I'm only pointing out what appears to be the purpose of this thread.
So, you're mind-reading and speculating.
You don't want to contradict that, then feel free to continue being a partisan political hack.
"Can you you prove that you're not a Communist?" asked Crumb, innocently.
And I'm supposed to expend additional labour
Friend, you don't even have to post in this thread.
so you can misread everything I write, make assumptions of what is being said, and then just conjure up the arguments that you'd prefer to have? You know, the thing you do in every conversation, and are continually called out for, but can't help continue to do because you are either
1) A troll
2) Have horrendous reading comprehension, but a high ability to parrot back things you've read but never actually understood in the first place.
You don't have to back up your side of the case, because... ..let's see here... ...insult, ad hominem, whine, unsupported assertion. Yep, you're checking your usual boxes.
You can see my predicament, right? How can I possibly take the bait with such a person as this?
The bait? Was "Hey, Crumbroom, I have candy!" in the title of this thread?
Why would I spend the time I need to make all these fantastic points I've got sitting on the bench, waiting to throw a fastball directly into your crotch, when I know the Sisyphean ordeal I have ahead. All the fastballs. All the crotches.
I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe you should go to talk to someone else?
Yes, there are some in the audience that would love it, bu it's no longer satisfying watching you pretend it doesn't hurt. It's tired and sad.
Tears of a clown, what can I say. Again, perhaps it's time to move on to another love shack?
I know human emotions are some kind of alien landscape to you, but an artist venting their disgust towards politics they believe are adversely affecting them, is clearly not binding, legally or morally.
I never claimed that it was, at present, legally binding, however, it is not obvious that it may not, in some cases, not be morally binding. If Billy Holiday informed the Klan that she would prefer that they no longer ironically play "Strange Fruit" at their marches and meetings, she might have a valid point, no?
And there are other examples I have offered (e.g., the art exhibition that was for women only for the first month). I would have been a disinvited viewer had I secreted myself in to see the exhibition during the period when it was for women only. Did male patrons have a moral (as well as "official" / "procedural") responsibility not view that exhibit during that time frame? If you're specifically disinvited, it would seem that the answer is yes (or, at least, plausibly so).
Who exactly on earth thinks there is some kind of higher component at play here?
I do.
Alas, you don't speak for everyone.
So please, keep ignoring real things where people actually are having their rights compromised
I am not ignoring any issue. Rather, I am discussing how these "real thing" sometimes might engender a moral duty impacting how we consume and who may consume.
(something you do with great ease), and continue to fret about these hypotheticals where elite, left wing artists are frightening you with their feelings.
We're not in the realm of hypotheticals. We have real examples here of artists regulating their public (or attempting to do so) and the public self-regulating their own consumption.
all one needs is a meme to disassemble the arguments of a hack intellectual. No need to go the ergill route. You already had your bones picked clean years ago by him. I'm just here to push the sand over your remains. With memes.
This ain't Dodge City and you ain't Bill Hickock.
Now, please, since I'm such easy pickings for such an intellectual titan as yourself, come and throw another barely relevant quote at me. Make yourself feel better.
When you're ready to engage in good faith, I'll be ready to offer my services. Until then, have a better one.