Ya hear that Jay? Professor X is accusing Alabamans of unleashing racist ducks into our midst. I know you ain’t gonna let em get away with that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hey, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and burns crosses in yards like a duck, I reserve the right to yell out, “Look at that fucking DUCK!” whenever I feel like it.
That’s what my grandaddy fought in the war for.[/quote]
Yeah, but my grandddaddies had other problems, like being killed by partisans or getting irreparably damaged on the Eastern Front, so my need to point out the obvious in this area is probably not as pressing as yours.
I am very big on not sacrificing for stupid causes though, so I learned something!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ya hear that Jay? Professor X is accusing Alabamans of unleashing racist ducks into our midst. I know you ain’t gonna let em get away with that.[/quote]
Unfortunately, he’s right. We have lots of racist ducks down here.
I had one guy tell me, to my face, how wrong it was for my dad to have any participation in my niece’s life because she’s not all white. I am not proud of the language, tone, suggestions, or hypotheticals I used in my rebuttal. My facial expressions and body language were undoubtedly not the best, either.
We still have a long way to go. But I can tell you without a doubt that the words and actions of our president and his administration have not helped the situation one bit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If so…why?[/quote]
yes.
Mainly because I didn’t want to wait 30 damn seconds to see it
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If so…why?[/quote]
Because it is blaspheme. [/quote]
How so ?[/quote]
It speaks irreverently to God or sacred things.
Sorry, SexMo. Does not qualify. Those ducks are black, thus they cannot be racist. Only white ducks can be racist.
Don’t you know anything?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Sorry, SexMo. Does not qualify. Those ducks are black, thus they cannot be racist. Only white ducks can be racist.
Don’t you know anything?[/quote]
Yes you’re right.
Fixed.
lawl.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Trying to race bait again Professor ?
You did well with Clint’s empty chair, hope these folks don’t fall for it twice. [/quote]
Race bait? LOL, more like bait the Christians to come out from their catacombs. I can almost hear their pincers click as they scurry forth.
To all the Christians who got bent out of shape:
-
There’s a hell of a lot more offensive things out there. You need to get out more. What offends me is that people are whining about stupid shit like this (and making stupid “art” like this) when there are real problems that need to be fixed.
-
If you are one of the people here that’s arguing that there should be standards in terms of good taste/taboos, where we you when “Innocence of Muslims” was plastering the news? Were you busy condemning that piece of shi… “art”? Surely you can see how that could be seen as offensive.
-
Personally, I think it’s good that people are getting offended… GREAT, in fact. Why? It is a sign of free speech, one of the most fundamental tenets of Western democracy.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Trying to race bait again Professor ?
You did well with Clint’s empty chair, hope these folks don’t fall for it twice. [/quote]
Race bait? LOL, more like bait the Christians to come out from their catacombs. I can almost hear their pincers click as they scurry forth.
To all the Christians who got bent out of shape:
-
There’s a hell of a lot more offensive things out there. You need to get out more. What offends me is that people are whining about stupid shit like this (and making stupid “art” like this) when there are real problems that need to be fixed.
-
If you are one of the people here that’s arguing that there should be standards in terms of good taste/taboos, where we you when “Innocence of Muslims” was plastering the news? Were you busy condemning that piece of shi… “art”? Surely you can see how that could be seen as offensive.
-
Personally, I think it’s good that people are getting offended… GREAT, in fact. Why? It is a sign of free speech, one of the most fundamental tenets of Western democracy.[/quote]
lol awww somebody’s annoyed at Christians. Boohoo.
-
Prof. X put this up and ASKED us to discuss whether or not it was offensive. Some people provided arguments for why its offensive, all the while saying THAT THEY DIDN’T REALLY CARE. NO ONE was whining. You would know this if you read the rest of the thread.
-
I (and I dare say, most everyone else in this thread) did not even know about this painting until X brought it up. And frankly, I don’t understand what picture you think you’re painting, but even if the Christians on here HAD been preoccupied with decrying that painting as offensive at the same time the Muslims were decrying that film, who are YOU to judge which issue is more worthy of complaint? Just because some Muslims have killed people over that movie, that doesn’t mean that it is inherently MORE offensive than the painting.
-
LOL again, if you had read the thread, you would know that several Christians have stated that they are pro-free speech, yet still wish someone hadn’t used that right to create something Christians would find offensive. The legitimacy of free speech has never even been questioned.
Next time, browse the thread before posting. You came off like a pompous teenager and contributed nothing to the discussion.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Useless chatter. This isn’t GAL.[/quote]
Ah, my sincerest apologies. I forgot that there’s an unwritten rule about shoving the stick twice as far up your ass and twisting it before you post here. And no smiles allowed! Seriousness at all times is enforced on pain of death.
