Folamh3
User ID: 1175
Folamh3
22d ago
Oh yeah, I have heard of this.
Back when I was in secondary school, some guys in my social circle spent a lot of time on BestGore. It never appealed to me, I have no interest in watching real people being actually tortured and murdered. One time I asked one of these guys "when you watch these videos, does it turn you on?" and he said "a bit".
I still have no idea if he was being honest or just trying to be shocking (he couldn't have been older than eighteen at the time). It will not surprise you that I haven't been in touch with him for over a decade.
Folamh3
22d ago
Reminds me of that joke from two years ago: "Following the example of McDonald's and Coca-Cola, PornHub is pulling out of Russia in protest of its invasion of Ukraine. If this trend continues, Russia is on track to being the healthiest country in the world within a generation."
Folamh3
22d ago
therefore a pornographic painting is no worse off than a landscape, a still life, etc.
I can imagine an erotic or even pornographic artwork which enriches human culture, if only marginally. Heck, I don't need to imagine: Klimt's The Kiss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_(Klimt)) was attacked as pornographic in his lifetime, and it's one of the most iconic portrayals of intimacy the twentieth century has given us. Alan Moore's From Hell depicts sexuality and prostitution very explicitly, and it's my favourite of his works (and I think superior to Watchmen). Lolita was banned in many countries, but remains a masterpiece. It's been a long time since I saw Antichrist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_(film)) and, while I don't think the film couldn't have done without the unsimulated sex scenes, I still think it's an impressively disquieting and thought-provoking film. There are many erotic, even pornographic, works of art which I will defend and which I really do believe have enriched human culture in ways great or small.
I just don't think the category of "creepy fetish art depicting non-human characters made for perverts on commission, and for whom the creator feels his livelihood is threatened by the advent of Stable Diffusion" contains any such works - I think 100% of works in this category had either no impact on human culture, or a negative impact. And I have no reason to expect this state of affairs to change at any time in the immediate future.
As an aside - I've written in this forum before about how, up until a certain point in my life, it was quite common for story ideas to pop into my head at any given time; but this process largely halted a couple of years ago as I entered my 30s. There are a lot of practical life factors in play, but subjectively, it feels as though my head were a radio, and the tuner knob has gotten bumped off of the frequency where all the story ideas are broadcast. Before, I could just hear them, and now I can't. Have you ever felt that way? And did you change anything in your life accordingly?
I could've written this paragraph myself. I used to write fiction and compose music quite a lot, but when I undertake NaNoWriMo this year, it will be the first significant chunk of original prose I'll have written since mid-Covid. Before that I wrote four novels or novellas (three as a teenager). The reason I haven't written anything since mid-Covid isn't because I've had writer's block (in the sense that I've been trying to write but the words aren't coming to me) - I just haven't had any ideas since. And it happened in two artistic media - it used to be I could write an entire song in my head without touching a guitar, the ideas would just come to me of their own accord. That almost never happens to me anymore, except sometimes with rhythmic patterns - with rare exceptions, writing a melody is something I have to consciously work at, playing a riff over and over until it congeals into something more substantial. It's hardly surprising to me that the best musicians tend to produce their best work in their twenties and peter out thereafter.
All of the foregoing is why it was such a surprise to me when the idea for this story popped into my head - I'd legitimately forgotten how pleasant that sensation is of being in a creative flow state and the ideas are just "coming" to you. I'm not going to say it's better than sex, because it isn't, but it's an intensely pleasurable intellectual sensation.
Why do ideas rarely come to me anymore? Half of the answer is just growing up and having a more keenly honed sense of what works and what doesn't. It's not merely that the four novels or novellas I wrote earlier in my life had a strong premise but were let down by the execution - I think even the basic premises of all of these novels were unworkable to start with, and I was too young/inexperienced/immature to recognise that at the time, so close to my creation and so caught up in the act of creating that I failed to appreciate how dumb my creation was. I remember a handful of the ideas for stories and novels I had when I was younger, ideas which I fully intended on bringing to fruition when I could find the time, and absolutely all of them were utterly terrible. (And that's not even getting into the ideas I've forgotten - I very much doubt there were any gems in there.) Like Scott talking about the Chamber of Guf, I think it's very possible that ideas for stories appear in my subconscious at about the same rate as they always did, but my quality control filter prevents them from rising to the level where I'm consciously aware of them. I'm very excited about the idea for this story, in large part because I feel like it has a very strong "elevator pitch" - even if I can't pull it off, I feel like someone could do something interesting with the same basic premise. This is in stark contrast to my third and fourth novels in particular, which were navel-gazing narcissism from start to finish.
But the "quality control filter" explanation doesn't explain why melodies don't come to me as often as they used to.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the claim that we've passed the point where any individual drawing/painting can constitute a "significant enrichment to human culture".
