i actually don't think it's a bad faith nonequivalent argument to point out that artists are perfectly capable of holding a moral stance about what they will produce and sell when it comes to AI, but not when it comes to gambling or sweatshop labor. i can't really imagine why being righteously opposed to AI is just natural regardless of whatever hypothetical financial benefits could be gained from it, but expecting a similar stance towards extractive business practices or exploitative labor conditions is some sort of unbelievably high bar to meet. Why? Can anyone explain to me why other than pure, naked self interest from artists that AI is a more legitimate moral concern than those other two things?

instead of “this person made good art so they can’t be a bad person” try looking at it like this: “this person made art so they can’t be a good person”

i say this a lot, but it's always really striking how many people assume that like, criticism necessarily comes from a place of moral outrage and personal vitriol, and that therefore when i make a comment about something's political positions i'm "fighting a fight" against it. i literally just enjoy thinking about art and verbalizing those thoughts is useful in organizing and refining them

float like a butterfly (nervously forgets end of quote) green like a pea

like at least 50% of internet lgbt discourse would evaporate if people quit using the term "spaces" when they mean "discord servers" or "tumblr blogs" because we would collectively realize how stupid that shit is

“this is a lesbian-only space” no this is the tiktok comments on a chappell roan video