Late to the party, but I’ll bet at least a few right wingers we’re surprised at the turnout. Maybe helped get a few people out of their bubbles, seeing neighbors and friends out on the street. Maybe not, but I know i saw a lot of older rural folks out protesting last time that I’m sure rocked the perceptions some right wings nuts have about it all being teenage anarchists in the street.

I’m not claiming the US is being punished: that was a metaphor.

My point was critiquing folks who are gleefully reveling in the suffering of folks in the USA because of the actions of despots. It’s easy to do when it’s the USA, but when applying the same reasoning to other regions, it’s more obviously shitty behavior. I have empathy for Persians suffering under the Iranian regime. I have empathy for folks living in El Salvador dealing with an autocrat abusing power. I have empathy for the kids growing up in Mississippi. I even have some amount of empathy for the redneck down the street who is too fucking stupid to understand that their Republican “leaders” are taking advantage of them. Just like despots around the world. Plenty of innocent enough folks still live in terrible regimes, and IMHO we shouldn’t be happy about those folks suffering because a majority of their neighbors are assholes. We should…you know…help those minorities? Not just paint them with a broad brush and bask in their suffering?

TLDR I can have contempt and empathy at the same time, and I’m not going to cheer for the suffering of decent folks who just happen to have been born into a shitty regime, or who’ve had one foisted on them.

This kind of emotional response is why there’s an active genocide in Gaza right now. Hamas killed some folks, they technically represent the population, so…COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT. People yearning for suffering because some portion of a heterogeneous population is terrible. Go back to the 1930s and say “kill all Nazis” and I’m on board. If you say kill all Germans, though…it’s a lack of nuance that at the very least borders on genocidal.

Plenty of us in the USA have suffered and fought our entire lives. We are a nation with an actively oppressed underclass. Even for those with the chance to leave (as I have in the past), we have friends and family here who don’t have the means to leave even if they would. Many people are also brainwashed. I know people who had almost no fucking chance growing up. Living in a dilapidated trailer, Fox News blaring on TV, no good education, etc. Yes, people can get out of that, but when your parents are terrible shitheels, and you’re surrounded by terrible shitheels, there’s a big discussion to be had about how much of a chance someone has to pull themselves up by their bootstraps…and I don’t just mean that in terms of improving their economic conditions, but literally the way they think. We need to teach class consciousness worldwide, not consider a large percentage of a population just collateral damage. I don’t think it’s moral to just consider a quarter of a population to be thrown to the wolves, or even another quarter that’s apathetic because of the systems they have no control over brainwashing them into compliance.

Doesn’t matter which one was worse? What’s a few more dead Palestinians, eh?

Yes, Harris and Biden were/are absolute shit. Without being able to see into an alternate universe, I’m pretty sure there’s more people dead than would have been under what was the already terrible status quo. The current regime is making things worse than it already was, which is a hard bar to clear. It’s suffering all around, in Gaza and in the US, and across the poverty stricken areas supported by USAID.

Yeah, I’m not mad at my Iranian friends because of what their leaders do. I can’t blame them for not starting a bloody uprising. It requires coordinated, collective action, and religious leaders and the uber rich work together to keep true change from happening. The same goes for the USA. Propaganda works, and it’s keeping the people too divided to easily take serious action.

We need to help make change possible, not only chastise people for being trapped in oppressive systems.

Fascinating! What other countries do you think would start taking over places without immigration laws?

What certain countries? And are you alleging there is a coordinated “take over”?

I get that it’s legally wrong, but do you think it’s ethically wrong?

What if someone thinks the laws and systems in place aren’t morally perfect?

More than I realized. As a kid, my favorite of the original trilogy was ROTJ. It had everything - an opening where the heroes got vengeance on a big slug, there was a dramatic-looking Death Star, speeder bikes, and force lightning.

My father told me (years later), how much some folks hated it for some of the same things. Rehashing the Death Star, Han accidentally killing Boba Fett (this hyped up bounty hunter that in the previous movie was clever and even mouthed off to Vader himself), Ewoks being cuddly teddy bears with janky traps, Leia being yet another Skywalker out of nowhere…basically, a lot of the same goofy shit people railed on George for in the prequels (myself included: since these conversations with my dad came up because I was a teenager complaining about Jar Jar, Yoda ping ponging around, etc.).

Later I saw that plenty of folks complained about ESB being moodier, the “No, I am your father” being a twist out of nowhere and dramatically undermining Obi-Wan’s character by his being dishonest. Some of the same “canon-breaking” retcons that we all complain about today.

Granted…I still love ROTJ despite its flaws, and while I never enjoyed the prequels as much as a lot of folks, I find them endearing in an odd kind of way. The Sequel Trilogy less so, but there’s a few bright spots.

Basically, I wonder what the reception of the movies would have been if we had the internet then, and especially if we had engagement-based algorithms driving things, which does such a great job of amplifying hate.

