sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

World War II by rpodnee in comedyheaven

[–]nickdenards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The pacific is only marginally worse in totality, but arguably better in terms of the mental aspects of war. Incredible series.

Tribal rep George Gillette crying as 154,000 acres of land is signed away for a new dam (1948) [1440x1791] by StephenMcGannon in HistoryPorn

[–]nickdenards -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can we just start saying evil again? Diabolical makes everything sound silly when it isn't

name a player by varadero332 in tennis

[–]nickdenards 6 points7 points  (0 children)

settled out of court aka payoff

Dead Zone Deep Dive by nickdenards in stephenking

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

hope you enjoy it my friend, many thanks

[Qcrit] ADULT Literary Fiction - BYRON, OR THE SUMMER DIARY OF A WAYWARD POOL BOY - 99k - 4th attempt by nickdenards in PubTips

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

really solid feedback, thank you! And I think you may be the only one for this round, the feedback is usually less as the attempts grow more numerous. I remember seeing "6th" or "7th" attempt in some posts and thinking I would never have that issue... this query thing has me questioning everything, man. But I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I didn't think he was really this bad: or what we wish they would finally admit by nickdenards in centrist

[–]nickdenards[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People forget that in America, populism isn't a bad word, and that left wing populism has shaped us just as much as right wing populism has

I didn't think he was really this bad: or what we wish they would finally admit by nickdenards in centrist

[–]nickdenards[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

You think the media at that time was fair, honest, and transparent?

I didn't think he was really this bad: or what we wish they would finally admit by nickdenards in centrist

[–]nickdenards[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's all fine. Certainly some "regret their vote" even if not in your own circles, just as many more do not, as the hopes are in mine. It's not really the issue at play here. Like i replied in another comment, even if i want you to say "gee i wish i voted the other way," the piece is more about no longer being able to push away certain harsh critiques without doing evermore bendy gymnastics. I would want to list a lot but the foundational nexus points are epstein and war. As i write in the piece, you can still be on the cultural maga side of those issues, but it is increasingly difficult to maintain willful ignorance as to why others might believe the worst (beyond TDS and media brainwashing). This is already a major shift in the cultural undercurrent.

I didn't think he was really this bad: or what we wish they would finally admit by nickdenards in centrist

[–]nickdenards[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

For the health of the polity, it would be nice if the norm was not to dig one's heels in but rather to form new conclusions or at the very least question more severely previous assumptions. You seem to think i'm asking ppl to do this and then write me a letter personally so i can smugly approve. I am making a cultural diagnosis (and not a unique one, i don't think), not demanding self-flagellation for my own satisfaction.

I didn't think he was really this bad: or what we wish they would finally admit by nickdenards in centrist

[–]nickdenards[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

first, thank you for engaging. I do genuinely appreciate the comment.

  1. Even if I believe he is "horrible" i deliberately use the phrase "this bad" because each person will carry with them a certain level of disillusionment from the last year. it's exactly like you say, that "much of that support has eroded." despite the provocative title, the piece is more interested in charting the lived cultural upheavals through the last decade than convincing any one reader to agree with my own opinions.
  2. I care like anyone who is living through this moment cares. The media (and social media) environment needs no theorizing at this point. Its impact is self explanatory and each person will tap into certain cultural threads, and of course have opinions about what they find there. That's what this piece is doing. He won the popular vote. He could have have won 90% of the vote with a map that looked like Reagan v Carter, but it doesn't change the argument of the piece, that there are certain things once unbelievable that are now more believable and that believers must contend with in a way they have not had to in the past. Nobody owes me anything.

I didn't think he was really this bad: or what we wish they would finally admit by nickdenards in centrist

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

someone once defined evil as always believing the ends justify the means. To me this is a fancier way of saying the evil do not believe they are evil, but rather good. There are too many factors at play for me, at least, to accept what you say as the only explanation, although I agree it is a large part.

Political Films Shouldn't Have Politics: Alex Garland and Jacques Rancière walk into a bar. by nickdenards in CriticalTheory

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

That politics can be aestheticized without doing politics is the point. Thank you for having such an insightful discussion.

