Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold)." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?", ">\n\nI’m sure. But as long as the original creator / team behind it we’re cool with that, then so am I. My main reservation was that Hillenburg and co. were not so\ncool with it. But as other people have pointed out, he sold his stake in the show to Nickelodeon, so he can’t have his cake and eat it too" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?", ">\n\nI’m sure. But as long as the original creator / team behind it we’re cool with that, then so am I. My main reservation was that Hillenburg and co. were not so\ncool with it. But as other people have pointed out, he sold his stake in the show to Nickelodeon, so he can’t have his cake and eat it too", ">\n\nIt seems like his departure from the show and his wishes might have changed - as best as I can tell based on the Wikipedia page. Initially he left/retired in 2004 with the 60 episodes should be good. But he came back on in 2014 for more episodes and another movie." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?", ">\n\nI’m sure. But as long as the original creator / team behind it we’re cool with that, then so am I. My main reservation was that Hillenburg and co. were not so\ncool with it. But as other people have pointed out, he sold his stake in the show to Nickelodeon, so he can’t have his cake and eat it too", ">\n\nIt seems like his departure from the show and his wishes might have changed - as best as I can tell based on the Wikipedia page. Initially he left/retired in 2004 with the 60 episodes should be good. But he came back on in 2014 for more episodes and another movie.", ">\n\nPintamos toda la casa🤑" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?", ">\n\nI’m sure. But as long as the original creator / team behind it we’re cool with that, then so am I. My main reservation was that Hillenburg and co. were not so\ncool with it. But as other people have pointed out, he sold his stake in the show to Nickelodeon, so he can’t have his cake and eat it too", ">\n\nIt seems like his departure from the show and his wishes might have changed - as best as I can tell based on the Wikipedia page. Initially he left/retired in 2004 with the 60 episodes should be good. But he came back on in 2014 for more episodes and another movie.", ">\n\nPintamos toda la casa🤑", ">\n\nSpongeBob was made by the collaboration of many creatives. Shouldn't others have a say in this? Why should Hillenburg have a greater say?" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?", ">\n\nI’m sure. But as long as the original creator / team behind it we’re cool with that, then so am I. My main reservation was that Hillenburg and co. were not so\ncool with it. But as other people have pointed out, he sold his stake in the show to Nickelodeon, so he can’t have his cake and eat it too", ">\n\nIt seems like his departure from the show and his wishes might have changed - as best as I can tell based on the Wikipedia page. Initially he left/retired in 2004 with the 60 episodes should be good. But he came back on in 2014 for more episodes and another movie.", ">\n\nPintamos toda la casa🤑", ">\n\nSpongeBob was made by the collaboration of many creatives. Shouldn't others have a say in this? Why should Hillenburg have a greater say?", ">\n\n“But our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.” \nI disagree. It would be nice to do so, but your argument is analogous to those who think the Constitution should be interpreted as written by the founders only. Times change and people change. Let’s allow others to enjoy the products of humanity, even if it does not sit too well with us. \nAs for your comments about money: unfortunately that’s the way the world works, and how it will work in our lifetimes. Think of it this way, at the expense of the creative wishes of 1 person, they are feeding the producers and their families and providing joy to many people around the world. To me that’s worth it." ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?", ">\n\nI’m sure. But as long as the original creator / team behind it we’re cool with that, then so am I. My main reservation was that Hillenburg and co. were not so\ncool with it. But as other people have pointed out, he sold his stake in the show to Nickelodeon, so he can’t have his cake and eat it too", ">\n\nIt seems like his departure from the show and his wishes might have changed - as best as I can tell based on the Wikipedia page. Initially he left/retired in 2004 with the 60 episodes should be good. But he came back on in 2014 for more episodes and another movie.", ">\n\nPintamos toda la casa🤑", ">\n\nSpongeBob was made by the collaboration of many creatives. Shouldn't others have a say in this? Why should Hillenburg have a greater say?", ">\n\n“But our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.” \nI disagree. It would be nice to do so, but your argument is analogous to those who think the Constitution should be interpreted as written by the founders only. Times change and people change. Let’s allow others to enjoy the products of humanity, even if it does not sit too well with us. \nAs for your comments about money: unfortunately that’s the way the world works, and how it will work in our lifetimes. Think of it this way, at the expense of the creative wishes of 1 person, they are feeding the producers and their families and providing joy to many people around the world. To me that’s worth it.", ">\n\nYou enjoyed SpongeBob greatly as a child. Why wouldn’t you want children after you to derive the same enjoyment from it? Should the children of today be denied programing that makes them happy because you’re no longer getting enjoyment from it? If the creator of the show didn’t want other people to decide it’s future why did he sign the rights to his creation over to other people for money?" ]

[ "He didn’t want his IP...\n\nIt is Nickelodeon's IP, he sold it to them.\n\"Nickelodeon can do anything it wants. The studio owns all rights to the show and to franchises for “SpongeBob” merchandise. Hillenburg sold his rights to get his concept made\"", ">\n\nHow long should this moritorium last, say 10 years later someone wants to buy the rights to spongebob and use it as a jumping off point for new ideas?", ">\n\nWhat I mean is that, besides reruns of already released material, the IP needs to be put to rest. That’s what it’s creator wanted, and his body wasn’t even cold before the network shot that idea down.\nI think the creator of a franchise or medium should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that takes, for good or bad.", ">\n\n\nI think the creator of a franchise or media should have the ultimate deciding power as to the direction that media takes, for good or bad.\n\nSo for example, if shakespear had died saying 'never do any of my plays again', do you think it would be morally wrong to stage hamlet now?", ">\n\nIf that was well known and accepted historical fact — then yes. If your life’s work as you see it can be categorically undone once you’re no longer around, how much does it mean in the end?", ">\n\nNothing means anything in the end, but we don't live in the end, we're alive now. Spongebob or Shakepear's works, are meaningful to people in the moment, and some of that meaning leads to telling new stories.\nUnder your system, could someone say on their death bed \"Only white people can use my characters.\" And would you say that's a good reason to stop black people making parodies of those characters?", ">\n\nI see your point. But I think that if a creator wanted to make some weird demand like that, then that is their prerogative. It’s not a good reason, and it would lead to people rightfully abandoning their creation, but at least that was their mistake to make, nobody else’s.", ">\n\nDo you think the world is better when creatives have absolute control over how their art is used, long after they've died? Do you think art is better that way?", ">\n\nI’m a little conflicted there. On the one hand, yes, I believe that if Van Gogh had told Theo on his death bed to burn the damned paintings that never sold, then his wishes should have been honored. But at the same time, that would have robbed the world of the work of the greatest painter of modern times. \nI guess what it boils down to is this — Are the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?", ">\n\n\nAre the wishes of the creator being ignored for the love of the art? Or the love of money?\n\nThe trouble is, that's too nuanced question for a rule like this. Just as an example in 50 years when someone wants to make a movie about discovering their grandparents spongebob vhs's and how that contextualised their relationship. There can be people arguing both ways, that this is an artistically valid project because spongebob was meaningful to old people, and that this is cashing in on a known name for money. \nYou'd create a system where any new project has to prove it's not a cash grab, instead of assuming the intent is genuine until you have evidence otherwise.", ">\n\nChiming in as someone who has never seen a single episode.\nI appreciate the notion of \"respect someone's wishes\". But I also appreciate that when art is created and released to the public, it's out of the artist's hands - and they know that going into it. If you create artwork that you want to keep private, you keep it private. That's human nature. People want to create and consume things that will bring them joy, and no amount of asking them not to will ever stop that from happening. \nSo now that he's gone, let's examine this pragmatically. The franchise appears to be wildly popular across multiple generations, a rare feat. Ignoring the cold, capitalist desire to keep the IP alive and making money for a bunch of execs, let's focus on the actual consumers. Think about the parents watching new content with their kids, and how they're all happy to have new content. \nHillenburg has passed away. Should millions of people really be denied something entertaining that brings them closer together, just because a man who is no longer with us didn't like greedy media execs? Personally, I don't think so. I think media execs should be less awful about it (for example, lay off relentless merchandising and whatnot and just make new episodes of the show, and pay the writers / animators / etc a much bigger share of the cut).\nIf you want to personally honor his wishes, you're welcome to do so by boycotting new material. But I don't think it's fair to deny so much joy to so many others.", ">\n\nI agree but please watch an episode, this just doesn't sit right with me.", ">\n\nSee I think the magic lies in having watched it as a child and then enjoying it again as an adult. If your first exposure to SpongeBob is as an adult, it may not have the same impact.", ">\n\nYou know one beloved, childhood entertainment that isn't getting spin offs or merchandising or new content? Calvin & Hobbies\nYou know why? Because it's creator, who suspected he was creating something that would outlive him, who didn't want his IP to become a zombie controlled by executives wringing every penny from it, fought like hell to control the rights over it. \nStephen Hillenburg grew up in the age when Bill Watterson did battle with the newspaper comic syndicates over rights. He grew up when Stan Lee and Jack Kriby were held up as cautionary tales, and contrasted with Todd McFarlane for how and when creators should protect ownership of their work. \nHillenburg grew up with Fruity Pebbles as a breakfast cereal, with Snoopy as a giant balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, with the omni-merchandised Garfield. He knew what the risks were, and for whatever reason(s), he didn't fight to protect the rights to his creations from perpetual use. \nMaybe the choice Hillenburg was offered was \"perpetual rights, or the show never gets made at all\"; if that really was the option, then Hillenburg would rather the show get made and aired and zombified than no one ever see it at all. But that is a choice he made.", ">\n\nYou've changed and look at something from your child as being better when you were it's exact demographic.", ">\n\nIt’s not about the show, I don’t watch it anymore myself (unless my son wants me to sit and watch with him). It just sits wrong with me that Hillenburg practically begged those who worked with him to not let the IP be run into the dirt. He didn’t want 15 spin-offs, movie deals, or continuing the original show ad infinitum. Not without his say. \nAnd those who may have had the power to respect the wishes of their colleague and friend did not. I say better late than never", ">\n\nWere his wishes expressed in the form of a contract?", ">\n\nNo, that’s the problem. He was very vocal about it, and those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because he no longer fully owned the IP, the network did.\nIt boils down to a Legality Vs. Morality issue", ">\n\n\nand those who knew him / worked with him absolutely knew what he wanted. \n\nA big chunk of the show developers, writers, voice actors, etc on Kamp Korral had all worked on the original SpongeBob with Hillenburg for years and some of them even go back further working with him on his first animation job at Rocko’s modern life. If all these people who knew him for years and worked closely with him feel as though this is a worthwhile project and not some spot in the face of him why do you?", ">\n\nI think your son enjoying new SpongeBob content should take precedence over protecting an adult’s nostalgia or a misplaced sense of loyalty to the creator. \nThe notion that he was “emphatic until the day he died that the show should die with him” is a complete fabrication. He voluntarily left as showrunner after only three seasons, 14 years before he died. There was never any statement from him expressing despair that SpongeBob continued without him. Another former showrunner Paul Tibbitt said he wouldn’t have been into Kamp Koral, but nothing like that he was actively fighting to his dying breath to prevent it.\n\n\"In the animation business, you know, there always used to be the sort of joke... When you run out of ideas, you just do Muppet Babies. Steve [Hillenburg] would always say to me, 'You know, one of these days, they’re going to want to make SpongeBob Babies. That’s when I'm out of here.'\"\n\nIn Hollywood it’s par for the course that the creatives aren’t in control of the IP, and sometimes they disagree with where a studio takes it, but that doesn’t mean he’s rolling over in his grave over kids enjoying the show.", ">\n\nYou can’t eat your cake (sell the IP rights) and have it too (control the IP you sold).", ">\n\nDo children today still enjoy it though? It’s no longer aimed at you as a target audience, so if kids still like it I see no reason to shelve it just because it makes older viewers pine for the days “when it was good”. Regarding the creator’s wishes, I do think it’s important to be respectful of wishes like that where applicable, but if he didn’t want it being used he shouldn’t have signed the rights away, or should have made stipulations in the contract. And as callous as this may sound, he certainly doesn’t care now so unless his estate does, there is really nothing to be done about it.", ">\n\nEssentially, what you’re proposing is that a corporate leviathan should deliberately forgo an unlimited number of opportunities to generate revenue on the strength of a pool of intellectual property.\nNotwithstanding your claimed knowledge of Stephen Hillenburg’s wishes, I don’t believe you or I are familiar with the contracts that bind the company (or companies) who hold the rights to produce SpongeBob content/merchandise. \nI suspect that if the production of new content has continued after Hillenburg’s passing, someone secured legal (rather than personal) authorization in advance.\nIf your view is that the corporate leviathan ought to wind down the production of all new SB content, then what precedent can you cite? Have you known corporate leviathans to act respectfully in the past, toward art of any kind, on the basis of what amount to handshake agreements? Especially at the cost of millions of dollars? \nI submit to you that your view is wholly unrealistic. If it’s your preference, then that’s valid. But this sub isn’t called Change My Preference, is it? I would love for Disney to give Star Wars and all associated IP a 10-year rest. But I think you know as well as I know: that shit ain’t happening either.", ">\n\nYes, you took a long time to write out \"This is the way it is.\" OP's exact position is that the way it is should change. In general, OP's view seems to be untenable because we don't grant IP rights to dead people.\nThe best way Hillenburg could've protected his creation is to stop making it and let it fade away in his lifetime. Bill Watterson did this with Calvin & Hobbes, and now there's only a small niche of a generation who remember and revere those comics and books. It's unlikely that we'll see large-scale adaptations after he passes because they've been lost from the mainstream for so long. It's a double-edged sword. They're desire to create and share their idea (and make money from it) runs counter to their desire to own the messaging/product. Figuring out when and how to end a project like these is a problem without a perfect solution; either path leads to regret and/or success.", ">\n\nIf Hillenburg had insisted that the IP rights revert to his estate after his death, I doubt a series would ever have been produced. Neither OP nor his son would ever have heard of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nUnknown. Nickelodeon didn't always commodify every aspect of their programs the way Disney always has. Though they ramped up their efforts with the success of SpongeBob.", ">\n\nI'm pretty sure he didn't even want to make any spinoffs. Then he died and they made them.", ">\n\nI admittedly don't know much about the history there, but one thing I'll say is that this is very far from a single person creation. It's a labor of love from a pretty big team of people, and I'd imagine some of those people are working on the continuing IP today. Do the opinions/livelihood of those people not count for anything?", ">\n\n\nHe didn’t want his IP to become a dead horse for media execs to wring every grimy cent out of. \nSpongeBob was his baby, and the fact that exactly that has happened and continues to happen pisses on his legacy.\n\nHe doesn't own the rights to Spongebob, Nickelodeon does. It's not his IP.\n\nbut our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.\n\nI don't know what the dude's wishes were, but if it was that important to him he should have retained ownership of it or structured the deal differently. He didn't. Nobody is taking advantage of a dead man. He made the deals he made that led to where we are now.\nIf I sell you my house such that you own it without restrictions, my wishes for what you do or don't do with the house is irrelevant. Same thing goes for other forms of property.", ">\n\nCan you think of any other cartoon franchise that lasted more than, say, 5-10 years that you're ok with?\nLike, any?", ">\n\nPretty much all of them. My only real problem with SpongeBob was Hillenburgs reservations about what would happen to the show. As long as all parties are happy with the decisions made regarding the direction of the show, I say go nuts.", ">\n\nWere any one of those shows made without creative input from the original creator?", ">\n\nI’m sure. But as long as the original creator / team behind it we’re cool with that, then so am I. My main reservation was that Hillenburg and co. were not so\ncool with it. But as other people have pointed out, he sold his stake in the show to Nickelodeon, so he can’t have his cake and eat it too", ">\n\nIt seems like his departure from the show and his wishes might have changed - as best as I can tell based on the Wikipedia page. Initially he left/retired in 2004 with the 60 episodes should be good. But he came back on in 2014 for more episodes and another movie.", ">\n\nPintamos toda la casa🤑", ">\n\nSpongeBob was made by the collaboration of many creatives. Shouldn't others have a say in this? Why should Hillenburg have a greater say?", ">\n\n“But our enjoyment shouldn’t trump the wishes of the man who made it all possible.” \nI disagree. It would be nice to do so, but your argument is analogous to those who think the Constitution should be interpreted as written by the founders only. Times change and people change. Let’s allow others to enjoy the products of humanity, even if it does not sit too well with us. \nAs for your comments about money: unfortunately that’s the way the world works, and how it will work in our lifetimes. Think of it this way, at the expense of the creative wishes of 1 person, they are feeding the producers and their families and providing joy to many people around the world. To me that’s worth it.", ">\n\nYou enjoyed SpongeBob greatly as a child. Why wouldn’t you want children after you to derive the same enjoyment from it? Should the children of today be denied programing that makes them happy because you’re no longer getting enjoyment from it? If the creator of the show didn’t want other people to decide it’s future why did he sign the rights to his creation over to other people for money?", ">\n\nThis doesn't help with your son, but I've considered SpongeBob dead since the first movie. I don't think it needs to die with dignity; since the first three seasons are worth watching, I would say this show is still alive for me.\nAs a high schooler and as an adult I grew to love SpongeBob YouTube poop as well. The good ones are basically just fan-made episodes. I would be sad to see them die as well." ]

[]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there..." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment", ">\n\nThe UK comes in a little behind the US in the number 2 slot, but all of the EU? Nah, the US has far better schools than the EU on average. I do think talent retention is perhaps the number 1 concern when discussing concepts like tenure. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment", ">\n\nThe UK comes in a little behind the US in the number 2 slot, but all of the EU? Nah, the US has far better schools than the EU on average. I do think talent retention is perhaps the number 1 concern when discussing concepts like tenure. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.", ">\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth. Who's to say that new talent, with fresh ideas is somehow worse than old talent that's gotten lazy? Plus when a professor leaves one uni, they often go to another, mixing ideas and making everything better all around. \nAs far as uni rankings, I try not to look at rankings from the web, as those are often paid for by the schools themselves. In my field, Architecture, there's great unis all over the world:\nBartlett (UK)\nAA (UK)\nRMIT (Aus)\nDelft (Netherlands)\nTongji (China)\nAngewandte (Austria, my alma)\nUCLA (US)\nSci Arc (US)\nETC (Zurich)\nAnd a few others, in no particular order. What kept my uni interesting was the five year contract limitation. Professors and teaching staff rotate constantly, and the curriculum changes with the times." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment", ">\n\nThe UK comes in a little behind the US in the number 2 slot, but all of the EU? Nah, the US has far better schools than the EU on average. I do think talent retention is perhaps the number 1 concern when discussing concepts like tenure. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.", ">\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth. Who's to say that new talent, with fresh ideas is somehow worse than old talent that's gotten lazy? Plus when a professor leaves one uni, they often go to another, mixing ideas and making everything better all around. \nAs far as uni rankings, I try not to look at rankings from the web, as those are often paid for by the schools themselves. In my field, Architecture, there's great unis all over the world:\nBartlett (UK)\nAA (UK)\nRMIT (Aus)\nDelft (Netherlands)\nTongji (China)\nAngewandte (Austria, my alma)\nUCLA (US)\nSci Arc (US)\nETC (Zurich)\nAnd a few others, in no particular order. What kept my uni interesting was the five year contract limitation. Professors and teaching staff rotate constantly, and the curriculum changes with the times.", ">\n\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth.\n\nWeird that you think it's a myth in education of all things when talent retention is a huge issue in pretty much every other profession. What makes teachers so different? Their perceived social class? Or do you think educators are just enemies in general and need to be controlled and contained?\nWhy do you think knowledge and experience so important in other professions but \"a bit of a myth\" in education?" ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment", ">\n\nThe UK comes in a little behind the US in the number 2 slot, but all of the EU? Nah, the US has far better schools than the EU on average. I do think talent retention is perhaps the number 1 concern when discussing concepts like tenure. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.", ">\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth. Who's to say that new talent, with fresh ideas is somehow worse than old talent that's gotten lazy? Plus when a professor leaves one uni, they often go to another, mixing ideas and making everything better all around. \nAs far as uni rankings, I try not to look at rankings from the web, as those are often paid for by the schools themselves. In my field, Architecture, there's great unis all over the world:\nBartlett (UK)\nAA (UK)\nRMIT (Aus)\nDelft (Netherlands)\nTongji (China)\nAngewandte (Austria, my alma)\nUCLA (US)\nSci Arc (US)\nETC (Zurich)\nAnd a few others, in no particular order. What kept my uni interesting was the five year contract limitation. Professors and teaching staff rotate constantly, and the curriculum changes with the times.", ">\n\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth.\n\nWeird that you think it's a myth in education of all things when talent retention is a huge issue in pretty much every other profession. What makes teachers so different? Their perceived social class? Or do you think educators are just enemies in general and need to be controlled and contained?\nWhy do you think knowledge and experience so important in other professions but \"a bit of a myth\" in education?", ">\n\nYou seem to be under the impression that talent is everything. It's not.\nIn academia all that matters is output. You can be immensely talented in your field, secure tenure, then slow your academic output to a crawl. You're running the university into a deficit at that point." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment", ">\n\nThe UK comes in a little behind the US in the number 2 slot, but all of the EU? Nah, the US has far better schools than the EU on average. I do think talent retention is perhaps the number 1 concern when discussing concepts like tenure. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.", ">\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth. Who's to say that new talent, with fresh ideas is somehow worse than old talent that's gotten lazy? Plus when a professor leaves one uni, they often go to another, mixing ideas and making everything better all around. \nAs far as uni rankings, I try not to look at rankings from the web, as those are often paid for by the schools themselves. In my field, Architecture, there's great unis all over the world:\nBartlett (UK)\nAA (UK)\nRMIT (Aus)\nDelft (Netherlands)\nTongji (China)\nAngewandte (Austria, my alma)\nUCLA (US)\nSci Arc (US)\nETC (Zurich)\nAnd a few others, in no particular order. What kept my uni interesting was the five year contract limitation. Professors and teaching staff rotate constantly, and the curriculum changes with the times.", ">\n\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth.\n\nWeird that you think it's a myth in education of all things when talent retention is a huge issue in pretty much every other profession. What makes teachers so different? Their perceived social class? Or do you think educators are just enemies in general and need to be controlled and contained?\nWhy do you think knowledge and experience so important in other professions but \"a bit of a myth\" in education?", ">\n\nYou seem to be under the impression that talent is everything. It's not.\nIn academia all that matters is output. You can be immensely talented in your field, secure tenure, then slow your academic output to a crawl. You're running the university into a deficit at that point.", ">\n\nThe \"talent\" in talent retention actually refers to people. So talent retention is employee retention. Your point on \"talent\" being not that important is moot given we're talking about retaining experienced people not some abstract. Also you're assuming the bad scenario is the common one. I'm not sure that's true. Ending Tenure would remove one significant reason professors stick around. Removing it would drive good professors away." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment", ">\n\nThe UK comes in a little behind the US in the number 2 slot, but all of the EU? Nah, the US has far better schools than the EU on average. I do think talent retention is perhaps the number 1 concern when discussing concepts like tenure. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.", ">\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth. Who's to say that new talent, with fresh ideas is somehow worse than old talent that's gotten lazy? Plus when a professor leaves one uni, they often go to another, mixing ideas and making everything better all around. \nAs far as uni rankings, I try not to look at rankings from the web, as those are often paid for by the schools themselves. In my field, Architecture, there's great unis all over the world:\nBartlett (UK)\nAA (UK)\nRMIT (Aus)\nDelft (Netherlands)\nTongji (China)\nAngewandte (Austria, my alma)\nUCLA (US)\nSci Arc (US)\nETC (Zurich)\nAnd a few others, in no particular order. What kept my uni interesting was the five year contract limitation. Professors and teaching staff rotate constantly, and the curriculum changes with the times.", ">\n\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth.\n\nWeird that you think it's a myth in education of all things when talent retention is a huge issue in pretty much every other profession. What makes teachers so different? Their perceived social class? Or do you think educators are just enemies in general and need to be controlled and contained?\nWhy do you think knowledge and experience so important in other professions but \"a bit of a myth\" in education?", ">\n\nYou seem to be under the impression that talent is everything. It's not.\nIn academia all that matters is output. You can be immensely talented in your field, secure tenure, then slow your academic output to a crawl. You're running the university into a deficit at that point.", ">\n\nThe \"talent\" in talent retention actually refers to people. So talent retention is employee retention. Your point on \"talent\" being not that important is moot given we're talking about retaining experienced people not some abstract. Also you're assuming the bad scenario is the common one. I'm not sure that's true. Ending Tenure would remove one significant reason professors stick around. Removing it would drive good professors away.", ">\n\nMaybe I should explain a bit more. Universities want to ACQUIRE talent for their tenure-track positions. That's why the interview process can take months. They want to make sure that the candidate is as talented as they appear.\nOnce they are hired though, they expect the faculty to PRODUCE. They assume that high talent = high output. In general, that might be true. But the fact is that once the faculty member acquires tenure they can slow down on research output and coast to retirement on relatively little output (they have to output SOME per contract obligations, but the obligation portion is very small).\nThey don't want to retain TALENT, they want to retain PRODUCERS. Those two are not entirely the same." ]

[ "republicans wont be satisfied until everyone makes minimum wage except for a handful of inbred white people", ">\n\nBack to the old monarchy we go!!", ">\n\nConsolidate wealth, it's way easier to overthrow one person than this mire of interwoven corporations.", ">\n\nWhen I was in law school, I had a professor who cursed quite a bit during his lectures. Almost every lecture he would let an F bomb fly. Someone must have complained because one day he walks into the classroom and says “I spoke with the Dean this morning and it seems that someone doesn’t like my language.” Then he turned his back to the class and wrote on the white board “FUCKING TENURE.” He turned around and asked “Any questions?”", ">\n\nThat's actually badass. Loved it.", ">\n\nNepotism isn't badass and it's wrong. The Professor should've been fired on the spot", ">\n\nUm… what does nepotism have to do with anything? That’s not what tenure means.", ">\n\nThey are taking aim at your Social Security(that you have paid into which means it is not a fucking entitlement), medical, horrible loans, book choices, women’s rights, and amazing people that would like to be themselves without being used as culture war fodder.", ">\n\nDemocrats went after their guns so now they are burning it all down. The republican party is moving towards a dystopian fascist future.\nThe Democratic party should have just kept gun control off the table and it would have kept control of the House.", ">\n\nAh yes, let's just sit back and let everyone of our elementary schools get shot up. Cool.", ">\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\nNew York lost four House seats as a result of doubling down on an unpopular concealed carry law. Beto and Abrams lost their bid for governor. Control of the House went to Republicans.\nThe Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, the AR-15 is considered in common use and a civilian semiautomatic firearm so any assault weapons ban legislation that specifically names the AR-15 will be overturned by the courts. \nMass shootings are more effectively prevented by changing how media reports on mass shootings than passage of strict gun control, which has the unintended effect of increasing gun and ammunition sales.", ">\n\n\nExplain to me the logic of pushing gun control and losing elections so you cant pass gun control?\n\n\"Why are you making me vote for the nazis?\"", ">\n\nThey're not even hiding their love of the poorly educated anymore. For a group that wants to extoll the virtues this country was founded on they seem to do the exact opposite. \nThe founding fathers fought against an official language because the original colonists spoke many languages, now conservatives insist English is the official language. The separation of church and state was put in because early on states had official religions and you could be barred from running for office or even arrested for being the wrong religion. Modern day conservatives are under the impression we were born a Christian nation.