Gorgeous

Pjmm
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 18984
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:31 am

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 12:36 pm So we're going to do this, think it's so cute and clever, then publish it and expect applause. Using these men that are our lawmakers as joke fodder.

And then we're going to screech to high heaven when people complain about this and it's not received as a wonderful artistic expression. Because we're just so persecuted!

Then we're going to use it as an excuse to claim more white supremacy\Nazism\fascism or whatever other pejorative words Republicans are labeled for simply expressing more conservative beliefs and values.

Not cool at all. Humiliation isn't cute or funny or artistic regardless of the subject, especially when it's our government and available for consumption on the world's stage. Way, way out of bounds.

Would love to see how long someone still existed that pulled this crap with the leadership of Russia or China, you know, our enemies.
Idk if it’s cute or funny but we’re not in Russia. We’re here where no leader has ever been above parody or being mocked. Parody is protected. I’d have a lot more anger over it if I didn’t feel our esteemed leaders deserve the mockery. Especially DeSantis and Mitch McConnell. So no I can’t bring myself to feel a lot of outrage over this art. If anything I’m sad that it’s come to this. I’m ashamed. Because I think the people we voted for and trusted deserve nothing less.
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3050
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 12:36 pm So we're going to do this, think it's so cute and clever, then publish it and expect applause. Using these men that are our lawmakers as joke fodder.

And then we're going to screech to high heaven when people complain about this and it's not received as a wonderful artistic expression. Because we're just so persecuted!

Then we're going to use it as an excuse to claim more white supremacy\Nazism\fascism or whatever other pejorative words Republicans are labeled for simply expressing more conservative beliefs and values.

Not cool at all. Humiliation isn't cute or funny or artistic regardless of the subject, especially when it's our government and available for consumption on the world's stage. Way, way out of bounds.

Would love to see how long someone still existed that pulled this crap with the leadership of Russia or China, you know, our enemies.
Isn't the Hillary Killer Bee avatar the same thing?
Deleted User 1977

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 11:55 am
WellPreserved wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 10:10 am
SallyMae wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 9:34 am

You know, I have been thinking about this since last night and I have reconsidered my original impression. My whole life I have seen politicians portrayed in ways just as unflattering in political cartoons without a single thought of impropriety. On further reflection, this is the same. So, fair game, I guess. We will just have to get used to this new form of political commentary.
Art has always had a political component it's just we're seeing a new form of art in AI and therefore a new form of political commentary. This is another example:

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/ne ... 2023-04-10

ETA: I find parodying kids distasteful no matter who they are.
I did this same thing recently, I suppose I can share it - celebrities as a homeless persons:

Image

Image

Image

Image

I thought these were social commentary rather than attacks, but I wasn't sure. I'd probably have gone viral if I'd posted them three weeks ago but now they are commonplace, lol. I am still trying to figure out the line.
Very unique and remarkable depictions! 👍😯

However, are any of these celebrities known or suspected to be opposed to homelessness?

Too, based on what you originally wrote in a comment in this thread, did you get their permission to depict them this way?
User avatar
Baconqueen13
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 6813
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:10 am
Location: In Sanity

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 4:31 pm
Valentina327 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 12:36 pm So we're going to do this, think it's so cute and clever, then publish it and expect applause. Using these men that are our lawmakers as joke fodder.

And then we're going to screech to high heaven when people complain about this and it's not received as a wonderful artistic expression. Because we're just so persecuted!

Then we're going to use it as an excuse to claim more white supremacy\Nazism\fascism or whatever other pejorative words Republicans are labeled for simply expressing more conservative beliefs and values.

Not cool at all. Humiliation isn't cute or funny or artistic regardless of the subject, especially when it's our government and available for consumption on the world's stage. Way, way out of bounds.

Would love to see how long someone still existed that pulled this crap with the leadership of Russia or China, you know, our enemies.
Isn't the Hillary Killer Bee avatar the same thing?
Obviously It's different when it's "Owning the Dems".
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3050
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

AZOldCoot wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:59 pm Very unique and remarkable depictions! 👍😯

However, are any of these celebrities known or supected to be opposed to homelessness?

Too, based on what you originally wrote in a comment in this thread, did you get their permission to depict them this way?
Not yet, but I'm not as cool or as important as Weird Al...Lizzo and Biden are not returning my calls.

