Please stop double-posting this kind of stuff in this and the election thread.

It's not clear to me what happened. You're complaining you have been falsely accused of being @keystone?

:strong:

I doubt they will see that it is in their interests, as one of the big two. — unenlightened

If the same percentage-wise results occurred in Ireland which has a more proportional system, the largest party would be facing a forced coalition now. If I recall correctly, at least 45% is realistically required for a majority and no one party has achieved that in decades.

So, no they won't.

It cannot be stable to have a minority of 34% of a turnout of 60% which I think comes out to a government with just 20% of the electorate supporting, and some of that a reluctant "they can't be worse than the last lot" support. With a little help from a hostile and scandal-hungry press, that support can vanish almost overnight. — unenlightened

That's just what I was thinking earlier. Beyond the hype, only one in five actually voted for Labour. And the Rupert Murdoch party winning again is hardly going to be transformative. If it were, his press would quickly decide they're no longer his party and that would probably be the end of them.

The narrative that Trump will be granted evil superpowers if he wins is out there now and not going to be vanquished by facts.

I'm not trying to look inside your heart here. I'm just saying, if you know how not to sound sinister and threatening, please take that route. If not, take your chances. We haven't been able to disentangle your semi-incoherent explanations.

Any Republican celebrating this is going to look comically misguided if the upcoming and inevitable Dem fear strategy works and their people turn out in droves to vote against the Trump monster regardless of whatever personal state Biden is in.

It's the conservative right who fear Reform. The better Reform do, the better for Labour*, because it's largely conservative votes they're taking. That's clear based on any understanding of the first past the post system, which tends to offer disproportionate benefits to the most popular party.

*Although, calling Labour "leftists" is a bit of a joke.

Anyhow, if someone is making this up, it'll be Conservative headquarters who are quaking in their boots right now.

Anyhow, the ruling is a gift to the Dems. The focus moves from Biden's ineptitude to Trump's potential tyranny. Might even save them.

You can be sure the Dem press will be licking its lips at this.

It should be understood that you don't get to be President by having any moral standards at all. So, Trump declaring openly he doesn't is, yes, meaningless.

law and order is no stranger to me. In fact, it's something of a religion of mine. Heh. — Outlander

Good. You won't mind being banned if we deem you go too far then.

It's been reported. But as you pointed out, it's difficult to know what to make of that.

and, oh, let's wish you good fortune, your current existence will end, quickfully, friend. — Outlander

This thread is intended for people to talk about their intense annoyances. If that makes you murderously upset, please go elsewhere.

The poor employees have to endure the literal torture of being force fed this drek 8 hours a day. It is cruel as fuck. — hypericin

In the enlightened future, this type of auditory abuse may be considered like smoking and banned.

Death metal eh? — hypericin

Officially grindcore, but pretty close.

I'm mostly an old school guy, — hypericin

Same here. Came across "Full of Hell" quite recently.

been playing this one quite a bit lately: — hypericin

Solid stuff. :death:

Yes, for me ambient music, particularly pop, disrupts my intuitive feeling for a place, replacing it with a candied consumerised cadence that I find repulsive and emotionally disruptive. I need my intuitive feel for a place to feel like I properly am myself.

...I am a princess. Do not put a pea under my mattress, bitch. :smile:

Just kidding. Just thought that'd be funny to someone. Somewhere — Outlander

I did laugh. I feel like it's the artist, not philosopher, in me whose stomach turns at such auditory assaults. But that may be conceit.

Vicious and awful. Though sadly unsurprising.

I may be pretty extreme though. E.g. If I could get a free meal at the most expensive restaurant in the world, I definitely wouldn't take it if I had to listen to ambient pop music or someone at the next table with their phone on a video or whatever.

Shitty ass modern pop (that is, modern pop)
People blarting their shitty ass modern pop in public places (Beach, park) or next door, implicitly demanding I either enjoy or endure their shitty ass modern pop, or gtfo — hypericin

:up: I don't go out without earphones. I listen to stuff like the following which is a very effective blocker and (to me) is also good music.

