domain:worksinprogress.co
DradisPing
just now
I'm looking to read:
"America's Peacemakers: The Community Relations Service and Civil Rights Hardcover – Nov. 23 2020 by Bertram Levine (Author), Grande Lum (Author)"
The DOJ CRS was created by the civil rights act back in the 60s and by statute is immune to most FOIA requests. This is one of the first insights into the organization.
I'd also be interested if anyone has a detailed review or analysis, because I don't think I'll have the time to read it properly.
Jiro
21m ago
If he loses, it's rigged against him. If he wins, it's rigged against him
If you're considering the possibility of rigged elections at all, therer's nothing inherently goofy about this. "Rigged" doesn't mean "they can fake absolutely any outcopme they want"--if they could fake X opercent of votes and he wins by more than X percent, it might be rigged against him and he could win anyway.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
41m ago
I feel like this is a far too strict definition of "authentic". Most popular art is commercial to some degree or another, artists gotta eat, even if they accrue other less tangible benefits like street cred or pussy.
What does that leave? Mostly amateur art. I don't see how why it's not possible for something to simultaneously be both a work of passion and yet selected to make at least some money.
That isn't to say that the concept of authenticity is an entirely useless concept! I think Nickelback is far less authentic than say, Tame Impala or the Arctic Monkeys. The latter, even after finding a hit formula, ended up making multiple albums that are better suited to jazz lounges and only really loved by the most diehard fans.
And then you have people who make mixtapes and distribute them for free, play in a garage band or upload to SoundCloud. Maximally authentic, most of it trash. Authenticity isn't a reliable proxy for quality, and probably anti-correlates once you account for confounders.
The idea of “authentic art isn’t made for money” comes from the early days of art when the artist had patrons. If you made art for money, you either didn’t appeal to elites enough to have a patron, or worse, were a dirty poor person. Only aristocrats and people they hired could afford to not think about money, ergo, thinking about money was a mark of poverty and poor quality.
More options
Context Copy link