The Leeches
-
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator. Anybody who doesn’t sell their art would by a hobbyist, outside the bounds of what is being defined in the piece.
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 14:24 last edited by@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator. Anybody who doesn’t sell their art would by a hobbyist, outside the bounds of what is being defined in the piece.
Only if you define creator by requiring monetary value. Lots of artists in every area share their work for little or nothing. It still enriches society.
We could add volunteers to that list, too.
But let's face it - he's not talking about any of these people. he's talking about those who consume civilization's resources yet contribute nothing. If nothing else, no sense of self-worth comes from that.
-
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator. Anybody who doesn’t sell their art would by a hobbyist, outside the bounds of what is being defined in the piece.
Only if you define creator by requiring monetary value. Lots of artists in every area share their work for little or nothing. It still enriches society.
We could add volunteers to that list, too.
But let's face it - he's not talking about any of these people. he's talking about those who consume civilization's resources yet contribute nothing. If nothing else, no sense of self-worth comes from that.
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 14:51 last edited by Doctor Phibes 1 Oct 2023, 14:53@Mik said in The Leeches:
But let's face it - he's not talking about any of these people. he's talking about those who consume civilization's resources yet contribute nothing. If nothing else, no sense of self-worth comes from that.
He's not really. He's talking about people he doesn't like. Teachers unions do serve a very obvious purpose. They're looking after the interests of their membership. You might not like how they operate, and disagree with education policty, but to describe them as leeches isn't accurate. The same thing with academics and government "bureaucrats".
-
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator. Anybody who doesn’t sell their art would by a hobbyist, outside the bounds of what is being defined in the piece.
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 14:57 last edited by@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
-
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator. Anybody who doesn’t sell their art would by a hobbyist, outside the bounds of what is being defined in the piece.
Only if you define creator by requiring monetary value. Lots of artists in every area share their work for little or nothing. It still enriches society.
We could add volunteers to that list, too.
But let's face it - he's not talking about any of these people. he's talking about those who consume civilization's resources yet contribute nothing. If nothing else, no sense of self-worth comes from that.
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 14:58 last edited by@Mik said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator. Anybody who doesn’t sell their art would by a hobbyist, outside the bounds of what is being defined in the piece.
Only if you define creator by requiring monetary value. Lots of artists in every area share their work for little or nothing. It still enriches society.
We could add volunteers to that list, too.
But let's face it - he's not talking about any of these people. he's talking about those who consume civilization's resources yet contribute nothing. If nothing else, no sense of self-worth comes from that.
A lot of what artists do looks like they're leeching. But only if you have a myopic view and don't understand the relationship between artists and the economy.
Which why in the world would any CEO understand.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 15:02 last edited by
I don't really understand why he singled out teachers unions.
He must have had a bad experience or something.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 15:06 last edited by
So, what's a skill you absolutely need to have in place if you're to be a CEO? High confidence in yourself and your ability to make decisions, and strong conviction about what you're trying to achieve.
Which groups of people have these in spades?
- Confident people who actually have good ideas
- Dunning-Kruger University graduates
- Sociopaths
Pretty well established that CEOs compose a subset of society that has a much higher than average sociopath proportion. And considering the CEO culture in America doesn't punish job-hopping, the community creates a richer pool of
locustsleechessociopaths than what you'd find elsewhere. -
So, what's a skill you absolutely need to have in place if you're to be a CEO? High confidence in yourself and your ability to make decisions, and strong conviction about what you're trying to achieve.
Which groups of people have these in spades?
- Confident people who actually have good ideas
- Dunning-Kruger University graduates
- Sociopaths
Pretty well established that CEOs compose a subset of society that has a much higher than average sociopath proportion. And considering the CEO culture in America doesn't punish job-hopping, the community creates a richer pool of
locustsleechessociopaths than what you'd find elsewhere.wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 15:10 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
So, what's a skill you absolutely need to have in place if you're to be a CEO? High confidence in yourself and your ability to make decisions, and strong conviction about what you're trying to achieve.
