alienbeast

Having nukes protects you from other nuclear powers through mutually-assured destruction. I'm not sure whether that principle applies to AGI, though.

For an example of how shame can be useful in discouraging bad choices, look at cigarettes. They're legal, but society and government have successfully campaigned to publicize their negative effects, to shame smokers and to praise quitters.

What drugs are you thinking of that are prone to overdose and are also socially accepted? I can’t really think of any…

Alcohol?

I agree with you, and have the same problem. Even though staying anonymous is not too difficult, it's frustrating that it's required. It feels alienating to learn that others are hostile to your thoughts and ideas, to learn that under the freedom of anonymity others still disagree with you, more harshly than they might in person. And it's frustrating to see that some other people are able to fit into the social zeitgeist using their real names, seemingly with no socially unpalatable opinions. (I suppose they probably have their own secret accounts, as well as thick skins.)

I don't think of myself as having particularly offensive or niche opinions, but I probably have a contrarian or confrontational style of communication which causes offense. Certain people (such as INTPs, which we probably both are) tend to pride themselves on being smart and logical. It hurts our self-image when someone disagrees with us.

We also like to discuss things in purely logical and theoretical terms without regard for the context or connotations of the logic. For example, when discussing incest like you did, most people would use a bunch of disclaimers, like "I'm not actually into incest at all, and definitely not a pedophile, but...". You and I would tend to leave out those disclaimers as a matter of pride, because they aren't relevant to the logical idea that you're proposing, and are only useful at defending against ad-hominem attacks. We expect the reader to discuss the topic on purely theoretical grounds in pursuit of the truth. I dislike having to use those disclaimers and often leave them out on purpose because I want to "win" the discussion with my ideas, not my character. This tends to make me unpopular on Reddit. In real life, of course, I would use disclaimers because I care about my reputation beyond the realm of ideas. It's just disappointing that even ostensibly-anonymous social media isn't free of those constraints.

Honestly, I like 4chan for this reason. People don't shy away from uncomfortable opinions there; instead, they run towards them. I strongly disagree with most of the 4chan zeitgeist, and hate a lot of the people there, but its unfiltered nature is refreshing sometimes.

OP never said anything about pedophilia, just incest between consenting adults. I guess you proved his point.

You could probably sell that software.

Pardon my ignorance, but does "housing-first" come with an expiration date, or is it indefinite? Obviously, if you pay for someone's home, you cure their homelessness, but the goal is to have them pay for their own home eventually, right?

I'd expect something like: You get 1 year of "housing-first"-style free housing with no requirements, then you get 1 year of "tough love" free housing with sobriety and job-search requirements, then you get kicked out.

Solution: A button that says "Click here to pay $5 for a human to review your situation."

I agree many movies are offensive to one group or another, but maybe that means we should be more careful of offending people instead of less. Other common bad-guy groups like Muslims and Russians probably don't like being used as villains in movies; their voices just go unheard because they don't have the economic clout that the Chinese do.

And every group of "bad guys" is a little different. The enemy governments of Nazis, Japanese, Soviets, and British Imperialists are gone, those conflicts are over, and those countries are now American allies; the mafia and cartel movies tend to glorify those lifestyles; the European bad guys never faced as much racism in the USA as the Asian ones; etc.

I don't want to be the fun police... But the USA (unlike most countries) advertised itself as a multiracial immigrant country in the past 50 years, and a lot of multiracial immigrants signed on, so I guess we should be tasteful when making movies about shooting their relatives.

Well said. I like that weird and experimental art and architecture exist and are pushing boundaries; I just don't like that they have all but replaced more appealing styles as the default.

I don't mean that kitsch is the best thing ever, but that art should generally incorporate technical skill, craft, precision, meaning, intention, composition, realism...

Maybe art is undefinable, like pornography ("I know it when I see it"). Any limits on what is and isn't art will be immediately and intentionally explored by modern artists. But those explorations are likely to be unappealing. It's fine to have some artists exploring new ideas, but not in the mainstream.

To put it in context: I live in Houston, and I have relatives staying from China. I took them to one of the few outdoor activities here: The Cullen Sculpture Garden, which is next to the art museums. I've been there a bunch of times, but not since it was renovated a few years back. The whole museum, in fact, was renovated in your standard minimalist modern architecture style.

