Do you find this photo offensive ?

[asaratis]

Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.

For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.

We do not have two suns.

Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.

For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.

We do not have two suns.

Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.

Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.

I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.

 

[Pogo]

Apples and oranges, Pogo.

How?

ITT, Pogo knowingly plays dumb for shits and giggles.

The Beatles on segways has no clashing, ideological charge. Comparing the actual fighting and dying of brave soldiers against an evil tyrant to the gay marriage debate is stupid. That's no better than calling Obama a Muslim or Bush a Nazi. That kind of crap. There's no underlying, emotionally-driven energy to segways or the Beatles as there is with fallen war veterans and gay marriage. I guess your tune would stay the same if some conservative took something liberals value and did something similar, right?

For a liberal, you don't seem to appreciate the value of nuance.

You still haven't answered the question. Your flawed premise assumes some sort of "comparison" between marines in the original with the flag planters in the latest parody (of many parodies). That "comparison" does not exist.

Nor are the 1969 New York Mets being "compared" to the Marines, nor are the various bands Uriah Heep, Funkadelic, Canned Heat etc "comparing" themselves to the Marines, nor are the various political cartoons, the beer can or the science fiction comic book "comparing" themselves to the Marines. Not one of them has a direct reference to the Marines at all, except the beer can, which uses the photo to sell beer.

Again -- I get no response whatsoever on this --- what about the beer can? The cartoons? The comics? The magazine with the Mets on it? How come a thousand parodies of a famous image go by, and suddenly THIS one is a problem? How come indeed. You tell me who's "knowingly playing dumb".

ALL of these, including the rainbow flag, are denoting the idea of struggle-and-victory .... the whole idea of all these parodies is to convey the VERB of the original ---- not the NOUN. The spirit if you like.

Now tell me who's acting stupid.


Do you see the difference I'm citing between the "verb" of the photo and the "noun"? Here's an example of a parody using the noun:

​

That's the actual Rosenthal image that includes the original Marines, with a substitute for the flag. Yet even this is not dissing the Marines -- it carries its own message. I wonder if there's anyone willing to play dumb enough to not know what it is.

 

[mudwhistle]

This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.

I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.

AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.

It shows how unoriginal the left is.

 

[Kondor3]

This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.

I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.

AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.

The raising of the Sissy Mary on Mount Butt Buddy?

 

[Andylusion]

As a veteran ... No it doesn't.
You can copy greatness, or parody it ... But there is no way in Hell it will ever mean the same thing.

.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's it... right there.

 

[bucs90]

If you do find it offensive, they own you.

But then, you fools are constantly looking for some reason to get all offended and junk.

If I find that offensive they "own me"??

You talking about the faggot flag or confederate flag?

 

[JoeMoma]

This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.

I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.

AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.

I am not offended, but I can understand why some may be. That being said there is no right not to be offended. People need to grow some skin and stop being in a constant state of being offended all the time. Lighten up and enjoy life.

 

[Mac1958]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

.

 

[ChrisL]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

.

It's distasteful. It minimizes the lives that were lost in that war. NOBODY should use it to endorse "their" product because that picture is supposed to represent and honor the lives lost during the war.

 

[JoeMoma]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

.

Good question. I don't think everyone is on the same page with what it means to be offended be something. My own made up definition is that when I'm offended I'm negatively and emotionally upset. I can find something distasteful without being upset or offended by it.

 

[asaratis]

Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.

For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.

We do not have two suns.

Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.

Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.

I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.

You would never pass muster in law a decent law school.

 

[BlackSand]

Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.

For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.

We do not have two suns.

Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.

Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.

I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.

Pogo ... I don't normally butt into your business ... But this time, I think you may actually be arguing with a jellyfish.
Hey .. Kudos on the JFK comment though ... That was icing on the cake.

.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.

For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.

We do not have two suns.

Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.

Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.

I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.

You would never pass muster in law a decent law school.

Okay Einstein Jellyfish, why don't you essplain to the class how the difference between a photoshop and a genuine posed photo suddenly completely changes the symbolic implications.

Or as they say in court: Motion to Kiss My Ass.

 

[Pogo]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

It means their "offense" is an activity rather than a reaction. In this case in order to be "offended" you have to first contrive a "comparison" personally involving the Marines of the original photo. Since that comparison is not present, you have to plant it there and then go, "oh look what I found".

And it takes a lot of Denialism since the iconic photo has been used as a model for some seventy years.

 

[ChrisL]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

It means their "offense" is an activity rather than a reaction. In this case in order to be "offended" you have to first contrive a "comparison" personally involving the Marines of the original photo. Since that comparison is not present, you have to plant it there and then go, "oh look what I found".

And it takes a lot of Denialism since the iconic photo has been used as a model for some seventy years.

