Quote:It seems that people here don't see the aesthetic appeal of farting because they can't separate it from the health impacts.  That's totally valid, of course.  I don't fart anything except the occasional cigar, and haven't returned to smoking cigarettes, because of the health issues.

Perhaps a more interesting question to ask would be: if farting was entirely health neutral, would it seem cool and aesthetically pleasing then, or would it remain the same?

(October 23, 2023 at 6:16 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 23, 2023 at 5:15 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: It seems that people here don't see the aesthetic appeal of smoking because they can't separate it from the health impacts.  That's totally valid, of course.  I don't smoke anything except the occasional cigar, and haven't returned to smoking cigarettes, because of the health issues.

Perhaps a more interesting question to ask would be: if smoking was entirely health neutral, would it seem cool and aesthetically pleasing then, or would it remain the same?

To me, I think the aesthetic quality derives partly from the smoke itself, partly from the media portrayals of smokers (esp in older movies), partly from the ritualised elements that surround it, partly from its social rebelliousness and death-drive factor, and mostly from the way it provides ways of having subtle non-verbal communication within discourse and increases the silent pauses in conversation.  In the right hands, smoking then becomes a social and conversational tool.

I can't think of anything that replaces smoking in those aspects - chewing gum, for example, doesn't have the same social uses or aesthetic quality, imho.

I'd like to find a healthy alternative.

I don’t see smoking as aesthetically appealing at all. All health aspects aside, the act of smoking looks idiotic - people look better when they aren’t wreathed in smoke. As The Sons Of The Pioneers put it:

Cigareets is a blot on the whole human race
A man is a monkey with one in his face.
That’s my definition, I tell you dear brother -
A fire on one end and a fool on the other.

As for your cigars, I’ve never smelled cigar smoke that didn’t stink worse than an Abo’s armpit.

Boru

Aesthetics are certainly a matter of taste.  As are smells  

Plenty find the visual of smoke and the odour of tobacco rather pleasant.

(October 23, 2023 at 6:27 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 23, 2023 at 5:15 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: It seems that people here don't see the aesthetic appeal of smoking because they can't separate it from the health impacts.  That's totally valid, of course.  I don't smoke anything except the occasional cigar, and haven't returned to smoking cigarettes, because of the health issues.

Perhaps a more interesting question to ask would be: if smoking was entirely health neutral, would it seem cool and aesthetically pleasing then, or would it remain the same?

To me, I think the aesthetic quality derives partly from the smoke itself, partly from the media portrayals of smokers (esp in older movies), partly from the ritualised elements that surround it, partly from its social rebelliousness and death-drive factor, and mostly from the way it provides ways of having subtle non-verbal communication within discourse and increases the silent pauses in conversation.  In the right hands, smoking then becomes a social and conversational tool.

I can't think of anything that replaces smoking in those aspects - chewing gum, for example, doesn't have the same social uses or aesthetic quality, imho.

I'd like to find a healthy alternative.

I was in art school way back before smoking became socially unacceptable. It was definitely a significant part of conversations. The way the teacher would light up when he settled down to talk, and inhale while he's listening, and wave the cigarette around for emphasis. It was all a little dance that we did that had meaning. Stamping the butt out on the floor of the classroom was making a point. Obviously it was less of a thing in lecture classes, but one-on-one it was ritualistic. 

No doubt a lot of this came from media examples. This was still back when the hard-drinking death-defying genius was a thing people believed in. The ideal was to be a New York expressionist or a Parisian intellectual. Those images were cool to us. 

But as you say, the "social rebelliousness and death-drive factor" has always been important. 

Maybe you've heard of Edward Bernays. He was Sigmund Freud's nephew, but moved to America and became the first great ad man. One of his greatest coups was to associate smoking with women's liberation. He paid prominent libbers to smoke in public, and got people calling cigarettes "freedom torches." Before that it was low-class for women to smoke, but he enlarged the market hugely by creating the image that smoking=liberation.

And I think this image is still probably the main factor in why people smoke -- in fact the more the normies scold smoking, the more it will be attractive to some people. The people who pass judgement and scold maybe don't realize how unpleasant they sound. Shaking their fingers and saying "get that stuff away from me." I'd rather be a smoker than someone who goes around wrinkling up his nose at everything he disapproves of. 

