Neighbor from h*ll puts up Swastika display; Claims it's 'Art'

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Religious consequences of Israel jewish state proposal



People are free to shock their neighbours in America. In Hebron, they can't walk down the street.
Prisoners in our own homes: A look at life in occupied Hebron

If the followers of the Jewish religion hate the swastika symbol so much, why are they always daubing it on doors, cars and other places.

The guy in this case is making a statement, which he has a constitutional right to do. People who have to use the "hate" tag all the time, to describe any point of view they disagree with, really don't see the irony of acting like Nazis when they try to censor all but their own views.

If some people find this gentleman's work distasteful, then so be it, walk on by, ignore it, don't look at it, but do not try to censor his views.

We could all argue that we are bombarded with stuff we find offensive each and every day. Hell, I can't stand to see images of Tony Blair without feeling a little sick and being hugely offended, but the press has a right to show images of him. I don't have to look or read what he has been spouting but I don't get all hot under the collar and call for it to be removed from everywhere as it causes offense.

My generation were obviously born with thicker skins than the pansy-arsed generation we seem to have today!

The art of Natali Cohen Vaxberg : Shi***ng on the Israeli flag :

originally posted by: projectbane
a reply to: Anyafaj

This is why America will ultimately collapse.

Why do more people in the states protect the second amaendment over the first.

This is FREE SPEECH. And whether it is what people like is tough. Its you people that have a problem with it that are ruining our lives by forcing the governments to act. How is it even offensive?

Im not Jewish, so I have no problem with the Swastika. NONE. I have more of a problem with the NRA protecting people who use guns to kill children in schools and UNI's around the US.

Bane, I'd like to see where I said the government should act? I'm confused. I said I don't agree with it. I never said the government should go on his lawn and tear it down and rendition him. Giving him a gun while their at it. I protect his right to free speech and his right to the second amendment. I'm actually for LESS government in our lives, not more.

originally posted by: Ultralight
ART is not hate.

Art is whatever you can get away with.

MM

Back in the old days (and perhaps it still goes on), whenever a neighbor decides to act out and disrupt the rest of the neighborhood with their crazy crank activities, the other neighbors would band together and actively discourage the crank from living in that neighborhood. Yeah, there's the "law," but there is also a very strong unspoken social bond created when people choose to live together in a community. So in a case like this, I could see a mysterious, "unwitnessed" fire happening that would drive the crank away.

a reply to: Blue Shift

In the shape of a cross?

I absolutely disagree with this guy, but I think he has every right to put that nonsense on his house if he feels like it.

If I were his neighbors, I'd put up a really big, long banner that says "There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as 'Palestine' and the very notion of a 'Palestinian Arab nation' having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world!"

...or something like that.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain Average people......are morons....for the most

you hit the nail on the head.

sure, generalization isn't ideal but i tend to agree, at least from my own experience.

originally posted by: Anyafaj I'm still learning what words are allowable, and what ones are not.

therein lies the crux of the problem.
who decides what is or is not 'allowable', on everybody elses' behalf?

freedom of speech/expression is a minefield, through which everyone
has to tread increasingly carefully, for fear of not only blowing oneself
up but also being prosecuted for taking the risk in the first place.

maybe the only answer is to post 'keep out' signs around the minefield,
(and an electrified fence), in order to 'protect' us all?

He's making a point. USA and Isreal are the new nazis. Good for him. Why can't this guy put up his art but Christians can? That symbol isn't even evil, it's a preexisting symbol Nazis used.

Don't like Nazi's.

Okay, now that THAT has been said, I'll say the following.

If a girl can go on a stage, make a word-salad speech, open a can of spoiled Spaghetti-O's, and proceed to pleasure herself with the contents of said can of Spaghetti-O's, (yes. This has actually happened it's called "Interior Semiotics", do not google it.), and the urinate into the can and call it art... Well, a dude who decides to hang a few swastikas around his house and call it art should be afforded the same protections.

