Another reason why the NYT is a disgrace - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-05-2007, 02:25 PM   #61
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Holy shit...literally. Now I've heard it all.

Nudity has been used in art since, well, forever as well, but that hardly means that surrounding an image of the Madonna with phonographic cut-outs of vaginas and buttocks wouldn't be perceived by many Christians as a offensive.

But this isn't about "art" hanging in a gallery. It's about a picture of it being published in a newspaper that just 24 hours earlier declared it's editorial policy was to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

However, next time I visit Paris and the Musée du Louvre I'll be sure and check out their, no doubt, immense exhibit of Elephant Dung Art. Guess I missed it last time.
Oh, now you go look up what you should have been offended by...

Funny you didn't mention that before. Um, Mary has been painted nude before. What is pornographic about a vagina exactly? Isn't that how Jesus was delivered?

But you are right this isn't about art hanging in the gallery, it's the fact that you wouldn't have been offended by the newsprint picture of it, until you went and did some research as to why you were offended by it. Kinda funny isn't it that you have to look up why you are offended, while the cartoons offended and were designed to offend from first glance.

And yes the Louve actually does have art using Elephant dung, Elk dung, human and animal blood. So you did miss it.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-05-2007, 03:48 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Oh, now you go look up what you should have been offended by...

Funny you didn't mention that before.


Actually I did. Read my first post, it says:
THE NEXT DAY -- ran a picture of Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary, a "work of art" that shows the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornographic images and clumps of elephant dung.
Why would I have to be told that was offensive?

Quote:
But you are right this isn't about art hanging in the gallery, it's the fact that you wouldn't have been offended by the newsprint picture of it, until you went and did some research as to why you were offended by it. Kinda funny isn't it that you have to look up why you are offended, while the cartoons offended and were designed to offend from first glance.
And how would a reader of the New York Times know if the cartoons were offensive? Because they were told so? If they can publish an offensive picture in the context of a story about art, why not in another seemingly more important story about rioting and freedom of the press?

Quote:
And yes the Louve actually does have art using Elephant dung, Elk dung, human and animal blood. So you did miss it.
I didn't go in the basement.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 03:57 PM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:43 AM
i suppose it's true that the NYT is held to a far, far, far higher standard than the various right-wing outfits conservatives like to wish the NYT is, but only on the left. if we were to take the exacting standards INDY seems to be demanding of the NYT and apply them to FoxNews, or even the (rightly) esteemed WSJ, just what would happen?

hence, the best newspaper on earth. perfect? hardly. nuanced, intelligent, comprehensive? absolutely.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 04:37 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i suppose it's true that the NYT is held to a far, far, far higher standard than the various right-wing outfits conservatives like to wish the NYT is, but only on the left. if we were to take the exacting standards INDY seems to be demanding of the NYT and apply them to FoxNews, or even the (rightly) esteemed WSJ, just what would happen?

What would happen? Well if you're a Democratic candidate for president of the United States, better to cancel a debate on FoxNews than face a bunch of journalistic lowbrows like Brit Hume or Chris Wallace. Right?
Quote:
hence, the best newspaper on earth. perfect? hardly. nuanced, intelligent, comprehensive? absolutely.
And, if you're a jidhidist, sometimes downright indispensable.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 04:44 PM   #65
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Actually I did. Read my first post, it says:
THE NEXT DAY -- ran a picture of Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary, a "work of art" that shows the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornographic images and clumps of elephant dung.
Why would I have to be told that was offensive?
I didn't realize a vagina is a pornographic image.

But none of this you could have seen from the image in a newspaper.


Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

And how would a reader of the New York Times know if the cartoons were offensive? Because they were told so? If they can publish an offensive picture in the context of a story about art, why not in another seemingly more important story about rioting and freedom of the press?
Are you assuming there aren't Muslims who read the New York Times? If they were printed they would have known they were offensive. What kind of question is that?

One is designed to be offensive in newsprint and another is something you wouldn't know was offensive unless you went to the exhibit back in 99, even then it's left up to interpretation.

The context is not the same, and you're fooling yourself to think so.


Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

I didn't go in the basement.


I'm just guessing you never took an art class in your life.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:10 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
[B]

I didn't realize a vagina is a pornographic image.
Then why don't you post a picture of one (and not Britney's, we've all seen that one), and let's see if the mods agree with you.

Quote:
Are you assuming there aren't Muslims who read the New York Times? If they were printed they would have known they were offensive. What kind of question is that?
Proving my point. Who say's Muslims have a right not to be offended? You or I don't have that right. Christians don't have that right. Just Muslim readers of the New York Times I guess.

I'm going to give Muslims in this country much more credit than that. I think they would have seen a political cartoon for what it was -- a political cartoon -- someone's opinion expressed in a free society. The worst one showing Mohammed with his turban morphing into a bomb if I remember right.
Pretty lame by political cartoon standards.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:26 PM   #67
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Then why don't you post a picture of one (and not Britney's, we've all seen that one), and let's see if the mods agree with you.
There's a difference between pornographic, and what some may consider indescent exposure. I could post a picture from a scientific journal, I could post a photograph, but you are not guaranteed 100% free speech in here. Besides, if I did wouldn't you be considered trolling since you provoked me?



Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Proving my point. Who say's Muslims have a right not to be offended? You or I don't have that right. Christians don't have that right. Just Muslim readers of the New York Times I guess.

I'm going to give Muslims in this country much more credit than that. I think they would have seen a political cartoon for what it was -- a political cartoon -- someone's opinion expressed in a free society. The worst one showing Mohammed with his turban morphing into a bomb if I remember right.
Pretty lame by political cartoon standards.
Well this is a completely different argument, and it wasn't just the turban into a bomb. There are very strict rules as to how Mohammed can be portrayed.

But this isn't the point. The point you made was the NYT is disgraceful for printing one and not the other.

One doesn't go against strict rules of the government, it may be bad taste according to you but it doesn't fall into the strict guidelines of being blasphemy, and the other does.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-05-2007, 06:01 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
[B]
Well this is a completely different argument, and it wasn't just the turban into a bomb. There are very strict rules as to how Mohammed can be portrayed.
Who's strict rules? Islam, since when are non-Muslims bound by Islamic strictures? Can Catholics who don't eat meat on Friday demand that all Burger Kings and Outback Steak Houses be closed on Friday? Don't think so.
I'm not comfortable with any art that goes out of it's way to offend any religion. But the big stink over these cartoons was not so much over their offensiveness, but rather the fact that they dared to criticize (by a crude stereotype to be sure but not without some truth) the Muslim religion. Something, you may not have noticed as a Times reader, that is not tolerated very well by some pre-Enlightenment Islamic societies.

Quote:
But this isn't the point. The point you made was the NYT is disgraceful for printing one and not the other.
Disgraceful in it's cowardice.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 06:09 PM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Disgraceful in it's cowardice.
Well they are just peace loving, porno pushing libruls afterall.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-06-2007, 10:43 AM   #70
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 06:43 AM
the mayor of the city who's airport was supposed to go boom boom has said it's no big deal, get over it.

you should heed his advice.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 06-06-2007, 10:48 AM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase it's no big deal, get over it.


and, for some, neither is Abu Ghraib.

but Our Blessed Mother of Camel Dung? now that shit matters.







and, please, tell me, the dogs. why? am utterly preplexed. i can't tell who's who in WTAHNN anymore.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-06-2007, 11:41 AM   #72
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 06:43 AM
http://forum.interference.com/showth...&pagenumber=26
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 06-06-2007, 12:22 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


and, for some, neither is Abu Ghraib.

but Our Blessed Mother of Camel Dung? now that shit matters.

Hell, I didn't even bring up Jayson Blair cause that's just too easy.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-06-2007, 12:51 PM   #74
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Hell, I didn't even bring up Jayson Blair cause that's just too easy.


and what did the NYT fail to do when it underwent it's week-long self-flaggelation/purging afterwards and the subsequent departure of editor Howard Raines?

if only the Bush administration would ever show such rectitude when it's caught with it's pants down.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-06-2007, 03:27 PM   #75
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 06:43 AM
if the dems win in '08, can we go back to having a vast right wing conspiracy, as opposed to the current vast left wing conspiracy?
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com