>A lack of originality can make things boring. Don't let your personal choices get in the way of objectively analyzing things.
It can but originality is not the end of aesthetics.
What's more the modernist architecture is globalised so the "unique" building's style gets recreated and seen in every single corner of the world where they all try to be avant garde in the exact same ways.
There's no vernacular architecture elements anymore which give a sense of place. Not even much of ones that make sense due to origin in environmental factors such as rain/snow in the nordics or heat in gulfstates.
>You can't honestly say the modern building I linked above lacks originality. How many other buildings have anodized scales on the outside which change colors based on the lighting?
I'll plainly say it. It lacks originality. I'd rather it have a painting on it than a trying to be the equivalent of a shiny TCG card the novelty of which will wear of very quick.
Depends on the era and place. Very old farm houses generally had low ceilings but hey, the people were shorter and you cooked under an open chimney so better have a small space to heat.
Later classic buildings especially in cities had higher ceilings and consequentially a more roomy vibe than modern residential buildings.
Often not even that. There's loads of examples of ornamental classical construction being cheaper or the same price than modernist equivalent with even smaller floorspace and that's without economies of scale for a lot of that ornamentation.
Hell the Sears Roebuck houses someone else mentioned had a lot more ornamentation than your average new built
There's also the issue that the names they're actually disproportionally told and taught about are people who "innovated". Who pushed a marginally new style.
It becomes change and following avant garde for the sake of it and a group of people trying to be different in all the same boring ways.
> There's also the issue that the names they're actually disproportionally told and taught about are people who "innovated". Who pushed a marginally new style.
Is Palladio not taught? Christopher Alexander (of A Pattern Language)? The classical order of columns?
Brent Hull (for one) has done a whole bunch of stuff with his restoration work on trying to teach people about proper proportion:
> but they can easily pay 80%, 90%, 95%, or even 98% of their incomes
Not american but I'd presume food, protection from the elements and healthcare costs arefor the vast majority higher than what's left over even if they only afford themselves the minimum no?
Where I live the absolute bottom segment of housing is proportionally more expensive and the price inflexible because smaller or shitier quite frankly doens't exist or is illegal.
> I'd presume food, protection from the elements and healthcare costs arefor the vast majority higher than what's left over even if they only afford themselves the minimum no?
Obviously no. What a hypocrisy and shifting of blame. "The minimum" you'd get if you are working for less than 20 cents per hour. When you are working for several dollars per hour, you are drowning in luxury comparing to the rest of the world and refusing to pay your fair share to other people, whose work you are appropriating.
> Where I live the absolute bottom segment of housing
That is the same as talking about "absolute bottom segment of housing in which billionaires are living". I mean, duh. Your bottom segment of housing (food, protection from the elements, healthcare) is literally a function of your bottom segment of income, it is not the "minimum".
>Obviously no. What a hypocrisy and shifting of blame.
Obviously yes. Your effort to equate the ability to scale down of billionaires to people who struggle to afford a shoebox appartment and lifesaving procedures if they were to fall ill is ghoulish. "
A lot of those a bit above the minimum do indeed spend more on what were historically luxuries because those luxuries now cost a fraction of their historical price whilst housing and such has typically gotten more expensive.
>That is the same as talking about "absolute bottom segment of housing in which billionaires are living".
It is not in any way shape or form the same because billionaires can go lower.
> it is not the "minimum".
The alternative is no housing (or often moving in with parents) so i'd argue it is.
i'll remind you that a tent on the sidewalk isn't exactly legal everywhere.
If you’re going to go after Americans then I guess anyone around the world not living in a run down shack in the middle of nowhere without water and electricity is also taking advantage. Americans are well off compared to a lot of places but not the whole rest of the world, not even close. Get some perspective.
It's mostly extreme hyperbole and twisting of his views if anything.
One of his criticisms was the virulent attacks on anyone that questioned policy during covid. He for example prefered the Danish approach and they still ended up doing better than the UK or US.
I also can't help but see the folks clamoring for mass migration for the past 2 decades in europe against popular will as anything other than blind oikophobes. If you'd look at my capital and other places you'd question who is actually calling for ethnic cleansing.
I think caution re cultural integration, vs talking about shooting wolves and calling for deportations using a word regarded as a slur, are two different things. (Both these are within the same paragraph, adjacent sentences.)
Remember one of the tactics is to sound reasonable, while stretching what is acceptable speech. This lets those who approach with bad faith defend the statements while approving of what they imply or lead to.
>I think caution re cultural integration.... are two different things.
I was called similar for much milder views and past caution. I stood by in discussion further in the past when people got attacked in that way lest id be perceived badly and out of line with my ohter progressive views.
