DigitalShadow

I work with 6 other software developers at work, none of them are female and to date I don't think we've even had any female applicants. It certainly could be the case that most females are raised to not care software development and face discrimination in that field and those are the only reasons that over 90% of software developers are male, but I find it hard to believe that it is completely unrelated to some type of predisposition in the formation of female brains vs male brains to gravitate toward different subjects for study and careers. Don't get me wrong, I've met guys who wouldn't be able to write software even with decades of tutoring and I've met brilliant female software developers so I would definitely not judge skill based on gender, but with how few female software developers there are, I find it hard to believe that it is 100% on the nurture side.

Slashdot is my favorite, not because it is unbiased or anything but because it sums up the news important to nerds pretty nicely.

I get what you're saying, but I also think that a photo is far different from a painting or a drawing and using a photo without permission is MUCH different from a painting a picture of someone without permission.

Which part of the painting you react to may also intentionally be part of the 'mirror' effect the artist claimed he was going for. I don't know, I've always sucked at interpreting artistic things, maybe I'll ask my wife what she thinks later.

I agree completely. I think the point is that it doesn't have a 'real' meaning. It is not about the artist trying to convey a specific viewpoint to you, it is simply showing you your own pre-existing biases. That's just my take on it though.

I've seen this before. Call me a skeptic, but I say this is fictional. I know that this echoes some of the sentiments back then, but I still think it is an exaggeration to make a point.

It's art and he's a public figure. Should politicians start suing political cartoonists for portraying them unfavorably or do you think each cartoonist writes to get permission before making fun of someone? I'm no lawyer, but people use other people's likenesses for what could be considered offensive material all the time and nothing happens, so I doubt there is legal precedence for taking action in a situation like this. To me this is a free speech issue and while I understand that people (including Obama) might be offended, I don't think the artist did anything wrong or should be punished.

What? Didn't you know I come to the Current Events forum to get the latest anti-Obama news from you?

I would agree that Obama probably finds it distasteful or at least as a politician he would have to say something to placate the outraged Christians. I also think it is your right to find it disgusting and the artists right to express himself even though that expression might disgust some.

People get offended way too easily. When using vague Christian symbolism in art is enough to have someone take legal action against you, we will have truly lost our freedom in the US.

Are you posting this because you are outraged? I think it is a very interesting piece, obviously it is meant to create a response in the viewer, but that response varies depending on your pre-existing views. Personally when I first saw it (colored by the fact that you posted it), I thought it was another Obama/dem criticism making fun of the fact that some people seem to think of him as a messiah.

Am I missing something or is there a point somewhere in here? As far as I can tell, that's just some random art you felt like posting here. Perhaps some context would help.

I'm not religious, my wife is a member and so far we get along quite well. Living in Utah, I know a lot of couples who are both members and still have serious family problems. I think it has a lot more to do with the character of the person you marry than what religion they happen to belong to.

My wife and I usually snuggle until it becomes uncomfortable or one of our limbs fall asleep then roll over and go to sleep usually still pretty close. So yes, as far as I can tell, you are just weird :)

If it makes you feel any better, I've definitely heard of it an am happy for you :)

I think the culture of self-entitlement and greed has more to do with our current problems than any regulation or lack of regulation. Unfortunately that is not fixable by passing laws or removing them.

Actually I think we've become a country of shortsighted greedy fools brainwashed into caring more about accumulating wealth just for the sake of having it than for their fellow man.

It looks on track to me, I've only seen maybe 2 black Mormons since coming to Utah. To be fair though, I think I've only seen maybe 5 black people in Utah so far.

I define "them" as how they interact with other people. I'm not just talking about a different favorite food or something, imagine talking to your best friend and they still claim to be the same person but don't act anything like the person you know. In my opinion brain damage can change far more than just limiting how certain things can be expressed.

Everyone has a bias, news casters, news writers, you, me, everyone. It is impossible to escape that because of human nature. That is why it is important to think about things for yourself rather than simply plugging in to one source of information and instantly rejecting anything contrary. There is nothing wrong with getting information from the news, but you should interpret that information for yourself rather than letting them do it for you.

I thought it was great. I don't even have kids, but still went and my wife and I enjoyed it :)

Have you ever known someone who had a serious stroke? I think that the brain damage change is much different than the near death experience change (I've seen that too).

Agreed. Unfortunately there is no market for simply reporting what happened because it is far more profitable to twist what happened to reinforce a group of people's world view. The "news" is no longer a source of what is going on in the world, it is a shelter for those too afraid to look beyond whatever they want to hear.

I guess I don't think that Fox News itself intentionally changed the core of the movement, but I do think that the influx of Fox News followers has somewhat changed the core of the movement.

And I say "so?" right back to you. My main point of contention was you not having a clue what I was really talking about for 3 replies. In any case, the only reason I brought it up in the first place was because I had heard of the "hijacking" from someone originally supporting the movement but now upset at what it has turned in to. So yes, I guess it would make sense for some to call it "snowball effect" and others to call it "hijacking" depending on your perspective and I can agree to disagree but I'm glad you at least seem to understand WHAT we were disagreeing about now.