You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #74: whatya talking about??? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
74. whatya talking about???
Polanski and Nietzsche do not belong in the same paragraph. I am here to defend Nietzsche, not Polanski, who deserves a long jail term, along with some intense therapy.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche's philosophy does NOT equated to sexual perversion! That's a real stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Tate Modern to display nude picture of 10-year-old Brooke Shields Alongside Pornographic Images Cash_thatswhatiwant  Sep-30-09 02:17 AM   #0 
  - Ah, once upon a time artists could shock the public by painting the sky the wrong color.  Matariki   Sep-30-09 02:20 AM   #1 
  - I laughed at that response. Thanks.  Hoopla Phil   Sep-30-09 02:51 AM   #3 
  - True...  Dorian Gray   Oct-01-09 05:14 AM   #82 
  - The verbal gymnastics of the curators remind me of the justifications for ...  Hekate   Sep-30-09 02:51 AM   #2 
  - This is fairly par for the course for shit at the Tate Modern  WildEyedLiberal   Sep-30-09 03:13 PM   #9 
  - It's the "Emperor's New Clothes" line of thinking  XemaSab   Sep-30-09 05:43 PM   #40 
  - Épater la bourgeoisie is really played out by this point in the art game...  mitchum   Oct-01-09 04:09 PM   #149 
  - and once again, I say.. Where was her MOTHER?  SoCalDem   Sep-30-09 03:30 PM   #13 
  - She was right there when the picture was being taken  WeDidIt   Sep-30-09 03:57 PM   #19 
  - Ms. Sheilds seems to be a very good mother to her own children  Maru Kitteh   Sep-30-09 11:33 PM   #61 
  - Brooke Shields was never nude in Pretty Baby in the bath scene she was  Monk06   Oct-01-09 04:42 AM   #79 
     - And that makes a difference how?  MrModerate   Oct-01-09 04:48 AM   #80 
     - The on set photos for Pretty Baby were published in Playboy in the Seventies  Monk06   Oct-01-09 04:59 AM   #81 
        - I think I've seen the Belloq photos (if not the whole essay) at some point . . .  MrModerate   Oct-01-09 05:22 AM   #85 
     - She was nude in that movie  JanMichael   Oct-01-09 01:52 PM   #112 
        - I was speaking of scene photos of the bath scene but I yes she was nude  Monk06   Oct-01-09 11:47 PM   #152 
  - I agree. See my post #91  Hekate   Oct-01-09 04:20 AM   #77 
  - He mom was an alcoholic  Dorian Gray   Oct-01-09 05:15 AM   #83 
  - Reminds me of the stage mothers from "Brüno"  gmoney   Oct-01-09 02:32 PM   #121 
  - and once again, I say, .. Where was her FATHER?  lukasahero   Oct-01-09 10:46 AM   #96 
  - You have advanced degrees in the arts?  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 12:26 AM   #64 
     - My first impulse was to laugh, but here is your serious answer...  Hekate   Oct-01-09 04:18 AM   #76 
        - it is not being shown with adult porn  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 08:27 AM   #90 
           - You threw down the gauntlet of academic creds. PM me if still interested. nt  Hekate   Oct-01-09 11:31 AM   #99 
              - ashamed of being an intellectual?  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 12:21 PM   #103 
                 - Stop trying to goad me. PM me.  Hekate   Oct-01-09 03:46 PM   #140 
                    - I'm the one trying to goad you? I don't think so. nt  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 07:28 PM   #151 
                       - .  Hekate   Oct-03-09 02:06 AM   #184 
                          - powerful stuff (nt)  harmonicon   Oct-03-09 07:12 AM   #185 
  - Sally Mann  MichaelHarris   Sep-30-09 03:00 AM   #4 
  - anyone remember "pretty baby?"  orleans   Sep-30-09 03:08 AM   #5 
  - I remember it...  regnaD kciN   Sep-30-09 03:31 AM   #6 
  - it was an extremely different time. i remember it well--  orleans   Sep-30-09 02:39 PM   #7 
  - back then it had more to do with the idea that women were property  dugaresa   Sep-30-09 03:09 PM   #8 
