| yeah people should be spitting facts like I doo |
Zanfroni said: DYNASTIA said: You seem to have a reading problem, so let me clarify. I said that opinions are irrelevant, why? Because anyone can have one. But do most people have an informed opinion? No... What do most people know about the animation process or the history of the medium to give a fair judgment? Nothing... Truffaut said that we'll need to habituate ourselves to hearing the cinematic judgments of people who have never heard of Murnau... People with no clue give their perspectives on a medium they don't know, this is how you delve into fatalism like ''I like it and that's that!'' You speak as if ''perspective'' isn't tainted by your social class, your education, and your environment, a nice little apology for your liberal mediocrity, you defend alienation because you are alienated yourself by your ''escapism''. It's just stupid entertainment, poorly done, used to maximize profits, and seeing that when people come home from work they need to "clear their heads", It works... That's the very definition of alienation, read ''The Society of Spectacle'' by Guy Debord. You don't even know the difference between your taste and quality... Maybe, next time, prove that my logic is twisted? And while you're at it, share with us your enlightened ''perspective'' on the failure of communism, I feel like I could use a laugh. And dude, if you had read Nietzsche, you would have known what being ''weak'' or ''strong'' means... That's what I told you, not every opinion is of value or should be listened to since everyone has one, we need to select who's opinions we choose to listen to, and often time, popularity trumps knowledge. All you can tell me is ''no one is wrong or right''. There is an authority crisis, people don't want to listen to experts or critics, which is why so many are listening to anti-vaxxers instead of health professionals. And when WretchCr1tikal does a video denigrating art, do you think his audience even knows what contemporary art is? The disadvantaged classes have a very scholarly taste of art, all the references they have are the ones that are part of the standardized curriculum, which is why there's a virulent rejection from some of anything too ''modern'' or ''experimental", read ''The Inheritors'' by Bourdieu. You're negating the social and environmental influence of the word ''taste'', it's not something people decide for themselves entirely. Nice shift of the goalpost there, you said something stupid, and now, you're saying even more dumb shit. You said nothing about traditional art in your original reply, but ok. Can you prove that it's the only objective factor on which to judge a medium? Begging the question. Proof that I have a superiority complex or that I have the mindset of an imperialist? I don't know why, but I feel like you're not medically qualified to deliver judgments on someone's mental state... This is begging to seem like resentment and anger on your part... How to confirm to me that you haven't read Guy Debord... You're not on my level. I never said that subjectivity doesn't play a part in art appreciation, I said that subjectivity isn't the most pertinent criteria. Analysis of art is made on an objective basis. If you see Duchamp's fountain, no one cares about your like-dislike ''opinion'' of it, it's not important to what it symbolizes. Nice strawman. 🤔  And one Godwin point, one. So you've done LARP irl, sorry for doubting your credentials... What's your parents' profession and income bracket? If you read Marx, you would understand what he says about the people who want to reform and ''better'' the condition of proletarian workers through protests while maintaining the same economic and class system. It's called bourgeois socialism, or conservative socialism. Oh, a little moralizer who tries to make me look crazy because I go against his morals... Nietzsche talks about it too ... that's what is wonderful with the weak ... they are so predictable ... I also need to remind you that medical impersonation is a felony under the penal codes of most states and is punishable by fines or possible jail time. Can you prove that my arguments lack coherence? Can you define ''diction nazi'' for me? Look for yourself on this scale.  Yes, because anime figures are produced under humane conditions and aren't useless chunks of plastic proving your bad taste... Lunch, or even a video game, responds to someone's need, your figurines serve no purpose. Alienation ... Alienation my boy ... How do you want to overthrow the system if you yourself are alienated by this system, alienation preventing you from any revolutionary inclinations? Do you think when the time comes, you and your LARP crew will dare to give up your figurines and your bodypillows? A bourgeois with ugly plastic figurines who preaches online... no need to say anything more. And when did I say that I was a communist, or that I was more of a communist than Marx? You're weak and disposable. Well, when you are cultured, when you speak well, you necessarily seem a little arrogant, the others are just not up to the level. Holy moly, you're way over your head. So people can't opinate on something unless they have a good amount of knowledge (measured by... who exactly?) to opinate on something. Because people who simply enjoy a medium for casual entertainment are mediocres, I guess. Typical fucked-up logic from people with a superiority complex. Pretty sad. Again, you're inserting objectivity where it doesn't exist. But this one killed me: "a nice little apology for your liberal mediocrity" LOL, you don't even know me, dude. For starters, I'm not even a liberal. But I guess I don't know that and you know me better than myself just because you spilled some pseudo-philosophical bullshit on a thread of an anime website. Talk about being pathetic. Can you stop gratuitously inserting politics and ideologies where they're not needed? Also, if you think you're not alienated from reality, you just proved that you are. Everyone lives in their own bubble in some way. If you think you're morally superior than everyone else and others are weak, well... again, shows how thick your bubble is. "You don't even know the difference between your taste and quality..." A bunch of arrogant bullshit. Quality in artform is entirely subjective and goes from people's perspectives. I've said that countless times already and you did nothing to prove quality is objective. All you did was namecall people because they don't share the same view of quality as you do. If you can't see that, just shows how blinded you are by your superiority complex. Who defines what this "quality" you're talking about is? Pretty sure you can't answer this clear, direct and without blabbering nietzscheism. I'll leave this as it is. I have better stuff to do in my life. Just remember that you're not being smart nor intellectual here. You're just being pretentious and dull. All you did was namecall people because they don't share the same worldview as yours. You must be a sad person, but thanks for the inumerous laughs I've had reading through your nonsense. Education, which is why I said that taste can be thought. Just like anything else. And I didn't say that people can't be opinionated, just that they aren't relevant if they have no clue about what they're talking about. If I was to show you this painting:  What can you tell me about it? Without telling you the name of it's painter or it's place in the history of art? If I was to say, problably not much except ''ITs UglY, WtF, COnTemPorARY aRrt, bANAnA oN a canVas'' (whilst confusing Contemporary art and Modern art, or you may just reverse search it on google and copy paste the Wikipedia article). Just like how my ''taste'' in sculpture would probably be of lesser value than that a critic in the medium, same with film, same with anime. A critic might not like the above painting necessarily but is able to recognize its objective values, so his or her criticisms are of greater value. The problem now is that any cretin can record themselves to say what they think, so there is a crisis of authority because the most popular person is the one people listen to and choose to mindlessly repeat. You look for a video about black holes, and you get someone with a GED giving their ''opinions'' gained from what they've read in Scientific American, instead of a physicist. Same with the current health crisis. The algorithms don't take count of someone's pertinence. No, everyone doesn't deserve to be heard, otherwise, nothing has value anymore. Do I need to put it in even simpler terms? You are still denying that art has social and political implications, are you really this naive to think that it doesn't influence how someone sees the world? That major corporations don't pump out content to flood the market and ingrain branding and morals inside the brains of people? How many girls have bought ''purity rings'' in 2008 because of the Jonas brothers? Ironic that you say that I've name-called you when you've shown yourself as insulting from the start. You've never addressed the substance because you're concerned with style. I don't care if someone as weak as you considers me ''arrogant'' a ''troll'' or a ''nihilist'' (some of the names you've called me). Prove that quality is subjective, for a start? Or that art isn't influenced by ideologies and politics? Anyways, as Guy Debord said, your opinion is crap, you liked too many things from the spectacular world for us to take your opinion into account. Funny to reproach me my perceived arrogance, when you are yourself super sure of your bullshit even if it means going into insults without even debating the substance of my arguments... I guess you won't, either... So just run along, with your tail between your legs. It's ok if fatum is responsible for your shit taste, I didn't consider you salvageable... You're proving Nietzsche right, you can blabber on all you want about subjectivity... It is what is... Desolated said: @DYNASTIA oh well, look at you, still replying even when I said don't bother. But now that you've slandered me on a lotta things, I'm afraid I have to now, to clarify things so others who read your post aren't being misled by your slanders. Nice shift of the goalpost there, you said something stupid, and now, you're saying even more dumb shit. I can basically says the same thing about you, judging on this reply to me You said nothing about traditional art in your original reply, but ok. Can you prove that it's the only objective factor on which to judge a medium? Sure.Begging the question. Because that's the only thing that can have a concrete standard of measurement. Let's talk about salt in food, for instance. One put 3 grams of salt in a dish as a seasoning per plate, and there are 3 plates. A billionaire, a farmer, and a Hiki-NEET are each given 1 plate of the food. The billionaire and the Hiki-NEET said that the dish is "too salty", whereas the farmer said that it's "too plain, needs more salt". So which statement here is subjective, and which one is objective? "Too salty" "too plain" are all subjective remarks. "The salt is 3 grams per plate" is an objective remark. Now which one do you usually see in a critic reviews of a movie or book whatsoever, is it the former, or the latter? It's the former, without a doubt. And one can always further ask "How much is too much/few of something?" and you will never receive a concrete dose of it in regards of art. But for the amount of materials used to create said art, one can answer the said question with a concrete dose (e.g. the studio rent price, the clothes you need to buy, the electricity bill, the makeup cost, how many litre of paint you used, etcetc), and therefore objective. How to confirm to me that you haven't read Guy Debord... You're not on my level. I never said that subjectivity doesn't play a part in art appreciation, I said that subjectivity isn't the most pertinent criteria. Analysis of art is made on an objective basis. If you see Duchamp's fountain, no one cares about your like-dislike ''opinion'' of it, it's not important to what it symbolizes. Nice strawman. "A critical analysis is subjective writing because it expresses the writer's opinion or evaluation of a text." Source/Reference: https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/elejeune/critique.htm "Movie reviews can be informative—they can help you decide which movies to see and which to skip. But it's important to remember that a movie review is subjective;it only gives you one person's opinion. A movie that one critic thinks is dull and boring may be what another critic contends is the best picture of the year. And you may have an entirely different opinion." Source/Reference: http://www.classzone.com/books/lnetwork_gr08/page_build.cfm?content=analyz_media&ch=30 I guess since you're "diction nazi"ing me down there, I'll just do it here as well. It's called "Manifesto of the Communist Party", dumbass. 