I must agree, it is a website with a certain level of class. That level being, of course, Less than none. This guy is, at the least, a Conspiracy theory nutjob who will believe anything that he sees, as long as it's anti-government, He's anti-real medicine(Or at the very least, an Anti-vaxer), Anti-science, and his position on The Jewish, Well, He claims to be pro-Jewish, and anti-Zionist, but everyone he doesn't approve of(Ie, Pretty much everyone but himself and Ron Paul) He just considers them a zionist, and gets on with it. A few of the better examples -
As places to find images that sum up your opinion go, K, I gotta say, If that's where you were looking, You're a far different man to me - I didn't even get through the first gallery before I was simply too disgusted to continue. I would rather watch a 24 hour live feed of 4Chan's /b/ board than look at that tripe ever again - not only would the 'shop jobs be more competent, it would actually be at least two orders of magnitude more intelligent and sensible.
Yes, those are the type of images that "moderates" find persuasive and appealing.
I guess the "artist" drew Obama wearing an Israeli flag pin because he's criticising him for being a "zionist" since a lot of his other "artwork" shows an obsession with with the evils of "zionism". K, since you like that image so much, are you criticising Obama for being a "zionist" now? Or, since you say that the image sums up your thoughts about Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty, do you think that his refusal is part of a "zionist conspiracy"?
Oh yeah, kudos for elevating the level of discussion on the board by introducing us to this guy's site.
Because if you don't agree with Steve and/or Kilarney's criticism of the day (usually involving some sort of crazy conspiracy theory), there's obviously something wrong with you.
Whatever happened to Unconditional Bush Support Syndrome? The doctors keep changing the name of these diseases every 4 to 8 years. Its just a conspiracy by Big Pharma to part you with your hard earned pay.
Relax, everyone. Yet again, Joe's ad hominem attack is way off base.
I got the picture from a fellow Vemonter's blog. He's a fellow anti-war advocate. I defy you to find a shred of anti-zionism on that blog.
Sorry to disappoint. Frankly, had I known anything about the original website, I wouldn't have been so stupid to leave the url in the picture.
For that matter, take a look at my link in the original post. It came from that blog.
I also stated that the picture summed up my thoughts on Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty. I never mentioned anything about Israel, zionism, etc. Just landmines. Talk about tossing context aside!
So why was Joe so desperate to imply otherwise? Misrepresenting facts to attack someone? Shame, Joe.
Frankly, I hadn't even noticed the Israeli symbols in the picture, or the embedded url. I saw everyone was laughing and posted it. Wow... how controversial. People laughing. What an awful purpose... posting a photo to show people laughing.
Yup. That ought to destroy my credibility.
And yet refusal to answer a simple question doesn't...
So to get the train back on a substantive track after yet another baseless ad hominem attack, I'll ask you yet again Joe: Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this time? Or... Do you believe that Obama has, or has not, engaged in patronage?
Frankly, I hadn't even noticed the Israeli symbols in the picture, or the embedded url. I saw everyone was laughing and posted it. Wow... how controversial. People laughing. What an awful purpose... posting a photo to show people laughing.
Frankly, you couldn't have spent much time looking at or thinking about the picture if you didn't notice all the Israeli imagery.
Frankly, you couldn't have spent much time looking at the picture if you didn't notice all the Israeli imagery.
Bingo. I saw all of those people laughing and immediately thought it would be fun to post it here regarding the landmine issue.
Sorry. But that's all.
Sure. We believe you didn't see all the Israeli imagery in the picture you got from the holocaust denier's website. I guess you have to do a lot of rationalizing when you are hypocritically moving the goalposts.
Joe, I don't know what the fuck to tell you. I'm honestly getting pissed off that you are accusing me of something that is so NOT a part of my character. If you are going to make such accusations, you better damn well have proof beyond a picture posted to discuss the failure to sign a LANDMINE treaty.
Stop being an asshole, and don't you dare throw around these types of accusations unless you have some gad damned proof you fucker. It's not fucking funny, and you are being a total asshole. If you have a beef with me, then fine. But don't you dare smear me in such a baseless manner.
I've tried time and time and time and time again to be nice to you. And then you accuse me of anti-zionism. Well, fuck you. Plain and simple.
