Ghostly Apparition on 15/4/2008 at 02:48
All this back and forth about whether Terry Pratchett is worthy enough to have funds donated to fight Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's is a bitch of a disease and if anyone feels better donating to fight it in the name of someone no one here knows so be it. The greatest man no one knows. (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115543)
Mr.WaeseL on 15/4/2008 at 08:18
Quote Posted by fett
Am I actually going to say this?
Art is subjective. I just dropped a beauty of a terd and I consider it art. And I'm right.
When everything is art it becomes a meaningless distinction.
And yeah, I think it's silly that people start donating to alzheimer's just because a fantasy author becomes sick. It's false altruism fed by selfishness (they just want more books to come out), and all those people couldn't give a crap about Alzheimer's X amount of time ago when Terry Pratchett wasn't diagnosed yet.
Thirith on 15/4/2008 at 08:24
Okay, please regale us with your feats of non-selfish altruism so we can put this into perspective.
Edit: The thing is, though, even if you are so much more altruistic, you're being a judgmental dick. People are entitled to show appreciation for things they enjoy and for the people who create those things, right? So how is this different? Why is this somehow a less legitimate way of showing your appreciation than, say, buying more of the guy's books (which, chances are, many of those people already have all of already)?
The Phenomenon on 15/4/2008 at 09:24
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Or perhaps he's lamenting the lack of real altruism. Did you ever think of that?
No he isn't, nothing he has posted suggests this in the slightest. No, not even a little bit. And even if it were, the lamentations of someone that doesn't live, or aspire to live, up to the altruistic standard he holds others to is not exactly worth hearing.
Its the standard internet-cool cynicism response, staple of forums everywhere. This happens everytime some celebrity dies or gets ill, its nothing new. He simply (or artfully :P) dropped a turd in a thread about a well-liked public figure, hardly profound.
Quote Posted by Mr.WaeseL
And yeah, I think it's silly that people start donating to alzheimer's just because a fantasy author becomes sick. It's false altruism fed by selfishness (they just want more books to come out), and all those people couldn't give a crap about Alzheimer's X amount of time ago when Terry Pratchett wasn't diagnosed yet.
True altruism is a crock of shit. I have yet to meet a person that lives by this standard of true selflessness. Just give an example even.
Think for a moment what true selflessness implies.
Even people that donate to causes that don't affect them in the slightest are doing so for ultimately selfish purposes, conciously or unconciously. All human behaviour springs from personal needs and desires. Being selfish isn't wrong, its not necessarily evil (it can be though), its basic humanity. We care for others because we get something out of it, even if its just a warm, fuzzy feeling or another installment of the Discworld saga.
The Phenomenon on 15/4/2008 at 09:34
damnit doubleposted :S
fett on 15/4/2008 at 12:25
Quote Posted by Mr.WaeseL
When everything is art it becomes a meaningless distinction.
Still haven't answered the question, and I imagine it's because you can't. Give us your criteria for art, and a list of people who deserve to have money contributed to fighting a disease in their name, or get the fuck out.
Chade on 15/4/2008 at 13:16
I would like to see the alternative Mr WaeseL proposes. I mean, sure, the whole "give money to causes which get famous for no particularly good reason" is emotive and somewhat arbitrary, but what system is the Weasel proposing that will work better?
Come to think of it, this probably boils down to the fundamental nature of charities, which are not driven by a quantifiable demand, but by the emotions of the people providing the money. If you get rid of the emotion, if you make the act of giving part of a scientific process, you lose the fundamental driving force of charity: the compassion behind the money.
You can sneer all you want, but charities just wouldn't have the same magic (or effect) without the emotion which drives them, even if it seems a bit arbitrary sometimes.
PigLick on 15/4/2008 at 14:15
I would like Mr Weasel to suck some greasy cocks, cause once you start up that road there aint no time for forum discussion, its all cocks and grease
flexbuster on 15/4/2008 at 14:17
There's a difference between "everything is art" and "art is different things to different people".
Art relies on its effect on the subject and is *necessarily* subjective.
fett on 15/4/2008 at 14:34
Granted. But I get the feeling he means, "If this were Tolstoy, it would be a worthy cause," thereby judging the worth of the cause or person based on his subjective definition of art.
