Is the world burning?

[chronovore]

whats a CHOP ?

Cannibalistic Humanoid… Overground Personages?

[Joe Molotov]

I just watched a video describing the experiences of the first Japanese visitors to the US in 1860 and it made me think of this thread.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

The Japanese guy asked his hosts where the family of George Washington lived, and the hosts were basically like "Eh, who cares."

[Transhuman]

They should melt it down and make a Christian Fleetwood statue.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

https://twitter.com/LeighTauss/status/1274149217276170240

This is dumb shit.

Take that statue to the statehouse.  That's a statement.

These are just fucking people who are bored.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/1274182715068133377

Guess it's just another slave owner right?

[ToxicAdam]

Nintex, you need to start a Statue Lives Matter movement. I’ll be your first member.

[Coffee Dog]

There is nothing wrong with collectively declaring war on statues.

[Mandark]

https://twitter.com/LewisForMN/status/1274082386066706432

checkmate, libs

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

[Cauliflower Of Love]

https://twitter.com/LewisForMN/status/1274082386066706432

checkmate, libs

Cops would call animal control who would humanely capture the bear.

I'm stating the obvious, I know.

I just made myself sad.

[ToxicAdam]

That guy is a US representative in Congress (or was).

[Tuckers Law]

https://twitter.com/LewisForMN/status/1274082386066706432

checkmate, libs

Cops would call animal control who would humanely capture the bear.

I'm stating the obvious, I know.

I just made myself sad.

Either that or they’d gun him down instantly for being a bear while black.

[CatsCatsCats]

Isn’t that why cops carry bear spray?

[Madrun Badrun]

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

(Image removed from quote.)

doesn't make a lot of sense, because - to riff on a bill hicks bit - are christians super in favour of crucifixion?

[BisMarckie]

FACT CHECK: There are multiple depictions of Satan in pretty much every catholic church.

[toku]

satan was the good guy

[jakefromstatefarm]

doesn't make a lot of sense, because - to riff on a bill hicks bit - are christians super in favour of crucifixion?

no, but they’re into self-sacrifice, which is the point of crucifixes. what’s the point of a confederate monument?

FACT CHECK: There are multiple depictions of Satan in pretty much every catholic church.

bis, and i mean this as gently as possible, you wouldnt happen to hail from some part of the former DDR, would you?

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

doesn't make a lot of sense, because - to riff on a bill hicks bit - are christians super in favour of crucifixion?

no, but they’re into self-sacrifice, which is the point of crucifixes. what’s the point of a confederate monument?

I think it's just as likely to be a commemoration of an important event. Commemoration does not imply endorsement.
There are vast swathes of religious art depicting horrific acts, not to celebrate but to commemorate, just as there are vast numbers of secular artworks intended to do the same thing.

Picasso didn't paint Guernica because he thought it was fucking sweet and secretly wished for more of that kind of thing.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

british guy trying to explain to americans what the confederate statues are for when their purpose and history is well documented...

I'm saying that that twitter gotcha about religious symbolism is weak AF

[BIONIC]

bis, and i mean this as gently as possible, you wouldnt happen to hail from some part of the former DDR, would you?

[Joe Molotov]

https://twitter.com/LewisForMN/status/1274082386066706432

checkmate, libs

Didn't Republicans want to arm schools a while back in case of bear attacks? Time to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and practice what you preach.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

Well what I'm saying is that they ARE endorsements, man. They are put there to make black men afraid. To remind white men that they are God's race. And to reject Northern liberalism.

And if I ever go to bat for confederacy monuments - which, AFAIK, given the length of time the confederacy memorialised existed for is like a monument to George Bush Srs presidency - you can remind me of that.

But my pushback is the - frankly idiotic - concept that commemoration equals endorsement espoused in that tweet.
Which over here culminates in people tagging BLM on the fucking cenotaph, a monument literally commemorating that black (and other) lives do indeed matter.