🤔 And one Godwin point, one. But I'm not wrong.  Now search for the book published with the exact title of "Communist Party Manifesto", if you can't, then you're wrong So you've done LARP irl, sorry for doubting your credentials... What's your parents' profession and income bracket? If you read Marx, you would understand what he says about the people who want to reform and ''better'' the condition of proletarian workers through protests while maintaining the same economic and class system. It's called bourgeois socialism, or conservative socialism. Nice job of slandering me as some kind of child of a millionaire and that I'm just a socdem. Oh wait, my dad is actually Elon Musk! What should I do??? I've been exposed on MAL! NOOOOO.... sike. Oh well, I'll doxx myself a bit so that no shithead like you would've sus me outta nowhere. My parents are both an employee of a state owned property and that's just about all the job they have, whereas I work on both state owned property and a privately owned property as an employee. Also not everyone has the privilege of able to own a gun. Sorry but, the US isn't the world. I don't live in the "Land of the Free". I live in a country that used to be a US puppet state under fascist junta dictatorship for 32 years. Guns are banned here, but nevertheless, our government is trying to stand up against the imperialism of the Global North now. Oh, a little moralizer who tries to make me look crazy because I go against his morals... Before you accusing me of "name-calling" for calling you a "diction nazi" with lack of coherence, please try to even reread what you've written, here:Nietzsche talks about it too ... that's what is wonderful with the weak ... they are so predictable ... I also need to remind you that medical impersonation is a felony under the penal codes of most states and is punishable by fines or possible jail time. Can you prove that my arguments lack coherence? Can you define ''diction nazi'' for me? Look for yourself on this scale. Well, you're looking at the problem backward, if you are a communist, the bourgeoisie steals from the lower class, so you proceed with a redistribution of wealth. There is no correlation whatsoever between my statement of "There is no right or wrong" with "Reform or Revolution", so basically you're jumping from point A to point B, by simply explaining point B without realizing that point B has no correlation with point A and you think of it as if you have refuted my point of "there is no right or wrong". Jumping from one point to another unrelated point is called "flight of ideas" in psychiatry, and is why your paragraph lacks coherence between trying to refute my point of "there is no right or wrong" and then you try to talk about reform or revolution.The relation between the bourgeoisie and the proles is violent, the bourgeoisie violently exploits the proletariat, so the proletarian state must be accomplished by a revolution. ''nO RiGhT oR wRoNG'' Mmh it's true that communism doesn't lead towards a dictatorship of the proletariat... Lmao, there is no right or wrong, communism isn't a ''peaceful'' transition of powers. Communism is going to be violent, if you believe in a revolution, you will have to shed someone's blood... Also, you know that ''evolution'' has nothing to do technically with Pokemon, right? We call a sudden physical change a ''metamorphosis''. In short, go back to school. Also that's not even the reason why establishing Socialist Dictatorship of the Proletariat must be through revolution. It's because historically, even a transition from feudalism to capitalism has been through a bloody revolution, and that also historically, reform has been proven to be able to be easily rolled back (e.g. during Reagan's era), as long as the ruling class (the people working in the government, the lawmakers, etc) are still the bourgeoisie or people who can be easily influenced by the bourgeoisie via lobbying etc, which will in turn will make laws in favor of the bourgeoisie. It's not about how harsh the exploitation the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, but rather due to the inherent class conflict between them. Anyways, not even the CPUSA is planning to do a revolution in US in a short period, and you're gonna call them as a "fake communist" as well? Smh. Me calling you a "diction nazi" was due to your second paragraph. Your argument boils down to one. single. word. In which if course, in my analogy of Pokemon, it's also called as an "evolution" in the franchise, and when I say about it, I mean the word by the Pokemon terminology, not the general one. That's the whole thing about your paragraph. You didn't even refute my point, but just rather try to take me down for my usage of the single word of "evolution", which isn't even wrong in the first place given the franchise terminology. It's a pathetic attempt of "defeating" someone in a debate. Yes, because anime figures are produced under humane conditions and aren't useless chunks of plastic proving your bad taste... Except that decorations is a response to someone's need. Even in countries like North Korea, decorations of a room or restaurant or hotel exists. Sorry but, room decorations are something that will persists under socialism.Lunch, or even a video game, responds to someone's need, your figurines serve no purpose. Alienation ... Alienation my boy ... How do you want to overthrow the system if you yourself are alienated by this system, alienation preventing you from any revolutionary inclinations? No? The biggest class contradiction in the world right now is between the imperialist countries vs the imperialized countries, that's why most of the left-leaning countries in the Global South emphasis their policy on anti-imperialism first, anti-capitalism second. And nearly all of the product I use are made in my own country, and a lot of them are handmade Do you think when the time comes, you and your LARP crew will dare to give up your figurines and your bodypillows? A bourgeois with ugly plastic figurines who preaches online... no need to say anything more. Do I really need to remind you of this? It's not even on a different post. You accused me of "name-calling" while you yourself are doing the same right now, and unlike me, your slander are 100% baseless. You don't know me. You never meet me irl, and here you are, namecalling me as "a Bourgeois". Sorry to say this but I own no private property, unless you're a filthy libertarian who probably thinks that my body is my private property or something. Honestly I think the more you talk the more you'll end up make fun if yourself, because in a lot of your pathetic attempt of "roasting" me, the only thing I need to do is to just pull the "no u" card, because that's just how frail your attempts are. All bark, no bite. Anyways bodypillows are personal property. There is no reason someone would give their personal property even under communism. "Abolition of personal property" is just a Red Scare strawman of the communists "wanting to take toothbrushes for public uses". Communists only seeks to abolish private property, not the personal one. Imagine flaunting about the books you read but not even able to distinguish between private and personal property. What a clown 🤡 And when did I say that I was a communist, or that I was more of a communist than Marx? Since you've stalked my post hIstory, I guess it's fine for me to stalk yours as well:You're weak and disposable. https://web.archive.org/web/20211227174521/https://anilist.co/user/DYNASTIA/ Again. All bark, no bite, and another namecalling. Here, I'll remind you to this once more: [/quote] Where did I slander you? I haven't invited you to my discussion, nor am I interested in what you have to say, so why are you tagging me? We can't criticize someone's tastes now? Why? I'm talking to you about art and you're talking about salt, you're an idiot. It's as bad as your Pokemon paralogism. I would in fact say, that by commodifying art by talking about it in terms unrelated to its qualities, you're reducing it to something as simple as a matter of favorite ice cream taste. Do people talk about ''consuming'' museums, ''consuming'' literature, ''consuming'' theatre? No... McDonald's is condensed in calories, fat & sugar, for little nutritional value, same as the crap you enjoy. What these multinationals do is produce content, always more content to respond to the demand, the quality of what most studios put out doesn't matter, it's about flooding the market so there is always something new to watch. It is made to appeal to your lower senses and to make your brain time available for more advertisement. The only logic for someone who mindlessly consumes is ''was I distracted from my sad life enough?'' I know reading Debord for you is hard, there are words, phrases, It's maybe not that easy for you... yes, I have the right to be condescending... What I mean is that masterpieces are superior to bad films, just in terms of staging, the direction of actors... It's similar with animation. Ah, now objectivity suddenly exists in some arts when you decide to acknowledge it, but not in other mediums, fabulous. And you're telling me I don't know what I'm talking about... What are those links? Do they lead to a website maintained by a specialist in art? A great critic? Man, unlike you, I master the language... I know what an analysis is... And I know what a review is... Words like ''beauty'' or ''boring/dull'' are subjective, they're unrelated to an artistic analysis, which interprets the objective value of a work in its time, themes, composition, or medium. Anyone can write a review on this website, are they all relevant or informative? No... Especially when they judge music/animation/art/direction/writing independently of each other when all those equate to a sum. Bourdieu said that the underprivileged classes had the classical scholar “culture”. Because it is modeled by the standardized curriculum, they find it difficult to detach themselves from it, unlike the bourgeois. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto The Communist Manifesto, originally the Manifesto of the Communist Party And I'm the "diction nazi" for mocking your smooth brain false analogy about Pokemon... Man, you're also full of paralogisms. If a is true for b, a must be true for c ... In what way? Don't try to even take me on when you're incapable of logical reasoning. I know that the legislative powers are made by and for the bourgeoisie, thank you very much... There is too much homogeneity in American politics to lead to anything. Reorganizing society won't happen without a revolution, read Marx. Where did I talk about the CPUSA? Or call anyone else a LARP except you, who has no culture and defends exploitation if it means you have an ugly piece of ''decoration'' on your shelf? I have already answered, you do not make a revolution with people who are alienated and depend on the system... Where did I say that you need to give up your figures? I said that you're too alienated to leave your consumption goods behind to fight, you benefit from the capitalist system while saying things like ''the proles have the right to buy capitalist figures to forget their exploitation''. To your baseless accusations, I'm retorquing that you're defending the alienation of the proletariat. I have read Marx and Engels, and Guy Debord, unlike you. I outrank you in leftism. And you're trying to take my shitposts on other websites literally, bravo, autist. My manners are those of the Übermensch, judged by the proles ... It's good enough that tastes are debatable ... As Debord said in the film responding to the critics of his oeuvre; What could they possibly say of any pertinence about a film which attacks their habits and ideas en bloc, and which does so at a time when they themselves are beginning to sense the collapse of every one of them? The stupidity of their reactions stems from the breakdown of their world. Those who claim to like my film have liked too many other things to be capable of liking it; and those who say they don’t like it have also accepted too many other things for their judgment to have the slightest significance. The poverty of their discourse reflects the poverty of their lives. You need only look at their surroundings and their occupations, their commodities and their ceremonies, which are on view everywhere. You need only listen to those imbecilic voices giving you contemptuous hourly updates on the current state of your alienation. Guy Debord, Refutation of All the Judgments, Pro or Con, Thus Far Rendered on the Film “The Society of the Spectacle” http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord.films/refutation.htm Tylaen said: DYNASTIA said: You managed to be conceited in your smug rebuttal to being conceited. Congrats.Well, when you are cultured, when you speak well, you necessarily seem a little arrogant, the others are just not up to the level. Do I have to justify myself to you now for being ''smug''? Does that make me wrong? You can see for yourself, they've been unable to prove me wrong. They want to engage in a conversation with me. I'm able to develop everything I say, they're not. They can only hide under their preconceived notions and their sophisms ... |
DYNASTIADec 28, 2021 4:30 AM
| “You’ve never succeeded at anything and you never will, and do you know why? Because you are vulgar, irremediably vulgar, and not only are you vulgar, you are ordinary.” - Maurice Pialat’s We Won't Grow Old Together (1972) |
| @DYNASTIA Where did I slander you? I haven't invited you to my discussion, nor am I interested in what you have to say, so why are you tagging me? We can't criticize someone's tastes now? Why? A bourgeois with ugly plastic figurines who preaches online... no need to say anything more. Can the MAL commies start kicking out and excluding the capitalists in their ranks? Thx. Here. You called me a bourgeois and capitalist despite never even knowing me in person. So you've done LARP irl, sorry for doubting your credentials... What's your parents' profession and income bracket? If you read Marx, you would understand what he says about the people who want to reform and ''better'' the condition of proletarian workers through protests while maintaining the same economic and class system. It's called bourgeois socialism, or conservative socialism. Also here. You accused me of being a bourgeois socialist/social democrat as well as throwing suspicion out of nowhere if my parents own a large ass private property. I'm talking to you about art and you're talking about salt, you're an idiot. It's as bad as your Pokemon paralogism. I would in fact say, that by commodifying art by talking about it in terms unrelated to its qualities, you're reducing it to something as simple as a matter of favorite ice cream taste. Do people talk about ''consuming'' museums, ''consuming'' literature, ''consuming'' theatre? No... McDonald's is condensed in calories, fat & sugar, for little nutritional value, same as the crap you enjoy. So let me summarize, in this paragraph you basically just: >Miscontruing my point and calling me an idiot for it >Proving/Agreeing with my actual point >Making your own analogy about McDonald's that is actually a less accurate analogy than mine Now well well, who's the "idiot" here now? Let's just go with your McDonald's analogy then. Fat, Sugar (in which both of them are actually also nutrients, should I call you an "idiot" for not knowing this? hmm), and other nutritional values CAN be measured (e.g. 1000mg of Vitamin C in YouC1000, or say 2 grams of satruated fat and 20 grams of carbohydrates in your dairy milk product, etc). These are objective. Your statement of "little nutritional value", however, is subjective. There is also a concrete standard of ideal amount of nutrients common people needs to take (e.g. 225-325 grams of carbohydrates/day, etc). There are also objective. Now tell me if you can actually do this with art??? As in, how much decibels should one's voice be when they do the act of yelling in a theatre? How many grams, or how thick should someone use a teal color paint in their paintings? Can you actually measure them with such metric standards?? The answer is obviously "no such thing". Therefore, that's what you see in movie reviews "the scene is too saccharine", "it's too contrived", etcetc. Instead of "This movie use an ideal amount of lighting in its shooting which is x amount of candela." (In which requires a standard of as well in the first place, where there are actually well, none). What these multinationals do is produce content, always more content to respond to the demand, the quality of what most studios put out doesn't matter, it's about flooding the market so there is always something new to watch. It is made to appeal to your lower senses and to make your brain time available for more advertisement. The only logic for someone who mindlessly consumes is ''was I distracted from my sad life enough?'' You're saying this as if you're not consuming anything, lol Like I said, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That much I already know. But at this moment, you simply just can't escape it. Pointing this out assuming that I know none of this and while you yourself also consume products that is produced under capitalism is a pure hypocrisy. At least I consume products produced by my own country, which is in line with my anti-imperialism thought. I know reading Debord for you is hard, there are words, phrases, It's maybe not that easy for you... yes, I have the right to be condescending... I have read Marx and Engels, and Guy Debord, unlike you. I outrank you in leftism. And you're trying to take my shitposts on other websites literally, bravo, autist. My manners are those of the Übermensch, judged by the proles ... It's good enough that tastes are debatable ... As Debord said in the film responding to the critics of his oeuvre; This you? Oh well, I'll let you keep deluding yourself I guess  FYI, I have also read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Arghiri, and watch Parenti's lectures. No, I don't feel the need to feel superior to others and treat it like a "sacred tome of arcane magic power". I usually just link people to what I have read if they asked. What I mean is that masterpieces are superior to bad films, just in terms of staging, the direction of actors... But I actually do, and you don't.It's similar with animation. Ah, now objectivity suddenly exists in some arts when you decide to acknowledge it, but not in other mediums, fabulous. And you're telling me I don't know what I'm talking about... Refer to my reply above. Can you measure staging, the direction of actors, etcetc with the same metric measurements such as the composition of carbs in one Big Mac? Is there any metric standards on how staging should be? No? Then it's subjective. What are those links? Do they lead to a website maintained by a specialist in art? A great critic? It's a part of a curriculum lesson taught in cinematography schools.Man, unlike you, I master the language... I know what an analysis is... And I know what a review is... Words like ''beauty'' or ''boring/dull'' are subjective, they're unrelated to an artistic analysis, which interprets the objective value of a work in its time, themes, composition, or medium. Anyone can write a review on this website, are they all relevant or informative? No... Especially when they judge music/animation/art/direction/writing independently of each other when all those equate to a sum. Bourdieu said that the underprivileged classes had the classical scholar “culture”. Because it is modeled by the standardized curriculum, they find it difficult to detach themselves from it, unlike the bourgeois. Also again, you just basically proving my point. As long as there isn't any metric standards on the direction of actors, etcetc, it can't be objective. And I'm the "diction nazi" for mocking your smooth brain false analogy about Pokemon... Man, you're also full of paralogisms. If a is true for b, a must be true for c ... In what way? I simply use what you have also used against me back against you, aka the "no u" card. You're the one who nitpick the usage of a single word first, in your attempt to take me down. I use it simply because you also use the same thing, otherwise I won't nitpick such trivial thing. Again, this proves that in most of what you have against me, I can simply pull out the "no u" card as my reply to "defeat" you. Don't try to even take me on when you're incapable of logical reasoning. And when have I ever deny this???? I simply just say that it won't happen at anytime soon in USA, looking based on the current political climate.I know that the legislative powers are made by and for the bourgeoisie, thank you very much... There is too much homogeneity in American politics to lead to anything. Reorganizing society won't happen without a revolution, read Marx. Where did I talk about the CPUSA? Or call anyone else a LARP except you, who has no culture and defends exploitation if it means you have an ugly piece of ''decoration'' on your shelf? Lol like I said, nobody except perhaps the North Sentinel islanders are engaged in capitalism. Literally all of then are "alienated and depend" on it simply by eating daily lunch. Why do I need to even repeat this? Are you perhaps, in your own words "an idiot"? Curious.I have already answered, you do not make a revolution with people who are alienated and depend on the system... Where did I say that you need to give up your figures? I said that you're too alienated to leave your consumption goods behind to fight, you benefit from the capitalist system while saying things like ''the proles have the right to buy capitalist figures to forget their exploitation''. To your baseless accusations, I'm retorquing that you're defending the alienation of the proletariat. I leave my figures behind everyday when I go to work or shopping or basically just touching grass, thank you. It won't be hard for me if I do the same for a revolution.I never said that? Stop accusing me of saying what I never said. |
