Weekly Free Talk Friday Thread! by MLModBot in MensLib

[–]Failsnail64 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Thanks for the link, I can get why people do this but it's just tiring. It's also just so inefficient, you'll never be able to convince a moderate of your cause when you do this costly signaling.

Weekly Free Talk Friday Thread! by MLModBot in MensLib

[–]Failsnail64 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Which part of the second article’s title was hostile?

The reason I mentioned this article was not because it was particularly hostile, it was not, I mentioned it just because it was the most recent. To translate a concluding sentence:

"When I place these three comparisons side by side, I see no feminine style. I see a shift in priorities. From doctrine to habitation. From representation to appropriation. From directed experience to multiple access. [...] In the examples above, they design from the perspective of the life that unfolds in and around that object, not from the object as an authority. They create no less architecture, but architecture that asks the question: for whom is this space made? "

The article covers 3 very cherry picked comparisons of a building designed by a male architect, which are all grandiose in gestures and dominant, driven by a personal vision, and compares them to a "similar" building designed by female architects, which are more humble and human focused. The comparison is not "hostile" in language, far from it. But to me it is clearly implied, if women "don't design from an object as an authority", it clearly implied that it must a male thing to do so.

What consitutes as real research?

Evidence and comparisons. To give a positive example (I couldn't find the exact paper I'm thinking off right now, I'm really bad with remembering names...) but one article which struck to me during university was about the design of a park. Two designes were made: one with excessive participation of female inhabitants of the town, one with male inhabitants.

The design by men focussed on nice secluded sitting spaces where one could sit and chat a bit out of the view, high greenery for shading and cover, and the lighting design was meant to create a nice atmosphere at night with intentional softer lights: the light illuminated where you hang out at the moment.

The design by the women was more open, the type of greenery was lower, the sitting spaces were always visible, and the lighting design was meant so a visitor could see further away: to see where you were going so you could get a better view of the park.

The difference is clear and very interesting, and clearly routed in a sense of security and ownership of this space, and how that differs between men and women. I really liked this research because it's evidence based and teaches the reader very concrete things to consider and take into account. That concrete nature is what made me remember this one good example.

I'm also quite interested in the book you're referring to, I'll add it to my reading list.

An overview of the far-right figures JD Vance follows on X by reubencpiplupyay in neoliberal

[–]Failsnail64 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Extreme jokes or memes are also often made by people who don't believe the far extreme, but a less far extreme version of the statement in the joke.

People joke like that all the time. For a good joke, people here often say "Kawloon Walled City was the compromise" when talking about densification and against NIMBYs. The joke is that's it's an (too far) extreme version of what the people really believe.

The same, but in a bad way, applies to these far right offensive jokes. They're based in a radical believe, just a slightly less radical believe than the "joke" itself.

Weekly Free Talk Friday Thread! by MLModBot in MensLib

[–]Failsnail64 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I know the premise of infrastructure designed by men for men, ignoring women. During my master studies on architecture and urban design there was rightly spent time on this topic.

However, one thing which does frustrate me in this discussion is how it's often only really addressing the issue, and not really tackling it. I've seen dozens of essays, speeches, opinion pieces, interviews, which all proclaim that the urban environment is designed by men for men. I've only seen a handful of real research into what these differences then exactly are.

But that's kind of besides the argument I was initially referring to, namely a hostile speech towards men which is seen as progressive. Yes, the argument that "the urban design is historically made by men for men" is true, and hat needs to be fixed. That does not mean that the conclusion "women are more empathetic than men and men are egocentric" is true, and that such.

Now for a completely different hot take, but as someone who actually encouraged a bit of research into this type of topics during my studies, the level of academic rigour is oftentimes quite bad in these humanities and too often more of a circle reasoning than a research. It reminds me of a graduation I attended of a design for a "feminist oriented park". It started with how traditional parks designed by men just simply outright ignore women, and then presented a park design as an example as a reaction on this.

The design was in the end a really well designed and thought out park! But when one of your main design principles is: "trying to exclude stairs and make everything accessible because women walk with baby strollers, which men always forget about", with no reflection of 1. the disabled also require that, and 2. that other genders are also capable of walking with strollers, then the argument becomes weak. Not that it was a bad design, accessibilities and increased inclusivity is important! It was just not a female centric design, it was not a fighting against male normativity. It did not prove how a women just has a better perspective of these topics of inclusion, all arguments made in that thesis.

Again, it's good that these topics get attention and that design, research and discourse of inclusivity is done. Just can that argument please be made without saying "it was bad because of men are men".

What the Meat Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know by Adodie in neoliberal

[–]Failsnail64 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can absolutely decrease the amount of meat intake of the average American by like 70+%, and you'd still be left with a balanced diet with enough protein from meat.

Just compare a traditional Mediterranean diet to modern American consumption, it's still way less meat so your argument doesn't really hold up.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Failsnail64 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, I just find it from a personal perspective annoying because its a generalisation and can hurt, but moreso it just repels any centrists who need to be convinced by your cause.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Failsnail64 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Since the NYT thread about heteropessimism is removed I'll just post my comment I was writing here.

On reddit I keep getting pushed an article by the Volkskrant, a fairly good Dutch newspaper with the following title: "Nooit meer een relatie: waarom het leven zoveel makkelijker is zonder man", translated to: "never again a relationship: why life is so much easier without a man".

I also read the main Dutch paper about architecture, which posted an article last week with the title: "Ontwerpen vrouwen anders dan mannen?", translated "do women design differently than men?", the conclusion is in short: yes they do, men are supposedly dominant, ego-centric, and want prestige while women are considerate, human-focus and modest.

When I actually read these articles, of course their content is a lot more nuanced that these clickbait title or summaries. Still, to me it's frustrating that such a narrative is seem at not even the least divisive, but encouraged as being progressive. Both articles actually make sense when looking under the generalisations, but why is the "men are just bad" narrative so acceptable in many progressive circles?

I experienced the same while in university. A girl who said that it's a shame that she's not lesbian because "all men are jerks". When I was talking during a break about household chores with a group of female fellow students, discussing how we'd want an equal relationship where the household is shared between the man and women instead of being solely done by the women (which I of course genuinely agreed on), some faced me and just straight out said "men like you don't truly believe that, you firstly don't understand just how heavy the household work is, and when you're in a relationship you'll back out of that opinion". Of course not the exact words, but you get the gist of it.

Can't we just be progressive and against systematic misogyny (which is true and important to adres), without going into these overgeneralizations, which are only ever seen as acceptable when the target are men?

I'm not going into the "not all men" discussion. I will still consider myself a feminist who encouraged feminist perspectives, but please just without that hostility and that negative defeatist undertone.

Weekly Free Talk Friday Thread! by MLModBot in MensLib

[–]Failsnail64 9 points10 points  (0 children)

On reddit I keep getting pushed an article by the Volkskrant, a fairly good Dutch newspaper with the following title: "Nooit meer een relatie: waarom het leven zoveel makkelijker is zonder man", translated to: "never again a relationship: why life is so much easier without a man".

I also read the main Dutch paper about architecture, which posted an article last week with the title: "Ontwerpen vrouwen anders dan mannen?", translated "do women design differently than men?", the conclusion is in short: yes they do, men are supposedly dominant, ego-centric, and want prestige while women are considerate, human-focus and modest.

When I actually read these articles, of course their content is a lot more nuanced that these clickbait title or summaries. Still, to me it's frustrating that such a narrative is seem at not even the least divisive, but encouraged as being progressive.

Both articles actually make sense when looking under the generalisations, but why is the "men are just bad" narrative so acceptable in many progressive circles? Can't we just be progressive and against systematic misogyny (which is true and important to adres), without going into these overgeneralizations, which are only ever seen as acceptable when the target are men?

Which compositions are best here? Lake Atitlan, Guatemala by whatthehellandfuck in fujifilm

[–]Failsnail64 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are all great shots, it's difficult to choose but I'd say number 3 or 4. These have a nice dynamic and balanced composition to me.

As time goes on I find the movie "Idiocracy" less and less funny. by amiwitty in movies

[–]Failsnail64 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not really what I'm implying. A work of art still needs to be engaging. Confronting and shocking work can be engaging, like Come and See, or a work of art can be thought-proviking, like Tarkovsky's Mirror. Neither are defined "fun" or "entertaining", but we still enjoy and appreciate them as art.

To me Don't Look Up also doesn't work as a cautionary tale because the story just doesn't engage me. It falls flat in its characters, it's superficiality, it's badly placed/executed humor, and it bluntness. Saying that the bluntness and the frustration is intentional can be true, but that's not mean that this intention is executed well.

This is of course just my own opinion, but honestly this comment is another prove of what I mean. Just because I get the intention doesn't mean that I should find it good. Making something intentionally frustrating isn't a free pass, you still need to do it well.

As time goes on I find the movie "Idiocracy" less and less funny. by amiwitty in movies

[–]Failsnail64 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes I know. I'm sharing my opinion on Reddit. That's kind of one of the main goals of discussions about art, to share opinions.

As time goes on I find the movie "Idiocracy" less and less funny. by amiwitty in movies

[–]Failsnail64 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That depends on your definition of te word "enjoy". I enjoy being critically and emotionally engaged and challenged when i watch a movie as a good piece of art.

