|
I don't think you're really the person to be dictating why people feel anything, given that you also spent multiple posts claiming anti-semitic tropes don't matter anymore. edit: repeatedly going "people only disagree with me because they have bad brain relationships with media" is obviously going to get people mad at you. There is no novel psychological element at play. Terrible Opinions fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Aug 31, 2021 |
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
moths posted:In that case, the Robocop troupe would be parasitic. They're leaning on the Robocop franchise for its premade audience - fans would check it out because it's not some weird original play. Do you not think that the same happens with Shakespeare? With Daniel Radcliffe’s performance in Harry Potter movies? My point is that “does not own the IP” isn’t a sufficient distinction, and doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a parasitic activity. The position you took—the argument you presented, if you will—asserted on that basis and I don’t think it’s sufficient definition. “Not owning the IP” means more than just maybe being enjoined from performing a work (you can have permission to use the work without owning it, as I imagine that the actual Robocop musical secured). For one thing, it also means that value that accrues to the IP through one’s performance or use may be to the benefit of the owner and not, or not as much, to the performer. Performance without ownership of underlying IP can be symbiotic instead of parasitic, I believe, and I think that many of these fan works are such a case. The “host” is not caused harm, as it would be by a parasite, but rather benefits from the relationship. (Arch was a parasitic case, and was dealt with explicitly because of that.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I don't think you're really the person to be dictating why people feel anything, given that you also spent multiple posts claiming anti-semitic tropes don't matter anymore. Pretty loving sure the element here is your posting grudge. E: dredging up a reductionist mischaracterization in response to a thoroughly unrelated issue, I mean. Just put me on ignore if I'm triggering this kind of response just by existing. moths fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Aug 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
For what it’s worth, I have never watched any of these WH/GW creators and don’t play the related games. I don’t even have a para-para-parasocial relationship with the parties. I just think the line of reasoning is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
There's an accepted definition of "IP squatting" and it's the precise opposite of what's being discussed: Someone who owns an IP to extract value from it, but doesn't create content for it themselves. The current thread title is a reference to an IP squatting fiasco!Tuxedo Catfish posted:the only conclusion i've drawn about monetized fan projects (or even non-monetized ones) is that clearly you should do it completely underground. stop trying to operate within the confines of a law that is absurd and hostile to you anyways and just embrace being bootleggers
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
moths posted:Pretty loving sure the element here is your posting grudge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Honestly it'd be nice to see a lot of the 'esoteric lore analysis' applied to actually creating work instead of wikidiving through well known IPs but then i guess people really want their IP stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Performance without ownership of underlying IP can be symbiotic instead of parasitic, I believe, and I think that many of these fan works are such a case. The “host” is not caused harm, as it would be by a parasite, but rather benefits from the relationship. (Arch was a parasitic case, and was dealt with explicitly because of that.) That's probably true, and I think it's generally a better description of the TTS / GW relationship. It's completely impossible to put into legal terms though. No lawyer would go near "be cool and don't make us look bad and we'll leave you alone," and it's why I think TTS made it through the shutdown notices unscathed. TTS panicked and maybe didn't realize that they were in an unspoken agreement. They were swimming in GW's "NO SWIMMING" pond, without realizing that the sign didn't actually apply to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:No it's not by existing it's by pretending to be too stupid to realize calling people parasites has an obvious moral judgment. Do you think fleas belong in hell for being fleas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Honestly it'd be nice to see a lot of the 'esoteric lore analysis' applied to actually creating work instead of wikidiving through well known IPs but then i guess people really want their IP stuff. That leads you to SCP and then it all being its own bag of IP ownership worms. We’re all hosed any which way. Welcome to late-stage capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:04
|
|
|
moths posted:Do you think fleas belong in hell for being fleas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
The relationship for a vast majority of the things we’re discussing isn’t parasitic or mutualistic, it’s commensal. The existence or non existence of these fan works is neither harmful or beneficial to corporations in any scale that matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
moths posted:Do you think fleas belong in hell for being fleas? Do you go out of your way to try and make yourself as easily misunderstood and likely to piss people off as possible, or are you just really bad at communication?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
