hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't understand the trade you are offering. There's no necessary link between the two.
A town in my country renovated a lot of their downtown to carry on a traditional 'old downtown' vibe with modern construction technology. It didn't take the abolition of non-directly-useful science and math. It was just a matter of people being sick to death of vulgar displays of glass, steel and concrete that had started to dominate other towns. Instead the townsfolk got colorful and traditionally framed houses.
It wasn't a matter of some meta-physical revival of the "far right" and their "bizarre" policy suggestions. It's just people with power not being inside their own assholes(and the town was close to going bankrupt afaik). It didn't take a fancy foreign architect educated in Boston to design the thing. A local design office did the job just fine. That might have been a big blow to the ego of some people involved, who could otherwise have made themselves feel very important and high status by rubbing their shoulders with big names and grand ideas. But no. Not needed. It looks great and fits the town.
Sure, math can be beautiful. Sure, architectural design in and of itself can be beautiful. But most people aren't good at math and most people don't know the history to appreciate the full extent of a clever architectural design that incorporates this and that style in a novel way.
I don't think it's a matter of some deep issue or a 'core' of anything. Public displays need to appeal to the public. Not the vanity of whatever person is in charge. You are not special for liking the things you like. A 9 year old who likes a statue of a soldier is no less worthy of experiencing public displays of beauty than someone who is highly cultured, sophisticated and articulate.
The only relevant thing left is to decide what things that the public does like should be displayed to them.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
For a tl;dr: you make a lot of fine points, but for some reason tie them to 'race'. Most of these anti-racist arguments therefor end up not being anti-racist at all. They seem more like general individual based introspection arguments. For what it's worth I'm not against any of them specifically, I'm just not sure what they have to do with typical 'racist' thinking which, most of the time, deals with groups and averages.
As an example, from "Taking Responsibility":
Deterministic thinking is not specific to 'racist' thinking. Typical 'I can't' most often heard from children doing homework is a great example of this. On top of that the argument falls over itself when you flip it around. Believing yourself to be destined to lose is bad. But believing yourself to be destined to win is good. It's obvious from this that the 'bad' here is not determinism but self defeatism.
As for your personal maximum capacity for achievement, the argument you make falls to similar issues. The point about 'maximum genetic capacity'(my paraphrasing) is not about you personally, it's about you in relation to others. The reason Usain Bolt could become the world's fastest sprinter is not because of his magic training or the sand in Jamaica. The guy started training very late at 17 and his diet consisted mostly of McNuggets straight from McDonalds. It was his DNA. If you thought you had a genuine chance in competing against him, you were stupid. But if you liked running track, why let that stop you? Just run to see what you can do. The problem here is not 'race' and minimizing it changes nothing. It's our lizard brain competitive spirit trying to outcompete Dunbar's number when in reality it is competing against 7 billion people.
As for "Information and Stereotyping"
Making conceptual arguments about this seems rather pointless. We don't need conceptual arguments to figure out that blacks commit more crime than do whites. On top of that, making the argument individualized further leads us astray from the utility of 'race'. Since 'race and crime' generally refers to populations, not an individual instance in someones life.
To meet your conceptualized argument head on: If I am walking alone at night and there is a guy in a hoody and worn out jeans walking towards me, I'm not going to think he is mugging me. Ever. Because that sort of thing has never happened where I live. Ever. But if you live in the USA in an average black neighborhood, my instincts would be potentially dangerously wrong because the chances are no longer 0. Because average white Scandinavian town and average black USA town are not the same. To that end race is useful. One town is average USA black, the other is average Scandinavian white. You can comb through the finer details but race is still there as a fact of life. Ignoring it would be stupid.
As for "Policy"
The reason affirmative action is bad is because it is trying to fit an unfit population. There is nothing wrong with affirmatively actioning a bunch of otherwise neurotypical 140 IQ people into colleges. They would probably do very well and better the school and society. The problem arises when the population is on average at 85 IQ and demand for 'diversity' outstrips supply of college material people.
If you want 'diversity' there is no magic process that can fix your problem with blacks. Without a mechanism that selects unfit people to meet your 'diversity' quota, you will not meet the quota. Without a program that is designed to cater to these unfit people, you will not see many of them graduate. Without unfair you get less than 1% black at the elite level. With those kind of numbers you will be seeing 'calls to action' against your racist policies.
