27
   

The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 11:16 am
@McGentrix,
I believe you are trying very hard to make a point of at best very questionable merit. You should back off from it. The capitol building is the seat of the national government. There's a good deal of art there, both statuary and paintings, but all of it evokes the best aspirations of the country, its founders and our traditions. It is not a private art gallery where anyone can display his art or propaganda, as you foolishly suggest.

The painting hung there in defiance of the rules of the legislature is of no partiucular artistic merit, and instead was quite obviously put there as a very partisan political statement by advocates apparently interested in furthering public discord regarding crime and police enforcement. The message it conveys is offensive to both our values and to proplee involved in the envorcement of the law. It has no place in our Capitol.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 12:27 pm


How many American blacks got shot & killed in democrat controlled Chiraq these past 8 years?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 12:31 pm
@McGentrix,
You are right about art in general, but this is art displayed in a government building intended to represent everyone...including police and their families and friends.

I suppose a proper political and artistic response might be to hang artwork that portrays African-Americans as savages or apes, but that would be equally reprehensible.

Perhaps the answer is that only artwork that depicts current or former elected members of the government should be allowed. Pretty dull, but democratic.



0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 12:42 pm
How embarrassing it must be to have ever supported 0bama.
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 12:48 pm



Just say NO to #corybooker
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 02:31 pm
@georgeob1,
"No particular artistic merit"?!

You are kidding, right? You have no right to decide artistic merit any more than I do. The painting is a direct response to current events going on in many cities across the country. This one was particular to the 2014 protests of police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri.

It was hung with other art from various high schools across the country and was picked as first place in a juried art show. It was not a special painting hung in the foyer by itself.

I can't believe I have to be the one defending freedom here.

“The U.S. Capitol is a symbol of freedom, not censorship. The young artist chose his own subject and the painting will not be removed.”
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 03:50 pm
@McGentrix,
This isn't a question of freedom.

If Rep Hunter and his fellows were attempting to ban the painting from ever being shown anywhere, it would be.

Smoking pot is now legal in DC (something I'm personally not against) but does that mean the government must allow anyone who enters the Capital the freedom to smoke a joint?

I don't have a major objection to this artwork being displayed, (I think its lousy art but by taste isn't a criterion) but I respect those who do and the Capitol is a symbol of E Pluribus Unum as much as it is of freedom. As such, it should avoid the display of any artwork that obviously engenders marked division among the polity. That's really not such a hard row to hoe.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 08:04 pm
@McGentrix,
Gent, are you really trying to insist that they are no reasonable limits on "free speech?"

Some people think that their right to free speech imposes a duty to listen to them on all others. Can a guy bust into my living room and start espousing his favorite political views any time he wants because, after all, he has the right to free speech?

Should I have the "right" to hang a painting depicting perverse sexual child abuse in a kindergarten classroom, because (1) it's "art," and (2) I like it?

The (fake) leftist ideal of being "non-judgmental" is ludicrous, and, furthermore, it is one that the left itself strongly rejects, lip-service to the contrary notwithstanding.

Such notions are always a one-way street with them: YOU must be tolerant, while I am intolerant. YOU must refrain from judging me, while I judge you, etc.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 09:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

This isn't a question of freedom.


To the extent that someone censored an art piece, that was one among many, this is about freedom of expression. Because someone finds a painting objectionable does not give that person a right to censor it for others.

Quote:
If Rep Hunter and his fellows were attempting to ban the painting from ever being shown anywhere, it would be.


I doubt it. This painting won a contest in Baltimore. There is nothing obscene about the painting and had they not removed it in the first place, I doubt we'd even know of it's existence.

Quote:
Smoking pot is now legal in DC (something I'm personally not against) but does that mean the government must allow anyone who enters the Capital the freedom to smoke a joint?


If they have a contest where someone has to smoke pot in the most creative way possible and then that person wins a contest juried by other pot smokers that was sponsored by their congressman, sure. They should be allowed in the Capital bldg and smoke pot all day. I think smoking is banned in doors though so that would probably be a sticking point.

Quote:
I don't have a major objection to this artwork being displayed, (I think its lousy art but by taste isn't a criterion) but I respect those who do and the Capitol is a symbol of E Pluribus Unum as much as it is of freedom. As such, it should avoid the display of any artwork that obviously engenders marked division among the polity. That's really not such a hard row to hoe.


Yes it is. Who gets to judge what engenders marked division?

Do you find this painting offensive?

https://www.aoc.gov/sites/default/files/styles/artwork-node/public/images/artwork/6237383173_e5ca34098d_b.jpg?itok=k3Z6ckuL

I bet there are more than a few people who find Columbus landing in the new world quite offensive. His enslavement and mutilation of the natives he found, should be enough to warrant that no painting depicting his "heroism" should be in the Capital bldg, right? Yet there is, right in the Rotunda of all places!

So, who do we want to decide what is art and what isn't? What gets to stay and what has to go? I never thought you'd have been one for censorship.

McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 09:16 pm
@layman,
Don't go all extremist on me Layman. How is my saying a painting ought to be able to be hung with other paintings is in any way equivalent to saying that there are no reasonable limits on "free speech?"

I said that if you don't like the painting, don't look at it. Did you read the words I wrote? How is a painting hanging in Washington D.C. anywhere near someone busting in to your house?

How you got "a painting depicting perverse sexual child abuse in a kindergarten classroom, because (1) it's "art," and (2) I like it?" from anything I said tells me that you are not paying any attention. Why do you feel the need to be an extremist in this matter?

