daniskarma @ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

3

Comments

1,308

Joined

1 yr. ago

I think most of those jobs are actually considered skilled jobs. Are they not?

When I think unskilled job I think picking fruit on the fields, cashier, delivering packages (though you need the driving skill so I don't know) job that does actually not take much skill, and could probably be 100% learned how to do right in a week.

Nothing bad with an unskilled job anyway. If it needs to be done it needs to be done. Not because doing it takes no special skill means that it is less important.

I'm not American so I'm here asking questions to be educated.

Because I also, from the limited amount of information that I got about it, didn't think of school shooters as specially right wing. Or as any kind of right wing organization or movement to impose their politics through means of violence against civil population.

As European when I think of right wing terrorism I think of this fascists shooters we had that literally had fascist manifestos and were part of fascista groups.

But I've heard many times this idea of American school shooters being right wing terrorists, so I'm genuinely interested in truly understanding what gives them this consideration, as from my POV (again a very limited POV) I thought of them as a failure of mental health, social integration and a bad school system in general, all united with the incredibly accessible firearms. But not specially as part of a terrorist group.

No, we do not exist. Don't let anyone know we exist. 😶

I like to consider myself leftist. But it's true that I don't agree in all that most current left wing political parties stand for.

I think all human are born equal, and should have a good life. That politics should be used to improve everyone's life.

But in the what does this mean or how to do it I feel more and more differences lately.

To give an example, I cannot really stand identity politics. I think that the best course of action is to dissolve identitarian (is that word real?) groups instead of exacerbating their differences. I feel like people should be getting rid of labels instead of having more and more labels every day.

That's just a personal opinion, based on the idea that if you define different groups the chance of conflict between groups is bigger than if you define only one group. And I do get the idea behind identity politics within the left wing spectrum. I just don't agree that's the best course of action.

I do think that we could give information without propaganda if we really mean it.

Or at least there are levels of propaganda.

My personal take is that propaganda is not true, like actual lies.

I know that "the best propaganda is true" and just excluding other information. But purposely giving just a small part of the information is a lie regardless, to me at least.

But if we were to give all the possible information on any matter I don't think it could count as propaganda.

And, this is the funny part, this is my own propaganda, because one of my political beliefs is that we could make politics in a healthier way without using the "evil" tactics for a "good" outcome.

What I think about marriage is that is not that true or logical. As it is supposed to be a "forever" thing. But it's obviously not, and it's not logical that it is.

And making the whole ceremony about how two people are going to stay together forever feels weird knowing the statistics.

At least to me.

Anyone, you are not alone. Plenty of people feel no need to make that ceremony and just enjoy life with their SO for as long as it last, or even forever.

But no heat to those who want to marry. This is just my weird personal opinion.

The weaker part of a conflict is not always in the right just because it's weaker than the other part and got beaten up.

There's a male loneliness epidemic. And everyone who denies, mock it or victim blame on it is a terrible human being. IMHO people who suffer is not to make fun of. Empathy must be the basis for any moral system.

We can discuss the causes and solutions to it all day long. But sadly is such a politicized theme that agenda will come before any rational analysis. And that just saddens me. Because lots of people out there needs help, needs society to be better, and others just decide to bully them.

Linux Kernel. Blender. And the other 5 are still undiscovered.

Ublock is truly one of the 8 technological Wonders of the world.

Your dog bites someone and it becomes a big YOU problem.

These are public forums. Anyone can look what's going on here.

This is not a private space.

Finding nice places to just be. In the city, in nature, where ever but magical places.

The art is already there, but I just find it and let myself be surrounded by it for a while.

Using transportation is not actual movement. Because movement is only made by humans.

It's interesting to see that the dog situation is getting out of control in other places. I thought it was only my country where people have been becoming crazier and crazier about dogs.

Just curious and for a good laugh.

Can you be more specific in why do you think that a stem major would need to also study humanities? Do you think studying humanities make you a superior being? A better human? Do you think the study of humanities is what gives people morals and people that had not study humanities are all sinners that would go to hell? I've heard it all.

But I'm curious to hear one more. What way do you think truth about nature can be approached that it is not the scientific method?

I know that some people approach truth by dogma "this is true because I (or someone I like) say so" but I must never agree on that.

I can have all opinions about art that I want, same can you. As long as they are internally consistent probably both will be true. I think "art is what make people feel they are perceiving art" is better than "art is something that is made by someone who a subculture of the western world gives the rank of artist and that it was not made by a technology based on neural networks generation text-to-image as it was presented in the year 2021". But both are still opinions, if you want something more solid you need the scientific method and experimentation.

Do you need to feel a love connection with every artist? If not that response is not really relevant isn't?

It is literally the same. If I put it side by side you will not be able to distinguish them. If you cannot distinguish between two things they are the same.

If you were a future archeologist and found those two scripts. Your job as an archeologist is to catalogue the arts and crafts of past civilizations. How would you able to take the script written by the monkey and thrown it into the trash while taking the Shakespeare script and put it into a museum, when the two of them are exactly the same, and you have no evidence on who wrote it?

If you need to know that something was made by an human to be considered art then you may have issues when you see a piece of art without the ability to know it's contexts. For me that's an inconsistency. Something being art or not cannot depend on the knowledge on who or what did it.

Again all this is subjective. If we want an objective truth we need to do some science. Thus an experiment. We could try to define art by the physiological responses that individuals have perceiving certain things, those which share the same physiological response can be considered art. Or even if we want to add the axiom that art NEEDs to be made by humans, we could look and measure the physiological responses of individuals making different things, and catalogue those with the same physiological response as art makers, or artist and the products of those actions art. It would be interesting to do these experiments and add traditional and AI art into the mix, don't you think?

That we disagree.

And I know that my definition of art is not common. But art is not a scientific term. Is the most subjective matter in the world, so I feel free to give my own interpretation which is as valid as any other.

To me art is more intrinsic to the object than to the way it was created. Something being art is defined, by me, in the eye who looks and not in the hand who made it. Art is made by the viewer in some way, not by whatever created the thing that's being perceived. It's a way to look at what art it that it's truly ego shatering for artists (which are not wildly known for having on average small egos). But I like it. And I can really argue for that:

Imagine infinite monkeys with typewriters, they will eventually write Hamlet, exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, letter by letter. That version of Hamlet is not art, but Shakespeare's version is? Even if they are identical, and will produce the exact same feelings in the audience?

They are different but they share characteristics.

I brought it up because some guy said that art made without direct human input and knowledge of the end result is not art. And while different in many other things both AI art and generative art share that characteristic.

Imagine the next example, some people may want to say that pixel art is not real art because it does not allow for complex detailing. The. i may ask if they think that watercolor is also "not art" because it also doesn't allow for great detailing .

I've been into generative art since before generative AI was a thing. And for the record I do like generative art much more than I like AI art. I don't actually even specially like AI art as a form of artistic expression. But the fact that I don't like an art style or more specifically a way of doing art is just my particular taste. Generative art have great differences with AI art. As generative algorithms are hand made by the artist, while in AI art the algorithms are made as a generic tool and artists change the initial inputs but don't really change the algorithm that much, specially on a deeper level. Also AI art is "based" on other art, while generative art is it's own thing, is not "pre-trained".

But it's an interesting point of discussion, as it's also computer made with great randomisation, and once the algorithm is made an almost infinite works can be made with little effort without an human "opera".