seriously, the guy has a point



  • @ben_lubar said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    "Fearless Girl" specifically represents a single stock ticker symbol:

    So what? I can just hear someone fumbling through this argument: "The bull represents the American Spirit and we can't have an advertisement for NASDAQ nearby because...because..."

    1. "...NASDAQ is un-American." (Buzz-buzz fail.)
    2. "...advertisements are un-American." (Buzz-buzz fail.)

    Nope, sorry, argument fail. Unless...unless...the "American Spirit" happens to be greed, capitalism, profit, and (most importantly) the NYSE.

    @xaade said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    By being the very thing it pretends to stand against?

    You;re kidding, right?

    The artist made a raging bull and set it up next to the NYSE, home of the mighty BULL MARKET, capitalist bastion, center of all American wealth. Then he went all mealy-mouthed and said it was about the "American Spirit." Which spirit was that?

    • The American Spirit of freedom? No.
    • The American Spirit of compassion? No.
    • The American Spirit of innovation? No.
    • The American Spirit of imperialism? No.
    • The American Spirit of individuality? No.
    • The American Spirit of patriotism? No.
    • The American Spirit of brotherhood? No.

    I could go on for a month. But it isn't until we get down to power/NYSE/capitalism that the symbolism makes sense by form and location:

    • The American Spirit of capitalism and might, as embodied by the NYSE across the intersection? Winner!

    So when the artist said "American Spirit" he meant the mighty capitalist spirit of our great nation.

    The girl might advertise NASDAQ, but that is not what she symbolizes. Consider this old poster that represents defiance of government authority:

    0_1496472084940_295e0215-c93d-48ab-81ea-59406f64961d-image.png

    Same as the mouse, "Fearless Girl" stands before the bull...flipping him off. Defiance of the bull and everything it represents.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    The girl might advertise NASDAQ, but that is not what she symbolizes.

    Maybe this is just another fundamental difference between us.

    I care about what is originally intended, factual, by the artists.

    You care about how you perceive it, how it fits your world view.

    Neither is wrong, unless you insist on refusing to acknowledge what you're doing, which is buying into a feel-good marketing campaign by a multi-trillion dollar rich fund, who is pretending to be the little guy, opposing the bull, originally created by an immigrant seeking a better life in America during a downturn in the economy.

    This is the cornerstone of my frustration with the left. The blatant hypocrisy of pretending to be the victims. Top democrats complaining about Trump pulling out of the climate agreement, because that means less CO2 spewing trips in private planes to foreign locales so they can pretend to be pro-environment.

    But as long as it feels good, it is good...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    I care about what is originally intended, factual, by the artists.
    You care about how you perceive it, how it fits your world view.

    Art is well known for being capable of being ambiguous. Often when you check with the intentions of the artist (as opposed to those commissioning the work) you get much more mixed intentions; many artists like the ambiguity and try quite hard to avoid pinning down the interpretations to what they originally thought of.

    This discussion is not a bug, but an intended result. 😉



  • @xaade said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    The girl might advertise NASDAQ, but that is not what she symbolizes.

    Maybe this is just another fundamental difference between us.

    I care about what is originally intended, factual, by the artists.

    You care about how you perceive it, how it fits your world view.

    Neither is wrong, unless you insist on refusing to acknowledge what you're doing, which is buying into a feel-good marketing campaign by a multi-trillion dollar rich fund, who is pretending to be the little guy, opposing the bull, originally created by an immigrant seeking a better life in America during a downturn in the economy.

    This is the cornerstone of my frustration with the left. The blatant hypocrisy of pretending to be the victims. Top democrats complaining about Trump pulling out of the climate agreement, because that means less CO2 spewing trips in private planes to foreign locales so they can pretend to be pro-environment.

    Now you're being mealy-mouthed. Did you believe the "artist" Obama when he said, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.” Of course you did not.

    But now you believe the artists in this fiasco? Okay, that fits your worldview at the moment...at least until you find out one or both of the artists is a liberal.

