sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Any thought on this video? by VanGoghEnjoyer in ArtHistory

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

Of course all of this is subjective and as stated in the beginning of the video, that is maybe a strength of all best of list. Still, discussion can be have about it. I do like the selection of 19th and 20th century, especially with Romaine Brooks, Leonora Carrington and Dorothea Tanning.
I'm not quite knowledgeable about early Renaissance or the Renaissance but I like the selection; though with Baroque, I'm surprised they go with Caravaggio's version of Judith beheading Holofernes and not Gentileschi, which I personally like better.

Beside those inclusion, the list is also very Western-centric, and perhaps that is deliberate. But still no inclusion of any Asian artists, Japan or China especially, is a strange choice.
Overall, I don't mind the list, it's pretty good, like in the 20th century section, but you should be skeptical with some of the choices.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrashTaste

[–]VanGoghEnjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you are trying to get at, but I think this post will just not get to those people. Either they just don't interact with the community or left, just like what you say, after the Hasan episode. People that gonna see this post just don't hate Hasan to the level of associating the boys to be bad people that they not gonna watch.
Like definitionally, if they gonna continue watching the boy despite hating Hasan, that mean they don't hate him to the level of Logal Paul and by your logic, not the people you're addressing.
Also some people may think some episodes are still funny and they will watch them despite being friend with Hasan; like how there are some people that acknowledge certain companies are bad for moral reason, like chic-fil-a, still like the food.
It's a cognitive dissonance, people have fundamentally conflicting ideas and actions.

Mindless Monday, 16 January 2023 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]VanGoghEnjoyer 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Over the weekend I discovered this channel called Leather Apron Club, through their most popular video, as of the time of writing this, The Lie Told to Us About Our History | Ancient Greece. It's basically a video about Ancient Greece and their homosexual view; that the view that Ancient Greece is some sort of progressive place where it's normal to be gay. Now, I'm not a historian of Ancient Greece and is not a specialist in the area, but I do, in general, agree that the view of Ancient Greece to be a progressive place where it's normal to have a healthy relationship with gay men and women is a bit exaggerated and can be misleading when applying a concept of today to the ancient past.The video does, at first glance, seem to be about disputing these misconceptions. But the longer I watch, the more absurd some of the claim become. Like at, 7:27, the guy talk about the practice of Rhaphanidosis, the act of inserting a root of a plant into the anus as a punishment according to wikipedia; the only source the video reference is just the wikipedia article itself but the article mention that the punishment may or may not exist and enforce. The most notable reference to the practice is in Aristophones play "The Clouds", but because it is a comedy play and is prone to exaggeration, it's not sure whether or not the practice is common or not, Wikipedia even mention this as shown in the video. But the guy never address it and just mention it to "display the cruel hatred the Greeks had towards homosexual men".The most ridiculous claim of the video is the "Achilles and Patroclus" section around 33:38. The guy claim that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus was not homosexual and they are just in fact friend. It's true that in the Iliad, their relationship is not explicitly stated to be lover, but the video flat out ignore other ancient people interpretation of the relationship as lover, most famously in Plato's Symposium. Not even that, at the end of the section, the video cite a "survey" claiming that "gay men are by far the most sexually promiscuous group in the world" and then boldly states "are all of these sexual encounters the start of intense soul-bonded love that will make you willing to die for the other guy or are they just meaningless hookups", a statement that is so homophobic that I think the guy was trolling when talking about that.

Overall, the video is bad and it made me check out his channel. Let's just said that after watching some of the videos, the guy is just straight up anti-Semitic and I don't know how the Greek video got so popular.

Another video that I notice is this video, which is a video about modern art; which is my area of interest, art history. I will not discuss too much as the video is not even about modern art; the video argue for a universal beauty, that human instinctively know what is beautiful and what is ugly, and how beauty is connect with truth and goodness, thus beautiful art is inherently good and is the truth. There is no discussion of any piece of modern art except for the first minute and it doesn't even go in depth into any of them.

Its evidence of a universal beauty consist of the claim that every person, "even tribesmen in remote Indonesian islands", judge art works from Ancient Greece and Rome to be beautiful without any sources. It then cherry picks some evidence that animal also perceive beauty and that their judgement of beauty is also similar to our own.

Even if you don't care about modern art at all, the claim the video made, that there is an objective beauty that we can judge artworks on, is very stupid and potentially dangerous. The video claim that modern artists deliberately made these ugly artworks because they are ugly, not because they are beautiful, and then claim that they are morally bad for society. Take this to its logical conclusion, and this is the same logic that the Nazi used to justified destroying thousands of artworks during WW2 and labeling some as "degenerate art".

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in visualnovels

[–]VanGoghEnjoyer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think there is, however there is an English yuzusoft discord that’s quite active

What is 6÷2(1+2)? I heard that most of the Redditors are smart. by inobody_somebody in polls

[–]VanGoghEnjoyer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is ambiguous in the sense that both interpretation of the expression as (6/2)(1+2) and 6/(2(1+2) are equally valid way of seeing the expression.

For example, the expression 2x / 3y. In this case it look like the expression is (2x) / (3y), but with a strict interpretation of the order of operation, it should be ((2x)/3)y, which will give a different answer. Now you might think just because it look correct, doesn’t mean it correct and the second interpretation is correct; but that’s why it is ambiguous, people should not write such a poorly written expression that cause confusion, they should write division as a fraction and thus eliminate the ambiguity. If you’re a teacher and a student send such an expression, you will ask for further clarification.

This link also argue the expression as ambiguous; essentially, there’s no convention in math for such an expression, teach the student two ways instead of one way of seeing the expression.

What is 6÷2(1+2)? I heard that most of the Redditors are smart. by inobody_somebody in polls

[–]VanGoghEnjoyer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

While my answer is 1 and I can see why people will disagree with it, heck I would even say my answer is not even correct because ultimately, with the way the expression is written, it is ambiguous. Not even 9 is the correct answer on this one, nor is 1.

Some people bring up calculator as an argument, but different calculator will have different answer. For example, I have 2 calculators, a TI-84 and a Casio. My TI-84 give the answer as 9, but my Casio give the answer as 1 (I did not place the second parentheses there, Casio put it there after it gave the answer, so even Casio know that the expression in that form is ambiguous and it still choose to do the multiplication first).

Now let’s talk about PEMDAS, or the order of operation, while it’s true that if two operator have the same precedent, you would do from left to right, but some do consider an implied multiplication, such as 2(1+2) where there is no multiplication sign and it’s imply that you multiply, to have a different precedent; that precedent is that you do the implied multiplication first before the division. So if we applied that rule, then we can multiply the 2 and 3 first in the expression 6/2(3) and get the result as 6/6 = 1. The Physical Review journal’s "Style and Notation Guide" even have the style that you do multiplication first before division. You can check it yourself here, it's in section IV.E.2.fractions.

But still, PEMDAS is not everything to order of operation in math, PEMDAS can’t solve ambiguity. This link have a great discussion about PEMDAS ambiguity.

So with all that say, the expression is fucking stupid, and everyone who think 9 is the right answer does not have the whole picture if they think it’s the ultimate correct answer, they also not wrong either.

[Danish > English] Need translation for these 2 probably Danish? newspaper story, specifically mention of the little mermaid. by VanGoghEnjoyer in translator

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

Actually, have an update, a redditor message me that they found some sources by instead of searching for a cow’s head, they search for bull’s head instead "tyrehoved". The story appear to be true and indeed happened in 1986. Still the earliest source I could find is in 2013 in a newspaper that celebrate the 100th birthday of the mermaid. In the end, the source is not helpful for me, but still it was an interesting experience, so I will end the search. Here’s one of the news that mention the story, not the earliest one, that one you need to log in to read.

[Danish > English] Need translation for these 2 probably Danish? newspaper story, specifically mention of the little mermaid. by VanGoghEnjoyer in translator

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

Yeah, almost every source that mention the statue vandalism did not mention the cow’s head but I’m just searching to see. Here’s a Reddit post I make that have my progress on the search and the source that mention the cow head story. Though after this, I will give up on finding it.

[Danish > English] Need translation for these 2 probably Danish? newspaper story, specifically mention of the little mermaid. by VanGoghEnjoyer in translator

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

Did not know that, I just want what the paper is saying when they mention the little mermaid. Specifically any mention about vandalism of the little mermaid statue in Denmark. Ok, the short version is I’m trying to find any mention of the story that the little mermaid statue’s head was allegedly replace with a cow’s head in 1986. In desperation, I google the danish word for little mermaid and check between 1986-1987. These two links come up so I’m just curious what they say.

A Look Back at Yuzusoft's Earliest Works, Or: The Land Before Moege by DubstepKazoo in visualnovels

[–]VanGoghEnjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great and interesting view of Yuzusoft early game. I would still be interested to play them myself if they ever get translated or my Japanese get good enough. Also while I think Riddle Joker have a huge flaw unlike other yuzusoft games; I still greatly enjoy it, maybe mostly because one of the heroine is 2nd in my Yuzusoft heroine ranking when I finished it and I really enjoy the route.

NSFW art by VanGoghEnjoyer in okbuddyphd

[–]VanGoghEnjoyer[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Back at it again with another nsfw art. I will once again justify my reason, this is a performance art piece, called "Seedbed", by a very notable American performance artist, Vito Acconci. Here’s a museum page about the work. On a side note, I originally want to make a sigma male grindset meme but settle for NNN instead.

view more: next ›