Well now you're putting words in my mouth, which I don't appreciate. At no point did I claim that creepy fetish art doesn't significantly enrich human culture, but that non-creepy non-fetish art does significantly enrich human culture. Given the vast rate at which humans create art (e.g. 100,000 songs are uploaded to Spotify every day) and Sturgeon's law being what it is, the likelihood of any given artwork having a significant impact (positive or negative) on human culture is about the same as winning the lottery. Creating art is almost always done purely for the amusement of the creator himself, and I say this as someone who devotes a large chunk of his spare time to making and distributing music. Even the proportion of artworks which are created with the expectation of turning even a modest profit (or breaking even) are a small minority.
What I said was that depictions of Judy Hopps getting gang-banged fail to enrich human culture in even the most meagre way. That is to say, if someone draws Judy Hopps getting gang-banged, at best the existence of this "artwork" has zero impact on human culture whatsoever, and at worst it makes human culture very slightly worse (appeals to humanity's baser instincts, a waste of the artist's time when he could have spent it doing something more edifying, promoting gooning rather than self-improvement etc.). I'm not saying that art which depicts something beautiful or moving makes human culture significantly better; I'm saying that creepy fetish art will never make human culture even a little bit better and have a good chance of making it slightly worse.
calling New Jersey trash or an “armpit” has been common for decades
100% confident that if Trump referred to Detroit or Baltimore or maybe even Louisiana as "trash" or similar this would be cited as a white supremacist dog whistle, for unsurprising reasons. Who, whom all the way down.
Folamh3
23d ago
Yep, I get it now, I had it all backwards in my head because I'm very new at this. Thanks a lot!
Since we're on the topic of the election, a question about betting odds from an almost complete n00b on the topic. Paddy Power is one of the biggest bookies in Ireland and the UK, and they're offering odds on the election outcome:
- Trump to win - 1/2
- Kamala to win - 13/8
- Kamala to win the popular vote - 8/15
- Trump to win the popular vote - 6/4
- Kamala to win the popular vote and Trump to win the election - 6/4
Am I tripping, or is something not adding up here? If they're placing Kamala as the favourite to win the election, surely any derivative bet from that conditional should also be the favourite, and vice versa. Why do they apparently think "Kamala wins the popular vote but Trump wins the election" is more likely to happen than not, but "Trump winning the election" is less likely to happen than not?
EDIT: Disregard, I get it now.
Folamh3
23d ago
This concept is as old as animation and cinema.
For years I've wanted to take part in NaNoWriMo, but was held back by lack of a decent idea going in: I didn't want to just start writing without even a basic premise to guide me. Four weeks ago, I was about to leave the office, when an idea I'd had years ago (but never really properly developed beyond a 500-word sketch) just popped into my head. Between walking from the office to the train station and getting off the train, I'd developed the idea into a full narrative. Over the last four weeks I've been developing the idea further and doing research (including asking you fine people technical questions, for which I'm grateful). With two days to go before the competition starts, I want to spend today and tomorrow coming up with names for my characters and fleshing out the setting and the backstory. It's going to be a busy month, wish me luck.
Only yesterday I discovered that the culture war has come for NaNoWriMo itself. I was under the impression that it was just an informal game with a website, forum and not much beyond that. I didn't realise that it's a bigger deal: they have people in leadership roles and do fundraising drives and corporate tie-ins. Earlier this year they issued a statement saying that they are totally fine with people using ChatGPT as part of their NaNoWriMo entries, and moreover, that opposition to generative AI is rooted in "classism" and "ableism". This ignited a firestorm within the community, with prominent members and published writers urging people not to participate. I can't help but feel a smidge of Schadenfreude of the "living by the sword" variety: I'm sure all of the people opposed to generative AI in the creative arts consider themselves very woke and inclusive, and must resent being accused of "ableism" for what strikes them as a perfectly reasonable position. First time?
The controversy isn't going to stop me from taking part - I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth about generative AI is rather overhyped, and in any case all I'm going to use the website for is log my progress. I have little interest in interacting with anyone else on the website who's taking part, and I certainly won't be donating to the organisation itself.
Folamh3
23d ago
I'm not a prude, I acknowledge that explicit sexuality (even unsimulated sex between actors) has its place in art. But your comment, while thought-provoking, has done nothing to dissuade me from my original perspective that human culture is not in any way enriched by a rendering of the bunny rabbit from Zootopia getting gang banged.
Folamh3
23d ago
Your own source says that Israel claims that 19 (not 9) of the people who perpetrated the October 7 attacks were UNRWA employees. Nowhere does it claim that Israel claims that these were the only people in the UNRWA who are also Hamas members, or sympathetic to Hamas's goals.
Not that I'm aware of. But I don't think this is to Hamas and co.'s credit: I just think the security apparatus Israel installed in response to suicide attacks have been effective enough to essentially nullify it as a tactic. Perhaps they've tried doing it in Gaza to attack IDF troop patrols, but I haven't heard anything to that effect.
