Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist’s views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

  • redditsuckss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    Didn’t a couple of people mention that was all of it before a certain year?

    I don’t know, did they? Also, why would that matter?

    • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      https://mander.xyz/comment/9083214.

      I’ll edit this, I can’t read the other stuff on the mobile version while responding.

      Edit, I mentioned that because the whole place was male only until '65. I don’t think there was that much outcry? (It didn’t look it up, I assume that poster did).

      It would be now in 2024 though.

      • potustheplant@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ok so you’re saying that women used to be discriminated and that (thankfully) is no longer the case. Why would it be ok for the opposite to happen? Both things are wrong and that “eye for an eye” mentality benefits no one.

        • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I do agree both things are wrong. Meaning discrimination.

          I think one person’s art in this case might be described as another person’s stunt.

          Edit, as for whether it’s beneficial, not sure. I guess we’ll see.