No one is saying you have to be tolerant of everything or anything. Do you watch CNN? Do you think other people should be allowed to watch CNN or do you think the producers should be taken out, drawn and quartered?

You can sit in judgement all day long, but your judgement shall have zero bearing on what I sit in judgement of.

Let's take another example. Blatham routinely suggests placing users on ignore. Do think he should instead have them banned and have their A2K privileges revoked?

That's what taking that painting down is like. It's not like posting kiddie porn in a kindergarten or suggesting that there are no limits on free speech.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 09:22 pm
@McGentrix,
Gent, if you paid any attention, you would notice that I was really addressing notions of decorum, common decency, and appropriateness, not constitutional rights.

The fact that I have a "right" to deliberately **** my pants while sitting at a dinner party, does not make it "acceptable," if ya catch my drift, eh?
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 09:33 pm
@layman,
Oh, so ok, I see. You think that the rights of minorities in Baltimore to not be shot or to react to being shot or having their communities torn apart by aggressive policing is the same as shitting your pants at a party or posting kiddie porn in pre school.

Is that about right?
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 09:38 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Oh, so ok, I see. You think that the rights of minorities in Baltimore to not be shot or to react to being shot or having their communities torn apart by aggressive policing is the same as shitting your pants at a party or posting kiddie porn in pre school.

Is that about right?


Naw, it aint right, Gent, or anywhere close to it. You accuse me of being "extreme," but it seems to me that you are taking an extreme, "absolutist" viewpoint that refuses to consider or acknowledge any particular details.

Let me turn this around: How does keeping a painting that is deliberately insulting to police and average citizens out of the capitol gallery in any way lessen (or affect in any way) the rights of minorities to react to being shot?

Suppose their "reaction" was to go kill 5 policemen in Dallas. Would it violate their "rights" to condemn that?
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 09:43 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Let me turn this around: How does keeping a painting that is deliberately insulting to police and average citizens out of the capitol gallery in any way lessen (or affect in any way) the rights of minorities to react to being shot?


Because then you have rich white men telling a black high school student that his opinion is less than theirs. That his reaction to the world around him is some how obscene and should be kept from public view.

That's how.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 09:54 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

layman wrote:

Let me turn this around: How does keeping a painting that is deliberately insulting to police and average citizens out of the capitol gallery in any way lessen (or affect in any way) the rights of minorities to react to being shot?


Because then you have rich white men telling a black high school student that his opinion is less than theirs. That his reaction to the world around him is some how obscene and should be kept from public view.

That's how.


Cmon, Gent. Really? He can have any opinion he wants. I can disagree with it. So what? How is that "demeaning?" Why isn't he "demeaning" me by insisting that his viewpoint prevail over mine?

We' re really getting a long way off track here it seems.

Let me say that the painting doesn't "bother" me. I would never suggest that it should never have been painted to begin with or that no one should be allowed to see it. That's not the issue here.

Maybe an analogy will help, I don't know. I don't care what "names" anyone may want to call me. I will not lose a minute's sleep over it or get "riled up" bcause of words.

That said, if some punk wants to get in my face and shout all kinds of demeaning epithets at me I will likely bash his sorry face in. Why?

It's one thing to express yourself. It's another to deliberately try to demean and provoke someone. If someone thinks it's OK to try to play to the crowd and treat me like a bitch, then he has another thing comin, eh?
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 10:15 pm
@layman,
The demeaning part is the taking it down. You are welcome to disagree with it, that too is part of the freedom that we have here in America.

Art is sometimes offensive. I find a whole lot of artists to be just the most despicable cretins in the universe and I would never go to a gallery of theirs, look at their art or even give them the whisper of their names on my lips. That doesn't mean that others enjoy the art and the artist and gather with their friends and enjoy cheese and wine while discussing the merits of a piece.

This is all different then someone getting in your face. No one is taking this painting and forcing anyone to see it. No one will come to your office, place it on your desk and demand that you look at it. You have to go to it to express your displeasure.

That's the difference. In this case, the guys taking the painting down are the punks who want to get in your face and shout all kinds of demeaning epithets.

Can you not see the difference?
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 10:19 pm
@McGentrix,
A public display of utter disrespect doesn't have to be condoned, Gent, that's my view.

Ya know, even in the law, one cannot claim that he has been illegally "battered" if he has used so-called "fighting words" to provoke you. His "right of free speech" notwithstanding.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 10:27 pm
@McGentrix,
If you're expressing your "freedom of speech" by posting an offensive poster on a telephone pole, then why am I not merely doing the same if I rip it down?

As I done said, to me the ideal resolution of this difference in viewpoints would be a full-blown street fight in the halls of congress between those who hate and those who support the police.

Maybe my assessment of what's funny is different than most, but the image of Trey Gowdy punching Nancy Pelosi and sending her false teeth flying down the hall is amusing to me.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 10:30 pm
@layman,
You are not considering the audience though. Who was disrespecting whom? The white cops that have shot unarmed black men or the people that have to live with that violence and the resulting riots?

Did you read the background about the painting or why it was painted and by who? They are not fighting words.

Do you believe that comparing police to pigs is is a new thing?
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 10:37 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Did you read the background about the painting or why it was painted and by who? They are not fighting words.

Do you believe that comparing police to pigs is is a new thing?


No, I haven't read the "background" to any significant extent. Is that somehow relevant to the issue here?

I am among the first to condemn police misconduct, although I would also be the last to suggest that police abuse is only perpetrated against black people.

People of all races, professions, religious beliefs, etc. do some despicable things. That alone does not justify trying to stereotype the entire group as somehow being "subhuman."
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/21/2017 at 09:57:00