    We can disagree, that's okay. But to then accuse me of hypocrisy? Physician heal thyself.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    So what? I can just hear someone fumbling through this argument:

    Please do tell me why Pissing Dog is invalid but Fearless Girl is valid. I'll let you take as long as you need to come up with an excuse.


  • SockDev

    The whole situation is just stupid.



  • What if every day some citizen hangs a little placard around the girls neck: SOLD.

    That would fit all narratives.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    But now you believe the artists in this fiasco?

    I may not have evidence for the bull, but I have evidence for the girl. That's something that's researchable.

    @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Did you believe the "artist" Obama when he said, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

    You're reaching, hard, here.

    But this is also something you can do your homework on.

    @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    But to then accuse me of hypocrisy? Physician heal thyself.

    Oh, don't melt on me.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    The bull has been a symbol of capitalism (and greed) since it was revealed. Only a moron could look at it--and its surroundings--without getting that message.

    I've never gotten "greed" from it. I think that's you projecting your misunderstandings there.

    @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Because it is wrong for anyone (much less a girl) to challenge the Might and Majesty of capitalism. It is only appropriate to cower...or worship.
    That's what "Fearless Girl" represents: a challenge to the Might and Majesty of capitalism. How dare she? She might as well fart loudly in church.

    You are such a tool. But it's funny how you're getting all worked up to apologize for an ad for some of those greedy people you seem to dislike.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Nope, sorry, argument fail. Unless...unless...the "American Spirit" happens to be greed, capitalism, profit, and (most importantly) the NYSE.

    Yes, your argument makes no sense to anyone not already inside your head. Why do you hate prosperity?

    @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    The girl might advertise NASDAQ, but that is not what she symbolizes.

    No, she literally symbolizes a firm of "greedy" capitalists who want to trade on your patriarchal guilt.



  • @japonicus Basically, left-wing means more government programs and more government control, regulations, and involvement in corporate business activities (and the rest of society). Right-wing means less of all of those, resulting in more individual responsibility and opportunity. At least, these are the descriptions used in the USA.



  • @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    It would be more realistic if there were a statue of a bear behind the girl about to eat her.

    Algy met a bear.
    The bear met Algy.
    The bear was bulgy.
    The bulge was Algy.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Because it is wrong for anyone (much less a girl) to challenge the Might and Majesty of capitalism. It is only appropriate to cower...or worship.

    So you say, but I almost never see anyone dare to defend capitalism, at least online.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    greed, capitalism, profit, and the NYSE.

    🎶 One of these things is not like the others. 🎶



  • @dkf said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @xaade said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    I care about what is originally intended, factual, by the artists.
    You care about how you perceive it, how it fits your world view.

    Art is well known for being capable of being ambiguous. Often when you check with the intentions of the artist (as opposed to those commissioning the work) you get much more mixed intentions; many artists like the ambiguity and try quite hard to avoid pinning down the interpretations to what they originally thought of.

    This discussion is not a bug, but an intended result. 😉

    Good point, but AIUI, the bull was "commissioned" only by the artist himself and he has said what he intended it to represent, so his own interpretation of what it means is the correct one.

    The commissioners of the girl have purposefully misinterpreted it to try to signal their virtue.



  • @anonymous234 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    So you say, but I almost never see anyone dare to defend capitalism, at least online.

    Dare? It sees like most attacks against capitalism are just name calling from which no defense is needed. I mean...how ignorant / deluded do you have to be to actually attack capitalism?



  • @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    You are such a tool. But it's funny how you're getting all worked up to apologize for an ad for some of those greedy people you seem to dislike.

    The absolute irony of it.

    Yet, I'm used to it. Being told to shut up because I'm a white man, by a white man. Being told "I can't speak for minorities and take their voice away, but I will anyways, because here's a 10 page post on why you're wrong about feminism."

    This is just more of "get the backpat if you pretend to think the right things".


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    The bull has been a symbol of capitalism (and greed) since it was revealed. Only a moron could look at it--and its surroundings--without getting that message.

    I'll admit my moronicity, I didn't get anything close to that when looking at it for quite some time (up until this point actually).



