The News Thread

come on man

we don't say hte metal community "owns" violence when something happens.

the dude was a nutjob and he owns his actions. if it wasn Trumpian hate I imagine it would be something else.

The dude was seen holding a sign that echoes the Juden Bozo call for "durrr, tax the rich and ignore my three houses", plus the guy was a Bern campaign volunteer. Bern can do the song and dance of "I detest this violence", but both he and hillary weren't detesting the violence when trump supporters were being attacked at rallies.

I hope this hurts the left badly. But already we're seeing them deflect back to RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA
 
  • Like
Reactions: arg
19113503_1287603891358753_83226222005558553_n.jpg

I just figured out why you have an entire topic dedicated to your world views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
The dude was seen holding a sign that echoes the Juden Bozo call for "durrr, tax the rich and ignore my three houses", plus the guy was a Bern campaign volunteer. Bern can do the song and dance of "I detest this violence", but both he and hillary weren't detesting the violence when trump supporters were being attacked at rallies.

I hope this hurts the left badly. But already we're seeing them deflect back to RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA

While I hate placing blame on political figureheads for the violence of a lone radical, you can in hindsight make them at least partially responsible for promoting vigorous anti-Trump and republican sentiment among leftists. Admittedly Trump plays this same game, and I could easily see this same type of terror attack happening if Hillary won in response to the anti-Hillary/Bernie/liberal sentiment. I think that this is more a result of the tumultuous political situation in the US on both sides of the spectrum, meaning you cant completely absolve the right-wingers and Trump supporters in the grand scheme of things.

Meanwhile, the left trying to promote itself as the voice of non-violence and reason is being discredited by attacks like this and the existence of antifa, BLM, etc. Humans are naturally violent (just look at our history), and it doesnt seem to matter which side of the political spectrum you are on.
 
How dare academics suggest that Romans and other Mediterraneans weren't all pasty white men with British accents?

Fucking savages.

https://www.artforum.com/news/id=68963

Bond said that shortly after the essay went live last week, conservative media platforms including Campus Watch, The Blaze, and the National Review published articles that included quotes from her piece, taken out of context, under headlines such as “College Professor Says White Marble Statue Promotes Racism.”

“What they want to believe is that there is a liberal professor that is so sensitive to race issues that she will make race issues out of anything,” Bond said. “They want to make me an example of the hyper-liberalization of the academy.”

Bond began receiving dozens of hateful emails threatening violence, calling her derogatory names, and saying she ought to be fired. Some assailants made anti-Semitic remarks after learning that she partially identifies as ethnically Jewish. She became a target for internet trolls almost overnight. Joe Pags Pagliarulo, a conservative radio talk show host, even mentioned the article while on air, inciting people to harass the professor even more. “Hyperallergic fielded most of the death threats, but it’s hard. I thought I was speaking to a group of artists.” Bond added, “I don’t believe that a lot of the people that wrote to me are white supremacists, I believe a lot of them never read the original article, the primary source, and that is really what I want them to do.”
 
i must admit it is pretty annoying though that in most "historical-themed" movies and tv shows, british accent is the default, even if their character is italian/french/russian/etc. i do appreciate it more when they make an effort to represent their character's accent properly.
 
Yeah but that's probably more a product of convenience or at a stretch, Anglophilia - rather than anything she suggested in her article.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/virginia-baseball-shooting-gun-shot-wounds.html

I'm so tired of people with zero to next to zero knowledge of guns or ballistics commenting on them. Knowing what weapon fired a bullet tells you basically nothing about the damage caused by the bullet, and that's even if you get specific about the weapon rather than group terms like "assault rifle" or "handgun". Different calibers, different powder loads, different projectiles, and the angle/distance of the shot are what determine almost everything about wounds. The weapon primarily determines accuracy at different ranges (with some interplay with the specific caliber/powder load/projectile), speed of chambering/re-chambering, and speed of reload.

A comparison between a 5.56FMJ wound after contact with metal vs a 9mm RIP handgun bullet as demonstrated by ballistic gel:





As can be clearly seen, the exact opposite of what the ignorant author of that Times piece asserts based on weapon type.
 
How dare academics suggest that Romans and other Mediterraneans weren't all pasty white men with British accents?

Fucking savages.

I think that some people are more outraged that paint was thrown on top of the beauty of marble than the idea that some of the statues depicted people of color. Bond making this into an issue of white supremacy is a bit trying and I think people took offense to the idea. The reason why people took these statues to be colorless is because they have been rediscovered as colorless, not because of some deep-seated racial bias that wouldnt even consider the idea of statues featuring people with darker skin colors.