No caution was had. Now it's too late. You can't reasonably wish to undo most of it. (Denaturalising people who are abusing or comiting crime is not that) I honestly see my culture as a dead one down the line.
All so we could supress wages and pretend to hold up a pyramid scheme whilst doing some social signaling.
That doesn't mean i should forget, forgive myself and others and go along. I've developed a strong dislike for the social cooling that got us there in conflict with the opinions of the majority of the public. I no longer want to be overly nuanced and I am more than able to remember and throw back every past claim and defense regarding all this i read countless times a decade or 2 ago.
> vs talking about shooting wolves and calling for deportations using a word regarded as a slur
It's a stupid analogy. That said deportations within the law of foreign nationals that have no permission to be there is a historic normality the world over.
The slur i can see tho i also don't give it much weight because I think it's one squarely on the euphemism threadmil.
I used to argue your very point roughly a decade ago alongside an american against a polish friend who was very much opposed to them. Putting his grandma in the hospital over a bike, killing a mates dog along the whole cultural chasm with forced marriages and attitudes towards education and authority really didn't sit well which i could see. But i thought words have power and will worsen the situation and generalisation.
But in the end the word gypsies will be forced out of the vocab, zigeuner/cigany will go as well and then roma will be used with those conotations all whilst useful change is sidestepped.
I think Slavoj Žižek had a good bit on this.
>Remember one of the tactics is to sound reasonable, while stretching what is acceptable speech. This lets those who approach with bad faith defend the statements while approving of what they imply or lead to.
And the opposite has happened as well and has had far far more impact.
Curtailing what is acceptable speech to defend in bad faith and hide what it's all leading to.
The fomenting of racial hatred a few tens of kilometres from me? I’m lucky to not be targeted by him and his chosen cause, but a lot of my colleagues are right in his firing line.
He's opposed to mass migration and as someone who finds the local culture erased in places my family is from and where i've lived i can only say I agree. It was never something the local population was in agreement with anyways. A plainly purposefull democratic deficit and more of a slippery slope than I expected since it gets more and more pushed by the same migrants and rootless cosmopolitans that couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance that they might be an outlier and others might feel more tied to their nation or assimilate.
After all it wasn't too long ago that progressives were calling people bigots for saying these migrants would not assimilate like some minor culturally similar migrant flows of the past. Now that script has flipped, done a 180 and they collectively developed rapid Alzheimers?
I also remember getting the same insults thrown at me for supporting policy that was impossible and fashistic. yet now we do do things take nationality from naturalised dual nationals who are serious criminals, terrorists and the like and it's supported by the same parties and people that were throwing names and continue to do so.
I think much of this is all far too late so why would I give a shit about your desperate attempts to keep social cooling going.
Nobody is asking you to give a shit, yet somehow you managed to post a 225 word 5 paragraph screed on something you don't give a shit about. Why should we give a shit about your ramblings?
Nowhere did I write I don't give a shit about this. I said I don't give a shit about attempts to force social cooling anymore. Your reading comprehension is lacking.
If you have a set of opinions and people who vehemently oppose them start pushing a bandwagon where they twist your words to make them sound more extreme and typify them with the worst descriptors they can think of (nazi, antivaxer, etc) , spread all this around and then call for boycots of you and anyone that associates with you what would you call that?
I disagree with some of his views but can see it across the board. One doesn't have to agree with him or others to take note and this doesn't affect only some well known rich people. It's far more pervasive and from my perspective it is pushing self-censorship and conformity under a pervasive reputation economy. That is social cooling and it's often done purposefully.
Once one of your oppinions sticks out and bumps into this wall it becomes very easy to see how often it actually applies.
How falling too much out of line on one front creates all kinds of connected assumptions about anything else you might say.
From there it is easily visible how it pushes a lot of people to political fringes (helped by the social media bubbles) and has other consequences.
> If you have a set of opinions and people who vehemently oppose them start pushing a bandwagon where they twist your words to make them sound more extreme and typify them with the worst descriptors they can think of (nazi, antivaxer, etc) , spread all this around and then call for boycots of you and anyone that associates with you what would you call that?
I can't argue on specifics because you only mention a "set of opinions", but have you entertained the idea that some opinions held by someone who doesn't necessarily identify as bigoted/hateful/illwilling can still be weaponized as such?
How do you view the electorate of 1930s Germany? Personally I think very few of them were racists or fascists, but yet their votes were what led to "Nazi Germany". I believe you when you say you're unfairly labeled, and I also believe many more are. I however simultaneously believe that good people fall in with propaganda by piecemeal, that lead to much worse, and that "woke" people are rightfully upset by this.
