Does not Godwin’s Law still apply even if the Hitler comparison is apt?
As John Adams wrote, we are a government of laws not mem[es].
Don’t you see? He’s putting GOD above the NATION. Edgy!
1 Like
I don’t understand how some people can be so absolutely sure of what happened and why. It seems like there’s this big anger at Zimmerman that he wasn’t, apparently, after all, this clear-cut white power racist guy executing a black person at point blank. How much better would the world have been if they just could confirm their view of it, but alas, it seems like they’ll have to vent their anger by “subtly” associating his name with that of a serial killer and rapist. Same thing as a guy who accidentally kills a guy during a struggle. Yeah, sure.
I would have expected this post to come from another BB poster who seems to specialize in “reporting” interesting links from the internet garnished with a facetious comment or two, but apparently BB is moving away from its usual fascinating topics covered by Cory et al towards some… yeah, don’t know. Some crap.
1 Like
The “wonderful things” quotient does seem to have been dropping.
And the advertising quotient (mcdonalds? Really?) seems to have been going up.
1 Like
No offense but how can you possibly equate Zimmerman to Gacy? Apples and oranges?
Really, though, this is a really, really bad example to hold up as a good case of self-defense. The only reason Zimmerman had to “defend” himself was that he was behaving aggressively towards his victim. Maybe Trayvon jumped him, there’s a fair chance he did, but he didn’t do it in some void context. He did it because a creepy guy he perceived as a threat was stalking him. So Martin jumped Zimmerman in self-defense, then Zimmerman killed him in self-defense. That’s a tangled, ugly, screwy situation, but I have no sympathy for Zimmerman since Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
Yeah, it has, but in the end I don’t agree with all your concerns. The fact is that Zimmerman did assume that Martin was a burglar, was cussing and furious about the “punk” Martin when he called in to the cops, and he stalked him. If Martin was a lily-white preppy would Zimmerman have acted the same? I can’t imagine it.
2 Likes
You are responding to the wrong commenter.
It’s very hard to look at it neutrally, since I know Hitler painted it, but my first impression is that it is awful. There’s nothing wrong with the lines themselves, but the colors clash, the shading is too busy, and it just looks like the painting of a crazy man out to kill as many Jews as possible.
2 Likes
Opinions belong coming out of the mouths of FOX whores (male and female). Every other opinion is a threat to their propaganda machine and it seems a woman’s opinion is especially threatening. Go Xeni!
1 Like
Not seems, did. But that, at least, was a conscious decision about how to fund BoingBoing, and I’m willing to accept it as the price we pay for the service.
The fact that there seems to be more filler – and specifically, more stuff posted not because it’s interesting but because it’s polarizing enough to draw eyes to the site to either support it or argue with it, such as this item – bothers me more.
Realistically, this goes back to the Ender’s War discussion. There is art, there are artists. The art may be good or bad, the artists may or may not be people we like. Notoriety of the artist does factor into art prices; which way depends on how each individual reacts to the history. And there are some of people out there who are speculating and hoping for a sucker who’ll pay more for the piece – for whatever reason – rather than buying art because it either speaks to them or they want to support the artist.
Personally, I don’t think this particular case deserves attention because it’s neither interesting art nor an interesting individual. The fact that he happens to paint and happens to want to sell his paintings is pretty darned orthogonal to the reasons we recognize his name, and I don’t see that it adds a lot to our understanding of him or the incident. Fails the Something Wonderful test. It isn’t even a particularly good start for a rant, not that people haven’t been trying.
I’ll also remind folks that getting bids on eBay, and successfully selling on eBay, are different things – especially when the individual is an obvious target for people who would find jerking him around entertaining. Don’t presume that he’s actually going to get what it seems to be going for.
2 Likes
You explained the difference perfectly. Warhol didn’t break a copyright law. Z did.
911 told Z to stay in his truck. He didn’t. He was part of a neighborhood watch group. They’re not supposed to be trolling the neighborhood with a pistol. Z was taped by 911 remarking on Trayvon with a slur before he left his vehicle. There was no medical report of a broken nose. He had a long history of phoning 911, so much that they knew him and called him “Georgie”. Whatever happened I think it’s safe to assume Trayvon Martin would be alive today if Z had followed orders. That is unless when the cops got there they abused their power (as they are wont to do) and finished him off themselves.
3 Likes
That was quite objective, LMAO.
Z didn’t “borrow” the image, he plagiarized it and “Georgie” wouldn’t know what an “ironic critic of the art world” is if it punched him in the face and “broke” his nose.
1 Like
Z plagiarized the image breaking eBay sellers’ rules and many of the bidders appear to be shills which is also against eBay sellers’ rules. eBay seems to be turning a blind eye to it and also only posting positive questions to the seller (Georgie) despite the many questions asking him where he got the image i.e… I read he may be sued for plagiarism by the Democratic Underground (where he got it) who previously paid Getty Image a copyright fee to use it on their t-shirts.
1 Like
And who are more informed not indoctrinated by FOX.
You are right!
160 responses so far and only one addressing the use of latex paint. Sheesh.
1 Like
A 16 year old kid is dead. Not a “good shoot”… but that’s just my opinion. What do I know…
3 Likes
