Do you find this photo offensive ?

[Pogo]

Jesus Christ on a Cracker, get lost in shiny objects much??

Freeman produced his own photo-shopped image for the Los Angeles-based Frontiers gay magazine for men 15 years ago, and claims this is the first time he has had a complaint.

The image is a composition of several images from the Sierra Nevada mountains serving as a background to the four models, who are standing on rocks at Joshua Tree National Park.

He took the photograph in his Los Angeles studio with the men holding a PVC pipe before he meshed in a Pride flag in post-production. -- DailyMail
​

Congratulations on persistently missing the entire point here. Nobody gives a flying FUCK how it was created. This ain't the freaking Kennedy Assassination, and neither is it a fucking Photoshop class.

Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.

It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.

Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.

I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.

Finally, off the shiny object.

But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.

And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.

Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.

OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.

That's fine. But when I asked this threat what's "offensive" about this, all I got was a lot of finger-wagging claiming a "comparison" between the Marines and the later figures, which comparison does not exist, and I made that point.

This last clown was obsessed on how the image was generated, and when I finally got him off that shiny object he tried to slip an analogy that isn't a fair comparison at all ---- so I called him on that too.

It's what I do around here--- call out the hypocrisy.

Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.

I'm not obsessed with the origin of the image. The image included text that claimed it was a photograph taken ten years ago. THAT particular part of the image is a deception. I merely pointed out that it is stupid to continue discussing something that it not what it was claimed to be.

Do you get the picture?

Your attempt at deception is to say that the obvious comparison between true bravery and posing for a gay artist is not the intent of the image.

My analogy is spot on.

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

 

[ChrisL]

Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.

It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.

Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.

I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.

Finally, off the shiny object.

But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.

And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.

Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.

OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.

That's fine. But when I asked this threat what's "offensive" about this, all I got was a lot of finger-wagging claiming a "comparison" between the Marines and the later figures, which comparison does not exist, and I made that point.

This last clown was obsessed on how the image was generated, and when I finally got him off that shiny object he tried to slip an analogy that isn't a fair comparison at all ---- so I called him on that too.

It's what I do around here--- call out the hypocrisy.

Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.

I'm not obsessed with the origin of the image. The image included text that claimed it was a photograph taken ten years ago. THAT particular part of the image is a deception. I merely pointed out that it is stupid to continue discussing something that it not what it was claimed to be.

Do you get the picture?

Your attempt at deception is to say that the obvious comparison between true bravery and posing for a gay artist is not the intent of the image.

My analogy is spot on.

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

 

[Pogo]

Finally, off the shiny object.

But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.

And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.

Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.

OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.

That's fine. But when I asked this threat what's "offensive" about this, all I got was a lot of finger-wagging claiming a "comparison" between the Marines and the later figures, which comparison does not exist, and I made that point.

This last clown was obsessed on how the image was generated, and when I finally got him off that shiny object he tried to slip an analogy that isn't a fair comparison at all ---- so I called him on that too.

It's what I do around here--- call out the hypocrisy.

Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.

I'm not obsessed with the origin of the image. The image included text that claimed it was a photograph taken ten years ago. THAT particular part of the image is a deception. I merely pointed out that it is stupid to continue discussing something that it not what it was claimed to be.

Do you get the picture?

Your attempt at deception is to say that the obvious comparison between true bravery and posing for a gay artist is not the intent of the image.

My analogy is spot on.

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

 

[ChrisL]

OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.

That's fine. But when I asked this threat what's "offensive" about this, all I got was a lot of finger-wagging claiming a "comparison" between the Marines and the later figures, which comparison does not exist, and I made that point.

This last clown was obsessed on how the image was generated, and when I finally got him off that shiny object he tried to slip an analogy that isn't a fair comparison at all ---- so I called him on that too.

It's what I do around here--- call out the hypocrisy.

Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.

I'm not obsessed with the origin of the image. The image included text that claimed it was a photograph taken ten years ago. THAT particular part of the image is a deception. I merely pointed out that it is stupid to continue discussing something that it not what it was claimed to be.

Do you get the picture?

Your attempt at deception is to say that the obvious comparison between true bravery and posing for a gay artist is not the intent of the image.

My analogy is spot on.

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

^^^^

IS meaningful.

 

[Pogo]

That's fine. But when I asked this threat what's "offensive" about this, all I got was a lot of finger-wagging claiming a "comparison" between the Marines and the later figures, which comparison does not exist, and I made that point.

This last clown was obsessed on how the image was generated, and when I finally got him off that shiny object he tried to slip an analogy that isn't a fair comparison at all ---- so I called him on that too.

It's what I do around here--- call out the hypocrisy.

Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.

I'm not obsessed with the origin of the image. The image included text that claimed it was a photograph taken ten years ago. THAT particular part of the image is a deception. I merely pointed out that it is stupid to continue discussing something that it not what it was claimed to be.

Do you get the picture?

Your attempt at deception is to say that the obvious comparison between true bravery and posing for a gay artist is not the intent of the image.

My analogy is spot on.

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.