We may not like it, but art is art. We can't say one thing isn't art and another is. If I shart into a christmas stocking and write "To President Obama" on it and hang it from a tree in my front yard and call it art... Well, it is.

The question here is simple. Do people have the right to not see something they don't like?

The answer is easy, no they don't have that right.

This person is making a statement using a symbol. Nobody is harmed and nobodys rights are being violated with the symbol. Whether its in bad taste or not is a subjective question and is irrelevant.

People need to stop seeking out things to be offended by and trying to impose their will on others. To do so is a violation of their rights and goes against what the US and freedom stand for.

If you don't like it, ignore it and move on.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
The question here is simple. Do people have the right to not see something they don't like?

The answer is easy, no they don't have that right.

This person is making a statement using a symbol. Nobody is harmed and nobodys rights are being violated with the symbol. Whether its in bad taste or not is a subjective question and is irrelevant.

People need to stop seeking out things to be offended by and trying to impose their will on others. To do so is a violation of their rights and goes against what the US and freedom stand for.

If you don't like it, ignore it and move on.

People need to stop seeking out things to be offended by and trying to impose their will on others.

Ok, using your own words, at the same time, isn't he imposing his view and will on others? If it were my neighbor, I'm not going to force him to take it down, but that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy it either.

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
The question here is simple. Do people have the right to not see something they don't like?

The answer is easy, no they don't have that right.

This person is making a statement using a symbol. Nobody is harmed and nobodys rights are being violated with the symbol. Whether its in bad taste or not is a subjective question and is irrelevant.

People need to stop seeking out things to be offended by and trying to impose their will on others. To do so is a violation of their rights and goes against what the US and freedom stand for.

If you don't like it, ignore it and move on.

People need to stop seeking out things to be offended by and trying to impose their will on others.

Ok, using your own words, at the same time, isn't he imposing his view and will on others? If it were my neighbor, I'm not going to force him to take it down, but that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy it either.

If one's views and wills are so weak that they are challenged or imposed upon via wall-hangings and lawn art, I fear for that person's mind.

Freedom of speech. The point being, we can not just protect that what we find appealing, but that what offends us. He is making a statement, but ultimately, as long as people are looking and complaining, he will continue the actions. This reminds me of the movie: Pleasantville. At the end where they did the huge muriel on the wall and got the entire town to look, and talk, to show either displeasure or agreement. The question will be what will happen when those who agree with such show up on his door then what?

originally posted by: Psynic
In the shape of a cross?

Maybe. More like the whole house burning down.

That's why you should be nice to your immediate neighbors, and do a little research about the area you want to move into.

I'm not saying it's right, or legal.

Of course, we would all like to think that as long as we're not doing anything technically "illegal" that the law will protect us from being targeted by our neighbors. But the law is just words in a book. You have to be realistic, and you should recognize it as a real possibility that if you're a jerk and a crank to your neighbors, they might take things into their own hands.

a reply to: Anyafaj

He put it on his own property, not someone elses. Nobody is forced to take any action due to his flags and no person or property is harmed. He is not imposing his will on anybody any more so than an anti abortion billboard, or a cross outside a church is imposing their will on anybody.

There is no protection from being offended, and rightfully so. All sorts of people could potentially be offended by all sorts of things. If you really want to censor your neighbor for something that causes zero harm, be ready for the day when you offend someone else due to some trivial flag or symbol and see how it feels to be on the other end.

A swastika does no more harm than a christian cross or a pentagram. Whether or not you agree with the symbol is your own problem.

I don't understand why when we see something or hear something we don't like, we allow ourselves to become so emotionally invested in it? Can't we just say, "I don't like that, okay moving on".

It really is taking power away from you if you allow what someone else says or does to upset you in such a way.

If he simply would reverse the image it would be a hindu image and they would do nothing to him.
a reply to: Anyafaj