[Madrun Badrun]

You are completely missing the tweet.  It is not saying all commemoration equals endorsement.  In the context of the current Church and what they choose to depict in their art, and their offense at Satanists putting up statues in public buildings (which is really what defines what a statue of satan means now culturally), if they started putting up statues of satan, there would be questions about their intent.  Obviously, if the church always had statues of satan which historically have the intent of not endorsing him, this would not make sense, but that's not the thought experiment in the tweet. 

[Mandark]

Of public statues depicting specific historical figures, how many of them were not implicit or explicit endorsements of those figures when they were built?

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

You are completely missing the tweet.  It is not saying all commemoration equals endorsement.  In the context of the current Church and what they choose to depict in their art, and their offense at Satanists putting up statues in public buildings (which is really what defines what a statue of satan means now culturally), if they started putting up statues of satan, there would be questions about their intent.  Obviously, if the church always had statues of satan which historically have the intent of not endorsing him, this would not make sense, but that's not the thought experiment in the tweet.

yeah; it fails on that premise, because there are depictions of satan in churches in statues, stained glass windows, in icons, and in paintings, and the most commonly depicted christian symbol represents a bad thing happening.
Talking about people not putting up statues of satan in new churches is kind of irrelevant - are people putting up confederate statues in new government buildings?

Of public statues depicting specific historical figures, how many of them were not implicit or explicit endorsements of those figures when they were built?

All statues are commemorative, I don't believe all statues are celebratory, given they tend to be of humans who are inherently multi dimensional and flawed, and a recognition of someones achievement might not coincide with a belief in that person as a person.
Most political statues are automatically going to have people of the opposed party thinking someone from their party deserved it more, at the very least.

[Mandark]

yeah; it fails on that premise, because there are depictions of satan in churches in statues, stained glass windows, in icons, and in paintings, and the most commonly depicted christian symbol represents a bad thing happening.
Talking about people not putting up statues of satan in new churches is kind of irrelevant - are people putting up confederate statues in new government buildings?

Lots of depictions of Satan that are put in recognizable context to remind people he's a dick.

How much Christian iconography is there of Satan looking noble and benevolent? How many statues of Satan by himself similar to statues of Jesus?

[Madrun Badrun]

yeah; it fails on that premise, because there are depictions of satan in churches in statues, stained glass windows, in icons, and in paintings, and the most commonly depicted christian symbol represents a bad thing happening.

'but if you put up a bunch of statues of him'

They are not talking about old depictions of him in stain glass, they are talking about a novel change in depiction, and as far as I know,, statues of just satan are not really something churchs have.  Also, again, you are ignoring what a statue of satan means in current social context.

[Mandark]

Of public statues depicting specific historical figures, how many of them were not implicit or explicit endorsements of those figures when they were built?

All statues are commemorative, I don't believe all statues are celebratory, given they tend to be of humans who are inherently multi dimensional and flawed, and a recognition of someones achievement might not coincide with a belief in that person as a person.
Most political statues are automatically going to have people of the opposed party thinking someone from their party deserved it more, at the very least.

okay now answer the actual question

[Pissy F Benny]

all statues are shit and only one is worth preserving

[jakefromstatefarm]

Of public statues depicting specific historical figures, how many of them are were not implicit or explicit endorsements of those figures when they were built?

i remember a talk from around charlottesville during the last bout of confederate memorial stock-taking by some septuagenarian professor. it was otherwise perfectly good, but at the end he claimed that, back in his day, people didn’t view statues as ‘endorsements’, or whatever, they viewed them as occasions for nuanced discussion of historical events and whatnot. which is obv unutterably stupid; whatever the equivalent of terminal poster’s brain is for silent generation types, he had it.

@sage, whether or not memorials can be purely commemorative is beyond the point here. that isn’t the effect a statue of satan would have in a church (and isn’t the point the depictions of satan that are in churches have), it isn’t the point of depictions of christ’s passion. it definitely isn’t the effect of public confederate monuments, which are deliberately intended to stoke feelings of white resentment and grievance, fitting into a greater lost cause narrative.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

'but if you put up a bunch of statues of him'

They are not talking about old depictions of him in stain glass, they are talking about a novel change in depiction, and as far as I know,, statues of just satan are not really something churchs have.  Also, again, you are ignoring what a statue of satan means in current social context.

No, I'm not defending confeserate statues, but that twitter argument is weak as fuck, because there are a bunch of depictions in satan in old churches and modern christians don't really give a fuck about trying to tear them down because its 'bad optics' to todays church values, because those depictions all have artistic, cultural or historical value.

It's a crazy flawed metaphor; I'm not defending the thing its a metaphor for by pointing out the obvious flaws in the metaphor chosen.

Of public statues depicting specific historical figures, how many of them were not implicit or explicit endorsements of those figures when they were built?

All statues are commemorative, I don't believe all statues are celebratory, given they tend to be of humans who are inherently multi dimensional and flawed, and a recognition of someones achievement might not coincide with a belief in that person as a person.
Most political statues are automatically going to have people of the opposed party thinking someone from their party deserved it more, at the very least.

okay now answer the actual question

Disraeli and Churchill were both massive arseholes that were intensely disliked by many of their peers on a personal level and still got statues.
I think Margaret Thatcher was an evil piece of shit that nearly ruined the country, but still has a valid claim to a statue as the first female prime minister.

[Mr Gilhaney]

all statues are shit and only one is worth preserving

(Image removed from quote.)

i dont know man. you should check out vigeland park in oslo. i lived close to that and i feel like a lot of amazing people were celebrated with statues there

[Mandark]

Disraeli and Churchill were both massive arseholes that were intensely disliked by many of their peers on a personal level and still got statues.

In the current set of controversies around public statues, I don't think how well the subjects got along with their colleagues is really central.

[Mr Gilhaney]

on a more serious note, the BLM protest in the UK today didnt end well.


 
https://twitter.com/shoibarbi/status/1274420626435031040

[Pissy F Benny]

all statues are shit and only one is worth preserving

(Image removed from quote.)

i dont know man. you should check out vigeland park in oslo. i lived close to that and i feel like a lot of amazing people were celebrated with statues there

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)


(Image removed from quote.)

 

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

i remember a talk from around charlottesville during the last bout of confederate memorial stock-taking by some septuagenarian professor. it was otherwise perfectly good, but at the end he claimed that, back in his day, people didn’t view statues as ‘endorsements’, or whatever, they viewed them as occasions for nuanced discussion of historical events and whatnot. which is obv unutterably stupid; whatever the equivalent of terminal poster’s brain is for silent generation types, he had it.

I legitimately believe thats a valid argument, especially if you consider how recent things like widespread literacy are; historically, for a significant portion of the population pictorial representation was your history lesson. I don't know why the argument against seeing statues seems to have become one of seeing them solely through an idolatory lens?

[Madrun Badrun]

'but if you put up a bunch of statues of him'

They are not talking about old depictions of him in stain glass, they are talking about a novel change in depiction, and as far as I know,, statues of just satan are not really something churchs have.  Also, again, you are ignoring what a statue of satan means in current social context.

No, I'm not defending confeserate statues, but that twitter argument is weak as fuck, because there are a bunch of depictions in satan in old churches and modern christians don't really give a fuck about trying to tear them down because its 'bad optics' to todays church values, because those depictions all have artistic, cultural or historical value.

It's a crazy flawed metaphor; I'm not defending the thing its a metaphor for by pointing out the obvious flaws in the metaphor chosen.