 |
| oh god this is so me.. I say IMO alot, mainly because I don't want to start anything I don't want to run into that die hard fan and then get my inbox blew up ha |
 |
| I'm actually getting slightly annoyed by seeing IMO or "in my opinion" in the end. Isn't it obvious tho, that when someone makes an opinion, it's..... their opinion? Is it really that hard? It's nice if the opinions coincide with mine. If it doesn't that kinda down, but that doesn't change anything for me, unless their opinion actually makes sense. |
| @DYNASTIA Please go and touch some grass. |
 |
| Tbh, I interpret "in my opinion" as "I am gonna say it but I don't wanna engage in a debate so spare me." I have no problems if someone wants to criticize me so I don't have the need to say it. |
| If you ever feel bored and are questioning the meaning of your existence, read deez blogs. Maybe you will find your answers. |
| Idk how this post went from a simple question to people arguing about the communist manifesto or some shit. MAL moment. |
MAL EMOJIS - Get your specially formatted emojis for MAL forums.        |
| It's implied that it's in their opinion, though. If they add extra stuff like "Kimetsu no Yaiba is objective burning garbage" or "I don't get why everyone is so delusional about No Game No Life, lying to me about it being good when it's actually awful" then that's kind of toxic, but if they're just saying something like "X is overrated" or "X is garbage" then you can assume they just mean in their opinion and aren't trying to be a dick about it. |
  |
| Learn the legal definition of slander... You decide to come to talk to me ... I'm asking you for arguments ... You don't have any... I'm polite and courteous, you insult me ... I decide to poke some fun at you for being a hypocrite, and that's slander? Damn you are really a born victim I don't give a shit, you're going off-topic, prove that what you're saying is relevant to art and make an argument that refutes what I have said and what Guy Debord said, then we can talk... You're incapable... I didn't say that McDonald's food has no nutrients, I said that it's very little compared to the sodium phosphate additives and calories, it's calorically dense, making it garbage. And it's low in fiber, making you likely to eat a lot of calories without realizing it... Same with your prole culture that makes you dependant on branding. You're conditioned to defend the spectacular society because you're yourself alienated, we have seen how you excuse exploitation if you can have a figurine on your shelf. If you think a Pokemon drawing by a first grader is worthy of the Louvre, or that ''The Room'' is worthy of a Godard film, that's on your lack of taste and culture. Well no, something can be ''art'' and still be terrible. I'm just showing you that these criteria since they are not exclusive to art, are useless to define it. There are plenty of "criteria" in art ... and it's not a succession of boxes to tick ... they're based on technique, subject, perspective, uniqueness... And then, subjective criteria ... Something that is determined by the erudition someone has on a medium. Appreciating a work and knowing if it is good is not the same thing. Being able to understand the cultural importance of something also increases the pleasure that we have. Can you prove that art critics rely on a metric system? No, so you're off-topic. Read Guy Debord, you would know that we are all, to an extend, alienated. Except that some are at least trying to emancipate themselves from it. You adulate consumption when you say; You basically just called out every people of the working class who wants to save to just indulge a bit on their hobbies (figurines created by the labor of exploitation, responding to none of their intrinsic needs) "capitalists". You don't even realize that it's a form of imperialistic cultural soft-power... Desolated said: It's a part of a curriculum lesson taught in cinematography schools. Also again, you just basically proving my point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority The first is a 1997 webpage by an Instructor in English, Elisabeth LeJeune, who teaches at Southern Louisiana University... The second link leads nowhere... Argument from authority ... but still nothing concrete. Prove that I've proved your point? I'm not asking you to understand ... Just to shut up, for your own good ... to avoid being ridiculed, altruistically. A Tu quoque (which you call a ''no u card'') is an ad hominem fallacy... In brief, you admit you have no arguments to oppose me... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque It's funny how you drop the clothing arguments and the Manifesto thing when I've proved you wrong... Prove that the North Sentinel islanders are capitalists, and prove that you aren't a capitalist? Where did I say that people are alienated from eating lunch? Should they just starve themselves? Said the little guy with possible Asperger syndrome who thinks he's reading things I haven't written and doesn't want to listen to the superior being giving him a good spanking. How could you even understand the writings of the people you've mentioned? Can you prove to me you've read them? He said, proud of his shitty life... epidemia78 said: DYNASTIA said: Learn the legal definition of slander... You decide to come to talk to me ... I'm asking you for arguments ... You don't have any... I'm polite and courteous, you insult me ... I decide to poke some fun at you for being a hypocrite, and that's slander? Damn you are really a born victim I don't give a shit, you're going off-topic, prove that what you're saying is relevant to art and make an argument that refutes what I have said and what Guy Debord said, then we can talk... You're incapable... I didn't say that McDonald's food has no nutrients, I said that it's very little compared to the sodium phosphate additives and calories, it's calorically dense, making it garbage. And it's low in fiber, making you likely to eat a lot of calories without realizing it... Same with your prole culture that makes you dependant on branding. You're conditioned to defend the spectacular society because you're yourself alienated, we have seen how you excuse exploitation if you can have a figurine on your shelf. If you think a Pokemon drawing by a first grader is worthy of the Louvre, or that ''The Room'' is worthy of a Godard film, that's on your lack of taste and culture. Well no, something can be ''art'' and still be terrible. I'm just showing you that these criteria since they are not exclusive to art, are useless to define it. There are plenty of "criteria" in art ... and it's not a succession of boxes to tick ... they're based on technique, subject, perspective, uniqueness... And then, subjective criteria ... Something that is determined by the erudition someone has on a medium. Appreciating a work and knowing if it is good is not the same thing. Being able to understand the cultural importance of something also increases the pleasure that we have. Can you prove that art critics rely on a metric system? No, so you're off-topic. Read Guy Debord, you would know that we are all, to an extend, alienated. Except that some are at least trying to emancipate themselves from it. You adulate consumption when you say; You basically just called out every people of the working class who wants to save to just indulge a bit on their hobbies (figurines created by the labor of exploitation, responding to none of their intrinsic needs) "capitalists". You don't even realize that it's a form of imperialistic cultural soft-power... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority The first is a 1997 webpage by an Instructor in English, Elisabeth LeJeune, who teaches at Southern Louisiana University... The second link leads nowhere... Argument from authority ... but still nothing concrete. Prove that I've proved your point? I'm not asking you to understand ... Just to shut up, for your own good ... to avoid being ridiculed, altruistically. A Tu quoque (which you call a ''no u card'') is an ad hominem fallacy... In brief, you admit you have no arguments to oppose me... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque It's funny how you drop the clothing arguments and the Manifesto thing when I've proved you wrong... Prove that the North Sentinel islanders are capitalists, and prove that you aren't a capitalist? Where did I say that people are alienated from eating lunch? Should they just starve themselves? Said the little guy with possible Asperger syndrome who thinks he's reading things I haven't written and doesn't want to listen to the superior being giving him a good spanking. How could you even understand the writings of the people you've mentioned? Can you prove to me you've read them? Protip: try reading the above post to the tune of Blondie's Heart of Glass. Do you want to debate me? An argument is more than welcome. |
DYNASTIADec 28, 2021 5:21 PM
| “You’ve never succeeded at anything and you never will, and do you know why? Because you are vulgar, irremediably vulgar, and not only are you vulgar, you are ordinary.” - Maurice Pialat’s We Won't Grow Old Together (1972) |
