"I WILL SHOOT AND KILL THOSE WHO DARE TO CALL ISLAM AND IT'S PROPHET VIOLENT!"
What's the "race baiting" tag there for?
No idea, but on a side note, that pre-load image of Wolverine wearing a turban is pretty bad-ass.
race baiting because that's what a lot of people are going to call this, and I might as well make it easier for them to find.
"Dog sets world record for not giving a shit"
How is this race baiting? Musilm extremists come from a diversity of nations/cultures.
"Black culture is a Jeudo-Christian culture"
|That guy |
Sometimes it takes sorta crappy people to point shit out.
assholes daring assholes to shoot them get shot
Ah, Pamela Geller. A real gem of a gal.
What I'd like to see is an art exhibit exactly like this, only with offensive images of Princess Diana, MLK, and Mr Rogers.
I'm shock, Homie. Talking to my partner about this, what came to mind to both of us was PissChrist and ( more recently ) the elephant dung paintings of catholic saints. I saw PissChrist at one of the Whitney Biennials, and the elephant dung one at the Brooklyn Museum. The latter was when the controversy was hot, and it resulted in Rudy Guilliani taking a shit on the thing himself. Outside of that, some woman tried to deface it with scissors I think.
What did really surprise me about that show was that, in the next room, was another dung painting by the same artist, showing all the major black civil rights leaders. Dung MLK, dung Malcolm X, etc etc. This warranted _no_ press at all at the time. Didn't know the piece existed until we walked in the door. Obviously, the painter hisself was black, so the usual knees weren't too keen on jerking.
Piss Christ and Elephant Dung aren't really that controversial, though! They're offensive to a vocal minority of Americans, but I think most people, particularly people connected with the art world and people in positions of power (such as the owners of America's six media corporations), tend to be either indifferent towards, or actively support, both works. I'm actually a little surprised, at once pleased and disheartened, that the artist of dung saints also did a dung painting of MLK, which did not make news. But I think that, in order to *really* shock "Americans", we're going to have to pull out all stops. There's got to be at least one thing in the exhibit that is offensive to every identity group we can think of. Preferably, offensive things should be combined, so it'd be harder for news reporters to cherry pick one narrative and ignore the other.
Of course, it's difficult to think of something that *nobody* could possibly hate and *everyone* would feel upset if you mocked. Maybe LeVar Burton? Or The Simpsons Season 5?
Make no mistake, I'm all for freedom of speech, and I'm glad that these people are making fun of Muhammad. But it is incorrect to assume that Muslims are the only group susceptible to butthurt, nor that they are the only group which has decided that free speech is an outdated inconvenience - a hindrance to righteous, benevolent social-engineering, which really need only be invoked when speech that they agree with is threatened.
For example: what if I painted a picture of Boxxy, crying, with a dick in her mouth? I would not do this, because it is mean, but I'd wager you fifty bucks that John Holmes Motherfucker would issue a 3,000 word fatwa for my death.
Ich bin ein Muslimer.
Remembering a bit more now ( this shit is _old_ homer, and so am I apparently )...
There were three pieces. Dung madonna, dung black civil rights leaders, and dung black jazz greats. I'm sure a little googling would produce the pictures.
I think you should do a series of tumblr dung paintings. Given the reaction I got just mentioning the word on the Star Wars thread was not unlike applying a 12v battery to a pithed frog's leg, you should make some bank there.
Was it this?
There's no mention anywhere about the works you describe, but Mr Ofili's page makes it clear that most of his paintings incorporate dung as a medium, and he's fond of painting gangsta rappers.
On a related note, "Elephant Shit Tupac" would make a great band name.
I'd actually agree with Rudy, in so far as the idea of federally subsidizing controversial art is problematic. Taxation is extorted wealth, and while there's certainly no moral grounds for destroying Mr Ofili's paintings or for punishing artists for speaking their minds, forcing other people to pay for something that they don't agree with is another matter.
However, it is necessary to point out that ALL art is controversial to somebody - if you filled the Metropolitan Museum up with Thomas Kinkade paintings, I can guarantee you that the national Hipster council would throw a conniption fit. Spend tax money on Garfield wallprints and Garfield Big-Mouth Masks, and everybody save fifty year-old single women would be up in arms. I, for one, would really hate to see the state spend money on anything scribbled out by a Frenchmen (fuck you, Manet!). Should *any* art be federally subsidized? Should it all be funded privately, through donations? Crowd-sourced? Or what?
Personally, I think the best idea would be to strike a compromise, and instead of having art galleries, we should just set aside some unregulated Commons for art. Take a big unused building, or a public square, and simply let local graffiti artists and buskers and teenagers with furry webcomics on Tumblr come on down and do, you know, whatever? The internet's pretty much killed the original purpose of the traditional art museum anyways, which was to give the masses access to culture; why not just let the old girl die and replace it with something cheaper, fairer, freer, and more egalitarian?