  • @anonymous234
    Why would anyone need to defend capitalism? It defends itself by being better than all alternatives.



  • Socialism is about making sure rich people don't charge money for work they don't do.
    Which is why it gives poor people money for work they don't do.



  • @Dragoon said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    It defends itself by being better than all alternatives

    Nothing defends itself. Any truths more complex than "the sky is blue" needs to be repeated and re-taught constantly or people will start believing "alternative ones".

    Especially if believing those alternative ones can make them feel "rebellious", "enlightened" or just part of a group.

    Remember that it takes a massive social effort (12 years of compulsory universal education, and a lot of cultural ideas) just to barely stop most people from believing in voodoo, black magic, and other mysticism. So don't take reason for granted.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @anonymous234 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Remember that it takes a massive social effort (12 years of compulsory universal education, and a lot of cultural ideas) just to barely stop most people from believing in voodoo, black magic, and other mysticism.

    Not even close. The modern education system is a modern system; it arose well after society had moved beyond mysticism. (Even in 19th century America, with the Renaissance a distant memory and the Industrial Revolution in full swing, one-room schoolhouses where they taught "the 3 Rs" were pretty common.)



  • @anonymous234 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Remember that it takes a massive social effort (12 years of compulsory universal education, and a lot of cultural ideas) just to barely stop most people from believing in voodoo, black magic, and other mysticism. So don't take reason for granted.

    Sometimes it ends up just teaching a different brand of mysticism or other illogical stuff.



  • @anonymous234
    Well, once someone actually puts forth an argument worthy of debating I will defend capitalism. Until such time, I will continue to battle ignorance as what it is, ignorance.



  • @djls45 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @japonicus Basically, left-wing means more government programs and more government control, regulations, and involvement in corporate business activities (and the rest of society). Right-wing means less of all of those, resulting in more individual responsibility and opportunity. At least, these are the descriptions used in the USA.

    That's funny, I thought left-wing meant having more of a safety net for the poorest and weakest in society, standing up for science, social progress, inclusiveness and tolerance, while right-wing meant looking out for the interests of the richest and strongest, standing up for xenophobia and turning the country into a theocracy while viewing the 19th century robber barons as a platonic ideal. 🚎



  • @Groaner Yeah, you would.



  • @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @Groaner Yeah, you would.

    I'm flattered that you've been paying enough attention to what I've been saying to be able to determine what I would or wouldn't advocate!

    That said, one slanted assessment of the left-right divide deserved another.



  • @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    That said, one slanted assessment of the left-right divide deserved another.

    I mean, I don't understand what you've got against 19th Century Robber Barons, but I can understand how you don't recognize "standing up for science" is just another theocracy for the Left. 🐠


    Filed Under: Rationalia


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    I mean, I don't understand what you've got against 19th Century Robber Barons, but I can understand how you don't recognize "standing up for science" is just another theocracy for the Left.

    I think that's more true of "standing up for social progress".



  • @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    I mean, I don't understand what you've got against 19th Century Robber Barons,

    It might have something to do with working conditions like those "documented" in classics by Charles Dickens.

    but I can understand how you don't recognize "standing up for science" is just another theocracy for the Left. 🐠


    Filed Under: Rationalia

    Yes, there is quite a fair amount of Scientism on the left, particularly in the Church of Dawkins. I'm not in any hurry to defend them. Did I mention that athiests annoy me more than fundamentalist adherents to Abrahamic religions?



  • @antiquarian said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    I mean, I don't understand what you've got against 19th Century Robber Barons, but I can understand how you don't recognize "standing up for science" is just another theocracy for the Left.

    I think that's more true of "standing up for social progress".

    As recently as a decade ago, there were mumblings to enshrine marriage as being between a man and woman into our Constitution (granted, it wouldn't be as much of an affront to human rights as, say, the 3/5 compromise). Today, public opinion has swung firmly in the other direction. I don't know about you, but that seems like some pretty decent social progress.

