A-232 wrote:
She was making a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
Yeah that boat sailed past many eons ago.
What is Magnus Carlsens new career!!??
Sort:
I guess the guy hanging from the cross is just a model then...?
I do!
bsrasmus wrote:
People challenged me and I responded to the challenges.
Which means you take it seriously that some guy is going to do something other than play chess.
bsrasmus wrote:
ivandh wrote:
I guess the guy hanging from the cross is just a model then...?
No one knows what Jesus looked like. There are no images of Jesus, only an artist's creation.
So... he's just a model then...?
Jul 8, 2010
0
#87
bsrasmus wrote:
A-232 wrote:
She was making a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
I'm aware of what she's doing. I don't think it's funny, though.
Christ! It's just Jesus afterall. Carlsen's not going to be like Jesus and splash his image over everything. Christ! Carlsen's not as vain as that guy.
bsrasmus wrote:
Do you think it would hurt the prestige of the United States if the U.S. President part-timed as a fashion model doing fashion shows? Or one of the candidates for President?
Clinton hurt the prestige of the United States when he talked about what kind of underwear he wore and when he decided to play the sax during his first run. Is there something wrong with playing the sax? Of course not. But there is a seriousness about the office of the presidency in which you shouldn't think of the man as an entertainer. When people come to accept the President as just a man then something intangible but valuable is lost in the institution and as a consequence the nation suffers a loss. Does it directly affect the individuals of the nation? Only in that they have lost that intangible and will likely never recover it. But that's something very important, IMO.
Of course the magnitude of the prestige of the presidency can't be compared to the much more limited prestige of the chess world championship. But the idea is the same. When one of the candidates to the world championship starts to demean himself like this, an intangible is lost with respect to the world championship that will likely never be recovered. The institution loses prestige. At least he isn't the world champion yet.
Ok, I can see it from your side of things now. I never held the status of world champion quite in that way so I don't agree, but I understand your point.
Jul 8, 2010
0
#90
bsrasmus wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
bsrasmus wrote:
Do you think it would hurt the prestige of the United States if the U.S. President part-timed as a fashion model doing fashion shows? Or one of the candidates for President?
Clinton hurt the prestige of the United States when he talked about what kind of underwear he wore and when he decided to play the sax during his first run. Is there something wrong with playing the sax? Of course not. But there is a seriousness about the office of the presidency in which you shouldn't think of the man as an entertainer. When people come to accept the President as just a man then something intangible but valuable is lost in the institution and as a consequence the nation suffers a loss. Does it directly affect the individuals of the nation? Only in that they have lost that intangible and will likely never recover it. But that's something very important, IMO.
Of course the magnitude of the prestige of the presidency can't be compared to the much more limited prestige of the chess world championship. But the idea is the same. When one of the candidates to the world championship starts to demean himself like this, an intangible is lost with respect to the world championship that will likely never be recovered. The institution loses prestige. At least he isn't the world champion yet.
Ok, I can see it from your side of things now. I never held the status of world champion quite in that way so I don't agree, but I understand your point.
I don't think anyone is likely to hold the status of the world champion in quite that way in the future. And that's an unfortunate loss. Thank you for your kind words.
I thought Clinton pooped on the illusionary "prestige" of the office when he bombed Kosovo to distract the public from the Lewinsky "investigation"? I think people should be past thinking the president is just a "man", and move towards the more obvious names he should have...
Jul 8, 2010
0
#91
bsrasmus
I don't agree that it's entirely an illusion, at least not in the relatively recent past. We have had some extremely talented leaders that deserve respect even apart from the office that they held.
I think television has diminished the presidency, however. Have you seen what most of the U.S. presidents used to look like? Not exactly telegenic. But men like Lincoln and Roosevelt (both of them, actually) elevated the office.
You really are startlingly image-conscious. Why? Who cares what the president looks like? That has nothing to do with what he does in office. And I would have to ask you: Who deserves our respect? What leaders?
trysts wrote:
bsrasmus
I don't agree that it's entirely an illusion, at least not in the relatively recent past. We have had some extremely talented leaders that deserve respect even apart from the office that they held.
I think television has diminished the presidency, however. Have you seen what most of the U.S. presidents used to look like? Not exactly telegenic. But men like Lincoln and Roosevelt (both of them, actually) elevated the office.
You really are startingly image-conscious. Why? Who cares what the president looks like? That has nothing to do with what he does in office. And I would have to ask you: Who deserves our respect? What leaders?
Only those who have earned it.
I'm sorry, but the majority of U.S. Presidents are some old, white, ugly-a-- mofos. Remember that TV began when Eisenhower was in office. Nixon (eventually) survived it. Who'd even pick Obama as a model with those flapping dumbo ears?
Jul 8, 2010
0
#94
brasmus, I completely and fully disagree with you.
You make it seem like those on the receiving end of publicity are free to stop thinking, whereas those who 'project their image' are responsible for sending out 'the right' image.
I think that is a completely undesirable world. For me, the ideal is a world where all people are equally free to act within the boundaries of their laws, and I like to think of the public as competent enough to think.
I respect your freedom to dislike Carlsen's departure from 'tradition', but in other ways he has already shown to be more of a gentleman than many past champions.
I believe he is getting a better image in that more young people would like to be a cool chess player rather than the geeky one. You might think it 'debases' him, but I'd be more disappointed in the man if he shared your ease of judgement.
