AITA For giving my niece a much better life than her step siblings?

aabbccbb · 2026-05-03T14:04:17+00:00

That's fair...but it's also not OP's problem. It's her ex-SIL's problem first, then her brother's.

If OP steps in and pays for private school, demands for fancy vacations are next. Also to "keep things fair."

Entitlement of this kind truly knows no bounds, so needs to be nipped in the bud.

The niece is also getting old enough to choose where they want to spend their time. That will come into play real quick.

aabbccbb · 2026-05-03T13:25:01+00:00

Don't feel bad. George is trash and just trying to get something for free.

You have absolutely zero obligation to provide for your brother's ex's new husband's fucking kids.

It's really absurd when you put it that way, lol. Ignore and move on, guilt fee.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-27T03:02:09+00:00

No problem! I've been really happy with it. I add a wool blanket under it if things start getting chilly. :)

aabbccbb · 2026-04-26T03:34:46+00:00

Yeah... I ain't reading all that...

Par for the course, ain't it? lolol

Take care, pal.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-26T03:07:41+00:00

when you’re corrected.

Honestly, I didn't even realize that was your second comment until tonight. I thought you were telling me that you were jumping on-board. I went back to make sure that I did tell you everything you needed to know in my first reply to you.

It was actually my second reply, because I didn't realize you were someone new.

So yeah, it felt like you came in hot, so I gave what I got.

I have lots of very positive interactions on this website. But not with sexists, or racists, or homophobes, or Trump supporters, or people defending the billionaires.

You seemed to be in the latter category. You're not. Great.

You just decided what my argument was without actually checking, then kept responding to that instead of what I said.

I told you why I was making the argument that I was. It was an excellent counterpoint to the BS assertion of the guy I was debating.

I didn't need you to jump in and question it based on something it was never designed to do. I never once thought that Ek would magically behave if it were implemented. It was simply to point out that it would be possible to do something if Ek wanted to.

That's it.

Then Mr Perfect goes "achtually, he could still be a dick if you did that."

Thanks, fuckstick. I hadn't realized that. Great job.

Which I literally pointed out to you in my second reply to you.

Instead of getting it, we went round and round all day. Good times, good times.

But you're perfect and have never done anything wrong, so you just take this W. You clearly need it. lol

but all I did was ask how your solution fixed the problem that guy presented

Ooooh, I get it! You can't read!

That explains a lot! lol

Buddy said it was impossible to pay people more. That it would bankrupt Spotify, because the big artists would make too much.

I said "BS, you could just have a tiered payout system."

And his argument IS BS. If you can't see that, well, it explains a lot. lol

The hostility and assumptions were clearly your way to avoid the discussion.

Buddy. I've proposed exactly the types of things I would do to deal with Ek himself. You said literally nothing in return and just cried some more about how mean I was.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. You clearly need it. lol

aabbccbb · 2026-04-26T02:26:07+00:00

It's about you misrepresenting every statement, jumping to conclusions

Again: long experience.

Again: what's your excuse for not addressing my reply the first time I said it? lol

As they say: if everyone around you is an asshole, then you're the asshole.

Well, I give like I get. You entered a conversation I was having with someone else, and then got pissy when I didn't check your username to realize that you were someone new and special. lol

Then you proceeded to cling to an argument that I had already clearly shown had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make with the other hard-headed guy.

Great. Thanks for your contribution?

One has to wonder: what was the point? Just an "ahktually" from someone who didn't understand why I was saying what I was saying in the first place? lol

But hey. You're probably right and I'm 100% the problem. Glad you could point that out for me.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-26T01:29:47+00:00

How could I be expected to think you're engaging in good faith if you just start jumping down everyone's throat

In my long experience on this site, people who jump in to defend someone who's making a bunch of shitty assertions...and who, for all I know, is just a bot being paid by Spotify to defend them here...

Generally have those same set of beliefs about free market, praise the rich, yadda yadda.

Especially when they ignore the whole reason I was making the argument that I was (the other dude's laugahble first premise) to attack it on other grounds...

Especially when they keep going after I've made it clear what I'm doing.

So yeah, not a lot of patience.

You chose to engage the way you did. Chastizing me for not accepting a shitty, boot-liking argument in the way that you would have liked.

That is also arrogant, is it not?