Okay, maybe using the word "offended" was incorrect on my part. I find the photo in bad taste.

 

[Pogo]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

It means their "offense" is an activity rather than a reaction. In this case in order to be "offended" you have to first contrive a "comparison" personally involving the Marines of the original photo. Since that comparison is not present, you have to plant it there and then go, "oh look what I found".

And it takes a lot of Denialism since the iconic photo has been used as a model for some seventy years.

Okay, maybe using the word "offended" was incorrect on my part. I find the photo in bad taste.

Yeah that's a different thing, but it was the OP who came up with the term "offensive".

What do you think about the various parodies in post 42? Were they also in bad taste when they were originally done? Or were some, not others?

 

[ChrisL]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

It means their "offense" is an activity rather than a reaction. In this case in order to be "offended" you have to first contrive a "comparison" personally involving the Marines of the original photo. Since that comparison is not present, you have to plant it there and then go, "oh look what I found".

And it takes a lot of Denialism since the iconic photo has been used as a model for some seventy years.

Okay, maybe using the word "offended" was incorrect on my part. I find the photo in bad taste.

Yeah that's a different thing, but it was the OP who came up with the term "offensive".

What do you think about the various parodies in post 42? Were they also in bad taste when they were originally done? Or were some, not others?

Yeah, I don't really think such an iconic photo should be used to endorse a product either. To me, that photo represents soldiers who died to defend freedom. It's pretty sad that they would use that photo on a beer can or something, to me anyway. It's a free country, so they CAN. I just think it is in bad taste.

 

[Pogo]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

It means their "offense" is an activity rather than a reaction. In this case in order to be "offended" you have to first contrive a "comparison" personally involving the Marines of the original photo. Since that comparison is not present, you have to plant it there and then go, "oh look what I found".

And it takes a lot of Denialism since the iconic photo has been used as a model for some seventy years.

Okay, maybe using the word "offended" was incorrect on my part. I find the photo in bad taste.

Yeah that's a different thing, but it was the OP who came up with the term "offensive".

What do you think about the various parodies in post 42? Were they also in bad taste when they were originally done? Or were some, not others?

Yeah, I don't really think such an iconic photo should be used to endorse a product either. To me, that photo represents soldiers who died to defend freedom. It's pretty sad that they would use that photo on a beer can or something, to me anyway. It's a free country, so they CAN. I just think it is in bad taste.

They 'can' -- I get it.

That's one level, the beer company pandering. That's the only image I posted that used the actual Rosenthal photo, rather than referring back to it with a parody.

Then there's, say, the political cartoons using the spirit-dynamic to make a point. Or the New York Mets winning their first championship --- representing triumph after years of ridicule. As I suggested, the "verb" of the photo, not the "noun".

 

[ChrisL]

Serious question: Can someone tells me what you actually mean when you say you're "offended"?

Does it just mean that you don't like something, or is there some kind of emotional, physiological or psychological reaction attached to your viewing or hearing something that causes you to cross over into being "offended"?

When you're "offended" by something, do you feel some kind of need to remove or eliminate the "offending" thing, so that you are no longer "offended"?

And perhaps most importantly, if you manage to get that "offending" thing removed or eliminated, how do you then feel? Do you talk yourself into feeling that it no longer exists, that other people are no longer thinking it, or is your life somehow better that you can no longer detect it?

Drill down on this, willya?

It means their "offense" is an activity rather than a reaction. In this case in order to be "offended" you have to first contrive a "comparison" personally involving the Marines of the original photo. Since that comparison is not present, you have to plant it there and then go, "oh look what I found".

And it takes a lot of Denialism since the iconic photo has been used as a model for some seventy years.

Okay, maybe using the word "offended" was incorrect on my part. I find the photo in bad taste.

Yeah that's a different thing, but it was the OP who came up with the term "offensive".

What do you think about the various parodies in post 42? Were they also in bad taste when they were originally done? Or were some, not others?

Yeah, I don't really think such an iconic photo should be used to endorse a product either. To me, that photo represents soldiers who died to defend freedom. It's pretty sad that they would use that photo on a beer can or something, to me anyway. It's a free country, so they CAN. I just think it is in bad taste.

They 'can' -- I get it.

That's one level, the beer company pandering. That's the only image I posted that used the actual Rosenthal photo, rather than referring back to it with a parody.

Then there's, say, the political cartoons using the spirit-dynamic to make a point. Or the New York Mets winning their first championship --- representing triumph after years of ridicule. As I suggested, the "verb" of the photo, not the "noun".

Is it appropriate to use a photo of a dead person or people for parody purposes? Let's not forget that the men in that photo could have and probably do have living relatives.