Kilarney, I think it would do you well to just care about Joe a little less.
No, Sail. It's the opposite. I have done everything I can do to be nice to the guy, and then he just ups the ante because he's not getting my goat. He crossed a real line here, and I'm mad as hell. I'm not kidding, and this is not some flame baiting attempt. I'm seriously furious.
I've seen a lot on these forums, but I've never seen someone make such serious allegations about a person absent any form of credible proof. That's just disgusting, and as offensive as I could possibly imagine.
This isn't my fault, it's Joe's. Look at how nice I've been with the guy, and see where the blame lies. I have ignored attempt after attempt on Joe's part to start arguing with me. I kept things civil, and pleaded with him to stick to the topic and not make things personal. And Joe, despite try after try, just couldn't get me to argue with him.
So then he has to cross a line...
Well... you win, Joe. I'm arguing with you now. But I'll be damned if I EVER let someone make such an untrue accusation against me. Even if it means that I have to stoop to your level to defend myself.
A real line was crossed here, and if the forum doesn't see that, then this forum is no better than Joe. Complicity is the same as doing it yourself.
It's not just me. Other people here have shown concern over these images. They come from a website espousing some very questionable politics.
You are the one who posted the image. If people draw the wrong conclusion from your disgusting image, that is your fault, not mine. You are the only one responsible for the subsequent loss of credibility you have experienced.
Joe, I posted an image to show that a bunch of people were laughing about a landmine treaty.
Everyone here is presumed to have adopted the underlying beliefs of every little part of a drawing they post?
Fuck you, Joe. I am not kidding. Don't you EVER make such an accusation about me again. You are sick. Your desperate attempt to make this into something is not is just sick. Sick.
You need help. How any person could be so desperate to hurt someone else is just amazing. I'm not kidding when I say you need help.
I've bent over backwards to be nice to you, and because you don't agree with my politics, you are hell bent on hurting me. Even to the point of making up things about me.
I don't know if I should hate you or feel sorry for you. Honestly, the latter is winning out. I'm not kidding when I say that you need therapy. Your post in a certain other thread all but confirmed that belief.
e. Other people here have shown concern over these images.
There you go. You LIED again. I posted one image with nothing overt. How sick of you to keep lying.
I revealed my source, and yet you ignore that there is NOTHING wrong with my source. Take some time to read the blog, and I think it will change a lot of assumptions you may have about me. (Do you see ANY comments on that blog criticizing the blogger? Hmm... Nope. Have I always been anti-war? Hmm... Yup.)
The fact that you would use a subtle part of a painting, completely separate from why it was posted, to launch an unjustified personal attack as part of a vendetta you have is just sick. You need help.
Frankly, there was NOTHING overtly offensive in the picture I posted. And you make up something, resulting in dissemination of offensive material. Classy, Joe. Classy.
Your desperate attempt to make this into something is not is just sick. Sick.
I'm not desperate at all. You are the one who's sounding desperate. As far as sickness? You are the one who posted an image from that particular antisemitic, holocaust-denying artist. That's pretty sick. I didn't make you post that image.
Finally, just as I said earlier, I'm not the only one who is concerned about these images. You reap what you sow, K.
This is the last thing I am every going to say to you, Joe.
FUCK YOU.
Wow. You put a lot of thought into that one. That really cuts to the quick.
I wish I could believe the part about how that's the last thing you'll "every" [sic] say to me, but you've made those promises to me before and you didn't keep them.
I guess you don't have a lot of time for thinking up good responses when you are scrolling through the artwork on anti-semitic, holocaust-denier websites and moving the goalposts.
Seriously dudes, Kilarney was pretty clear in his intent that the picture convey his feelings on the landmine treaty. He never mentioned Israel. Honestly, I didn't scrutinize the picture very deeply and didn't notice the Israeli imagery until someone pointed it out. I don't see why it is so hard to believe that he didn't intend to deny the fucking Holocaust. At this point you are just harassing him.
His point was that the US refusal to sign the landmine treaty makes a mockery of Obama's slogan of change. I don't agree with him, but it's fucking OBVIOUS that it was his point, and that he meant nothing about Israel.
I post things that my friends show me all the time without doing a background check on the original source. I'm sure we all do. It's not always a sign that I agree with the message of the original source.
