Submit Your
Comedy
List
The deadline for the Top Comedies of All Time list is coming up! Submit your ballot now, or read about it here
The Shoutbox
Reading her tweets though...she does seem to be sporting the fake feminist outfit pretty nicely...see what happens when celebrities get called out and bullied on twitter?!
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by CringeFest
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by John McClane
Itís all about royalties. These companies donít want to pay a rapist. Can you blame them? But√Ę‚ā¨¬¶theyíll gladly pay him if someone samples his work. Iím looking at you, Drake

I donít disagree that the rules/laws are far from being well thought through/sophisticated, but still my view is that their personal lives/transgressions are one thing and rules about paying people for their work are quite separate. Itís his stuff and he deserves to get paid for it whatever the circumstances imo. Otherwise further down the line thereís potential to prevent people accused of allegedly doing/thinking/saying something politically incorrect (Iím looking at you, J. K. Rowling) being prevented from making money off their work and to me thatís a terrifying outcome.
while i partially agree with you, i don't find such compartmentalization to be realistic: whats done is never undone, and artists can't hide behind their art when what they do has far-reaching consequences.

im a little confused by your remark about JK, but i don't anything she said on twitter demands much of a response...some people will always have fairly normative attitudes about things because were all kinda lazy at the end of the day.
Yeah, understood‚Ķ my J. K. Rowling reference wasnít at all nuanced and it was, yes, lazy. I meant that she (or anyone in her position) could be penalised for her recent remarks by being no-platformed as could other creators for doing all sorts of things, less grave than R. Kellyís transgressions, and stop receiving royalties for her work which will however continue sustaining other people such as the HP actors. I donít find that to be a reasonable and desirable outcome. The compartmentalisation is certainly nearly impossible to achieve, but to me thatís still worth striving for.
just to be clear, i was saying that jk's attitudes about gender are fairly lazy, but i dont consider her to be a "TERF" or a hater of transexuals.
I don't see why people get so upset about those outed as "transaphobes", if the bar is set this low for villifying people then we're all basically screwed.
It's all about class: Ya either got a full glass or ya selling that ass!
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
I meant that she (or anyone in her position) could be penalised for her recent remarks by being no-platformed.
She holds creative rights to a billion dollar empire. Ain't no distribution company gonna say no to that kind of power. She's a paper pusher now, which makes her crying about sex all the more laughable. She's got more power than most men and she acts like she's being victimized most of the time.

Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Itís his stuff and he deserves to get paid for it whatever the circumstances imo.
It's the distribution that's the issue. There is no law or right that says a company HAS to distribute an artist's work. That's just as much an infringement upon their rights. When an artist submits work they enter into an agreement that stipulates the distribution company can remove it at any time for any reason. And very few artists are rich enough to distribute their own stuff independently. Not if you want to reach millions and billions of people that is.
Originally Posted by CringeFest
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by John McClane
Itís all about royalties. These companies donít want to pay a rapist. Can you blame them? But‚Ķtheyíll gladly pay him if someone samples his work. Iím looking at you, Drake

I donít disagree that the rules/laws are far from being well thought through/sophisticated, but still my view is that their personal lives/transgressions are one thing and rules about paying people for their work are quite separate. Itís his stuff and he deserves to get paid for it whatever the circumstances imo. Otherwise further down the line thereís potential to prevent people accused of allegedly doing/thinking/saying something politically incorrect (Iím looking at you, J. K. Rowling) being prevented from making money off their work and to me thatís a terrifying outcome.
while i partially agree with you, i don't find such compartmentalization to be realistic: whats done is never undone, and artists can't hide behind their art when what they do has far-reaching consequences.

im a little confused by your remark about JK, but i don't anything she said on twitter demands much of a response...some people will always have fairly normative attitudes about things because were all kinda lazy at the end of the day.
Yeah, understoodÖ my J. K. Rowling reference wasnít at all nuanced and it was, yes, lazy. I meant that she (or anyone in her position) could be penalised for her recent remarks by being no-platformed as could other creators for doing all sorts of things, less grave than R. Kellyís transgressions, and stop receiving royalties for her work which will however continue sustaining other people such as the HP actors. I donít find that to be a reasonable and desirable outcome. The compartmentalisation is certainly nearly impossible to achieve, but to me thatís still worth striving for.
I just buried my dog this morning and sprained my pinky, RIP dog and blessings to pinky.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Originally Posted by ynwtf
I never partially agree with anyone.
ALL OR NOTHIN' BABY. NUANCE IS FOR NERDZ.
agreed, we've got the patent.
I got u, bro.
Fam.
Originally Posted by ynwtf
I never partially agree with anyone.
ALL OR NOTHIN' BABY. NUANCE IS FOR NERDZ.