• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Delicate snowflake GOP congressmen triggered by painting. Need a safe space

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,714
136
Free expression is not the issue. No one's saying people shouldn't be allowed to draw pictures of cops as pigs.

They're saying it's not appropriate to hang it on the premises of of the Capitol. Just as an image of Muhammad wouldn't be. Or pornography. Or anyone of a number of items that are covered by freedom of expression, yet remain in poor taste depending on where and how they are displayed.
Yes, an offensive picture indeed.

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,562
5,855
136
As for Muslims, I was speaking more to the hypocrisy of liberals (in general) supporting feminism and equal rights while simultaneously rushing to the defense of Islamic cultural practices and traditions that at their core and intent are degrading to women in sustaining a patriarchal hierarchy of control.
Secular humanists in the Bill Maher mold would probably say you need more buckets. I hold many liberal beliefs and I'll tell anyone, regardless of perspective or ethnicity, that female genital mutilation is barbaric and should be outlawed. Ditto on the 2nd class citizen status. I'd prefer religious nuts and social authoritarians on any continent to just knock it off when it comes to women, and I know tons of people who feel the same. If you can bring yourself to acknowledge the difference between christian groups, doing the same with liberal groups probably won't be a stretch.

It's funny to hear people bring stuff like that up though. I personally don't think anything tops decades of 'Faith, Family, American values!' recently deciding a foul lecherous swine like Trump was their guy. I literally laugh every time I think of it. Republicans have cornered the market on hypocrisy with Trump. No contest.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Your point is still a matter of perspective.

As a secular centrist who leans fiscally conservative but has increasingly embraced social liberalism, I see an almost religious fervor to some liberal causes to the extent that I think we all collectively would benefit from a little live and let live.
When ethnofascist types with some social status kiss up and kick down on their ethnic totem, righteous people might be of a mind to say something about it. Ponder careful what it says about those who equate the two behaviors.

Also, much of the reason material which frame disadvantaged groups unfavorably is frowned upon is due to historical reasons, not unlike why nazi memorabilia is banned in germany.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,439
1,813
126
When ethnofascist types with some social status kiss up and kick down on their ethnic totem, righteous people might be of a mind to say something about it. Ponder careful what it says about those who equate the two behaviors.

Also, much of the reason material which frame disadvantaged groups unfavorably is frowned upon is due to historical reasons, not unlike why nazi memorabilia is banned in germany.
There are some who find this painting offensive and wish to censor it based on that premise alone. They would be wrong.

There are others whose heads are so vested in the merits of unhindered artistic expression, that they feign surprise that anyone would find such forms of expression offensive. They would similarly be wrong.

The rest of us are somewhere in the middle in that we acknowledge there is a problem as it relates to police and communities of color, but also understand that given the violence experienced both in communities of color and against police, that celebrating this painting is a de facto endorsement for what is still a very sensitive and emotional discussion. Some of us will empathize more with the police, others more so with BLM. Only through collective empathy will the conversation advance.

And then we have you coming in out of left field introducing made up words that are just a variation of Godwin's law in an attempt to demonize anyone who does not share your worldview.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,677
7,765
126
I suppose it then becomes a question of power and influence. The Amish seem perfectly content within the boundaries of their community, and other surrounding demographics do not perceive the Amish way of life as something they wish to attain for themselves. If either of those closed systems were to interact to the extent it creates a question of equity, that dynamic would change immediately

I believe Rush said it best...
There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas
The trouble with the maples
And they're quite convinced they're right
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade?
There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'oppression!'
And the oaks, just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw
Neil Peart is a liberal. 'Bleeding heart libertarian' is how he describes himself.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,439
1,813
126
Neil Peart is a liberal. 'Bleeding heart libertarian' is how he describes himself.
As a member of a Canadian progressive rock group, I would expect no less, which is why I respect the balanced and nuanced perspective of the lyrics I quoted.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,488
557
136
There are some who find this painting offensive and wish to censor it based on that premise alone. They would be wrong.

There are others whose heads are so vested in the merits of unhindered artistic expression, that they feign surprise that anyone would find such forms of expression offensive. They would similarly be wrong.

The rest of us are somewhere in the middle in that we acknowledge there is a problem as it relates to police and communities of color, but also understand that given the violence experienced both in communities of color and against police, that celebrating this painting is a de facto endorsement for what is still a very sensitive and emotional discussion. Some of us will empathize more with the police, others more so with BLM. Only through collective empathy will the conversation advance.

And then we have you coming in out of left field introducing made up words that are just a variation of Godwin's law in an attempt to demonize anyone who does not share your worldview.
What sort of PC bullshit is this? You're trying to say that there is no clear issue, that your police aren't in fact persecuting minorities, violently and otherwise, and to express the opposite is a demeaning offense.

But hey, if you want a good time, take a look at what the American police did to the Native American protestors. Attack dogs, water cannons in freezing temperatures, obstructing medical assistance...Clearly it's the fault of those uppity Injuns getting in the way of the officers walking their dogs.

