• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

#MeToo goes full prude. Never go full prude!

The irony here of course is that the idea that art needs to cohere to a political ideology is exactly the Nazi conception of art.
 
Derec said:
The painting, behind NSFW tags because I know there are plenty of #metoo snowflakes around here too.
Click to expand...

Lol because that's not incendiary and combative at all.
What an angry little man you must be.
 
More than likely it will be some sort of publicity stunt to garner attention. I don't see it as an attempt to censor but a tedious "I'm down with the #metoo thang" virtue signal.
 
TSwizzle said:
More than likely it will be some sort of publicity stunt to garner attention. I don't see it as an attempt to censor but a tedious "I'm down with the #metoo thang" virtue signal.
Click to expand...
Tedious?
 
I'm glad it's censored. That pond does not look clean enough to be either swimming or bathing in and likely contains all manner of bacterial infections. The image of a dozen young nymphs shitting themselves with diarrhea is not something that's appropriate for public viewing.
 
Yet another victim of #MeToo prudishness.

The Formula One grid girls! :(
aICXqxI.jpg


‘PC gone mad’: Formula 1 bans grid girls. Grid girls blame feminists.

I say, bring back Bernie!

Bernie Ecclestone: Nothing offensive about pretty women standing next to a car
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMN
Derec said:
Manchester Art Gallery's #MeToo-inspired removal of nude Nymphs painting branded a 'pathetic stunt'

The painting, behind NSFW tags because I know there are plenty of #metoo snowflakes around here too.



Nonsensical censorship like that has been usually associated with those inspired by conservative religion. Not any longer!
Click to expand...

NSFW tags are not just for prudes. They are a general warning to people who might be looking at the thread while others can see their screen. Or where corporate censorship applies.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
I'm glad it's censored. That pond does not look clean enough to be either swimming or bathing in and likely contains all manner of bacterial infections. The image of a dozen young nymphs shitting themselves with diarrhea is not something that's appropriate for public viewing.
Click to expand...

Totally. I mean, do these people want Legionnaire's disease, because that's how you get Legionnaire's disease.
 
It's an obsolete profession. Nobody has banned anyone from anything.

F1's marketers don't see a benefit to employing 'grid girls' to promote their sport anymore, so they are not going to continue to do it. If they decided not to buy newspaper advertisements, would you characterise that as 'F1 Bans Newspaper Advertising'?

Next you will be telling us that the City of London has banned gas lamp lighters.

People who go into modelling as a career are entitled to work for anyone who wants to employ them; but if that's nobody, then that's tough shit. F1 are under no obligation to continue employing a workforce that they no longer require.

I didn't realise you were such a revolutionary pro-unionist as to demand that an employer should not be allowed to make any role redundant in response to a changing marketplace. Presumably you feel that auto makers should continue to employ welders to watch the robots work, because banning human welders would be madness?

Or is it only madness if you can spin it as 'PC'?
 
From the linked article in the OP
Clare Gannaway, the museum's curator of contemporary art, has called the In Pursuit of Beauty collection a cause for "embarrassment." Gannaway told the Guardian that recent anti-sexual harassment campaigns such as Time's Up and #MeToo had an influence on the decision to remove the painting.
Click to expand...
.

So the curator had a problem with the picture before the #MeToo campaign. And the #MeToo campaign had "an influence on the decision. Which means to a rational thinker that the #MeToo campaign is not the cause of this dumb decision.

Maybe the moral of this story is to read the actual article instead of gloming onto the headline and you may avoid looking like a kneejerk reactionary.
 
If one reads the actual article, there is not one iota of evidence that supports the OP claims. Some grid girls blame "feminists" or "political correctness" for the decision, but they have no evidence. And there is no mention of #MeToo anywhere in the linked article.

One moral of this is to read your source and you may avoid looking like someone with a disgusting biased axe to grind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom