Bells:
Things have moved on a bit, but I had no time yesterday to reply.
"An attempt to launch an attack on the US"?
Do you think her images contain launch codes for ballistic missiles?
Do you think the images of the girl's breasts are actually buttons for said missiles?
I have to admit, this made me laugh.
Wasn't it obvious that I meant a written attack? Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to SAM's usual penchant for threads that attempt to demonise "the West", and the US in particular.
She was discussing a British newspaper in actual fact. How that constitutes "an attack on the US", maybe you could clarify?
Again, sorry you are confused.
In my previous post I referred to SAM's gratuitous and irrelevant introduction of the Abu Graib tortures into a thread about an Egyptian girl's nude protest.
Maybe you've confused my discussion of SAM's attack on "the west" with the Egyptian girl's protest, which I have not referred to at all as an "attack" of any sort. Maybe if you go back and read my post again with this in mind it will make more sense for you.
But in discussing this girl's protest, she is right that the Western media is happy to publish violent images and will only censor nudity. Since when did the human form become more offensive than torturing or killing someone? No one has yet to answer this question.
I thought I had addressed that point explicitly in the very post that you are replying to here. My mistake.
Now, you deem the images to be garbage. They aren't. They are a part of what is now our very violent near history. [snip]
No. I deem SAM's introduction of Abu Graib images into the context of the current thread as "garbage". Not quite the same thing. And I thought I'd been clear about that, too. Also, "garbage" is not my original term. Recall that we were referring to comments made originally by Fraggle.
Just as this girl, who lives in a country that is known for its crackdown on protests and also known for censorship has also been censored by the West because she posted an image of herself naked on her blog. The image is not violent. But it does show that the media is somewhat twisted in its priorities.
How has this girl been censored? I looks to me like her message has been broadcast loud and clear.
Now, you may view the images of those tortured men and of Phan Thi Kim Phuc to be "garbage", but what those images show is just how violent we are and just what we are capable of as a society. Those images will forever be symbolic of our hypocrisy and our nature. I don't think it is "garbage" at all. I think pretending or hiding it and trying to pass ourselves off as saintly and viewing any criticism as the launch of an attack is symbolic of just how inane and in denial society has become.
This is a straw man, and I think you know it. Why waste your time? Why not address what I've actually said rather than setting out to offend me by putting false words in my mouth?
You know, this thread had a lot of potential. It is a shame that people such as yourself, Fraggle and others are too blinkered shouting at the messenger than looking at what is actually being discussed.
I responded to the topic of the thread in the very post to which you are replying.
You know, Bells, it looks to me an awful lot like you hit the "reply" button on posts before you've read them, then furiously bang out a reply paragraph by paragraph, assuming that if you haven't got to an explanation yet then it probably isn't there. Then, when you finish, you don't even go back to see if what you were complaining about at the top of your reply was actually addressed later on. Just hit "Submit" and move on to the next post.
Next time, try reading my entire reply before going off half-cocked after the first 30 words, ok?
I think you need to ask yourself exactly how torture at Abu Graib is at all relevant to an Egyptian girl's nude protest against the Egyptian authorities.
And I think you need to ask yourself how and why the media deems torture and the murder of civilians as being less offensive than a girl's nudity on her blog. That is the whole point.
A point I directly addressed later in the post you're replying to. See what I mean?
I think you need to ask yourself how and why violence is somewhat less offensive in the media than a girl's nude protest.
When you can answer that, then you might understand why those torture images were brought up in this thread.
In my experience, the media tends to censor images of violence as well as images of nudity. If you disagree, we could have a more general discussion about that issue, perhaps in a separate thread. I have, of course, already talked about the comparison a little.
The only dishonesty I see here is the hysterical response I am witnessing from you and Fraggle and a few others in this thread. The words and terminology used.. the 'launching an attack'.. seriously?
I banned SAM for a breach of a site rule that she has been warned about repeatedly. There's nothing hysterical in that. The rest is just commentary on the side.
Her images pertained to the subject matter.
No. Introducing the Abu Graib images into this thread was gratuitous, insensistive to the victims and to potential readers, and an off-topic distraction besides.
Have you actually even read the thread?
Yes. I've read the whole thing.
What are you on about?
She was talking about a BRITISH newspaper. I would suggest you go back to page 1 of this thread and scroll down to the third post.
The rest of the West did the same thing. So did the media in the ME.
Once again, I think you're confusing the Egyptian girl's protest with SAM's latest tirade against the evil "west". I'll try to make it clearer for you as to which one I am discussing at any particular time, though I thought it would have been fairly obvious from context. Maybe my expression is worse that I imagine it is.
The point is that the West deems itself to be free and open and in reporting on an Egyptian girl's protest against censorship against her restrictive Government, the supposedly open and free Western media censors her.
How has she been censored? Anybody can go look at her blog. In fact, their attention has been captured by the news stories about it. She has received extra publicity, not censorship.
The images of the torture victims was to point out how the media are free and open to not censor violence and pain, only people's genitals and women's boobs.
They do both. Haven't you noticed? Next time there is a fatal car accident, watch the evening news reports and note how the cover it. In particular, note whether they show images of the mutilated bodies or not.
We frown at tits but don't frown at an image of a man being tortured by our allies.
Speak for yourself. I find the Abu Graib images and all that they imply deeply disturbing.
The girl was protesting against the Egyptian Government's censorship of women and nudity in art. If you look at the photo, it is quite artistic. Hence why she used it in her protest. She was protesting because the State took it upon itself to pixillate and censor art and women. The west, in reporting on this brave girl's protest also censors her.
I can't comment on all the western media. I haven't checked who published this story, and what they published. But it seems to me that they have given her extra publicity, which is quite the opposite of censorship.
But we do not censor violence in the media.
Nonsense.
If the girl wanted her image pixellated, she would not have posted her photo or would have done it herself. So you aren't protecting this girl's protest or being sensitive. Quite the contrary. Pixellating her image is exactly what she is protesting against and is very insensitive of her and what she is protesting about.
I disagree.
You ought to ask yourself questions such as: in what context or contexts did this girl intend for her nude image to appear or be published? What control did she retain over her image? Would publishing the unmodified images, especially outside the intended context, tend to objectify the girl, invade her privacy, and/or disrespect her rights to her image? How could the girl's story best be presented while remaining sensitive to the various issues involved?
Her image is not pornographic though.
She didn't
intend it to be pornographic, but no doubt that is how some might view it. This becomes more likely the further it is removed from the context in which it was originally posted.