It's rather quaint that you hem and haw when Agent points out the continuing racism expressed on this forum, culminating in you trying to spread cataracts over the issue.

The moral integrity of a mollusk.
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,351
95
91
I was initially in agreement the Republicans are in the wrong, and I still agree they shouldn't have just taken it down. That said buried in the article is a key fact that the contest prohibits art depicting contemporary political controversies, so it should never have been hung either.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
There are some who find this painting offensive and wish to censor it based on that premise alone. They would be wrong.

There are others whose heads are so vested in the merits of unhindered artistic expression, that they feign surprise that anyone would find such forms of expression offensive. They would similarly be wrong.

The rest of us are somewhere in the middle in that we acknowledge there is a problem as it relates to police and communities of color, but also understand that given the violence experienced both in communities of color and against police, that celebrating this painting is a de facto endorsement for what is still a very sensitive and emotional discussion. Some of us will empathize more with the police, others more so with BLM. Only through collective empathy will the conversation advance.

And then we have you coming in out of left field introducing made up words that are just a variation of Godwin's law in an attempt to demonize anyone who does not share your worldview.
I'm informing you of why some matters are considered verboten since it appeared you weren't aware. Society doesn't get to say certain things about black people and such because those narratives have a history not yet far enough removed. Not far enough removed precisely due to the attitudes exhibited on this matter. They screwed up just like some drunk who plowed into a school and now he's not allowed to drive anymore. Don't be that drunk's AA buddy trying to frame themselves as the Real (or equal) victim here.

It doesn't look good that when informed, if it turns you just don't care.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,439
1,813
126
I'm informing you of why some matters are considered verboten since it appeared you weren't aware. Society doesn't get to say certain things about black people and such because those narratives have a history not yet far enough removed. Not far enough removed precisely due to the attitudes exhibited on this matter. They screwed up just like some drunk who plowed into a school and now he's not allowed to drive anymore. Don't be that drunk's AA buddy trying to frame themselves as the Real (or equal) victim here.

It doesn't look good that when informed, if it turns you just don't care.
Who is saying things that are culturally and historically insensitive to black people? And who is they? I feel you are projecting a false equivalency narrative that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,439
1,813
126
What sort of PC bullshit is this? You're trying to say that there is no clear issue, that your police aren't in fact persecuting minorities, violently and otherwise, and to express the opposite is a demeaning offense.

But hey, if you want a good time, take a look at what the American police did to the Native American protestors. Attack dogs, water cannons in freezing temperatures, obstructing medical assistance...Clearly it's the fault of those uppity Injuns getting in the way of the officers walking their dogs.

It's rather quaint that you hem and haw when Agent points out the continuing racism expressed on this forum, culminating in you trying to spread cataracts over the issue.

The moral integrity of a mollusk.
You are adorable

I never denied there is an issue. I am saying that their is a dangerous and emotional counter narrative that resulted in the targeted assasination of several police officers, and given that emotions are still running high, celebrating this painting given the intent of the contest is somewhat irresponsible. Some of your peers get that and have said as much.

But by all means. If you feel so inspired by his painting, print out an image of it and hang it in your office or home. It says far more about you than it does about me.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Free expression is not the issue. No one's saying people shouldn't be allowed to draw pictures of cops as pigs.

They're saying it's not appropriate to hang it on the premises of of the Capitol. Just as an image of Muhammad wouldn't be. Or pornography. Or anyone of a number of items that are covered by freedom of expression, yet remain in poor taste depending on where and how they are displayed.
This, exactly, and well said. This painting is in very poor taste. It is offensive. It is also protected as free speech. A painting depicting cops as human standing against a bunch of animals waving "Black Lives Matter" signs while looting and burning Ferguson would also be in very poor taste, offensive, and protected as free speech. Neither should be hanging on the premises of the Capitol, and neither deserves to be subsidized.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
You mean something like this that was government funded and the liberal left including Hillary defended as free speech.





Liberals set the standard for mocking religion in an artistic form, long before 9/11, Islamophobia, etc. at a time when most Americans couldn't care or know enough about Islam and Muslims to draw cartoons about them, so don't be hypocrites now when someone mocks any religion or group (like police officers) and calls it art and others get offended and want it removed.
That is truly horrid and has nothing to do with art in any form.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,714
136
That is truly horrid and has nothing to do with art in any form.
"The only message is that I’m a Christian artist making a religious work of art based on my relationship with Christ and The Church. The crucifix is a symbol that has lost its true meaning; the horror of what occurred. It represents the crucifixion of a man who was tortured, humiliated and left to die on a cross for several hours. In that time, Christ not only bled to dead, he probably saw all his bodily functions and fluids come out of him. So if “Piss Christ” upsets people, maybe this is so because it is bringing the symbol closer to its original meaning. There was a time prior to the 17th century when the only important art, the only art that mattered, was religious art. After that, there were very few contemporary art pieces that were considered both art and religious, and “Piss Christ” is one of them"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/udoka-okafor/exclusive-interview-with-_18_b_5442141.html
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
"The only message is that I’m a Christian artist making a religious work of art based on my relationship with Christ and The Church. The crucifix is a symbol that has lost its true meaning; the horror of what occurred. It represents the crucifixion of a man who was tortured, humiliated and left to die on a cross for several hours. In that time, Christ not only bled to dead, he probably saw all his bodily functions and fluids come out of him. So if “Piss Christ” upsets people, maybe this is so because it is bringing the symbol closer to its original meaning. There was a time prior to the 17th century when the only important art, the only art that mattered, was religious art. After that, there were very few contemporary art pieces that were considered both art and religious, and “Piss Christ” is one of them"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/udoka-okafor/exclusive-interview-with-_18_b_5442141.html
It is a disgusting piece of filth. Regardless of what the idiot that made it says.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
No, there isn't any "whoosh" to it on my part.

