Why do you have to make work fun, shouldn't you already be enjoying it if you are doing what you want to do? Are you not doing what you want to do? See, that's the kind of problem that creates the infantilisation.
Is it reasonable to expect that everyone in every WFH-friendly job is actually "doing what they want to do" all the time? In my opinion, no way. Even for someone doing their dream job, parts of their day-to-day are guaranteed to be eaten up by objectively not-fun tasks.
Also, the fact that someone enjoys their job doesn't mean the experience can't be improved.
This is Capitalism. Everything has to be family friendly so it can reach as wide an audience as possible. When you're waiting for customer support, you have to hear a fun jingle so you don't get upset. People have to be talked down to like children so they know their place in the wealth hierarchy. It's an ideology, not in the sense of political beliefs, but rather false ideas that dominate society that we all subconsciously hold to maintain the social system we built on contradictory premises.
I don't think I've presented the full picture, but you asked where this trend is coming from, and to me this is the only common factor and starting point of investigation.
> This is Capitalism. Everything has to be family friendly so it can reach as wide an audience as possible
Ah yes, those socialists and their totally not family friendly media? Really?
> When you're waiting for customer support, you have to hear a fun jingle so you don't get upset.
It's so you know you haven't been disconnected.
> People have to be talked down to like children so they know their place in the wealth hierarchy.
Please don't talk down to people regardless of how wealthy you are. You will always have the best luck by being warm but polite, talking respectfully but honestly.
> It's an ideology, not in the sense of political beliefs, but rather false ideas that ...
Capitalism appears to be pretty real, and it appears to be pretty political. I would not say it "dominates" society since plenty of people seem to be against it in name alone.
"Admit Nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-Accusations"
Why am I not surprised to see this kind of instinctive reaction. I don't want to debate your points because that is way out of scope for this thread and I don't want to be chased out.
The argument a layman would make in favour of this is:
"if people know they could rent seek with their intellectual property and potentially make millions of dollars charging people for licenses / gatekeeping their work, well that's going to motivate them to create really good work! Without this motivation, no one would create good work"
And it's like, ignoring all the well-established counter-arguments to this, it kind of seems to justify its own existence through contradiction. It says, in essence, "We have to coerce people into making really good work by not giving them the building blocks that they could use to make really good work"
What building blocks? Creative work is original. You can build on previous ideas - or not, it's up to you - but it's nothing at all like gluing together a bunch of frameworks that someone else created and patting yourself on the head for being a true original.
I'll accept that copyright is bad when developers who hate copyright give all of their work away for free - code, consultancy, equity, all of it.
Until then people earning six figures a year telling artists they should work for nothing - or perhaps some begging on Patreon which might cover the rent (but probably won't) - is insultingly naive and unattractively entitled.
This has nothing to do with academic journals, which are a very special and obnoxious example of rent-seeking and which absolutely should be replaced by open access - not least because the work has already been paid for by the public.
But that shouldn't be confused with the creative arts, where new work isn't funded by the public. In fact it isn't usually funded by anyone at all, except the artist.
If you want creators to work for free, you'll get what you pay for - which will be somewhere in the uncanny valley between nothing at all, and disposable filler of no real interest.
Are you saying e.g. a Rock cover of a classic piece isn't original work? Because last I checked, the composer can demand royalties (if it's not so old that it expired).
Of course you can sell physical things. You can even sell digital things, but transformative works are a way of creative expression. Or, say, a live streamer on Twitch doing an IRL (using a mobile uplink while out and about) getting their content (people seem to like it, so it appears to have some value) deleted/banned because a car with an open window waiting at the stoplight had the radio on.
And I don't know where you got that I'm making six figures. I'm just not aware of individual artists making a living by selling digital copies of their work. I'm not saying they should put a free-download button there, but having to keep track of who made which parts when (copyright and expiry) is a gigantic pain, especially for small artists who do transformative work.
I'm primarily attacking the rent-seeking model of software houses and (at least most of) the MPAA & RIAA.
I want to encourage work-for-hire (potentially payed by a collective) and Patreon-like models over rent-seeking business "propositions". The benefit is that all the censorship for reasons other than legality and bookkeeping for royalties would be gone. It would enable far better privacy, too.
The idea that the alternative to copyright means artists working for free is an ideological conflation not even the wealthiest, most cynical person on earth could have dreamt up.
Well, see the AV1 codec? They made it because they were sick of patents and license costs for H.265, preferring to fund the development of a completely new one, primarily to avoid the fees.
Or see RedHat and their Linux development/support. They don't rent-seek via copyright. And no proprietary programming language has a large user base. The closest is probably Microsoft Excel, I'd guess.
It seems exceptional to me to have relatives with the exact same hygiene on data protection. In my experience it's often yet another party I'm forced to give "my" (our) data to. Who then give it to corporations again, and so on. But I certainly respect that everyone could have different experiences in this area.
I find the show to be incredible, not just in terms of rhetoric but actually just aesthetically, it's got very pleasing visuals and there is no overuse of edits and sound.
But sometimes i see the way david simon acts on twitter and i reconsider how good the show actually was. It's hard to believe it was even made by him.
Are you suggesting you'd kill someone if they tried to tax you slightly more highly? Or if they took some of your child's inheritance according to a means tested solution? That is very weird.
This is a lot of odd, complex moral statements used to denounce a comparatively simple and separate idea, that wealth should be distributed somewhat more fairly. Inequality is going to persist in other areas and probably even in financial areas, but that doesn't make taxes robbery.
This is a logical leap i'm afraid. We have been trying to give people what they need using government welfare for a century now. It's not communism to correctly understand that some people need to be given opportunities to prove themselves in the market regardless of their race, wealth, etc.
I understand what you’re saying, and technically you’re correct. However, the quote I referenced is typical of the coded language being used to justify and advocate for much more extreme policies of redistribution that I’m not convinced many would agree with.
What you call "redistribution" is what others would call "returning stolen wealth to those who created it". The people who use what you refer to as "coded language" believe that as laborers, they create wealth which is stolen by those who don't labor but instead merely own assets. They believe that wealth and value are created through labor, not by ownership, and therefore labor deserve a larger portion of the wealth than they are getting right now. Therefore it's not "redistribution" of wealth at all, as those who currently hold this wealth had no right to it in the first place.
