no place in a modern society.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
How is this in any way a non-extreme metaphor to use?
How is this confirmed without records?
I made no such suggestion, only that China isn't solely responsible for the future of humanity, which was the claim I responded to.
Feel free to share why not. At the end of the China is still part of a global system dominated by capitalism and they have to play the markets game in order to survive.
They could easily fully do things their own way but that would mean, for example, chance of private intellectual property, which would mean no WTO membership, which would mean massively reduced capacity for trade, which would put them at such a disadvantage they'd inevitably collapse.