Take the title/subtitle of the article into consideration for a second. This is the attention-getting headline:
Why We Need to Start Seeing the Classical World in Color
The equation of white marble with beauty is not an inherent truth of the universe; it’s a dangerous construct that continues to influence white supremacist ideas today

Bond immediately turns this into an issue of race, rather than one of the quite frankly ugly aesthetic of painted marble. She manipulated the original issue of polychromy into something more sensational. She then proceeds with cherry-picked examples of racism in art history to drive the story of a racially oriented narrative (some of which is true, but otherwise is a dishonest depiction of art historians). Im not convinced by her article that marble purists are racist in any way because they appreciate the aesthetic value of untainted white marble statues as they were previously perceived by historians and presented physically in museums and documentation.

Bond said:
While she didn’t believe the Hyperallergic piece was divisive, Bond said, “The United States is extremely polarized right now. There is a binary that is getting applied to everything. The trolls think I’m applying that binary, but all I wanted to talk about was art, the manipulation of art for various reasons, how beautiful color is on statues, and how we should embrace it just like we should embrace people of color all over the country.”

So people who dont think color on statues is beautiful somehow refuse to embrace colored people deserving of praise? She thinks that she isnt a product of "hyper-liberalization of the academy", but in Shakespearean tragic irony fashion, she is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
I think that some people are more outraged that paint was thrown on top of the beauty of marble than the idea that some of the statues depicted people of color. Bond making this into an issue of white supremacy is a bit trying and I think people took offense to the idea. The reason why people took these statues to be colorless is because they have been rediscovered as colorless, not because of some deep-seated racial bias that wouldnt even consider the idea of statues featuring people with darker skin colors.

I think that's all true, and I don't think the article suggests otherwise. Bond is arguing that the racial bias proceeded from the institutional elevation of unadulterated whiteness as an aesthetic ideal, not that it accompanied the discovery of the statues themselves.

So people who dont think color on statues is beautiful somehow refuse to embrace colored people deserving of praise? She thinks that she isnt a product of "hyper-liberalization of the academy", but in Shakespearean tragic irony fashion, she is.

Not at all. She's saying that aesthetic ideals are bound up with cultural history. She's not criticizing you (or anyone) for thinking color on marble statues is "gauche." She's criticizing people who elevate whiteness as an aesthetic ideal without acknowledging how it came to be that way.

i.e.--aesthetics don't spring from a vacuum.

I went ahead and read the original article she wrote that caused the backlash. I pretty much disagreed with everything she said in it, but it's not deserving of any kind of hate mail or anything.

http://hyperallergic.com/383776/why-we-need-to-start-seeing-the-classical-world-in-color/

Well, I'm glad you don't think she deserves hate mail. But it's crazy to me that people can disagree with an article discussing now-known facts within the historical community.
 
I like non-painted statues, regardless of the material of the construction. Could have all been hewn from onyx and would still look better than painted. However, lighter materials allow the detail to be more easily appreciated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
But the non-painted statues that achieved the status of aesthetic superiority in the West weren't made of onyx--they were made of marble. There's nothing racist there in and of itself, but that doesn't discount the way that tradition has figured into categories of art appreciation, themselves implicated with racial hierarchies.

There's no denying that the artistic relics of ancient Rome, regardless of the situation of their discovery, have since become embroiled with various narratives of racial and/or cultural superiority. That's not to say that you or anyone else is racist because you prefer white marble statues over painted ones.
 
I went ahead and read the original article she wrote that caused the backlash. I pretty much disagreed with everything she said in it, but it's not deserving of any kind of hate mail or anything.

http://hyperallergic.com/383776/why-we-need-to-start-seeing-the-classical-world-in-color/

The article looks fairly well-substantiated to me, the only thing I don't understand at all is her definition of whiteness, which seems to imply that only Anglos and Germanics are white, something that not even many hardcore white supremacists believe. Whether or not the Romans were fair-skinned, olive-skinned, or some mixture thereof, they were certainly Caucasian. Genetics studies have been performed on groups such as the ancient Etruscans and have confirmed that the currently-residing (and very white) residents have direct lineage to them, for example.
 
Well, I'm glad you don't think she deserves hate mail. But it's crazy to me that people can disagree with an article discussing now-known facts within the historical community.

She didn't limit her claims and opinions to the historical community, so that's not the entirety of what I am disagreeing with.

The article looks fairly well-substantiated to me, the only thing I don't understand at all is her definition of whiteness, which seems to imply that only Anglos and Germanics are white, something that not even many hardcore white supremacists believe. Whether or not the Romans were fair-skinned, olive-skinned, or some mixture thereof, they were certainly Caucasian. Genetics studies have been performed on groups such as the ancient Etruscans and have confirmed that the currently-residing (and very white) residents have direct lineage to them, for example.

Her entire article relies on her definition of whiteness to begin with.