And, well, they were unimpressed. Most of the sculptures are just simple abstract shapes; you can see what I mean on a Google Image Search. My least favorite are what I call the "trash bags" (https://www.schindlermetalworks.com/mfah-fontana-sculpture.h...). There are some decent humanoid bronze statues, but overall, my relatives found it boring, as did I, and I noticed it was mostly empty of people. I felt like my relatives were thinking: "This is it? A bronze triangle nailed to the wall? This is the best sculpture in town? You think this is cool enough to put on display over here? I traveled around the planet for this?"

There's only one place in Texas they've actually said was beautiful, and it's the State Capitol building in Austin. I noticed it was crowded with people hanging out and appreciating it. It's just a typical neoclassical structure, nothing special if you're used to Europe, but it's actually a nice-looking building.

I just felt like the museum renovation and sculpture garden were such a waste. They could have gotten classical marble statues and put gargoyles all over the building like in Prague, Venice, Vienna, etc., which looks really cool. People visit those cities for their architecture, sculptures, and gardens. Houston had a chance to make something similar, but instead we got more modern crap. We don't have to copy those old styles verbatim, but we shouldn't throw them away, either. We could have done something syncretic that drew from traditional European, Asian, African, and American art traditions, but instead, we got more bland modernist abstract geometric stuff.

At the very least, I think people like to see realism, precision, intricacy, and skill in artwork and architecture. The worst part of modern art is the lack of effort it conveys.

Guess I'm just ranting by now, and should get back to work.

I don't hate outsider art. Morally, I like that someone can aspire to make art despite being untrained, and that a good concept can be valuable despite a poor execution. In practice, though, I don't usually find it appealing.

I love some abstract art, but hate others. I like Kandinsky and Picasso, but dislike the scribblers and color-field painters who cross the line into "my kid could have done that". One of my favorite artists is Xul Solar, but I like him for his surrealism rather than his cubism. I tend to like realism, surrealism, and symbolism.

I like tonalism a lot. It combines a realistic image (landscape) with an emotion (distance, calm), which is great. I understand tonalism is exploring the emotions in simple colors and shapes, in the same way a fully-abstract artist like Rothko or Twombly would, but it's also exploring landscapes and realism. It also looks like it took effort and care instead of random scribbles.

I guess I have a lot of interest in precise brush strokes, shading, etc. If I see a painting or drawing which looks sloppily-made, I get the urge to go in there and fix it.

I know art doesn't have to all be super complex and precise, and sometimes there is meditative beauty in simplicity. But there's usually more beauty in complexity. I always hated places like the Rothko Chapel, which just feel to me like zero effort was put in... I guess that counts as "muted abstract", sorry. I can kind of see the appeal, but it just feels like "not art" to me.

Even Rothko tries to be aesthetic, though. The worst is stuff like post-conceptualism and performance art. I'm sure there's somebody out there farting on a canvas and trying to charge $500k for it.

Street painters sell kitsch art instead of modern art because the average street buyer prefers kitsch :)

Conversely, I guess museums showcase modern art instead of kitsch art because the average museum buyer prefers modern art. I don't know whether the average museum goer prefers modern art, although that's a chicken-and-egg situation; maybe more people would go if the art was more kitsch.

It's understandable that laypeople would enjoy kitsch, while enthusiasts might become bored of it, want something new, and seek out experimental modern art. There's a place for each type; I just feel that their places have flipped, and the art world focuses on what only a minority actually enjoy. This unfortunately spills out into public spaces (architecture, public parks, etc.)

Regarding forgeries, I guess we can separate artistic value into historical value and aesthetic value. The original Mona Lisa has more historical value than its copies, but equal aesthetic value.

I know what I suggested is a common complaint, seen as an uncultured take by the art world; I just disagree with the art world. I don't think context should be important for art. I think art should stand entirely on its own merits without explanation. No placard with a description. No article explaining how it represents a feud with his boyfriend. Just the artwork itself.

Of course, it's impossible to entirely decontextualize an artwork, because every viewer will bring their own backstory and interpretation... But the art should be able to appeal to viewers despite the context. Maybe that's the point: Art which is universally appealing to all humans, despite their backgrounds, would be the most magical type.

