You have to know that there are multiple terms for people that teach at a university around the world, and that “docent” is not the only possible term.

Like I’ve never heard a professor referred to as a “docent” in North America. Docents here are information guides in museums and galleries.

Note the absence of any sentiment like “because he has more money than me”.

Seems how? They didn’t say anything like that. You think the issue with this guy is because he’s rich and nothing else?

The funny thing is I’ve seen people saying the exact same thing you are to people laughing at Charlie Kirk getting killed, while doing their best to ignore all the things he stood for, said, and did. Right down to immediately accusing the person of adopting (an incorrect idea of) Nazism by not valuing all lives as precious. Just think about the brainpower behind people who think those laughing at Charlie Kirk are like the Nazis but not Charlie “Civil Rights was a mistake” Kirk.

There’s gotta be a term for people who get all righteous about treating all lives as precious while they ignore that the person in question actively makes the world worse.

Why are you telling someone who looks down on CEOs that he should also hate Jews alongside the Nazis?

They would have recouped faster if they had the foresight to publish the game on PC as well as PlayStation. Kojima Productions made money on Death Stranding pretty quick because the PC sales were very good. Sony only got it from PlayStation sales.

They were almost a monopoly, Xbox was circling the drain. Sony pulled the trigger too early.

So you’re pretending you didn’t say all art are ideas so therefore they can’t be stolen now that you’ve realized how silly of a statement that was. But now you’ve moved on to other silly statements.

Scraping art for AI usage is not merely making copies. You would need to be woefully ignorant of how LLMs, AI companies, and people have been scraping work for AI usage for the past 5 years to believe that it’s tantamount to taking a photo of a painting and not used any further.

The laws and norms of copyright usage have not been properly applied to AI scraping at all either. You’re just referring to a poor understanding of copyright history as if that will magically making scraping all art, content, and IP be the justifiable thing to do, while ignoring who all are behind doing such a thing in the first place. You’re arguing that what OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Twitter, and Microsoft are doing is actually anti-capitalist practice by stealing all content they can, while also saying they’re not stealing because art are ideas and therefore all art is up for grabs.

You should take a step back and realize you’ve sided with the capitalist companies against an independent creator here in order to suggest that it’s the artist who’s wrong and the big capitalist and it’s the big trillion-dollar companies that are correct and anti-capitalist.

Scrapist is a name shared by many tools that scrape webpages and content as well. The content of the comic is not about sexual assault at all though. It’s clearly all about consent.

The only thing idiotic here is that art=idea and therefore no art can be stolen. To prove this, go take some art from your nearest museum. I’ll wait.

But tell me more about how stealing someone’s art for use by AI is an authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class, and how the idea that all art is up for grabs by anyone so it’s totally okay to use it for AI is not the idea from the capitalist class. This is the kind of explanation that deserves some popcorn.

It’s really telling that the people who are crawling out of the woodwork to brag about how much they hate Pizzacake don’t seem to know the difference between consent and sexual assault.

Imagine using sexual assault as a pithy justification getting upset about a webcomic.

It was about consent anyway, which apparently you can’t differentiate from sexual assault somehow.

No part of this comment says Hunter Biden should not be Democratic party business.

He’s politically-relevant to the current state of the Democratic party, a fucked up election, and corruption of Joe Biden. Democrats repeatedly ignored his crimes and conflicts of interest as a nothingburger. Dems being tribalistic about “one of their own” instead of simply holding him accountable did them no favors.

You literally say he’s politically relevant to the party before launching into what the party should do with him, in disgreement to someone saying he’s not relevant to the Democrats.

Disagree with how I read it all you like but I’m not far enough off from what you believe you must have said to avoid answering the question.

Those feelings cannot be rooted in anything except xenophobia. Mollifying the language doesn’t get away from the root of where such sentiments even come from.

Where did you see the Democratic party making it official party business to assume responsibility for Hunter Biden in order to defend him?

You cannot lament your personal ideal of your country being diluted or ruined by the influx of people of other races without a significant amount of fear or hatred. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. The very thought requires othering a group of people determined to be undesirable.

Why should a political party take responsibility or control over someone who isn’t on any of their ballots just because he’s the family member of someone who is? Seems like a pretty dangerous thing to advocate for.

And then the way ICE treats nurses and mothers.

Are you going to argue that “no-holds-barred” – as in, fighting dirty – isn’t negative?

No, I’m going to argue that “no-holds-barred” is not “political operative” and that adjectives modify nouns. If you see the phrase “evil dog”, are you going to assume that must mean all dogs are evil?

I’d also argue that you’re wrong about what “no-holds-barred” means too. After all, this is actually from an article championing the person in question. You misread a compliment for an insult because you’re operating on the preconceived notion that both “no-holds-barred” and “political operative” are negative terms when neither are.

Are you going to argue that the system providing little control and no remedy isn’t a bad thing?

No, I’m going to argue that this question has nothing to do with showing that “political operative” is a pejorative term.

The other three examples are too out-of-context to know if they were complimentary or derogatory.

That didn’t stop you from trying to argue about these two above, when you believed that arguing about them out of context was in your favour. The other examples are just more inconvenient to try to twist into somehow showing “political operative” is a pejorative. And, as we’ve seen, context is not friendly to your assumption.

The article is mostly paywalled, but here’s a salient sentence from the first paragraph where it admits I’m right:

How do you go from “it’s wishful thinking to believe the public imagines political operatives and staffers to be like The West Wing” to “political operative is an insulting way to refer to political staffers or politicians”? This isn’t even getting into how the term is clearly and explicitly used in the headline in a way that indicates it as a neutral term that just describes a job, and that it will be used that way throughout the article.

The other two things you cited are from self-described “political operatives” themselves, and of course nobody believes themself to be the villain!

People aren’t going to refer to their jobs in a pejorative way either. Did you forget that you were trying to say calling someone a “smart politician” is better than calling someone a “political operative”? You weren’t saying all politicians are bad so nobody would ever admit they were one.

Again, where are you getting the idea that “political operator” is a term with a negative connotation?

I did and the results showed it as just a basic term to describe an occupation in politics.

None of the examples here have it as a pejorative:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/political-operative

Here’s an Atlantic article about political operatives and what they do, nothing negative about the term per se:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/the-life-of-a-political-operative-explained/253130/

Here’s a blurb on Georgetown’s site referring to a political operative as a regular job stream in politics:

https://politics.georgetown.edu/get-involved2/advance-team/

Here’s a guy who’s calling himself a political operative just fine:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2t2sxk/iama_political_operative_ama/

So where did you get the idea that being called a political operative is a negative thing?