Find Me On:
Besides, I’ve heard the toys themselves kinda suck. Lego has been putting out gender-neutral proto-engineering sets for all kinds of age levels, for decades. I honestly don’t think I’d be the person I am today without Legos, and if I have daughters or sons, they are all playing with Legos.
If they had just made this as a standalone cover/parody, and even sold it as such, it would have been a slam dunk fair use. The problem is, they parodied the song for the exact same reason one would license the original song: promotional material. People get confused by the word “use” in fair use. Use isn’t necessarily utility but sometimes it is, especially in different licensing agreements. Since the original song wasn’t made specifically for promotional material, but could be licensed as such, a parody doesn’t change the use of the song in that context.
“If their lives depended on it in a fictional scenario that will never happen”
Except the billions of scenarios every day where food insecurity is a real thing. This is what pisses me off.
I’m saying that certain militant vegans already ARE hypocritical by morally elevating themselves in an objective sense above a huge percentage of the world where considering the existential worth of an animal is simply not comparable to the survival imperative. If someone like Morrissey will not stay in the same room as someone eating meat, he is simply setting himself up for a huge moral crisis when it comes to people who would otherwise starve to death: He, as a wealthy white westerner, is in a position of ethical privilege, the moral objectivity of which is undermined by the very fact that if he did not ever have access to the foods and choices that he does, he would have most likely never bothered with the question. His moral superiority is by virtue of economic superiority. Maybe vegans could theoretically make some kind of case that humans should not consume animals when they have a legitimate alternative that I could find compelling. I also, would of course, never tell a vegan to eat an animal. But veganism is absolutely the product of a society of choice, and choice in many, many cases throughout human history, is a luxury. So when it comes to how a vegan relates their dietary/ethical choices to other people, they would do well to show a little humility and thankfulness that they even have the choice to be a vegan instead of starving in the first place.
Rio isn’t really concerned with copyright law as it is, they are more concerned with their ideas on what intellectual property should be, as they see it. I’m a professional photographer, and IP law is what keeps that industry running, as a legitimate way for us to make an honest living. Their main confusion is this notion that IP law somehow makes abstract “ideas” proprietary, which it doesn’t. It makes a certain communicable manifestation (a constructed product, a specific design of a product, written words, lines in sequence, music) of ideas proprietary.
“Maybe they develop a loyal fanbase who are willing to purchase their records even though they have access to free copies.” Translate that into any other industry, and you see the insanity of it: “Maybe Toyota should convince people to buy their cars out of loyalty as opposed to just stealing cars out of the lot of the dealership.”
My favorite part of this song is how mad some people are going to get when I tell them that I more or less enjoy it.
That’s also a spectacular misuse of the word “genocidal.” No one is sitting around thinking “VEE MUST EXTERMINATE ZEE COWS!”
Cruelty to animals is vile, but it comes in different degrees. Factory farming is cruelty by way of cold economics, not inflicting pain for pleasure’s sake. OBVIOUSLY changes need to be made, but for more reasons than just a cow’s existential crisis.
But just to hammer something home: Cow’s milk is a legitimate complete protein source. That’s a fact. Is it the ultimate food? No, there are drawbacks, and I’ll let the internet rage back and forth about them.
My main problem with the argument “no other animal eats a fluid for the young of another species” is not actually an argument against drinking milk. It proves nothing. At all. Horse blood is not “intended” for consumption, but there are animals “intended” to eat horse blood. Impalas are not “intended” to be food, but lions thrive on them.
Am I saying humans are evolutionarily tuned to consume cow milk? Not exactly. There are obvious issues with that concept. But. That doesn’t change the fact that dairy products are delicious to a lot of people, and they do provide vital nutrition in cultures/parts of the world that would not otherwise have access to a complete amino acid source in any kind of sustainable way, which is an age old problem. Why do you think people started drinking milk in the first place? It helped keep people alive. So from that perspective, the evolution of husbandry was vital to human evolution, and to try and paint it as poison, or totally “unnatural” is just preposterous.
It would also be particularly survival-threatening to a given individual who got in the way of me and a pint of Phish Food.
ZING!!!!!!! You just changed my life.
A vegan asked me once, while I was drinking something with milk in it, “Don’t you think it’s fucked up that you’re drinking something made for the baby of another species?” and I said “Not when I eat the entire family of that species.”
Eat whatever you want, because approaching food ethically is a privilege of western modern society. Put an aggressive vegan in a position of starvation and then they can see how ready they are to pontificate to everyone else.
I like the policy from a purely spiteful standpoint. I know people that absolutely must share every single thing they do on social media, to the point of making other people in their lives feel weird. I’m also a photographer as my job, so I look at the times where I can put my camera(s) down and just enjoy what’s in front of me as treasured opportunities.
Yeah, because the two options here are like it, or you’re a misogynist. That’s a good dichotomy right there…
I mean, we’ve been objectifying women for YEARS now, so the JT video a lot less to ease in to.
Word up. And to be clear, I thought the RT thing was awful and actually made me way more angry than the JT video because it’s WAY too wink-wink about the whole thing. At the very least, Justin has some kind of infatuation thing going on, even if it’s blurred horribly by the multiple women, and ironically, the laziness does work in the video’s favor because really, it’s just naked people kind of dancing with a tone-deaf concept, and in Kanye’s lyrics, there IS a palpable sadness and frustration about “the life” which is on some level interesting and makes you wonder, is this guy losing his marbles? In the Robin Thicke video, these women are just prancing for the benefit of their male dominants, and he doles out his attention when it damn well pleases him, all with a knowing smirk. It would be just as obnoxious if they had some more clothing on.
Kanye’s new work is musically exciting to me, as far as what’s coming out of the “huge artist” category, and lyrically poisonous and it does make the album pretty cringeworthy. JT’s new video is just kind of lame and very lazy. What disturbs me most about it is how I personally know some of his female fans who will defend it to the death by virtue of it JUST being Justin Timberlake (which is a commentary about some of my friends, not all women.)
So, Kanye and Justin both score low marks.
I’d say it’s pretty straight foward objectification, and I have a pretty thick skin about that kind of thing. The fact that JT is always clothed and separate (not-vulnerable) is pretty domineering. I have no problem with nudity in art or even as art in of itself, but it’s all in how it relates to the context of the piece and the viewer, and the only thing I’m getting from this is “Justin will like me (and by marketing-proxy, you) if I’m (you are) naked and pliable.”
I would be really mad if someone trashed my local art museums. I’m mad over someone trashing this fake one.
Basically very annoying all around.
I mean, going to hardcore shows when i was 15 you could get blasted in the face for just standing there. Right or wrong, it’s part of the culture, and if you do something to PROVOKE THESE PEOPLE… well, I don’t have a ton of sympathy.
I can’t buy it yet. I’ve been listening to the Kvelertak stream SG put up pretty much non-stop and to switch over to Mirrors… I’m just in a good place right now and I’m not in a hurry.
The question needs to be asked because it validates the humility Morrissey should be exhibiting if he’s going to have any credibility outside of those already in his camp. “You’re a shitty person and I’m better than you and can have nothing to do with you” hasn’t worked for the religious world, and it got there by not asking themselves the right questions to bring their thoughts outside of their own head. It sure as hell won’t work for Morrissey either.
Not eating meat is a choice unless it isn’t: I’d like to see Moz try to survive in a rural African village, or an Inuit communty for a month. Vegetarianism on moral grounds can be and often is an exercise in economic privilege. Do it! By all means, but the sanctimony would go right out the window once your belly starts to distend.
Does anyone else think the DIIV video is getting a little too close to gross female objectification? Like, is it really ok if it’s done by other women and hipsters?
He should try pulling this kind of thing in Africa. It’d go over really well.
Michael: I think you’re touching on a huge fallacy in today’s broad thinking. “Don’t judge others.” is a very important moral concept, I just think it’s hugely abused. We simply cannot avoid judging behavior, to the point where I think people are much more in tune to an objective moral framework than most moral relativists are willing to admit. When someone does something wrong I think it’s necessary to communicate that, there just doesn’t have to be judgement of that person to point out that they are doing wrong. I think you’re flirting with personal judgement, because you seem to be saying that it takes a certain kind of person to be capable of a certain kind of wrong, and that’s true only in a relative sense. Environment effects emotional reaction to moral concepts. I think it’s too reductionistic to say a person’s choices are entirely produced by environment, but it’s just as reductionistic to say everyone is solely responsible for their tendencies. To not judge someone is to understand they may have circumstances that make right choices more difficult, but it does no one any good to alienate them from the dignity of responsibility. Wayne Coyne should say “I have to be honest, fidelity to my wife is very difficult in these situations which are increasingly hard to avoid, take that as a warning” instead of just saying “Well, I’m here and therefore I can do what I please.” (if that’s actually what he’s saying)
The case of Chris Brown is actually perfect. We do not want to consider that this is a young kid suddenly surrounded by sycophants and a ton of money that has clearly aggravated a displaced sense of self-importance and a lack of responsibility. He 100% should not have hit Rihanna, but it’s much more frightening to consider that he might not have done that if he were in an environment that engendered humility and maturity than it is to say “What a monster, I’m very different from him.” I don’t feel a great deal of pity for him at all, but to think that he’s just a human of some other sort than me is simply me protecting myself from identifying my own moral struggles and their sources.
I totally agree with your main point. The danger of exiling someone from the moral community is in the risk of the exiled becoming more resolute in their wrongdoing. We all need validation, and when condemnation becomes severe enough, “me vs the world” can result in self-validation and a distrust of everyone else. I think Sarah Palin was a good example of this. She was obviously misguided and not someone anyone should emulate, but it became ok for everyone to be absolutely brutal towards her, and it just fueled the flames and the brutality increased in proportion to her self-assertion. We eventually allowed a woman to be called a cunt publicly, and derision about a mentally handicapped child was just fine. That’s totally regressive and has no place in a moral society. We became less thoughtful, more self-righteous and ended up betraying our own standards of behavior and what is socially acceptable and it accomplished nothing.