3 ms·
here you go again, trying to get us to simply alter your equation to prove that there are so many ways to interpret it! Its not a euphemism. They create conten
by vmception 5y ago
here you go again, trying to get us to simply alter your equation to prove that there are so many ways to interpret it!
Its not a euphemism. They create content because it is text, audio and video, copyrighted by the mere existence of them.
Get it through your thick head: its not a euphemism. Stop trying to make it happen. You want to have a completely separate discussion under the most poorly contrived pretext possible. You have poorly creating a prompt, you poorly accomplished trolling. "Poorly" was a euphemism for "sucked at". Isn't it great how we're so progressive that we can equate your poor trolling with improvisational theatre these days? No, no, don't flag this that's just your subconscious bias to see it that way! Its you and everyone else that misunderstand that I actually love that your non-disciplined hackjob of emotion finally has a platform to be compared with such respected trades!
- akomtu 5y agoYou're fixating on that euphemism word, but it's actually irrelevant. You can even remove "euphemism" from my first statement and its meaning won't change. The key word there is "equates". Besides, I wouldn't lose it over this fairly boring argument. Emotion is a powerful tool when you keep it on leash, but is a source of misery when it leads you.
- vmception 5y agoYes it is a pedantic premise and conversation I agree that its great that there is a normalized inclusive context that allows the benign similarities between philosophers and music to be acknowledged, instead of their less benign differences such as the philosopher’s erotic performances