As for "Immigration"
We are again using conceptual arguments. Why make those arguments imprecise? Here's one: lets have an immigration system that only imports good people we will all personally like who will also benefit the economy and save a child and/or pet in need.
OK, we don't have that. What do we have? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00148-017-0636-1
- We present life cycle estimates of the potential fiscal impact of immigration considering the cost of immigration on the margin as well as on average. The main conclusion is that immigrants from Western countries have a positive fiscal impact, while immigrants from non-Western countries have a large negative one, which is also the case when considering only non-refugee immigrants.
We have information. For some reason, despite race being allegedly irrelevant, geographically isolated population groups perform differently when placed in the same environment. We can theorize a system of import that weeds out the 'bad'. But that still leaves the fact that there are so many bads that they need extensive weeding out when compared to 'Western' people.
What I don't understand is, why do you care so much to ignore this sort of information? You could make a similar case for ignoring anything. Just figure out some proxy for it and voila. But that doesn't change the reality behind it. The kind of systems that functionally racially discriminate against blacks are conducive to healthy and happy western societies. You can dress them up how you want, it doesn't change the fact that people notice. And it's not the white identitarians.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
A fish opining on the positives of the surface and the negatives of water is still a fish and nothing will change that.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The data in that link is still suffering from undercounting. Point being that fluctuations or a convergence with current data would still not impact the truth value of the statement that hispanics commit more crime than whites.
I am not sure what you mean, but if age is the key factor, then your concern should be about age, not race or ethnicity.
It would be both.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I remember reading articles on the hispanic crime rate and its convergence with the white crime rate. I'm hesitant to believe those reports given the chronic undercounting of hispanics in crime and incarceration in general. https://apps.urban.org/features/latino-criminal-justice-data/
But besides that, if age is a maximally relevant factor it would only start playing a part if the immigration of young people from South America was at some point halted.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It came to me in a dream.
I don't know what your deal is. You made a decent post on an interesting topic. Was there an ulterior motive? What's the angle here? The accusations that you are doing some sort of White Nationalist operation to secretly 'recruit' or whatever seemed really stupid to me. And they seem even dumber now given how poorly you are going about it if that were the case. You look more like a Rabbi painting a swastika on his own synagogue.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Like most writing on Hitler and the NSDAP it seems to take out of context verbal derision as important opinion and a leading guide for the inner workings of both Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, when in reality it was probably just 'Franco wont help in the war effort, what a prick.'
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I said as much to begin with. This is just imagination land and the examples are broad and not universally applicable, but that's not the point. The point is to get to a place where we can imagine and embrace an instance where less brown people is beneficial to white people and see where that leads instead of traversing weeds and red herrings.
Every counter example you gave relies on immigrants existing in the first place. The political landscape without immigrants is not just different, it's more right wing. On top of that, we are not comparing crime rates against time. I think it's a given crime has been trending downwards with time. We are instead comparing crime rates between people. Blacks have a higher crime rate. Hispanics have a higher crime rate. The societies these people come from have higher crime rates.
The point is not to say that living with browns is unmanageable for whites. Sure, you can get a programming job and live well. But would your lot be better if you did not have to outcompete every brown spud looking for a better life in America? If you did not have to bear the burden of a dysfunctional group of browns. Not just you personally, but every aspect of your environment. Are the news channels talking about some politically relevant thing like where best to place the new bridge or are they talking about black kids not knowing how to read after graduating high school? Are we looking to advance education to help our best and brightest or are the best funded schools filled with illiterates?
Sure, you can pick the examples apart, but I'm kind of relying on you not to. Instead hoping you can recognize that in the places where the examples hold up, the idea of white identitarianism isn't any more or less bad than any idea based on self preservation and the pursuit of happiness. And I think we got to that point given your argument shifted away from a basic pursuit of happiness towards a basic pursuit of happiness without doing harm to others.
