My point wasIt'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.
(
Cassius Kray floats like a butterfly, stings like a trout,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:55,
archived)
Sure - I got that point.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.
(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.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:02,
archived)
I don't disagree thereWe simply place a different weight on the level of artistic quality required to legitimise the use of potentially objectionable material.
Furtrhermore, ... oh bugger it i don't have time for the furthermore.
(Furtrhermore, ... oh bugger it i don't have time for the furthermore.
Cassius Kray floats like a butterfly, stings like a trout,
Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:22,
archived)