    It's a shame that the Left has run out of righteous causes and is presently poisoned with radfems and SJWs.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    As recently as a decade ago, there were mumblings to enshrine marriage as being between a man and woman into our Constitution (granted, it wouldn't be as much of an affront to human rights as, say, the 3/5 compromise). Today, public opinion has swung firmly in the other direction. I don't know about you, but that seems like some pretty decent social progress.

    All true, but it's not happening as fast as the Poegressives would like. I think they want to see Brave New World implemented yesterday or something.



  • @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    It might have something to do with working conditions like those "documented" in classics by Charles Dickens.

    Fuckin' Brits, ruining everything! I'd also note that the robber barons came later and shit working conditions existed independently of those guys.



  • @antiquarian said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    As recently as a decade ago, there were mumblings to enshrine marriage as being between a man and woman into our Constitution (granted, it wouldn't be as much of an affront to human rights as, say, the 3/5 compromise). Today, public opinion has swung firmly in the other direction. I don't know about you, but that seems like some pretty decent social progress.

    All true, but it's not happening as fast as the Poegressives would like. I think they want to see Brave New World implemented yesterday or something.

    Of course they do. Or, as you frequently suggest, the advocates have to be angry about something to make work for themselves and justify their salaries.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    That's funny, I thought left-wing meant having more of a safety net for the poorest and weakest in society, standing up for science, social progress, inclusiveness and tolerance, while right-wing meant looking out for the interests of the richest and strongest, standing up for xenophobia and turning the country into a theocracy while viewing the 19th century robber barons as a platonic ideal. 🚎

    The thing is, there are a few different broad sets of issues that have broadly different political perspectives, and both the Left and the Right have their own opposing positions on these issues, and both the Left and the Right are utterly, ridiculously inconsistent in the groupings of their positions. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that Supporters of both sides like to focus on the points they're strong at and the points their opponents are weak at, so you end up with definitions like these.



  • @anonymous234 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Remember that it takes a massive social effort (12 years of compulsory universal education, and a lot of cultural ideas) just to barely stop most people from believing in voodoo

    Are you suggesting we use colonized science?


  • kills Dumbledore

    @xaade no, just science


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @masonwheeler said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    both the Left and the Right are utterly, ridiculously inconsistent in the groupings of their positions.

    WONTFIX_ASDESIGNED

    Consistent groupings would interfere with the game they've set up of "Let's You and Him Fight".


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Are you suggesting we use colonized science?

    What, the ::science namespace? I guess you can if you want…



  • @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    it wouldn't be as much of an affront to human rights as, say, the 3/5 compromise

    The only affront to human rights inherent to the 3/5ths compromise was that the slaves being so counted were not permitted to vote, ever: they weren't able to vote before it, and they weren't able to vote after it, and the 3/5ths compromise didn't change that one single bit.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Dragoon said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @anonymous234
    Why would anyone need to defend capitalism? It defends itself by being better than all alternatives.

    "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government — except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

    The same could be said of capitalism.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    It's a shame that the Left has run out of righteous causes and is presently poisoned with radfems and SJWs.

    👍


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Jaloopa said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @xaade no, just science

    You need to decolonize your science and stop being so bigoted.



  • @anotherusername said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    it wouldn't be as much of an affront to human rights as, say, the 3/5 compromise

    The only affront to human rights inherent to the 3/5ths compromise was that the slaves being so counted were not permitted to vote, ever: they weren't able to vote before it, and they weren't able to vote after it, and the 3/5ths compromise didn't change that one single bit.

    From a pragmatic standpoint, the compromise may indeed have had little effect on suffrage, yes.

    My objection to it is that the U.S. Constitution, a document often held up as an exemplar of the ideals of the Enlightenment, the wisdom of the Framers, and the ideals of a people contains a section about how some humans are worth less than others. Specifically, 60 percent of others.

    Supposedly, that's been amended away, but like blame logs, the text lasts forever.



  • @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    My objection to it is that the U.S. Constitution, a document often held up as an exemplar of the ideals of the Enlightenment, the wisdom of the Framers, and the ideals of a people contains a section about how some humans are worth less than others. Specifically, 60 percent of others.

    For the time, 60 percent was a hell of a lot better than what they were worth at the polling place.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    My objection to it is that the U.S. Constitution, a document often held up as an exemplar of the ideals of the Enlightenment, the wisdom of the Framers, and the ideals of a people contains a section about how some humans are worth less than others. Specifically, 60 percent of others.

    Fun bit of context: The 3/5 compromise means almost exactly the opposite of what most people think it means.

    The Southern slaveholders wanted their states' population to be counted as 1 for 1, for the purpose of determining proportionate representation in the House of Representatives, so that they would have greater Congressional representation. The anti-slavery Northerners, meanwhile, pointed out that slaves had no voting rights, so why should they be counted among those who did have voting rights, which would only serve to further empower their oppressors? In the end, the 3/5 compromise was the best they could do to limit the damage.



  • @anotherusername said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    My objection to it is that the U.S. Constitution, a document often held up as an exemplar of the ideals of the Enlightenment, the wisdom of the Framers, and the ideals of a people contains a section about how some humans are worth less than others. Specifically, 60 percent of others.

    For the time, 60 percent was a hell of a lot better than what they were worth at the polling place.

    An assessment in historical context is useful for historians. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not an historian. I'm just an asshole who came along two centuries later to condemn such language as racist, rightfully by the standards of my day.

    Schoolchildren to this day get to read about that passage, even if it's technically been nullified by subsequent amendments. Of course, students also get to hear about epicycles, the miasmatic theory of disease, and other confused conclusions of more primitive men.



  • @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    An assessment in historical context is useful for historians. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not an historian. I'm just an asshole who came along two centuries later to condemn such language as racist, rightfully by the standards of my day.

    Yes... it's racist. It's racist because it gave slaveowners 60 percent of one person's right to vote for every non-voting slave they owned who was withheld that right. It would've been awesome if they could've just made it say "count every person who's allowed to vote", but the southern states were having none of that. It would've been even more awesome if they could've just made it say "no more slavery; count them and let them vote", but obviously that idea was years before its time. Hell, it took a war to finally change that.

    Also, women were counted as 100% of a person. What do you have to say about that? Sounds great right? Note, they also weren't allowed to vote. They were just counted... their husbands got to vote to represent them. (Although, not counting them wouldn't affect the populations much in proportion to the populations of all the other states, since they'd all be reduced by about the same fraction -- which was what was important, for the purposes of calculating how many representatives to give that state.)



  • @anotherusername said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Yes... it's racist. It's racist because it gave slaveowners 60 percent of one person's right to vote for every non-voting slave they owned who was withheld that right. It would've been awesome if they could've just made it say "count every person who's allowed to vote", but the southern states were having none of that.

    I thought it was based on population, not on registered voter count?

    Yeah, the southern states have been a problem for a while. Why didn't we just let them secede? 🚎

    Also, women were counted as 100% of a person. What do you have to say about that? Sounds great right?

    I'm in no hurry to defend any misogyny in the Constitution, either.

    However, proportional representation based on the overall count of warm bodies seems rather appropriate, given that the amount of roads, bridges, schools, fire departments, airports, etc. required will correlate well with population density.



  • @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    I thought it was based on population, not on registered voter count?

    It was. That was the problem: a significant number of the population that were supposedly being represented could not vote for said representation. Their representation was therefore being created (by counting them for the purposes of determining how much representation to allocate) and then stolen from them -- by the people who could vote.

    @Groaner said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    However, proportional representation based on the overall count of warm bodies seems rather appropriate, given that the amount of roads, bridges, schools, fire departments, airports, etc. required will correlate well with population density.

    Hahahaha!

    Uh, just how much demand do you think all those uneducated slaves who couldn't travel off their plantations were putting on the south's roads, bridges, schools, fire departments, airports (assuming those existed yet), etc.!?

    Hell, if the slave quarters caught fire, they'd probably just let it burn down. They might make some effort to get their valuable slaves out, at least...

    Anyway, they weren't taxpayers; they served only to enrich their owners. Allocating congressional representation for them, as if they could be represented, was a cruel joke.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.