Chula Vista school mural depicts severed, speared Trump head

a reply to: Blaine91555


Depends.

Did I pay you to paint on my property?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: UKTruth


I wouldn't like it.

I would get offended by it.


But my "being offended" should never dictate what others might express.

Sure, but you'd agree with such imagery being taken down from public view, right?
You're not seriously saying if that some racist painted a picture on the outside of his house of a black guy being lynched by a guy wearing sheets , you wouldn't want it taken down... I don't believe you if you say it should stay up. Surely this is an example of something that should be censored, no?

a reply to: DBCowboy

So they can not pay and it's fine, but they can't pay and change their minds?

Or is it censorship every time someone won't pay this hack to do this?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: UKTruth


I wouldn't like it.

I would get offended by it.


But my "being offended" should never dictate what others might express.

Sure, but you'd agree with such imagery being taken down from public view, right?

Nope.


If we endorse removing images that we might deem offensive, then we're no better than the book-burning leftists who want to tear down statues because; feelings.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DBCowboy

So they can not pay and it's fine, but they can't pay and change their minds?

Or is it censorship every time someone won't pay this hack to do this?

It's the reasoning that irritates me.
Boo-hoo. People got "offended".

I thought we were mocking these "Offengers" (trademark DBCowboy 2018)

originally posted by: booyakasha
The town of Chula Vista I'm sure has no problem with this mural... Any of you ever been there? It's like an illegal immigrant haven.

Maybe some construction guys can extend the wall all the way around the place.

Sounds like a good class to teach, construction 1.

a reply to: seattlerat

Looks like graffiti in ghetto neighborhoods,doesn't look like art to me,and if that kind of thing is a result of public school project,someone needs to be replaced,liberals bring their kind down,low class,and not surprising a school on the border

a reply to: DBCowboy

We are, only you have it wrong. They are offended at what they have to see in THEIR space. Liberals get offended for other people, for instance they would be offended for art in a school in another state.

Although I also think there are exceptions. I think EVERY American should be offended at a school with an effigy of Obama hung from a tree, just like EVERY American should be offended at art depicting our current President's head on a pole. This is their community, this art is a representation of them .. and they are saying it does not represent them and it needs to be changed to something that does.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This mural isn't history (like a statue), it's one person's agenda they are trying to subject everyone else to.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's art.

Not very good art, but it's art. It's expression. It was paid for. It wasn't vandalism, it wasn't done illegally.


I think the best way to defuse anything like this is by ignoring it. When the issue is forced, when artists have to cover up their art, then we're inhibiting free expression.

We should ignore free expression we don't agree with, I think the response is more profound.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Except the people complaining can't ignore it, they are part of the school and are forced to see it. So it becomes a "I don't want to see that, remove it or I will take my business elsewhere" situation, and the school clearly realized their error. For the record I would not send my child to a school with a hanging Obama art effigy either, and I think he was a terrible President and person, but that's not acceptable to me, he was the President, show some respect.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But will we ever see a news report of the artist with tears streaming down their cheeks claiming Trump ruined them?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

But will we ever see a news report of the artist with tears streaming down their cheeks claiming Trump ruined them?

I'm surprised that we haven't.

a reply to: Ahabstar

The attention probably has the snowflakes lining up to buy her art.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: intrepid
Good that the school distanced themselves from this. Yes it's art. Yes this is not the venue for such art.

It's actually rather poor art. It looks like it was done by a high school student or tattoo artist. Painting over the whole thing may save a few retinas.

Maybe someone should paint over it, as an example of 'free expression'.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Meaningless in this discussion IMO. You don't like what I painted, you don't have to pay me, you can sue me or make me do it over before you pay me and you can paint over it any time you wish, just as the school can. You hiring me does not mean I now own the property or that I can do something you don't want me to do. Paying me removes any possibility it's a free speech issue.

Not sure why you went there?

a reply to: Blaine91555

I'm confused now.

The school paid someone to paint a mural. The artist painted a mural.


Everyone was fine with it until some people complained because they were offended.


So they changed it because some were offended.

How did this become an issue where you vandalize my property and claim "free speech"?

a reply to: DBCowboy

That was a reply to -

Depends. Did I pay you to paint on my property?

You pay me, I paint something your neighbors find offensive and it's is against the guidelines you gave me, it's not a free speech issue.

You seem to be saying the painter has the right of ownership to what he was paid to paint, which is absurd and the right to decide what's painted on something he does not own, correct? You pay me to paint a kitten on your fence, instead I paint a gory picture of you beheaded; you can't remove it from the fence you own or make me repaint it due to free speech? Same thing is it not? Of course it is.

The article even states non-violence is school policy and I'd suggest if it is not then everyone please remove your kids from that school. Who would knowingly send their child to a school that allows gore on it's fence?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: DBCowboy

That was a reply to -

Depends. Did I pay you to paint on my property?

You pay me, I paint something your neighbors find offensive and it's is against the guidelines you gave me, it's not a free speech issue.

STOP!

Was it against the guidelines?

I absolutely LOATHE Trump — but I think this artwork was just tacky. If I paid someone to paint something and this is what they painted, I’d make them redo it. My money, my decision.