6 ms·

Why does someone have to demarcate exactly where "the line" is to make a judgement on this situation? You can simply ask yourself "do I want to live in a world

• hyperhello 3y ago
  Many people believe that banning disliked things is not what laws are for. If it was you’d see the powerful banning everything they didn’t like, making the law tyranny, and the powerless banning everything they didn’t like, and you get the French Revolution.
  • pradn 3y ago
    This is again "slippery slope" thinking. Just because it's possible to go to an extreme - and this is possible in everything humans do - that doesn't mean we don't go somewhere along the line. We have laws to ban poisons from food, but we don't ban junk food altogether. We have laws to cap the speed limit, but not at 30mph on a highway - etc etc. We pick a spot on the spectrum.
  • interroboink 3y ago
    > Many people believe that banning disliked things is not what laws are for Surely some laws are for exactly that? Like: murder, rape, theft, etc? I'm taking your statement a bit out of context, and I don't have much involvement in this overall issue being discussed, but that statement on its own seems pretty off to me.
    • LoganDark 3y ago
      Those things being disliked doesn't mean a law shouldn't be made about them. They are much worse than merely being disliked, which is why there are laws.
      • interroboink 3y ago
        I feel like that just moves the goalposts. Instead of deciding what should be law or not, now we are deciding what constitutes "mere dislike" vs "something worse." It's ultimately the same issue, no?
        • LoganDark 3y ago
          I once fell and hit my head, sliced it right open. It was traumatic. Not any of the aftermath like having to go to the hospital or so on. Just my head being hit. I could have died. I could have died. It took me days to process this. There was something in my head for days preventing me from thinking properly, from feeling emotions properly. There was no concussion, no actual cranial damage. It was all psychological trauma. Imagine if it wasn't an isolated event but if you knew there's someone out to get you, and who continues to be a risk to your well-being. Say, domestic abuse. SA. Something like that. Try saying there's nowhere to draw the line between that and "mere dislike". No one should have to suffer that. That's why there are laws against things like rape and murder.
          • interroboink 3y ago
            I didn't mean to say there's nowhere to draw a line. I meant to say that the question of where to draw the line is open to discussion, in both cases. To be honest, I don't entirely understand your example, since in the first case you're talking about an accident, and we can't exactly pass a law saying "accidents are not allowed." But in the second case, you can pass a law against SA and such. So in my mind, the difference there is in realistic enforcement options, not on the merits themselves. If we could somehow magically pass a meaningful law against accidents, then maybe we'd consider it. Accidents are things that just about everybody dislikes, after all. Of course, we can't meaningfully make that law, but only for mere technical reasons, not because it's undesirable. In that imagined world, I could see people saying: "no one should have to suffer accidents" and using that as rationale for supporting the law. You may not agree with them, and I may not either. But that was my point — where to draw the line is up for discussion.
  • krisoft 3y ago
    > it was you’d see the powerful banning everything they didn’t like As far as I can see they are a good way to there, so yes? To the extent possible the powerfull is banning or attempting to ban everythjng they don’t like. > the powerless banning everything they didn’t like If the powerless bans everything they didn’t like then they are not powerless. That is the definition of power.
• dylan604 3y ago
  > A film takes hundreds of people to create - how does it feel for them to just have years of their lives fall into the void? Very few of those hundreds of people care about the project. Maybe the producer and/or director cares, and maybe the writer. There's a funny shirt that crew members wear with the phrase "I'm just crew. I don't have to know what it's about" that sums up exactly how much they care. Even the actors don't care, and a lot will admit they never even see the finished project. Essentially, the majority of people are just hired hands.