DYNASTIA said: Learn the legal definition of slander... You decide to come to talk to me ... I'm asking you for arguments ... You don't have any... I'm polite and courteous, you insult me ... I decide to poke some fun at you for being a hypocrite, and that's slander? Damn you are really a born victim I don't give a shit, you're going off-topic, prove that what you're saying is relevant to art and make an argument that refutes what I have said and what Guy Debord said, then we can talk... You're incapable... I didn't say that McDonald's food has no nutrients, I said that it's very little compared to the sodium phosphate additives and calories, it's calorically dense, making it garbage. And it's low in fiber, making you likely to eat a lot of calories without realizing it... Same with your prole culture that makes you dependant on branding. You're conditioned to defend the spectacular society because you're yourself alienated, we have seen how you excuse exploitation if you can have a figurine on your shelf. If you think a Pokemon drawing by a first grader is worthy of the Louvre, or that ''The Room'' is worthy of a Godard film, that's on your lack of taste and culture. Well no, something can be ''art'' and still be terrible. I'm just showing you that these criteria since they are not exclusive to art, are useless to define it. There are plenty of "criteria" in art ... and it's not a succession of boxes to tick ... they're based on technique, subject, perspective, uniqueness... And then, subjective criteria ... Something that is determined by the erudition someone has on a medium. Appreciating a work and knowing if it is good is not the same thing. Being able to understand the cultural importance of something also increases the pleasure that we have. Can you prove that art critics rely on a metric system? No, so you're off-topic. Read Guy Debord, you would know that we are all, to an extend, alienated. Except that some are at least trying to emancipate themselves from it. You adulate consumption when you say; You basically just called out every people of the working class who wants to save to just indulge a bit on their hobbies (figurines created by the labor of exploitation, responding to none of their intrinsic needs) "capitalists". You don't even realize that it's a form of imperialistic cultural soft-power... Desolated said: It's a part of a curriculum lesson taught in cinematography schools. Also again, you just basically proving my point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority The first is a 1997 webpage by an Instructor in English, Elisabeth LeJeune, who teaches at Southern Louisiana University... The second link leads nowhere... Argument from authority ... but still nothing concrete. Prove that I've proved your point? I'm not asking you to understand ... Just to shut up, for your own good ... to avoid being ridiculed, altruistically. A Tu quoque (which you call a ''no u card'') is an ad hominem fallacy... In brief, you admit you have no arguments to oppose me... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque It's funny how you drop the clothing arguments and the Manifesto thing when I've proved you wrong... Prove that the North Sentinel islanders are capitalists, and prove that you aren't a capitalist? Where did I say that people are alienated from eating lunch? Should they just starve themselves? Said the little guy with possible Asperger syndrome who thinks he's reading things I haven't written and doesn't want to listen to the superior being giving him a good spanking. How could you even understand the writings of the people you've mentioned? Can you prove to me you've read them? Protip: try reading the above post to the tune of Blondie's Heart of Glass. |
 |
| If you're commenting about an anime in that anime's section, it should be obvious that you're manifesting an opinion. Furthermore, all statements of quality in fiction are subjective, because they refer to a set of traits that can only be relative to the subjectivity of an individual or a group of people, not to hard facts. |
Sheklon said: If you're commenting about an anime in that anime's section, it should be obvious that you're manifesting an opinion. Furthermore, all statements of quality in fiction are subjective, because they refer to a set of traits that can only be relative to the subjectivity of an individual or a group of people, not to hard facts. So going by your lax judgments, Berserk 2016 > Monster? There are no objective factors at all for the former having such a low reputation? Can you prove it? |
| “You’ve never succeeded at anything and you never will, and do you know why? Because you are vulgar, irremediably vulgar, and not only are you vulgar, you are ordinary.” - Maurice Pialat’s We Won't Grow Old Together (1972) |
| In my FACTUAL opinion, you are wrong. |
 |
| i have an inherent urge to sticky most of my opinions with phrases like "i feel" or "in my opinion", to indicate that they're obviously very subjective. But something that you eventually figure out is that confident and crude statements tend to get more recognition & resonance than restrained ones. You don't read too many reviews that cushion themselves with "in my opinion". They stake their claim as straight, through, and true -- and it's this assertion and confidence that can get synonymous with good writing. Or at least writing that is more memorable. Like how many reviews have you read and gave a strong reaction to that have were restrained and humble in how they criticized their anime? Or wishy-washy in their evaluation? For lots of people, it's either brash or be brushed aside. |
 |
DYNASTIA said: Sheklon said: If you're commenting about an anime in that anime's section, it should be obvious that you're manifesting an opinion. Furthermore, all statements of quality in fiction are subjective, because they refer to a set of traits that can only be relative to the subjectivity of an individual or a group of people, not to hard facts. So going by your lax judgments, Berserk 2016 > Monster? There are no objective factors at all for the former having such a low reputation? Can you prove it? Please, stop with the retarded use of the word "proof". Of course one can make objective comparisons between two samples of animation, soundtrack, pacing and other aspects of a show that resemble physical aspects of an object, but that doesn't offer any more validity to an statement of quality in terms of "good" and "bad" to said shows as a whole. Berserk and Monster both have great stories, but neither of the aforementioned adaptations has outstanding animation, and the pleasure people can derive from one or another is entirely dependent on their expectations and preferences - aspects of judgement that change in society over time or even moving from group to another in a contemporary setting. That is not objectivity in a philosophical sense, but rather, standards. |
| What the eff happened to this thread? It seems to have been hijacked and completely derailed by a certain bickering old couple... in my opinion, lol. |
Stygian_Prisoner said: What the eff happened to this thread? It seems to have been hijacked and completely derailed by a certain bickering old couple... in my opinion, lol. But you gotta admit: it's pretty fun to read. |
| "No one hates anime more than the anime community, which is composed of some of the most spoiled, immature, pessimist and ungrateful people on Earth." -Anonymous anime watcher |
Zanfroni said: But you gotta admit: it's pretty fun to read. Oh, for sure. I honestly can't tell if that one guy who started stirring shit up is either the most obvious troll ever or if he really is that über-pretentious, lmao. |
Stygian_Prisoner said: Zanfroni said: But you gotta admit: it's pretty fun to read. Oh, for sure. I honestly can't tell if that one guy who started stirring shit up is either the most obvious troll ever or if he really is that über-pretentious, lmao. Careful there! If he reads that, you'll be jumped. Prepare for a wall of text the size of the bible where he says you're inferior and that you can't prove he is pretentious! ROFL |
| "No one hates anime more than the anime community, which is composed of some of the most spoiled, immature, pessimist and ungrateful people on Earth." -Anonymous anime watcher |
Stygian_Prisoner said: Zanfroni said: But you gotta admit: it's pretty fun to read. Oh, for sure. I honestly can't tell if that one guy who started stirring shit up is either the most obvious troll ever or if he really is that über-pretentious, lmao. There is no provocation on my part. The same cannot be said of Desolation, for example, or other people who come to quote me on threads with attacks, often free, and from whom I have not asked anything. I am content to say what I think as I think it, without hypocrisy, without demagogy, without precaution, without sophisms, without trying to caress people in the way they want to be touched, without trying to seduce or to please. The discussion has sort of been brought off-topic for a while now, but it's what happens when you debate a broader topic (or, in the case of some people, pretend to). Zanfroni said: Stygian_Prisoner said: Oh, for sure. I honestly can't tell if that one guy who started stirring shit up is either the most obvious troll ever or if he really is that über-pretentious, lmao. Careful there! If he reads that, you'll be jumped. Prepare for a wall of text the size of the bible where he says you're inferior and that you can't prove he is pretentious! ROFL Nietzsche said that you can't blame the eagle for toying with the sheep... Any refutations? No... Sheklon said: DYNASTIA said: So going by your lax judgments, Berserk 2016 > Monster? There are no objective factors at all for the former having such a low reputation? Can you prove it? Please, stop with the retarded use of the word "proof". Of course one can make objective comparisons between two samples of animation, soundtrack, pacing and other aspects of a show that resemble physical aspects of an object, but that doesn't offer any more validity to an statement of quality in terms of "good" and "bad" to said shows as a whole. Berserk and Monster both have great stories, but neither of the aforementioned adaptations has outstanding animation, and the pleasure people can derive from one or another is entirely dependent on their expectations and preferences - aspects of judgement that change in society over time or even moving from group to another in a contemporary setting. That is not objectivity in a philosophical sense, but rather, standards. Define what you mean by proof, and define ''art''. How can you even begin to define "art'' when you've read nothing, or when you have no culture? You say there is no philosophical question when multiple thinkers have developed criteria. It's as if someone could school a biologist on the word ''species''. Many have tried their hand at defining a set of cultural criteria for the arts, Hegel, Tolstoy, Walter Benjamin... Immanuel Kant refers to the "agreeable arts" and contrasted them to the "fine arts". What he meant by it is those agreeable arts are forgettable works that seek to satisfy a need to only entertain you for one moment, works that will distract you for a couple of hours, at most. Kant wrote about it in his Critique of Judgment, where he describes the processes a work employs, what makes art temporal. If you are interested in the artistic process of art, it's a book you clearly need to read. Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" is also a good place to start, and might be an easier read. I'm not saying that you must personally dislike something because it doesn't meet an objective quality, plenty of people get enjoyment from watching something like ''The Room'', just that everything isn't on the same level. Your personal tastes are more than debatable. Yes, some things gain a critical reappraisal with time, but those are exceptions. No one is going to seriously reappraise Abunai Sisters, because it's very obvious shit from every objective aspect, in every decade. Unless you don't consider anime to be art...that would be a whole other question. |
DYNASTIADec 28, 2021 8:43 PM
| “You’ve never succeeded at anything and you never will, and do you know why? Because you are vulgar, irremediably vulgar, and not only are you vulgar, you are ordinary.” - Maurice Pialat’s We Won't Grow Old Together (1972) |