Again, you are missing the point.  All depictions of satan are not the same.  Just because you have one does not make the other ok.  If I go to church and start putting up statues of satan that do not fit with historical depictions, people are going to ask about my intent for putting up the statues.  I doubt I could defend this by saying 'its just a statue of satan like that stain glass window'. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

thinking that the appropriate relation for a religious person to have towards religious art is value-neutral is maybe a little bit naive

the only reason we give a shit about commemorating events/people is because of the importance we attach to those events/people. even a moderate amount of the body politic checking all of their normative commitments at the door for the sake of disinterested ‘commemoration’ strikes me as impossible and undesirable. if youre worried about losing the occasion for historical reflection on the event/people in question, we still have classrooms and museums and we can bitch about the content of those reflections to our heart’s content on twitter, in the blogosphere, on the news, in books, or whatever. but installations on public property will never be conducive to the kind of detached reverence you’re looking for here

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

'but if you put up a bunch of statues of him'

They are not talking about old depictions of him in stain glass, they are talking about a novel change in depiction, and as far as I know,, statues of just satan are not really something churchs have.  Also, again, you are ignoring what a statue of satan means in current social context.

No, I'm not defending confeserate statues, but that twitter argument is weak as fuck, because there are a bunch of depictions in satan in old churches and modern christians don't really give a fuck about trying to tear them down because its 'bad optics' to todays church values, because those depictions all have artistic, cultural or historical value.

It's a crazy flawed metaphor; I'm not defending the thing its a metaphor for by pointing out the obvious flaws in the metaphor chosen.

Again, you are missing the point.  All depictions of satan are not the same.  Just because you have one does not make the other ok.  If I go to church and start putting up statues of satan that do not fit with historical depictions, people are going to ask about my intent for putting up the statues.  I doubt I could defend this by saying 'its just a statue of satan like that stain glass window'.

No, I get the point that tweet is trying to make.
The point he's actually making is if you go into a Christian church, you could say "Man, they fucking hate that jesus dude, look at all these images of him being tortured to death there are, they must really be into that shit. He must be the worst dude ever".

Its a bad analogy

[Mandark]

Disraeli and Churchill were both massive arseholes that were intensely disliked by many of their peers on a personal level and still got statues..

https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/disraeli-statue

Unveiled exactly two years after his death, this statue was central to the foundation of the Primrose League, an organisation formed to promote Conservative principles. The primrose was, apparently, Disraeli's favourite flower - Victoria had sent a primrose wreath to his funeral. A group of Conservatives arranged that on the day of the statue's unveiling all their MPs would wear a primrose. The organisation became very popular, with a motto and badges and so forth; it had one million paid up members at its peak. Each year on the anniversary of his death primrose wreaths were placed at this statue. The League was formally wound up in 2004.

[CatsCatsCats]

Lol wtf this guy

[Mandark]

You know the fancy Latin names they give to various logical fallacies? Ought to be one that means "argumentation by pretending to not grok obvious things."

[Positive Touch]

the whole argument is disingenuous as fuck come on man be embarrassed for yourself

[team filler]

'but if you put up a bunch of statues of him'

They are not talking about old depictions of him in stain glass, they are talking about a novel change in depiction, and as far as I know,, statues of just satan are not really something churchs have.  Also, again, you are ignoring what a statue of satan means in current social context.

No, I'm not defending confeserate statues, but that twitter argument is weak as fuck, because there are a bunch of depictions in satan in old churches and modern christians don't really give a fuck about trying to tear them down because its 'bad optics' to todays church values, because those depictions all have artistic, cultural or historical value.

It's a crazy flawed metaphor; I'm not defending the thing its a metaphor for by pointing out the obvious flaws in the metaphor chosen.

Again, you are missing the point.  All depictions of satan are not the same.  Just because you have one does not make the other ok.  If I go to church and start putting up statues of satan that do not fit with historical depictions, people are going to ask about my intent for putting up the statues.  I doubt I could defend this by saying 'its just a statue of satan like that stain glass window'.

No, I get the point that tweet is trying to make.
The point he's actually making is if you go into a Christian church, you could say "Man, they fucking hate that jesus dude, look at all these images of him being tortured to death there are, they must really be into that shit. He must be the worst dude ever".

