forum Debate. Debate. Debate.

Started March 14, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

'Cept it can and is eaten dry, making it not a "liquid dish."

But you can also eat the soup ingredients dry. Not necessarily in the state they go into the soup, but if your soup has veggies and roast chickens, you can eat those apart from it.

Then show me you drinking chicken stock and eating straight onions

Honestly I wouldn't think twice about doing that.

Is piracy as bad as stealing?

I don't see why not

But like, it’s not like you're taking whatever you pirate away from others. Like imagine someone steals your car but it’s still there in the morning

You are taking away the possibility of profit.

And that profit is expected and required for the pirated product just like any other physical product.

You are taking away the possibility of profit.

Depends on what it is

What?

Oh I see. But what exemptions are you thinking of?

Bootlegs in particular don't actually take away any profits from musicals. They do the opposite. They raise awareness and excitement around shows and despite what the people working on the show like to think, they don't actually hurt ticket sales. At all. Watching a bootleg doesn't make you not want to see the show, if anything, it makes you want to go see it even more. But while most people have a few dollars they can spend on buying the album, they don't have the money to fly to New York and pay to see it on Broadway, so with bootlegs, you aren't losing any audience. No one sees a bootleg and decides to just not go to Broadway to see fucking Hamilton or something. And there's wild success with professionally shot and released footage for free or the price of a cast album, but that's not really relevant to the question. There are a lot of yt videos that do a lot better job explaining, but I'm too tired to go find them. Katherine Steele has a good one on her thoughts on bootlegs and I think Sara Z has one too. and I'm sure there are others
Straight up illegally downloading an artist's music though (???I think that falls under the category of piracy but I'm not extremely well versed in the illegal world) is another story. High key don't get why/if people would still do that because nowadays artists put all their stuff on places like YouTube and Spotify which is free and I think supports them if maybe not as much as buying it from iTunes or something. But again, don't really know

Big agree with Lizzie. I support bootlegs, and for legal reasons I may or may not have watched a few. The bootlegs I may or may not have seen were for Anastasia and Hamilton, both of which I saw when they made their way to a reasonably near location, and frankly? The bootlegs I may or may not have seen made me more interested in the show, for the little things like "wow that blurry choreography looks fun here, I bet it's great in person!" or "haha that little moment was funny, I wonder if each tour does it differently?" Of course, I would prefer if each show got a professional shoot or something, and as long as I have Disney+/the Hamilton film is on it, I sure as hell won't be going back to some blurry bootleg, but that's not the reality for most shows, as far as I'm aware.

Straight-up pirating music that's available for free/super cheap on other platforms is just being a dick, suck it up and sit through your two minute Spotify ads and let the artist get some revenue for their work. Same goes for books, movies, tv, etc. If anyone's interested in a piracy horror story, look into what happened with Maggie Stiefvater's ARCs for the fourth Raven Boys book.

Also you've SEEN Hamilton. And a lot of people who watch bootlegs have already seen the show. Comments really be like "I was there when this was recorded and…." From what I've heard because once again, for legal reasons, I do not watch bootlegs because I believe in the Law

Yeah, I may or may not rewatch a boot for a show if I want to relive the experience of seeing it.

i think bootlegs should only be allowed if the theater itself records it. if it's just some stranger recording and uploading plays to the internet illegally, potentially making money off other people's hard work, it doesn't really sit right to me.

…then again that might not be possible as i have no idea how copyright works

…then it's not a bootleg

Spoiler - click to show.

a href="https://imgflip.com/i/4barwg"></a

I put a spoiler over this because although the debate topic itself is about censorship, I know some people aren't going to want to see it– there is A Boob underneath the spoiler tag.

A page I follow on Instagram posted this and I've had a lot of fun arguing with people in the comments

Do y'all think male and female chests should be treated the same instead of one being sexualized and the other being 'acceptable?'

Yes, especially since female chests have an actual reason to be seen in public (breastfeeding) and male chests do not.
Also, Tumblr's ban on "female-presenting nipples" was vague and just plain ridiculous, what's even considered a "female-presenting nipple"?!

Although I wouldn't exactly say that male chests aren't sexualized, I would say that they're still sexualized but also deemed acceptable to be seen in public by society at large.
Not to mention how no one really bats an eye at a guy wearing a tight shirt that shows off his abs, but the second a woman wears a shirt that's tight around her boobs, it's socially unacceptable and she's a slut or whatever.

An important question is whether or not the male and female chest hold the same sex appeal and how much of that has to do with society.
I think it’s frustrating that a woman can get arrested iirc for going topless, even though I wouldn’t prefer it. Not my say and all that. Though of course I support any private business making any rules they desire.

Idk, I just feel like it should be both or neither. Either males and females can both be topless in public or neither can. Personally I wouldn't want to walk around tits out, but if someone wants to, I won't stop them, and it's dumb to me that the law can.

Both I’d say. The law shouldn’t stop us from going topless if we so please.

But if tumblr wants to be sexist (and by that I mean discrimination by sex) that’s their right.

It was part of their infamous porn ban, which also included faulty bots that flagged a ton of SFW posts as NSFW, including pictures of sand dunes (since "dunes" and "nudes" have the same letters), rocks, and sea creatures.
I just-
Female-presenting nipples?!
Like I get their intent but I have no idea how they plan to actually draw that line, or even really be able to tell.