Why are you saying that is if it’s contradictory? I know that Russia invaded Ukraine. I can see the horrifying details by watching drone videos. I can know something generally without knowing the details

I assumed the meme is related to high prices decades ago: for example, I remember saving up allowances to buy Star Fox 64, which cost about 70 bucks in the late nineties.

To add to this, there’s a great section in Man Without a Country by Vonnegut where he talks about his approach to humor, and he mentions the time he was in Dresden during WW2 as a prisoner of war, while it was being bombed.

True enough, there are such things as laughless jokes, what Freud called gallows humor. There are real-life situations so hopeless that no relief is imaginable.

While we were being bombed in Dresden, sitting in a cellar with our arms over our heads in case the ceiling fell, one soldier said as though he were a duchess in a mansion on a cold and rainy night, “I wonder what the poor people are doing tonight.” Nobody laughed, but we were still all glad he said it. At least we were still alive! He proved it.

A bigger part of the section here: https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/bookworm/kurt-vonnegut-1/excerpt-from-a-man-without-a-country

Thanks for a thorough reply, there’s a lot to tackle, so apologies that I’m not responding to everything in it. You make good points, but it’s clear we have fundamentally different perspectives on this.

I’m not that sure about permission being important in art would led to coherent definition. How could art know if it had permission to be made or not?

I tried to be explicit that permission is not required to make art - because I want to disentangle the two arguments. One of the biggest contentions I have with AI gen stuff is the ethics involved. No ethical consumption under capitalism, so I get arguments that the paint brushes I have were produced unethically to some degree, so pot meet kettle, but I think there’s degrees we can find some nuance in. But I don’t think it’s useful, either, to just shrug and toss the ethics aside. It must be acknowledged, and grappled with.

As for the rest of your comment about the artist copying preexisting emotions, tapping into things that are already there - or the infinite monkeys thing - I do think some amount of intentionality is required to call something art. That said, we all create derivative works to a degree: that’s just impossible to avoid. We’re only human, and we filter our environments through our brains and experiences, and that allows some unique (but again, derivative to a degree) works. If you ask ten people to paint a scary lion, we’re all drawing on some shared fear, and maybe a single photograph of a lion, but you’ll get different works as a result. The art, for me, is the product of the creative process. Art requires intentional action, IMHO. It’s a more narrow definition than yours, but I think being overbroad makes the word meaningless, and indistinguishable from…beauty, or (to include grotesque images, or other emotions), simply aesthetics. AI tools can make beautiful images, but this all circles back to my initial point (with some modified wording): aesthetics are not inherently art, art is not just aesthetic. If we get to AGI, I’ll buy the things it creates as being art. For now, it’s really impressive math. Doesn’t undermine the beauty in it, but it’s something different.

Again, this is my personal opinion. In my science career I’m more of a lumper than a splitter - when talking about evolution, you can “lump” together groups into species, or “split” them into subspecies (really for any clade). So I get your impulse to be open and not gatekeep. I’m not trying to gatekeep, but I do think there is utility in defining things. I don’t like splitting species, but there are differences in crocodiles and alligators. We can’t just lump them into one species - but they are related by broader terms. In this case, I think you’re talking about aesthetics, and not art. Just my personal opinion, and not making a value judgement any more than calling an alligator an alligator, and not a crocodile. They’re different things, and yes: species that look nearly identical but are genetically distinct qualify as different species. The way something beautiful is made matters. IMHO

You’re arguing with a version of me that you’ve created in your head, because nowhere did I say anything about AI art. You’re also again misunderstanding my point - and misunderstanding what creativity is. “Representative art” requires creativity, because a mountain is not two dimensional. Taking a photograph requires decision-making. Even once you’ve taken a pretty picture, though, loop back to my first point - beauty alone is not art.

Again, you’re arguing with a version of me that you’ve created in your head: yes, we use tools to make art. People use spellcheck when writing a play, people use knives when making woodcuts, we use ovens to blow glass. However, if I - without permission - take a photo of my neighbor’s watercolor and print it on T-shirts, do you think I created a work of art? That much is at least arguable. There’s expression, there’s creativity, and it could be aesthetically pleasing in the end. However, one of the main contentions people have with AI gen…do you find it ethical?

Pay close attention to what I’m saying here, please. You’ve been trampling on nuance, so don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m a scientist that kind of works in tech, and I have a lot of creative pursuits outside of my day job. I think there’s a lot of potential to LLMs and other tools out there, but I think we need to pay careful attention to ethics, and I do think words have meaning, even if definitions drift, and even when we’re talking about challenging subjects.

Keep trying really. It’s interesting seeing some people realize how in all human history we have been unable to came up with a united and universal definition of art. It is probably one of the most vague concepts we have as humans.

I’m glad we agree on something! Yes, the definition of art hard to pin down. Subjectivity is the name of the game. I loathe a lot of modern art, because I think it’s disappeared up it’s own asshole, as Vonnegut would say. It’s strange though, because you seem to be certain that your definition of art is universally correct. Again, my initial point - you’re conflating beauty with art, because you claim a mountain itself is art. I think a mountain is beauty, and there’s beauty in our scientific understanding of why it looks like it does. But I don’t think that qualifies as art.

And of course pushing politics in the definition (we all know this is truly about politics, there is not facade here) is the oldest trick in the book.

What politics do you think I’m pushing? How do you think whatever politics you are pushing have impacted your view of what defines art?

None of what you just said has anything to do with the point I was making.

It sounds like you’re conflating art and beauty.

Art is about human creativity and expression. It doesn’t have to be beautiful, and beauty doesn’t have to be art.

Conservatives wanted to stop immigration long before 2008…

Is there a succinct way of articulating why we can’t do both? (e.g. vote for the lesser evil while also doing all the mutual aid and whatnot that we can?) Does it boil down to the argument that voting makes people less likely to build said alternative power structures?

I’ll watch the video when I have time, but communicating an actionable strategy I think is essential to folks in crisis.

That’s correct in my eyes, too. I’ve done everything I can to stop the genocide, short of getting a plane ticket to go and fight, and I do all I can to donate to groups like Doctors Without Borders to improve the material conditions on the ground to the extent that it’s possible.

It’s honestly disgusting that so many people don’t even recognize it as a genocide. Again: my only point is that we all need to reflect on how to contribute, even in small ways, to improving things on the ground there. I’m not the original person you were arguing with, I just wanted to interject that self reflection is always a good thing, even if you come out thinking the same way as before. Sometimes there’s a slightly different answer though, or a better understanding of the actions of others, which helps future decisions. Nuance isn’t easy, but it’s important to actually making effective change in the world. That’s been my experience, at least. Take it for what you will!

My point was that we should all reflect, and not just assume that we’re correct all the time.

Nowhere in my comment did I suggest we should only focus on the worst major political party in the USA, nor am I defending the idealized image people have of the states. American exceptionalism has always been terrible propaganda, and the only silver living I’ve seen from this trump era is that more people are aware of how shit most US parties are, and the depths of the myths we’ve been fed in this nation.

I’ll disagree that the other options are 100% as morally bankrupt as trump’s group of billionaires and conspiracy theorists, but if you’re talking about Democrats I’d argue they’re only nearly as morally bankrupt, so it’s far from a defense of the party. Maybe 90% as morally bankrupt? 95ish?

You should reflect because it’s the correct thing to do.

What vote would have - even slightly - reduced Palestinian suffering in the short term. What would reduce it in the long term? Have new actions or moves by Israel changed what you thought months ago? Has the incoming administration signalled moves that will change the trajectory, relative to the current admin?

These are all things we need to reflect on

Biden should do something cool, since he’s thinking about preemptive pardons…

One of the most on the nose scenes in the Wire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6r2a2PaQPI

The conversation (copied from IMDB)

Detective James ‘Jimmy’ McNulty : Guy leaves two dozen bodies scattered all over the city, no one gives a fuck.

Detective Lester Freamon : It’s because who he dropped.

Detective William ‘Bunk’ Moreland : True that. You can go a long way in this country killin’ black folk. Young males especially. Misdemeanor homicides.

Detective James ‘Jimmy’ McNulty : If Marlo was killin’ white women…

Detective Lester Freamon : White children.

Detective William ‘Bunk’ Moreland : Tourists.

Detective James ‘Jimmy’ McNulty : One white ex-cheerleader tourist missin’ in Aruba.

Detective William ‘Bunk’ Moreland : Trouble is, this ain’t Aruba, bitch.

Detective Lester Freamon : You think that if 300 white people were killed in this city every year, they wouldn’t send the 82nd Airborne? Negro, please.

Accuracy: the most important part of humor! It’s so crucial to comedy that I have never, not in a million years, seen someone exaggerate for humorous effect. It’s simply not done in civil society: so I thank you for the bravery you’ve shown by shining light on this horrid case of inaccurate humor.

Military industrial complex

I really wonder why you get offended by “We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative”?

What you said here wouldn’t ruffle nearly as many feathers, because IMHO in your other post you buried the lede.

It’s definitely good to say that we need better access to therapy, and to improve societal conditions, since many people would be healthier with those instead of drugs. We’d all benefit!

Then there’s proposals by hardcore wingnuts like RFK that…are unreasonable to the point of doing outright harm. You just got confused for the latter, I guess. I wasn’t sure about your first comment, either.

I’m not following your argument, though I am slightly drunk. The disproportionate representation that’s the focus of the post means that less than 51% of the populace could wield the levers of power in the Senate. That’s minority rule, which is even worse than mob rule.

I get that mob rule is bad, and that we need checks in place to curb the possibility of abuses of power, but I see that as necessitating laws for super majorities and ranked choice or other ways of ensuring less extreme representatives getting into power.

Exactly! I also haven’t bought more than ten items from Walmart in the last fifteen years.

It can cost a little more, and requires patience, but I can think of very few times I’ve actually needed (versus wanted) some item before I could get it not via Amazon or Walmart. Even with the added expense for some individual items I’d wager I’ve spent less overall since it makes impulse purchases easier to avoid.

It’s probably not amounting to much in the way of resisting these mega corps, but it isn’t as difficult as some folks imagine.

I’ve just realized that my tendency to start comments irl and online with “Yeah…” might in part be a defense mechanism to avoid being misunderstood as disagreeing.