MultiRRomero

Craigslist's one goal in the world is to make a profit. That's it. Everything else comes secondary. If they decide that providing users a service will help them accomplish this, then have them provide a good service (which they do). However, they don't owe anything to any businesses or even any users. If users don't like this, let them go to an alternative. Welcome to capitalism, where the users decide what product they want. (Now if you don't like what the majority of users are deciding, then that's another issue altogether.)

Not only do I entirely agree with this, but the title of the blog post makes it seems like he was acting less out of a concern for free speech and more out of a desire for attention. "Hey guys, look at me! I'm giving up money for free speech!"

Calling this a free speech issue is like saying that Reddit inhibits free speech by preventing you from posting personal information online. Not every act of asking you to change or not say something is a violation of free speech.

Also, a lot of modern art is philosophical in nature. It pushes the boundaries on the definition of what is art? Of course, this started over a hundred years ago, so by now the boundaries have been pushed pretty far, resulting in stuff like this.

Actually, a lot of modern art IS intellectual games; not spirit or aesthetics. Look at the readymades of Marcel Duchamp (early 20th century). And these intellectual games apply to modern literature and music as well.

note: if you read one part of this, read the last paragraph.

"I paint objects as I think them not as I see them." - Pablo Picasso "Art is what you can get away with." - Andy Warhol

I do not buy the "this isn't art, I can do this. art requires skill" train of thought. firstly, if we appreciate skill then we are not appreciating art. we are appreciating a craft. to appreciate art we must appreciate creativity. who's the artist: the engineer or the architect? the engineer has more skill, but i'd say the architect.

Secondly, let's assume that the "art requires skill" argument is correct. hence, a white painting is not art. but then what's the converse. is photorealistic painting (when a painting looks as though it were a photograph) the best art? because it contains the best skill at imitating reality? because I would say Michelangelo or Rembrandt are far superior to any photorealistic painter (try to name one).

Lastly, here's an interesting spin on modern art: it has a greater effect on you than regular art does. You've probably had a lot of conversations about modern art but little about real art. And it has a greater emotional effect on people (generally anger or disdain) than regular art, which usually leads to boredom. After all, I bet there are tons of blog posts on modern art like this one. I doubt there are many on the Old Masters. Modern art challenges us, makes us think more, and make use talk more.

It's hard to understand and celebrate the glories of the Internet as a vehicle for "freedom and free speech" and all that good stuff, when all too often large communities within it participate in acts that are all too banal and primitive as is mob vigilanteism.

So is the Internet truly a pinnacle of a civilized and free society, or the regression into a barbaric state? Cause this seems pretty barbaric to me...

(I am not condoning the lawyer's or FunkyJunk's actions. I think they are wrong. I just think there are better and more civilized ways of reacting to and handling this).

This is amazing. I remember being a kid and asking the question, what kind of matter exactly is a flame? Is it plasma?

The first satisfying answer I've ever seen. (And please, if you've seen other good resources, post them here too!)

Am I the only one who doesn't find this all that positive? I already think scientology is bad/evil/dangerous, and I think that illegally getting access to their secrets might make the opposition (us) look worse in the public eye. Everybody has dirty secrets, both sides, and it's a bit low to go after the other side's private emails. It'd be much easier to fight/debate against their public image, which is easy enough, without having to resort to intrusive attacks. We have the warrant system in the states for a reason, and if this were to happen in court the evidence would just get tossed right out.

Idk, am I alone here? Am I wrong? I'm open to contrary opinions.