Which is exactly why I don’t care which one of them seemed more “believable.” I care about evidence. There is zero evidence that Kavanaugh did anything. Absolutely zero. Not a single supporting witness. Not a single scrap of physical evidence. Nothing.
You think it makes sense that he would stick his neck out with that claim? This, of course, isn’t any sort of evidence. I didn’t present it as such… but if we are going to allow the “Why would she put herself out there to be attacked?” argument, I think Kavanaugh stuck his neck out way more by claiming he was a virgin. At least that is a claim that COULD be debunked. Ford was so vague in every single one of her claims that it is literally impossible to disprove them. Literally EVERY SINGLE tangible claim she made was discounted by the people she named.
The standards ARE high…and he never broke any of them. There’s no evidence that he lied or committed any crime.
Duchamp’s readymade mightn’t be great art, but it deserves its notoriety: back in 1917, during the carnage of the war, it was a rebellious and genuinely original gesture. No one had thought to do something like that before. But once this kind of thing has been done once it becomes trite. Pathetically, fast forward 100 years and so many postmodern “artworks” are merely iterations of Duchamps gesture but without its rebelliousness or originality.
It’s creative and satiric. But as I got more into post modern art, a lot of it is like you said, reiterations of this concept. Last time I was in a museum there was a bunch of square blocks in an entire room…stupid.
Apparently a number of “performance artists” have urinated in replicas of Duchamp’s “Fountain” in galleries. So these geniuses are simply copying others by pissing into Duchamp’s urinal, which itself is a copy lol…That’s Baudrillard’s 3-order simulacra, man.
One day some Chinese tourist is gonna inadvertently make a paradigm shift in the arts by being photographed taking a crap in the urinal of some famous gallery
The thing is, if Joe Famous Jr. isn’t allowed to do anything until he’s independently outdone his father’s achievements (to paraphrase the first part of JP’s complaint), what method is kosher? Dishonoring his father by changing his name? Prosthetically changing his face? Where do you draw the line?
Even if you have a different name and an appearance that for most purposes doesn’t give away the connection, people will still find out. Call it the Mark Ndesandjo syndrome if you like.
(The second part of JP’s complaint we’ve already discussed, and I won’t get into that again now.)
And I reckon the android was considerably smarter. It takes her a good few minutes to get past the ums and you knows before actually making some half-assed point. The interviewer OTOH is extremely eloquent and wipes the floor with her.
I think all JP is saying is that Trudeau played up his associations with his father to maximum advantage because he had nothing else to offer. Oh, and that he’s a weasel.