This turd is passing off body fluids as art and stupid people are buying it hook line and sinker. There is the Whoosh if there is any.

I guess you and VG bought into it. It is so sad.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,282
10,094
136
No, there isn't any "whoosh" to it on my part.

This turd is passing off body fluids as art and stupid people are buying it hook line and sinker. There is the Whoosh if there is any.

I guess you and VG bought into it. It is so sad.
So says the petulant man-child.

Hey it isn't my taste, but it is art you can make all the angry comments you want to it doesn't change that fact.

Hell I was at a museum a few months ago and saw an art piece that was candy on a floor that visitors were encouraged to take. Seemed strange at first until the background and meaning of the piece was explained.

But since a few people want to derail this thread and deflect from the original subject why don't we bring it back?

Was it appropriate to remove the piece in question in the OP of this thread? Was it really offensive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
So says the petulant man-child.

Hey it isn't my taste, but it is art you can make all the angry comments you want to it doesn't change that fact.

Hell I was at a museum a few months ago and saw an art piece that was candy on a floor that visitors were encouraged to take. Seemed strange at first until the background and meaning of the piece was explained.

But since a few people want to derail this thread and deflect from the original subject why don't we bring it back?

Was it appropriate to remove the piece in question in the OP of this thread? Was it really offensive?
See why do you and yours always have to resort to name calling?

I made no angry comments. And the fact is anybody that thinks body excrement is art is one sick chicken. That is the actual fact. Sorry if that offends you.

Sure lets bring it back to the OP Subject.

I think that it never should have been hung in the first place as it does not meet the rules that I saw posted for the contest. Something about the subject matter.

I will say that it does qualify as art, no matter how bad it is. I don't see that it is personally offensive to me, but can see where a policeman or woman would be offended.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
It is a disgusting piece of filth. Regardless of what the idiot that made it says.
The problem for you is that no one elected you OMNISCIENT UNIVERSAL ARBITER OF ART

Art is inherently meaningless to a large degree. It is the individual person that brings meaning to it, and that includes all they have learned from their society. The form of the art and the environment it is in contribute some inherent meaning but the person experiencing it has to do the rest.

The notion that the intention of the artist is all that matters or doesn't matter — both are false. Everyone contributes to the meaning of art. No one owns it either. It is not fully definable because it's a subjective attitude on the part of the person experiencing it that completes it. We can use culturally-shared understandings as a reference but those are never fully universal.

All art policemen are like fashion policemen — arbitrary.

Now, if a statue shoots needles out of its eyes and kills kids viewing it there is a lot less subjectivity in terms of whether or not the piece of art is "bad". This is because the culturally-shared understanding is a lot more universal — protect kids from killer stuff. This factor, though, is a mundane one, not an issue of art. It doesn't matter if it's needles out of a statue or something most wouldn't call art. "Performance art" in particular, though, becomes a truly murky area. And the needle example points to why we have things like ratings labels for products. Consent is a majorly debated factor in art/censorship. A radical artist says the art needs to be forced on people to expand their mental horizons. The conservative viewer says it's like being assaulted (ironically, like the conservative "rape lesbians to turn them straight" mindset).

All art is performative, though. It's really a quagmire to get into because it's the subjective experience that defines it. Good luck defining each individual's subjective experiences for everything that can be potentially experienced artistically.
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
I hope the next time you go to the zoo, some monkeys hurl some art at you then.

After all they are just expressing themselves and their opinion.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Who is saying things that are culturally and historically insensitive to black people? And who is they? I feel you are projecting a false equivalency narrative that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
If you can't trivially find "both sides" in your posts and couple similar others above then I'm afraid it's a lost cause.

It is a disgusting piece of filth. Regardless of what the idiot that made it says.
Figures that art which is supposed to make people think doesn't work on the mindless.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
14,116
4,159
136
I hope the next time you go to the zoo, some monkeys hurl some art at you then.

After all they are just expressing themselves and their opinion.
I realise that you're just expressing yourself here and you don't have anything better to express, but can you stop threadcrapping please?
 
  • Like
Reactions: superstition

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
I realise that you're just expressing yourself here and you don't have anything better to express, but can you stop threadcrapping please?
That is "ThreadArting" By the way.I didn't bring up the human waste as art someone else did. Take it up with them.

If you don't like my post don't read them. They have an ignore feature for that very purpose.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY