It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I have no problem valuing a work of art for what it itself is, no matter what the artist is like or my personal feelings towards them. If it is good, I'll just enjoy it; if it isn't, then that will be the reason for my aversion.

Also, where would you trace the line? The artist did domething illegal once? Something that is legal but I don't like? Something that is frowned upon nowadays but was accepted decades or even centuries ago? Just the fact that we disagree on some matters? Wouldn't that make me the intolerant one?

I don't value ideology that high, not to mention life's too short to investigate the life of every author/artist in search of past sins or reasons to dislike them.
avatar
Crosmando: But biologically speaking, women are physically weaker than men, this is undeniable, they have smaller lungs, heart etc.
avatar
Pheace: Granted this is after centuries of humanity having divided roles. For all we know they'd evolve just as strong (or men just as weak) after a couple of centuries where everyone's roles are pretty much equal.
But since most of fantasy stories take place in worlds with society similar to ones that were during "centuries of humanity having divided roles", it's logical that women being physically weaker than men as result.
low rated
avatar
Ophelium: The funny thing is that in the three intervening years, the artist in question quit making his videos after people called him out on his racism. Apparently, he did not like having that pointed out repeatedly.
There's something I find deeply disturbing about discussions where people use terms like "white supremacy" and "Nazism": the people who use those terms never acknowledge the fact that the people at the top of the food chain in this world are eugenecists. It scares me that people are so profoundly unaware of the world in which they live, and why it's coming apart at the seams. And it doesn't bode well for our species.
avatar
Ophelium: The funny thing is that in the three intervening years, the artist in question quit making his videos after people called him out on his racism. Apparently, he did not like having that pointed out repeatedly.
avatar
richlind33: There's something I find deeply disturbing about discussions where people use terms like "white supremacy" and "Nazism": the people who use those terms never acknowledge the fact that the people at the top of the food chain in this world are eugenecists. It scares me that people are so profoundly unaware of the world in which they live, and why it's coming apart at the seams. And it doesn't bode well for our species.
Not all racism is about white supremacists and Nazis.
low rated
avatar
richlind33: There's something I find deeply disturbing about discussions where people use terms like "white supremacy" and "Nazism": the people who use those terms never acknowledge the fact that the people at the top of the food chain in this world are eugenecists. It scares me that people are so profoundly unaware of the world in which they live, and why it's coming apart at the seams. And it doesn't bode well for our species.
avatar
Ophelium: Not all racism is about white supremacists and Nazis.
If it's systemic -- and I think it is -- and we would like to get beyond it -- I do -- I think we would be doing ourselves an enormous favor by identifying what exactly is causing it to persist and plague us to the extent that is has, and still does.

I don't know about you but I'm not seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, which tells me that what we are presently doing isn't working.
low rated
avatar
Ophelium: The funny thing is that in the three intervening years, the artist in question quit making his videos after people called him out on his racism. Apparently, he did not like having that pointed out repeatedly.
Or maybe he was just a pussy. Don Lemon never quit his job and doubled down on his "white men are the biggest threat" regardless of how many people called that out.
avatar
Ophelium: Not all racism is about white supremacists and Nazis.
avatar
richlind33: If it's systemic -- and I think it is -- and we would like to get beyond it -- I do -- I think we would be doing ourselves an enormous favor by identifying what exactly is causing it to persist and plague us to the extent that is has, and still does.

I don't know about you but I'm not seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, which tells me that what we are presently doing isn't working.
I'd like to think that new people in this world aren't exposed to the past prejudices and biases that our parents had already gone through and made an attempt to reconcile.

