And here you go with the Babylonian mysticism again... 
[RD] Public Art Ruined by Alleged Serial Decalogue Destroyer
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
-
- Tags
- laying down the law
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Martyrdom is not suicide. You are not complaining about them starting a war. You are complaining they take their faith to seriously. There is a difference between being killed for one's beliefs, and killing in the name of something they believe in.
Is it ok to destroy public property as long as said property offends your belief system?
Dying, or at the very least going to prison, for what you believe in is what most people mean by martyrdom. That's exactly what these kids were talking about. They were happy about it.
Did I say it was okay to destroy public property if it offends my belief system? I have no idea why you're asking me this. If I was able to restrain myself from attacking the Nativity scene that used to be put up in City Hall Park every Christmas, I think I can safely say that I'm not someone who goes around destroying public property. Actually, I remember thinking that was a rather cool thing when I was younger. Now, however, I would not be okay with a Nativity scene there (they stopped doing it partly because the pieces of it were getting a bit tatty over the years, and partly because they were concerned about vandalism).
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That, surely, depends on the property and on the belief system?
There's not always a clear line between vandalism and civil disobedience.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Erecting the statue, in itself, accomplished nothing at all. But tyrants the world over fill their countries with such statues. Is it really just vanity?
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
One part vanity, one part intimidation.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Pretty much vanity, yes.
And not just tyrants.
Statues serve as some kind of permanent reminder to the populace of who's in charge, or who was notable in some kind of way.
For, you see, the people at large have the memories of goldfish. Or so it would appear that the people erecting statues think.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
For the most part those claiming allegiance to the public good, will not be inclined to destroy the public good. Martyrdom is constantly in the minds of those in the minority when they project their rights into the majority.
It is the total revolution and overthrow of society that should be a greater concern, ie destruction of public property that offends my belief system. Or a police authority that gets in my way of showing my rage in a riot setting.
Should be easy to tell the difference between those who chain themselves to gravestones, to prevent their destruction, and someone ramming a statue with their vehicle.
In a system of voting and boycotting, vandalism just adds cost even if it is the fastest and easiest way to get your point accross. We complain when people force us to go against our will. Vandalism is no less a force of disrespect. Tearing down a statue is an empowering thing, and a sign of conquering that is deep rooted in the human psyche.
Vanity is part of it. But the major reason why tyrants fill their countries with statues (or paintings of themselves, or magazine covers, etc.) is the propaganda value of it. It's not just "look at me," it's "look at me, I'm somebody important - in fact I'm the MOST important somebody."
So that's why Trump puts his little 140-character statues of himself all over Twitter - it's partly vanity, but the more important purpose is because this is how he chooses to spread his propaganda. If he put up a physical statue of himself, a few tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people would see it. On Twitter, millions, and possibly billions, of people see his words, or at least know of them. And it's much more effective than a mere physical statue that just stands there and never changes.
Even Justin Trudeau and his wife posing on the front cover of a women's magazine in a dreamy-intimate sort of pose is valuable propaganda. It says the Prime Minister of Canada is a sexy guy, with a sexy wife, everyone knows they've got three young kids, they're young and modern, and they (and the Liberal party by extension) are the future of Canada.
Yep. There's a reason for all those statues and busts of the Roman emperors. If your statue is up in the Forum, you're Somebody Important and people had better listen to you and obey you.
We are agreed on this. The people tearing down Saddam's statue couldn't kill him for real, but this was the next best thing - destroy the thing he put up to represent his power, to show everyone that his power was gone.
It's what happened in ancient civilizations. If you want to erase someone's existence, you destroy the physical evidence that the person had ever existed - statues, busts, monuments, documents, chisel their names out of anything where it appeared... that's what the Egyptians tried to do with Akhenaten. Of course they were not successful; we've been able to recover some knowledge of this individual.
Last edited:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Imagine if the PM of Canada was female and everybody was saying how sexy and hot she is. People would be screaming sexism left and right.
I wish people would focus on the actually important qualities of our Prime Minister, and not just his hot arse. Sure, it helps with diplomacy, but he's actually got leadership skills and stuff...
But this is a tangent. Feel free to not respond lest we get tangeted away into tangent land
I wish people would focus on the actually important qualities of our Prime Minister, and not just his hot arse. Sure, it helps with diplomacy, but he's actually got leadership skills and stuff...
But this is a tangent. Feel free to not respond lest we get tangeted away into tangent land
I mentioned Trudeau's magazine cover as a modern alternative to putting up a statue. Centuries ago, there would have been statues or paintings; nowadays it's magazine covers. All of them are for propaganda purposes, but at least now we're not expected to worship them.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Some countries still expect there subjects/citizens to do so...