Which groups of people have these in spades?
- Confident people who actually have good ideas
- Dunning-Kruger University graduates
- Sociopaths
Pretty well established that CEOs compose a subset of society that has a much higher than average sociopath proportion. And considering the CEO culture in America doesn't punish job-hopping, the community creates a richer pool of
locustsleechessociopaths than what you'd find elsewhere.This is true.
-
So, what's a skill you absolutely need to have in place if you're to be a CEO? High confidence in yourself and your ability to make decisions, and strong conviction about what you're trying to achieve.
Which groups of people have these in spades?
- Confident people who actually have good ideas
- Dunning-Kruger University graduates
- Sociopaths
Pretty well established that CEOs compose a subset of society that has a much higher than average sociopath proportion. And considering the CEO culture in America doesn't punish job-hopping, the community creates a richer pool of
locustsleechessociopaths than what you'd find elsewhere.wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 15:10 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
So, what's a skill you absolutely need to have in place if you're to be a CEO?
Shouting, mostly.
Link to video -
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 17:07 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
And those are?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
And those are?
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 17:27 last edited by Aqua Letifer 1 Oct 2023, 17:28@Jolly said in The Leeches:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
And those are?
Artists taught just about every business on the planet how to monetize social media. (I'm talking about who innovated, not who copied.) What they did drew attention on those platforms, which taught others how to draw their own.
Artists are almost always behind the gentrification of shitty neighborhoods. They move in there, because they're worthless leeches who refuse to get a real job. Then, they start doing what they do: making murals, starting bands, sharing their work in shitty gallery spaces. Which starts to change the dynamic: a slum turns into a place where cool shit is happening. It draws in a few small businesses who dip their toe into starting up a sandwich or coffee shop. Which does rake in customers, because (1) they're new, and (2) the place is talked about in local papers and online thanks to what artists have done to revitalize the space. In a couple of years you have a fucking Starbucks and a 3,000% rent increase that the artists can't afford, so they move on to the next shitty neighborhood and start it all up again.
Tally up every single once-shitty, up-and-coming neighborhood anywhere in America with absolutely no art or music scene, I dare you.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 17:48 last edited by
To call people who banded together to exercise what power they had leeches is so far off the mark. The fault lies in the true leeches who spent public monies pandering to them.
-
@Jolly said in The Leeches:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
And those are?
Artists taught just about every business on the planet how to monetize social media. (I'm talking about who innovated, not who copied.) What they did drew attention on those platforms, which taught others how to draw their own.
Artists are almost always behind the gentrification of shitty neighborhoods. They move in there, because they're worthless leeches who refuse to get a real job. Then, they start doing what they do: making murals, starting bands, sharing their work in shitty gallery spaces. Which starts to change the dynamic: a slum turns into a place where cool shit is happening. It draws in a few small businesses who dip their toe into starting up a sandwich or coffee shop. Which does rake in customers, because (1) they're new, and (2) the place is talked about in local papers and online thanks to what artists have done to revitalize the space. In a couple of years you have a fucking Starbucks and a 3,000% rent increase that the artists can't afford, so they move on to the next shitty neighborhood and start it all up again.
Tally up every single once-shitty, up-and-coming neighborhood anywhere in America with absolutely no art or music scene, I dare you.
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 17:51 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Jolly said in The Leeches:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
And those are?
Artists taught just about every business on the planet how to monetize social media. (I'm talking about who innovated, not who copied.) What they did drew attention on those platforms, which taught others how to draw their own.
Artists are almost always behind the gentrification of shitty neighborhoods. They move in there, because they're worthless leeches who refuse to get a real job. Then, they start doing what they do: making murals, starting bands, sharing their work in shitty gallery spaces. Which starts to change the dynamic: a slum turns into a place where cool shit is happening. It draws in a few small businesses who dip their toe into starting up a sandwich or coffee shop. Which does rake in customers, because (1) they're new, and (2) the place is talked about in local papers and online thanks to what artists have done to revitalize the space. In a couple of years you have a fucking Starbucks and a 3,000% rent increase that the artists can't afford, so they move on to the next shitty neighborhood and start it all up again.