However, the sentiment lingers and there are times where said biases renew when people see patterns emerge once again.
low rated
avatar
Crosmando: ... But biologically speaking, women are physically weaker than men, this is undeniable, they have smaller lungs, heart etc.
In real life there are many women which are stronger than many men (not on average, but the overlap is quite pronounced). I already wrote that as reply to Goodaltgamer.
avatar
Crosmando: ... But biologically speaking, women are physically weaker than men, this is undeniable, they have smaller lungs, heart etc.
avatar
Trilarion: In real life there are many women which are stronger than many men (not on average, but the overlap is quite pronounced). I already wrote that as reply to Goodaltgamer.
I concur, Vera Di Milo was rather intimidating. :)
avatar
JDelekto: I'd like to think that new people in this world aren't exposed to the past prejudices and biases that our parents had already gone through and made an attempt to reconcile.

However, the sentiment lingers and there are times where said biases renew when people see patterns emerge once again.
Of course they are not. Otherwise most people would still live within the systemic confines of lets say political systems such as feudalism or "direct fascism" (compared to only seeing implications of fascism in modern times, read James Gregor), which are systems that became replaced as time went by.

Definitions of symptoms of systemic issues such as white supremacy also changed a little bit (the same way you can't directly compare the political landscape of 1919 to 2019 without acknowleding the general flow and change of information between those times given the both have unique historical contexts that you must consider) because thats what the flow of information actually does, it slightly changes definitions throughout the evolutionary flow of history so it can fit within the confines of the zeitgeist through that specific time.

Which means that these "patterns" as you call them are juxtapositions of what people think they were. Its kinda like comparing ancient pottery to modern pottery. It may still be just a damn vase, but the quality between the two (and when they were made) is what matters and what you would rather choose to use will largely depend on the comparative qualities of the modern vase. And like comparing the two vases, fringe ideologies will wither and ultimately cease to exist, because just the vases themselves political ideologies don't exist to care about history itself. So at some points in time, the modern vase will simply vanish/change out from the public concious into a new zeitgeist and thus become ancient and outdated until people make another, newer vase that fit better within the new situation and the public eye.

Well at any case, I hope that the analogy does make a little sense as that stuff is quite complicated and my vase allegory is a little bit too vague. But if you really didn't get a word of what I was writing I implore you to read Fukuyamas "The End of History and the Last Man" (or read a summary or something) which probably the single most important book for people who're reading this thread right now.
Post edited September 15, 2019 by Dray2k
avatar
JDelekto: I'd like to think that new people in this world aren't exposed to the past prejudices and biases that our parents had already gone through and made an attempt to reconcile.

However, the sentiment lingers and there are times where said biases renew when people see patterns emerge once again.
avatar
Dray2k: Of course they are not. Otherwise most people would still live within the systemic confines of lets say political systems such as feudalism or "direct fascism" (compared to only seeing implications of fascism in modern times, read James Gregor), which are systems that became replaced as time went by.
Hey, don't kill the messenger. I'm just pointing out that people seem to feel they are confined in any system they live in, political, religious or whatnot. and I think that the mood of the artist affects their work.
avatar
JDelekto: *snip*
Oh no, that wasn't the intent my dude! I was just trying to put some insights out, for those that are interested in the matter. Also these threads are getting a little bit too political for my tastes but that is ought to happen I guess. I wasn't even talking directly to you (as in, responding to the stuff you wrote). I just felt inspired to type up somthing because of the words I've marked in bold and why I think that there might be a problem with that type of phrasing so please don't take it the wrong way, I didn't mean to be aggressive or anything like that at all.

And I agree with you when it comes to the Artist-Art-Relationship, with the slight difference that we as the perceptor of the Art can't really truely understand what the Artist have to go through. Art, just like the artist, is the result of human work. The thing I was getting at is that every action (and thus political ideology, which is the result of human work and thus action) can only be truely observed if we put it into truthful context. If said context however changes as much as the zeigeist itself does, things might become murkier to interpret properly. This also means that we can never truely understand any artists true intentions even if we observe the art itself in the most truest ways simply because we don't know the potentially different outcome of the art itself even if the Artist was in a different mood. What we only know is that the Art exist (and you can objectively quantify the contents within said art, interpret it your way and compare it with other art within your established axioms and what not) and that the Artist made it. From what I understand, these are the only things that you could make true statements about if we talk about the Artist-Art-Relationship.