  - I've heard that back in the 70s younger teens were ENCOURAGED to have sex WAY TOO EARLY!  Odin2005   Sep-30-09 03:36 PM   #15 
  - Oh, sure. We really pushed that early teen sex.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Sep-30-09 05:15 PM   #33 
  - It depends on how far south you lived  MajorChode   Sep-30-09 05:43 PM   #39 
  - I heard that true .... back in the seventies .... it wasn't true then either.  Monk06   Oct-01-09 05:17 AM   #84 
  - I also heard that girls could get pregnant by sharing bathwater with their brothers  MajorChode   Oct-02-09 12:18 AM   #153 
  - Encouraged by *who*? Not by their parents or society generally. Mainly by the media &  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 12:32 AM   #155 
  - things like rape were only the scary monster on the street who was a stranger  seabeyond   Sep-30-09 07:45 PM   #53 
  - 1973?  treestar   Oct-01-09 01:25 PM   #105 
  - i was in calif. high school 74-79. what we did have was more boys that innately understood that  seabeyond   Oct-01-09 01:38 PM   #107 
  - WTF? Delusional. The public university I went to had curfew in their women's  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 12:29 AM   #154 
     - That was the way it was at WSU in the late 60s  Thothmes   Oct-02-09 05:04 AM   #172 
  - I remember it  ChickMagic   Sep-30-09 03:49 PM   #17 
  - I remember it as well - it was scary, not sexy  TrogL   Sep-30-09 05:09 PM   #30 
  - She was 12  WeDidIt   Sep-30-09 03:59 PM   #20 
  - is there some kind of campaign to normalize pedophilia?  27inCali   Sep-30-09 03:17 PM   #10 
  - Probably perverted bohemians that have read to much Nietzsche and Postmodern crap.  Odin2005   Sep-30-09 03:40 PM   #16 
  - Wait...so now reading Nietzsche leads to pedophilia?  Ignis   Sep-30-09 04:05 PM   #21 
  - This is why I fully support the Tate.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Sep-30-09 04:09 PM   #23 
  - We must have NO nude child art--especially that Infant Jesus!  Ignis   Sep-30-09 04:51 PM   #27 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Sep-30-09 05:24 PM   #35 
  - lay off Nietzsche  27inCali   Sep-30-09 04:20 PM   #24 
  - Did you reply to the wrong post?  Ignis   Sep-30-09 04:49 PM   #26 
  - The one who went to brothels where he contracted syphilis?  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 12:31 AM   #66 
  - Yeah, that comment had me worried  Stuckinthebush   Sep-30-09 05:04 PM   #29 
  - I'm of the opinion that nearly all postmodern "philosophy" is garbage.  Odin2005   Sep-30-09 08:40 PM   #57 
     - And you reached this opinion after years of studying postmodernism?  Ignis   Oct-01-09 11:53 AM   #100 
     - Of those I would consider only Nietzsche to be a "postmodernist"  Odin2005   Oct-01-09 03:36 PM   #136 
        - That's a lot of hatred, but no real critique of postmodern philosophy.  Ignis   Oct-02-09 01:54 PM   #179 
           - I don't believe in "ultimate truths", Just objective truth.  Odin2005   Oct-02-09 04:04 PM   #182 
              - What is the molecular mass of Beauty? The boiling point of Evil?  Ignis   Oct-02-09 04:39 PM   #183 
     - It's not  Stuckinthebush   Oct-01-09 12:13 PM   #102 
        - Can't read nonsensical gibberish.  Odin2005   Oct-01-09 03:36 PM   #137 
           - It's not  Stuckinthebush   Oct-01-09 03:47 PM   #142 
  - I meant that many artsy types tend to have a sneering, snobbish, elitist attitude...  Odin2005   Sep-30-09 08:37 PM   #56 
     - You've never seen that same attitude in a boardroom?  Ignis   Sep-30-09 11:18 PM   #58 
     - It a common attitude among many elitist types that are full of themselves.  Odin2005   Sep-30-09 11:20 PM   #59 
        - Yet it's more prevalent in artists, hence the "many?"  Ignis   Sep-30-09 11:29 PM   #60 
           - No. Certainly not a majority.  Odin2005   Sep-30-09 11:58 PM   #63 
              - Interesting. So perhaps 1/3 of that population? 1/4? (nt)  Ignis   Oct-01-09 01:31 AM   #71 
                 - If you look at rape and child sex abuse stats that's not an unreasonable assumption.  Hello_Kitty   Oct-01-09 01:49 AM   #72 
                    - But we're discussing "artsy types," not societal elites.  Ignis   Oct-01-09 02:07 AM   #73 
                    - That's part of the authoritarian mindset  TrogL   Oct-01-09 10:55 AM   #97 
     - That's what the fascists always say too. That's why the artists and intellectuals...  Gwendolyn   Oct-01-09 03:56 PM   #144 
        - Good riddance if they have those same opinions.  anonymous171   Oct-02-09 01:55 AM   #167 
        - What opinions? Or are you just in the mood to babble about anything that pops into your head?  Gwendolyn   Oct-02-09 02:00 AM   #169 
           - Directors are artists too you know.  anonymous171   Oct-02-09 02:04 AM   #170 
        - So thinking a child rapist should be punished is Fascism?  Odin2005   Oct-02-09 08:26 AM   #176 
           - This thread is not about Polanski, is it?  Gwendolyn   Oct-02-09 02:46 PM   #180 
              - I never said ALL, or even MOST artists are like that.  Odin2005   Oct-02-09 03:26 PM   #181 
                 - That's right. You said MANY artists have a sneering, elitist attitude.  Gwendolyn   Oct-03-09 12:54 PM   #186 
  - I just finished reading a bunch of Nietzsche  TrogL   Sep-30-09 05:02 PM   #28 
  - Woah! You're not supposed to READ it, just criticize it!  Ignis   Sep-30-09 05:12 PM   #31 
  - I'm reading Jung now - what does that make me?  TrogL   Sep-30-09 05:17 PM   #34 
     - A wife beating arsonist.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Sep-30-09 05:26 PM   #36 
     - Why, a Nazi sympathizer, of course!  Ignis   Sep-30-09 06:04 PM   #42 
     - Pronounced "Young". Caught ya.  Cetacea   Sep-30-09 07:35 PM   #51 
     - how is it? nt  seabeyond   Sep-30-09 07:51 PM   #55 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-30-09 05:14 PM   #32 
  - Hm  Mixopterus   Sep-30-09 05:28 PM   #37 
  - lol n/t  Cetacea   Sep-30-09 07:33 PM   #50 
  - Right - I took you off ignore just to read that  TrogL   Oct-01-09 11:03 AM   #98 
  - thanks, TrogL  Duppers   Oct-01-09 04:01 AM   #75 
  - whatya talking about???  Duppers   Oct-01-09 03:51 AM   #74 
     - And here's another disgusting Nietzsche quote  Duppers   Oct-02-09 12:43 AM   #159 
  - How about you get a life?  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 12:29 AM   #65 
  - Artist using pedophilia as Art has run out of ideas & is a hack  barbiegeek   Oct-01-09 10:08 AM   #94 
  - ... Now pedophiles won't have to shlep to one of the world's foremost galleries of modern and  struggle4progress   Oct-01-09 02:26 PM   #118 
  - I predict greatness for this thread.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Sep-30-09 03:20 PM   #11 
  - lol nt  subcomhd   Sep-30-09 04:29 PM   #25 
  - LOL +1  Coventina   Sep-30-09 05:32 PM   #38 
  - I'm amazed we've made it this far without a "TTIUWOP."  Ignis   Sep-30-09 06:09 PM   #43 
  - With the title, I'm sure that most have just used Google Images and searched.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Sep-30-09 06:13 PM   #46 
  - +1  madeline_con   Oct-01-09 12:42 AM   #68 
  - aaaaaah, the Tate.  Zix   Sep-30-09 03:24 PM   #12 
  - I'm seeing a sick pattern here...  Odin2005   Sep-30-09 03:32 PM   #14 
  - that is what i have been saying. nt.  seabeyond   Sep-30-09 05:48 PM   #41 
  - Aaargh. No more Jordache commercials.  BlooInBloo   Sep-30-09 03:49 PM   #18 
  - It's An Interesting Photo  NashVegas   Sep-30-09 04:08 PM   #22 
  - I just looked at it online and I found it very dark. Not erotic (but I'm a woman),  OmmmSweetOmmm   Sep-30-09 06:11 PM   #44 
     - They were going for a faux raunch sort of look I guess.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Sep-30-09 06:14 PM   #47 
