4 ms·

The artist was a communist. Do you really think he was celebrating slavery?

ajross 7y ago
Does it matter? Do you really argue that no one could possibly be offended by this 40 foot long painting of a literally larger than life dead native american? Let. Them. Decorate. Their. School. Why must everything be a moral lesson with you people? You don't apply that level of finger wagging to anyone else, but Good God if liberals do something then it must be evil.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  How could you say it doesn't matter if the artist opposes or supports slavery?
  - ajross 7y ago
    Because the question isn't what the art means! It's whether or not the San Francisco school district and its community should be free to choose what kind of artwork to decorate their school with without knee-jerk conservatives like Bari Weiss and "darkpuma" freaking out about it as it it were censorship. It's their school, not yours. Why do you think you should get veto power over what they are allowed to change and what they must keep? And why on earth, of all things, do you think they should be required to keep this thing?
    - leereeves 7y ago
      We know it is censorship because they're spending $600k to ensure they totally destroy it forever. If it were merely about choosing what kind of art to show on the wall, they could simply paint over it for $1k. That's $599,000 that could be used to pay teachers instead being spent to ensure this mural is never seen again.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      > "Because the question isn't what the art means!" Of course it is. You've got a bunch of hysterical people saying the mural is in support of slavery and genocide. How can you say that the meaning of the art isn't relevant? The beliefs the mob have about the meaning of the mural are central to the story, you cannot abstract them away.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? and violating the site guidelines? For example, the guidelines include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." The comment I'm replying to here broke that, as have others you posted, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20299823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20299823 from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ajross 7y ago
    Fair enough, I'll delete the responses here. To be fair, though, we both know that the linked editorial is a deliberate exercise in insincere outrage. Demanding that one side assume good faith while the other is allowed to feign as much outrage as it wants because their media feeds the narrative isn't a good path to clean discussion either. With no one to challenge the framing (which, yes, includes accusing people of being conservatives) topics like this become echo chambers. I don't want that, and am willing to tolerate some flamage as the price. But yeah, it's not my forum. Like I said I'll delete the responses here.
    - dang 7y ago
      Thanks for the reply. It's quite possible to express your points thoughtfully rather than flamingly, and then there wouldn't be any problem at all. It's not my forum either! We're just trying to preserve it. We're do our best to demand good faith equally from everyone, or rather to cajole them into it. Outrage—feigned or otherwise—seems pretty evenly distributed as far as I can tell.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Does it matter? Do you really argue that no one could possibly be offended by this 40 foot long painting of a literally larger than life dead native american? Let. Them. Decorate. Their. School. Why must everything be a moral lesson with you people? You don't apply that level of finger wagging to anyone else, but Good God if liberals do something then it must be evil.

darkpuma 7y ago
How could you say it doesn't matter if the artist opposes or supports slavery?
- ajross 7y ago
  Because the question isn't what the art means! It's whether or not the San Francisco school district and its community should be free to choose what kind of artwork to decorate their school with without knee-jerk conservatives like Bari Weiss and "darkpuma" freaking out about it as it it were censorship. It's their school, not yours. Why do you think you should get veto power over what they are allowed to change and what they must keep? And why on earth, of all things, do you think they should be required to keep this thing?
  - leereeves 7y ago
    We know it is censorship because they're spending $600k to ensure they totally destroy it forever. If it were merely about choosing what kind of art to show on the wall, they could simply paint over it for $1k. That's $599,000 that could be used to pay teachers instead being spent to ensure this mural is never seen again.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    > "Because the question isn't what the art means!" Of course it is. You've got a bunch of hysterical people saying the mural is in support of slavery and genocide. How can you say that the meaning of the art isn't relevant? The beliefs the mob have about the meaning of the mural are central to the story, you cannot abstract them away.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
dang 7y ago
Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? and violating the site guidelines? For example, the guidelines include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." The comment I'm replying to here broke that, as have others you posted, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20299823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20299823 from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ajross 7y ago
  Fair enough, I'll delete the responses here. To be fair, though, we both know that the linked editorial is a deliberate exercise in insincere outrage. Demanding that one side assume good faith while the other is allowed to feign as much outrage as it wants because their media feeds the narrative isn't a good path to clean discussion either. With no one to challenge the framing (which, yes, includes accusing people of being conservatives) topics like this become echo chambers. I don't want that, and am willing to tolerate some flamage as the price. But yeah, it's not my forum. Like I said I'll delete the responses here.
  - dang 7y ago
    Thanks for the reply. It's quite possible to express your points thoughtfully rather than flamingly, and then there wouldn't be any problem at all. It's not my forum either! We're just trying to preserve it. We're do our best to demand good faith equally from everyone, or rather to cajole them into it. Outrage—feigned or otherwise—seems pretty evenly distributed as far as I can tell.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]