exocrinous

It would be more accurate to change need to want. Because soulless corporations want soulless art, but they don't need it. Passionate, meaningful art sells better and it has a prosocial effect. Why do you think Disney calls their theme park engineers "imagineers"? They want passionate people working for them. Disney only cares about money, but passionate workers make more money.

And imagine how fucked society would be if we didn't have stories that made us think. You know those elsagate videos that were controversial a few years ago? I don't want kids to watch shows like that. I want kids to watch shows that teach them valuable lessons. Like Star Trek Prodigy, and The Owl House, and Diego, and all the stuff I liked when I was little that made me think but which I've forgotten. Kids need to think. Adults need to think. We need to have important social lessons reinforced. We need gay, bi, ace, trans, and nonbinary characters on TV because that saves lives.

Could an AI write Scar into The Lion King? Could an AI sneak a blatantly homosexual coded villain into a work by a homophobic company in order to have at least some representation? No. Companies only care about money, they will not program their art AIs to care about ethics. And that's why AI art sucks. Art without ethics is bad.

I appreciate your sentiment, but you're talking like all that isn't optional. You can completely ignore mining, fishing, and conservation if you just run Mother bounties. It's less efficient, but it does get the job done. My point is that you can't use conservation to max Entrati easily, not that you have to.

This is like the fact that Metal Gear Rising Revengeance is about how the American war machine is bad, but one of the bosses you kill is French. One of the themes of the game is that the American military industrial complex literally turns foreigners into war machines, just as it does to foreign nations.

Can you show me a moment of this discussion when I was "obnoxious" from before you insulted me? Cause I wanted to have an actual discussion, and you're saying you do as well, but what you're saying would be hard to believe if you were the first one to throw an insult in place of a discussion.

First off, you're talking nonsense because I'm disabled. Secondly, what you're saying is impossible. Why would I consider moral superiority valid if I didn't care about others? If I didn't care about others, I'd obviously adopt a might makes right philosophy or something abstract like exclusively valuing beauty or truth or intelligence or something. You believe that I think vegans are superior to carnists, and therefore you believe In invested in the idea of moral superiority. Therefore it's impossible, according to your beliefs, that I don't care about others.

You're saying impossible, self-contradictory garbage because you can subconsciously sense that I have NPD and that makes you feel angry and hateful at me. There is no rational basis for your feelings, you just don't like people who are different. That's why what you're saying is completely irrational.

If you pay taxes, does that mean you’re a murderer?

Yes. Citizens of unjust governments have a moral imperative to rebel. That's why I'm a communist. I try to be a murderer in as few ways as possible, and to murder as few people as possible.

I fully believe there shall come a day when fewer people alive know what Coldplay is than remember the lyrics to Fallen Kingdom.

I agree. Burger King is an international business valued at 7 billion dollars with millions upon millions of dollars. I'm a regular person, and broke to boot. I'm never going to be able to do as much for veganism as Burger King, no matter how hard I try.

You're talking about cancer breakthroughs like they're not politics. Cancer breakthroughs are political. The allocation of resources towards particular kinds of research and its payoff is a contentious subject. The breakthrough serves to justify money that has been spent on cancer research. Although critics may say that there's too much focus on cancer research when other illnesses are more widespread and more pressing. And for that matter, should we be putting more effort into limiting carcinogens in the first place instead of researching cures? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Maybe I'd prefer the government subsidize induction stoves so that I don't have to inhale carcinogenic stove fumes and later get my cancer cured in a hospital. That sure sounds like less stress for the patient, and it has the side benefit of improving climate change. Ultimately cancer breakthroughs are a deeply political subject, with a lot of different conflicting opinions on the subject.

Okay how about this. I'll cede my right to complain about allergens, as long as I get to shove my fingers up your nose every time I see you. I mean, you're not literally dying, so it doesn't matter, right?