But, I admit because of this discussion I have had a change of heart. Once I thought about it, I realized that this kind of use of personal image is at the heart of the political comedy that shaped my life, from the editorial cartoons in the newspaper, to Doonesbury, Bloom County and Mad Magazine, to the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. I recalled that I had often seen Mitch McConnell photoshopped as a fairly believable turtle, or Hillary Clinton as a murder hornet, and literally no one objected to those portrayals. They are fair usage, and collectively they are adding tremendous richness and expression to our culture.

Just because I found the new drag images particularly objectionable, I can't really put aside the fact that it's the exact same thing. I think my homeless images are way less objectionable and more thought-provoking, but they are the same thing too. As a result, I have concluded that they are perfectly usable, without permission, like other social commentary we know and love.

Great question, thanks for asking!
Deleted User 2267

Unread post

Because it’s not the exact same thing.

Hillary as a hornet and what’s-his-face as a turtle is playing off of simple, blandness.

Obama as an ape is playing off of cruelty disguised as jokes… it doesn’t add richness to our culture…taking people who clearly don’t want to be in drag, taking that choice away from them and then getting everyone to laugh is just a way to further divide the lines and increase the amount of anger that is felt by one side…



There’s people that use humor like this well and for joking purpose, and then there’s people that use jokes like this to hurt others. It’s not the same…
SallyMae wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:01 pm
AZOldCoot wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:59 pm Very unique and remarkable depictions! 👍😯

However, are any of these celebrities known or supected to be opposed to homelessness?

Too, based on what you originally wrote in a comment in this thread, did you get their permission to depict them this way?
Not yet, but I'm not as cool or as important as Weird Al...Lizzo and Biden are not returning my calls.

But, I admit because of this discussion I have had a change of heart. Once I thought about it, I realized that this kind of use of personal image is at the heart of the political comedy that shaped my life, from the editorial cartoons in the newspaper, to Doonesbury, Bloom County and Mad Magazine, to the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. I recalled that I had often seen Mitch McConnell photoshopped as a fairly believable turtle, or Hillary Clinton as a murder hornet, and literally no one objected to those portrayals. They are fair usage, and collectively they are adding tremendous richness and expression to our culture.

Just because I found the new drag images particularly objectionable, I can't really put aside the fact that it's the exact same thing. I think my homeless images are way less objectionable and more thought-provoking, but they are the same thing too. As a result, I have concluded that they are perfectly usable, without permission, like other social commentary we know and love.

Great question, thanks for asking!
WellPreserved
Donated
Donated
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9851
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Unread post

Bobcobbagob wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:49 pm Because it’s not the exact same thing.

Hillary as a hornet and what’s-his-face as a turtle is playing off of simple, blandness.

Obama as an ape is playing off of cruelty disguised as jokes… it doesn’t add richness to our culture…taking people who clearly don’t want to be in drag, taking that choice away from them and then getting everyone to laugh is just a way to further divide the lines and increase the amount of anger that is felt by one side…



There’s people that use humor like this well and for joking purpose, and then there’s people that use jokes like this to hurt others. It’s not the same…
SallyMae wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:01 pm
AZOldCoot wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:59 pm Very unique and remarkable depictions! 👍😯

However, are any of these celebrities known or supected to be opposed to homelessness?

Too, based on what you originally wrote in a comment in this thread, did you get their permission to depict them this way?
Not yet, but I'm not as cool or as important as Weird Al...Lizzo and Biden are not returning my calls.

But, I admit because of this discussion I have had a change of heart. Once I thought about it, I realized that this kind of use of personal image is at the heart of the political comedy that shaped my life, from the editorial cartoons in the newspaper, to Doonesbury, Bloom County and Mad Magazine, to the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. I recalled that I had often seen Mitch McConnell photoshopped as a fairly believable turtle, or Hillary Clinton as a murder hornet, and literally no one objected to those portrayals. They are fair usage, and collectively they are adding tremendous richness and expression to our culture.

Just because I found the new drag images particularly objectionable, I can't really put aside the fact that it's the exact same thing. I think my homeless images are way less objectionable and more thought-provoking, but they are the same thing too. As a result, I have concluded that they are perfectly usable, without permission, like other social commentary we know and love.

Great question, thanks for asking!
Who would you designate to decide if an image "adds richness to our culture"?
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde
Deleted User 2267

Unread post

WellPreserved wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:58 pm
Bobcobbagob wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:49 pm Because it’s not the exact same thing.

Hillary as a hornet and what’s-his-face as a turtle is playing off of simple, blandness.

