Yeah, a lot of evangelical churches make it abundantly clear that as long as you love Jesus, you can be a giant piece of shit otherwise and still get into heaven.
As a kid I appreciated that line of thinking because I thought it allowed us to strive for better, accept that we're all flawed, but still understand we're all worthy of love.
Instead, as I was a teenager watching these same folks froth at the mouth and cheer for blood in Afghanistan and Iraq, I realized it was a way to reconcile any damn horrible thing they wanted to do. A cloak for depravity and hate.
Oni was so much fun: I would love to see how it feels now, but my nostalgia for it is off the charts. Martial art combos, plus sci fi guns: there's just nothing else like it out there, which is a bummer.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/03/trumps-tariffs-the-full-list
Are we allied with Iran?
Thanks for a thorough reply, there's a lot to tackle, so apologies that I'm not responding to everything in it. You make good points, but it's clear we have fundamentally different perspectives on this.
I’m not that sure about permission being important in art would led to coherent definition. How could art know if it had permission to be made or not?
I tried to be explicit that permission is not required to make art - because I want to disentangle the two arguments. One of the biggest contentions I have with AI gen stuff is the ethics involved. No ethical consumption under capitalism, so I get arguments that the paint brushes I have were produced unethically to some degree, so pot meet kettle, but I think there's degrees we can find some nuance in. But I don't think it's useful, either, to just shrug and toss the ethics aside. It must be acknowledged, and grappled with.
As for the rest of your comment about the artist copying preexisting emotions, tapping into things that are already there - or the infinite monkeys thing - I do think some amount of intentionality is required to call something art. That said, we all create derivative works to a degree: that's just impossible to avoid. We're only human, and we filter our environments through our brains and experiences, and that allows some unique (but again, derivative to a degree) works. If you ask ten people to paint a scary lion, we're all drawing on some shared fear, and maybe a single photograph of a lion, but you'll get different works as a result. The art, for me, is the product of the creative process. Art requires intentional action, IMHO. It's a more narrow definition than yours, but I think being overbroad makes the word meaningless, and indistinguishable from...beauty, or (to include grotesque images, or other emotions), simply aesthetics. AI tools can make beautiful images, but this all circles back to my initial point (with some modified wording): aesthetics are not inherently art, art is not just aesthetic. If we get to AGI, I'll buy the things it creates as being art. For now, it's really impressive math. Doesn't undermine the beauty in it, but it's something different.
Again, this is my personal opinion. In my science career I'm more of a lumper than a splitter - when talking about evolution, you can "lump" together groups into species, or "split" them into subspecies (really for any clade). So I get your impulse to be open and not gatekeep. I'm not trying to gatekeep, but I do think there is utility in defining things. I don't like splitting species, but there are differences in crocodiles and alligators. We can't just lump them into one species - but they are related by broader terms. In this case, I think you're talking about aesthetics, and not art. Just my personal opinion, and not making a value judgement any more than calling an alligator an alligator, and not a crocodile. They're different things, and yes: species that look nearly identical but are genetically distinct qualify as different species. The way something beautiful is made matters. IMHO
You're arguing with a version of me that you've created in your head, because nowhere did I say anything about AI art. You're also again misunderstanding my point - and misunderstanding what creativity is. "Representative art" requires creativity, because a mountain is not two dimensional. Taking a photograph requires decision-making. Even once you've taken a pretty picture, though, loop back to my first point - beauty alone is not art.
Again, you're arguing with a version of me that you've created in your head: yes, we use tools to make art. People use spellcheck when writing a play, people use knives when making woodcuts, we use ovens to blow glass. However, if I - without permission - take a photo of my neighbor's watercolor and print it on T-shirts, do you think I created a work of art? That much is at least arguable. There's expression, there's creativity, and it could be aesthetically pleasing in the end. However, one of the main contentions people have with AI gen...do you find it ethical?
Pay close attention to what I'm saying here, please. You've been trampling on nuance, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm a scientist that kind of works in tech, and I have a lot of creative pursuits outside of my day job. I think there's a lot of potential to LLMs and other tools out there, but I think we need to pay careful attention to ethics, and I do think words have meaning, even if definitions drift, and even when we're talking about challenging subjects.
Keep trying really. It’s interesting seeing some people realize how in all human history we have been unable to came up with a united and universal definition of art. It is probably one of the most vague concepts we have as humans.
