it's not all it's cracked up to be. I wish I had the self control to stop trusting random strangers with my true inner self. But I know either way it sucks to screw it up.
the balance between authenticity and following social expectations. you're supposed to learn through osmosis, the values fluctuate based on a wide variety of circumstances, and nobody can have a conversation about it without pretending like there are no rules.
so I keep erring on the side of authenticity. mostly.
yeah people who conduct themselves within the moral framework of "act like I expect people to or fuck off" kind of are. Just not on a level where you're allowed to point that out to them.
nailed it. whatever the faith says is not the same thing that it's doing psychologically. he actually aligns with the psychology of Christianity, more than that yuppie hobo Jesus. and as a caveat he's giving Christians permission to ignore all of the challenging parts of their faith.
I don't wonder. by the time I left there were more barriers to entry for humans than for bots. more newly created or newly active accounts speaking word salad than not. and the moderator help subs were alive every day with somebody asking how to deal with it.
I hate him too except in the Lego movie. The serious turn at the end was kind of refreshing for him. I'll try Stranger That Fiction and see if I like it, since a fellow Will Farrell hater says it's good.
Additionally, I kind of hated Nicholas Cage until I saw The Color Out of Space which prompted me to actually learn a little more about him and figure out what he's even doing. Turns out I was mistaken, not just about him but kind of about film
Something by Brian Jacques when I was ten. Probably Long Patrol or Mossflower. turned me from a book hater into a book fiend. Like, literally pissed off my parents because I would read at night instead of sleeping.
I want to be, yeah. I suffer under patriarchy and want it to change. And I've tasted glimpses of places and times when women and men are safe and free and I want that for everyone all of the time.
But also I'm way too problematic to get to call myself part of the movement. I've got bad history and shitty ideas that I still need to resolve so my contributions to feminism are only things that I can do anonymously. If I notice anyone trying to figure me out irl, I obfuscate and let them settle on their first incorrect conclusion.
anything involving government bodies. on the police, at the postal service, in the senators office. they should not eat sleep or shit without the tax payers knowing how long and what color.
but nowhere else that isn't regulated by law or funded by taxes. yes if government is doing inspections there. No if Jimmy Grocery Store manager wants to be able to review footage of a workplace injury.
I want full government transparency but no surveillance industry
fair points. I kind of like them just because of the context that the kid has been complaining about being single. I feel like I did that one time before I realized that people don't give you other people to date. or if they do, that's actually weird. but I think being told to evolve was even gentler than the language that was used to communicate to me that I needed to grow and be a person who anyone would want to be alone with (let alone date).
You're not misunderstanding at all. You actually took what I was saying even a step further, so thank you for asking. I was using some reductive language to avoid making it over complex or sounding pretentious. I spoke of it in terms of "being a good person" because I think this conversation is at heart distillation of the problems of consumption and our self perceptions. Like, it's about morality too but that part is easier settled by just not giving problematic artists our resources.
So for the meat of it, when we're talking about whether it's okay to consume art from "bad people" I think what we're trying to discover is if doing so makes us bad. and like, it possibly can but not intentionally and not if we do it critically. and also the quality that I'm referring to as bad isn't actually a binary. it's actually an expansive amount of values on their own individual spectrums that we should be analyzing and keeping in our mind while we participate in the art. from there we can broaden our concepts of good and bad or problematic/unproblematic and actually use that awareness to prevent some harm.
I said doing this makes me a bad person because I assume most people I interact with have all-or-nothing morality and I don't think it will change. I find it easier to just live with the base assumption that I'm a problem and not wait for people tell me who I am but that's probably trauma talking. I probably should be examining that.
But anyway yes, you're right. But I'd call most good deeds that can be done as acts of creation. Like creating feelings of respect and ease of life by holding a door for someone.
I see this discussion a lot with a lot of compelling arguments for either take. over time, this has become my take. it will be bad but hear me out.
depriving bad people of money for their work is good. but enjoying good work from bad people is important. if you don't want to pay them then don't, but don't deprive yourself of art and education based on moral standards that (since we're being honest) will always be in flux as you change and grow. decentralize moral purity from your personal journey. centralize making informed decisions and embracing complexity.
it's a bad take but honestly I really don't like the concept of trying to be a good person as it pertains to consumption. there really isn't such a thing as good consumption. and in my thirties I'm pretty okay with whatever criticism that earns me.
isn't overturning a previous ruling kind of clear intention? what other purposes does this have?