>I can't argue on specifics because you only mention a "set of opinions",
I kept it broad since it applies broadly. Region specific separatism and struggles for self determination, migration, covid response, etc
I have piles of experiences so think this discussion is better had with some wide framing which is hard to do candidly over text without writing a book (and putting out too much personal info for more eyes) but I'd love to hop on a call some time if you'd like. I find that it also makes people more receptive to eachothers points and ideas if they see/hear a living breathing human with often similar fundamentals.
> but have you entertained the idea that some opinions held by someone who doesn't necessarily identify as bigoted/hateful/illwilling can still be weaponized as such?
I agree but i don't consider this a onesided thing. In fact it becomes very evident when essentially the same positions are firmly branded left wing or right wing depending on the country and context.
>Personally I think very few of them were racists or fascists, but yet their votes were what led to "Nazi Germany".
I agree and not only were they as human as you and me and shaped and misled by their circumstances I think this kind of stuff applies much more broadly than this popular extreme pivotal point around which a lot of western viewpoints revolve. From a consequentialist perspective it's remarkably common to see people actively pushing towards outcomes they don't want or towards extremes they don't quite support trough nothing but innapropriate tying togheter of ideas or the power of words.
> that "woke" people are rightfully upset by this.
On some fronts they are. On others I've found that people weren't exactly pulled towards their respective (extreme) political bubble. They were shoved towards it by people who consider themselves very righteous and on occasion would "prefer a pagan to a heretic" or by reality not bending towards pure expectations and kneejerk reactions when faced with that.
Just wanted to say I appreciate your response being both nuanced, clear and with no attempts at misrepresenting any of my points. It's rarer than it should be.
Yeah, as long as the tech worker himself isn't on the list to be deported, shot or gassed to death, he has no need to worry.
The total lack of empathy, praise of strongmen like Musk and Trump and DHH, promoting slave labour. This whole view of society is simply disgusting and far too common in the startup circles.
Because those of high supply get barely anything for it and retain their high consumer prices.
So if you're a swede you don't want this connection to even exist.
The facilitator is not someone in the free market trying to offer the service for a low price either. It's a government essentially forcing profit to be given to a middleman and anther country.
> Because those of high supply get barely anything for it and retain their high consumer prices. So if you're a swede you don't want this connection to even exist.
As a Norwegian (very similar situation to the Swedes wrt power export): hard disagree. Most of our electrical power production is publicly owned, so we do indeed get something for the export. More cables, please!
> The facilitator is not someone in the free market trying to offer the service for a low price either. It's a government essentially forcing profit to be given to a middleman and anther country.
No, it's a mechanism to encourage interconnection.
It appears to be higher electricity prices whilst the compensation given doesn't adequately match and goes disproportionally to what's essentially a middleman.
Is it then not better for the population to essentially reward it's investment in energy production and keep prices low domestically?
> It appears to be higher electricity prices whilst the compensation given doesn't adequately match and goes disproportionally to what's essentially a middleman.
Could you elaborate on this disproportionality?
> Is it then not better for the population to essentially reward it's investment in energy production and keep prices low domestically?
By the same token, we should stop exporting fish and oil – that'd be sure to lower the price of both commodities domestically.
It's disproportional in that it's more than the swedish would want to give since they'd rather invest it domestically (in energy production and those prices).
>By the same token, we should stop exporting fish and oil – that'd be sure to lower the price of both commodities domestically.
It would and I suspect you might take issue if your consumer prices were relatively higher and you were told you could not build a sovereign wealth fund to the same extent and should instead give much of that money so the eu can build bigger pipelines so germanies prices can remain relatively low.
> It's disproportional in that it's more than the swedish would want to give since they'd rather invest it domestically (in energy production and those prices).
So what's stopping them from investing the energy locally without paying the middlemen for export?
> It would and I suspect you might take issue if your consumer prices were relatively higher and you were told you could not build a sovereign wealth fund to the same extent and should instead give much of that money so the eu can build bigger pipelines so germanies prices can remain relatively low.
It can but originality is not the end of aesthetics. What's more the modernist architecture is globalised so the "unique" building's style gets recreated and seen in every single corner of the world where they all try to be avant garde in the exact same ways. There's no vernacular architecture elements anymore which give a sense of place. Not even much of ones that make sense due to origin in environmental factors such as rain/snow in the nordics or heat in gulfstates.
>You can't honestly say the modern building I linked above lacks originality. How many other buildings have anodized scales on the outside which change colors based on the lighting?
I'll plainly say it. It lacks originality. I'd rather it have a painting on it than a trying to be the equivalent of a shiny TCG card the novelty of which will wear of very quick.
reply