3 ms·

> It would be an ok answer, but the whole discussion started with you saying "On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful" which is more than just a s

> It would be an ok answer, but the whole discussion started with you saying "On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful" which is more than just a statement of an opinion. To the contrary, that's about as opinionated as an opinion gets. > So, please, fix your discussion tactics, it's bad. If it wasn't obvious that it was an opinion on aesthetics from the first reply, it should've been obvious from the second and third. I'm not actually discussing my opinion with you, I'm trying to explain to you why it's pointless to explain further. You may have noticed that other people chimed in and said things along the lines of "oh no the other stuff is ugly!". I'm not gonna argue with that, those are valid opinions, valid subjective perceptions. > Nothing looks "objectively bad" only in complete isolation and in the absence of context. When you add the world to an object it unavoidably begets aesthetic meaning. So you're wrong there. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html > What's a real waste of time is arguing with strangers over the internet. You're setting yourself up for it, because even four replies in, you insist on criticizing something I never intended to say.

ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
If you think linking to a paper obscures the fact that you're calling me out on 'bullshit', it doesn't. It's rude and in this case just shows your lack of education in a field. Just so you know, there's a whole section of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste, you're free to think it's all bullshit of course, but I hope less people would do so.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > If you think linking to a paper obscures the fact that you're calling me out on 'bullshit', it doesn't. It's not supposed to obscure it. What you wrote is a specific kind of bullshit that is described in the paper. > It's rude and in this case just shows your lack of education in a field. Whatever education made you write that sentence is probably bullshit as well. Or maybe you just didn't give a very good impression of it. > Just so you know, there's a whole section of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste, you're free to think it's all bullshit of course, but I hope less people would do so. There are, of course, whole sections of philosophy that are bullshit. In the words of Judith Butler: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
  - ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
    > There are, of course, whole sections of philosophy that are bullshit. I'd like to see how you approach design thinking aesthetics is bullshit. I'd be surprised it's any good. Anyway, you should consider the simpler explanation: it's just over your head so you call it bullshit.

ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago

If you think linking to a paper obscures the fact that you're calling me out on 'bullshit', it doesn't. It's rude and in this case just shows your lack of education in a field. Just so you know, there's a whole section of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste, you're free to think it's all bullshit of course, but I hope less people would do so.

gridlockd 6y ago
> If you think linking to a paper obscures the fact that you're calling me out on 'bullshit', it doesn't. It's not supposed to obscure it. What you wrote is a specific kind of bullshit that is described in the paper. > It's rude and in this case just shows your lack of education in a field. Whatever education made you write that sentence is probably bullshit as well. Or maybe you just didn't give a very good impression of it. > Just so you know, there's a whole section of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste, you're free to think it's all bullshit of course, but I hope less people would do so. There are, of course, whole sections of philosophy that are bullshit. In the words of Judith Butler: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
- ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
  > There are, of course, whole sections of philosophy that are bullshit. I'd like to see how you approach design thinking aesthetics is bullshit. I'd be surprised it's any good. Anyway, you should consider the simpler explanation: it's just over your head so you call it bullshit.