Obama as an ape is playing off of cruelty disguised as jokes… it doesn’t add richness to our culture…taking people who clearly don’t want to be in drag, taking that choice away from them and then getting everyone to laugh is just a way to further divide the lines and increase the amount of anger that is felt by one side…



There’s people that use humor like this well and for joking purpose, and then there’s people that use jokes like this to hurt others. It’s not the same…
SallyMae wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:01 pm

Not yet, but I'm not as cool or as important as Weird Al...Lizzo and Biden are not returning my calls.

But, I admit because of this discussion I have had a change of heart. Once I thought about it, I realized that this kind of use of personal image is at the heart of the political comedy that shaped my life, from the editorial cartoons in the newspaper, to Doonesbury, Bloom County and Mad Magazine, to the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. I recalled that I had often seen Mitch McConnell photoshopped as a fairly believable turtle, or Hillary Clinton as a murder hornet, and literally no one objected to those portrayals. They are fair usage, and collectively they are adding tremendous richness and expression to our culture.

Just because I found the new drag images particularly objectionable, I can't really put aside the fact that it's the exact same thing. I think my homeless images are way less objectionable and more thought-provoking, but they are the same thing too. As a result, I have concluded that they are perfectly usable, without permission, like other social commentary we know and love.

Great question, thanks for asking!
Who would you designate to decide if an image "adds richness to our culture"?
Pauly Shore.



I’m totally joking… but it’s not about designating someone, obviously there’s no one person that should ever be able to speak for everyone, it’s more about just using my own voice to share an opinion, and sometimes people will agree… ( lol most times they won’t though)
Deleted User 1977

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:01 pm
AZOldCoot wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:59 pm Very unique and remarkable depictions! 👍😯

However, are any of these celebrities known or supected to be opposed to homelessness?

Too, based on what you originally wrote in a comment in this thread, did you get their permission to depict them this way?
Not yet, but I'm not as cool or as important as Weird Al...Lizzo and Biden are not returning my calls.

But, I admit because of this discussion I have had a change of heart. Once I thought about it, I realized that this kind of use of personal image is at the heart of the political comedy that shaped my life, from the editorial cartoons in the newspaper, to Doonesbury, Bloom County and Mad Magazine, to the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. I recalled that I had often seen Mitch McConnell photoshopped as a fairly believable turtle, or Hillary Clinton as a murder hornet, and literally no one objected to those portrayals. They are fair usage, and collectively they are adding tremendous richness and expression to our culture.

Just because I found the new drag images particularly objectionable, I can't really put aside the fact that it's the exact same thing. I think my homeless images are way less objectionable and more thought-provoking, but they are the same thing too. As a result, I have concluded that they are perfectly usable, without permission, like other social commentary we know and love.

Great question, thanks for asking!
lol Interesting explanation and you're welcome for the questions.
WellPreserved
Donated
Donated
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9851
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Unread post

Bobcobbagob wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:49 pm Because it’s not the exact same thing.

Hillary as a hornet and what’s-his-face as a turtle is playing off of simple, blandness.

Obama as an ape is playing off of cruelty disguised as jokes… it doesn’t add richness to our culture…taking people who clearly don’t want to be in drag, taking that choice away from them and then getting everyone to laugh is just a way to further divide the lines and increase the amount of anger that is felt by one side…



There’s people that use humor like this well and for joking purpose, and then there’s people that use jokes like this to hurt others. It’s not the same…
SallyMae wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:01 pm
AZOldCoot wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:59 pm Very unique and remarkable depictions! 👍😯

However, are any of these celebrities known or supected to be opposed to homelessness?

Too, based on what you originally wrote in a comment in this thread, did you get their permission to depict them this way?
Not yet, but I'm not as cool or as important as Weird Al...Lizzo and Biden are not returning my calls.

But, I admit because of this discussion I have had a change of heart. Once I thought about it, I realized that this kind of use of personal image is at the heart of the political comedy that shaped my life, from the editorial cartoons in the newspaper, to Doonesbury, Bloom County and Mad Magazine, to the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. I recalled that I had often seen Mitch McConnell photoshopped as a fairly believable turtle, or Hillary Clinton as a murder hornet, and literally no one objected to those portrayals. They are fair usage, and collectively they are adding tremendous richness and expression to our culture.

Just because I found the new drag images particularly objectionable, I can't really put aside the fact that it's the exact same thing. I think my homeless images are way less objectionable and more thought-provoking, but they are the same thing too. As a result, I have concluded that they are perfectly usable, without permission, like other social commentary we know and love.

Great question, thanks for asking!
There's a reason that parody is called "the bitter laughter". It's meant to be a little painful.
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde
Locked Previous topicNext topic