"i would argue it currently holds no legitimacy due to relying purely on force and coercion (i cannot build my own home and farm my own food anywhere on the planets surface ie it is illegal for me to leave the social contract as they apply to every square cm of the globe)"

​

This logic is self defeating because if you don't follow a social contract then there is no such thing as ownership of land. There are no laws at all. Your implying that an entire civilization out to destroy itself so people can see what it's like to live without one. The reality is a social contract is a necessary component of a civilization, so no level of enforcement can be coercion so long as you are in that civilization.

I can attest to the fact that poor sleep causes problems. I take mood stabilizers in the form of benzos as well as their adjunct therapies. I suffer from extreme mood swings even though these drugs are used to sedate the emotion center of your brain. Benzos are essentially alcohol and come with all the trappings of it, which includes poor sleep.

​

Benzos are a bipolar medication (I take them for epilepsy), but can also cause you to become bipolar.....

The word wasn't "hypocrite" it was "virtue signaling" which isn't inherently bad, however it denotes a completely different type of framework for your ethics. I'm not arguing for the negative or that you are a bad person or anything, just that there is deception in your framing. You are framing it from an "ought" position that is grounded in ethical principles, but they are never adhered to like ever. You are trying to claim all the virtue of holding this ethical position that you never use which is dishonest.

I can't know your mind but from the outside looking in you are utilizing a type of moral egoism which explains why you are able to ignore this dilemma 99.9999% of the time. Though there are many forms of egoism they are all willing to tolerate immoral/harmful behaviors so long as you incur a commensurate benefit. This puts people in a compromised position so they seek out instances where they can be ethical or virtuous to gain a type of moral currency to protect against the scales not balancing in their favor. This last thing is where the deception is introduced because we want to present a grounded ethical position that's virtuous not some egocentric motivation. The principled you make your position look the worse it makes everyone else look if they don't follow it so you are gaining moral currency while causing other people to lose theirs. This is on reason we even in an egocentric model you still seek external moral protection.

1. (A) I would argue that there is no difference between art and any other tangible object. The meaning behind art is derived from reality, so actual objects will always have the compacity to be "art". The no true Scotsman fallacy is at play here. (B) your analogy about how art is pointing at 1 individual and using them for branding while companies aren't is a bad analogy in my opinion. It is more accurate to compare the star a actor with representatives and CEO's which are synonymous with the branding of a company. What I mean is when a movie says "come see billy in the new movie", you change it to "come see billy the rapist", so you ought to make that same leap with companies. Blood diamonds are a popular example.
2. This is where I part ways because I call BS when people want to be ethical some times well more like less than .00001% of the time. There is a name for it but I don't want to be rude. The argument here isn't equivalent either. An artist abuses someone in the past outside of the move what ever, compared to an artist actively raping someone on set. That's the difference between drama cycles and businesses do to the fact that business models have exploitation baked in.

​

(conclusion) I consider old presidential speeches to be art do to the historical element that has been introduced "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" as an example of something that's so unimaginable in todays world. I say this because there are some really bad people that gave speeches

It just seems contradictory when you apply the logic of the "non-separatists" to anything else. For example you can't like any product because people had to suffer/die in the production of that product. The computers we are both on involved slavery, exploitation, destruction of ecosystems, poisoning of water ways, caused entire regions of peoples to develop birth defects, cancers, brain abnormalities......

​

You can look at any product and find some kind of harm or ethical problems, so I don't understand why people fixate on just art.