I'm glad we agree on something! Yes, the definition of art hard to pin down. Subjectivity is the name of the game. I loathe a lot of modern art, because I think it's disappeared up it's own asshole, as Vonnegut would say. It's strange though, because you seem to be certain that your definition of art is universally correct. Again, my initial point - you're conflating beauty with art, because you claim a mountain itself is art. I think a mountain is beauty, and there's beauty in our scientific understanding of why it looks like it does. But I don't think that qualifies as art.
And of course pushing politics in the definition (we all know this is truly about politics, there is not facade here) is the oldest trick in the book.
What politics do you think I'm pushing? How do you think whatever politics you are pushing have impacted your view of what defines art?
None of what you just said has anything to do with the point I was making.
Thank you for a good reply, but I'll still push back on your general conclusion. They can do nearly all of that from Canada, the only exception that they won't face arrest for doing so.
The larger point: I think "slightest bit" is way underselling what we've seen over the last couple months. Attacks on the academic systems, legal systems, and of course on the most vulnerable people in society. I think we're already at "really hairy", and waiting to "flee" until the administration is executing professors in the street is too late.
To make a different point: not everyone can do their best resisting while under serious pressure. Not everyone is a fighter. We need medics, we need logistics, we need reporters, we need people abroad supporting us. If they can't handle the pressure, but will keep up the flight from afar, then more power to them. It doesn't necessarily make them cowards, but cognizant of their own needs and how they can best help. Maybe they are fleeing out of cowardice, but the point I'm trying to make is that it isn't a given.
It sounds like you're conflating art and beauty.
Art is about human creativity and expression. It doesn't have to be beautiful, and beauty doesn't have to be art.
Again I ask: what do you suggest they do that they cannot do from Canada?
...or now is the time to leave while/if you can. Maybe they've decided they can fight the regime more effectively from outside the country. That they can use their voice and experience unburdened by fear they'll be arrested. What do you suggest they do that they can't from Canada?
Truly, I can't fault people for leaving. Especially people that are being targeted. I'm a scientist that works fighting against climate change, so I get it.
Something that's stuck with me for a long time is this quote within a quote about Susan Sontag:
"She was asked what she had learned from the Holocaust, and she said that 10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and that 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and that the remaining 80 percent could be moved in either direction."
-Kurt Vonnegut
https://inthesetimes.com/article/susan-sontag-and-arthur-miller
For more than a decade I only rode a motorcycle in Florida. I even made trips - with a passenger - to Costco. It required plenty of straps and saddlebags and a big backpack, but it was doable to get groceries in it for two people.
This was on a Triumph Scrambler, and I had added a luggage rack etc, so not something you could do easily on a stock sport bike, but you don't need a big touring bike for this kind of living, either.
The times I needed to haul something big, I rented a truck from a big box hardware store. Saved a ton of money over the years, and only now have a Prius (with a roof rack to haul stuff) because I live in a place with harsh winters. No sidecar yet, but thinking hard about it...
Well sure, the Democrats could kill the filibuster with a simply majority (if they could get 51 senators on board) but they filibuster a lot as well, to prevent some Republican legislation. So I can see why they're too pragmatic - or cowardly - to remove it. Not the best source/graph, but a source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-democrats-considering-ending-the-filibuster/
As for the parliamentarian: they haven't been removed in a while, and the one before that also served for a pretty long time...I think the Democrats (again, cowardly or pragmatically) are simply trying not to escalate and make the parliamentarian a puppet of the current simple majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate
I'm all in favor of nuking the filibuster, mind you: which would make the whole budget reconciliation thing a moot point. but I can understand the desire for some in the party to retain it as a tool. Fat lot of good it's doing us now, of course.
the Democrats technically controlled the chamber.
Correct - technically, but not practically - because they absolutely can't get anything substantial done with the Republicans and right-wing Democrats, as they didn't have a filibuster proof supermajority.
However, there was one brief moment when Biden’s party had a 60th vote, which occurred after Senator Al Franken resigned and was replaced with Senator Tina Smith in 2018
That...just isn't true though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress They had at most 47 votes, right? Also...recall who was president in 2018. Certainly not enough congressional control to override the inevitable veto.