Well, they didn't exactly use the words "sexy and hot" about Kim Campbell back in 1993, but the media seemed a lot more interested in her clothes and shoes than they would have been about Brian Mulroney's clothes and shoes during the federal election that year.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
I think there's actually more to it than that: I think there's also the 'Big Brother is watching YOU' aspect to it. i.e. partly a 'reassurance' that the Glorious Leader is watching over his flock like the Benevolent Shepherd that he is, but also a reminder that He knows if they're (thinking of) doing Something Bad...
But the image doesn't even need to be an Authority-figure. I read a behavioral-studies article abstract a couple of years back (don't remember where, sorry, but Google is out there), and it was quite -- scary's not really the word, but maybe disillusioning (for someone who wasn't already as cynical about human nature as I am, anyway):
IIRC, the setting was a self-service cafeteria setting, with a big sign on the wall saying 'Please tidy up after yourself' (or something along those lines). I don't recall if the room (also) had a CCTV camera(s), but the only difference between the control-treatment and the test-treatment was that the latter also included a large poster of a waitress accompanying the sign. The cafeteria being 'watched' by the poster got measurably more plates etc. put away per day than the 'unwatched' cafeteria (presumably significantly more, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point publishing the results).
Point being, people seemed more willing to behave 'responsibly' and perform their 'social duty' when they felt as if their behaviour was being observed from on high.
Spoiler Unsubstantiated rambling :
One advantage to magazine covers over statues, is their general impermanence, as throwaway items...
Last edited:
It used to be like that. But everything is online now. People who would never bother with a print magazine can read all kinds of stuff about Important People. All those magazine covers Justin Trudeau is on will be used to attack him in the next federal election (in 2019, assuming nothing bad happens in the meantime).
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
True, but they do still have to click-through, or go looking for it. Trumpeteers and diehard Royalists notwithstanding, I think most westerners these days are a lot less inclined to put our (current) leaders on pedestals (whether figurative or literal), than even our grandparents (I'm in my early 40s, YMMV) might have been.
Not directed at you specifically, Valka, the following is more for the USians on the board:
(Back) On topic:
Even though it's been established (ha ha) that the destroyed Decalogue was privately funded, surely an elected(?) official on the local (city?) council must have signed some kind of planning-permission (or whatever USians have) allowing it to be erected on public property? Even if that's not a 'law' as such, it is still a legally-binding decision. That being so, could it then be argued that the 'Art' installation does indeed consititute (ha ha) -- or at least, skates very close to being -- a violation of the Anti-Establishment clause...?
Seems to me -- a frequently incredulous outside observer of USian behaviour -- that these apparently widespread attempts to get (local) governments to endorse/ support public displays of (Christian) iconography through the backdoor, sounds very much like the 'Wedge Strategy' to get (so-called) Intelligent Design (their Caps, not mine) taught in state-funded schools, as an 'alternative' to evolutionary theory. Is that a coincidence? Or is it often the same lobby-groups responsible for both campaigns?
(Woo-hoo, another can of worms opened! You're welcome...)
Last edited:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That was 25 years ago, we live in a very different world now. If that happened again to Kim Campbell today the media would be plastered with articles about how you shouldn't do that.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, there's a history of identifying, in men, the exercise of power with sexual attractiveness, while for women, the two tend to be presented as opposites. To say that Trudeau is sexy is not to say that he is not an effective leader- if anything, it is to say that he is more effective- while to say that a female leader is sexy is, implicitly, to bring her effectiveness as a leader into question. Dwelling on the attractiveness, or lack thereof, of a female politician seems dismissive, while for a male politician, it seems at worst trivial, and as far as Trudeau is concerned, entirely on-brand.
It seems absurd, and it really is, but we don't get to pick the culture we inherit.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I would agree if any of the references to this I've seen also mentioned his effectiveness as a leader, or even hinted at it. They were purely concentrating on his looks though, not discussing any of his qualities that make him a good Prime Minister. They were pure "Look at that shiny pretty thing Canada has" types of references, not in any way focused on politics.
As a reader the articles did not convey to me that this implied that he is a good leader in any sort of way. They were focusing 100% on looks and style, kind of like when an article comes out about the red carpet nonsense at the oscars and each actresses' dress is analyzed in detail. That was the focus of these comments about Trudeau, it was not easy to get any sense that they were meant to imply that this made him a good leader.
The media references in question made him look like a "pretty boy", who's there because of his looks and family connections and no other reason whatsoever. If anything they sort of implied that he had no other skills. Whether the focus of such articles is a man or a woman, it's not something that should be viewed as acceptable, at least when discussing the leader of a country.