[soiltype]

> those with the means to produce it don't have any great emotions.

Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.

[bryanrasmussen]

there are incredibly wide swathes of society which go on about modern decadence and have outsized respect for violence as being somehow ennobling. As an example some people think the tough guys of the past who killed each other over women's handkerchiefs were real men and possessed of emotions more potent than those of the girly men that exist nowadays. This is not necessarily what was being claimed, just that there are claims like that so not sure why anyone crossing similar regions needs to be thought an LLM.

That said >it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to...rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.

The rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other came from a society with strict rules about honor and dueling, and they dueled over honor.

So I'm not sure if the artists of today do have emotions that compare to the particular emotions that were very common in a society with duels for honor that had a significantly different economic and educational system than our own.

Sure we're all humans, but we're not all exactly the same despite that.

[goodmythical]

>The gang members beating the shit out of each other come from a community with strict rules about honor and fighting, and they fight over honor.

Are you so certain that there are no longer groups with strict rules that feature individuals who enact violence upon each other over those rules?

Hell, they'll even fight over a lady wearing the wrong color, and fight in attempts to get ladies to wear their colors rather than the rivals'.

The act is perhaps less frequent, but I have no idea to the historical prevalence of such behavior as opposed to the prevalence of its existence in the media of the time. For instance, I am sure that there were not all that many people rescuing fair maidens from towers, but it crops up in the art of the time fairly often.

But, the prevalence of the behavior is not really at issue so much as the particular emotions which I think still exist given the example of gang members killing each other over women just as the Venetians of old did.

[bryanrasmussen]

I do think that the behavior is somewhat unlikely to match up to old Venetian duels for honor; there is, I believe, no Code Duello for drive-bys.

At any rate I was trying to demonstrate that there are lots of people who hold these ideas and thus it is somewhat absurd to assume someone who thinks these things must be an LLM, but it is also true that I went off on a tangent arguing that not just was it not a surefire tell that it was written by an LLM (that the poster had an opinion the person I responded to found absurd), but also that there were perhaps arguments for the view as first posted.

So I will now put it in a different way: it is often said that history does not exactly repeat itself but it rhymes, sure, there is some rhyming going on between gangs and duelists and Samurai and Pirates and people doing violence for kicks in bar fights, but generally words that rhyme also mean different things and are different words.

So humans are alike and different at the same time; yes they can have similar emotions, but it seems sensible that perhaps bravos dueling in Venice or Florence would have different emotions that we might not understand, even of a complicated sort, available to them than is currently experienced by most artists - as per the original post that started this subthread.

[soiltype]

> The rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other came from a society with strict rules about honor and dueling, and they dueled over honor.

You're doing exactly the thing you described at the top of your comment.

TFA explicitly mentions that participants would regularly sneak deadly weapons into the fights and had to be policed.

I also don't think street fights are particularly honorable at all. They literally were just deciding disputes by a combination of force and deception (which plays a role in all combat) rather than communication, compromise, cooperation, diplomacy, empathy, or any other virtue. Slashing a critic's throat doesn't make your viewpoints valid it just makes them unchallenged.

[bryanrasmussen]

as an example - the Theme of Hamlet https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-theme-of-hamlet-3926a88...

sometime around the mid to late 1700s people started getting the idea that Hamlet was all about how he was a vacillating guy who could never come to a decision because the play's stated reasons for doing things were no longer believable, that is to say The Character Hamlet had significantly different emotions and opinions on things that we cannot understand or accept as stated.

[Insanity]

It’s a new account (2h old as of me commenting) and it does read like LLM content to me.

[soiltype]

Weirdly favored, if it is an LLM. Of course bad actors will be training them out of the obvious rhetorical tells, but a complete lack of semantic reasoning will fortunately always be a valid reason to ignore or dismiss someone's arguments, human or chatbot.