What would you call the above-pictured anti-Catholic dreck? "Bennie Trojan"?
And is it another sign of the apocalypse that the "newspaper of record's" growing transparency about its ideological biases is actually a sign of progress?:
For the New York Times, deciding which images are too offensive for publication is a tricky business.
On Monday, the paper published an image of Niki Johnson's "Eggs Benedict," a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI fashioned entirely out of condoms.
The artwork is "not hate-based," the Milwaukee artist told the Times, but is meant only to "critique" Benedict's views on sex and contraception "while raising awareness about public health."
Of course. And Dylann Roof meant to grab a squirt gun and go to a water fight at a local kid's park, but wound up taking a .45 revolver and ending up at a "historic African-American church" because he didn't get any coffee that morning, and besides, he's always had a terrible sense of direction,
The Times' decision to run an image of "Eggs Benedict" comes just five months after it opted not to show Charlie Hebdo's infamously provocative artwork.
The newspaper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, said in public statements at the time that the French satirical magazine's cartoons were simply too offensive for publication.
"Was it hard to deny our readers these images? Absolutely. But we still have standards, and they involve not running offensive material," Baquet told the Washington Examiner in January. "And they don't meet our standards. They are provocative on purpose. They show religious figures in sexual positions. We do not show those."
Ah. So if the "Ova Benedict" display had been made out of little gummy penises instead of rubbers, that's where Mr. Baquet would have drawn the line? Why do I find myself doubting his pious assurances of the Times' halcyon "standards"? Could it be because they published Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary," a painting of Christ's mother fashioned entirely out of feces and adorned with cutouts of genitalia from pornographic magazines? Or how, in 2005, 2006 and 2010, they republished anti-Semitic cartoons in full? Where were the Times' vaunted "standards" then?
Or maybe it's because they know that Christians and Jews don't go on murderous rampages when they and their symbols and icons get mocked, unlike another "religion" for which the Times quite evidently has a much greater fear-and-ideologically-based affinity:
The point about high art versus low art, the former suitable for a museum and the latter suitable for <*spit*> the funny pages, is meaningless. No one at the Times would dare suggest in any other context that cartoons require recognition by a museum to qualify as “significant artwork.” The Danish Mohammed cartoons and Hebdo Mohammed cartoons were vastly more significant than this standard Piss-Christ-esque goof on the Pope in terms of the global reaction they provoked, yet the Times blacked out both of them. Even in the best-case scenario here, where Corbett’s not transparently bullshitting, he’s telling you that whether artwork is worthy of publication in the New York Times turns not on its news value but on whether elite opinion deems it aesthetically meritorious.
IOW, Muslims are a politically-favored group and Christians and Jews are not, so all the wishes of the former must be honored and bleep the latter two with enormous gummy penises,
As for the distinction between intending to offend, as the Hebdo cartoons supposedly did, and raising a “social question,” as the Pope portrait supposedly did, those are two sides of the same coin. The Mohammed cartoons raise a question too — “should a society that purports to defend free speech make exceptions under threat of violence for blasphemy?” — and that question has lots more currency in the West right now than what a former Pope thinks about condoms.
At least, it does with Westerners who haven't been cowed or actively and fully dhimmized. The denizens of the New York Times and their fellow-travelers through the Obamedia have long since passed that threshold, and are only a few levels below rampaging through Christian and Jewish neighborhoods, smiting the infidels' necks with their swords.
Or pretty much what they're already doing with their pens and keystrokes.
At least they're starting to lie a little bit less about it these days,
No comments:
Post a Comment