mitigatedchaos

slartibartfastibast

westernsocietyfucked100years

hell planet

48-chromosomes

Kill her

mailadreapta

You kind of have to admire that level of pettiness and dedication, actually.

slartibartfastibast

Yeah, no, this is impressive.

mitigatedchaos

A boot stomping on a face to cheers of “YAASSS QUEEN, SLAY!” forever.

Source: cachecoo

More you might like

silver-and-ivory

why is it that there is nearly always someone accusing all my favorite characters of being dudebro neckbeard PUA creeps

Snape? entitled Nice Guy

Kylo Ren? whiny white boy with man tears

hpmor!Harry Potter?

Sheldon Cooper on steroids, an amped-up version of every neckbeard asshole I knew back in high school and college who thought being male and possessing some semblance of intelligence made him fucking king of all he surveyed.

>Sheldon Cooper
>neckbeard

huh I wonder why this mysterious pattern keeps happening

mitigatedchaos

ＳＴＡＴＵＳＷＡＲ

mutant-aesthetic

sneering-imperial-brit:
“ These people actually think that Harry Potter pioneered themes of virtues and morality.
They truly have never read any books that came before it.
”
This has to be some kind of twitter shitpost. Right?
…right?

Source: punished-cel probably politics

the-grey-tribe

Source: notyourexrotic gender politics

esoteric-hoxhaism

Anonymous asked:

perhaps a small part of it might be that unlike, say, the Trojan War or King Arthur, Harry Potter, is, due to copyright-and-canon culture, unimprovable. I mean, fanfiction exists, but it's secondary and can't supersede the earlier versions of the myth

esoteric-hoxhaism answered:

this is bad but you don’t see the read another book people saying it’s bad

mitigatedchaos

Maybe it’s because on the log scale of supervillainy, Trump doesn’t even break a 2.2, and doesn’t even have any supernatural or other enhanced abilities.

I know you’ll dispute this, but simply - Trump isn’t causing the meme wave, he’s just riding it. So that doesn’t count as a supernatural ability, either.

shtpost augmented reality break supervillain

ranma-official

desetoilesdslesyeux

UK : fucks up

America : fucks up

France : rejects Voldemort as president

France : *looks at the camera like on The Office* oh yeah baby

thivus

i never understood fundamentalist Christians hatred of harry potter until u people started trying to describe all geopolitical events using references from that cursed children’s book

Source: desetoilesdslesyeux politics

argumate

if copyright was abolished in Libertarian Paradise, it could be quickly replaced by an equivalent contractual scheme whereby major conglomerates require you to enter into an agreement before accessing their products, with penalties for breaking the agreement.

anyone who wished to access Star Wars, Pokemon, Harry Potter, or any other popular franchise would need to agree to copyright or find someone willing to break it, and experience suggests that most people would go along with it.

shieldfoss

Depends.

To start with, I will say that I agree with the general gist of your post. However, I suspect we would still end up with a licensing scheme much different from current IP law.

Imagine going into a store to buy a CD with software (I know, so nineties, I work with what I know) and at the cashier, before paying, you’re handed a 200-page contract (That is, the EULA plus all currently applicable IP law) that you must (a) read and (b) agree to before they will take your money.

A couple of things would happen

1) Some people would not purchase the software

2) Others would purchase equivalent but license-free software from your competition

3) In an effort to capture some of that market, publishers would create an extremely streamlined contract; the main difference - looking at what has happened in other fields - would generally be that a lot of cruft would get cut out.

3A) The hard-to-enforce cruft (E.g. “not allowed to resell”) would be cut out because: If the state subsidizes your enforcement you might as well have as many terms as possible and put the burden on the customer - they cannot really go to a competitor because that competitor will have the same burdens because it is law. If you have to pay for your own enforcement, you might as well cut it out - the contract will be less confusing to your customer and that might give you a leg up over the competition.

3B) The hard-to-understand cruft would also be cut. E.g. “Not allowed to modify this software” You see this in e.g. the CC license - in an effort to make people use that license, it is very easy to understand. A private court of arbitration could create an equivalent Easy To Understand IP Contract, a service they do not provide today because they’re in direct competition with the government enforcement monopoly.