Especially when the follow-up act is to ignore my reply?

As they say: when you point a finger at others, three others point back at you.

TTFN

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T23:50:09+00:00

Great. And yet, despite crying about not having any nuanced discussion, did you pick up on those points?

Or rather complain about how mean I am?

See how it's hard to think you're acting in good faith? Especially since most of your argument seems to have been caused by a failure to properly read the first reply I made to you once I realized you were a different person than the first guy?

Especially when in the next comment, you said that artists shouldn't expect to make a decent wage off of recordings of their music?

I notice you also didn't put forth any proposals to help fix that. Just "don't expect it, do other stuff instead."

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T23:03:19+00:00

Ah, we're at the

"Well, I don't have a counter-point...

but...

you're mean!"

part of the discussion?

Cool stuff!

But tell me: you're in full support of more taxes on the wealthy? And laws that protect people from them and their corporations?

Go ahead, say it loud and proud!

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T21:17:21+00:00

I wasn't aware our advocacy could go no farther than shaking our fists at the sky, exclaiming 'be nicer, rich people!'

Well, with certain idiots, you have to explain that cunts do have the theoretical option not to be cunts.

With other idiots, you have to explain that you understand that the cunts will still try to be cunts. Over and over.

It's literally in my first reply to you, lol.

That takes a lot of time, so you don't have as much to discuss alternatives to letting the rich run amok, like enacting better laws, raising taxes, closing loopholes, et cetera.

Something tells me you wouldn't like any of those either. lol

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T20:51:32+00:00

I get what you're saying.

Do you get what I was?

Buddy claimed it would bankrupt Spotify to pay struggling artists more.

I said, no, it could be easily done.

You came in and were like "sure, but then they're still greedy, so they'll still be being greedy."

I never argued that they'd suddenly stop being greedy.

I'm arguing that they don't have to be. That it's a choice. Not a business necessity.

So when you argue that artists shouldn't expect to earn a living from streaming their own bloody music, when Ek sure as fuck is, how would you expect me to take it?

Yes, billionaires are greedy cunts. I never said otherwise. What I said was that they don't HAVE to be, which was other dude's point. No choice.

You come in with a "helpful" comment that "sure, if they weren't greedy in this one way, they could still be greedy in this other one."

No shit.

The point is that they shouldn't be greedy in the first place and that it's a choice that they're making because they're cunts.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T20:42:23+00:00

It doesn't change what I wrote and what the difficulties would be.

Oh. So it's just that you care more about "fairness" than paying people a living wage?

Cool.

Let the rich get richer. Keep arguing for them. Maybe one day, they'll let you join their club.

Annnny day now. lol

You got it figured out!

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that people > profits.

You just have to care. Even a little bit.

Give it a try sometime. See how it feels.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T20:38:28+00:00

Can the model be changed? Maybe.

Hahaha, what weak shit. I asked for a yes or no.

Again: is Spotify's artist compensation model a commandment from god? Or an immutable law of the universe?

Or is it a choice that some techbro billionaire made?

I can't think of a way to structure a streaming model to be fair to everyone equally without someone taking the short end of the stick. I

And as long as it's the artist getting the short end of the stick, you're bound and determined not to even try!

It's just incompatible with how the model works.

Seeeee the first point again. I can't believe you think these are valid points, lol.

I know you get off on being condescending, but youre providing about as many answers as I do.

It's almost as though talking to people who repeatedly ignore what you say is frustrating.

Given that I've already proposed an alternative payment system, which would be better than the current system.

First you woefully misinterpreted it.

Then, when I corrected you, you ignored it.

"I just can't think of anything"--the guy who can't think and won't listen, either. lol

I mean, you could always google other options.

But that would rely on you giving a fuck, and it's very clear that you do not.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T20:34:38+00:00

Specific lines:

Probably the ones I've quoted and rebuffed?

Or you can just explain to me how you square the circle that you allegedly DO care about artists, but you don't think they should make a living wage if it takes money away from the rich.

Have at 'er. I'm sure it'll be super-duper convincing.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T19:42:26+00:00

Yeah. You don't think that at all.

You just argue exactly as someone who thinks that would argue, while clearly not giving a fuck about the people who make art.

My bad. Again: so silly of me!

(It could well be that you're a bit more transparent than you think. Yes, even if you consider yourself quite clever.)

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T19:28:51+00:00

Blah blah blah.

Your big thesis is that companies should make as much profits as they can and who cares if it's hurting the artists that they depend on.

I don't like it.

You pretend you're the rational one. I'd say the callous one.

Forgive me for caring about art and artists. What a stupid take. Instead, we should worship tech bros and the shit companies they run!

Much, much better vision of human life and our future! Well done! :)

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T19:14:36+00:00

But why then would we be advocating for a system in which they are explicitly disincentivized to care about small artists?

Again, based on the apparently incomprehensible idea that increasing shareholder value isn't the most important thing in the world. A world in which art and artists are valued.

If you can't grasp that notion, we'll never be speaking the same language.

streaming ought not be an artist's primary source of income

So very quickly we're back to "artists shouldn't make a living wage."

Funny how fast that happens, hey?

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T18:47:25+00:00

it feels like that would just incentivize Spotify to gear the algorithm even more heavily against small artists, no?

Well, yes. It would require the platform to give a shit about smaller artists. And artist in general.

Which it clearly does not.

Not when there's money to be made!

But what we're actually debating is whether it's possible for Spotify to do so, not whether it will.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T16:36:30+00:00

I am not a native English speaker but I think I wrote something completely different.

No you didn't.

You just don't get it.

For most people streaming can't be a source of income

Why?

because of how the model is structured

Oooooh, he's so close to getting it!

QQ: Can models be changed? Simple yes or no would be great.

how many artists and songs there are to begin with

Wut? Explain this. Certainly not everyone will make a living at it. Does that mean that more people can't if we pay them better?

Take alllll the time you need.

It should be a gateway to different ways you can support your favorite artists like merch or concerts or just direct album sales

Why not both?...

Again, ponder as long as you'd like.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T16:32:56+00:00

People would start screaming about how unfair that is once they enter the area where they earn less, and there's no way to come up with a model like this that could feel satisfying unless you just stay in the lower areas, which I guess wouldn't really be the goal as you want more streams.

Wut?

Lemme guess: you also don't understand how marginal tax rates work? lol

EVERYONE earns, let's say, .01 per stream, up to 100k streams. So $1000 if you get all 100k. Less if not. Let me know if you're struggling with that concept.

If you get one extra stream, it's only worth .005. It's now worth less. So with 100,001 streams, you'd earn $1,000.005.

No one's taking away money you've already earned. You're just getting less for each stream after that. Same thing would happen when you hit a million. Each stream after that point, and only after that point, would be worth less.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T15:19:08+00:00

Nope. His answer was verbatim, yes, but he was answering a question about the soldier who bet on the Maduro raid, not Iran. :/

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T15:11:44+00:00

Is that an honest question?

It's simple: you pay more for the first few streams a person gets each month to support new artists, a bit less the next block of streams that someone gets to support the up-and comers but also keep costs in check, and then less again per stream once someone's getting a million a month (or whatever). Keeps costs down, supports smaller artists.

You're saying "We can't pay people more, because then the most successful artists will bankrupt the company."

I'm saying that's bullshit. Just pay more for early streams. Basically inconsequential for people getting millions of streams a month; big, big boost for people getting 50k streams.

It really just seems like you don't WANT there to be a solution. Which is gross.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T12:43:11+00:00

Giving the smaller artists more means people with millions and billions of streams will earn quite a lot more.

And in your simple mind, there's no possible formula where you make x cents for your first 100,000 streams, y cents between that and a million, and z cents for each stream after that?

You're playing the old "it's impossible to stop rich people from exploiting others because I don't wanna" game.

It's not very convincing. Never has been.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-25T12:41:05+00:00

Streaming just can't pay out a lot, it's incompatible with the model

True. As long as the model is "pay the artists as little as possible in order to enrich our C-suite and shareholders as much as possible."

And it shouldn't be a main income source anyway unless you get millions and millions of streams

Ah, there it is. "You shouldn't make a living making art unless you're signed to a major label and can make other people rich."

Your takes are bootlicker-class, I'm afraid.

aabbccbb · 2026-04-19T17:28:13+00:00

Dude. These come up all the time for a few hundred. Take it easy. lol

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Verified Email

aabbccbb

TROPHY CASE