rscratz
1yr ago
Fair enough, it's your house. I am not sure if you can draw a bright boundary between expressing abhorrent views vs expressing disgust for someone (my disgust for a racist, say, is based on their disgust for others). In my view someone who says they never read female writers is being less civil than someone calling that person a bigot.
Perhaps it's a 'know it when you see it' thing.
rscratz
1yr ago
I admire your attitude, but don't see it quite that way. If he was posting in good faith, then yes, he got recommendations and his ignorance is ameliorated. Hurrah. But if he's not, and was rather hoping to garner emotional reward from the rise and attention he gets out of people, or their sympathetic and confirmatory anti-woman posts, then engaging with him is just entertaining him.
rscratz
1yr ago
I mostly agree with the policy as far as it applies to completely informationally empty comments. I would say mine was one part salt and one part recommendations of really good authors, however, and was actually mostly well intended (I wanted to make the poster think, "I have gone too far, I am grossing this other commenter out, maybe I need to go and get some different experiences, such as reading the authors they mentioned."
I suppose one danger of this no-expressions-of-distaste policy is that it could leave posters unaware that they are causing contempt/disgust reactions in others. Though to be honest, in the case of someone given to generalisations of the level 'I will not read books by women', said posters are probably getting that feedback elsewhere in their lives anyway, even if they are unable to receive and act on it constructively.
rscratz
1yr ago
Oh, I guess I am coming in from Reddit to wag my finger. I did consider fully disguising my feelings beneath a more constructive-sounding comment but I decided it would be dishonest; frankly, I was motivated to respond to the comment by a feeling of strong distaste for the bigotry of the comment, so I wanted that to come through at least a bit. (I am perfectly happy to abandon this forum if such things are taboo'd here? Let me know.)
rscratz
1yr ago
Please stop writing this to what you presumably hope is a sympathetic anti-woman audience who won't laugh you out of the thread, instead go and read Patricia Highsmith, Donna Tartt, Hilary Mantel, Robin Hobb and Gillian Flynn and report back.
rscratz
1yr ago
All true, though I don't think he is a famous chef who would attract big lines exactly – he worked for the famous chef, and is deliberately trying to keep the restaurant low-key until it's ready to bust out. He is also working with less-than-ideal premises and far-less-than-ideal people in order to honour his brother and work through his trauma. But sure, the writers throw more rocks at their main character than is fully realistic...
rscratz
1yr ago
Where did you read that? I had the idea it was that jail should only be for serious or violent offenders which sounded more reasonable.
rscratz
1yr ago
What you could maybe do is prove that prompts such as "in the style of artist X" derive distinctive features from that artist's corpus, and maybe you could likewise build a more complex case showing that the results of Getty-related prompts yield images sharing features of Getty stock pictures. Sounds like a difficult task though and of uncertain legal status even if possible.
Meanwhile I am sure the damage to Getty's business will be immense. Just from my own experience, advertising clients right now are rejecting high-priced images and time-intensive comps left right and centre in favour of AI visuals they can create themselves in seconds, and this is happening even with some quite deep pocketed clients.
Okay, them's the rules. I think it leaves you a bit undefended against bad-faith posters with itches to scratch, though I am all for the experiment.
More options
Context Copy link