f l o a t

it's kinda scary how you can just be tired all the time forever

if “healing” means feeling calmer about how people misused their power with you while continuing to use their same tactics to misuse your power with others then what is the point…..

if “healing” from abusive or inadequate or objectifying relational damage results in empty ties with people you can’t truly recognize or affirm….. what is the point……

Legitimately insane ask to send in a world where one of the main uses of copyright law in the music industry in the 80's and 90's was suing black artists for using a 5 second sample of a beatles riff in a hip-hop song or shit like that.

I left it in the comments but I’ll say it here. Rapper Biz Markie’s 1991 album “I Need A Haircut” was famously the basis of a lawsuit over his sample of Alone Again (Naturally) on one of its tracks. His loss in that court case effectively killed the decade of open sampling in hiphop that had preceded this and resulted in every copy of his album being seized and destroyed. Anyone who doesn’t see a problem with the result of this case essentially hates hiphop

legalize copyright infringement

to be clear this is a fully sincere political belief that I have. I am pro copyright infringement and in fact anti "asking for permission to make derivative art"

a few people in the notes seem to be under the impression that this is a stance that requires caveats. so just so we're all on the same page: no exceptions. "stealing art" (copying existing works for personal gain) is a good thing.

some of you seem to have bought into the capitalist lie that copyright infringement causes artists to "lose money", which fundamentally assumes that everyone (or even like a notable portion) who obtains a would-be-illegal copy would have otherwise paid full price to obtain the original. and like we all know that's not true right

So without copyright, what would prevent capitalists from taking a book and selling copies of it at a much lower price than the author? (thereby preventing the author from making money on their creative work)

this is already how copyright law works. working creatives (the majority of people in the industries) already sign away their work to "capitalists" (problematic wording - petit bourgeois artists are typically already capitalists, but i do understand the intent) and then are not permitted to make money off of or sell their work, have no claim to it, and will be legally decimated if they try to outside of whatever very narrow avenues may be granted to them

Copyright law was initially created *for* the owners of printing presses to allow *them* to own the works of authors and artists over other printing press owners. An artist's profit and control of their work was never a goal of copyright; rather, the goal was codifying "intellectual property" as a commodity, the production of which could exploited by the owners of the means of production (the printing press initially)

i’ve read some literature that points out two major evils of the system: 1) the gig nurses actually get paid a little bit MORE than regular nurses for having more flexibility, which demoralizes nurses who stay put; 2) the fact that there’s incentive to become a vagrant nurse means nurses can’t get used to a single hospital’s way of doing things, including their emergency operations plans or even just “hey what do we do if we run out of amoxicillin?” this is insanely dangerous on all fronts. we are walking back not just worker protections but public health safeguards developed over decades of crisis management research. it’s all coming unraveled because of corporate greed.

Also the more actual work is abstracted and pushed into the realm of ephemeral gig companies and beyond, the harder it is for workers to unionise, because they’re bouncing between endless companies, platforms, pseudo-employers that are like hydra heads. You can’t target them because one goes away and two more sprout in its place, the people who we need to leverage power against can just hide behind constantly changing legal entities and abstract away the fact that employees are to even have a specific employer.

Considering introducing a controlled burn to the prairies of my mind

genuinely one of the most interesting things about the various movements to name/describe/prevent domestic and sexual abuse is that the resistance to it takes so many different forms, including the form of appearing to want to end domestic and sexual abuse while putting so much energy into increasing it, like the violence against women act, all the efforts to prevent sex trafficking, sex offender registries, hate crimes legislation, etc. it’s almost as if when you don’t put survivors and the most vulnerable at the center of your politics you end up making things worse and harder for everyone.