This new caveat changes things a bit. Since it's kind of de facto true that any action you take can be construed or contextualized to harm others. And since it's obvious that living with white people is much better for browns than living in their own societies, do we just resign ourselves to the fact that brown people living with white people is a sort of axiomatic right of theirs? To that end, who is keeping score of harm? Because my entire argument to begin with was that the harm goes both ways, which is why I think whites have a case to be made from the standpoint of their own best interest, rather than always considering the white mans burden before making up their mind.
Browns don't want for liberty. They want for white mans liberty. No one is keeping them from emancipating themselves in their own countries. They could reach for the stars if it wasn't for the fact they have to live amongst themselves. I don't disagree with the notion that the white man can carry these browns like he has been doing for decades now. The point is what impact this is having on his back. That's harm. And it's harm caused in the white mans homelands, and he has no place to turn to when it gets damaged beyond repair.
(As a sidenote, I'm ignoring the broad geopolitical 'it can't work' arguments. We all know white societies work just fine. Two distinct nations separated by clear and enforced border can still trade. Japan facing a demographically induced economic downturn is a self correcting problem if you don't flood the country with immigrants to prop up an economy that outscales the native population. Conflating political/moral progressivism with technological advancement is not something I agree with. If you can import people you can deport them. If you can prop them up in your own country you can prop them up in theirs until your conscience tells you you've given enough handouts.)
I agree to an extent. The sort of woe is me type ingroup expression is distasteful. But on the other hand there is another angle to that line of argument.
To keep things simple, as an example, be young and try buying a house. Depending on where you live your quality of life is lower than your parents since the price of housing has so dramatically increased. Depending on where you are in the world, to the extent that the price of housing has increased as a result of increased demand, it is in many places primarily an increase due to immigration.
Now what if I allow myself to imagine what my life could have been like if the price of housing had been lower. What would the job market look like if it was not driven on the expectation that an endless stream of foreigners would be there to pick up the slack? Isn't it possible that the life of the average whitey could be better? Not in a comparison to other whites. But just as a general thing. More purchasing power, cleaner streets, less crime. There would still be class stratification, but so what?
In other words, it's not about what you could have in multiracial America, it's about what you could have in monoracial America. It's not about what you could have compared to the Joneses next door, it's what you could have compared to your mirror image in a different America. Because you can have good things in both Americas. But one of them has some very obvious downsides the other one does not have.
To that extent I don't see ethno-national aspirations of a life free of the White Mans Burden to be a whine any more than the aspirations of foreigners who want to live in white countries to be a whine. Those foreigners imagine a better life in the White Mans Backpack. I've never encountered any righteous indignation directed at them, telling them to stop being so envious. "I want more. I deserve more!" Why can't they just accept their lot? Why aspire for an environment where you are more likely to flourish?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Was there ever a large market of comic book nerds? Superhero movies seemed like a safe family/normie friendly thing until they started to really suck. But the industry somehow managed to poison the whole ecosystem of watching a movie as well.
For starters, the actual quality of the movies became bad. Bad CGI, bad story repeated again and again. Uninteresting characters (wtf is Ant Man?) intertwined with some of the worst aspects of comic book storytelling. And they then pumped these movies out non-stop, moving further and further in some adult nerd direction to a point where staying in the loop became impossible for the family folk. And that's not counting all the TV shows that tied into the 'universe'. Many of which were terrible.
Going to the theater was always an event. But you can't make an event out of something that's been normalized. It seems like the industry cooked the golden goose by releasing too many things in too short a time whilst mixing and matching special with normal.
On top of all of this they decided to move into some pro-ugly anti-white anti-male direction, pissing of a portion of the vocal nerds, as well as the Chinese. So now who is left to enjoy your 'universe'? Half the nerds are in uprising. The family folk have sort of tuned out. Maybe little Johnny really likes the flashing lights and everything but the movies are now something mom and dad really dread seeing. Making them much more likely to tell the kids to wait until its on Netflix.
Worse yet if Johnny just spends his time on Youtube watching his favorite childrens entertainer lambast the movie for being terrible. Being the first kid in class to see something like Captain Marvel can't feel as cool as being one of the first kids to see Iron Man 3 or whatever. I mean, it's about some lady.(again, wtf is Ant Man?)
All in all, it would be easier to blame external factors for why things are going how they are going if the actual product wasn't bad. As a barometer, Guardians of the Galaxy, from what I've seen, is still chugging along just fine.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't think it is a hard question unless you want it to be.
Similar to how it is universally preferable to have friends and not constantly fear for ones life, I think it's universally preferable to have easy access to housing. And I think access to housing trumps nigh every other need outside of food and water.
It seems to me we can have a very simple baseline definition of 'quality of life' and come away with the fact that a 'good economy' doesn't matter in any meaningful sense to a lot of people.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Nigh every actor champions pro-immigration and pro-diversity rhetoric.
You seem to have constructed this idea of the heartless New York journalist who hates the working class, but on issues such as working conditions and minimum wages they are surely much more pro-workers' rights than the median.
I can't help you with that, given I did not write such things.
If you want people didn't 'ever give a crap', maybe have a look at Republicans.
Why not both? And for what it's worth, Republicans think just as fondly of themselves as journalists do. They don't see themselves hating anyone regardless of how harmful the policies they support are.
Lol. A credulous hack. Just being anti-US doesn't automatically make you brave and noble or produce good journalism, especially if you're running cover for dictatorships; she is ostracised for good reason.
But being pro-truth when it happens to side against the mainstream rhetoric on Assad does make you a good journalist, even if just by chance.
All of this seems besides the point though. Your argument about journalism and the stated position of journalists being somehow different to the position of construction workers was just bunk. I'm not surprised you would try to talk yourself away from it with irrelevant stuff but it's not very interesting.
The journalists stated position is no different from a construction workers. Building a house is important service! Yet the quality of construction work has gone downhill dramatically where I'm from because of immigration. On top of that now you have drastically increased crime within the industry. No journalist ever gave a crap. They just close their eyes to the problems and celebrate 'diversity', refugees and more immigration inbetween complaints about astronomically high rent and housing prices.
And that's just if we assume that the modern journalist is providing an important public service. I'd maintain that most are not. Which was the opposite of construction work. And the few that are living up to the fantasy that most journalists wrap themselves in when criticized are more likely to be ostracized from the mainstream than not. Eva Bartlett and Assange come to mind.
In the case of the actors though, you seem to be objecting to... their union trying to resist the introduction of practices which will be unfavourable to its members? That's their job?
That's not the objection at all. I object to how ugly the industry is and how blind the people who work in it and support it are to the disenfranchisement of others. It's the ugliest form of hypocrisy I know of. The rich and powerful celebrating the deteriorating conditions inflicted on the poor and powerless. They then have the gall to cry about it when a similar proposal is presented for them. As if they just have to live the super privileged life of an 'artist' in the most expensive places on earth.
Motivated reasoning is a given. But that's something we all suffer from. I just expect, at the bare minimum, people show some, dignity, respect and a modicum of self awareness. These types of people are an ugly embarrassment.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's an easy deflection for whites to puff out their chest and present themselves as simply being too good to take ethnocentric hatred against them seriously. And whilst the Smithsonian definition might be well suited to that sort of backhanded flattery as a literal definition, it's hardly representative of the emotional sentiment being conveyed when Noel Ignatiev states that 'treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity', or what 'progressives' mean when they talk about 'abolishing whiteness' in general. They don't see whiteness as a collection of flattering traits.
The problem I have is the question of where trolling, dunking on and otherwise owning the libs will lead. If Hanania is playing by some sort of 4D chess rhetorical playbook, that's fine. But it elevates him only slightly below the typical 'conservative' he would otherwise lament when it comes to actual policy. Being against affirmative action and not going full bore HBD is like kicking a hornets nest without any protective clothing on.
On top of that, in his own words, Hanania can recognize the obvious motivations of folks who grasp at any straw to argue against subjects he likes, like immigration:
Some people are naturally tribal and don’t like immigration. So they’ll use whatever justifications they can come up with to argue against it. I’ve seen the topic of immigration make capitalists talk like trade unionists when thinking about wages, and people who’ve never shown any interest in climate policy start worrying about carbon emissions. There’s been a lot of controversy around whether immigrants litter too much, but I never see the people making this complaint talk about littering in any other context. It makes me suspect that it might not be their main concern.
