there's a difference between virtue signaling and just expressing ideas/opinion. the one that matters the most to me is that the latter isn't hostile
the flippancy you find especially across threads on political news across the fediverse is awful because it drives people away without accomplishing things other than virtue signaling
there's some distance between just having a (transactional) relationship and a true-love relationship where "I like you for who you are and the comfort of being around you, and you feel the same" fits in, though
The MIT is what's called a permissive license.
Copyright
Permission is hereby granted , free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense , and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
That's the entirety of the text. You can do pretty much anything as long as you make sure the first line is still visible somewhere (and if you're not incorporating/relicensing it into GPL, you have to include the MIT license text as well; I'm less sure about how this parenthetical works but I do know an MIT project relicensed to GPL needs not include the MIT text), which in GPL it is.
how did news of your union spread/how'd you reach so many people to join?
what has your union been doing to support you since you were fired?
Only if you do separate them and do not distribute the copyrighted image.
Thus it doesn't apply to OP's examples, that is my point.
(FWIW you can make a copy of a copyrighted image to extensively critique it as long as the copy is not unreasonably detailed.)
proprietary tools or programming languages
Could you give an example?
Then your criteria isn't "noncommercial but "noncommercial and transformative" ("the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, disfavored fair use because although the use was noncommercial, it was also not transformative"), which OP's examples aren't. Using film music for your videos isn't transformative. Law doesn't have a "I didn't distribute my video" exception either unless that's how the music was licensed to you.
Your phrasing sounds like fair use is the default case for non-commercial when really it just makes it "more likely" legal. The most obvious example is Hachette v. Internet Archive. US copyright is so pro-business that you never know until the gavel is down.
This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair;
Edit:
Until the judge says otherwise
Well, yeah, according to the criteria I've detailed with sources above.
yes, you're creating a derivative work that is entirely GPL. note that this doesn't stop anyone from consulting the original since FOSS licenses do not have revocation. if they use none of the GPL derivative work they can still only abide by MIT. however, your changes would only exist in the GPL work, and they must be used with GPL.