I once read a book which discussed how humans are universally attracted to landscapes which would be good for human habitation: Trees, a river, a temperate climate, hills and mountains to shelter in, flora and fauna... The average human from any time, any place, any religion, any language will appreciate such a painting. The same applies to nudes, still life of flowers and fruit, and other universally-understood and appealing (but kitsch) subjects. The same could not be said about the grey flag in this article.

And, of course, no artwork will completely meet that universal Platonic ideal, but the attempt to meet it is what creates the intrinsic beauty which modern art abhors.

I left the art world and went into STEM because of my opinions :)

The style and presentation method of the article is great.

I hate this style of "art", though. If modern art should exist at all, it should be only at the fringes of the art world, as an occasional novelty, rather than the main attraction.

For some reason, I feel unusually, viscerally, strongly about this topic. My first instinct was to just declare that this art is absolute fucking garbage (which feels like an indisputable fact to me, not just an opinion). But I thought I should try to analyze why I feel that way.

I have a fine-arts education and passion. I spent several years attending art schools, and working at art schools and galleries. I've been exposed to plenty of modern art and the artists who make it. But I absolutely loathe it. And, in surveys, the public agrees: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/...

I think art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? Or: Could a child have made it by accidentally smearing paint on a canvas?

Art should generally display technical skill and years of practice. Viewers should think "I would never be able to make something as precise and beautiful as this", not "I could make five of these in an hour."

If not technically demanding, art should at least be somehow clever, expressive, or interesting... And in a self-evident manner that doesn't require a backstory on a placard.

The talent required for modern art is not in creating it, but in describing it. I consider modern artists (and critics) frauds, whose main skill is writing snooty descriptions of garbage, convincing people that it's valuable, like the tailor in "the emperor has no clothes".

Finding something that no one has ever called art, and being the first to call it art, is not making art; it's just calling shit art.

I understand modern artists are trying to be creative and unique, to push the limits of what can be called art, and maybe to show us beauty in where we haven't looked before... But most of their experiments fail.

Modern art tries so hard to be original that it forgets to be appealing to viewers. Many traits can make a work of art appealing; originality is only one of them (other traits include technical skill, composition, realism, and subject matter.) Modern art sacrifices (or purposely sabotages) all other possibly-appealing traits in pursuit of originality, forgetting that appeal--not originality--is the ultimate goal. This generally results in an ugly piece of junk that anyone COULD have made, but no one else DID make yet... And that's if the artist is lucky.

Art is capable of being naturally appealing to viewers. This documentary lays out a case for beauty in art, and how the intentional ugliness of modern art is demoralizing: https://vimeo.com/128428182

Not incidentally, it's by a conservative-leaning host; apparently, opinions of modern art are closely tied to opinions on politics: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/p...

I'm high in openness, and usually lean left, but not in this regard, somehow.

A big part of the reason "realistic", "traditional", or "classical" artwork is traditional or classic is that those styles are naturally appealing; that's why they survived so long. I think modern artists tend to consciously and intentionally reject anything related to traditional values. Of course classical art can be boring, has all been done before, was replaced by photography, etc., but it's still intrinsically appealing in a way modern art isn't.

I guess a big part of why I dislike modern art is its success. If the music world was the same as the art world, Brian Eno would be the most popular musician of all time. It just feels wrong. I like Brian Eno and other minimalist/expressionist/experimental music, but only because it's so different compared to the norm. It shouldn't be the norm.

Here's another perspective:

My wife is Chinese, and my son is half-Chinese, born in the USA. I want my son to grow up feeling American, not like an outsider. I don't want movies depicting China invading the USA, teaching his young and impressionable classmates that "Asian = evil invader". I don't want guys that look like him getting gunned down on TV by guys that look like Chris Hemsworth. As you said, the stories we tell shape our national psyche.

I agree the jingoistic CCP-controlled Chinese media does not depict Americans or whites with respect and tact. That's a problem. But it doesn't make it OK for the American media to do the same.

I think, in this example, the student isn't medically disabled, but is just a lazy nogoodnik who hangs out on YCombinator all day instead of studying.