Can we PLEASE dismiss this incredibly stupid and irrelevant argument with extreme prejudice?
I didn't scrutinize the picture very deeply and didn't notice the Israeli imagery until someone pointed it out.
. . .
I post things that my friends show me all the time without doing a background check on the original source. I'm sure we all do. It's not always a sign that I agree with the message of the original source.
Now, this is not intended in any way to harass or deride and is not connected to any of K's shenanigans. It is an honest question.
Do you mean to say by the above that anyone can post an offensive image and then avoid any consequences by saying, "Oh, I didn't see the offensive part", or "Well, that offensive part is not what I meant by posting the image"? Could a person post, say, a derogatory image of a highly sterotyped coolie laborer working on a railroad with a word ballon over his head that says, "Honolable ancestors wourd not bereeve how hard is it to work in America to afford white woman", and then when someone says, "That's an offensive image", avoid the consequences of posting the image by saying, "Well, what I really wanted to show was the grade of railroad tie they were using at the time"? Would it be alright to post an image of Obama wearing a turban and then say, "Oh, I didn't see that"?
This is, of course, also assuming that the image is posted on a casual discussion forum and not as part of an academic paper or some such thing.
No. What I mean to say is that when he posted the image, he included a statement. That statement made it clear that he was posting the image relating to the land mine treaty.
The imagery in the picture at hand was more subtle than either of the hypos you just came up with. Also, K didn't completely discount the Israeli imagery. He acknowledged it and explained that he mistakenly thought the image was about the laughing and not about anything deeper. I am in no way saying the image isn't offensive once examined, but when there is a plausible claim that he didn't notice it (note neither of your hypos was plausible because the imagery was NOT subtle), it should at least be considered before condemning him as an anti-semite.
I'm not saying it wasn't stupid not to notice the imagery in the picture he posted. However, the allegations here have gone WAY past the scope of the individual image and have included the context of the page where the image was originally posted. Further, K was accused of knowing and subscribing to the source of the image with no evidence to that effect other than the origin of the picture. It's a huge stretch, and if he tried to make the same case about someone else, he would be laughed out of the thread.
The basis of my contempt here is the double standard that's being applied. If anyone else here posted an image with multiple perceived messages, failing to see one, and K or Steve latched onto an issue that the poster missed, everyone else would be ridiculing them for clinging to a peripheral issue that has a plausible, benign explanation. You are doing exactly that same thing here.
No. What I mean to say is that when he posted the image, he included a statement. That statement made it clear that he was posting the image relating to the land mine treaty.
The imagery in the picture at hand was more subtle than either of the hypos you just came up with.
He said in his first comment that the image sums up his thoughts on the landmine treaty. That's a pretty strong endorsement of the entire image. He didn't say, "Hey, this is a good image except for the anti-semitic bits". Also, as Sail said, the imagery is not very subtle. Is it okay to be offensive as long as you're subtle? Churba was pretty offended by the image and the site as well.
The basis of my contempt here is the double standard that's being applied. If anyone else here posted an image with multiple perceived messages, failing to see one, and K or Steve latched onto an issue that the poster missed, everyone else would be ridiculing them for clinging to a peripheral issue that has a plausible, benign explanation.
Actually, if you're going to talk about personalities, K is the FIRST one to complain about "hypocrisy", "moving the goalpost", or some such. If he saw an image like the one he posted, he'd be whining that he would leave the forum because everyone here is too hypocritical for him. As for clinging to a peripheral issue, K is doing that here by clinging to that landmine deal after it's been shown many times in many different ways to not be the issue of great import he thinks it is.
I don't think anyone actually accused K of being anti-semitic, but it is very, very ironic when a person who, hoping to show hypocrisy in others and moral superiority in himself, posts an image with anti-semitic undertones that comes from a holocaust-denier website.
I feel like the posting of that image is a perfect model of how hastily has dumped links and such into this thread to "prove" his point, only to have dismissed by others because he simply didn't take the time to delve deeply enough into them. I do not believe at all that Kilarney is anti-semetic, but I think that this mistake of his is very characteristic of the way he posts every news story and blog post he finds that he agrees with and expects others to read it and research it and pick it apart as if the argument was his own. He should be forming his own argument with sources to back it up, not annoyingly dumping links and expecting them to speak for themselves. I don't blame anyone attacking him for being fed up with that.
