robin

1: Amina talks to Helena who is on a seesaw, high in the air. „Good Morning! What are you doing up there?“ 2: Helena stares to the cloudy horizon. „When I don’t feel great, the seesaw puts everything in perspective.“ 3: „It feels like I’m stuck, but with patience, life will soon resume as normal.“ Amina looks at Helena still high on the seesaw. 4: … on the other seat of the seesaw an old man is sitting, oblivious, feeding birds.

Acceptance, Helena 160.

YouTube video by ParticleMen They Might Be Giants - The Darlings of Lumberland (Official Audio)

Anyway Nanobots is a top three TMBG album. "Stone-Cold Coup d'Etat," "You're on Fire," "Sleep," "Stuff is Way," whatever the fuck this is. All magnificent
youtu.be/H0gO7mgzyqY?...

YouTube video by ParticleMen They Might Be Giants - Sometimes A Lonely Way (Official Video)

youtu.be/nuuv644_TA0?...

YouTube video by Channel NORI i_aint_fly (G6) - Nori x Kori

youtu.be/SHpWLJWuGZE?...

Arpad, I'm going to mute and then block you. I haven't enjoyed interacting with you for a while now. I hope you don't take this as yet more evidence of your divinely ordained correctness and moral superiority ✌️

When you quote repost somenody you've blocked, nobody else can see the post being quoted. It just says "blocked"

(Even if the writer of the cubism book said they were going to focus on cubism in isolation! Especially if the book was called A History of Cubism, and not A History of Only Cubism)

Not really an illustrative parallel, because that would be a purely practical endeavour. Art history is not that. History is nothing like choosing a computer. If someome were to write a history of cubism but neglected to mention impressionism, you could critique that in good faith

Hagai is arguing that such context would not "distract from the main subject." You obviously disagree. That's fine, but to paint that as "bad faith," is plain inaccurate, sorry. There being a dearth of manga histories is not the point

It's 2am here so I better get some sleep. I'll respond to your other posts when I wake up (if you haven't blocked me by then) ✌️

That's common practice from all fields of criticism. TCJ have printed negative and positive reviews of the same book on multiple occasions, as is common practice everywhere. Sorry to infer what you feel from your actions/words again, but I thought you might be angry at Hagai because you blocked him

That's not what "good faith" means. If a reviewer fairly represents the books goals, then they can critique those goals and whether or not the fulfillment of those goals is entirely worthwhile. This is the basis of most non-fiction criticism, and has nothing to do with good or bad faith 👍

That's fair enough.

How doesn't that make sense? I don't really understand the question

If you think comics reviews (and criticism at large) exist purely to allow people to decide whether or not they'd like something, I can understand your vexation, but that is not the way in which many people go about criticism. If that bothers you, I might suggest avoiding criticism altogether

The difference between your hypothetical critique and Hagai's actual critique is that Hagai expands on why he does not like the fact that you neglected to mention independent works (along with historical context & outside influence). That's it

To me this whole debacle feels like insecurity on your part, which is unfortunate because I think you're a great writer and historian and I very much look forward to reading your new book

In critiquing fiction, I generally don't think wishing that the reviewed work was a fundamentally different work is valid, but in the case of a piece of non-fiction I don't think it's necessarily unfair, much less "bad faith."

Leaving aside that he did not call the book as a whole a "failure," that isn't a matter of good or bad faith. I've yet to read the book (I do intend to), but it seems that Hagai is in part criticiquing the goals themselves and the usefulness of a manga history that omits so much context.

In what way is Hagai's review insincere? What evidence do you have to that claim? You just think it's incorrect and reading the book wrong. That's not bad faith! That's not what that phrase means! You just disagree with the fucking review! That's fine, but this is not some moral quandary lol

Might be helpful:

Unfortunately we live in a capitalist society so monetary compensation is a pretty vital human right, dumbass

Yes? That's what we're talking about. If a Nazi is paid for labour can you be certain they are going to use that money to harm people? Can you? Someone actually being a Nazi or a paedophile is a very good reason to fire someone but its not a good reason to not pay someone who worked for you

Most people work in order to survive. If a paedophile or nazi is paid, they might spend it on bread or molotov cocktail ingredients. Unless you think that the bread "enables them" then that is exactly what you are doing lol. Do you not understand the words you are using?

I mean that what they use their compensation for would most likely be conjectural/hypothetical in a real life situation. Human beings cannot tell the future. Do you really think you are arguing in good faith at the moment?

Insofar as their survival is a perpetuation of harm, yes you are "enabl[ing]" them. In life, if someone is a Nazi or a paedophile you can fire them from their job but crucially, labour laws still apply to them. I, a leftist, am against classifying a group of people such that laws don't apply to them

It absolutely is a non-issue if you just completely make it up, yeah. It's completely conjectural and hypothetical either way lol.

Labour has value. If someone produces something of value, they should be compensated for it 🤯

You cannot withhold fiscal compensation from someone because you believe they will do "material harm" with it. That isn't how this shit works lol

generally speaking, a critic’s sole obligation is to engage in good faith. this does not mean they have any duty to take into account the emotions of their subject; in fact, this actively hinders good criticism. if you engage in good faith and the author has feelings about it, that’s their problem 👍

Also bad that its common practise for the author to respond and for people to subsequently harrass the critic when something isn't showered in praise. (See: the TCJ Keeping Two debacle.) Not very conducive to productive discourse