Things have moved on a bit, but I had no time yesterday to reply.
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.
As much as Fraggle, GeoffP and others attack and demonise Muslims, Islam and Muslim countries perhaps? I mean we have Fraggle in another thread speculating on how many Muslim men rape women when they come to the West, because apparently, that's sort of what they do if his tone is to be believed.
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.
I adore it when you are patronising and insulting.
The point was simple. The images from Abu Graib were plastered everywhere in the media, and the torture uncensored. Yet a girl's very artistic protest against her tight fisted regime which censores art and denies women equal rights is censored because it involved an artistic nude image. If you are unable to still grasp the hypocrisy of censorship and what the Western media deems to be offensive, then really, what is the point of this discussion?
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.
Oh James deems it to be "garbage" and thus it is so!
I beg to differ. I have the right to my opinion. Last I checked, you were not the thought police. Yes, you removed the images in accordance to the rules and because Arthur was offended by nipples. But that you don't censor or infract others who have gone on and made very racist, abusive and insulting remarks in this thread shows where the priorities lie. Point taken.
How has this girl been censored? I looks to me like her message has been broadcast loud and clear.
You really fail to see the irony, don't you?
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?
Tut tut. So defensive James. Go back and read what I wrote again and tell me how you think it offends you?
You said that you agreed with Fraggle that the images used in this thread were garbage. If you don't want your words to be taken literally, then write more clearly. I stated that the images were symbolic of the war and not garbage.
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?
How about next time, you read the entire thread instead of choice posts posted to you via reports before you make such a comment?
A point I directly addressed later in the post you're replying to. See what I mean?
Which you still don't quite get the point. But that's alright.
We've been here and done that before.
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.
So you want me to start a separate thread about media censorship instead of discussing it in this thread which deals specifically with media censorship?
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.
Yes. The titty and blood reaction. Life will never be the same again.
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.
I beg to differ. Had you read the entire thread, it would have been obvious why those images were used as a comparison with what is censored in the media and what is not.
Yes. I've read the whole thing.
Having a slow day?
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.
Oh no. You express yourself fine. I just don't agree with you.
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.
*Sigh*
It's like trying to explain something to Arthur.
How do you think her image has been censored in the Western media James? I'll give you a hint.. Look at where her boobs are meant to be and where her vagina is meant to be and tell me what you see....
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.
That is because emergency workers rarely allow cameras to get in their way to film or take images.
Speak for yourself. I find the Abu Graib images and all that they imply deeply disturbing.
Yes they are. So why didn't the media censor it but decided to censor this girl's photo?
Get it?
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.
Again, look at the artistic photo published in the West and tell me what you see where her boobs and vagina would normally be.
So images and films of a soldier throwing a dog off a cliff, the film footage of the sexual assault on the mentally disabled girl by a bunch of school boys, the hacking away at people in the Rwandan genocide and in East Timor, to name a few.. None of that was censored.
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?
Various issues such as a regime that does not treat women equally and who censors artistic expression and the human form?
When you look at the image, it becomes quite clear.
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.
Do you equate human nudity with pornography? I would imagine not, since you are an intelligent individual. But if we were to cater to the idiots in society, then all art would be censored and the statue of David would have his genitals hacked off, because someone, somewhere will find it pornographic.