Comments
Wouldn't this actually be your thoughts on this ;-p
It's hard not to notice the "Deesillustration.com" signature on this picture. Here's the site. Classy with a "K".
This guy is, at the least, a Conspiracy theory nutjob who will believe anything that he sees, as long as it's anti-government, He's anti-real medicine(Or at the very least, an Anti-vaxer), Anti-science, and his position on The Jewish, Well, He claims to be pro-Jewish, and anti-Zionist, but everyone he doesn't approve of(Ie, Pretty much everyone but himself and Ron Paul) He just considers them a zionist, and gets on with it.
A few of the better examples -
As places to find images that sum up your opinion go, K, I gotta say, If that's where you were looking, You're a far different man to me - I didn't even get through the first gallery before I was simply too disgusted to continue. I would rather watch a 24 hour live feed of 4Chan's /b/ board than look at that tripe ever again - not only would the 'shop jobs be more competent, it would actually be at least two orders of magnitude more intelligent and sensible.
I guess the "artist" drew Obama wearing an Israeli flag pin because he's criticising him for being a "zionist" since a lot of his other "artwork" shows an obsession with with the evils of "zionism". K, since you like that image so much, are you criticising Obama for being a "zionist" now? Or, since you say that the image sums up your thoughts about Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty, do you think that his refusal is part of a "zionist conspiracy"?
Oh yeah, kudos for elevating the level of discussion on the board by introducing us to this guy's site.
Ridiculous and possibly bigoted conspiracy loons with no Photoshop skill aside, Obama should have signed that landmine treaty.
I got the picture from a fellow Vemonter's blog. He's a fellow anti-war advocate. I defy you to find a shred of anti-zionism on that blog.
Sorry to disappoint. Frankly, had I known anything about the original website, I wouldn't have been so stupid to leave the url in the picture.
For that matter, take a look at my link in the original post. It came from that blog.
I also stated that the picture summed up my thoughts on Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty. I never mentioned anything about Israel, zionism, etc. Just landmines. Talk about tossing context aside!
So why was Joe so desperate to imply otherwise? Misrepresenting facts to attack someone? Shame, Joe.
Frankly, I hadn't even noticed the Israeli symbols in the picture, or the embedded url. I saw everyone was laughing and posted it. Wow... how controversial. People laughing. What an awful purpose... posting a photo to show people laughing.
Yup. That ought to destroy my credibility.
And yet refusal to answer a simple question doesn't...
So to get the train back on a substantive track after yet another baseless ad hominem attack, I'll ask you yet again Joe:
Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's refusal to sign the landmine treaty at this time?
Or...
Do you believe that Obama has, or has not, engaged in patronage?
Keep moving those goalposts.
Sorry. But that's all.
Had I posted it in reference to some sort of Israeli issue, I would not fault anyone for criticism.
But then Joe has managed to make something out of nothing and waste this forum's time yet again.
How about you rectify the situation, Joe by answering one of the two questions?
Stop being an asshole, and don't you dare throw around these types of accusations unless you have some gad damned proof you fucker. It's not fucking funny, and you are being a total asshole. If you have a beef with me, then fine. But don't you dare smear me in such a baseless manner.
I've tried time and time and time and time again to be nice to you. And then you accuse me of anti-zionism. Well, fuck you. Plain and simple.
I've seen a lot on these forums, but I've never seen someone make such serious allegations about a person absent any form of credible proof. That's just disgusting, and as offensive as I could possibly imagine.
This isn't my fault, it's Joe's. Look at how nice I've been with the guy, and see where the blame lies. I have ignored attempt after attempt on Joe's part to start arguing with me. I kept things civil, and pleaded with him to stick to the topic and not make things personal. And Joe, despite try after try, just couldn't get me to argue with him.
So then he has to cross a line...
Well... you win, Joe. I'm arguing with you now. But I'll be damned if I EVER let someone make such an untrue accusation against me. Even if it means that I have to stoop to your level to defend myself.
A real line was crossed here, and if the forum doesn't see that, then this forum is no better than Joe. Complicity is the same as doing it yourself.
