tawpKek

>Self-interested people often work together to achieve great things. Why should this be the case, when it is in their best interest to just care about their own wellbeing and disregard that of others?

I think this is a kind of strong statement to take as a given, especially as an opening. This is taking social darwinism as law, and could use more scrutiny.

I think the idea that speech is anti-fragile works to a point, but is ultimately a bit naive about the way that power structures and language works. Its entirely possible to limit someone else's ability to communicate simply by communicating. Speaking isn't the same thing as being heard. I'm not talking about speech that is merely offensive here. I'm talking about speech that is specifically designed to dehumanize and devalue others. Obviously the line is murky here, and I'm not saying I have a perfect system worked out by any means, but I think the investigation is worthwhile.

Thats really not what I'm talking about. I understand the push back against "SJWs" and those in the language policing community. That said, telling someone to get in the oven, which Ricky Vaughn and others are known to do, is a deliberate intimidation tactic designed to dehumanize and silence others and I don't think it needs to be protected.

Does this have the potential for abuse? Sure. In the same way that I think Zimmerman's self-defense argument was a problem, this could be implemented poorly. That doesn't mean I think it isn't an idea worth pursuing if we could adjudicate it justly.

This trash algorithm identifies me as "very liberal". Excuse me, I am a leftist, not some modern liberal tyvm.

>The web and FB has made us dumber- we point and click and no longer have to search and think.

That is a bold and baseless statement.

Interesting you mention the fact about it being poorly displayed. I would say it is, but not because you don't often see this frontal view. As you may or may not know, the sculpture was originally meant to be displayed on the roof of the Duomo. Michaelangelo altered the proportions slightly so that it would appear to be correct when viewed from an extreme low angle.

Whoops, there was a typo in my post. I meant to write do they need that (meaning a physically accurate bookshelf) to be understood as books.

>That's the fun of it!

No, I am the arbiter of design and all who disagree with me are evil and wrong! Who moved my crown??

w/r/t the pedantic point, it seems you're a bit stuck in the prison of the literal here. Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books? I got that they were books before I read anything about it and it was a nice little moment. The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books. Ultimately, that seems to me like a more rewarding and memorable experience than the letters MITP + color + typeface (no disrespect, Mr. Spiekermann). MIT press's audience isn't stupid, so in my personal opinion hiding a little puzzle in the logo is a nice touch.

I mostly agree with you in your response to the second point. I don't personally find as much fault with the readability issues because the logo would pretty much always be seen in the context required to make it decipherable, but I can understand why one might take issue with that. Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor a stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.

I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design is that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand its utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about modernist design.

Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.

That, right there, is a damning indictment of your understanding of modernist design and art. Visual communication achieved acclaim because it prioritized functionality over decoration and did so with the tools of reduction and abstraction. Art achieved acclaim because it prioritized the idea over the object.

As an aside, your tone makes you sound like a puerile weasel.