| @DYNASTIA Risible statements coming from the mind of a troubled narcissist whose best argument tactic is to repeat "my dick is bigger than yours". I can do ad hominem without knowing a thing about you too, since there would be no merit in trying to filter out whatever fragment of an argument I could find in the messy monologue of an insecure ego. You might one day stop and ponder why you had to use the expression "try their hand". And thanks, but studying language and literature is literally what I do. I don't have any reasons to dismiss serious authors' input on the field, but I'm certainly not in desperate need of a random internet user's "enlightenment". |
DYNASTIA said: Stygian_Prisoner said: Oh, for sure. I honestly can't tell if that one guy who started stirring shit up is either the most obvious troll ever or if he really is that über-pretentious, lmao. There is no provocation on my part. The same cannot be said of Desolation, for example, or other people who come to quote me on threads with attacks, often free, and from whom I have not asked anything. I am content to say what I think as I think it, without hypocrisy, without demagogy, without precaution, without sophisms, without trying to caress people in the way they want to be touched, without trying to seduce or to please. The discussion has sort of been brought off-topic for a while now, but it's what happens when you debate a broader topic (or, in the case of some people, pretend to). Zanfroni said: Careful there! If he reads that, you'll be jumped. Prepare for a wall of text the size of the bible where he says you're inferior and that you can't prove he is pretentious! ROFL Nietzsche said that you can't blame the eagle for toying with the sheep... Any refutations? No... Sheklon said: Please, stop with the retarded use of the word "proof". Of course one can make objective comparisons between two samples of animation, soundtrack, pacing and other aspects of a show that resemble physical aspects of an object, but that doesn't offer any more validity to an statement of quality in terms of "good" and "bad" to said shows as a whole. Berserk and Monster both have great stories, but neither of the aforementioned adaptations has outstanding animation, and the pleasure people can derive from one or another is entirely dependent on their expectations and preferences - aspects of judgement that change in society over time or even moving from group to another in a contemporary setting. That is not objectivity in a philosophical sense, but rather, standards. Define what you mean by proof, and define ''art''. How can you even begin to define "art'' when you've read nothing, or when you have no culture? You say there is no philosophical question when multiple thinkers have developed criteria. It's as if someone could school a biologist on the word ''species''. Many have tried their hand at defining a set of cultural criteria for the arts, Hegel, Tolstoy, Walter Benjamin... Immanuel Kant refers to the "agreeable arts" and contrasted them to the "fine arts". What he meant by it is those agreeable arts are forgettable works that seek to satisfy a need to only entertain you for one moment, works that will distract you for a couple of hours, at most. Kant wrote about it in his Critique of Judgment, where he describes the processes a work employs, what makes art temporal. If you are interested in the artistic process of art, it's a book you clearly need to read. Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" is also a good place to start, and might be an easier read. I'm not saying that you must personally dislike something because it doesn't meet an objective quality, plenty of people get enjoyment from watching something like ''The Room'', just that everything isn't on the same level. Your personal tastes are more than debatable. Yes, some things gain a critical reappraisal with time, but those are exceptions. No one is going to seriously reappraise Abunai Sisters, because it's very obvious shit from every objective aspect, in every decade. Unless you don't consider anime to be art...that would be a whole other question. It impresses me that you're still replying. You claim that people in this thread can't debate and are just gratuitously attacking you (which is one-sided, by the way, because you are attacking others as well. And don't bullshit me with "prove I'm attacking"), then why are you still bothering to attempt to engage in a discussion? You're pretty much smelling your own fart at this point because there is no way your arguments will convince people anymore, and you can thank your arrogance for that. |
| "No one hates anime more than the anime community, which is composed of some of the most spoiled, immature, pessimist and ungrateful people on Earth." -Anonymous anime watcher |
| @DYNASTIA Learn the legal definition of slander... You decide to come to talk to me ... I'm asking you for arguments ... You don't have any... I don't have any arguments? That should be my word to you. Anyone who read our replies would end up in same conclusion as me I'm polite and courteous, you insult me ... I decide to poke some fun at you for being a hypocrite, and that's slander? Damn you are really a born victim >Polite and courteous >Poke some fun at others Pick one. By calling me a bourgeois you have slandered me for something I don't possess, which is a private property. I don't give a shit, you're going off-topic, prove that what you're saying is relevant to art and make an argument that refutes what I have said and what Guy Debord said, then we can talk... You're incapable... I didn't say that McDonald's food has no nutrients, I said that it's very little compared to the sodium phosphate additives and calories, it's calorically dense, making it garbage. And it's low in fiber, making you likely to eat a lot of calories without realizing it... Same with your prole culture that makes you dependant on branding. I'm not going off-topic. And who said that you said that it has no nutrients? Stop accusing me of saying what I don't. All I'm saying is that fat and sugar also belongs to nutrients. Again, that's more of because of there is standards on how much calories and fibers human needs to ideally consume daily. Like my examplea about carbs above, if it is above 325 grams, then it's excessive. If it is below 225 grams, then it's a deficit. That's how you answer "how much/few is too much/few". Both of us agree that it's objective. You're conditioned to defend the spectacular society because you're yourself alienated, we have seen how you excuse exploitation if you can have a figurine on your shelf. Where did I say this? AlsoRead Guy Debord, you would know that we are all, to an extend, alienated. Except that some are at least trying to emancipate themselves from it. You adulate consumption when you say; You basically just called out every people of the working class who wants to save to just indulge a bit on their hobbies (figurines created by the labor of exploitation, responding to none of their intrinsic needs) "capitalists". You don't even realize that it's a form of imperialistic cultural soft-power... Since it's related to this, I'll just answer it in one go. Really? I have to repeat the same shit over and over again? Oh well, at least I know that my figurines, unlike Hersheys or Nestle, isn't a product made by the cheap labour of imperialized countries. The culture of my country has been destroyed ever since the 32 years of dictatorship in our country happen. If you think a Pokemon drawing by a first grader is worthy of the Louvre, or that ''The Room'' is worthy of a Godard film, that's on your lack of taste and culture. If you can't explain this with a scientific metric system, I'll call this an appeal to common sense. I'm just showing you that these criteria since they are not exclusive to art, are useless to define it. So you can't prove me that there are any metric standards on how an art should be (as opposed to how much fibers, carbs, fat, etc a human ideally should consume daily)? Then congratulations, you have failed to change my mind. There is no objectivity in art, with the exception of the amount of materials used to create the product.There are plenty of "criteria" in art ... and it's not a succession of boxes to tick ... they're based on technique, subject, perspective, uniqueness... And then, subjective criteria ... Something that is determined by the erudition someone has on a medium. Appreciating a work and knowing if it is good is not the same thing. Being able to understand the cultural importance of something also increases the pleasure that we have. Can you prove that art critics rely on a metric system? No, so you're off-topic. The first is a 1997 webpage by an Instructor in English, Elisabeth LeJeune, who teaches at Southern Louisiana University... The second link leads nowhere... Argument from authority ... but still nothing concrete. Says the one who keep using Debord and themselves as an authority? Ok. Prove that I've proved your point? You agreed with me that there is an objectivity about the food analogy because there are metric standards that can measure it. I'm not asking you to understand ... Just to shut up, for your own good ... to avoid being ridiculed, altruistically. You're the only one being ridiculed here. Just look at the people's reactions. Then why should I shut up? Perhaps this is your way to admit defeat? Ok then, I guess I'll take it as my "win". A Tu quoque (which you call a ''no u card'') is an ad hominem fallacy... In brief, you admit you have no arguments to oppose me... Because what you throw at me wasn't an argument in the first place, but something like "namecalling". I have no need to reply your non-arguments with an argument.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque It's funny how you drop the clothing arguments and the Manifesto thing when I've proved you wrong... No, it's because I have proved you wrong. There is an actual book copy with the exact title of "Manifesto of the Communist Party", but you have yet to found a book with the exact title of "Communist Party Manifesto". Prove that the North Sentinel islanders are capitalists, and prove that you aren't a capitalist? I said that they are about the only people who are 100% not involved in capitalism, how about fixing your reading comprehension first? Me, you, basically everyone that is directly or indirectly involved with market has some certain of degree tied with capitalism. That's what I'm saying. Also How do you want to overthrow the system if you yourself are alienated by this system, alienation preventing you from any revolutionary inclinations? Read Guy Debord, you would know that we are all, to an extend, alienated. This combined, unless if you're a counterrevolutionary capitalist, is a contradiction of your part. Because that means nobody can or will do a socialist revolution. But I guess since I habe proven that you're a fake on that other thread, I guess it's not far fetched to think that you're also faking your Marxist stuff and is actually a counterrevolutionary capitalist? Except that some are at least trying to emancipate themselves from it. You adulate consumption when you say; intrinsic needs? Heh, at least that's a better argument than your subjective notion of "ugly". Good to see you improved. But also like I said again, decorations will still be exist under socialism. And here I thought you're an art person? But now you're implying that your version of "socialism" has no art? Or I suppose that you're a "fake art enjoyer"? Hmmm.You basically just called out every people of the working class who wants to save to just indulge a bit on their hobbies (figurines created by the labor of exploitation, responding to none of their intrinsic needs) "capitalists". Said the little guy with possible Asperger syndrome who thinks he's reading things I haven't written and doesn't want to listen to the superior being giving him a good spanking. How could you even understand the writings of the people you've mentioned? Can you prove to me you've read them? >Superior being giving him a good spanking Using yourself as an authority, just like what I have said above. Do I really need to preach to people like your "Read Debord, read Debord, read Debord!"? Or can't you simply just see it by yourself that my idea of consuming products that's made in my own country if possible, and handmade instead of mass produced (if possible, of course) is my conclusion of what I've read from Emmanuel Arghiri's "Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade"? I have no desire to be as unsubtle as you. |
