To me the authors accusatory tone seems misguided and, indeed, clickbaity (people love to hate)- which is a shame, since the information about the architectural sculptures called spomenik the article offers is pretty interesting. I believe that the interest in the purely formal qualities of thise "spomeniks" is a proper appreciation. Getting people interested by these offers an entrypoint into a deeper engagement with their historical background and the representational purpose. "its great that pictures of spomeniks are circulating, you might wonder what the meaning of those seemingly alien structures in the nowhere actually is" would be the proper cause for propagating these information imho. Its actually remarka le about these memorials that they manage to get their image circulating.
While that's true that we use word spomenik for all monuments, I think outside of Balkans it's now recognized as a word describing specific abstract and grandiose type of monument. So world (or Internet community at least) took our word and appropriated it to mean something else.
Anyway, if someone visit one of Balkan countries and ask to see spomenik, expect locals to be confused and would not know what exactly you mean.
More seriously, I think you're exactly right about the adopted internet-English meaning of 'spomenik' and the article is right to make a distinction between this particular (and much more interesting) variety and your more generic strictly-regime-sponsored concrete artblob.
Yeah what’s the name for this accusatory tone highbrow clickbait? There’s a companion article on the shame you should feel about “ruin porn” because surely you feel “desire to gloat over the decomposing corpse of the West’s former Communist enemy.”
I can say I’ve never felt that but have enjoyed the sort of x-ray view you get of the structure sometimes + imagining what it was like at full splendor. To me it’s a combined feeling of wonder and loss.
As arbitrary as the rest of the capitalist framework. These arbitraty constraints are interdependent though. So while you might be right you can not just drop copyright (on whose existence the livelihood of a lot of people depends), but you will have to let go of thr whole assumption that the production of surplus value goes into private profits (or way above average incomes for that).
Something is telling me that this isn't as appealing to you as getting your ressources for free by the expropriation of intellectual property, is it?
Just a intuitive thought, a bit unresponsible maybe, so consider on your own risk: you researched the effects of ketamine and its derivatives on your disorder? Din't know why I think of this; probably because they are know to also affect obscure pain stuff like phantom pains and generally interact with perception (I feel it reduces oversensitivities like not beeing able to bare some stimulus and such) currently researched as an fast acting and lasting over its acute effects treatments for depression.
If I'm ever eligible for a study into it I'd definitely at least consider the idea, though it's not something I'd want to do outside of medical supervision given the mechanism of my condition is not well characterised yet.
One anecdotal thing from support groups etc that makes me cautious is that while some people are born with it and some people contract it spontaneously later in life (this was my case), other people can contract it after taking various types of drug. Typically these are serotonergic drugs like antidepressants, psychedelics, and that sort of thing which aren't in the same category so it'd probably be okay but it's definitely possible I can make things worse as well as better.
I agree. You know these kids aren't just "variables". You learn to know them, build relationships with them and try to make them succeed as much as is possible.
Some people really are quite detatched from the social link.
Its hard to speak of epistemology without mentioning Foucault. He's a great philosopher of the history of knowledge and its preconditions. I have not read Feyerabend (yet) though. But if he's going deep into the history of knowledge, there will be at least some associative closeness if not one in methodology.
Foucault, studied under Georges Caguilhem who was an influential philosopher of sience. Another student of his is Gilbert Simondon, a philospoher of technology who was writing on the process of the individuation of machines. I say this because I sometimes get the impression that some people, especially those educated in the US, have a quite distorted impression of the so called continental tradition.
Also if one was to speak of a certain group of philosophers in France after May 68 like Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze (who are actually rather different thinkers), they are commonly reffered to as post-structuralists, not post-modernists. Haven't heared the latter term to often in philosophical debates as in use for people. Of the top of my head I can' t really think of a person that could function as representative of postmodernism as a coherent school of thought, besides maybe Francis Fukuyama. Maybe thats different in US discourse. The term post-modernists always sounds a bit funny to me, like the "Neomarxists" that haunt the plot of Southland Tales.
Lol, you have no idea. Prove me wrong... What do you think should be automated about the teaching profession?
Taking care? Motivating? Observing listening analysing what is happening in that temporary microsociety you manage? Prepare lessons, research extend your own knowledge? React to what is Happening changing the course of your lessons to react to what actually happens in the classroom? Have conbersations with kids and parents? Judge if the production of these little ones shows progression? Figure out what potential problems might be (structurally socially psychologically). Have humor, and dedicate some time to just simply forming a bond? Damn I cant think of a lot that could be automated besides the officework where the same tools are used as everywhere for scheduling, dicumentation communication etc...
The facts are as exhaustive as they are exhausting. There’s one simple conclusion from all of this. We’ve been tricked. We’ve been told that America, like most other majority-white countries, deserves the title “developed economy”. It does not.
A bit polemic but an interesting perspective. Maybe it's just the case that the us IS a "third world' aka >developing county<
Yes, that's my point; I'm happy at least someone understood it instead of downvoting me.
People love talking about how the US is the worst developed country across so many categories, without grasping the point that if something is clearly an outlier from everything else in a category, the definition of the category itself is flawed.
The US isn't that bad of a country in that sense that if you knew you were going to be born into the US, and you got one optional re-roll, you shouldn't take it. But for some reason that isn't totally clear to me people (though I have some hypotheses), people seem to think that we should be doing dramatically better than we are, and the fact that we're not in an even higher percentile of best countries to live in is some sort of unconscionable moral failing.
My hypotheses for the source of this idea:
* Pure racism -- people think "the US is a Western country with a European-influenced culture; why shouldn't it be doing as well as all the other countries that fit that description?"
* People confuse wealth with development. They think "of course [country X] is fucked up, because it's poor, but the US doesn't have that excuse". However, they are actually two independent axes (despite being correlated, of course).
* The existence of so much "America #1" propaganda makes people want to hold the US to a higher standard -- if country X has problems, well, at least they're not going around claiming to be the best country in the world.
* The ironclad pop-cultural dominance of the US in the Western world means it's on people's minds way more than random median-quality countries.
Apexalpha was talkimg about bataclan in France. The european context is super different from the US context.
For example this year someone killed one person in a Amoklauf (~schoolshooting) in germany with a sports crossbow. These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public. As they should be. What does anyone really NEED, a crossbow for?
This isn't a very compelling argument, and it's kinda intellectually dishonest because you wouldn't accept any answer I gave you. You are now acting as "dear leader," who decides what individuals do or don't need.
Why does anyone NEED to go over 10 miles per hour, why does anyone NEED more than one pair of shoes? Why does anyone NEED coffee, tea, beer, lots of things, why does anyone NEED a fast computer? Why does anyone NEED cologne or perfume? Why does anyone NEED dessert? Why does anyone NEED fashionable clothes? Why does anyone NEED art? How do you even justify that outside of a profit motive in a way you will accept? See it's a trick you are playing.
Of course to answer your question, a gun would be the preferred tool. If you ever go camping in the woods, they are certainly handy. If someone tries to rape or murder you, it would certainly come in handy. If you were a woman (or a man even) and attracted a crazy stalker, invaluable. If you have a massive plague where the police stop working and society stops functioning correctly, it would certainly come in handy. Remember covid?
>These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public.
Of course, someone will kill someone with a bow and arrow, then it will be banned, then someone will kill someone with a knife, and they will ban the "scary looking" ones. Then someone will use a slingshot and those will get banned. You know it's all just a theatrical overreaction at that point to placate the hysterical masses.
Lol. All the things you listed are more or less harmless to others, or general purpose tools/forms (mihht dispute art in this regard but I'm personally very willing to accept the dangers that art poses). A crossbow is an updated medieval weapon, that by the way, lower aristocracy (knights) at that time, tried to declare a warcrime, because it could penetrate the state of the art armour... What's it with the desserts? They are tasty and, if you're not scared of crazy clowns that try to embaress you in public, more or less harmless.Certainly not a weapon. Our forests here went through some thousand years of culture and there really isn't anything a manly man would need to defend himself against. Maybe the ones on the border to/in czech republic, but where that is the case, these areas are natural reserves, and you're not supposed to go there unless you leave no traces. Certainly not shooting left and right on animals for some sporting fun.
Well there is possibly enjoyment in all of these things. Now you might say: "yeah thats true for weapons also". And that I think is precisely the problem. Why do you think the enjoyment of having a weapon, owning it, feeling the potential power of it, should be acceptaple? If you want to argue then why I dont make that argument for other things, I'll habe to tell you: There is a word for people who argue like that: imbecile. Stop playing stupid games by seemingly following sime logic, that is purely linguistical and onedimensional and take responibility for xou're critical cognitive capabilities, by realising that weapons are a different category than desserts and computers, and try to realise that the enjoyment of something that is made to kill might be a perversion, not a right.
>All the things you listed are more or less harmless to others, or general purpose tools/forms (mihht dispute art in this regard but I'm personally very willing to accept the dangers that art poses).
Yes, but why do you NEED them, isn't that the argument you made?
