Memento Mori Posted May 11, 2019 Posted May 11, 2019 16 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: That's the very definition of a business in a free market. Competent people who create something freely and out of nothing. What you actually denounce are big corporations, market influencers and I agree with you on this point. They smother people and want to impose shitty products (just like the food industry, whose giants slowly kill us via obese making crap). Markets and capitalism are not the same thing. The former is many centuries older. Corporations are younger still. The difference between a collective and a corporation like SI is that in the former hypothetical, the models and photographers would also be owners. It's a significant difference that's extremely important to the left. If nobody else cares or notices, that's fine, but no leftist on the planet will ever be convinced it's the same thing. 16 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: I don't think so. Business isn't their prime purpose (or they're very bad at it). These guys are rich folks who wants to buy themselves a conscience (the left is there Jiminy Cricket). Business is their prime purpose and they're very bad at it. But you're right that I shouldn't write off their motivations as entirely insincere just because I've identified them as corporate liberals. 16 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: The Pravda was not a coportate media... and yet it was not exactly an honest journal. Conservative, liberal or propaganda media are all crap. They are media whose prime goal is to change the world, that's why they're bad. The best media are those whose prime goal is understanding stuff. All media are biased, including (indeed, I'd argue, especially) the allegedly neutral "understanding stuff" sources. My point is that corporate media is biased in a specific and predictable way that has consequences for SISE's editorial decisions. 16 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said: We all want aesthetic canons. Commoners or not. Rich or poor. Left or right. Promoting beautiful people is good and healthy! We want neither skeleton-like bodies nor obese bodies. That's what SI has done for many years before 2017. Lais, Hannah F or Lauren Mellor have healthy bodies that are awesome and ideal that many seek. Please don't erase the specific example I used, it was an airbrushed 19-year old Nina Agdal. This is not a human that actually exists. That is what I was saying was, I think correctly, criticized for going "too far in promoting unrealistic standards of beauty." If there's something to be said in favor of the 2019 edition, it's that the photos of Lais Ribeiro actually look like Lais Ribeiro. In any case, the "aesthetic canon" is socially determined. "Desirable" women in Renaissance paintings did not have figures like Hannah Ferguson or complexions like Lauren Mellor. __________________ That said, I don't wanna dominate this discussion. I know my views on politics aren't popular 'round here, and I'd rather not get in too deep. I have pictures to gawk at and gifs to make.
Enrico_sw Posted May 11, 2019 Posted May 11, 2019 6 minutes ago, Memento Mori said: I know my views on politics aren't popular 'round here, and I'd rather not get in too deep. Discussing with people with different opinions is one of the most interesting thing IMHO. We can improve a lot this way and we can even find a lot of common points on certain subjects. Who cares if we don't agree on everything in the end? You seem to be a reasonable guy, and even if our opinions may differ, I respect that. 14 minutes ago, Memento Mori said: the models and photographers would also be owners. It's a significant difference that's extremely important to the left. The models/photographers (aka workers) are perfectly fit to be owners too if (and only if) they are more competent. Sometimes they are more competent than their useless owners, but it's not systematic. Workers (or capital) as "a class" are not intrinsically better or worse. IMO, competence is the best criterion to judge good owners (not the fact that they belong to a class or another). 12 minutes ago, Memento Mori said: Please don't erase the specific example I used, it was an airbrushed 19-year old Nina Agdal. This is not a human that actually exists. That is what I was saying was, I think correctly, criticized for going "too far in promoting unrealistic standards of beauty." Sure, I hate airbrushed pictures as well, so I agree with that. I was just arguing that promoting "unrealistic" (meaning "exceptional") people is not bad in itself (provided they don't cheat with the pictures of course). Maybe, we agree on this one? 10 minutes ago, Memento Mori said: In any case, the "aesthetic canon" is socially determined. Fair enough. And I want to fight for the canons I like. I want to fight for Hannah, Lais or Lauren to be at the top our society (or Denise Schaefer, Rose Bertram, or Liz Turner - girls in your signature that I find great too).
Recommended Posts