Its a bad analogy

did j chrizzle own slavs or genocide india?

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

You know the fancy Latin names they give to various logical fallacies? Ought to be one that means "argumentation by pretending to not grok obvious things."

Its not really disingeuous to say that if the premise of your analogy is to remove all context and just report what you see as being what contemporary beliefs are, that christian symbolism removed of all context as per the thought experiment looks like celebrating the death of jesus is it?

The fact we all know that it doesnt say that is because of context.

If you guys think ita great analogy, you do you, but I think its pretty fucking bad for the reasons that I have stated - and, to reiterate, for, what, the third time? I am not endorsing the subject it is an analogy for by saying it is a poor analogy,

[Mandark]

No analogy is perfect, but the one in the tweet is way better than your posts.

[jakefromstatefarm]

The point he's actually making is if you go into a Christian church, you could say "Man, they fucking hate that jesus dude, look at all these images of him being tortured to death there are, they must really be into that shit. He must be the worst dude ever".

i genuinely have no idea how you read that from the tweet. the only important factors here are the dispositions of the people who make the depiction and the stance people for whom the work was intended take to the depiction. both of those groups are christian. the detached, ignorant observer plays no role here. this is actually a great example of how the normative commitments of the people who produce and the normative commitments of the people who consume art are indispensable in understanding the civic role of art

I don't know why the argument against seeing statues seems to have become one of seeing them solely through an idolatory lens?

because, throughout history, monument building has been practiced for the express purpose of pushing some agenda. thats really all there is to it

[Raist]

No need to invoke good old Lucifer, the bible contains a metric fuckton of despicable shit

[CatsCatsCats]

Bork better close this thread before the dunks start

[team filler]

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

because, throughout history, monument building has been practiced for the express purpose of pushing some agenda. thats really all there is to it

I fundamentally disagree that monuments have 'agendas' outside of marking a piece of history.
Artists might, commissioning bodies might, audiences might, and all of those agendas might even be at odds with each other, but ultimately a monuments purpose is as a bookmark for history.

[Madrun Badrun]

With the way Brazil is going, we might see some rioters with pickup trucks take down Christ the Redeemer in 2020.

[Joe Molotov]

liberal truckers

[Madrun Badrun]

because, throughout history, monument building has been practiced for the express purpose of pushing some agenda. thats really all there is to it

I fundamentally disagree that monuments have 'agendas' outside of marking a piece of history.
Artists might, commissioning bodies might, audiences might, and all of those agendas might even be at odds with each other, but ultimately a monuments purpose is as a bookmark for history.

I think we can all agree that inanimate objects don't have agendas, but the people relevent to the objects might. 

[Mandark]

I fundamentally disagree that monuments have 'agendas' outside of marking a piece of history.
Artists might, commissioning bodies might, audiences might, and all of those agendas might even be at odds with each other, but ultimately a monuments purpose is as a bookmark for history.

So all the actual humans who are involved in creating, funding, and placing a statue may have an agenda, but those don't really matter and there's an actual, real purpose to the statue which exists independently of those people.

Sounds legit.

[jakefromstatefarm]

ultimately a monuments purpose is as a bookmark for history.

why do we care about bookmarking history?

ill echo arvie here and say we’re all agreed that people are the ones with agendas

[Joe Molotov]

Seeing people try to defend Confederate monuments built in Texas in the 1950's is like  yeah okay dude.

[BisMarckie]

bis, and i mean this as gently as possible, you wouldnt happen to hail from some part of the former DDR, would you?

Don’t read anything into obvious shitposts.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

No

[close]

[Madrun Badrun]

In his defense, he is not for confederate monuments, he is just upset with the analogy since if you strip all context from Christian iconism relevant to the anology, it is in fact illogical. 

By coincidence, stripping context from confederate iconism is a dog whistle for racists - but, as he has said, that's not what he is doing.