4 ms·
> it says something vague piggybacking on the idea of freedom This is where you are wrong. It is not based on the idea of freedom. The point of the article,
by stale2002 3y ago
> it says something vague piggybacking on the idea of freedom
This is where you are wrong.
It is not based on the idea of freedom. The point of the article, and the title, has nothing to do with whether someone is legally allowed to make bad art, or has some fundamental human rights, that are being infringed on, related to freedom.
Instead, the purpose of the article, and the title, is that because artists are more in the public eye these days, this extra scrutiny on every single piece of work that they do, has anti-creative effects on artists, and this is bad.
The only person who invented a fictional narrative about freedom, was you. The actual point of the title, and the article, was actually pretty obvious though, if you aren't looking for some gotcha.
> that I couldn't expect.
It was actually very easy to understand the article, if you start from the idea of "This article author isn't completely stupid, let me think for a second as to what such a person might be attempting to say, assuming they do not believe the obviously untrue statement that making bad art is illegal".
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago> Instead, the purpose of the article, and the title, is that because artists are more in the public eye these days, this extra scrutiny on every single piece of work that they do, has anti-creative effects on artists, and this is bad. So, explain what does any of that has to do with “not being allowed” to do something?
- stale2002 3y ago> So, explain what does any of that has to do with “not being allowed" What it has to do with that, is not that artists are literally prevented by the law from making bad art. Instead, it is that artists should be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences from doing so. So, you should interpret the statement as being "artists must be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences for doing so" That is the intent of the title. This is what "allowed" means in this context. It means "it must be possible for them to do this, while not suffering significant negative consequences."
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoAnd since we both agree that it has nothing to do with freedom, why do you think it is justified to talk about it as "being allowed to"?
- stale2002 3y ago> why do you think it is justified Because by "allowed to" what it means is "to be able to do so, without suffering significant negative consequences." So, that would be the definition of "allowed to" that is being referred to, which is both true and justified.
- watwut 3y agoBecause that is how English language works.