|
| I usually say "in my opinion" when I say how shit Code Geass is. I've managed to avoid a shit storm of angry fans that way. |
  |
Sheklon said: @DYNASTIA Risible statements coming from the mind of a troubled narcissist whose best argument tactic is to repeat "my dick is bigger than yours". I can do ad hominem without knowing a thing about you too, since there would be no merit in trying to filter out whatever fragment of an argument I could find in the messy monologue of an insecure ego. You might one day stop and ponder why you had to use the expression "try their hand". And thanks, but studying language and literature is literally what I do. I don't have any reasons to dismiss serious authors' input on the field, but I'm certainly not in desperate need of a random internet user's "enlightenment". The insults are there, but no argument is to be found after I pointed out that ''art'' is a philosophical term. I can wait, I have some time to kill... That must be nothing other than alienation. Putting on blinders and insulting anyone who dares to challenge your beliefs... Zanfroni said: DYNASTIA said: There is no provocation on my part. The same cannot be said of Desolation, for example, or other people who come to quote me on threads with attacks, often free, and from whom I have not asked anything. I am content to say what I think as I think it, without hypocrisy, without demagogy, without precaution, without sophisms, without trying to caress people in the way they want to be touched, without trying to seduce or to please. The discussion has sort of been brought off-topic for a while now, but it's what happens when you debate a broader topic (or, in the case of some people, pretend to). Nietzsche said that you can't blame the eagle for toying with the sheep... Any refutations? No... Define what you mean by proof, and define ''art''. How can you even begin to define "art'' when you've read nothing, or when you have no culture? You say there is no philosophical question when multiple thinkers have developed criteria. It's as if someone could school a biologist on the word ''species''. Many have tried their hand at defining a set of cultural criteria for the arts, Hegel, Tolstoy, Walter Benjamin... Immanuel Kant refers to the "agreeable arts" and contrasted them to the "fine arts". What he meant by it is those agreeable arts are forgettable works that seek to satisfy a need to only entertain you for one moment, works that will distract you for a couple of hours, at most. Kant wrote about it in his Critique of Judgment, where he describes the processes a work employs, what makes art temporal. If you are interested in the artistic process of art, it's a book you clearly need to read. Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" is also a good place to start, and might be an easier read. I'm not saying that you must personally dislike something because it doesn't meet an objective quality, plenty of people get enjoyment from watching something like ''The Room'', just that everything isn't on the same level. Your personal tastes are more than debatable. Yes, some things gain a critical reappraisal with time, but those are exceptions. No one is going to seriously reappraise Abunai Sisters, because it's very obvious shit from every objective aspect, in every decade. Unless you don't consider anime to be art...that would be a whole other question. It impresses me that you're still replying. You claim that people in this thread can't debate and are just gratuitously attacking you (which is one-sided, by the way, because you are attacking others as well. And don't bullshit me with "prove I'm attacking"), then why are you still bothering to attempt to engage in a discussion? You're pretty much smelling your own fart at this point because there is no way your arguments will convince people anymore, and you can thank your arrogance for that. Where did I start insulting people who haven't been insulting me from the get-go? There is no hate emanating from me, only sarcasm and cynicism at best. I am not the man of resentment myself. I am not a nihilist. I am a student of Epictetus and Seneca. And where do you do anything other than insult me by actually starting to contradict me with arguments? Nowhere ... ok ... I understood correctly ... You should follow your own previous comment and flee, you would risk questioning your certitudes ... And you would prove that Nietzsche was right ... Desolated said: I don't have any arguments? That should be my word to you. Anyone who read our replies would end up in same conclusion as me Argumentum ad populum Desolated said: >Polite and courteous >Poke some fun at others Pick one. By calling me a bourgeois you have slandered me for something I don't possess, which is a private property. First, define ''bourgeois'' (since you insist that it has to include means of production, which it doesn't), define ''slander'', then, send me your tax returns so we can prove you own no private property. Monsieur the petty-bourgeois socialist. That's good, you're the useful idiot of the system, defending it oh so well... Desolated said: And who said that you said that it has no nutrients? Stop accusing me of saying what I don't. All I'm saying is that fat and sugar also belongs to nutrients. Again, that's more of because of there is standards on how much calories and fibers human needs to ideally consume daily. Like my examplea about carbs above, if it is above 325 grams, then it's excessive. If it is below 225 grams, then it's a deficit. That's how you answer "how much/few is too much/few". Both of us agree that it's objective. You cannot base nutrition demands based on a percentage of your caloric intake, they must be based on lean bodyweight, Nutritionists would tell you the same thing. Learn what ''empty calories'' means, nutrients don't matter if your food serving has no fiber... making it objectively prole garbage. Go out for a walk before trying to give off-topic health advice that you're not qualified to give, maybe try a treadmill? It's not my problem if you can't remember what you write... Just serves to prove that you're colonized. It's good, go serve your master. Don't forget your coke and your fries with that. Desolated said: Since it's related to this, I'll just answer it in one go. Really? I have to repeat the same shit over and over again? Oh well, at least I know that my figurines, unlike Hersheys or Nestle, isn't a product made by the cheap labour of imperialized countries. The culture of my country has been destroyed ever since the 32 years of dictatorship in our country happen. Because you think your useless consumer good is produced in decent conditions? Again, you are defending your consumer rights above those of the Chinese factory worker doing a menial job making your merch, because there would be no one to make your figurines for you after a communist revolution. Personally, I don't care about useless suffering caused by world population growth, as a Nietzschean, the goal is to go beyond notions of good or evil... I am just pointing out the inconsistency of your LARP with the most unbridled capitalism you espouse. Desolated said: If you can't explain this with a scientific metric system, I'll call this an appeal to common sense. Prove it? Desolated said: So you can't prove me that there are any metric standards on how an art should be (as opposed to how much fibers, carbs, fat, etc a human ideally should consume daily)? Then congratulations, you have failed to change my mind. There is no objectivity in art, with the exception of the amount of materials used to create the product. The definition of art is philosophical. So if you don't want to talk about philosophy, avoid talking about art ... ''An art'' and ''art'' are two distinct things, with distinct criteria of judgment and definitions. When someone talks about ''the art of living'', they're not talking about a Picasso painting. You're talking about things you don't grasp, just like calories. I know you despise art and learning, so just go away to your Youtube and figurine roleplays. Desolated said: The first is a 1997 webpage by an Instructor in English, Elisabeth LeJeune, who teaches at Southern Louisiana University... The second link leads nowhere... Argument from authority ... but still nothing concrete. Says the one who keep using Debord and themselves as an authority? Ok. You admit you lied AND used an irrelevant retired English teacher as an authority in art, using an old article that talks about literary criticism and proves me right ... I would tell you to learn what an argument from authority is, but it might be too late for that ... Did you have trouble with the English class back in HS? Desolated said: You agreed with me that there is an objectivity about the food analogy because there are metric standards that can measure it. I'll make it more simple for you. When/where/how? I already proved that you know nothing about nutrition. Ridiculed by whom? Your pathetic friends and other moderate liberal relativist LARPs? Do you know what Nietzsche said? That he doesn't care if he's considered a buffoon by the weak Desolated said: Because what you throw at me wasn't an argument in the first place, but something like "namecalling". I have no need to reply your non-arguments with an argument. Said the guy who proves me right in his preceding comments... Validating the Nietzschean theories that I defend ... Whose accusations, insults, and stalking only validate the fact that he's weak ... funny ... Desolated said: No, it's because I have proved you wrong. There is an actual book copy with the exact title of "Manifesto of the Communist Party", but you have yet to found a book with the exact title of "Communist Party Manifesto". You're free to edit Wikipedia if you disagree with the article's spelling and my contraction but cite your sources. Desolated said: Prove that the North Sentinel islanders are capitalists, and prove that you aren't a capitalist? I said that they are about the only people who are 100% not involved in capitalism, how about fixing your reading comprehension first? Me, you, basically everyone