71–80 of 86 posts
When trying to think on the fly, I often say something jumbled and nonsensical, then make another attempt after thinking for a second.
I need that editing step to even get my paragraphs or long sentences just right.
But why am I writing this comment? I don't know.
An important collection of essays but I struggled to get over his racist claim that the English, Irish, Welsh and Scots are essentially all the same. Probably a good thing since I'm now much more inclined to be questioning of other parts of his writing.
I think I haven't been exposed to such a good writing in years. (Which probably says as much about average modern writing as it does about my reading habits) > Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist or understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the sa…
It's something that's really been worrying me these days. With AI creating literally floods of information, it's getting noisier and noisier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's something that's really been worrying me these days. With AI creating literally floods of information, it's getting noisier and noisier.
And with AI ingesting said floods of information, there's less incentive to read as well. Case in point, I've let AI help me write some documentation; I'd probably end up writing just as much in the end so I don't think there was much waste, but in the back of my head there's two voices now. The one says "nobody will actually read this. I wouldn't, but I think it should be written down just in case". But the other sa…
An important collection of essays but I struggled to get over his racist claim that the English, Irish, Welsh and Scots are essentially all the same. Probably a good thing since I'm now much more inclined to be questioning of other parts of his writing.
Why makes this statement racist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think I haven't been exposed to such a good writing in years. (Which probably says as much about average modern writing as it does about my reading habits) I have been reading the Aubrey-Maturin book series by Patrick O'Brien (you may have heard of the film, Master and Commander, based on some of the books). It is a literary treasure trove that has impeccable historical accuracy. The same demonic drive rings thro…
As an aside, there's a Facebook group for Patrick O'Brien fans. Content consists mostly of questions about tiny details in one book, which are rather nicely examined in a cooperative, investigative spirit by other fans. It's refreshingly different from, well, pretty much all other online discussions.
> which are rather nicely examined
Adapted to the meanest understanding, I hope.
For those interested in Orwell, there's a great series of podcasts on his writing during and either side of WWII here: https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/orwell%E2%80%99s-war%3A-th... https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/orwell%E2%80%99s-war%3A-fa... https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/orwell%E2%80%99s-war%3A-fr... What's great about these is that they're not the usual uncritical lionising, but a clear-eyed look at the man…
https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/history-of-ideas%3A-george...>
I'll also note: David Runciman is one of my absolute favourite podcasters. I'd discovered him through his earlier London Review of Boooks-affiliated Talking Politics, and followed his transition to Past, Present, Future. He's also contributed to several episodes of Intelligence Squared UK and a few free-standing lectures and YouTube videos.
For those not familiar with him:
- He's British, and a former professor of politics (largely political history) at the University of Cambridge. He left that post to pursue podcasting full-time.
- The podcasts (PPF, TP) focus largely on political history and philosophy, ranging from Greek times through the present. For the most part Runciman doesn't dwell on the Sturm und Drang of current events, though he'll occasionally reference them or discuss them in context. At the same time, the background he brings to these events has proved tremendously useful to me. Runciman provides the context missing from so much contemporary discussion and news.
- Runciman's analysis tends strongly to avoid the trite and commonplace. He treats friendly voices critically (as in the series referenced above on Orwell), and those he views poorly, fairly. Among the latter includes an exceedingly insightful analysis of Atlas Shrugged, a book he takes a dim opinion of but nonetheless revealed several points I and a friend, both of whom had read the work numerous times, were surprised by. (The points are well-backed by evidence.) He rarely makes glaring errors (one of the few I can think of was in a recent discussion of the Hiroshima bombing in which WWII-era B-29s are consistently referred to as Cold-War era B-52s), and in one piece where Runciman gives an account of Max Weber's definition of government, as that entity which has "the claim to the legitimate use on physical force" (emphasis added), which is often bastardised to "monopoly on violence". The latter characterisation utterly misplaces the focus from legitimacy to force, and is baldly false. Runciman's account appears in this episode: https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership>, at about 15 minutes.
- He's a peer of the realm, 4th Viscount Runciman of Doxford, and related by marriage to John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, better knonwn as Lord Acton, famous for the dictum "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I find this delightful, though Runciman himself doesn't make a point of this (the relationship is revealed via associated Wikipedia articles).
As someone who's immensely fatigued by current political chaos and much news, Runciman's information and delivery (admittedly dry and quite RP, both of which I see as good aspects) are a breath of fresh air. Unreserved recommendation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can hardly imagine anything more unappealing that watching AI slop "nature documentaries". It's truly inconceivable to me to look at things from the prism you are looking.
That's my point, you find it unappealing yet that genre has millions upon millions of views, so clearly some people do find it enjoyable, if only to see on a screen in high detail the types of pocket monsters they imagined in their minds as a kid, and maybe you don't have such a fascination so I can see why you can't conceive of the notion that others do. My point is that ultimately, dismissing others' experience doe…
> My point is that ultimately, dismissing others' experience doesn't make it go away, and sticking one's head in the sand about how "no one" would like AI generated
Possibly AI overuse has already thinned your faculties because I very explicitly said I personally don't find it appealing. That fact does change based on whether those videos have 500 views or 5 million.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's my point, you find it unappealing yet that genre has millions upon millions of views, so clearly some people do find it enjoyable, if only to see on a screen in high detail the types of pocket monsters they imagined in their minds as a kid, and maybe you don't have such a fascination so I can see why you can't conceive of the notion that others do. My point is that ultimately, dismissing others' experience doe…
The links you gave have 500-3000 views each. I'm not sure that, even with trillions of dollars being poured into it my the marvel that is the financial system of the 2020s, that it will ever be able to manufacture enough demand for it to ever get to the point you describe. > My point is that ultimately, dismissing others' experience doesn't make it go away, and sticking one's head in the sand about how "no one" would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why makes this statement racist?
Disregarding genuine differences between cultures and intentially treating those cultures as identical is racist. Turns out he did come around later in life - https://www.thenational.scot/news/23716840.george-orwells-an...
Also, what's the downside of treating different cultures identical, aside from potentially offending people? As opposed to other kind of racism, where other people are treated as lesser subhumans that ultimately led to slavery. Why are both casually referred to racism when the other has more far-reaching consequences.