4 ms·

But I'm telling you, for the third time now, that money is excluded from the argument I am making. Yet you keep dragging it back to the same spot again. Are you

But I'm telling you, for the third time now, that money is excluded from the argument I am making. Yet you keep dragging it back to the same spot again. Are you entrenched in that you are not able to see the world in any other way than through money? Yes, money is important. Now, can you forget that? Put it aside and try to move on to a higher level of thought? ("No" is a perfectly acceptable answer that would satisfy my genuine curiosity)

dotnet00 4y ago
The point he's making is that you can't just say "money is excluded from the argument I'm making" and still be anywhere relevant to reality. People dislike copying because for most people it's an attack on their income, either by taking their recognition (eg copying "free" images from a photographer) or by actually taking their income (eg copying paid art). If you exclude financial arguments you exclude the vast majority of people who share their work. To bring this around to code, most popular licenses allow copying someone's code with proper attribution, so clearly copying is okay as long as you don't take recognition from a work that isn't profit motivated.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  I think "No" would have saved you many words. Nonetheless I am disappointed that there appears not a single voice amongst you who can conceive matters of creation outside a framework of money, income, profit, reward, theft, entitlement, licenses, capitalism, communism.... they really have you where they want you.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    This website used to be called Startup News. It probably still should be.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      Or did the idea of what a "start-up" is mature to incorporate bigger ideas about value?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Can't you just engage with their argument? It seems pretty obvious to most people, that some artists would be unable to produce certain works of art, if they did not have the funding to pay their bills. Why are you unable to understand this? Just engage with the argument.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      > Can't you just engage with their argument? No. Because it is not an agument, it's a diversion, and an attempt to drag a much more complex and interesting debate into the long grass. > It seems pretty obvious to most people, that some artists would be unable to produce certain works of art, if they did not have the funding to pay their bills. You're correct. It is obvious. Indeed it's so boringly self-evident it precludes discussion. It's dull, maudlin, perennial and a pointless spiral down into lamentation of broken political and social systems that are utterly beneath the level at which I wish to engage. Are you familiar with the expression "Never argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"? That. > Why are you unable to understand this? I understand it perfectly. I'm just not interested in it. > Just engage with the argument. Your entitled indignation that I refuse to be dragged into the mud amuses me.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > You're correct. It is obvious. So then yes, you agree with everyone else completely, that many artists would be unable to produce certain art, if they were unable to make a living from it. Great, you agree with everyone else entirely. Not sure why you would be so upset with everyone if you simply agree with everyone's main point, 100%. > that I refuse to be dragged You don't have to be dragged anywhere if you simply agree with the point, that you called obvious, which is that many artists could not produce work if they could not live off of it. This doesn't have to be an argument. You just agree with them, and you called it obvious.
        nonrandomstring 4y ago
        Unfortunately this HN forum is not conducive to long exchanges. (I probably won't read further replies as they slip off the bottom of my workflow here). I appreciate your reply and willingness to have a good banter. Our difference is that "artists" are driven by complex psychological and spiritual motives, way beyond money, which is a necessary but insufficient component of the artistic life. Some commenters don't like it when I say you're an accomplished craftsman but not a "real" artist if your preoccupation is with money. I can understand why that hurts, especially if one is besieged by brutal, empty capitalism and looming AI predating on your soul. But I stand by this. And most of Art-history and the philosophy of art bears me out. And my point is that the artist who sacrifices (prostitutes) themselves on that altar of anomie and alienation is an accomplice in their misery - however strong the need to "put bread on the table". We are more than this.

dotnet00 4y ago

The point he's making is that you can't just say "money is excluded from the argument I'm making" and still be anywhere relevant to reality. People dislike copying because for most people it's an attack on their income, either by taking their recognition (eg copying "free" images from a photographer) or by actually taking their income (eg copying paid art). If you exclude financial arguments you exclude the vast majority of people who share their work. To bring this around to code, most popular licenses allow copying someone's code with proper attribution, so clearly copying is okay as long as you don't take recognition from a work that isn't profit motivated.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
I think "No" would have saved you many words. Nonetheless I am disappointed that there appears not a single voice amongst you who can conceive matters of creation outside a framework of money, income, profit, reward, theft, entitlement, licenses, capitalism, communism.... they really have you where they want you.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  This website used to be called Startup News. It probably still should be.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Or did the idea of what a "start-up" is mature to incorporate bigger ideas about value?
- stale2002 4y ago
  Can't you just engage with their argument? It seems pretty obvious to most people, that some artists would be unable to produce certain works of art, if they did not have the funding to pay their bills. Why are you unable to understand this? Just engage with the argument.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > Can't you just engage with their argument? No. Because it is not an agument, it's a diversion, and an attempt to drag a much more complex and interesting debate into the long grass. > It seems pretty obvious to most people, that some artists would be unable to produce certain works of art, if they did not have the funding to pay their bills. You're correct. It is obvious. Indeed it's so boringly self-evident it precludes discussion. It's dull, maudlin, perennial and a pointless spiral down into lamentation of broken political and social systems that are utterly beneath the level at which I wish to engage. Are you familiar with the expression "Never argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"? That. > Why are you unable to understand this? I understand it perfectly. I'm just not interested in it. > Just engage with the argument. Your entitled indignation that I refuse to be dragged into the mud amuses me.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > You're correct. It is obvious. So then yes, you agree with everyone else completely, that many artists would be unable to produce certain art, if they were unable to make a living from it. Great, you agree with everyone else entirely. Not sure why you would be so upset with everyone if you simply agree with everyone's main point, 100%. > that I refuse to be dragged You don't have to be dragged anywhere if you simply agree with the point, that you called obvious, which is that many artists could not produce work if they could not live off of it. This doesn't have to be an argument. You just agree with them, and you called it obvious.
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
        Unfortunately this HN forum is not conducive to long exchanges. (I probably won't read further replies as they slip off the bottom of my workflow here). I appreciate your reply and willingness to have a good banter. Our difference is that "artists" are driven by complex psychological and spiritual motives, way beyond money, which is a necessary but insufficient component of the artistic life. Some commenters don't like it when I say you're an accomplished craftsman but not a "real" artist if your preoccupation is with money. I can understand why that hurts, especially if one is besieged by brutal, empty capitalism and looming AI predating on your soul. But I stand by this. And most of Art-history and the philosophy of art bears me out. And my point is that the artist who sacrifices (prostitutes) themselves on that altar of anomie and alienation is an accomplice in their misery - however strong the need to "put bread on the table". We are more than this.