News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Artists must be allowed to make bad work by stale2002 on Tuesday May 16, 2023 @09:15PM (#35970127)
> So, explain what does any of that has to do with “not being allowed"

What it has to do with that, is not that artists are literally prevented by the law from making bad art.

Instead, it is that artists should be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences from doing so.

So, you should interpret the statement as being "artists must be able to make bad art, without suffering significant negative consequences for doing so"

That is the intent of the title.

This is what "allowed" means in this context.

It means "it must be possible for them to do this, while not suffering significant negative consequences."

Re:Artists must be allowed to make bad work by LudwigNagasena on Tuesday May 16, 2023 @10:05PM (#35970446)
And since we both agree that it has nothing to do with freedom, why do you think it is justified to talk about it as "being allowed to"?
Re:Artists must be allowed to make bad work by stale2002 on Wednesday May 17, 2023 @12:30AM (#35971261)
> why do you think it is justified

Because by "allowed to" what it means is "to be able to do so, without suffering significant negative consequences."

So, that would be the definition of "allowed to" that is being referred to, which is both true and justified.

Re:Artists must be allowed to make bad work by watwut on Saturday May 20, 2023 @09:21AM (#36011724)
Because that is how English language works.