padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
those kinds of questions without answers are what makes talking about things like this interesting
in the sense he meant it, (most of) what he said is defensible, although the way he chose to say it is completely indefensible
I still don't agree with him, because there's no way I can ascribe anything I would recognize as artistic intent to the perpetrators of 9/11
he seems to mean an act of creative destruction (as we hear about all the time in a TechCrunchDisrupt sense) driven by human will
I see nothing creative in it at all, just destruction
lmao
same old luka, can dish it out as viciously as you please but can't take even one second of someone holding up a mirror to his endless bullshit
I agreeIt did birth a lot of things, but it just feels 'wrong' to ascribe artistic merit to an act of terrorism, even if you can see the argument.
it's unfortunate that public discourse on the relationship between violence and the aestheticization of violence is generally so hysterical in this country (and the UK, I'd imagine)
because it's a serious topic that deserves serious discussion, by anyone who cares about violence in the society they live in
rather than the usual lazy blaming of TV, video games, etc for societal ills
I know people with thoroughly middlebrow tastes who sincerely think they are in fact informed and, in their minds, ahead of the cultural curve...
absolutely, and especially in the media political-emotional climate right after 9/11. as I said, he was a tactless fool in that regard.something a fair few people probably understand on some level, whether they agree with it or not, but which they feel they absolutely have to come out strongly against
even in context, the way he said it was indefensible. I'm sure the reaction was overblown, but he should definitely have known better.He claimed he was misrepresented at the time.
it's not a new idea, that there's no such thing as modern "terrorism" without a media to cover itterrorism and the media