On innovation?

Ugly works are still art because art is meaning

I do cosmic/theological horror and it is intentionally ugly and disgusting for a reason

Space exploration is LARP

AI needs to be conscious to actually do anything significant

Marxism does add worth

Also civilization is actively undermining eugenics anyways. This whole post is so garbage

East asians copied whites. And copied them poorly

Beauty means nothing and is cope

Heres what an ai did in terms of analysis of this post: That passage reads like someone tried to cram an entire internet subculture’s manifesto into a blender and forgot to check if the gears actually fit together.

The writer is trying to play hard-nosed utilitarian gatekeeper, declaring certain fields “serious” and others “useless,” but the internal contradictions completely torpedo the argument: The Utilitarian Trap: The writer claims only hard-tech, defense, physics, and biotech matter because they drive civilization forward, dismissing art, philosophy, and literature as “mid and hobby tier.” But the second you demand that everything justify its existence through strict utility, you destroy the very concept of beauty they claim to defend. High-level aesthetic architecture, classical music, and philosophy aren’t spreadsheet equations; they are the high-altitude cultural output of a civilization that has breathing room. You can’t demand pure, cold engineering efficiency while simultaneously policing art to ensure it strictly conforms to a rigid, comforting definition of “beauty.” The Modern Art Blind Spot: Shunning modern art because it’s “ugly” completely misses why it exists. Duchamp and the modernists didn’t accidentally produce ugly work—they did it intentionally to weaponize irony, shatter institutional gatekeeping, and force the viewer out of passive consumption. Art isn’t just a decorative wallpaper for a functional society; sometimes it is supposed to be a friction point, a critique, or a cognitive grenade thrown into the culture. The Contradiction of “Useful” Innovation: The writer wants to keep high-end technology, AI, and space exploration while throwing out philosophical and religious innovations. But you cannot decouple technological acceleration from philosophy and literature. Every major technological leap—especially AI, biotech, and physics—redefines human ethics, meaning, and survival. Without rigorous (even if contested) philosophy to anchor it, raw technical innovation just accelerates a civilization straight off a cliff. The writer wants the sterile, high-tech output of an advanced civilization without the messy, chaotic, and sometimes provocative intellectual and artistic friction that actually produces it.

Like this is so funny: You act like the world is fucking rick and morty and that we need to “advance civilization “ and “space travel” like those things are unquestionably good ignoring the raw logistics and the general cosmic instability of doing such things. Each planet has its own natural selection pressures and if we do find life it will be far from our comprehension. You seem to be believing that every variable will go correct. Also art being a “mere hobby” just really goes to show that your claim of being a midwit is 100% true. You are probably like in your 20s and I already got passed that shit when I was 16-17. Art is a science in and of itself and it is clear you don’t understand that technology is not a good thing. Maybe advances in military technology and CRISPR was a good thing but everything else is useless and noise. You seem to be throwing around physics like it’s unquestionable and einstein would have laughed at you for being such a moron.

I hate Rick and Morty.

I wrote this post as a mild rage bait, because my Asian side of the family thinks all innovations that don’t have immediate utility are useless. Or things that don’t advance career or prestige are not worth pursuing.