Sure, you've a point, but really modern politicians don't have platforms, they have platitudes.
Jul 8, 2010
0
#96
bsrasmus wrote:
In this context it's precisely the opposite. I believe that the public is entirely too image-conscious. A man of Lincoln and Roosevelt's talents couldn't be elected unless he was lucky enough to also look like he belongs on the cover of GQ. It could happen, but what are the odds? We are stuck with mediocre but good-looking presidents because of the influence of television. At least, that's what I would argue.
Who deserves our respect? Well, we don't have to respect man in office (unless he has earned it), be it Clinton or Bush or Obama. But we must respect the authority that the Constitution grants to him.
I agree, the national polls claim the public is far too focused on image, but I have no clue how you are not a spokesman for those polls?
We don't have to respect immoral acts, whether granted by the constitution or not. The constitution has been manipulated quite a bit. And it is open to manipulation. Read it again. Not a lot there that can't be misused.
And if anyone criticises television, I will never argue on it's behalf. A wonderful invention gone to hell.
RC_Woods wrote:
brasmus, I completely and fully disagree with you.
You make it seem like those on the receiving end of publicity are free to stop thinking, whereas those who 'project their image' are responsible for sending out 'the right' image.
I think that is a completely undesirable world. For me, the ideal is a world where all people are equally free to act within the boundaries of their laws, and I like to think of the public as competent enough to think.
I respect your freedom to dislike Carlsen's departure from 'tradition', but in other ways he has already shown to be more of a gentleman than many past champions.
I believe he is getting a better image in that more young people would like to be a cool chess player rather than the geeky one. You might think it 'debases' him, but I'd be more disappointed in the man if he shared your ease of judgement.
That may be an ideal world as you say, but in practical terms people don't have time to dissect everything in life. Most people don't have the time/energy to bypass their initial reaction and decide specifically what it means for them... one reason why first impressions are so important. No first impressions shouldn't be, but in reality and for practical purposes they are. And so it's the same with a famous person projecting an image... the general masses don't have the time or energy to sort out what it means.
However that so many aren't too worried about it on here seems to say that this modeling thing may not be quite as negative as bsrasmus may fear. The old saying "any publicity is good publicity" somewhat holds true... but I also thing this image isn't bad in the first place. The more people that get drawn into chess the better. Kind of like, you'll come for the cool image, but you'll stay for the game.
Jul 8, 2010
0
#98
bsrasmus wrote:
trysts wrote:
bsrasmus wrote:
In this context it's precisely the opposite. I believe that the public is entirely too image-conscious. A man of Lincoln and Roosevelt's talents couldn't be elected unless he was lucky enough to also look like he belongs on the cover of GQ. It could happen, but what are the odds? We are stuck with mediocre but good-looking presidents because of the influence of television. At least, that's what I would argue.
Who deserves our respect? Well, we don't have to respect man in office (unless he has earned it), be it Clinton or Bush or Obama. But we must respect the authority that the Constitution grants to him.
I agree, the national polls claim the public is far too focused on image, but I have no clue how you are not a spokesman for those polls?
We don't have to respect immoral acts, whether granted by the constitution or not. The constitution has been manipulated quite a bit. And it is open to manipulation. Read it again. Not a lot there that can't be misused.
And if anyone criticises television, I will never argue on it's behalf. A wonderful invention gone to hell.
I totally agree.
I don't really like the whole 'the masses can't handle television / democracy' argument.
McCain almost made it, and the man is quite far from goodlooking. George Bush may be 'good looking' to some, but I don't think he's cover material either.
Television provides lots of formula-created content that makes time go by quick. I agree that you could call that stuff dumb. On the other hand, democracy can't be served by top-to-bottom information flows. The public must be provided with enough screentime so they can decide if they trust a person or not.
That the final voting decision isn't always fully informed or based on solid arguments, sure. But when it comes to decades of keeping corruption in check, it really seems the safest bet.
Jul 8, 2010
0
#99
Oh, and orangehonda, I agree that reality isn't ideal. Still, I don't think people should be so responsible for their image that they can't model just because they play strong chess.
And bsrasmus, sure, the 'geeky' chess image didn't deter me. But that doesn't mean a cooler image couldn't attract more people to the game, or improve its mainstream image.
Modeling is quite cool when it comes to mainstream.
Jul 8, 2010
0
#100
RC_Woods wrote:
But when it comes to decades of keeping corruption in check, it really seems the safest bet.
Are aliens making you say this? Because alien abduction and forced comments may be your only excuse for neglecting the fact that corruption is not "in check" anywhere on earth
What's the reason for this?
What do you mean by "this"?
It's kind of ironic that supermodel Jesus, pictures and engravings of him everywhere on earth, somehow never degraded his...profession
There are no pictures or engravings of Jesus. No one knows what he looked like.
There is ONE thing for sure in this life: EVERYONE knows what Jesus looks like!
Are you referring to some Latino major league baseball player? Or are you referring to Jesus of Nazareth? Either way, you can count me as one who has no idea what Jesus looks like. And NO ONE knows what Jesus of Nazareth looked like.
Lucky! I've seen that guy everywhere! Paintings, sculptures, movies! What a ham! It's that Jesus of Nazareth guy. Annoying as hell. At least Muhammed is a not such a narcissist about it