moths posted:Do you think fleas belong in hell for being fleas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Is this an act or do you really not understand that comparing humans to fleas is itself obviously condemnatory? I'm saying there's nothing immoral about parasitism, it's a description of the interaction of two companies. It's a defense of parasitism. Nobody is calling any person fleas except you. Mors Rattus posted:Do you go out of your way to try and make yourself as easily misunderstood and likely to piss people off as possible, or are you just really bad at communication? Probably the latter. Almost certainly the latter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
To the overwhelming majority of all people calling another human being a parasite is an condemnation of them, and your defense of this by comparing them to fleas is just digging the problem further. I don't know how you could miss this just by living and conversing with other human beings in English.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
I'm explicitly not calling people fleas. I'm using them as an example of parasites, and trying to express that they're innocent. Fleas are innocent. The relationship between companies can be parasitic, and that's not a moral or values judgment. Do you think I believe fleas deserve hell? It's an absurd idea, like saying a flashlight should see jail time for stealing energy from its battery. We're talking about a semi-abstracted system here, and you're trying to pile baggage onto it in a way to anthropomorphize the companies involved as people. That's extremely consistent with the para-social branding both parties thrive on, but I'm taking your word on it that you're immune to advertising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
moths posted:I'm explicitly not calling people fleas. I'm using them as an example of parasites, and trying to express that they're innocent. Fleas are innocent. Yes, a company can hire one funny guy to try and distract from the lovely things the other 2,000 people in the company are doing, because our monkey brains can't comprehend interacting with more than one person at a time. This does not mean the other 2,000 people in the company are doing those lovely things as mechanical actions or instinctive responses. They are doing them as human beings choosing to do their lovely things with just as much moral agency as the funny guy who runs the twitter account doing funny guy things. They are still people, and thus there is sufficient grounds to call a company's actions moral or immoral.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
You might try using the word "contingent" rather than "parasitic"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
If it is a completely value neutral word, as you claim, why did you feel the need to clarify it from another value neutral word (adjacent)? Why did you add the word parasitic to a sentence that made complete sense without it? It served no other purpose than voicing your disapproval of the products.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I think your argument here is at the least incomplete. As an amateur production I was part of found to its dismay, if you start making things too professional-looking, the playwright's estate will come down on you like a ton of bricks and good luck recouping even your prior expenses, much less invest in a nicer sound system or whatever. That's not an issue with Shakespeare because his work is in the public domain, so the payment required to the "estate" is zero. I do agree that "parasitic" is a weird term to use. I'd go further than saying that GW depends on its fans - its started out as fan work, in an environment built up by other fans of science fiction and fantasy gaming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
moths posted:I'm explicitly not calling people fleas. I'm using them as an example of parasites, and trying to express that they're innocent. Fleas are innocent. You are being told that you are failing to communicate your point. Your word choice implied things you claim not to be intending. You can 1) restate your argument without the words that have caused what I will charitably call confusion 2) wander away all bemused at our stupidity 3) continue to double down Do note that picking 3 will increase the likelihood that others will think that you're crazy or being disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
Ego Trip posted:You can I feel like I already did this one, but I'm pretty bad at posting as everyone's seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Plays are probably the worst analogy for this possible since there’s a whole industry based around acquiring and distributing the rights to perform them. That’s how playwrights make money. It’s a case where there are literal catalogues of scripts with ads promoting them and a whole nine yards screaming, “Please! Use my IP for this negotiated fee! I already have contracts!” Playwrights in general can’t make poo poo by themselves because they don’t have a whole theater company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
moths posted:I feel like I already did this one, but I'm pretty bad at posting as everyone's seen. You kept using exactly the same words people told you were insulting, is kind of the thing. Have you considered learning to post better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
