blithely (#42853)
I agree that artists should be paid their worth. I am an artist and many of my friends are artists. What bothers me is the fact this is an option and people are terming it as an end-all and be-all without any other valid choice, that artists are being manipulated, and that this wasn't just a mistake to include that can't be simply resolved.

Every artist, I think, should get an estimate of the hours we're expected to work, the minimum wage stated upfront, and the marketization or privatization of work specified. That was never a question. This announcement is fundamentally flawed, but the flaw never hinted at any malice or manipulation of an artist to me.

I'd sometimes prefer to be paid in IGC because I'm very faulty with my own finances. I'm neurodivergent, and less financial stressors or expectations (I have PDA, pathological demand avoidance from autism) mean I won't have near as many overstims. I also think that if I were someone who didn't have access to Paypal, such as being in another country or not having all the necessary identification to make a Paypal, I'd choose IGC.

Artists are absolutely worth every penny, a tip, and so much more for their valid and hard contributions. That, to me, was never the heart of the argument.

But acting as if the staff ruined someone's career over a fauxpas in a post that we grew up seeing numerously in our own childhoods and in our own adulthood is a bit odd. It's something we grew up with and got conditioned to seeing. Because we grew up with a different netculture, we grow accustomed to that culture. Is it time to change? Sure. But this wasn't an act of deliberate hate towards an artist.

In closing, I agree with everything you're saying. The way it's being addressed is the only thing bothering me.

P.S: I enjoyed the debate, wish you no ill will for any same or differing opinions, and hope you have a lovely day. <3