5 ms·

You are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. I don't speak for Wu. I'm merely talking about how her art a

You are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. I don't speak for Wu. I'm merely talking about how her art affected my thinking. > Also want to say, as preface, that of course hookers can be hackers, and one reason I'm taking the following slant on it is the surprise expressed in this comment, I take to indicate the (limited) assumption that they cannot coexist. I quite literally said that her work helped me overcome this prejudice, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

dosy 8y ago
> You are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. Nope. I was criticizing these interpretations, even as I recognize they are valid for you (from some point of view) and saying they can be improved. If you want to take that as "don't speak at all", that's your choice, and not what I'm saying.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  > I think I've got two main issues with these comments. > The first is: Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it? > The second is: Why do you think she can speak for you? Why do you assume she knows how she is affecting people by her dress? To criticize an interpretation, you would point out a specific statement that someone has said about the meaning of something, and why you think that isn't true. You're literally just repeating that no one knows anything and shouldn't assert things because things may or may not be true, just verbosely.
  - dosy 8y ago
    Nope, sorry anon, that's not it. Interesting theory tho. But it conflicts with how I think about things. Useful to know you don't get it, tho.
    - turbinerneiter 8y ago
      Anyway, this is what Wu has to say on the matter: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1019186539857735682 https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/101918653985773568...
      - dosy 8y ago
        Looking more closely at this corner of online my sense of it is that Wu doesn't really care about the "political" stances she's taking, she's more a careerist political-chameleon donning and shunning values to suit her purpose. And my sense of this little episode currently in play is it's more about Wu conjuring a narrative about how bad the Western media is and using the mere color of a few choice political stances to rope a group along with her. Rabble-rousing, pot stirring, chaos creation, in the service of narratives that try to undermine the West I think is what she enjoys, as well as tech. So despite paying lip service to being "anti-China" (more hooks for her fans, much like Ai Wei Wei), she is of course pro-China. It's not hard to go into LiberalLaLaLand and stir the pot and create chaos and outrage. Once created that energy can be directed toward a purpose. Which is what I see Wu working hard and skillfully doing here. I think we will see more and more of this in future, as China takes advantage of the structural "narrative vulnerabilities" of the fake liberal ideology to damage and create chaos in the West (much as CIA likes to do in places like HK, W Africa, S America, I think). The irony, perhaps, is these fake-liberal values (identity politics, etc) were actually created to contain / delude and disempower activist movements by the IC, and now it's used against them by the Chinese. It's always the way with weapons, when you create something powerful it can end up being used against you.
        turbinerneiter 8y ago
        Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it?
        dosy 8y ago
        > Why ... ? Because I'm ok with it. I disagree with the narratives that are linking people to an assumed sexual intention (either as viewer or viewed, you don't get to speak about that for anyone else, unless you're protecting against badness), but I am okay with narratives like the one I advanced that are talking about political intentions / nation states. I just don't feel okay with the former, but feel okay with the latter. Former feels rude / inappropriate to me. Because it's too personal I think, not other people's business. It seems Wu feels the same way from what the whole issue of this topic is (VICE going off bounds into personal/ sexual) so please don't do it. But latter, commenting on her politically? I have zero issue with that. And I don't care if she's ok with political commentary or not because from my perspective, her actions make her fair political game. Some things are off limits. And I don't think people, through their language and behaviour, have a good enough understanding of that. Hope you got a better understanding now. Despite your attempt at a pithy equivalence, it's not the same. Hope you see that now. That's all.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

dosy 8y ago

> You are basically denying people's right to interpret art, because they could interpret art wrong. Nope. I was criticizing these interpretations, even as I recognize they are valid for you (from some point of view) and saying they can be improved. If you want to take that as "don't speak at all", that's your choice, and not what I'm saying.

pessimizer 8y ago
> I think I've got two main issues with these comments. > The first is: Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it? > The second is: Why do you think she can speak for you? Why do you assume she knows how she is affecting people by her dress? To criticize an interpretation, you would point out a specific statement that someone has said about the meaning of something, and why you think that isn't true. You're literally just repeating that no one knows anything and shouldn't assert things because things may or may not be true, just verbosely.
- dosy 8y ago
  Nope, sorry anon, that's not it. Interesting theory tho. But it conflicts with how I think about things. Useful to know you don't get it, tho.
  - turbinerneiter 8y ago
    Anyway, this is what Wu has to say on the matter: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1019186539857735682 https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/101918653985773568...
    - dosy 8y ago
      Looking more closely at this corner of online my sense of it is that Wu doesn't really care about the "political" stances she's taking, she's more a careerist political-chameleon donning and shunning values to suit her purpose. And my sense of this little episode currently in play is it's more about Wu conjuring a narrative about how bad the Western media is and using the mere color of a few choice political stances to rope a group along with her. Rabble-rousing, pot stirring, chaos creation, in the service of narratives that try to undermine the West I think is what she enjoys, as well as tech. So despite paying lip service to being "anti-China" (more hooks for her fans, much like Ai Wei Wei), she is of course pro-China. It's not hard to go into LiberalLaLaLand and stir the pot and create chaos and outrage. Once created that energy can be directed toward a purpose. Which is what I see Wu working hard and skillfully doing here. I think we will see more and more of this in future, as China takes advantage of the structural "narrative vulnerabilities" of the fake liberal ideology to damage and create chaos in the West (much as CIA likes to do in places like HK, W Africa, S America, I think). The irony, perhaps, is these fake-liberal values (identity politics, etc) were actually created to contain / delude and disempower activist movements by the IC, and now it's used against them by the Chinese. It's always the way with weapons, when you create something powerful it can end up being used against you.
      - turbinerneiter 8y ago
        Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it?
        dosy 8y ago
        > Why ... ? Because I'm ok with it. I disagree with the narratives that are linking people to an assumed sexual intention (either as viewer or viewed, you don't get to speak about that for anyone else, unless you're protecting against badness), but I am okay with narratives like the one I advanced that are talking about political intentions / nation states. I just don't feel okay with the former, but feel okay with the latter. Former feels rude / inappropriate to me. Because it's too personal I think, not other people's business. It seems Wu feels the same way from what the whole issue of this topic is (VICE going off bounds into personal/ sexual) so please don't do it. But latter, commenting on her politically? I have zero issue with that. And I don't care if she's ok with political commentary or not because from my perspective, her actions make her fair political game. Some things are off limits. And I don't think people, through their language and behaviour, have a good enough understanding of that. Hope you got a better understanding now. Despite your attempt at a pithy equivalence, it's not the same. Hope you see that now. That's all.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]