Every city, sell off the art, tear down the museum, and replace it with a Burning Man square. The money you save could be used to provide free wifi service to a large section of the city, allowing every citizen instant access to whatever sort of art they like, all without intruding upon the rights of anyone else! And the Commons would be a lot more fun than snobby elitist art museums; instead of nearly-empty rooms with stuffy old bullshit like that French asshole Manet, you might see giant murals of colorful spray-painted dongs, or a troupe of costumed furries who perform the works of Shakespeare every night.
It would be wonderful.
What you are describing was the lower east side in general and the East Village in particular. All those things and more were on parade nightly. Once the money came in, they were all chased out and replaced by bars and restaurants. There is no need to teat down the big museums, tho. I saw a lot of good stuff there and it was always either donation or free to access. The collection of Rodin sculpture at the Brooklyn Museum for example is a real treat. Not sure if it would be improved by sitting in a 1%'ers garage, which is more or less what you are practically suggesting.
East Village is a spontaneous community, and doesn't exist in most cities, certainly not to the same degree. It was also pretty awesome, so I fail to see how comparing my Burning Men Commons to the East Village could be construed as a bad thing.
What I'm proposing is something MORE than the East Village, in every city across America (or at least those which would sign up), and open to everyone (not just trustafarians), in lieu of traditional museums. You wouldn't have to worry about gentrification, either, since with enough furries and winos hanging about them, the damn richers would be sure to stay away - and even if they didn't, it ultimately wouldn't matter, since the problems caused by the gentrification of the East Village were for *the people who lived there*, not for people who just wanted to visit and hang out at CBGBs.
Now, perhaps I was exaggerating when I said "tear down" the museums - I don't think the museums should *literally* be torn down, as such destruction would be wasteful and unnecessary (except, perhaps, in a few cases, where the destruction could be played out as performative art e.g. burning MOMA to the ground, with dozens of art critics caged inside it). The former museum buildings could either be re-purposed as Art Commons squat-houses, OR, they could be sold off to private buyers. Primitive, out-dated, Meat-Space museums would still exist, but they'd simply be owned, operated, and paid for without tax money; universities, private trusts maybe, or even community associations funded by dues. If nobody of means is interested in the displaced art, we could even simply redistribute it amongst the poor; how cool would it be if every housing block in New York City was given a single piece of art from the Metropolitan, to do with as they wished? Who knows, you might even get your very own Rodin statue in the alley out back of your house!
Also, does anyone actually know who the gunmen *were*? It seems to me that this should be the first question on everyone's minds, the question to answer before anyone tries to analyze the event or formulate an opinion as to the broader implications of what just happened. Yet as of now, I cannot find any info as to the identity of the gunmen, or even if the shooting was connected to the Muhammad Exhibit at all.
Furthermore, the "bomb" thing, which is cropping up in a bunch of news stories and features prominently in this video as the attendees are bumrushed out of the auditorium, appears to have been, in fact, nothing more than procedure. The bomb squad was called in as a matter of routine, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely bomb-like was either suspected or found.
One of the suspects is a domestic halfwit named Elton Simpson and he apparently telegraphed the botched drive-by shooting on Facebook before he went through with it. The ISIS boys are probably facepalming right now.
LOL, oh man.
"Officials believe Simpson is the person who sent out several Twitter messages prior to the attack on Sunday, in the last one using the hashtag #TexasAttack about half an hour before the shooting."
"no more fooling around"
Everyone is stupid. But if I have to choose sides, I'll go with the non-gun-toting stupid.
|Oscar Wildcat |
Funny thing is, when I first heard the news, I thought "what a magnificent troll!" and then I thought "were the homeland security people really smart enough to lay in ambush?" But no. In fact, even _with_ the massive archive of dick pictures, they seemed unaware until the attack actually happened. Maybe if the archive included tit pictures?
Pamela Geller runs the "Stop Islamization of America" hate group, which is identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group, and got EXACTLY what she wanted out of this exhibit...dead Muslims.
I'm not saying the shooters were right because this was OBVIOUSLY bait by a hate group looking to set up a violent reaction from knee-jerk idiots. But to say that this is a free speech issue is to let the same hate group hide behind "muh freedum" for the sake of provoking this sort of thing.
tl;dr Pamela Geller is an asshole who wants to see more dead brown people.
If only the the SPLC were as hard on Islam (the largest and most dangerous hate group on the planet) as they are on Christianity.
The SPLC is itself a hate group. Everyone involved in this was made for one another.
Lotta victim blaming on this page.
this is really nothing more than a bunch of bigots bent on each other's misery since it was on our turf the brown ones died.
fuck them both.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|