So if the statue hadn’t been of a girl who was a symbol of International Women’s Day, but still of a girl, the outrage would be less potent? (I’m not arguing here, simply curious).
Yeah probably. Had this guy stopped to molest a different statue on a different day he’d just be a douche bag. Since he decided to molest a symbol of feminism in conjunction with international women’s day he crossed the line into exceptional douche bag, which made it news worthy.
His face is pretty shiny too.
Here’s a more interesting critique of the statue.
Not being on social media at all means I’m not able to gauge how widespread the reaction is. Of course even if it is only a fraction of a percent of facebook users alone that still means millions of “outraged” users and that is enough momentum to ensure it spills over into mainstream media, then I do get to see it and have the opportunity to not give a shit.
I don’t think anything I’ve written could be considered “outrage” I’ve been measured and reasonable in my opinions and yet even here I’m suddenly painted as “outraged”. (but no, I’m not outraged by that either)
There’s millions of people who believe the moon landing is a hoax. Millions of people who think that drops of colloidal silver will cure their diseases. If you cared about making a difference, you’d spent the outrage you’re wasting here on the tens of millions who won’t vaccinate their kids and help millions of children rather than going berserk over defending one grown adult who humps statues of children.
See how easy it is to dismiss people’s feelings and opinions?
I don’t know if anything in this thread could count as “outrage” but that seems to be the word du jour for saying “I’ve arbitrarily decided you’re too emotional so I win, you lose”.
I don’t know about dismissive but it certainly is completely inaccurate and utterly irrelevant to the points I made. Specifically, I’ve not gone “berserk” and I haven’t the defended the statue-humper. (in fact I have spoken out against him).
There were a couple of outspoken posts but nothing too major, my disdain is for the twitterati who cook up a storm and make minor incidents into something more than they need to be. FWIW, if someone does get too emotional I will stop the discussion because nothing much will result from continuing. I don’t think that’s a win/lose scenario but on the other hand someone incapable of rational discussion is always going to find it hard to make their point.
And others haven’t really been “outraged” and failing to fight true misogyny, etc as is being presented here. Seems like you’re missing the point.
Firstly, nobody is defending this guy. Secondly, trying to convince moon hoaxers and anti-vaxxers that they’re wrong is a total waste of time, as studies have shown that debating them just makes them dig their heels in even more. Thirdly, Novelty Bobble isn’t, by any definition “going berserk” and your mischaracterisation is dishonest. Fourthly, although perhaps not necessarily entirely accurate, it would definitely be more accurate to describe the reaction of certain offendees in this thread as “berserk”. Elbows has called for the guy’s job. Silenus said he should hang from a lamp post (he may have said that sarcastically, but it’s so hard to tell these days). And Manda Jo seems to think this is some kind of symbolic attack on all women. These are all ridiculous overreactions to a photo of some drunk pretending to hump a statue.
Sometimes people are too emotional. At such times, it’s not insensitive to point that out.
You know, I thought the constant use of quotes around “outrage” previously would have made my intent obvious but I guess the fault is on me there.
Really? Is Elbows hunting down the guy’s place of employment right now and blowing up their phone? Or did Elbows made a comment on a message board that we’re calling “outrage” to suit our argument?
No, when using common sense, it really isn’t.
So? Is Manda Jo running around with a pitchfork or rolling over police cars?
Funny how much the “get a grip” people can’t seem to, well, get a grip.
We live in a new century, in an age of social media. If you’re so tone deaf to the times you live in, that you douchebag away for the internet to see, I have no sympathy when you lose your gig because of it.
Not exactly a call to lynch the guy, in my eyes.
He’s a privileged white, Wall Street wanker, he’s not going to go hungry, he’ll have another job inside a month.
But he won’t lose his job, will he? No, all the other bros at the law firm most assuredly got his back. Probably high fived him, when they saw it, is my bet.
You didn’t put those quotes around berserk so…yeah. It is.
Read her comment. I’ve no doubt whatsoever that if she could complain directly to his company, she would. If you doubt this, please quote the relevant sections of her post which cause you to doubt this.
This thread represents a wholesale abdication of common sense by all parties involved.
She’s overreacting over a load of stupid internet nothing.
True, I only followed the paragraph with: See how easy it is to dismiss people’s feelings and opinions?
I can see the problem there – I didn’t bold it and maybe use underlines.
It seems like we are at the point where we start debating the meaning of words.
That’s always a good point to step away from the keyboard.
Agreed. I’m out, too. Life’s too short.
What his skin colour has to do with anything?
While I agree with the artist, the irony makes the story fun:
Wall Street bull sculptor says ‘Fearless Girl’ statue violates his rights
The irony (for anybody who didn’t notice this part of the story):
Have you been there? A railing would be absolutely the wrong statement for that spot - And is completely unnecessary. Simple community controls - like the average New Yorker’s contempt for stupid yahoos - and the occasional wandering monster - um, policeman - is more than sufficcient.
Really, this is a complete tempest in a teapot.
Irony (and tempest) aside, does the claim that the Fearless Girl violates the trademark and copyright of Di Modica (artist of the bull) have any legal foundation? It seems to me that it’s not all that different than a newspaper publishing a contradictory response to someone’s letter to the editor. And that certainly doesn’t violate the original letter writer’s rights.