You’d end up with licenses that individual people could make educated decisions about. You’re absolutely right that people would still agree to these contracts, but I expect the contracts to be much better. And it is easier to explain to the customer “you’re not allowed to sell or give away copies of this because we needs to get paid” than “you aree allowed to create copies of this for backup purposes only unless we have used copy-protection, unless that copy protection is easily automatically circumvented by standard software in which case it doesn’t count” which is the current state.

argumate

I expect that a proliferation of licenses would quickly congeal together into a single conglomerate, which you could opt into once via an easy process.

Then you really would just walk into the store, pay your money, and walk out.

People negotiating hundreds of little contracts on an individual basis seems much less likely than the convenience of a standardised option, much in the same way as you would expect people to standardise on a small number of currencies and other common standards.

mitigatedchaos

Honestly, I find ShieldFoss’s response here to be a bit naive.

If all the record companies and movie studios get together (and it makes sense for them to do so), they can make their standard contract include those supposedly-hard-to-enforce clauses, and their standard contract will be harsher than real IP law.

They simply setup the situation such that any breach which would cause the copyrighted item to escape the containment field means someone violated the contract, and pursue people the few who didn’t and who did not immediately turn over who was responsible under the contract for some kind of conspiracy.

They don’t need to enforce it perfectly, just enough to scare people, and they can flat-out specify the prices in ways that courts will not dispute.

“This contract says you agreed to pay a $1,000 fee for every song you copied,” and oh hey, it’s civil court, so the standard of evidence is still not “beyond reasonable doubt”.

And since everyone will have to sign the contract to participate, it doesn’t really matter if a few copyright freegans on the edges of society don’t.

So no, the contracts will not be much better. In fact, they will be worse.

politics

Sex Shaming & Status War

The road to ending “slut shaming” of women probably goes through the town of “destroy the norm of giving men status for being sexually successful, and of treating male virgins as disgusting losers”.

I say this because I think some of the desire to enforce sex norms on women relates to the nature of sexual access as a status good for men.

If a low-partner man gets into a relationship with a high-partner woman, he is considered lower status for it, under multiple frameworks. Under a “promiscuous women are low-value” framework, it lowers his value by suggesting he had to ‘settle’ for a woman other men could extract sex from but didn’t consider worthy of commitment. Under a “anyone having a high partner count means they are high-value” framework, it suggests that the woman is higher value than he is (which is risky if men are judged more on status than women are), and that the way for him to raise his value is to have lots of meaningless sex with lots of people.

If a low-partner man and a high-partner man are in the same community, the low-partner man is lower status than the high-partner man is, since masculinity is contingent on success, and success with women is counted as one category of success. (In fact, one of the socially damaging aspects of virginity / lower partner count is that it is considered “unmasculine”.)

This creates a strong motivation for status war. If low-partner men can attack promiscuity in women, they can create a situation where women have partner counts closer to their own. Failing that, they can lower the status of such women so that they’re at least not higher status than themselves.

Unless their sexual success is decoupled from their social status, men will always have a motivation to wage status war through “slut shaming”.

The way to alter the status of high-partner men is not through straight men themselves, since their value in this respect is conferred by women. (Low-partner men are already low status, so they have less social power to alter these very norms.) It’s through the actions of women.

One way to do this is for women to start treating promiscuous men the way promiscuous women were treated in the past. If women started treating high-partner men like hot potatoes that are disgusting, low-status (like male virgins are now), and aren’t worthy of sex (not just commitment, as getting a woman to commit isn’t considered special), it would radically alter the status dynamic in male communities.

Another possibility is if commitment from women somehow became more difficult to get, and thus was considered special and more valuable than sex, but it’s unclear under what conditions this would emerge as a stable equilibrium. Current conditions don’t favor it or any obvious paths to it. The traditional norm is the opposite - women trade sex to get commitment. If this could be changed, it would increase the status of a man the woman finally ‘settled’ for. (It appears to be true in the opposite direction currently.)

Another way to do it is to treat low-partner and high-partner men the same in a very noticeable way so that men will start internalizing that being high-partner isn’t the same as getting the “approval from women” they need to prove their masculinity and raise their status. This doesn’t mean in fields unrelated to sex. The status comes from sex, so they have to be treated as equally sexually desirable, perhaps even the virgins.

All of these courses of action have their own problems. Depending on the balance of nature vs nurture, some or all of them may not even be feasible. They may do secondary damage. They may just not be enjoyable to a lot of people.

gender politics flagpost