At best their ‘accomplishments’ you mention were limited, while vastly more dammage was done in other fields.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that many of the accomplishments were limited. I'm not saying they are going to save us, and while I want to wrest control from the right-wing leadership in the Democratic party, I'm not terribly optimistic that it'll happen in my lifetime. IMHO we need more coordination and cooperation on the Left to organize enough to do what the Tea Party did on the Right with the GOP...the major difference is that the folks in power in the GOP weren't ideologically opposed to the Tea Party, unlike the corporate Dems v. the "Actual Left", so maybe that's a fool's errand, especially given the power structures in place, and the inherently anti-democratic system of government re: SCOTUS, Senate, Electoral College, etc.
Look: I don't think we disagree all that much: I'm just trying to acknowledge nuance and correct misinformation. So...what do you suggest we do about the Democrats being at best speed bumps to real progress?
That movement goes beyond aggressive vandalism: there were literal murders (and attempted murders) going back to the eighties and mostly during the nineties. So it's absolutely not true to say no one was hurt by those acts. Likewise, the bombings and arson that were inflicted were indeed meant to cause terror on a large scale, and was specifically targeting medical infrastructure, which is war crime level bad. So yeah: terrorism.
If it was only the vandalism, or walking around with dumb signs...then it's more arguable, even though I'm vehemently against them. IMHO violence against people is what crosses the line. Likewise, when anti-abortion groups are bombing literal medical clinics - that definitely goes beyond vandalism and into territory that causes harm to folks, even in the cases they didn't kill people directly with the bombs. Blocking people from entering clinics - trying to intimidate workers and patients...also more "grey", but can arguably cause direct harm/violence.
So to the case from the OP, IMHO vandalizing teslas isn't harming civilian infrastructure, or otherwise harming people directly, so...I don't think it crosses the line. Until it does, I think at best it's reaching to call it domestic terrorism, and at worst - it's just being bandied about to justify locking up political enemies and chill protests. I fully acknowledge it's a fairly morally grey area to be discussing, so thank you for a good exchange.
When they have a supermajority, like they had not long ago, they are in trouble.
The last true supermajority I'm aware of only lasted 72 days, back in 2009. It's when the Fair Pay act was signed, Affordable Care Act, and a few different attempts to reform Wall Street. They were certainly not as life-changing as I'd like, but I'm admittedly pretty far to the Left of the average US voter.
The even stronger supermajority before that was in 1965, and that got the creation of Medicare & Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, Freedom of Info Act, etc.
The Dems are a weak centrist party, and the leadership is center-right at best, but even so - those two times where they had a supermajority in the Senate gave us some good to at least quasi-good stuff. I'm totally on board for bashing the Democrats, but it's hard to convey the amount of damage the truly undemocratic Senate has done over the decades, and I think we can't avoid the reality that there was a lot that got done in that brief period when the Republicans couldn't stop them. The ability to block legislation in the Senate is just incredible. Things just can't get passed, unless it's something the Republicans will agree to - so it's far easier for shitty stuff to get passed. Unfortunately, there are enough right wing democrats that will go along with the shitty stuff the Republicans propose, in no small part because their constituents actually like it. We're losing the propaganda war, because those with capital have far more power to wield.
So there's a lot of problems to fix - deeply undemocratic institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College, the entirety of the GOP, weakass right-wing Democrats, and the voters themselves. Unfortunately, yeah...the interests of Capital have intervened and made sure to cripple Education and control the media landscape, so to get back to my main point, since I'm losing the thread here - I'm agreed that the Democrats are shit, but we can't ignore reality that when they've had actual full control of the Federal government, things were at least going in a decent direction.
The thing is: nearly everything can cause harm, in some small, indirect way. And everything is political, even if only some small, indirect way.
So taken to the "logical" extreme, me eating oatmeal for breakfast is terrorism. It harmed the people in the fields working for low wages, and it's a political choice to eat less meat for a meal.
This is why it seems silly to meant of us to call burning Tesla dealerships terrorism. Does sitting bud light cans count as terrorism? Do boycotts count as terrorism?
Yes, most Democrats aren't Left enough. Some are trying to push the party to the Left, however.
I think the confusion here is your blanket "they" is conflating the mainstream Democratic party instead of those of us who are pushing this stuff at the grassroots level, e.g. actual progressives/Leftists etc.
Conservatives wanted to stop immigration long before 2008...