What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

Once again, like two weeks ago with the flag thing and innumerable other times, we're talking about symbology. Even the original Rosenthal photo was posed for effect. We understand its meaning, but if we're honest it's a deliberately-posed symbol, calculated to produce exactly the emotion it does. And so are the various parodies.

And again, like the Confederate flag, the Stars and Stripes, the Cross, the Star of David, the Swastika, etc etc ad infinitum, that symbol only has the power we invest in it. Without that investment, a flag is naught but a piece of cloth, a Cross is naught but two lines intersecting at 90⁰, and a photo is just another photo. The observer has to plug that in, and that means it's voluntary.

 

[ChrisL]

Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.

I'm not obsessed with the origin of the image. The image included text that claimed it was a photograph taken ten years ago. THAT particular part of the image is a deception. I merely pointed out that it is stupid to continue discussing something that it not what it was claimed to be.

Do you get the picture?

Your attempt at deception is to say that the obvious comparison between true bravery and posing for a gay artist is not the intent of the image.

My analogy is spot on.

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.
What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

 

[Nosmo King]

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.
What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

Could the Iwo Jima image, authentic or reproduced, be used in a sales campaign? In a political campaign? To promote another political message with the Gadsden (tea party) flag imposed over the stars and stripes?

Or is it offensive due to the particular political message represented?

 

[ChrisL]

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.
What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

Could the Iwo Jima image, authentic or reproduced, be used in a sales campaign? In a political campaign? To promote another political message with the Gadsden (tea party) flag imposed over the stars and stripes?

Or is it offensive due to the particular political message represented?

I think I already stated my opinion on that. I don't think this kind of image should really be used for anything, especially not to promote a product. They can do it, but I find it in bad taste. That's just my opinion. A flag is not a picture of actual people, so as for the flag it would depend on the circumstances.

 

[ChrisL]

This isn't something I feel REAL strongly about. That is why I changed my answer from offensive to "in bad taste." Personally, I wouldn't use this image to promote something, unless it was perhaps a remembrance celebration or something to do with that actual event, that's for sure.

 

[ChrisL]

Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.

I'm not obsessed with the origin of the image. The image included text that claimed it was a photograph taken ten years ago. THAT particular part of the image is a deception. I merely pointed out that it is stupid to continue discussing something that it not what it was claimed to be.

Do you get the picture?

Your attempt at deception is to say that the obvious comparison between true bravery and posing for a gay artist is not the intent of the image.

My analogy is spot on.

Wrong. Your analogy of Bill Watterson's intellectual property pissing on a cross DIRECTLY involves religion. The rainbow image (and the various other parodies) DO NOT involve the Marines from the Rosenthal image. Only the action is present; not the original actors.

COMPLETELY false equivalence.

The fact remains, NONE of these parodies include the Marines, therefore the "comparison" is a contrivance in the eye of the beholder seeking desperately something to be offended at, and, finding nothing, inserting his own element which is clearly absent.

And THAT is why that argument is dishonest. When you have to insert your own content in order to find "offense", you've constructed a strawman.

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.

What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

Once again, like two weeks ago with the flag thing and innumerable other times, we're talking about symbology. Even the original Rosenthal photo was posed for effect. We understand its meaning, but if we're honest it's a deliberately-posed symbol, calculated to produce exactly the emotion it does. And so are the various parodies.

And again, like the Confederate flag, the Stars and Stripes, the Cross, the Star of David, the Swastika, etc etc ad infinitum, that symbol only has the power we invest in it. Without that investment, a flag is naught but a piece of cloth, a Cross is naught but two lines intersecting at 90⁰, and a photo is just another photo. The observer has to plug that in, and that means it's voluntary.

Yes Pogo, that is true, but the question was asked.

 

[Pogo]

I have to disagree. When you look at the image, the first thing that comes to mind is the raising of the flag in Iwo Jima image. They copied the image to make a political statement.

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.
What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

Could the Iwo Jima image, authentic or reproduced, be used in a sales campaign? In a political campaign? To promote another political message with the Gadsden (tea party) flag imposed over the stars and stripes?

Or is it offensive due to the particular political message represented?

Aye, there's the rub. I don't recall any particular "offense" at the image of the 1969 Mets, or the various political cartoons too numerous to count, that have used the same pose. The site I mined in post 42 calls it the most parodized image in history, which while difficult to count literally might be accurate.

So might this one, again like the topic here using the setting but changing all of the actors....

​

----- does that "disrespect" anybody?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Both in their own way are a symbol of a struggle and the enormous effort to overcome it. Unlike the flag of the Confederacy, a symbol of hate and one which created a struggle to continue the enslavement of others.

 

[Pogo]

Sure they did. That's the whole point.
But they didn't copy the Marines themselves; they copied the action.

I wonder if people find themselves incapable of separating an action --- from the actors performing that action. Doesn't seem like that deep a concept.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.
What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

Could the Iwo Jima image, authentic or reproduced, be used in a sales campaign? In a political campaign? To promote another political message with the Gadsden (tea party) flag imposed over the stars and stripes?

