enter the B E A R C U B E
when the media gives you shitty lgbtq “representation”, don’t be satisfied
make the media taKE THE “REPRESENTATION” BACK
I DON’T WANT YOUR DAMN QUEERBAITING, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS?!
DEMAND TO SEE THE MEDIA’S MANAGER. MAKE THE MEDIA RUE THE DAY IT THOUGHT IT COULD CONVINCE AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY THAT DUMBLEDORE WAS ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION
Excuse me for a moment I am crying over robots.
a while ago I read about soldiers in Iraq crying when their bomb-dismantling robot, which followed them on every mission, was destroyed in the line of duty.
They named it, put stickers on it, and took care of it. Then, when it served its purpose, some people wondered why they expressed such emotions for a soulless machine, some even needing counseling akin to losing friends.
I don’t believe in souls, I believe a human functions without any ethereal influence and that’s miraculous enough as it is, a ‘soul’ being more of a metaphorical description of traits than anything. What exactly is to say souls aren’t what we imbue upon these ‘soulless machines’ when they help us like we help those we love? What is a soul but what value others place in you- not just in what you offer them, but in an interest in your happiness too? There’s a kind of depersonalization going on- obviously the robot just was following orders of it’s controller- but it’s impossible for people to not be thankful/place value in things that help us live or make our lives richer I guess.
Issac Asimov was an atheist but his writings were the first in science fiction history to suppose not just that ‘machines have feelings/emotion’, but rather that we as humans are only very refined organic machines, a summation of chemical processes without a ‘soul’, something that we have that nothing else does. Where exactly lies the point of difference in complexity or I daresay “lack of understanding how it’s built” where it descends into “magic”? It’s obvious that the only reason we don’t have Datas running around is because we don’t know how yet. Think about it, though- Is the love and attachment or motivation those soldiers felt for their robots any less real than what they felt for, say, a working dog? Does a pet owner love their simple goldfish less than they would a highly trained dog? Would you say a lazy cat that doesn’t even dismantle bombs has a soul where that robot doesn’t? And if we had robots like Data, would our attachment to them emotionally not be all the ‘soul’ they really need to make them real to us? Where does the line begin?
I mean, after all…
God damn I have so many opinions about robots and machines and what is or isn’t life and a lot of them hinge on the fact that I can get VERY emotionally attached to things that are made out of parts instead of meat.
When Van Gogh was a young man in his early twenties, he was in London studying to be a clergyman. He had no thought of being an artist at all. he sat in his cheap little room writing a letter to his younger brother in Holland, whom he loved very much. He looked out his window at a watery twilight, a thin lamppost, a star, and he said in his letter something like this: “it is so beautiful I must show you how it looks.” And then on his cheap ruled note paper, he made the most beautiful, tender, little drawing of it.
When I read this letter of Van Gogh’s it comforted me very much and seemed to throw a clear light on the whole road of Art. Before, I thought that to produce a work of painting or literature, you scowled and thought long and ponderously and weighed everything solemnly and learned everything that all artists had ever done aforetime, and what their influences and schools were, and you were extremely careful about *design* and *balance* and getting *interesting planes* into your painting, and avoided, with the most astringent severity, showing the faintest *academical* tendency, and were strictly modern. And so on and so on.
But the moment I read Van Gogh’s letter I knew what art was, and the creative impulse. It is a feeling of love and enthusiasm for something, and in a direct, simple, passionate and true way, you try to show this beauty in things to others, by drawing it.
And Van Gogh’s little drawing on the cheap note paper was a work of art because he loved the sky and the frail lamppost against it so seriously that he made the drawing with the most exquisite conscientiousness and care.