  • cwkoss 3y ago
    I think you're highlighting the exceptions to ignore the rule
  • Applejinx 3y ago
    Hoo boy, is this a wild take. With an attitude like that you will get your lunch eaten so fast, by people who are suffering losses of various sorts in order to get to make their creation their way, the way it's supposed to be made. That's universal. I don't care whether it's zombie movies or pop music or any sort of thing you think hollow and worthless. I don't know what industry you're in (tech?) but in the glamour professions where people compete savagely to get to where they're not losing money at the game, those 'hired hands' may be scornful of the director, but it's because they've got their own script that's not being picked up, and their suggestions aren't being followed. And the actor refuses to see the final film because he will lose his mind watching every little fumble of a line, imagining how he should have done it. Surviving this is the inner game of these creative industries. The times when a crew wears 'I'm just crew and don't care about anything' are sarcasm, protest against a fanatical director who is making them depart from their usual workmanlike habits that they think are how you make a great film that is perfectly fine. They're not advocating for bad so much as they're insisting that they're already the apex of good, that the director is insane and unreasonable. (which can be part of the job description, for advancing the state of the art…) Nobody who is content to be a hired hand stays in such an industry. You can make more pumping gas, half the time.
    • dylan604 3y ago
• onionisafruit 3y ago
  Yes I want to live in a world where this happens. It’s a wonderful world even if this particular aspect isn’t great.
  • pradn 3y ago
    I dig your optimism!
  • Applejinx 3y ago
    How about a world that is awesome and also doesn't pay off corporations to destroy the best work of irreplaceable, dedicated humans? In all seriousness, why pay them to do that? What possible benefit is there of bribing the corporation to be so wasteful and irresponsible? If the thing is made, what possible justification can there be for this wanton entropy? Why do that, ever? Signs (that the coyote holds up as the anvil's shadow covers him) indicate that lots of people would enjoy the work, that lots of other people have done. What possible excuse can there ever be for doing all that and then un-making it? It's nihilistic, madness.
• persnickety 3y ago
  In a world where "this" means what exactly? That's what the line is for.
• s1artibartfast 3y ago
  > You can simply ask yourself "do I want to live in a world where this happens" - and any decent person would say "no". I think any decent person would say yes. I'm sure it is a bummer for those people, but they were paid to do a job, and don't own the film.
  • TuringTest 3y ago
    > I'm sure it is a bummer for those people, but they were paid to do a job, and don't own the film That's a really sad viewpoint, believing that being paid to do a job is the only thing that matters, and that it compensates everything about what that job means and how it impacts the world. It's the same thinking justifying "if I don't do this terrible thing at work, someone else will do it for the same money", which is anything but decent. There's such thing as pride in what one does; double so in artistic endeavours, where the only value is in being seen by spectators.
• yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > A film takes hundreds of people to create - how does it feel for them to just have years of their lives fall into the void? Were they not paid for their labor? It might not feel great, but I struggle to see a moral problem; if a project or even whole company I used to work on/at goes under I might have feelings about it but in the end I shrug and move on (and this is not a hypothetical for me).
• nox101 3y ago
  Should this apply to everything? Someone buys a cupcake. Instead of eating it they throw it away. Is the person that made the cupcake owed something more than the $ they already got for it because the cupcake was not eaten and so their time fell into the void? How about all the people that built a house or car that a movie production destroys? (less often now that everything is CGI). Also, if the movie sucks, it often reflects badly on all of those people. They try to get work on a new movie, people look at the old movie, see it sucks, don't hire them.
  • CJefferson 3y ago
    No, but the person buying the cupcake shouldn't be allowed to count it as a loss for their taxes if they made a plan to throw the cupcake into the void when they could have easily sold it.
  • troupo 3y ago
    > Someone buys a cupcake. In this case someone made a cupcake. Instead of selling it to potential customers, they destroy the cupcake and claim it was a tax-deductible expense > Also, if the movie sucks, it often reflects badly on all of those people. They try to get work on a new movie, people look at the old movie, see it sucks, don't hire them. So why are so many bad movies released then?
    • krisoft 3y ago
      > Instead of selling it to potential customers, they destroy the cupcake and claim it was a tax-deductible expense But isn’t that thing actually common practice? If a bakery accidentaly ruins a batch of cupcakes they toss them to the bin. And of course the ingredients and labour involved in those cupcakes will count as an expense. They had costs (some flour, some eggs, some employee time) and they had zero income from those burnt cupcakes (or even worse, costs associated with cleanup and disposal!). When you put it this way it sounds quite ordinary. Do you think I should take away some different message from your analogy?
      • troupo 3y ago