So is Hanania just looking for justifications to argue against his 'main concern' regarding blacks, which have very little to do with affirmative action? Hoping that no one will notice the same obvious thing he notices with regards to immigration? Because on its face, there is nothing wrong with affirmative action until you try to fit it around a population group that has a normal distribution of traits below the minimum system requirements. Which is US blacks.
I can agree Hanania is incoherent, like you say, but I'm also doubtful his opposition is anything more than 120 IQ takes to own the libs and your racist grandma with. To that end expending effort on talking about him like he matters is degrading.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
In that sense it's much less dog whistling than it is gatekeeping. Though I don't remember if Hannania goes full bore HBD or if he toes the 'conservative family values' line.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Hannania had some affirmative action takes lately.
It's a nice angle to constantly dab on the blacks and just call it 'being against affirmative action'. Do blacks emotionally read 'affirmative action' in the same way I read 'whiteness'?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
At this point being a scam is par for the course. Even our very best minds of rationality and reason found ways to funnel money into dead end policies for criminals.
At this point I'd call it fair to say that you donate money to feel good. There's no reason to assume that any monetary amount will fix anything. If you actually care about an issue you are going to have to do something about it yourself. With that in mind it seems most people don't care all that much.
Suddenly everyone is a luddite.
I just finished listening to a radio show where the hosts, a young man and woman, were fretting over the potential dangers of AI. Even managing to make a mock AI radio broadcast. (That's exactly where the real danger is, by the way, very scary). They even talked to a very concerned NPR journalist who made it clear the potential AI takeover was no laughing matter and was a threat facing journalism that needed to be met head on. And the list just keeps growing of the various educated folk fretting over their potential obsolescence.
However, it seems rather late to say that we can't do X, Y and Z after the last 30 years of mass immigration. Why should the economic slot of 'actor' or 'journalist' be better protected than construction work? If there was automation possible in any blue collar labor it would be automated immediately. But gasp my CAREER? How dare they...
On top of that the movie industry is a cesspit of nepotism, greed and every nasty human impulse you can imagine. Sorry, I'm not all that miffed that the last 2% of the new Marvel picture that isn't CGI is going to be AI generated CGI of a Hollywood actor instead of the real life unholy blend of nepotism and narcissism in human form. (they're so lifelike, almost like a real human beings)
And for opposite end of the movie industry I'm not all that bothered by the proposition that 'movies are art' or whatever. If I want real Hollywood art I can find it AI generated depicting the various Oscar nominated actresses attempting to suck on Harvey Weinsteins deformed penis, next to a compilation of them thanking him during their Oscar acceptance speech. Followed by their #metoo headlines where they claimed it was all rape. (No trade back though)
I'm ready for the hostile AI takeover of modern high culture. Crossing my fingers that the AI version of a man in a dress trying to sell me beer is more palatable than the real one.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
From a rhetorical perspective the upheaval of the great American man in the face of European bullying would mean a lot more if the European bully had been a product of anything other than American hegemony.
Outside of that I'm not sure if there exists any reality to the US vs Europe dialect anymore. Both have moved so far away from any defining baseline. It's like looking at two sports teams as they were 20 years ago compared to now. Neither team resembles what they once were to a point where I feel like there is no sense in cheering either team on anymore. I might as well cheer on a clothes hangar given that all that's left are the symbols and uniforms. Sorry but I am not yet prepared to accept a Chinese civil war by proxy in the math Olympiads as a serious expression of anything 'American' or 'European'. No matter how genuinely they salute their flag.
But insofar as there is a reality, and insofar as it has any relation to rhetoric, Europe has lost a lot of the advantages it had. But I'd be hard pressed to call that a win for the US.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
A woman not having sympathy for men is a very woman thing that has very little to do with upbringing. Women naturally ingroup other women and outgroup men and a woman that doesn't do this is exceedingly rare. The only open example I know of is Karen Straughan.
Generally the type of sympathy men get from women is a sort of backhanded sympathy. Where it exists more to excuse the actions of women and any negative consequences those actions may have, and to alleviate any negative emotional pressure. Like the classic 'You're a nice guy, don't worry, you'll find someone, there's someone out there for everyone'. It's completely vapid and empty as anything else.