Tally up every single once-shitty, up-and-coming neighborhood anywhere in America with absolutely no art or music scene, I dare you.
By definition, would not artists be Creators?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Jolly said in The Leeches:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
And those are?
Artists taught just about every business on the planet how to monetize social media. (I'm talking about who innovated, not who copied.) What they did drew attention on those platforms, which taught others how to draw their own.
Artists are almost always behind the gentrification of shitty neighborhoods. They move in there, because they're worthless leeches who refuse to get a real job. Then, they start doing what they do: making murals, starting bands, sharing their work in shitty gallery spaces. Which starts to change the dynamic: a slum turns into a place where cool shit is happening. It draws in a few small businesses who dip their toe into starting up a sandwich or coffee shop. Which does rake in customers, because (1) they're new, and (2) the place is talked about in local papers and online thanks to what artists have done to revitalize the space. In a couple of years you have a fucking Starbucks and a 3,000% rent increase that the artists can't afford, so they move on to the next shitty neighborhood and start it all up again.
Tally up every single once-shitty, up-and-coming neighborhood anywhere in America with absolutely no art or music scene, I dare you.
By definition, would not artists be Creators?
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 18:09 last edited by Aqua Letifer 1 Oct 2023, 18:16@Jolly said in The Leeches:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Jolly said in The Leeches:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Leeches:
@Horace said in The Leeches:
Anybody who sells their art would be a creator.
I can name two functions of artists in society that are far more impactful than anything they might sell in terms of what they do for the economy. And they never make a dime from them.
And those are?
Artists taught just about every business on the planet how to monetize social media. (I'm talking about who innovated, not who copied.) What they did drew attention on those platforms, which taught others how to draw their own.
Artists are almost always behind the gentrification of shitty neighborhoods. They move in there, because they're worthless leeches who refuse to get a real job. Then, they start doing what they do: making murals, starting bands, sharing their work in shitty gallery spaces. Which starts to change the dynamic: a slum turns into a place where cool shit is happening. It draws in a few small businesses who dip their toe into starting up a sandwich or coffee shop. Which does rake in customers, because (1) they're new, and (2) the place is talked about in local papers and online thanks to what artists have done to revitalize the space. In a couple of years you have a fucking Starbucks and a 3,000% rent increase that the artists can't afford, so they move on to the next shitty neighborhood and start it all up again.
Tally up every single once-shitty, up-and-coming neighborhood anywhere in America with absolutely no art or music scene, I dare you.
By definition, would not artists be Creators?
In this guy's mind, probably not if they don't make money. And most artists don't.
In the context of this conversation, making money requires doing the right things right. The "right things" is what artists do. "Doing them right" is what businesses do.
Artists do the right things wrong. They're great at what they do and people do care about it, but most artists don't know how to monetize. That's why they don't make much money on their social media virality—influencers and savvy businesses do when they rip them off.
Businesses do the wrong things right. They're very efficient, but no one cares because they don't know how to inspire anyone with their work or attract attention.
When you do the right things right, you get Apple and Disney. It's incredible, the shit you can do. But almost no one does that because the two groups don't understand each other. This guy understands precisely as much about the role of artists as artists do about how to run a business.
-
To call people who banded together to exercise what power they had leeches is so far off the mark. The fault lies in the true leeches who spent public monies pandering to them.
wrote on 10 Jan 2023, 18:11 last edited by Aqua Letifer 1 Oct 2023, 18:13@Mik said in The Leeches:
To call people who banded together to exercise what power they had leeches is so far off the mark.
I agree, but in my experience, conservatives and guys like Mr. CEO here have been the very first in line to call them losers, not understanding how the economy they so enjoy relies on those efforts.