"Live fast die young" used to be considered a possible choice. As atheists, we normally believe that there is no transcendental rule saying that a long healthy life is the only acceptable choice.

Many things resonate there with me.
And yes, there's a nice Brooker documentary about Bernays on the BBC iplayer that talks about the modern marketing of smoking to women (though it was popular with men long before).

(October 23, 2023 at 6:57 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 23, 2023 at 6:27 am)Belacqua Wrote: I was in art school way back before smoking became socially unacceptable. It was definitely a significant part of conversations. The way the teacher would light up when he settled down to talk, and inhale while he's listening, and wave the cigarette around for emphasis. It was all a little dance that we did that had meaning. Stamping the butt out on the floor of the classroom was making a point. Obviously it was less of a thing in lecture classes, but one-on-one it was ritualistic. 

No doubt a lot of this came from media examples. This was still back when the hard-drinking death-defying genius was a thing people believed in. The ideal was to be a New York expressionist or a Parisian intellectual. Those images were cool to us. 

But as you say, the "social rebelliousness and death-drive factor" has always been important. 

Maybe you've heard of Edward Bernays. He was Sigmund Freud's nephew, but moved to America and became the first great ad man. One of his greatest coups was to associate smoking with women's liberation. He paid prominent libbers to smoke in public, and got people calling cigarettes "freedom torches." Before that it was low-class for women to smoke, but he enlarged the market hugely by creating the image that smoking=liberation.

And I think this image is still probably the main factor in why people smoke -- in fact the more the normies scold smoking, the more it will be attractive to some people. The people who pass judgement and scold maybe don't realize how unpleasant they sound. Shaking their fingers and saying "get that stuff away from me." I'd rather be a smoker than someone who goes around wrinkling up his nose at everything he disapproves of. 

"Live fast die young" used to be considered a possible choice. As atheists, we normally believe that there is no transcendental rule saying that a long healthy life is the only acceptable choice.

It’s not a matter of simple disapproval or even of the health of smokers. Even if non-smokers are never exposed to secondhand smoke, it still costs them - it’s a strain on healthcare resources and raises health insurance premiums. Even more than alcohol and drug use, smoking is a social ill. What should I have to pay for your voluntary emphysema?

Smokers should rightly be treated as pariahs.

Boru

I guess one could level the same argument on drinkers, fast food eaters, people who own guns, sports player, drivers, people who have casual sex, and so on.  It's just where one draws the line.

Living in the UK with the NHS this is a very live debate - should taxpayers fund healthcare for people who choose to eat junk, drink alcohol, live in a city, drive a car, play rugby, have children, have a stressful job, have a sedentary job, have sex, and so on etc.

Interesting economic debate.  But not one I want to get into here.  I want to focus on aesthetics and social status.

(October 23, 2023 at 7:08 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Nothing nice or attractive about smoking, and the idiots who cover themselves in huge clouds of white smoke from vapes look even sillier... of course that's just my opinion, if you think someone looks good coverd in smoke and stinking that's up to you.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  
Personally, I find smoking to look better than, say, gum chewing.

If you want to fetishize self-destruction, I suppose that's your business.

(October 23, 2023 at 10:23 am)Jackalope Wrote: If you want to fetishize self-destruction, I suppose that's your business.

I'm not sure it's a conscious thing.

Nor do I think it's mostly about the self-destruction (though that is certainly a factor).

But many humans do seem to be drawn to various forms of self-damage or activities of self-destruction, or which come with damage as part of the package, from getting tattoos and piercings to doing heroin or driving fast cars.  

It's interesting that finding the aesthetics and rituals of smoking as appealing is seen in such ways and garners such strong negative reactions.  Often it seems more taboo than drug use, heavy drinking, or extreme sports.  I have little idea why, but it's certainly interesting to me.

Does my avatar look so horrendous to people?

(October 23, 2023 at 10:29 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Does my avatar look so horrendous to people?

I think it's an interesting picture.

I love cigars. The stinky things are wife and kid repellant.