Listening in on two married co-workers talking about their home finances, both had the situation that their money was the families money, the wife's money was her money. And they could both share stories of how hostile and defensive their wives got if they ever questioned where 'her' money was going or if it could be better spent somewhere else. That's on top of stories from former co-workers working as fishermen , all of whom had stories to share on either their own former partners or a shipmates where all the money that had earned on tour was gone by the time they got to shore. One particularly inventive spouse had, as a way to make amends for wasting all the money on clothes and alcohol, wasted what was left of it on buying the dude an Xbox as present for when he got home.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Your argument means less to me right away since I already said the process is expensive. But whatever.
I don't understand why the import country should care about 'fairness' or where you are getting the idea of 'fairness' from in this context. The process is at no stage fair to anyone. It's literally designed to be the opposite. The import country is picking and choosing to suit it's own need. Nor do I understand how it is unwise to have an exclusion criteria based on race/country of origin. So long as there is no shortage of applicants from higher IQ places there is no problem. And if that shortage ever comes about the economic landscape of the world would be so radically different from what it is now we would have to have a separate conversation, since this one is predicated on people actually wanting to come work in western countries.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Except it's not really a problem. The benefit I am pointing out still exists even with that accounted for so long as there is not a shortage of applications from higher IQ countries.
But besides that, your solution is much more restrictive than mine. I'm not sure why you are so eager to discriminate based on current wealth over race.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
My argument is that we don't need to use proxy measures like race when we have actual measures. Look at the actual schools that people attended, or the actual employers that they had.
Like I already said, even with information like education, race still gives a lot of information. Which can be better than education. There is no reason to not factor that in.
The comment to which you were originally replying said
And that comment was replying to the suggestion that countries focus more on Asian countries than African for immigrants.
My whole point is that you don't need proxies when you can evaluate people individually, and since individuals give detailed checkable applications, and pay for them such that you can hire as many examiners as you need, you don't need proxies, and therefore don't need to pool.
Like I said before, pooling is not something you do. It's something that is. There is no reason to not use all the information available, which includes country of origin, when selecting applicants so long as you don't have a shortage of applicants. Country of origin is not a proxy any more than education is. Outside of a US context there is an extremely clear benefit to limiting your selection to higher IQ countries before you go for lower IQ ones. I don't understand why someone would be against it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The incredibly detailed applications that the potential immigrants submit. Which are then reviewed in detail via the staff hired with the very high fees the applicants pay.
We are talking about two separate things then. Where I am from immigration officials are not paid by the applicants. They work on the tax payers dime.
It's not a search through a pool! You process all the applications.
I don't know what point or to what end you are making with this assertion anymore. I explained what I meant by 'pool'. If that contextualization is still going over your head I can't help you.
A lot of them are pretty easy to verify. If someone claims to have a job offer in the US, you can track down the employer and check. TOEFL is a serious test.
Which is completely separate to the matter at hand. If all we needed to vet immigrants was a company willing to hire them this discussion would not exist. The question pertained to where immigration was being pooled from.
I don't disagree that public architecture is a top down thing. I disagree with its end product. I don't care how erudite the designers are when describing whatever it is they put on paper. I care what I feel when I stand next to it.
An unpainted concrete box that has rust leaking from the windows makes me think that the thing is unsightly. A similar concrete box that is properly painted and maintained, by comparison, looks nice. In so far as I know something about craftmanship and skill, I would at least like to imagine that some of it was required to put the thing together. That there are some details meant to look pretty. If that can't be conveyed then I as a living human being standing in the flesh have a very narrow positive basis to judge the thing on. If all you have is a clever idea or a lofty political message then it matters very little unless you actually write it on the side of the building. Because I can't say I feel the 'democratic' spirit radiating off those ugly greenhouses.
I agree there is a sort of political truth underpinning everything. It's much easier to appreciate the art of your ingroup and empathize with the noble cause behind it. But how we get from political cause X to an endless sea of glass, steel and concrete laid bare is beyond me. It feels like we are going 'the Nazis liked simple beauty that appeals to the common man, we hate Nazis so lets do something ugly that appeals to those who can truly appreciate the beauty of the Emperors New Clothes.'
The amount of derision I see towards what is called 'modern architecture' goes far beyond just "far right" wingnuts. To that end I don't think perceptions of beauty are as much a product of conditioning as you do.
More options
Context Copy link