|
Forums >
General Industry >
Does Snow White upset anyone either?
In the words of Dewey when the family is taken to church to try and get free daycare for Jamie, "What is that big T on the wall for?" Nov 30 05 12:44 pm Link Hell, as long as I'm back in this htread... The Iron Cross was a German Medal of Honor both before and after the 3rd Reich. It was never adopted as the symbol of the Nazi Party. The 3rd Reich merely continued to use the traditional medal during their regime. It does not bear the same associations as the swastika flag. In fact, quite a few recipients of the Iron Cross ended up in those death camps. My grandfather would have been one of them had he not emmigrated a few years earlier. Also, I'd like to clarify, because a few people seem convinced that I must be biased because I'm no fan of Donna. I have no objection to the use of the swastika, including in it's Nazi incarnation in photographs, even poorly done photographs. I believe in the right to freeedom of speech, no matter how moronic I may personally find that speech. I do, however, object to taking a very emotionally charged and painful image to so many and flippantly shoving it in our faces in any old forum. There was a consensus among the moderators that such a symbol in such a context was inappropriate as an avatar for that reason. See Kuree's posts above for a not-so-very-atypical emotional reaction to the symbol. Donna was asked to show some curtesy and sensitivity in how and where she displayed what many would classify as symbolic hate speech. The avatar was marked 18+ in the interim just to keep it out of our faces until she could comply. There is at least a handful of members of MM who were actually in the camps, had loved ones there or have been targeted by neo-Nazis more recently. The symbol itself is beyond offensive for many. It is unbeliveably painful. Donna herself chose to make a request for civility a big to-do and act as though she were the victim of some great oppression, despite never having been asked to remove the image from the site altogether. She chose to start a thread in which she played the martyr and verbally vomitted a number of contradictory excuses for her actions, some of which were more insulting to several posters than the image itself. Yes, a couple of people found her use of the swastika at all reprehensible. Does that surprise anyone? It comes with the territory of slapping symbolic hate speech into an image. She deserves no pity for receiving the rebukes she invited. That's enough for now. Hopefully, it's enough for good. Nov 30 05 12:45 pm Link Shawn Kuck wrote: Wow. YOU are telling ME to learn my politics? You were the one who took Melvin's point about National Socialism not being tauted as the hip thing and went on about Socialism being tauted as the hip thing (not sure where you found that unless you've been hanging with the YPSLs). I was the one that pointed out the difference between the two. So are you contradicting me by paraphrasing me? Nov 30 05 12:52 pm Link this could get interesting...*shuts off Jerry springer and waits for the show to begin* Nov 30 05 12:56 pm Link No its not. My issue is not that Donna is getting attacked, my issue is that my beliefs are being attacked. One issue is that someone or group can take a symbol of power from many other religious/spiritual beliefs and bastardize it and the christian majority of our country can deem the symbol as evil. But a symbol that is a device of torture and death now thats reverent. Look at a simple pentagram and see what stigma that will draw. Unfortunately an iron cross does draw the same ire as the swastika, try wearing on in public and you will find the same. Whether or not art or what's done in the name of art is good or not, censorship of it is a travesty in any form. Art is there to make a statement, popular or unpopular, well conceived or poorly done. If that was the case I think Joel Peter Witkin would still be peddling his stuff on the black market. I don't agree with his work, but I sure as hell support his right to show it in any avenue he can. And I'll defend Donna's right to do so as well. As artists, as we all like to consider ourselves, I think we need to be a little more open to unpopular speech, it's what we do. Nov 30 05 01:10 pm Link theda wrote: They both take a simple belief and start to add a bunch of rules to it. Which is a bastardization. Our government is a bastardization of a republic. And like it or not Hitler was a fascist. Nov 30 05 01:15 pm Link i feel the need for a group hug growing. Nov 30 05 01:16 pm Link BCG wrote: Sweet group hug, come here big boy, lol Nov 30 05 01:25 pm Link Shawn Kuck wrote: I have worn an iron cross in public many times. It did not elicit the reaction a Nazi armband elicits. Perhaps I've only worn it among those with a reasonable grasp of European history? Nov 30 05 01:27 pm Link I didn't say it required you to allow it, I said as artists we should be more willing to accept it. To not condone what it says, but to also not hide it from the world. Nov 30 05 01:31 pm Link Shawn Kuck wrote: Well, honestly, I think if the shot had had some artistic merit, the response would have been more favorable. It's our art-fag bias. Nov 30 05 01:42 pm Link theda wrote: So your issue is the quality then? Nov 30 05 01:45 pm Link oh and by the by, I owe you an apology on the whole fascist vs. socialist thing I misread your post, my bad. My dyslexia kicked in. I apologize for my misinterpretation. Shawn Nov 30 05 01:51 pm Link theda wrote: You're beating your head against a wall, Theda. Nov 30 05 01:58 pm Link Shawn Kuck wrote: No, that was a grudging admission. A quality image with a contraversial message will get more sympathy. It's the sad truth. It would probably still have been de-avatared, but more grudgingly so. We certainly don't forbid bad photography 'round here, even as avatars. Nov 30 05 01:59 pm Link Dear God, this thread is still alive. Nov 30 05 01:59 pm Link The Photo Chick wrote: As you may have noticed, I enjoy beating my head against a wall. At the very least, I am oddly compelled to rephrase myself until I see a spark of comprehension. Nov 30 05 02:00 pm Link Donna Ricci wrote: Wow!!! Comparing fur coats to the Holocaust!!! I don't know whether to laugh or cry... Nov 30 05 02:06 pm Link theda wrote: This explains so much Nov 30 05 02:10 pm Link It's obvious by my post count that I like to keep out of this kind of thing, but here goes anyway... The main issue here seems to be