You are the one who posted the image. If people draw the wrong conclusion from your disgusting image, that is your fault, not mine. You are the only one responsible for the subsequent loss of credibility you have experienced.
Everyone here is presumed to have adopted the underlying beliefs of every little part of a drawing they post?
Fuck you, Joe. I am not kidding. Don't you EVER make such an accusation about me again. You are sick. Your desperate attempt to make this into something is not is just sick. Sick.
You need help. How any person could be so desperate to hurt someone else is just amazing. I'm not kidding when I say you need help.
I've bent over backwards to be nice to you, and because you don't agree with my politics, you are hell bent on hurting me. Even to the point of making up things about me.
I don't know if I should hate you or feel sorry for you. Honestly, the latter is winning out. I'm not kidding when I say that you need therapy. Your post in a certain other thread all but confirmed that belief.
I revealed my source, and yet you ignore that there is NOTHING wrong with my source. Take some time to read the blog, and I think it will change a lot of assumptions you may have about me. (Do you see ANY comments on that blog criticizing the blogger? Hmm... Nope. Have I always been anti-war? Hmm... Yup.)
The fact that you would use a subtle part of a painting, completely separate from why it was posted, to launch an unjustified personal attack as part of a vendetta you have is just sick. You need help.
Frankly, there was NOTHING overtly offensive in the picture I posted. And you make up something, resulting in dissemination of offensive material. Classy, Joe. Classy.
Finally, just as I said earlier, I'm not the only one who is concerned about these images. You reap what you sow, K.
FUCK YOU.
Sorry for this, forum.
I wish I could believe the part about how that's the last thing you'll "every" [sic] say to me, but you've made those promises to me before and you didn't keep them.
I guess you don't have a lot of time for thinking up good responses when you are scrolling through the artwork on anti-semitic, holocaust-denier websites and moving the goalposts.
His point was that the US refusal to sign the landmine treaty makes a mockery of Obama's slogan of change. I don't agree with him, but it's fucking OBVIOUS that it was his point, and that he meant nothing about Israel.
I post things that my friends show me all the time without doing a background check on the original source. I'm sure we all do. It's not always a sign that I agree with the message of the original source.
Can we PLEASE dismiss this incredibly stupid and irrelevant argument with extreme prejudice?
Do you mean to say by the above that anyone can post an offensive image and then avoid any consequences by saying, "Oh, I didn't see the offensive part", or "Well, that offensive part is not what I meant by posting the image"? Could a person post, say, a derogatory image of a highly sterotyped coolie laborer working on a railroad with a word ballon over his head that says, "Honolable ancestors wourd not bereeve how hard is it to work in America to afford white woman", and then when someone says, "That's an offensive image", avoid the consequences of posting the image by saying, "Well, what I really wanted to show was the grade of railroad tie they were using at the time"? Would it be alright to post an image of Obama wearing a turban and then say, "Oh, I didn't see that"?
This is, of course, also assuming that the image is posted on a casual discussion forum and not as part of an academic paper or some such thing.
The imagery in the picture at hand was more subtle than either of the hypos you just came up with. Also, K didn't completely discount the Israeli imagery. He acknowledged it and explained that he mistakenly thought the image was about the laughing and not about anything deeper. I am in no way saying the image isn't offensive once examined, but when there is a plausible claim that he didn't notice it (note neither of your hypos was plausible because the imagery was NOT subtle), it should at least be considered before condemning him as an anti-semite.
I'm not saying it wasn't stupid not to notice the imagery in the picture he posted. However, the allegations here have gone WAY past the scope of the individual image and have included the context of the page where the image was originally posted. Further, K was accused of knowing and subscribing to the source of the image with no evidence to that effect other than the origin of the picture. It's a huge stretch, and if he tried to make the same case about someone else, he would be laughed out of the thread.
The basis of my contempt here is the double standard that's being applied. If anyone else here posted an image with multiple perceived messages, failing to see one, and K or Steve latched onto an issue that the poster missed, everyone else would be ridiculing them for clinging to a peripheral issue that has a plausible, benign explanation. You are doing exactly that same thing here.
I don't think anyone actually accused K of being anti-semitic, but it is very, very ironic when a person who, hoping to show hypocrisy in others and moral superiority in himself, posts an image with anti-semitic undertones that comes from a holocaust-denier website.