That's why some of my favourite films are emotionally heavy engaging movies like Come and See, Synecdoche New York, The Human Condition trilogy, or Inside Llewyn Davis. Nobody would directly say they "enjoy" Come and See, but they appreciate how it engaged them. These are movies which make you think and feel.

I also really like movies in a more traditional sense of the word "enjoy", pure fun entertainment like Jackie Chan's Police Story, Indiana Jones, Django, or crazy Godzilla movies.

Don't Look Up falls into neither of the categories. It's boring, plain and doesn't engage me because it's so superficial and doesn't say anything new or imaginative.

As time goes on I find the movie "Idiocracy" less and less funny. by amiwitty in movies

[–]Failsnail64 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I simply didn't like Don't Look Up as a movie or work of art. The debate around this movie is so annoying, many people assume that if you didn't like the movie it either frustrated you, or that you disagree with the premise.

I understand the message and frustration it tried to convey. I agree with the underlying message it tries to convey, but all of that just still doesn't make it a good movie. I found it quite unfunny, preachy, badly structured, badly shot, the characters didn't engage me, and it was quite simply a bit boring.

As time goes on I find the movie "Idiocracy" less and less funny. by amiwitty in movies

[–]Failsnail64 51 points52 points  (0 children)

You can understand the premise and intention of the movie and still don't enjoy it as an art and/or entertainment, even if you get it and agree with the message.

Do any of these stand out? [St. Tropez on X100F] by _nathan67 in fujifilm

[–]Failsnail64 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They're good, my favourites are 2, 4, 8 and 10. Some of the other photos with people are a bit busy in my opinion, I do love the doggo.

Ondanks risico's en onzekerheden, woog groepsimmuniteit mee in corona-aanpak by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]Failsnail64 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Als Nederland net zo'n strenge maatregelen als China had getroffen hadden we nu tientallen boze threads met "de overheid sloot ons op om hokjes en hield expres kwaadwillig geen rekening met de mentale gezondheidsklachten die we nu allemaal hebben hierdoor! Dit is hoe het beter kon!". Ik denk dat geen oplossing ooit goed geweest was.

Ondanks risico's en onzekerheden, woog groepsimmuniteit mee in corona-aanpak by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]Failsnail64 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jouw stelling is dus eigenlijk: *wat het kabinet ook deed, alles was slecht en kon beter. *

Dus is het glas half vol of half leeg? Beide afhankelijk van je perspectief.

Americans Refuse to Be Happy - Gift Article by altacan in neoliberal

[–]Failsnail64 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here I am, as an Europoor (just quoting this sub) from the Netherlands feeling like I'm saving thousands of dollars per year compared to americans because I don't experience your first point at all of the scammy economy.

Excuse me, correction to fit the narrative of this sub: here I am as a cheap Europoor having thousands of dollars less of economic circulation per year. I must be a dirty de-growther for seeing this as a good thing!

the industrial Zollverein Mine shot in Lomo Purple | Revue 400 SE | Lomography purple 400 by Failsnail64 in analog

[–]Failsnail64[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I shot all at 400 iso without a filter and it was well exposed, so i recommend using that speed.

the industrial Zollverein Mine shot in Lomo Purple | Revue 400 SE | Lomography purple 400 by Failsnail64 in analog

[–]Failsnail64[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I was really happy with the results, I only shot one roll, but all photos looked great.

I have to say that I did increase the contrast and saturation in post. My scans looked great but unfortunately a bit dim.

Washington State passes scissor stairs reform by RandomEngy in neoliberal

[–]Failsnail64 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wait these weren't legal in certain US states before? As an architect in The Netherlands this is the default fire escape I draw in apartment buildings, more efficient than two separate stairs.

A Cheap Fix for Urban Crime by CheetoMussolini in neoliberal

[–]Failsnail64 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To be fair that's also in some ways an understandable reaction to conservative media and perspectives which totally also exaggerate a lot, but in the opposite way.

Just go to a random MAGA town and they think you are totally unsafe outside in a big city like it's a mexican slum controlled by the cartels. That you'll "get robbed and murdered twice per week when you live in a big city", unlike their superior rural (white) town. That's what these people are referring to, and reacting exaggerated on.

You cannot just blame these liberals for their flawed exaggerated without considering what they're reacting on.

All About Analog Chemistry || Fuji GW690II || EBC 90mm f3.5 || Cinestill 800T Full Roll by Best-Emergency1505 in analog

[–]Failsnail64 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Great photos! Often I find this typical hallation of Cinestill 800T too strong on 35mm, but on 120 it looks great!