If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
rms
Active Member
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
rms
Active Member
very short sighted sir. but shapiro saying ISPs shouldnt be like public utilities but rather pipes and the internet is like water 
clearly didnt think that analogy out
clearly didnt think that analogy out
rms
Active Member
http://txmgv24xack1i8jje2nayxpr.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/us/files/2017/12/Text-Messages.pdf
here is a text exchange between two ESPN employees where the woman accuses the man(Buccigross) of sexual misconduct
crazy.
here is a text exchange between two ESPN employees where the woman accuses the man(Buccigross) of sexual misconduct
crazy.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Never heard of this story, but lmao after realizing that she tried to use "#longlegs" and "dollface" as sexual harassment. Looks like she was thirstier than he was from that text exchange tbh. Apparently she was bothered by rumors over the relationship between them. Fuck anyone that says not defending the accuser is tantamount to supporting sexual harassment.
EDIT:
lmao
EDIT:
lmao
Last edited:
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
That exchange is pretty innocuous tbh. Not sure how she could use that for a sexual harassment claim.
rms
Active Member
not even sure innocuous is the right word, it's clearly her going after him in that exchange.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
The point seems to be not that they had a friendly relationship at one point, but that she deliberately quoted him out of context to make "longlegs" look like an uninvited comment on her legs when it was a natural reply regarding his own height, or calling her dollface after she texted him three times trying to meet up with him, a word she clearly had no issue with.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
One of the dispatchers at my work is this insufferable passive-aggressive cunt called “Trace”, and she always calls me sweety or darl or love and it makes my skin crawl and I’m entertaining the notion of reporting her for sexual harassment. #notyoursweety
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Bitches aren't worth the risk anymore if they're going to flirt with you of all things and then claim you sexually harassed them.
I hope she ends up single and alone with dried up eggs.
I hope she ends up single and alone with dried up eggs.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
Same shit happened with a British college student recently. Girl accused him of rape and turns out her text msgs were full of her begging for sex from him and talking about rape fantasies to her friends - msgs the police tried to hide from the court. Shit's completely fucked.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm putting this here since it's derailing the movie thread.
Dak, I do not know how else to put it to you except to emphasize your sheer ignorance in this matter. Not only is this explanation entirely too reductive to be anything like the "sermon" of modernist art (if that's the word we're using), it also fails to describe numerous works of modernist writing.
Modernism is not dismissive at all of classical ideals. In some cases, writers like T.S. Eliot and Joyce saw their work as redemptive of classical ideals (both Eliot and Joyce commented on how only those with knowledge of the classics would truly understand their work). The novels of Virginia Woolf don't depict shitty people being shitty for the sake of being shitty. Are their bad people in some modernist novels? Sure--but then, there are bad people in Victorian novels too, and in eighteenth-century novels, and in early modern drama. The morality of twentieth-century literature is nothing like "be shitty because nothing matters." I can't imagine how anyone who's actually read modernist or postmodernist fiction would think that.
I cannot stress enough how frustrating it is to see you write these asinine "theories" about twentieth-century writing when you really know little to nothing about the subject matter.
Dak, I do not know how else to put it to you except to emphasize your sheer ignorance in this matter. Not only is this explanation entirely too reductive to be anything like the "sermon" of modernist art (if that's the word we're using), it also fails to describe numerous works of modernist writing.
Modernism is not dismissive at all of classical ideals. In some cases, writers like T.S. Eliot and Joyce saw their work as redemptive of classical ideals (both Eliot and Joyce commented on how only those with knowledge of the classics would truly understand their work). The novels of Virginia Woolf don't depict shitty people being shitty for the sake of being shitty. Are their bad people in some modernist novels? Sure--but then, there are bad people in Victorian novels too, and in eighteenth-century novels, and in early modern drama. The morality of twentieth-century literature is nothing like "be shitty because nothing matters." I can't imagine how anyone who's actually read modernist or postmodernist fiction would think that.
I cannot stress enough how frustrating it is to see you write these asinine "theories" about twentieth-century writing when you really know little to nothing about the subject matter.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
At least I'm not always appealing to one form of art, or isolated works when trying to set a position. I'm more familiar with the fine arts since that's what I've had the most exposure to in terms of theory and applied, even if somewhat second hand. Literature is only a small piece of the arts, and increasingly irrelevant outside of the field due to the destruction of necessary skills for simply reading them, much less comprehension, and even to a lesser degree critiquing them (in no small part due to the educational policies pushed by those more influenced by post-modernism/progressivism).