But we can never guess what the artist went underway when they made the art which is why for instance Phil Fish had a bad time whenever he opened his mouth (and how the internet reacted) and that the art that he (and the team he worked with) create was kinda seperate if we compare his mood and how he acted. Almost as if the Artists work and Arts result in regards to the public eye are often always ideosyncratic to one another.

For more info on how these sort of multifaceted human tendencies comes to fruition, the four-sides model might have some answers to you. Every action that you do must be interpreted in at least four different ways.

Its also partially why people became more hyperactive, partisan and tribal online. Since its impossible to truely objectively understand history (we can be very close to truthfullness but never fully know how the zeitgeist that caused the situation was like), people trend to stick to their truth (in a group, because thats what people are confortable with) with the hope that their truth is a little bit closer than any other one. Which is why definitions sometimes change and why people use affixes to stir a word/term into a certain and more modern way of thinking.
avatar
kai2: Understood.

May I ask...

Is there anything Polanski could do that would allow you to watch his films?
I'll skip the long discussion that came after your question and answer this one directly. Yes, there is something he could do that would allow me to watch his films. He could return to the U.S. and serve out the prison sentence he had agreed to before he fled the country to hide out and avoid punishment for his crimes. Once he has done that (plus whatever additional time would be added for evading his sentence), he has served his debt to society. He has admitted it was wrong, has not continued to do those kinds of crimes (at least not as far as I know) and he didn't kill anyone, so once you have acknowledged what you did and have accepted your punishment, as long as you don't do those things anymore, you have a right to continue your life.

What he did was terrible. But it appears to have been a one time terrible thing, so if he would be repentant, he would deserve another chance.
avatar
Dray2k: Its also partially why people became more hyperactive, partisan and tribal online. Since its impossible to truely objectively understand history (we can be very close to truthfullness but never fully know how the zeitgeist that caused the situation was like) ,
I like the way you think.
avatar
JDelekto: I'd like to think that new people in this world aren't exposed to the past prejudices and biases that our parents had already gone through and made an attempt to reconcile.

However, the sentiment lingers and there are times where said biases renew when people see patterns emerge once again.
avatar
Dray2k: Of course they are not. Otherwise most people would still live within the systemic confines of lets say political systems such as feudalism or "direct fascism" (compared to only seeing implications of fascism in modern times, read James Gregor), which are systems that became replaced as time went by.

Definitions of symptoms of systemic issues such as white supremacy also changed a little bit (the same way you can't directly compare the political landscape of 1919 to 2019 without acknowleding the general flow and change of information between those times given the both have unique historical contexts that you must consider) because thats what the flow of information actually does, it slightly changes definitions throughout the evolutionary flow of history so it can fit within the confines of the zeitgeist through that specific time.

Which means that these "patterns" as you call them are juxtapositions of what people think they were. Its kinda like comparing ancient pottery to modern pottery. It may still be just a damn vase, but the quality between the two (and when they were made) is what matters and what you would rather choose to use will largely depend on the comparative qualities of the modern vase. And like comparing the two vases, fringe ideologies will wither and ultimately cease to exist, because just the vases themselves political ideologies don't exist to care about history itself. So at some points in time, the modern vase will simply vanish/change out from the public concious into a new zeitgeist and thus become ancient and outdated until people make another, newer vase that fit better within the new situation and the public eye.

Well at any case, I hope that the analogy does make a little sense as that stuff is quite complicated and my vase allegory is a little bit too vague. But if you really didn't get a word of what I was writing I implore you to read Fukuyamas "The End of History and the Last Man" (or read a summary or something) which probably the single most important book for people who're reading this thread right now.
How do you conclude that racism isn't a systemic problem when societites are promoting narrow identity politics, governments continue to collect racial data and encourage racial identity, and poverty correlates very closely with racial demographics, among other things?