#CSR

[thecollectibles]

Art by CSR

[baesol]

∿　　　⁺　　　✿　　🍥　　⊹

[ab-arts]

Hello y'all, I know I don't normally make posts like this, but it's come to the attention of me and several other artists in the OFF fandom that there's a person, a minor, by the user @/julietthecsridiot going around sending other OFF artists asks about meditation.

Though it may seem innocuous, nearly their entire account is centered around meditation and them asking people (adults and minors alike) to draw or imagine the Batter meditating. This is fetish mining.

I'm making this post because many people have been unaware that this person is doing this, and assuming it's an innocent question. The user @/chellys-catbox, a friend of theirs, has also been encouraging this behavior.

This is their response to being asked to stop, with an additional response from chellys-cat box, who is a minor and shouldn't be saying things like this.

Don't harass this person or their friend, but if you receive an ask from them, it's best to block and report. Roping people unconsentually into making fetish art for you is not okay.

[lumiidragon]

Doodle time with the brothers~

Also, I wanted to see a furry Bad Batter~

[hydronitrogendioxide2-28]

Offtober best stills

Sauce: pxv. Enjoy!!♡

↓More~~

TH ref:

Probably y'all liked it :-3

[coqiy05]

hehe。。。

[silly-billy-skilly]

Fanart of @mothscotch s godly super swaggy batter + puppet worm merman designs UGH THEY R SO COOL

[arrancarmelos]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼ 🫧 🐾 ❀ 🩵 ུ

[hyefilms]

　　　　　　　　✎　、、 ⌂　 ˚　 🏷⊹　 ⿻　 ❁

　　　　　　　　✎　、、 ⌂　 ˚　 🍮⊹　 ⿻　 ❁

@sseulr1n ✲

[mothscotch]

"That doesn't stop that hooded bitchshit from playing duck hunt with him."

[umiena]

　 　　∿　 　　.　　˚　　　　🥃

[ksenya-special]

idk what I am spending my time on

[baesol]

　　∿　　　🍰　　　✮　　　\( ˊᵕˋ )/

[chaeneuu]

[lumiidragon]

An actual clean sketch. Will try to finish this at some point~

[sgiandubh]

C might mean well, but I find businesses using charity to sell suspicious.

Dear Provocative Anon,

What you say deserves an audio (there have been two of them two weeks ago, compensating for last week's silence). I have many things to tell you and please excuse the delay:

They really can't win, with people like you, can they? And that goes for both C and S, mind you. No matter what they do and try to promote as a side project, there is always going to be someone unhappy and vocal about it. When it's not you complaining 'business using charity to sell' is 'suspicious', there's the other fuckwit asking recently why S hasn't given all MPC's profit to charity, as Paul Newman did with Newman's Own.

So, I will be brutally honest with you, Anon. I have thoughts and questions about your own point of view and this is partially why it took me so long to answer you. It would seem you are not familiar at all with what is called 'corporate social responsibility' (CSR), since at least the Sixties. Which means, in a nutshell, companies who choose to focus part of their activity and dedicate part of their profits to charitable projects. It is done with various degrees of ethics, success and bona fides all around the world, and it is often used as a strong marketing and sales argument.

Think about these people, whose brand is probably immediately recognizable wherever you go, spare perhaps Pyongyang:

I just picked this Coca Cola Foundation recent CSR project in Brazil totally randomly, using Google. Some might think it's just another cynical diversion: one of the world's biggest corporate profiteers, happily contributing to the current obesity pandemic (including in Latin America), suddenly showing one of its biggest markets they do have a conscience, after all, and a social one to boot. And addressing, at the same time, one of the continent's post-colonial bleeding wounds, which is to say, the organic imbalance between rich and poor, as far as access to means of production, land ownership and use and sales opportunities go. 480 farmers benefitting from Coca Cola's magnanimity is probably but a tiny drop of hope in an ocean of dour social injustice, but the truth is, Anon, if nobody does anything good, then nothing good will happen at all. It is as simple as that, and while their modus operandi is probably not exactly my cup of tea, you will have to admit it works, at least to some extent and for some people. Plus it greatly enhances the company's do-good, sensible and reliable global image, because of course, what happens right now in the state of Minas Gerais is but a tiny part of a bigger strategy.

Might I add that even those robber barons, à la Cornelius Vanderbilt or Jay Gould, who made their ruthless fortunes building the railroads of a still very young United States of America, ended up giving a very small part of their same fortune to various charities. It wasn't nearly enough what we would consider as 'reasonable', in 2024, but it did start a philanthropic trend, that took considerable speed after the 1919 Boston Molasses Disaster. The Sixties have just added more pragmatism and gave a name to what was, at its very start, quite an opportunistic endeavor.

Even so, Vanderbilt and Gould themselves did not invent anything, really. One should look to good old Europe to find what is probably the first big CSR project in human history, still going strong since 1521. May I introduce you to the Augsburg Fuggerei:

[for even more pious charity: https://www.fugger.de/en/fuggerei]

Renting one of those wonderful Hansel and Gretel houses for less than one euro/year, plus three daily Hail Mary is something to behold, right? Jakob Fugger the Young, the guy who had this brilliant idea (which, might I add, is still run and operated by the Fugger banker family, even nowadays) was literally a ruthless kingmaker, a colonial trade and exploration pioneer, but also a religious bigot who flatly refused to extend his charity to Protestant families. Still, his pious dream goes on - the Fugger Family Foundation even actively plans its next 500 years. This is Germany, after all 😉.

Those people’s money stinks more of corruption and crime than S or C’s ever could, Anon. Still, they are remembered as benefactors, by many. History is seldom cruel to those who are willing to pay for their posterity.

But you know what, Anon? Compared to the Fuggers and the Vanderbilts and the Goulds, S and C are really small fish in an even smaller, fickler pond. I think they are doing it out of their good heart and I think they are honestly, genuinely responsive to the idea of giving a chance to young, struggling artists. But, in the process, are they also trying to market themselves as more approachable and less controversial, considering the (oh, I shall never tire to repeat this, with gusto) cosmic amount of bullshit plaguing their respective public images? My somewhat cynical answer is also yes, Anon. To which may I immediately add that it's not even important: all that counts are the tangible results of whatever good things they do with their booze and/or fitness profits.

Results and helping trigger a change in one's life is all that really interests me, Anon. It seems to bother you, though, so I will cheekily end this long rant with a couple of questions: do you have a problem with poverty? do you believe in giving people a (second) chance, or do you think only the rich are worth considering and valuable?

If so, I honestly pity you, girl. For the real indigent in all this might be you.