     - Lighting, Makeup  NashVegas   Oct-01-09 07:30 AM   #88 
        - There is the ridiculous to it as well. The large overmade face/hair on the body  OmmmSweetOmmm   Oct-01-09 01:19 PM   #104 
           - It's supposed to be a slam of the Reagan years.  Gwendolyn   Oct-01-09 02:08 PM   #115 
              - Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. :)  OmmmSweetOmmm   Oct-03-09 12:57 PM   #187 
  - RIchard Prince didn't even do the original  buzzycrumbhunger   Sep-30-09 06:12 PM   #45 
  - Brooke Sheilds has made metric shit ton of money off her notoriety..  Fumesucker   Sep-30-09 07:17 PM   #48 
  - That's where I went wrong as a parent. I should have whored my 10yr-old daughters out  Maru Kitteh   Sep-30-09 11:51 PM   #62 
     - I didn't say I approve..  Fumesucker   Oct-01-09 04:27 AM   #78 
  - For all your protests the Gross photos are ironic references to  Monk06   Oct-01-09 05:26 AM   #86 
  - I don't think Brook Shields was 10 in 1983.  girl gone mad   Sep-30-09 07:28 PM   #49 
  - she was 18 in 1983  JI7   Oct-01-09 05:32 AM   #87 
  - Capitolizing on the Polanski blitz? She was fourteen in "The Blue Lagoon",c 1980.  Cetacea   Sep-30-09 07:42 PM   #52 
  - Some of these photos were published at the time.  onehandle   Sep-30-09 07:50 PM   #54 
  - yep, and guess what:  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 12:37 AM   #67 
     - Um. . . I was an art major  buzzycrumbhunger   Oct-01-09 12:49 AM   #69 
        - ok  harmonicon   Oct-01-09 08:44 AM   #91 
        - I agree  buzzycrumbhunger   Oct-02-09 03:19 AM   #171 
        - Actually it doesn't involve 99% bullshit and ego.  Hissyspit   Oct-01-09 03:56 PM   #145 
           - Astounding, indeed. This thread stinks of Junior High anti-intellectualism.  Ignis   Oct-01-09 05:01 PM   #150 
           - Yes, because child porn is oh-so scholarly.  Odin2005   Oct-02-09 08:31 AM   #177 
  - Tate Modern removes naked Brooke Shields picture after police visit  struggle4progress   Oct-01-09 12:54 AM   #70 
  - Good. The artist should be charged for child pornography.  Odin2005   Oct-01-09 08:16 AM   #89 
     - Some Walmart employees recently thought the same thing.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Oct-01-09 11:54 AM   #101 
     - This is a lot different from a naked baby picture.  Odin2005   Oct-01-09 03:17 PM   #131 
        - No it's not.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Oct-01-09 03:58 PM   #146 
           - One is sexual, one is not.  Odin2005   Oct-01-09 04:07 PM   #147 
              - Neither are sexual.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Oct-01-09 04:07 PM   #148 
     - ... Spiritual America is a photograph of a photograph. The original – authorised by Shields's mother  struggle4progress   Oct-01-09 02:24 PM   #117 
  - It's already been shown in NYC at the Guggenheim - no problem  kskiska   Oct-01-09 08:48 AM   #92 
  - Last night the headline news in the UK was about child abuse..  jenniferj   Oct-02-09 05:22 AM   #173 
  - The original photo was taken for a Playboy publication  LibDemAlways   Oct-01-09 09:06 AM   #93 
  - no fuckin way.... part shot for playboy. huge, eeeeew. wow. hm. nt  seabeyond   Oct-01-09 10:14 AM   #95 
  - That can't be true. All the art snobs are in here defending the shit out of it.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 01:25 PM   #106 
  - For source, click on the Guardian link in Post #70. n/t  LibDemAlways   Oct-01-09 01:43 PM   #108 
  - Thanks... I was just reading it.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 01:45 PM   #110 
     - "Sugar and Spice, Surprising & Sensuous Images of Women" Hardcover, Playboy Press, 1976  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 01:54 AM   #166 
  - brother had playboy calender legs spread, in kitchen. art.... he told me, and mother, and his wife  seabeyond   Oct-01-09 01:47 PM   #111 
