
If the picture was, say, of the Sichuan earthquake everyone would be laughing? I don't agree, i think everyone would still be calling him a cunt.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:43,
archived)

Juxtaposing a picture of a war with the banality of Christmas may be a tad sophomoric, but it does have a point. It may not be lolsome, but that's just too bad. It can still be witty.
If you can use a picture of an earthquake to make a comment about the world in a witty way, then you're welcome to give it a go, I'd've thought...
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:49,
archived)
If you can use a picture of an earthquake to make a comment about the world in a witty way, then you're welcome to give it a go, I'd've thought...

It's the graphic nature of the image that people are complaining about. I don't think the 'fame' of the event has anything to do with it; if he'd used a gory picture from a more recognisable tragedy the same people would still be complaining in the same way.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:55,
archived)

I still think that it's what you do with an image that counts in this sort of context. Likely as not there'll be counterexamples. But the original post here was an attempt - I take it - at a black-as-pitch joke about smug middle-class westerners celebrating Christmas. I don't see anything particularly problematic about that.
If you're offended by the image, you've misidentified the problem. The problem is that people are getting mutilated for no good reason, not that there exist photos of the mutilation. The photos, used well, might actually turn out to be a good thing.
( ,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:02,
archived)
If you're offended by the image, you've misidentified the problem. The problem is that people are getting mutilated for no good reason, not that there exist photos of the mutilation. The photos, used well, might actually turn out to be a good thing.