\nThe right calls everyone who doesn't blindly follow them sheep without seeing the irony.", ">\n\nNo. They are taking aim at the tenure of those they disagree with. Not one conservative professor will be dismissed because of this.", ">\n\nThe party of small government decides to govern with smol dick energy.", ">\n\nThey’re going to accidentally get the old boy’s club fired.", ">\n\nLet’s do term limits next.", ">\n\nBut not federal judges.", ">\n\nTenure is already gone in Florida. If you have a 5 year tenure review in front of a board of political appointees who can fire you without cause, you don't really have tenure.", ">\n\n“You acknowledge that LGBT people exist? You’re fired!”", ">\n\nWhat's funny about this is that they want tenure gone because they think it'll screw over 'Social Science Libs' when the reality is that it's UNBELIEVABLE how many engineering professors, lab directors etc wouldn't last a day without tenure. The amount of abusive lab directors out there...", ">\n\nConservatism in the US is the same as Nazism.", ">\n\nI don’t agree with many of the changes being proposed across multiple states, of course and this is obviously a ploy to push the conservative agenda, but I will say that tenure could certainly be adjusted. I would much rather see stricter research requirements on professors to encourage the old guard to make way for the new in the event that the burdens of research becomes too much for them. Many academics are forced to sit waiting-in-the-wings for their chance to make an impact. How many great discoveries/revelations are being pushed 10-15 years down the road due to the schools inability to take action on repetitive or non-existent research? I few good years of work should a career make, it should be repeated quality performance.", ">\n\nAs much as I despise republicans, I have had a fair few tenured professors who couldn't give a damn anymore. They just went through the motions of teaching doing just barely above the bare minimum.", ">\n\nI had a physics professor who literally said \"I hate teaching students, especially undergraduates. I work to do research.\" He then set the mean to a C+ which ensued 30% of the class would automatically fail. \nThe dean did nothing. Said the guy was tenured. Luckily, the TAs were top notch. One on whom was a retired tenured professor who happened to be a Nobel laureate. He could teach circles around the professor and was doing so for fun\nBut seriously, I don't support getting rid of tenure. Just need a better system for how it is obtained.", ">\n\nThe problem here isn't tenure but exactly what he said. A professor's job isn't actually to teach. It's to write papers and secure grant money.\nWhen it is decided who gets promoted, tenured, more money, etc. nobody cares about teaching at all. It's not even a consideration.", ">\n\nThe current incentive structure is relatively new and does not originate with professors, but the universities themselves. Universities as they exist today have very little to do with what the same institutions were even just a few decades ago, much less centuries.", ">\n\nWhat incentive structure is that? There are multiple types of universities (research vs teaching vs mixed). They all do the same thing: bring in students, teach them, and hopefully give them a degree.\nMany are switching to lecturers and part-time/temporary faculty to accommodate teaching loads, but in the end professors still teach the top level courses. They have never, and will probably never escape teaching responsibilities completely without an attractive grant or legally binding responsibilities.\nEdit: grammar", ">\n\nObviously, neither I nor OP are talking about teaching-only universities.", ">\n\nSpeaking as the father of a new freshman I'm more irritated by some of the courses the school forces her to take than I am about tenured professors. \nSpeaking a very former student there are a couple of my professors who should not have a job, let alone tenure", ">\n\nAnd which classes are those?", ">\n\nThe 1 credit required courses. For example. My daughter does not need to go to college for a rewuired one credit course on reproductive health. Some people probably do, but I feel this is something that students should be able to opt out of - she is effectively a functioning adult now. Found and rented an apartment, arranged insurance, and called a couple of professors and talked her way into a paid gig in a lab. She can make her own choices. \nIf this was a one off I'd just grin and bear it but she's taking two of these for the first two semesters and I believe she has a third one her first semester sophomore year. \nShe's only got so many hours in the day", ">\n\nYeah no one likes general education courses, but don’t get all bent out of shape over a handful of credits. Just because she is a big girl and doesnt need rape awareness training many of her classmates do need these things whether their parents te want to pay for it or not. we already have a situation where liberal arts is almost entirely divorced from STEM to the benefit of neither, because of this constant drive to question “what is the direct benefit to my future salary,” and I think this attitude is sad because while I do not remember all of the details of every class I took, they made me what I am today: a degenerate shitposting on Reddit", ">\n\nShe actually hS enough credit hours from. College courses she took in high school to get her bachelor's in three years .... but she can't work her schedule around these things. Believe me, we've tried too. So extra $emester.", ">\n\nGood. I can't tell you how many tenured professors I've had that just couldn't give a shit anymore. When I moved to the EU for a different university experience, where there is no tenure, I had a much more productive and active relationship with my professors.", ">\n\nAmerica's secondary education is world renowned.", ">\n\nSo is Europe's. America's is just insanely more expensive, and having to pay tenured professors doesn't help.\nThis also has nothing to do with the point of my comment", ">\n\nThe UK comes in a little behind the US in the number 2 slot, but all of the EU? Nah, the US has far better schools than the EU on average. I do think talent retention is perhaps the number 1 concern when discussing concepts like tenure. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.", ">\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth. Who's to say that new talent, with fresh ideas is somehow worse than old talent that's gotten lazy? Plus when a professor leaves one uni, they often go to another, mixing ideas and making everything better all around. \nAs far as uni rankings, I try not to look at rankings from the web, as those are often paid for by the schools themselves. In my field, Architecture, there's great unis all over the world:\nBartlett (UK)\nAA (UK)\nRMIT (Aus)\nDelft (Netherlands)\nTongji (China)\nAngewandte (Austria, my alma)\nUCLA (US)\nSci Arc (US)\nETC (Zurich)\nAnd a few others, in no particular order. What kept my uni interesting was the five year contract limitation. Professors and teaching staff rotate constantly, and the curriculum changes with the times.", ">\n\n\nTalent retention is a bit of a myth.\n\nWeird that you think it's a myth in education of all things when talent retention is a huge issue in pretty much every other profession. What makes teachers so different? Their perceived social class? Or do you think educators are just enemies in general and need to be controlled and contained?\nWhy do you think knowledge and experience so important in other professions but \"a bit of a myth\" in education?", ">\n\nYou seem to be under the impression that talent is everything. It's not.\nIn academia all that matters is output. You can be immensely talented in your field, secure tenure, then slow your academic output to a crawl. You're running the university into a deficit at that point.", ">\n\nThe \"talent\" in talent retention actually refers to people. So talent retention is employee retention. Your point on \"talent\" being not that important is moot given we're talking about retaining experienced people not some abstract. Also you're assuming the bad scenario is the common one. I'm not sure that's true. Ending Tenure would remove one significant reason professors stick around. Removing it would drive good professors away.", ">\n\nMaybe I should explain a bit more. Universities want to ACQUIRE talent for their tenure-track positions. That's why the interview process can take months. They want to make sure that the candidate is as talented as they appear.\nOnce they are hired though, they expect the faculty to PRODUCE. They assume that high talent = high output. In general, that might be true. But the fact is that once the faculty member acquires tenure they can slow down on research output and coast to retirement on relatively little output (they have to output SOME per contract obligations, but the obligation portion is very small).\nThey don't want to retain TALENT, they want to retain PRODUCERS. Those two are not entirely the same.", ">\n\nMaybe I should explain again. You're still muddy on what talent means in this case, still assuming your bad case is the norm, and still not addressing the value of tenure in attracting and retaining qualified professors. You seem to be stuck on some sort of factory metaphor for higher education and that does not address anything but that factory metaphor. It breaks down with real world values and in real world contexts. All caps don't help much, honestly." ]

[]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]

[]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days..." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(", ">\n\nChurch!" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(", ">\n\nChurch!", ">\n\nBrought to you by the folks that brought you, \"Just Say No\", and \"This is your Brain on Drugs\"!" ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(", ">\n\nChurch!", ">\n\nBrought to you by the folks that brought you, \"Just Say No\", and \"This is your Brain on Drugs\"!", ">\n\nAs much as “Just Say No” curbed crack use in the 80’s." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(", ">\n\nChurch!", ">\n\nBrought to you by the folks that brought you, \"Just Say No\", and \"This is your Brain on Drugs\"!", ">\n\nAs much as “Just Say No” curbed crack use in the 80’s.", ">\n\nThe original translation of the Bible never was \"thou shalt not kill\". It was more like \"thou shall not commit murder\". Killing and murdering someone can be two completely different things." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(", ">\n\nChurch!", ">\n\nBrought to you by the folks that brought you, \"Just Say No\", and \"This is your Brain on Drugs\"!", ">\n\nAs much as “Just Say No” curbed crack use in the 80’s.", ">\n\nThe original translation of the Bible never was \"thou shalt not kill\". It was more like \"thou shall not commit murder\". Killing and murdering someone can be two completely different things.", ">\n\nWhat do you consider the original translation of the bible?\nAlso this would only matter to those who worship the government above god. And are you aware the 10C was changed so we could have christianity?\n>Killing and murdering someone can be two completely different things.\nNow that's good biblin'." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(", ">\n\nChurch!", ">\n\nBrought to you by the folks that brought you, \"Just Say No\", and \"This is your Brain on Drugs\"!", ">\n\nAs much as “Just Say No” curbed crack use in the 80’s.", ">\n\nThe original translation of the Bible never was \"thou shalt not kill\". It was more like \"thou shall not commit murder\". Killing and murdering someone can be two completely different things.", ">\n\nWhat do you consider the original translation of the bible?\nAlso this would only matter to those who worship the government above god. And are you aware the 10C was changed so we could have christianity?\n>Killing and murdering someone can be two completely different things.\nNow that's good biblin'.", ">\n\nI mean, old school God was not against killing people. He has the Israelites going out killing folks from rival tribes willy nilly. Killing rivals was like half the Old Testament! God was totally cool with systematically executing the rival tribe’s men, women, and children, as well as throwing babies into bonfires. And then God commands them to burn down the city, maybe take some slaves, and move on to the next tribe ready for more killing.\nHowever, you aren’t allowed to murder your family, your neighbor, or your fellow tribesman. That creates division and weakness within the tribe and kinda goes against the whole point of having a tribe to begin with. You got to shut that shit down, or your tribe won’t grow in strength and numbers. Which was another of God’s command.\nSo by this logic, gang violence is still allowed as long as you are killing folks from a rival gang. But don’t go murdering anyone within your gang. That’s weak." ]

[ "Damn, I was gonna kill some one but I saw this sign that said \"STOP\". I been stuck here for days...", ">\n\nThey put up a lot of \"no shoot zone\" graffiti in some Baltimore neighborhoods and I have to say I've never seen shootings happen where I've seen those so I'm not going to say they don't work but I'm also not going to say they don't work.", ">\n\nSocial workers worked that out with the gangs. Provides safe routes for children.", ">\n\nPublic reminders in the form of graffiti is part and parcel to gang politics. The idea that symbols are NOT important to human behavior is as absurd as the idea that they are all-important. \nI would need dig it up, but there are studies that show that workplace lunch theft drops significantly if you put a pair of cartoon eyes next to the fridge. Humans aren’t completely rational agents. There are tried and true ways to hack behavior, for better or worse.", ">\n\nSymbols are super important. Baltimore's symbols work because they were agreed on.\nI don't know if DC actually reached out to gang leaders via community outreach to get them on board.", ">\n\nI know this is far fetched, but hear me out. People who murder others do not live by the Ten Commandments", ">\n\nChristian logic: \"People are doing terrible things. We'll just put up a copy of the 10 commandments and a Bible verse. That'll fix 'em.\"", ">\n\n“Thoughts and prayers”\nHow about laws and limits?", ">\n\nPretty sure murder is already illegal.", ">\n\nOn guns…", ">\n\nGo research the laws already in place on guns in DC and then come back an post what you’ve learned.", ">\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. I live in DC and your question made me remember how I looked into buying a firearm. The restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense. I have a clean background and I’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later. My neighborhood has the lowest crime rate. Most crimes here are car break ins and stolen bikes. For now, my pitbull is enough. She goes everywhere with me. She has attack commands (I don’t have children).\nAll that being said, up until a few years ago, DC used to be the most dangerous city in America before Chicago and St. Louis. Today we’re at 52. 95% of crime is within the east side districts. However, I think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not, it wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those neighborhoods of big cities regardless of what statistics show in most other states.", ">\n\n\nIf you’re from DC you get this. \n\nI live in VA and have worked in DC.\n\nThe restrictions are pretty heavy and the registration process takes a long time, which all makes sense.\n\nIt doesn't make sense. The criminals don't spend that time. And, mostly the process is designed to take time and cost money to get the exact result you gave them - not owning or carrying a gun.\nI have a DC carry permit and more than one gun registered with DC. I've gone through all the process and paid all the money.\n\nI’m not interested in open carry because Metro PD shoots first asks questions later.\n\nYou're bigger issue is that open carry is 100% illegal in DC. \n\n95% of crime is within the east side districts.\n\nThe majority, sure, but not 95%, that's an exaggeration and I'm sure you understand that. But there is plenty of crime in NW.\n\nI think more lax gun control laws wouldn’t make a difference because whether strict or not,\n\nThe stricter laws didn't have the propaganda supported outcome. \n\nit wouldn’t significantly change the rate of gun violence in those districts regardless of what statistics show in most other states.\n\nI believe it would. Aside from pure statistics, just look at the easily observable situations.\nDC, PG MD, and Arlington VA all have similar populations. DC makes it very difficult to own/carry a gun and has the highest crime rates. MD is slightly easier but still not easy to own a gun and until recently carrying was virtually impossible and they have crime rates comparable to DC. Arlington (despite what the local politicians would like) is relatively easy to own and carry a gun thanks to state laws and they have the lowest crime rates of the three jurisdictions.\nIf the good people in SE were able to have guns, then maybe there would be lower crime. But the bigger issue is keeping the criminals in jail, and with the new revisions to the criminal code that's going to be even harder to do.", ">\n\n👍👍👍 thanks for your feedback. I don’t know why I left out NW. I just looked it up and it was 87% last year for homicide, so you’re right but I’m not toooo far off. I’m sure there are many good people in these districts do have guns in the home and/or concealed permits. I’m fine with open carry. What I do know is that statistically, it takes an average of 10 years for the cities to see some significant drop in gun related homicide. I still believe that crime rates in violent communities in DC won’t have a compelling change in homicide rates. We do need to remember that having an OC license doesn’t necessarily make you a nonviolent person. One thing I didn’t consider, and thank you for bringing that up, is that when people have to defend themselves with an illegal firearm, could the victim be charged with said illegal firearm in addition to the perpetrator?", ">\n\nI think very few people have LEGAL guns in DC on a per capita basis and compared to similar jurisdictions. And far fewer have carry permits. \nWhile you may be Ok with open carry DC is not. It’s illegal in all circumstances (non-LEO) just to be clear. \nIf someone has an illegal gun and defends themselves, the defensive use of the gun is evaluated on its own. In other words, if the shooting was lawful self defense they will be fine for any charges related to shooting/killing the attacker. However they can, and almost certain will, be charged for having the illegal gun. \nLook up Bernhard Goetz. He carried a gun illegally on NYC subway. He was attacked and defended himself. Fine for the shooting. Went to prison for carrying a gun illegally.", ">\n\nNo, but posters of kittens on tree branches that say “Hang in there baby” might.", ">\n\nHey everyone! Let's put this guy in charge.", ">\n\nI was quoting Machiavelli.", ">\n\n\nMachiavelli\n\nSteve Machiavelli?", ">\n\ntucks gun back into waistband\nHey man, really sorry, you're good. Poster up there says \"Thou shalt not kill\", and I'm a man of Jesus. Here, take the meth, too. Do unto others, eh? Have a good one!", ">\n\nbreaking bad good ending", ">\n\nRIP Combo :(", ">\n\nChurch!", ">\n\nBrought to you by the folks that brought you, \"Just Say No\", and \"This is your Brain on Drugs\"!", ">\n\nAs much as “Just Say No” curbed crack use in the 80’s.", ">\n\nThe original translation of the Bible never was \"thou shalt not kill\". It was more like \"thou shall not commit murder\". Killing and murdering someone can be two completely different things.", ">\n\nWhat do you consider the original translation of the bible?\nAlso this would only matter to those who worship the government above god. And are you aware the 10C was changed so we could have christianity?\n>Killing and murdering someone can be two completely different things.\nNow that's good biblin'.", ">\n\nI mean, old school God was not against killing people. He has the Israelites going out killing folks from rival tribes willy nilly. Killing rivals was like half the Old Testament! God was totally cool with systematically executing the rival tribe’s men, women, and children, as well as throwing babies into bonfires. And then God commands them to burn down the city, maybe take some slaves, and move on to the next tribe ready for more killing.\nHowever, you aren’t allowed to murder your family, your neighbor, or your fellow tribesman. That creates division and weakness within the tribe and kinda goes against the whole point of having a tribe to begin with. You got to shut that shit down, or your tribe won’t grow in strength and numbers. Which was another of God’s command.\nSo by this logic, gang violence is still allowed as long as you are killing folks from a rival gang. But don’t go murdering anyone within your gang. That’s weak.", ">\n\nLet's use the morality from the book that celebrates Abraham nearly sacrificing (murdering) his son until a ram pops out of nowhere." ]