  - Good Lord...  redqueen   Oct-01-09 01:59 PM   #113 
  - Balls. Most are defending bohemians, postmodernism, and Nietzsche.  Ignis   Oct-01-09 02:28 PM   #119 
     - Ovaries.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 02:37 PM   #123 
        - But "all the art snobs are defending it" isn't idiotic hyperbole?  Ignis   Oct-01-09 03:07 PM   #127 
           - I stand corrected... SOME art snobs are defending it.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 03:10 PM   #129 
              - It sure is. Now then: Who? Where? Which post numbers? (nt)  Ignis   Oct-01-09 03:25 PM   #133 
                 - deleted  redqueen   Oct-01-09 03:37 PM   #139 
                 - Yes, I can read. I'm reading right now. It's thrilling!  Ignis   Oct-01-09 03:48 PM   #143 
                 - I'll defend it. I think the message behind the work is thought-provoking...  Gwendolyn   Oct-02-09 01:11 AM   #163 
                    - You're a brave woman, Gwendolyn. (nt)  Ignis   Oct-02-09 11:23 AM   #178 
  - Yep... it was taken for Playboy. Frickin hell.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 01:44 PM   #109 
  - Hard to believe that 30 years ago Playboy would even consider publishing  LibDemAlways   Oct-01-09 02:01 PM   #114 
  - Nope... and think about how many here seem to be waxing nostalgic about those days.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 02:15 PM   #116 
  - Who? Where? Which post numbers in this thread? (nt)  Ignis   Oct-01-09 02:29 PM   #120 
  - In this thread? Haven't seen it here.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 02:35 PM   #122 
     - And yet your brush is broad enough to cover multiple threads.  Ignis   Oct-01-09 03:08 PM   #128 
        - Because it's been in mulitple threads.  redqueen   Oct-01-09 03:11 PM   #130 
           - Would it have been so hard to say "in other threads?"  Ignis   Oct-01-09 03:22 PM   #132 
              - Nope...  redqueen   Oct-01-09 03:26 PM   #134 
                 - It's much easier to be catty than to examine one's own behavior.  Ignis   Oct-01-09 03:32 PM   #135 
                    - What in the everlovin fuck are you on about?  redqueen   Oct-01-09 03:37 PM   #138 
                       - It's annoying to be caught using broad-brush smears?  Ignis   Oct-01-09 03:47 PM   #141 
  - I'd hardly call it nostalgic  TrogL   Oct-01-09 02:49 PM   #126 
  - Very little awareness back then.  Gwendolyn   Oct-01-09 02:40 PM   #124 
  - Dupe...  Gwendolyn   Oct-01-09 02:40 PM   #125 
  - That's probably because they *didn't*. It was a book (not a porn mag),  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 01:45 AM   #164 
  - There is a seriously nasty pedophilia case hitting the headlines in the UK...  jenniferj   Oct-02-09 05:53 AM   #174 
  - i call bullshit. playboy didn't publish pictures of nude kids.  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 12:36 AM   #158 
     - Sugar and Spice was published by Playboy Press, the publishing  LibDemAlways   Oct-02-09 01:05 AM   #161 
        - It was a book.  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 01:10 AM   #162 
           - I know. It was published by Playboy Press. Apparently the  LibDemAlways   Oct-02-09 01:47 AM   #165 
              - "Little women," whatever it may be, wasn't a Playboy publication. The book published by playboy was  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 01:56 AM   #168 
  - i call bullshit.  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 12:35 AM   #157 
  - "Sugar and Spice, Surprising and Sensuous Images of Women" A book of nude art photos of women  Hannah Bell   Oct-02-09 01:03 AM   #160 
  - I read somewhere that they took it down.  BlooInBloo   Oct-02-09 12:33 AM   #156 
     - Look at the UK media this morning.....  jenniferj   Oct-02-09 05:58 AM   #175 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC