Today one of the architects of our current hell weeps

Right, but what does support and guidance mean? That's too vague to be useful. We don't even know what religion you think you might be. You haven't said.

If it's in your other post you mention (I'm about to go check) then for the future, the polite thing to do would be to link to that context in the initial post

But from what you've written here, you're not going to get anything useful.

So, let's start with what does "I don't know if I ever was truly an atheist" mean to you? (Its a big, complicated question I'm sure. Take the time and page space to be specific)

(This is genuine. I'd be happy to talk about it, I just don't have enough info to be helpful)

That came out 12 years ago

No. Before the industrial revolution participating in art wasn't something you did to make money, it was a prerequisite to a full human existence. Art isn't a job art is humanity. Art isn't pointless, art is the point. I'm not arguing against art. I'm arguing against "creator" existing as a social function or identity. Look into the concept of commodification. You'll learn a lot

I'm saying that people shouldn't "be able to live" off of art the same way they shouldn't "be able to live" off breathing and further.

I am ignoring the ripple effects on people's lives because those effects only hit them as far as they have allowed themselves to participate in the selling off of their humanity.

And no. It doesn't extend to free speech because free speech isn't an argument solely used to prop up a system that shouldn't have ever existed at all.

Art is not pointless, but it shouldn't be something you buy or sell. Many things we buy or sell today are the same. Art is not unique.

But the argument that an artist in the Netherlands keeping their job because otherwise they'll starve is a justification for a child in Sierra Leone dying of tuberculosis when the person paying for the art has the ability to give the artist food and the child medicine is evil. And make no mistake, that person is you.

IP abolition is one single part of a much larger reform we need, and anyone who is arguing against it is missing the forest for the trees. That is my argument.

Wanting artists to be able to be paid for their work obfuscates the much larger, actually important issue that they'll starve in our society without their art. That is evil.

But people with tuberculosis in the third world would get to live. Decent trade off. No actually, the only good option. Anyone who even brings up art when discussing IP (much less defends it in the discussion) is a coddled narcissist with no perspective

Not being invested enough to engage isn't pathetic, it's the normal response. It's not pathetic to not be chronically online my dude

I don't doubt op has a stalker, but not commenting everywhere isn't what makes them pathetic. It's all the times when the stalker is engaging that are pathetic, not the times when they aren't

but that wasn't his last reply

And by 2027 it might even function!

Fyi, "clown population" isn't ever going to catch on. Idk how it sounds in your native language but you are not communicating effectively in English.

Seriously. Using "Clown population" in a sentence out loud is like chewing gravel to an English speaker. Your language skills are distracting severely from your message in general, you sound like a buzzword vending machine, but your choice of insult is the most glaringly "doesn't know how English grammar works"

Come on France, those are scrub tier numbers

They're saying that like it's special. 100k household being middle class has been a thing where I live since the 90s. Whoever wrote this article is really old to be this flabbergasted by such an unsurprising number. That's two 50k salaries. Honestly I'm amazed anything less is considered middle class. Shits expensive