Jump to content

Kansas Republicans mad/sensistive over flag art at KU


Pancho

Recommended Posts

Don't have any problems with this art.  I could see the problem people would have with flying it in place of the actual flag, but in a gallery or any other display? No way.

The black-and-white sock is awesome.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, yeah.  But in fairness--that's symbolic speech with which they agree.  So not really the same thing at all.

It could also be that one would be widely considered a desecration and the other not.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It could also be that one would be widely considered a desecration and the other not.

You just repeated his statement using different words.

Symbolic speech with which they disagree = desecration

Symbolic speech with which they agree = righteous adaptation

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You just repeated his statement using different words.

Marring the face of the flag = desecration

Silloutetted behind a neutral symbol  = righteous adaptation

Agreement has nothing to do with it.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreement has nothing to do with it.

Another thin skinned fake patriot.


A person could argue that the first flag celebrates the vibrancy of America shining through the black spot (/mildly racist) which attempts to distract from this countries virtues.

The other flag shows a grayed out flag, which stands in the background as the police openly exert their dominance and disrespect, even going as far as re-coloring the flag in the interest of their police state agenda.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreement has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, you just proved my point. Much appreciated.

You agree with one and not the other so one is marring it and one isn't. Here's a hint: both of them mar the flag equally. Our flag isn't black in case you haven't noticed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

None of these fuckers seem to have a problem with this flag desecration.

51V8wYHpQML._SX425_.jpg

Literally every single one of the people who have this decal on their truck/jeep will decry flag burning, kneeling during the anthem, etc while not realizing how much they're violating the flag code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JBJ said:

Deleted

I'm not trolling, not even close. Try to come up with a better excuse for not having a decent retort.

The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be fifty stars, white in a blue field.

Blue line flags are a desecration of the United States flag. The only reason it doesn't bother you is because you agree with the message. The only reason the one in Kansas bothers you is you disagree with the message. Your complete lack of self-awareness is disappointing even if it's not surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm not trolling, not even close. Try to come up with a better excuse for not having a decent retort.

Blue line flags are a desecration of the United States flag. The only reason it doesn't bother you is because you agree with the message. The only reason the one in Kansas bothers you is you disagree with the message. Your complete lack of self-awareness is disappointing even if it's not surprising.

You are quite mistaken on which I even agree with and don't.  I agree with the message of the Kansas one.  To me, it represents the polarization of America as a cause for America's unravelling.  The smudges are all the ancillary features that we think will destroy America (war, poverty, racism, corruption, foreign influence, economy), but America is clearly coming undone from the inside out - one thread at a a time.  And the striped sock is the polarization and cowardice of modern society, which is becoming the dominating symbol over the unity that the flag represents. It think this is true for politics, media, social interaction, and college football message boards.

That you are willing to posit a claim so readily false (which displays honor and which displays disrespect the flag) in order to make a stupid argument, on a trifling topic, to win partisan points for a side you thoroughly disavow; is evidence for the artists message.

I didn't respond because I don't need to.  Any argument was over the moment you made that asinine interpretation of desecration. It's unsupportable: any poster here can readily point to a number of logos bearing an adaptation of flag in an honorable manner with a messaging that they don't agree with.  So it's more convenient for me to just sit back and let you shred your credibility.

Good luck with that whole claiming to be a centrist on one thread, while exposing yourself as an asshat elsewhere.  And you talk about self-awareness.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never once claimed to be a centrist. You are flailing badly here.

I made no interpretations of desecration, you are the one who used that word to describe one of the displays. It was patently obvious which you were referring to, but if you want to try and back your way out of it now that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, you just proved my point. Much appreciated.

You agree with one and not the other so one is marring it and one isn't. Here's a hint: both of them mar the flag equally. Our flag isn't black in case you haven't noticed.

 

I don't have a problem with either flag, but pedants recognize pedants. Don't you even AR 670-1?

u_s_flag_subdued_reverse_acu_patch_with_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mole said:

I don't have a problem with either flag, but pedants recognize pedants. Don't you even AR 670-1?

u_s_flag_subdued_reverse_acu_patch_with_

A pedant would know that the US Flag Code specifically states that much of it is for civilian use and that departments of the executive may differ. 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I made no interpretations of desecration, you are the one who used that word to describe one of the displays. It was patently obvious which you were referring to, but if you want to try and back your way out of it now that's fine.

 

17 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Symbolic speech with which they disagree = desecration

 

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

...any  poster here can readily point to a number of logos  bearing an adaptation of flag in an honorable  manner with a messaging that they don't agree with...

...it's more convenient for me to just sit back and let you shred your credibility.

1234

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

You are quite mistaken on which I even agree with and don't.  I agree with the message of the Kansas one.  To me, it represents the polarization of America as a cause for America's unravelling.  The smudges are all the ancillary features that we think will destroy America (war, poverty, racism, corruption, foreign influence, economy), but America is clearly coming undone from the inside out - one thread at a a time.  And the striped sock is the polarization and cowardice of modern society, which is becoming the dominating symbol over the unity that the flag represents. It think this is true for politics, media, social interaction, and college football message boards.

That you are willing to posit a claim so readily false (which displays honor and which displays disrespect the flag) in order to make a stupid argument, on a trifling topic, to win partisan points for a side you thoroughly disavow; is evidence for the artists message.

I didn't respond because I don't need to.  Any argument was over the moment you made that asinine interpretation of desecration. It's unsupportable: any poster here can readily point to a number of logos bearing an adaptation of flag in an honorable manner with a messaging that they don't agree with.  So it's more convenient for me to just sit back and let you shred your credibility.

Good luck with that whole claiming to be a centrist on one thread, while exposing yourself as an asshat elsewhere.  And you talk about self-awareness.

do you think the thin blue line is ever associated with the wall of silence? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, achooloco said:

do you think the thin blue line is ever associated with the wall of silence? 

Of course. 

Even without the aesthetics of the actual blue line, the concepts can be intermingled.

If one thinks a thin blue line is what separates society from chaos, then one could rationalize the wall of silence out of a sense of greater good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JBJ said:

Of course. 

Even without the aesthetics of the actual blue line, the concepts can be intermingled.

If one thinks a thin blue line is what separates society from chaos, then one could rationalize the wall of silence out of a sense of greater good.

uh no. considering the amount of people that police kill (some legit some not), the insanely low number of convictions of bad cops, then an allegiance to themselves over and breaking the allegiance they took to the constitution and our country, the bastardization of the flag is fucking reprehensible.  As a minority, that blue line means they will kill and get away with murder (see castile, tamir rice, etc). The blue wall of silence is treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...