In both cases, if the person needs what the other person is witholding, he is compelled to meet their demands, no?
Ask direct complete questions
“Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no?” and “And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?” are complete questions, in fact, they are straight up yes or no questions, the simplest of them all.
What do you mean burden of proof? It’s the dictionary definition. That I put literally right on top. To be compelled to act. Are you saying that in one case, you are not compelled to act, despite needing the same thing from the same party?
To force (a person) to do something; drive or constrain
You are driven to meet the other party’s demand in both cases, please stay focused. We are talking about selling your work to consumers. The entire goal is to get the consumers’ money.
If you don’t need to get the consumer’s money, then why would a boycott be a moral failure? You don’t need them. Even in this case there is no practical difference between two cases of propositioning and ignoring.
You are objecting when you are disengaging from these works, are you not? Unless, going back to a previous question, you are the type to disengage with works you are completely satisfied with?
: to feel distaste for something
This is the definition for object I mean. If you wanted to pull out the dictionary thing again.
In both cases, if the person needs what the other person is witholding, he is compelled to meet their demands, no?
“Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no?” and “And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?” are complete questions, in fact, they are straight up yes or no questions, the simplest of them all.
No, what you describe is not coercion. If you believe otherwise the burden of proof lies with you.
What do you mean burden of proof? It’s the dictionary definition. That I put literally right on top. To be compelled to act. Are you saying that in one case, you are not compelled to act, despite needing the same thing from the same party?
So now you don’t know what the word “compel” means?
You’re wasting my fucking time kiddo.
You are driven to meet the other party’s demand in both cases, please stay focused. We are talking about selling your work to consumers. The entire goal is to get the consumers’ money.
Then you don’t understand art, and your opinion of its value is moot.
If you don’t need to get the consumer’s money, then why would a boycott be a moral failure? You don’t need them. Even in this case there is no practical difference between two cases of propositioning and ignoring.
Because gatekeeping and objecting to artistic expression is inherently morally indefensible.
You are objecting when you are disengaging from these works, are you not? Unless, going back to a previous question, you are the type to disengage with works you are completely satisfied with?
This is the definition for object I mean. If you wanted to pull out the dictionary thing again.