Or is it offensive due to the particular political message represented?

I think I already stated my opinion on that. I don't think this kind of image should really be used for anything, especially not to promote a product. They can do it, but I find it in bad taste. That's just my opinion. A flag is not a picture of actual people, so as for the flag it would depend on the circumstances.

All of these symbols communicate something as metaphor --- whether it's struggle-and-triumph.... patriotism.... love... hate... piety... unity, whatever. Visual metaphors are used to represent such dynamics and have been since Og put up the first cave drawings. They're essential communication tools in the graphic (non-textual) human language.

As such they carry no conclusion of their own; that conclusion has to be inferred from the content -- what is going on in the whole image. The pose is one metaphor, the flag is another. The combination of them makes the point.

That's why it's interesting that a sports team, and several record albums, and way too many political and social commentary cartoons to count, go by with nary a whisper, and suddenly the one that refers to gay equality becomes a problem. It's the same metaphor used in all of them, so the metaphor is apparently not the issue.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

Because an original pose would not include a well-known metaphor, that's why. Same reason making up a new original flag design wouldn't work --- nobody would get the point. The whole point of metaphorical image is that the viewer understands what that metaphor means, and integrates it into the overall message. Just as we must first develop and define words before we can express sentences.

Basically the topic image is a simple combination of two metaphors:
1) Iwo Jima Rosenthal pose = "struggle and triumph"

plus ("of")​

2) Rainbow flag = "gay equality"

That's it. Not complex at all.

 

[Synthaholic]

The OP photo is less offensive than any avatar sported by ShootSpeeders or Steve McGarrett, here on USMB.

Yet the wingnuts here have never criticized them.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should use the action either. The image, including the actors and the action, are meaningful.

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.
What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

Could the Iwo Jima image, authentic or reproduced, be used in a sales campaign? In a political campaign? To promote another political message with the Gadsden (tea party) flag imposed over the stars and stripes?

Or is it offensive due to the particular political message represented?

I think I already stated my opinion on that. I don't think this kind of image should really be used for anything, especially not to promote a product. They can do it, but I find it in bad taste. That's just my opinion. A flag is not a picture of actual people, so as for the flag it would depend on the circumstances.

All of these symbols communicate something as metaphor --- whether it's struggle-and-triumph.... patriotism.... love... hate... piety... unity, whatever. Visual metaphors are used to represent such dynamics and have been since Og put up the first cave drawings. They're essential communication tools in the graphic (non-textual) human language.

As such they carry no conclusion of their own; that conclusion has to be inferred from the content -- what is going on in the whole image. The pose is one metaphor, the flag is another. The combination of them makes the point.

That's why it's interesting that a sports team, and several record albums, and way too many political and social commentary cartoons to count, go by with nary a whisper, and suddenly the one that refers to gay equality becomes a problem. It's the same metaphor used in all of them, so the metaphor is apparently not the issue.

Well, as anyone who is familiar with my posts knows, I am a pro gay rights advocate. I just don't think it is right to use that particular image is all. Maybe that is because of what that picture means to me. I don't know.

 

[Pogo]

Ah, well that's a whole 'nother question.
What I was pointing out was that this "comparison" to the Marines does not exist. Comparison to the action is what exists. Unless that particular exact group of four Marines are the only four people capable of performing that action --- they don't own it. So the idea some brought up that it was somehow "disrespecting the Marines" is disingenuous.

I disagree. Using that image, the actors or the action, to make a political statement is a bit disingenuous and kind of in bad taste. That's my opinion. Why not make your own image?

Could the Iwo Jima image, authentic or reproduced, be used in a sales campaign? In a political campaign? To promote another political message with the Gadsden (tea party) flag imposed over the stars and stripes?

Or is it offensive due to the particular political message represented?

I think I already stated my opinion on that. I don't think this kind of image should really be used for anything, especially not to promote a product. They can do it, but I find it in bad taste. That's just my opinion. A flag is not a picture of actual people, so as for the flag it would depend on the circumstances.

All of these symbols communicate something as metaphor --- whether it's struggle-and-triumph.... patriotism.... love... hate... piety... unity, whatever. Visual metaphors are used to represent such dynamics and have been since Og put up the first cave drawings. They're essential communication tools in the graphic (non-textual) human language.

As such they carry no conclusion of their own; that conclusion has to be inferred from the content -- what is going on in the whole image. The pose is one metaphor, the flag is another. The combination of them makes the point.

That's why it's interesting that a sports team, and several record albums, and way too many political and social commentary cartoons to count, go by with nary a whisper, and suddenly the one that refers to gay equality becomes a problem. It's the same metaphor used in all of them, so the metaphor is apparently not the issue.

Well, as anyone who is familiar with my posts knows, I am a pro gay rights advocate. I just don't think it is right to use that particular image is all. Maybe that is because of what that picture means to me. I don't know.

You're saying this particular metaphor is too powerful. That's fair. I have to say, this is a far more honest argument than the previous ones imagining "comparisons" with the Marines. Kudos for that.

 

[evince]

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.

gay people have died in this country because of your hate