Seems kinda pointless, I don’t think anyone involved in deciding whether or not Assange dies in prison would change anything due to this.
I imagine the point is to raise awareness of Assange’s position with people who care about the artworks, in an attempt to inspire others to campaign for his fair treatment.
I wonder if they might now get involved, though. This is the kind of thing that makes it to the cocktail party circuit chatter.
But like really, would anyone pardon a crime because they were being blackmailed with the destruction of art? Would a parole judge really take that into consideration? Seems more likely to me it would make them less likely to help Assange for fear that it looks like the threat worked, but most likely of all they would just continue based on the law and ignore this guy.
No of course it wouldn’t enter into it at all except that it gets people talking and taking sides. Suddenly it’s news again, and public opinion does matter.
If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn’t see, does it make a sound?
The concept of private ownership is weird, if you think about it. It’s like penguins collecting stones they’ve found and not letting anyone come close
Private ownership of things made by people is perfectly reasonable; the person who made the thing should own it and be able to sell or transfer it as desired. So a rock you found isn’t made by people, so yeah, but a painting, or a chair, etc, was.
It’s land that wasn’t made by people where private ownership gets really ridiculous.
I can relate to that, but even in this manner, most of the goods made are the result of vast investments of time efort and money of lots of peoples over decades, just for few individuals to be the owners of.
(Btw, English is not my main language)
It is true that once production of an item becomes a greater task than simply the work of one person, the ownership of it can be considered more complex, but my point was that at least something created by people makes sense to be owned by its creator.
Well, under a free market economic system, each of those people is paid for their input to the thing, and only participates in that when they decide it’s worth their time to do so.
Only the owner (or shareholders) Researchers in universities, are getting paid by public funding from tax payers money (which is agood thing). Every major development is the product of lots of tiny developments and advansments in which the creators or inventors didn’t get their compensation from the end product. Workers in manufacturing are getting paid the least amount of compensation the owner can get away with, or even worse, manufacturing is moved to countries with even less protection for workers. Oh, and workers need protection from the owners.
Only in frictionless spherical cow in a vacuum territory - that is to say in theory in unachievable ideal conditions. In the real world the market is wildly distorted and people are forced by a variety of external pressures to participate even if they don’t believe they are being offered what they are worth.
But where to keep all my stuff asked the guy eternally renting?
But land is literally the first form of property. Territory is defended in life’s history long before any moveable object.
If anything, the conception of certain objects as being part of a person’s territory is the stranger step to take.
This point neither supports nor erodes the logic of ownership of territory or land; it merely points out that it has a very long history. Many things have a long history, some of which have consistent reason and logic behind them, and some which do not.
I kinda get the feeling that food was the first form of property. Land (by way of good shelter) was probably a close second with good rocks and sticks.
When you describe it like that… I feel like it makes more sense. Like, of course the penguin is gonna want his safety stones. I buy that.
Yes a penguin that owns some stones would indeed not want other penguins grabbing them. Glad we’re on the same page with how private ownership works.
Yeah I know how it works. I said the concept is weird, but it benefit some share holders, so I guess we’ll have to live with it
I think they’re talking about art specifically. Like what’s the point of owning art if you ain’t showing anyone? And why should anyone care if ou destroyed art you weren’t willing to show it anyways?
Thanks. Original art have some kind of intrinsic aura, by the art proccess itself. That’s the difference between arts and craft or even art and design. The fact that concept of having the right to destroy art just because you’ve paid someone, sound so obvious and natural to people is weird…
“I’m gonna destroy my toy collection if someone dies in prison”
Based
At the current rate it is almost certain that Assange will, eventually, die in prison. Instead the collector should set a timer on it so that the art is destroyed if Assange is not released by a certain date.
Perhaps that date is Julian Assange’s natural lifespan?
Can’t he sell the painting and then spend 45milion on a lobbying and awareness advertising campaign? That might help more
I don’t think $45 million would get you much attention, SuckMyWang, but destroying “priceless” art definitely would. And has.
It’s like what that famous old cathedral burned down? Rich fucks love all that old western canon shit
If 45 million spent completely on getting attention won’t get much attention, how much would he need? And I mean he could still do that. He could change his mind and decide to sell it instead of burning it having already received a heap of free attention
Sorry, we don’t negotiate with performance art terrorists.
Oh, no! The thing Russian used to money launder before bitcoin or a person Russian used to selectively leak information! Which will we choose?
deleted by creator
Now that is some real performance art! Hope he records it. I vote for tannerite as destruction method.
I’m voting for napalm dropped from a private plane out in the desert.
As long as the US has the Hague invasion act along with some of the most inhumane sentences and prisons no country should extradite a non US citizen there. I’m pretty sure the only crime he committed was in Sweden anyways so they should have him.
Is it worth looking up so assange is? Is it okay to read it as ass Angie?
How educated you want to be is entirely up to you.
Its an interesting point that some historical art being destroyed is more upsetting than a person dying. Of course if we’re going to make this point, why Assange, and not, say, Gazans?
why not both?
Oh no!
So anyway…
deleted by creator
Assange is a russian asset, let him rot in prison.
You’re an American asset, I hope you rot in prison.
Touch grass, troll.
Nah bitch
Yeah, to go outside you’d need to put on pants for once this year.
Ahw man do I really gotta? I mean I was gonna… But then I got high.
to care about 16 paintings more than a human life, or the implication that we are not free to speak out against authority.
I just wanted to pull this quote, because it’s on the nose. With either passive or active participation, the mere suggestion of this act is polarizing and says big things very loudly.
Well… bye.
Remind me, why do you guys not like Assange (or WikiLeaks by extension) again? Is it just the Clinton leaks stuff?
You? Who are you talking to? I, for one, like him
Oh no I like Assange. I have heard some people before saying negative things about WikiLeaks and by extension Assange so I asked. My understanding was they think/thought it’s beholden to the Kremlin or something.
I mean I don’t think it’s beholden to the Kremlin, but I do think that Julian Assange participated in the same type of secretive disinformation campaign that he claimed to vehemently oppose. I also think he’s not really a man driven by principles, but one driven by ego and fame.
I also think he, like 90% of powerful men involved in tech, probably uses his position of power to sexually harass women.
it could also be chelsea manning. some people cant get enough of that five-sided dick.
If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
He has an agenda, and it’s not press freedom.
THERE IT IS. The acceptable conspiracy theory of the left. Thanks
It’s acceptable because it’s true. I would respect him greatly if he had released everything rather than what was damaging to his personal political enemies.
>If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
what makes you think he had something to release?
He leaked information from the DNC, but never released the same email logs for the RNC. He was given both following a known hack of both the DNC and the RNC. He released 1 side, and then tried promote the conspiracy about Seth Richs death.
He has an agenda. Wikileaks is a good idea, but I don’t buy that it didn’t have a state backer.
what makes you think he was given the rnc information?
Because we know for a fact the information was taken from both as part of the same breach of the RNC and DNC servers by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, Russian state actors.
If Assange was not aware of the additional information from the breach that’s just as bad, because he’s happy to be a useful idiot with a fanbase.
So he’s either malicious or stupid. Neither is worthy of admiration.
this does not entail that they handad that information to assange.
there is a possibility that nothing from the rnc was that damning (i doubt this), or he felt that releasing it would dilute the seriousness of both sets of accusations.
but this is assuming he had access to the rnc hack, and that is not proven.