Thanks for a thorough reply, there’s a lot to tackle, so apologies that I’m not responding to everything in it. You make good points, but it’s clear we have fundamentally different perspectives on this.

I’m not that sure about permission being important in art would led to coherent definition. How could art know if it had permission to be made or not?

I tried to be explicit that permission is not required to make art - because I want to disentangle the two arguments. One of the biggest contentions I have with AI gen stuff is the ethics involved. No ethical consumption under capitalism, so I get arguments that the paint brushes I have were produced unethically to some degree, so pot meet kettle, but I think there’s degrees we can find some nuance in. But I don’t think it’s useful, either, to just shrug and toss the ethics aside. It must be acknowledged, and grappled with.

As for the rest of your comment about the artist copying preexisting emotions, tapping into things that are already there - or the infinite monkeys thing - I do think some amount of intentionality is required to call something art. That said, we all create derivative works to a degree: that’s just impossible to avoid. We’re only human, and we filter our environments through our brains and experiences, and that allows some unique (but again, derivative to a degree) works. If you ask ten people to paint a scary lion, we’re all drawing on some shared fear, and maybe a single photograph of a lion, but you’ll get different works as a result. The art, for me, is the product of the creative process. Art requires intentional action, IMHO. It’s a more narrow definition than yours, but I think being overbroad makes the word meaningless, and indistinguishable from…beauty, or (to include grotesque images, or other emotions), simply aesthetics. AI tools can make beautiful images, but this all circles back to my initial point (with some modified wording): aesthetics are not inherently art, art is not just aesthetic. If we get to AGI, I’ll buy the things it creates as being art. For now, it’s really impressive math. Doesn’t undermine the beauty in it, but it’s something different.

Again, this is my personal opinion. In my science career I’m more of a lumper than a splitter - when talking about evolution, you can “lump” together groups into species, or “split” them into subspecies (really for any clade). So I get your impulse to be open and not gatekeep. I’m not trying to gatekeep, but I do think there is utility in defining things. I don’t like splitting species, but there are differences in crocodiles and alligators. We can’t just lump them into one species - but they are related by broader terms. In this case, I think you’re talking about aesthetics, and not art. Just my personal opinion, and not making a value judgement any more than calling an alligator an alligator, and not a crocodile. They’re different things, and yes: species that look nearly identical but are genetically distinct qualify as different species. The way something beautiful is made matters. IMHO

You’re arguing with a version of me that you’ve created in your head, because nowhere did I say anything about AI art. You’re also again misunderstanding my point - and misunderstanding what creativity is. “Representative art” requires creativity, because a mountain is not two dimensional. Taking a photograph requires decision-making. Even once you’ve taken a pretty picture, though, loop back to my first point - beauty alone is not art.

Again, you’re arguing with a version of me that you’ve created in your head: yes, we use tools to make art. People use spellcheck when writing a play, people use knives when making woodcuts, we use ovens to blow glass. However, if I - without permission - take a photo of my neighbor’s watercolor and print it on T-shirts, do you think I created a work of art? That much is at least arguable. There’s expression, there’s creativity, and it could be aesthetically pleasing in the end. However, one of the main contentions people have with AI gen…do you find it ethical?

Pay close attention to what I’m saying here, please. You’ve been trampling on nuance, so don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m a scientist that kind of works in tech, and I have a lot of creative pursuits outside of my day job. I think there’s a lot of potential to LLMs and other tools out there, but I think we need to pay careful attention to ethics, and I do think words have meaning, even if definitions drift, and even when we’re talking about challenging subjects.

Keep trying really. It’s interesting seeing some people realize how in all human history we have been unable to came up with a united and universal definition of art. It is probably one of the most vague concepts we have as humans.

I’m glad we agree on something! Yes, the definition of art hard to pin down. Subjectivity is the name of the game. I loathe a lot of modern art, because I think it’s disappeared up it’s own asshole, as Vonnegut would say. It’s strange though, because you seem to be certain that your definition of art is universally correct. Again, my initial point - you’re conflating beauty with art, because you claim a mountain itself is art. I think a mountain is beauty, and there’s beauty in our scientific understanding of why it looks like it does. But I don’t think that qualifies as art.

And of course pushing politics in the definition (we all know this is truly about politics, there is not facade here) is the oldest trick in the book.

What politics do you think I’m pushing? How do you think whatever politics you are pushing have impacted your view of what defines art?

None of what you just said has anything to do with the point I was making.

Thank you for a good reply, but I’ll still push back on your general conclusion. They can do nearly all of that from Canada, the only exception that they won’t face arrest for doing so.

The larger point: I think “slightest bit” is way underselling what we’ve seen over the last couple months. Attacks on the academic systems, legal systems, and of course on the most vulnerable people in society. I think we’re already at “really hairy”, and waiting to “flee” until the administration is executing professors in the street is too late.

To make a different point: not everyone can do their best resisting while under serious pressure. Not everyone is a fighter. We need medics, we need logistics, we need reporters, we need people abroad supporting us. If they can’t handle the pressure, but will keep up the flight from afar, then more power to them. It doesn’t necessarily make them cowards, but cognizant of their own needs and how they can best help. Maybe they are fleeing out of cowardice, but the point I’m trying to make is that it isn’t a given.

It sounds like you’re conflating art and beauty.

Art is about human creativity and expression. It doesn’t have to be beautiful, and beauty doesn’t have to be art.

Again I ask: what do you suggest they do that they cannot do from Canada?

…or now is the time to leave while/if you can. Maybe they’ve decided they can fight the regime more effectively from outside the country. That they can use their voice and experience unburdened by fear they’ll be arrested. What do you suggest they do that they can’t from Canada?

Truly, I can’t fault people for leaving. Especially people that are being targeted. I’m a scientist that works fighting against climate change, so I get it.

For more than a decade I only rode a motorcycle in Florida. I even made trips - with a passenger - to Costco. It required plenty of straps and saddlebags and a big backpack, but it was doable to get groceries in it for two people.

This was on a Triumph Scrambler, and I had added a luggage rack etc, so not something you could do easily on a stock sport bike, but you don’t need a big touring bike for this kind of living, either.

The times I needed to haul something big, I rented a truck from a big box hardware store. Saved a ton of money over the years, and only now have a Prius (with a roof rack to haul stuff) because I live in a place with harsh winters. No sidecar yet, but thinking hard about it…

Well sure, the Democrats could kill the filibuster with a simply majority (if they could get 51 senators on board) but they filibuster a lot as well, to prevent some Republican legislation. So I can see why they’re too pragmatic - or cowardly - to remove it. Not the best source/graph, but a source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-democrats-considering-ending-the-filibuster/

As for the parliamentarian: they haven’t been removed in a while, and the one before that also served for a pretty long time…I think the Democrats (again, cowardly or pragmatically) are simply trying not to escalate and make the parliamentarian a puppet of the current simple majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate

I’m all in favor of nuking the filibuster, mind you: which would make the whole budget reconciliation thing a moot point. but I can understand the desire for some in the party to retain it as a tool. Fat lot of good it’s doing us now, of course.

the Democrats technically controlled the chamber.

Correct - technically, but not practically - because they absolutely can’t get anything substantial done with the Republicans and right-wing Democrats, as they didn’t have a filibuster proof supermajority.

However, there was one brief moment when Biden’s party had a 60th vote, which occurred after Senator Al Franken resigned and was replaced with Senator Tina Smith in 2018

That…just isn’t true though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress They had at most 47 votes, right? Also…recall who was president in 2018. Certainly not enough congressional control to override the inevitable veto.

At best their ‘accomplishments’ you mention were limited, while vastly more dammage was done in other fields.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that many of the accomplishments were limited. I’m not saying they are going to save us, and while I want to wrest control from the right-wing leadership in the Democratic party, I’m not terribly optimistic that it’ll happen in my lifetime. IMHO we need more coordination and cooperation on the Left to organize enough to do what the Tea Party did on the Right with the GOP…the major difference is that the folks in power in the GOP weren’t ideologically opposed to the Tea Party, unlike the corporate Dems v. the “Actual Left”, so maybe that’s a fool’s errand, especially given the power structures in place, and the inherently anti-democratic system of government re: SCOTUS, Senate, Electoral College, etc.

Look: I don’t think we disagree all that much: I’m just trying to acknowledge nuance and correct misinformation. So…what do you suggest we do about the Democrats being at best speed bumps to real progress?

That movement goes beyond aggressive vandalism: there were literal murders (and attempted murders) going back to the eighties and mostly during the nineties. So it’s absolutely not true to say no one was hurt by those acts. Likewise, the bombings and arson that were inflicted were indeed meant to cause terror on a large scale, and was specifically targeting medical infrastructure, which is war crime level bad. So yeah: terrorism.

If it was only the vandalism, or walking around with dumb signs…then it’s more arguable, even though I’m vehemently against them. IMHO violence against people is what crosses the line. Likewise, when anti-abortion groups are bombing literal medical clinics - that definitely goes beyond vandalism and into territory that causes harm to folks, even in the cases they didn’t kill people directly with the bombs. Blocking people from entering clinics - trying to intimidate workers and patients…also more “grey”, but can arguably cause direct harm/violence.

So to the case from the OP, IMHO vandalizing teslas isn’t harming civilian infrastructure, or otherwise harming people directly, so…I don’t think it crosses the line. Until it does, I think at best it’s reaching to call it domestic terrorism, and at worst - it’s just being bandied about to justify locking up political enemies and chill protests. I fully acknowledge it’s a fairly morally grey area to be discussing, so thank you for a good exchange.