DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
Slashdot is my favorite, not because it is unbiased or anything but because it sums up the news important to nerds pretty nicely.
-
i understand he's a public figure and all that jazz.
i did see a report, many yrs ago so my memory may be a bit foggy on it, but it was about a woman that trained pigs. she was in a pool swimming with one and someone driving past took a picture. the angle of the pic and the reflection on the water you could clearly see her face but not that she was wearing a swim suit. which wouldn't necessarily be a problem but a porn magazine got hold of it and printed it. due to the magazine it was in and the way the pic came out there was an underlying assumption that she was swimming nude with her pig. she only knew it was out there cause someone that subscribed to the magazine recognized her and commented about... when she was confused they showed her. she took legal action against the magazine.
my only point is there are some situations where ppl do not have the right to use your likeness to misrepresent you. they have to have your permission.
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.
-
Well, if that's his point, IMO he does a very shoddy job- using pre-existing theological symbolism will automatically initiate some sort of predisposed reaction to the painting. I think this shows just as much a person's reaction to Christianity- if they are familiar with the underlying symbolism- as much as a person's reaction to Obama (or a person's reaction to others' reactions to Obama). Of course, like the article points out, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"- I guess the painting's title is implicitly claiming that truth is, too.
I never liked relativism.
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.
-
If he did something wrong, then he should be punished- by people boycotting his product. Leave the government out of it.
I agree completely.
I don't quite get what to make of it. It seems the artist has carefully crafted this painting to make the real meaning purposely ambiguous (if it has a 'real meaning' at all):
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.
-
i won't lose any sleep over it. i personally wouldn't take legal action and think no one but obama has that right. if someone painted my picture like that for any reason i would be offended and would consider legal action. they may have the right to paint an offensive picture they do not have the right to use my likeness (recognisably meant to be me) without my permission. and they do not have the right to use obama's without his permission. i understand my reaction is an over reaction and that's fine, i know nothing will be done, and no one will ever paint me as anyones savior so in the end it's just my opinion and meaningless. like i said i won't be losing any sleep over it.
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.
-
Now this really hurts.....
What? Didn't you know I come to the Current Events forum to get the latest anti-Obama news from you?
-
I post things that I find interesting...they are not necessarily endorsed as my opinion...just more of.....check it out and what do you think. That includes this post. I am not surprised by this painting....I find it disgusting and tend to think Obama would as well. It is not a criticism of Obama or Democrats....I could post much more serious indictments of the President and the Democrats than a sacreligious painting ....and the Republicans as well for that matter.
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.
-
i hope obama is offended and that he takes action against the artist.... there has got to be something about using someone's likeness inappropriately.....
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 :)
-
Great point. We have become a greedy, uncaring world. Popular culture, the instant gratification mentality have a great deal to do with this. People seem so very coarse and uncaring.
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.
-
We have become a country of whiners. Filled with envy for the successful and brainwashed into believing that higher taxes and government spending leads to prosperity and makes American's some how more free.
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.
-
One day perhaps, the make-up of the Church hierarchy will look like the make-up of it's members.
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.
-
you also have to ask yourself how are you defining "them". if the definition of them is their favorite food and color and other such preferences that can change with or without brain injury. we develop those preferences due to how our brain interprets the physical world around us, if how our brain functions changes we may change our preferences. those things in my opinion aren't "who we are".
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.
-
If there are no unbiased newscasts, how do you gather the information to think for yourself. You have to listen to someone to get information. You don't have the ability to gather it on your own.
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 :)
-
Bmy, something like this did happen to my son after he came out of a coma. However, I would describe it as a change in personality, rather than the soul. It was a change for the better. Unfortunately, he was back to his old teenage self within three months.
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).
-
and CNN viewers and MSNBC viewers.......perhaps a better point would be that most news outlets have a bias and editorialize more than they report the news.
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.
-
You're right. I straw-manned your argument like nobody's business. My most sincere apologies.
My main problem is with the attendant implications of saying that 'Fox News took over a small movement' and changed its core. The point is that Fox News has highly publicized the tea parties, yes, but the movement is alive and well notwithstanding Fox's coverage of them, and that the idea that this is wholly run or manipulated by Fox is somewhat bizarre- which I now understand you're not saying. Sometimes I miss really obvious things. That's the second time now in about 3 days... Maybe I need to go lie down.
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.
-
Then I guess I'd say, "so?" If a small group with a niche idea becomes a massive group with a populist and popular idea, then we call that a snowball effect, not a hijacking. Folk like Ron Paul, highly intelligent, with strong, well thought out, but not widely supported ideas, sometimes bless society with a nugget of truth that is so powerful, massive groups take that and grow it into something truly society-changing. FOX may have been a part of that process, but I seriously doubt that the network controls the partiers anymore than Ron Paul does.
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.
men vs. women.....let the battle begin :)
in General Discussion
Posted
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.