The problem is that artists as a group are intensely ignorant of matters outside of the techniques of their craft, and this ignorance permeates the creations. The people swarming the hive of a fine arts building I have to see can't even manage to regulate their sleep/wake cycles or follow basic hygiene and nutritional guidelines, much less provide insight into the complexities of the human condition. I wouldn't deign to tell a painter how to paint, or a writer how to write, in terms of technique, and would respond poorly in kind if they started critiquing organized psychology. Yet this is exactly the problem with artists: They can't help themselves but give uninformed opinions on anything that seizes their fancy. They refuse to stay in their lane, so I'll shove back. I'm sure you can point to an erudite artist or two, but these one or two are not responsible for the production of the majority of art of every type.
Edit: Most importantly, art as a medium is completely unsuitable for making a "statement" or "argument" in a serious way. It is impossible for art to rise above the level of sophistry in discourse. All art is inherently an appeal to emotion.
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow are considered paradigmatic examples of their respective historical periods. I can name you dozens of other works from Joyce's and Pynchon's contemporaries, but what good does it do when you haven't read any of them? Why can't you take my word for this, when I take your word on the valences of contemporary psychological theory? Why am I not an expert? I won't lie, your perspective on my authority pisses me off.
Literature is far from a "small piece of the arts." It's not increasingly irrelevant, you just can't stand that it is relevant because you don't agree with what you presume are the widely-held political views of most writers. I don't think you have any grounds for this presumption, nor do I think you really know what most writers think.
And furthermore, a literature PhD has to know about other genres of art, primarily visual. You can't study modernist literature and not study Magritte, Picasso, Manet, Fritz Lang, Luis Bunuel, Abel Gance, etc. Your theory of modernist "sermons" still doesn't apply to these people.
Seriously? I'd like to see evidence of this claim.
An artist or two? You're insane.
Have you ever stopped to think that the exposure to art you have is more limited than mine? You experience artists in a single university location, educated by a single academic community. You don't have a wider exposure to artists or to art; you have a myopic view of a small group of artists getting their undergraduate degrees or MFAs. Personally speaking, most people in this general group have a very immature and under-developed view of the world, and in no way represent the intellectually complex perspective of professional writers/artists.
From what I can tell, it isn't art in general that you should have a problem with, but the kind of art theory promoted in your wife's department. I'd recommend that you broaden your frame of reference before you go spouting nonsense.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
I don't doubt your extensive knowledge of fiction, nor the importance of various pieces within the discipline; how technical boundaries are expanded, etc. That's your lane, and I don't veer into it. The problem is the discipline itself won't stay in its lane. I'll readily admit I'm not steeped in art; maybe I would look deeper if every contact with what passes for depth and practice in an university or in esteemed theory weren't incredibly offputting, to put it nicely. It wouldn't matter though even if I were the most learned man in art and every artist, down to the lowliest undergrad major in pottery were an intellectual paragon.
I'll reiterate my edit: Art is completely unsuited for argumentation or serious "exploration". It cannot transcend sophistry by its very nature. It is always inherently an appeal to and evoker of emotion. Even the most learned person would be hamstrung in trying to find something approximating fact or truth via art. Artists that attempt to drive political action through whatever artistic medium are simply inferior versions of Trump, in essence. Appeals to emotion to gain some form or feeling of power.
I'll reiterate my edit: Art is completely unsuited for argumentation or serious "exploration". It cannot transcend sophistry by its very nature. It is always inherently an appeal to and evoker of emotion. Even the most learned person would be hamstrung in trying to find something approximating fact or truth via art. Artists that attempt to drive political action through whatever artistic medium are simply inferior versions of Trump, in essence. Appeals to emotion to gain some form or feeling of power.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Name a contemporary artist who you feel is intervening in politics in a distracting way.
This isn't true at all. In fact, I'd argue that some of the best works of art resist any appeal to pathos. Some readers (or viewers) might have emotional reactions, but the works that stand the test of time are those that return their audiences to uncertainty over their convictions.
This doesn't mean that art doesn't contain truths, but that it encourages its readers to participate in a conversation that privileges no one side. I tell my students this every semester, because they insist on saying things like "Pynchon argues": authors don't argue anything, they don't preach a view or an ideal or a political stance (good ones, anyway--which is why Ayn Rand is a shit writer). Authors present a multitude of views, they present a dialogue, and challenge their readers to navigate that dialogue.
Art is only unsuited for argumentation to the extent that art shouldn't promote any single argument; it should promote a multitude of arguments.
Last edited:
Similar threads