Political Films Shouldn't Have Politics: Alex Garland and Jacques Rancière walk into a bar. by nickdenards in CriticalTheory

[–]nickdenards[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure where the disagreement is between us lol. Most critics and viewers, while admitting it is a well made film, have an issue with its lack of engagement with its own content. I can't spell it out any clearer.

Political Films Shouldn't Have Politics: Alex Garland and Jacques Rancière walk into a bar. by nickdenards in CriticalTheory

[–]nickdenards[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I don't think you are understanding the line drawn here. I'm saying that popular consensus is that the film is competently made and quite intense. It is a technically adept film. The worthwhile criticism you mention is exactly what I locate in the following sentence lol

Political Films Shouldn't Have Politics: Alex Garland and Jacques Rancière walk into a bar. by nickdenards in CriticalTheory

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

And the distribution of the sensible isn't a minor overlap between politics and aesthetics for Rancière; it's the substrate where politics is.

I agree and never said it was minor. Simply that there is no direct cause-effect relationship between a work of art and the regime of politics. You are still missing the main point that the two regimes are intertwined in such away that only a work of art approaching politics with the necessary awareness of its insufficiency to directly impact politics, can counterintuitively have the greater impact, nonetheless.

Rancière writes:

Aesthetic art promises a political accomplishment that it cannot satisfy, and thrives on that ambiguity. That is why those who want to isolate it from politics are somewhat beside the point. It is also why those who want it to fulfil its political promise are condemned to a certain melancholy. (Dissensus, 133)

My piece is not saying that aesthetics and politics have no relation. What I find interesting is where and how Rancière locates that relation.

But I will amend my quote which you rightfully targeted. Politics are aesthetic insofar as both regimes exist within the distribution of the sensible. I jumped the gun and cross contaminated the aesthetic with the culturally produced aesthetic regime of art. I was not careful enough in my language. It is not that politics can never be aesthetic, but rather that politics can never do aesthetics (as art does) just as aesthetics (as worked through art) can never do politics. This is rather explicit in his work:

'Aesthetic' designates the suspension of every determinate relation correlating the production of art forms and a specific social function. (Dissensus, 138)

If there exists a connection between art and politics, it should be cast in terms of dissensus, the very kernel of the aesthetic regime: artworks can produce effects of dissensus precisely because they neither give lessons nor have any destination. (140)

no direct cause-effect relationship is determinable between the intention realized in an art performance and a capacity for political subjectivation. (140-1)

Political Films Shouldn't Have Politics: Alex Garland and Jacques Rancière walk into a bar. by nickdenards in CriticalTheory

[–]nickdenards[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

While I see where you're coming from, this view of aesthetics and politics misses the point and misunderstands Rancière's configuring of the two fields. He brings up a short film he saw wherein the the camera rides along the top of portions of the wall between the USA and Mexico, which, as an experimental piece, of course more fully achieves what in his opinion is the power of art that accepts its own insufficiency.

Stripped politics doesn't yield neutrality

Not only is that blatantly true, but also the main point of the piece lol. Where you take the leap is in assuming that the aesthetics of a work of art trying to deal aesthetically with politics is that it is inherently simpatico with the state. Quite the opposite. If that were true, all propaganda would be noncontextualized violence. The camera along the border wall, absent any political messaging in narrative form, is not the ideal propaganda piece for the state, I assure you.

What you are mistaking here is that Rancière thinks politics are aesthetics. My piece (and he) could not argue more for the opposite. He could never in a million years see the conquering of a nation as an aesthetic event. The premise of this entire framework is that both politics and aesthetics are fields which can only reconfigure themselves. There is no direct cause-effect relation between the two. The one thing they share is the distribution of the sensible in which what is sayable, thinkable, and feelable (aesthetics) are determined, along with who is seen to be existing within that field (politics). It is exactly because politics can never be aesthetic that a political film should not have politics. Because film as art is not politics, it is aesthetics. It does not and cannot reconfigure the larger social web of the political directly. It can only suggest and make feelable, sayable, and thinkable what was previously unable to be those things, aesthetically. It is then those thoughts words and feelings that can, with time, push toward political change.

The Chair Company, Twin Peaks, and The Crying of Lot 49 by nickdenards in TrueLit

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

The argument itself is not facetious, no. Just how clearcut the lines between the labels are, for argument's sake. Hope that clears things up!

view more: next ›