freedom from vs. freedom to - Almost everyone wants freedom, but there are two types and they invariably run aground of one another. A "freedom to" person says, "I have the absolute and inalienable right to do, say, think, create, etc, anything my mind (or someone else's) can come up with." This person is usually intelligent, and in search of any type of stimulus and form of expression. Usually it is a rather callous (not a value judgment) mode of thinking as it is more concerned with ideas and immediacy than feelings and effects. One might even call this the "stronger" of the two modes of thinking as it does not require (or provide)much consideration for the wreckage it may leave in its wake. A "freedom from" person says, "the space between my ears (and in front of my eyes) is my solitary island; I have the absolute right to choose its contents." These peole are usually much more sensitive and compassionate, and have a much deeper understanding of human beings and what drives (or hinders) them. Things mean more to these people, as they generally attempt to avoid absorbing anything which they find hurtful or detrimental to their life experience. It necessarily leads to sensitivity, even over-sensitivity, to ideas, truths and concepts. American media (and perhaps by extension, society) is currently in a pendulum swing which leans towards this type of thinking. What is considered 'liberal' now is to be able to make racist, sexist, etc comments without fear of being censored, when up to even a few years ago (the much maligned "PC" movement) being 'liberal' meant being tolerant and gentle towards those same issues. Oddly enough, "freedom to" types become quite sensitive and attempt to censor those who say that they are indeed callous, invasive or negative, and "freedom from" types frequently beome extremely abrasive, outspoken and vociferous about protecting their right not to hear things. It's funny how quickly folks switch sides. My honest opinion, since I've danced around actually giving it, is that in any situation where one has to deal with others (which is pretty much everywhere) the "freedom from" point of view most often is the smart choice. I think Greg Graffin (please say you've heard of Bad Religion) said it best, "hey, do what you want, but don't do it around me." A freedom to world often devalues the things which have given meaning to people's lives. Life is, essentially, pointless in the grand scheme of things, so why not make what meaning you can of one's own existence? Though I want my (not likely to exist) children to understand the difference between the wheel of life and the swastika, I would feel that I had done them a disservice if they were not emotionally stirred in some way by symbols so rich with meaning. And preferably not sexually stirred. I would never censor anything completely, but it must be understood that, no, one does not ever have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want. Thinking otherwise is just as naive as thinking that you'll never see anything you don't want to see. A "freedom from" type will have to deal with things they don't want to see and hear. Conversely, a "freedom to" type will be censored when they choose an ill-advised means of expression. C'est la vie. I have too much time on my hands, apparently. Nov 30 05 03:08 pm Link theda wrote: Glamour Boulevard wrote: You've got that right! Nov 30 05 03:14 pm Link Patrick Walberg wrote: What battle? She is not permitted to use the image as her avatar. I don't care if 8 billion people choose to look at it because of this thread. The idea was to keep an offensive image out of people's faces when they did NOT choose to seek it out. Nov 30 05 03:56 pm Link To better understand your own meanings, I think we need to look at a few definitions Fetish: is a natural object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular an object created by people that has power over people. In the 19th century Karl Marx appropriated the term to describe commodity fetishism as an important component of capitalism. Now, fetish has been bastardised to mean "a sexual object of extreme desire", but we can thank Freud for that description. Swastika: Since the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party and Hitler, the swastika has been associated with fascism, racism (primarily white supremacy), World War II, and the Holocaust in much of the western world. SO, if we WANT to be techincal here, you have a sexual desire to be outlandish, in your face and "screw you" about the swastika. Technically, I agree, it originally had NOTHING to do with the Nazi/Socialist empire, but it has, in fact, taken that meaning. You knew this coming into this discussion. You realize that this is an offensive situation that can easily be avoided. I understand that you hate the use of animals as fur, so how come it is so UNGODLY impossible for you understand why people would get offended over an Icon that has haunted the lives of MILLIONS of people? I also understand that you seem to value the life of a small furry rat over that of a human. A productive being of society. I don't see that rat raising your economy, or going out to make money to buy you food. All I see that rat doing is eating YOUR food because he can. He doesn't care about you. I am an animal rights activist, but I also realize that you must first understand humans and defend their god given right to exist, before you can EVER stand up for any animal. So until you learn that humans are just as important as any animal on this planet, you will never truly understand anything in your life. And maybe you were right in saying that you aren't smart enough to realize when you are offending someone. That sounds like a personal problem. Just because YOU don't realize it, doesn't mean that everyone else has to sit back and let it happen. Get over the fact that your picture was censored. This is a site that YOU chose to come and join, you weren't made to. You CHOSE to sign their rules, no one made you. So, until someone MAKES you do something, stop complaining. Your picture is still there, it's just not in everyone's face. Maybe you are lying when you say that you aren't here to shock and awe. You'd have to be to be throwing a fit about it NOT being your main avatar. Why else would you get so angry about it when just about anyone on this site can go LOOK at your other pictures. I'm going to stop ranting now. This has put me in a "different" mood. ~ athena hollow ~ Dec 01 05 12:42 am Link |