This article from December last claims that terrorists have blown themselves up in Gaza to attack the IDF, but doesn't specify the perpetrators' ages.
Folamh3
23d ago
Wikipedia reports a lot more than that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups
Folamh3
23d ago
I know what you mean, but there's two different things going on here.
Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as something other than heterosexual has shot up. But the proportion of young people actually engaging in same-sex sexual activity has plummeted (as part of a secular trend towards sexlessness which is also visible in trends in opposite-sex sexual behaviour in that generation). This is a negative correlation (and not causally linked: the increase in sexlessness is largely caused by technology, social atomisation, smaller family sizes and so on; the increase in LGB identification is driven by fashion and social contagion).
Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as transgender (or related terms like non-binary) has shot up. The proportion of young people pursuing medical transition has also increased dramatically. Not at the same rate, of course: only a minority of people identifying as trans will even take hormones, never mind undergo surgery. But the two trends are positively correlated.
Folamh3
23d ago
I don't think underaged suicide bombers is anyone's idea of "classic" guerrilla warfare.
I'm sorry, did you just refer to Winston Churchill as pro-compassion? Churchill the same guy whose inaction during the Bengal famine probably caused millions of additional deaths, and who stated that any relief efforts sent to India would accomplish little to nothing, as Indians were "breeding like rabbits"?
On Native Americans and aboriginals:
I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
On migration to the UK:
In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" with regards to immigration from the West Indies.
On Arabs:
Churchill described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation" than the Jews, whom he viewed as a "higher grade race" compared to the "great hordes of Islam". He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung".
On the Chinese:
In 1902 Churchill called China a "barbaric nation" and advocated for the "partition of China". He wrote:
I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them. I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations. I believe in the ultimate partition of China – I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph.
More on the Chinese:
Violet Bonham-Carter asked Churchill's opinion about a Labour Party visit to China. Churchill replied: "I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don't like the look of them or the smell of them..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill
The fact that you're arguing "Trump comes off as so racist and cruel - he should be more like Churchill" leads me to wonder if this entire thread is just an elaborate troll. Or if you're really just that historically illiterate.
or just infer from the fact that they're humans who just did a dangerous and difficult thing that they had a plan
What on earth is this meant to mean? "These migrants just made the dangerous and difficult journey to the US, obviously they fully intended to stay in Texas indefinitely"? How does the former in any way imply the latter? If they were planning to stay in New York, Massachusetts, Florida etc. they would almost certainly have had to go through Texas on their way, right?
Be that as it may, there's a world of difference between "authorities should look the other way while ordinary civilians dispense mob justice on the criminals who are victimising the ordinary civilians" and "authorities should look the other way while ordinary civilians go around beating up members of a specific ethnic group". Both assertions are troubling for different reasons, but I can imagine certain specific circumstances in which the former might be defensible (e.g. when the authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce the law themselves and ordinary civilians must choose between taking the law into their own hands or allowing themselves to be victimised - if I owned a grocery shop in the middle of the 1992 LA riots, I probably would have followed the rooftop Koreans' lead). I don't for a moment accept your inference that the former implies the latter. Ergo, I think your claim that Trump was directly calling for a pogrom is ridiculous, unless you're using an extremely expansive definition of "pogrom" in which you're essentially treating "career criminals" as an ethnic group.
Folamh3
26d ago
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're asking me by questions A and B.
Folamh3
26d ago
I'm by no means a fan of Donald Trump, and if I was an American citizen there's no question in my mind that I would've voted for Hillary in 2016. But regardless of my opinion of Trump's politics, his authoritarian tendencies, his disregard for principles, his emotional incontinence etc., credit where credit is due - the man is a remarkably compelling public speaker. I watched the first ten minutes of the podcast, having never watched Joe Rogan before, and I was riveted. People used to say that Johnny Cash could read the phonebook and make it interesting - I think I could listen to Trump go off on weird tangents about his real estate ventures and Lincoln for an hour and not feel like my time was wasted. This is not the rambling of a senile old man suffering from the onset of dementia: this is an extremely practiced, keenly honed skill. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Obviously the job of being a compelling public speaker and the job of being President are very different things, and I am confident that skill in the former is only very weakly correlated with skill in the latter. But to the extent that it's correlated at all - well, it's a skill that Trump and Obama have, Kamala and Hillary don't have, and that Biden probably had at one point but no longer has. Kamala appearing on the Rogan podcast would have been an awkward, unproductive and uncomfortable experience for everyone involved, and I'm sure everyone involved knows this, up to and including Kamala herself. If Kamala's campaign manager had made an appearance on the podcast, he or she would have come off better than Kamala herself.
I am sceptical.
More options
Context Copy link