Well, the painting sure doesn’t offend me, but I can’t say I think much of it as art. How I feel about it largely depends on how it is interpreted, which could be in a number of ways. It could be interpreted as giving Obama a messianic quality, as many have already stated. In this instance, I do not agree with the message, but view it a little differently. Many people, especially the poor, repressed, and non-white (of which there is significant overlap) already view Obama as a potential saviour. I view the painting as a warning of what could be: the development of a cult of personality.
Fair message, but I dislike the use of shock value employed, as I would imagine that the painting could very easily have a politically polarizing effect on people. Many of Obama’s fiercest critics are conservative white Christians, who, I imagine, would be more likely to be offended by this, and associate Obama with it.
There, does this suit your delicate, cultured sensibilities a little better?
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I do not agree with the message, but view it a little differently. Many people, especially the poor, repressed, and non-white (of which there is significant overlap) already view Obama as a potential saviour. I view the painting as a warning of what could be: the development of a cult of personality.
Fair message…[/quote]
Only that’s not what the artist intended to convey. The artist is an Obama drone who is attempting to ascribe Messianic qualities to Obama and create controversy at the same time.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I do not agree with the message, but view it a little differently. Many people, especially the poor, repressed, and non-white (of which there is significant overlap) already view Obama as a potential saviour. I view the painting as a warning of what could be: the development of a cult of personality.
Fair message…[/quote]
Only that’s not what the artist intended to convey. The artist is an Obama drone who is attempting to ascribe Messianic qualities to Obama and create controversy at the same time.[/quote]
That’s the thing about art: interpretation is subjective. The message the artist intended to convey isn’t really relevant. What’s relevant is the message the viewers take from it. That’s what art is all about: its effect on people, not the art itself. But that’s just my opinion on art.
So in my eyes the artist isn’t very good for failing to accurately convey the message to me. But, perhaps it is more Obama’s fault than anything. He’s taken much bigger steps toward creating a cult of personality than he has toward saving the USA.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
lawl.[/quote] x2 LOL! Here’s the proper training to avoid that:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
About as “artistic” as piss Jesus.[/quote]
“Obama in Pee Pee” by Glen Beck is actually more clever.*
- Beck did this just to see if Ebay, etc, would react as liberals typically react to mocking their sacred cows (crappy art and Obama – a twofer).
As expected, Ebay pulled the auction.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Here’s an example to make clear what I’m saying - if I call an African-American the N word, I can say all day long that I have given that word a different meaning, that I am using the N word as slang for “a real go-getter,” but despite my protestations, the fact remains that, in our cultural context, a white man using the N word is inherently derogatory. My “intent” is insignificant; I should recognize that I cannot go investing words with my own meanings and expecting someone else to catch my meanings.[/quote]
This guy puts it very well.
Do a quick google search of “crown of thorns”. Basically every single search result is a direct reference to Jesus. Unless the guy who painted this has lived under a rock his whole life, he obviously knew exactly what kind of comparison he was making. And it’s an idiotic one, by any standards.
The Jesus of the Bible lived in poverty, worked hard with his own hands, was a bad orator, was ugly, was tortured and brutally killed for proclaiming the truth, and rather than preaching that government was to handle the poor, he told INDIVIDUALS to care for the poor among them.
Barack Hussein Obama did NOT grow up in poverty, had every educational and otherwise opportunity handed to him, has probably never even been physically beaten, relies on a smooth tongue to get his way rather than actions, And rather than give of his own money, would rather force everyone else to give theirs whether they like it or not.
Nope, not even close. [/quote]
LOL.
I don’t think anyone is saying this piece of art will be used in museums 300 years from now to represent our contribution to history.
[/quote]
Its importance or significance is not the subject at hand though. The discussion is whether or not it is offensive.
Again, I agree it won’t go down in history books as an amazing work of art, but that’s not the point.
[quote]
I am also not sure why you think anyone think he isn’t referencing Christ at all. That isn’t the point. BLASPHEMY implies mockery or insult. Making a reference or a metaphore is the same?[/quote]
Because that is essentially the only thing that is worthy of discussion. Whether or not it “should” be offensive should be quite apparent.
To people that are christians, yeah, it should be offensive. It’s a stupid comparison of a politician to their Lord and Savior, Creator of the universe. That is a downright silly comparison for someone to make, and for someone that believes this way, it OUGHT to offend them. Now I’m not saying that artist’s house should be burnt down because of it, as certain other faiths might support, but that doesn’t change the distastefulness of the painting.
To people that are NOT christians, or in general don’t consider Jesus to be a real, holy person, of COURSE it should not be offensive. If you don’t even believe a person is real, why would it offend you to compare someone to them? I wouldn’t be offended if you compared Ronald Reagan to Santa Clause, even though they are nothing alike. I don’t believe in Santa Clause, why would I care? Having said that, anyone with any idea of who Jesus is known as as a figure, real or not in their eyes, should know how stupid the comparison is.