A most egregious abuse of grammar. Requests cannot ''literally'' flood ...unless they are somehow presented in liquid form. :chin:

Biden could have been sucked into a black hole at any point of his presidency and it would have made close to zero difference in how the country is (mis)led. I am happy the Dems are in turmoil. They fully deserve that and more. But there is no new problem and no new solution.

Who is the real president... ?!?

The Earth is under attack! :scream: ...

Jill has gone for a weekend at Bernie's!! :fire: :rage: :death:

Start a new topic if you will but stay relevant here, please.

:clap:

Exactly.

I don't really want to get involved in the thread but Netanyahu is a terrorist and a mass murderer. I've said from the start it doesn't matter who is doing the terrorism, it ought to be condemned. In terms of scale, the terrorism of the IDF is much more extreme than that of Hamas. In terms of brutality, there's little or no difference. Hamas threw grenades at innocent civilians; Israel bombs and burns them to death--in a conflict that did not start on October 7th except in the minds of the deeply ignorant.

I agree with the ICC that the leaders on both sides need to answer for their crimes. And eventually the West will catch up and realize that what it not only allowed but encouraged the Israelis to do is moral depraved and has put it on a level no more elevated than supporters and enablers of Hamas. A "war" like this, with 90% civilian casualties, is a war against civilians, i.e. a war of terrorism, not against terrorism, and many brave journalists, especially Israeli journalists btw, have exposed a deliberate policy of targeting / murdering non-combatants. Also, if you believe all civilians', and particularly all childrens', lives are equally valuable then ask a supporter of this slaughter what would justify killing 15,000 or more Israeli children. You'll just get blank stares. They can't answer without revealing their racism.

Through the skilful use of propaganda, this Israeli administration and their supporters, the only ones in the conflict who had a voice, made the ignorant believe that dropping huge bombs on apartment blocks full of civilians, destroying hospitals, schools, and mosques, starving children to death, murdering aid workers, and slaughtering starving refugees, in short, committing genocide was not only morally acceptable but morally necessary. That was a lie that can no longer be hidden from anyone except the utterly delusional.

So, this is a statement of what should now be blindingly obvious. I'm not interested in replies from trolls or cheerleaders for Israeli terrorism and I don't intend to post here again. I ask of anyone if you still support this, please do not speak to me about it until you no longer do. I have turned my back on you and it will stay turned.

It might be better to conclude that trying to rigidly define art is a mistake as only its vague contours will ever be agreed on by a random sample of more than a few people. Those who disagree with you will tend to accuse you of lacking taste or snobbishness depending on which side of the spectrum you come down on and there's no clear road to resolving any of that.

Pity it doesn't work as it conflates beauty with art. A model presents his or her body for aesthetic appreciation and while said body may be beautiful, it is not art.

Oh right, I agree with most of that except I think a urinal in the right context can be art because again, the form itself is not what's important in my view--it's rather the relationship of the art object to the symbolic sphere. And I'm not trying to be obscurantist here. I just mean how it fits with the zeitgeist or dominant ideology. Does it help us move beyond it or give us a new or interesting perspective on it? One great thing about Ibsen's plays were that he was so ahead of his time. His work was often badly received because of that, but history vindicated him. "A Doll's House" is a great example; it portrays the "scandal" of a woman thinking for herself and following her own desires rather than submitting to her husband's and society's view of her as a mere ornament. And this is presented with great skill and human understanding. Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. All this filters down and changes us. And we need to change. This is why we need artists and this is why art is "special".

So for you art has to be something 'special'? — Tom Storm

Yes!

Seems to me a lot of people mistake the word art for the word 'sacred' and need for anything proposed for this category to have mystical, perhaps even transcendent, aesthetic properties. Can you help me make sense of this? — Tom Storm

It's an artist's view of art and maybe not even every artist's view. Certainly not a standard dictionary definition. So, it's not something that can or should be forced on anyone. It proposes there is art proper and "art". For example, what most people do in a casual art class is "art" but art proper is not something that can be pinned down to a simple skill or process ("how to" paint, write or whatever). It should have something that contextualizes our symbolic sphere in an important way rather than merely participates in it. But then, you might say, like @BC, that's just to distinguish between good art and bad art, and that's not unreasonable either.

There can be popular art, which is different from show business. In prehistoric times I wrote for tv series and there was a concept of a kind of public service among the makers - these things we are creating are about 'issues' and 'relationships' that next day the audience will talk about at the water-cooler. But we were in it for the money too, and the audience size and share; I don't think that as a partial motivation precludes art, which an earlier poster suggested. — mcdoodle

I don't think any of us are going to come to a firm conclusion of where the exact dividing line between art and non-art is, but I will say there is not much out there that I am absolutely confident in calling art. Maybe some people think Jim Carrey does art or pop art. I say no, despite his obvious comedic skill, but Andy Kaufman (RIP), yes. Both comedians, but Jim Carrey just makes you laugh. Kaufman does much more.

No, he wasn't saying that at all. Otherwise, he would be declaring urinals everywhere to be art if "someone" thought so. He was saying that the form of an artwork is less important than its context. A urinal is not aesthetically pleasing, but in the right context it can be used to make a statement about what art can be. There's a self-referential element to it. So, you can indeed make art out of TV shows and artists do, but (in general) the shows themselves in their regular context are no more art than your toilet or mine.

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, there's another aspect of art I hadn't touched on which is consistent with it being produced by Artificial Intelligence and not so much by American Idol as a whole--so, though I would not rule out a contestant in American Idol producing art, such as a beautiful poem as you mentioned, the overall context is also relevant. That aspect is the idea that art should transcend the social sphere and offer an external perspective on it so it may be challenged rather than be firmly embedded in it so that it reinforces it. American Idol is successful because it's popular and popular because it reflects what most people want and what most people want (in terms of symbolic content) is what they are trained to want culturally. It's something that people watch to feel relaxed and happy in their place rather than to imagine an alternative. So, the source is part of the experience there, whereas in the case of Artifical Intelligence, the source is backgrounded as irrelevant and / or unknown.

degenerating — Ciceronianus

Denegrating? I can think of no justification for putting even ten seconds of that in my head. So, I admit to some bias. I am generally media-phobic though, so it's that and almost everything else.

Does "content" like AI produce that "Sublime.?" — ENOAH

I think we have to admit that it might. Suppose I read a story presuming it to be written by a human and experience something similar to what I experienced with "Ghosts", I would classify it as art. I don't know how I'd justify retroactively nullifying my judgement on finding out it was written by an AI. What if I mistakenly thought it was written by an AI and then discovered it was indeed written by a human, would it become art again? Can something jump in and out of being art depending on a belief regarding its origin? Or are we saying its origin is a necessary condition of it being art? But then how do we tie that down? Can a human not create something "accidentally" or unconsciously and it be art? Does there have to be an intention there? Without knowing what we are saying specifically, it tends to reduce to having to be something that is a product of a living human body. Which doesn't seem to mean much. I think the important relationship is between the subject and the work itself.

For me, unashamedly, AI has triggered not one, but from time to time, all of those direct paths to real feeling (tears, laughter, rage, fear, drive, human bonding). And that is why it is high quality art. Art Extraordinaire. — ENOAH

That argument seems problematic. Were Hitler and Goebbels doing art? Are propaganda and advertising art? The more emotionally manipulative the better? Rhetoric is an art, but is it art? The ancient arts of discourse included rhetoric, but also grammar and logic, and we don't consider them art. Are we maybe confusing the art of putting a good show together with actual art--which is supposed to reveal insight and truth or have something of the sublime about it? I listened to a performance of Ibsen's play "Ghosts" recently and I was very moved, but also felt somehow improved as a person. I have watched very little reality TV since the original "Big Brother" and I enjoyed it, but never considered it more than entertainment and I never felt improved through watching it.

I appreciate that, even in order to be entertaining, any media has to be involving emotionally and there is an art to achieving that. That idea may be leveraged to dismiss criticisms of TV and popular entertainment as elitist (and they can be ill thought out) but if we pursue the distinction between the art of doing something other than art properly and art proper, we don't fall foul of elitism in my view and merely recognize a valid distinction.

Ah yes, of course! Many thanks, Professor Furaytoo!

Moose hat? No. — NOS4A2

Moose, no? Perhaps you're talking bull then? I fancy him an asshat. But I am too kind. :halo: