We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
illu45's profile

following: 53
followed tags: 24
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 2313 days
style: clean

comments 0
illu45  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Hubski, Where Do You Buy Art?

You can look at their instagram site. There are a lot of feet. It's mostly just photos of ballerinas doing ballet poses in different locations. I usually prefer ones that are more focused on a landscape or urban scene.

illu45  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Hubski, Where Do You Buy Art?

Most recently I've bought prints from the Ballerina Project. In the past, I've gotten prints from Etsy, AllPosters, Art Gallery gift shops, and bookstores. I'm rarely unhappy with the prints I buy, although I occasionally make the mistake of buying something I don't have room to actually put up anywhere.

It seems the judiciary is the only check/balance left, unfortunately. I guess two if you count the 4th estate...

Down and Out in Paris and London is somewhat upbeat in parts, at least.

I'm not sure how bad it is for Navalny's reputation. I expect that most of his supporters are entirely willing to accept that the charges are trumped-up/false (which seems plausible to me, in fairness). They may impact his chances of actually winning the election (provided the election is a fair one to begin with) if he is able to run in the end. But for now, I'm not sure that this ruling is going to change much in terms of Navalny's reputation.

Also, funnily enough, I posted this just before Existentialist:

Neat, thanks for the link :)

Read Watchmen for the first time, embarrassingly enough. It's certainly an interesting novel, and has a somewhat surprising (for me, at least) number of parallels to The Brothers Karamazov.

I agree that the different points of view are pretty interesting to see. It's also interesting to see the difference in approach and tone in rd95's and kleinbl00's replies.

illu45  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: A post-truth thought experiment

    Sure. They'd rather lie and risk being caught in that (because everyone knows politicians lie) than be caught in a mistake. We allow politicians to use their opponents' mistakes as a bludgeon all the time, and for years.

Hm, I've never really thought about it that way. I guess there's a fine line between holding politicians accountable for their mistakes and lambasting them for those mistakes.

illu45  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: A post-truth thought experiment

    When politicians are terrified of being lambasted for being wrong, the irony is that it makes them more likely to lie.

Can you expand on this?

illu45  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: A post-truth thought experiment

    It's a tragedy of the commons thing: if everyone tells the truth, we can all trust each other and get on with doing interesting stuff. But if someone lies, they can abuse said trust to acheive their own ends that not everyone may agree on.

I think this is true as a thought experiment, but it suggests that people who lie always do so both self-consciously and because of their self-interest. The post states:

    A less-conservative definition [of telling the truth] might be, “saying things that are consistent with what we believe.”

But what if we believe something that happens to be factually untrue? Are we still lying? If so, should we be castigated for our lies?

I'm getting a blank screen here

EDIT: Nevermind seems to work now.

posts and shares 0/0