moths posted:I feel like I already did this one, but I'm pretty bad at posting as everyone's seen. What you did seemed to me to be more “I didn’t mean it that was and you shouldn’t have felt that way” than “I didn’t make myself clear, let me restate” but I certainly sympathize with the situation you’ve constructed for yourself in this arc of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Plays are probably the worst analogy for this possible Is that a dare?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Is that a dare? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What you did seemed to me to be more “I didn’t mean it that was and you shouldn’t have felt that way” than “I didn’t make myself clear, let me restate” but I certainly sympathize with the situation you’ve constructed for yourself in this arc of the thread. It's frustrating to have your word choice overshadow your ideas. I'd much rather be discussing TG industry in the TG industry thread, but that's not always how posting culture shakes out. I do take some consolation for not going defensively hostile when the thread told me I'm bad, or jumping at some obvious bait. I don't think I'm a skilled poster but I'm not bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Gosh these sure are some reports. Temporarily closing the thread while I sort through this nonsense. e. OK. I contributed to this thread of conversation so I feel obliged to do more than just hand out probes. First: I used the term "parasocial" because I mistakenly believed it was just a combination of the prefix "para-", meaning aside, along with, closely related, and "social" which you understand. I did not realize it was a reference to the word parasite. I'm sorry if using that term insulted anyone, that was not my intention. It is good when discussing things to use terminology that doesn't insult participants in the conversation. Let us attempt to move forward in that spirit. Thanks. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Aug 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Wooaaahhh the term "para-social" has nothing to do with parasitism. Who thinks it does?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
You literally have the correct etymology of parasocial in your post getting the etymology wrong. People are upset at the word parasite because the actual word parasite was used, not because of another term being secretly bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
moths posted:It's frustrating to have your word choice overshadow your ideas. I feel you, but remember, the only way you can convey those ideas is through the words you choose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Moths if you notice that people are taking your arguments the wrong way because of the wording, you're a heck of a lot better off just going, "Oh, sorry, I meant this to be neutral and didn't really think about there being unintended connotations, what would a better word be?" rather than trying to convince people that "no, really, this is a totally neutral term to use and you should engage with the spirit of the argument!" because it's just not possible for most people to completely disengage emotional impressions like that. If you want to be understood, you need to figure out how to meet people where they're at, not get annoyed because they're not coming to where you are. Also it's really weird to talk about copyrighted properties vs public domain in terms of fanwork. There is no inherent artistic difference, the whole thing is purely a legal construct, and has only existed for a tiny fraction of human existence. Our brains did not develop to discern between the two, and for the majority of our time making artwork, we have freely used whatever was already in our cultures, adapting and remixing and taking elements automatically. That is how art works, and it's super unnatural to expect art to be 100% original. People making fanwork are acting completely naturally, and it's neither a good nor a bad thing if they're using existing works as a jumping off point instead of coming up with something new. Hell, all of Shakespeare's plays were working from preexisting stories. Leperflesh posted:First: I used the term "parasocial" because I mistakenly believed it was just a combination of the prefix "para-", meaning aside, along with, closely related, and "social" which you understand. I did not realize it was a reference to the word parasite. I'm sorry if using that term insulted anyone, that was not my intention. That's what parasocial means. It has no relationship with the word parasite. e:f,b
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:You literally have the correct etymology of parasocial in your post getting the etymology wrong. What? They’re “connected” in the sense of both using the same prefix, but that’s it. It’s etymologically spurious at best because the part they share is the same ; “para-“ is the common bit and it’s just doing what it always does in like paranormal or paraphrase or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:What? Yeah I’m saying Leperflesh said something dumb. The word parasocial has nothing to do with people taking issue with the word parasite being used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Someone conflating the terms would explain some of the recent abrasiveness. I don't think LF would spontaneously come to the wrong conclusion though, which is why I asked who thinks that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Yeah I’m saying Leperflesh said something dumb. The word parasocial has nothing to do with people taking issue with the word parasite being used. O word. I missed an edit and I think I got confused. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
moths posted:Someone conflating the terms would explain some of the recent abrasiveness. Well, no, the abrasiveness was you continuing to use the term "parasite" and pretending that it's not insulting to call people parasites. It had nothing to do with "parasocial". There was an unrelated argument about how old "parasocial" is as a term and how comparable current parasocial relationships are to ones prevalent when the term was first defined, historically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
moths posted:Someone conflating the terms would explain some of the recent abrasiveness. No that's because you come off like a judgemental weirdo
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 18:48
|
|