that is directly or indirectly involved with market has some certain of degree tied with capitalism. That's what I'm saying. Desolated said: Lol like I said, nobody except perhaps the North Sentinel islanders are engaged in capitalism. Literally all of then are "alienated and depend" on it simply by eating daily lunch. Why do I need to even repeat this? Are you perhaps, in your own words "an idiot"? Curious. Can you even read at a ninth-grade level? Learn the verb ''To Be''. Reread what I wrote, reread what you wrote ... notice that you are off-topic, and shut the fuck up about every single topic forever ... But once again you're totally irrelevant. Marx for example is against protectionism ... Because it just means being exploited by the bourgeois of his country ... Desolated said: This combined, unless if you're a counterrevolutionary capitalist, is a contradiction of your part. Because that means nobody can or will do a socialist revolution. But I guess since I habe proven that you're a fake on that other thread, I guess it's not far fetched to think that you're also faking your Marxist stuff and is actually a counterrevolutionary capitalist? Prove the contradiction? I'm talking about you here, pointing out that your lack of culture and alienation makes your LARP hypocritical. Where have I defended capitalism or conspicuous consumption? I'm a fake? Prove it... Desolated said: intrinsic needs? Heh, at least that's a better argument than your subjective notion of "ugly". Good to see you improved. But also like I said again, decorations will still be exist under socialism. And here I thought you're an art person? But now you're implying that your version of "socialism" has no art? Or I suppose that you're a "fake art enjoyer"? Hmmm. Well, are you not unaware that capitalism creates inequalities? That the spectacular society creates entertainment to maintain a status quo at the level of social classes to prevent any rebellion? There won't be anyone around to make your figurines after a revolution. "Fake art enjoyer" doesn't make any sense, you either enjoy art or you don't. ''be exist'' (sic) At least reread yourself, you can do that much, can you? Desolated said: >Superior being giving him a good spanking Using yourself as an authority, just like what I have said above. Do I really need to preach to people like your "Read Debord, read Debord, read Debord!"? Or can't you simply just see it by yourself that my idea of consuming products that's made in my own country if possible, and handmade instead of mass produced (if possible, of course) is my conclusion of what I've read from Emmanuel Arghiri's "Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade"? I have no desire to be as unsubtle as you. You have to be neuroatypical, it's just not possible anymore... I know what I'm talking about and I stay consistent, unlike you. Read Debord instead of yapping about things you have no idea about ... I haven't read/watched any of Arghiri's things, but just like the rest of your nonsense, I'll just assume that you have no idea of what he's talking about and you googled him as you were searching for random communist personalities. You have no education in economy, you're misinterpreting, that's a pretty safe bet, I would say. You can't even understand my basic arguments without making strawmen. Marx said that you're just being exploited by your own bourgeoisie, a useful idiot of the system. |
DYNASTIAJan 2, 2022 3:20 AM
| “You’ve never succeeded at anything and you never will, and do you know why? Because you are vulgar, irremediably vulgar, and not only are you vulgar, you are ordinary.” - Maurice Pialat’s We Won't Grow Old Together (1972) |
| As people have already said before – because it's obvious that they are giving their opinion. It is implied in every sentence, apart from sentences for which their validity can be measured, e.g., "the sky is blue in my opinion" makes no sense since there is no opinion to have about facts. I used to say "in my opinion" all the time, but my philosophy professor was really, really salty about this. Each time I said something along the lines of "but that's only my opinion", he would say "yes, of course it's yours, that's why one only clarifies when it's someone else's". He still corrects other students, this man is just on a crusade to get everyone to stop using that phrase lol. He says it comes off as insecure and makes people less encouraged to believe you, since you don't really seem confident enough in your statement yourself. Like you know nobody's agreeing with you, so you quickly shoehorn in a blanket statement that's basically saying "it's okay guys, I know it's stupid, please don't attack me for it". I guess it could be useful to emphasize that once or twice if your statement is coming off as particularly aggressive or stuck up, which seems to be the case here. Well, less so if the sentence is followed by legitimate criticism, but still could be douchey in context. However, I still don't think that anyone should be religiously adding "in my opinion" to their takes if it's not seriously necessary. In my opinion. |
Don't fear the gods, Don't worry about death; What is good is easy to get, and What is terrible is easy to endure. |
StardustSailor said: first off, I agree w everything u said and u phrased it well (since I could not). Ur prof sounds like a fun guyAs people have already said before – because it's obvious that they are giving their opinion. It is implied in every sentence, apart from sentences for which their validity can be measured, e.g., "the sky is blue in my opinion" makes no sense since there is no opinion to have about facts. I used to say "in my opinion" all the time, but my philosophy professor was really, really salty about this. Each time I said something along the lines of "but that's only my opinion", he would say "yes, of course it's yours, that's why one only clarifies when it's someone else's". He still corrects other students, this man is just on a crusade to get everyone to stop using that phrase lol. He says it comes off as insecure and makes people less encouraged to believe you, since you don't really seem confident enough in your statement yourself. Like you know nobody's agreeing with you, so you quickly shoehorn in a blanket statement that's basically saying "it's okay guys, I know it's stupid, please don't attack me for it". I guess it could be useful to emphasize that once or twice if your statement is coming off as particularly aggressive or stuck up, which seems to be the case here. Well, less so if the sentence is followed by legitimate criticism, but still could be douchey in context. However, I still don't think that anyone should be religiously adding "in my opinion" to their takes if it's not seriously necessary. Tho I do think it’s important to add that it’s really important to note the current environment that you’re writing in. In an academic setting, “in my opinion” is redundant and unnecessary, but on a place like MAL where ppl occasionally cant separate whether someone is giving an opinion or reinforcing a fact, I do think that it’s forgivable to overuse “in my opinion.” That is, unless the person writing is really good at their prose and making it clear what they are standing for (u did it rlly well btw) lmao this is so aggressive |
belka1213 said: Tho I do think it’s important to add that it’s really important to note the current environment that you’re writing in. In an academic setting, “in my opinion” is redundant and unnecessary, but on a place like MAL where ppl occasionally cant separate whether someone is giving an opinion or reinforcing a fact, I do think that it’s forgivable to overuse “in my opinion.” That is, unless the person writing is really good at their prose and making it clear what they are standing for (u did it rlly well btw) It's shitty behavior for a person to act like they're reinforcing a fact when they're just debating their Japanese cartoon tastes in the first place. Now that sounds like a problem. Sounds real fucking pathetic that there are people who think they can "prove" anime X is shit lol. If the discussion is really heading in that direction, then yeah, you are right, it is a good idea to differentiate yourself from those jerks. Coming off as a people pleaser is infinitely better than coming off as an idiot. belka1213 said: lmao this is so aggressive Haha, sorry, sorry, I really just couldn't help myself. |
Don't fear the gods, Don't worry about death; What is good is easy to get, and What is terrible is easy to endure. |
DYNASTIA said: The insults are there, but no argument is to be found after I pointed out that ''art'' is a philosophical term. I can wait, I have some time to kill... That must be nothing other than alienation. Putting on blinders and insulting anyone who dares to challenge your beliefs... Impressive reading comprehension. No wonder you have (supposedly) read philosophers and haven't learned anything from them. Anyway, it's 2022 already, I didn't even remember your existence, maybe you should let go of that resentment. And if it wasn't obvious enough already, this post of your made it clear that you're trolling, whether you're aware of it or not. |
Sheklon said: DYNASTIA said: The insults are there, but no argument is to be found after I pointed out that ''art'' is a philosophical term. I can wait, I have some time to kill... That must be nothing other than alienation. Putting on blinders and insulting anyone who dares to challenge your beliefs... Impressive reading comprehension. No wonder you have (supposedly) read philosophers and haven't learned anything from them. Anyway, it's 2022 already, I didn't even remember your existence, maybe you should let go of that resentment. And if it wasn't obvious enough already, this post of your made it clear that you're trolling, whether you're aware of it or not. No sensible answer? Strange, I suspected that. Assuming annoyance on my part when I take care, for my heart, not to feel anger and that I am a reader of Seneca or Epicurus, that makes me laugh. You're the one still tagging me in your abstractions, in 2022. Proof I haven't understood Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Benjamin, or Debord? Said by who? The guy who hasn't read a single one of them? You have the culture you deserve, as Nietzsche said, we need mediocre authors for mediocre people. |
| “You’ve never succeeded at anything and you never will, and do you know why? Because you are vulgar, irremediably vulgar, and not only are you vulgar, you are ordinary.” - Maurice Pialat’s We Won't Grow Old Together (1972) |
More topics from this board
» Evidences that anime was already mainstream pre 2020s.jacobPOL - 1 hour ago |
12 |
by jacobPOL
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Waifu War V5 (Anniversary-Edition!) (Round 1) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Minkalex - Sep 28 |
391 |
by UberBat
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think your favourite character(s) is a reflection of yourself?tanjiromybaby - 55 minutes ago |
5 |
by Duado
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» Is it bad to raw-dog seasonals? ( 1 2 )thewiru - Yesterday |
65 |
by JaniSIr
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Are there anime NOT for beginners?thewiru - 2 hours ago |
20 |
by rohan121
»»
21 minutes ago |