They NYT are the paper of record. Paper of left-wing record carefully siphoning through all that's fit to toe the liberal narrative.
Whenever a Western publication or artist dares mock Mohammed (we mustn't offend the legions of violent Muslims bless their precious souls. Walk on egg shells we must!), once proud news organizations like NYT bend over and assume the politically correct 'we must not rush to judge' bull shit narrative they unscrupulously pimp out.
You know the line. We've all seen it.
However, the second someone takes its shot at Christianity (Catholicism is such an easy target for these vapid faux cultural warriors), you can bet your life the paper of - ahem - record will grace and bless its pages with what suddenly becomes 'art'.
Consider making a canvass of the Pope (and man who I completely disagree with on a couple of issues despite my Catholicism) made out of...condom.
First a money quote from a member of the New Dark Age Philip B. Corbett:
"I don't think these situations — the Milwaukee [condom-Pope] artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures — are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork. Also, there's no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bear this out. Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn't seem to be any comparable level of outrage.
Suck. My. Dick.
Did this asshole really fucken say what he said in the last sentence? Maybe because, you dolt, we're civilized? That we don't act with moral outrage like dip shit SJW's carrying around Mattresses shouldn't be mistaken for lack of disgust. Asshole.
IMAGINE, if it was Mohammed. Why, there would be blood and outrage on the streets. Heads would role! Literally. Pseudo-intellectual cries of 'I support freedom of speech but those dudes had it coming!' would pollute the air and tele waves as well as the Internet and chat rooms across the world.
Oh, the justifications for the murder we'd here. I mean, leftists still love Castro, right? So it's only natural they cling on to anything that remotely challenges - however absurdly and without a lick of decency or intelligence - anything that is Western first among them our fundamentally liberal traditions rooted in liberty.
They care not for liberty. Don't believe a word that they do. Harpies are good at deception.
There is no redeeming quality of any significance to this trash other than to incite. Call it for what it is. Anti-Catholicism. We all know it is. One can only surmise their feelings about Jews and Israel. It's not a courageous act in any conceivable manner as we've come to understand it. It's plain, plump, degenerative post-modern nonsense.
And the NYT celebrates it like the douchey, Dark Aged irrelevant rag of douchebaggery (with ascots. Gotta keep up the appearances amidst the stench of cowardice) it has become.
Matt Welch at Reason offers a wonderful perspective here.
Whenever a Western publication or artist dares mock Mohammed (we mustn't offend the legions of violent Muslims bless their precious souls. Walk on egg shells we must!), once proud news organizations like NYT bend over and assume the politically correct 'we must not rush to judge' bull shit narrative they unscrupulously pimp out.
You know the line. We've all seen it.
However, the second someone takes its shot at Christianity (Catholicism is such an easy target for these vapid faux cultural warriors), you can bet your life the paper of - ahem - record will grace and bless its pages with what suddenly becomes 'art'.
Consider making a canvass of the Pope (and man who I completely disagree with on a couple of issues despite my Catholicism) made out of...condom.
First a money quote from a member of the New Dark Age Philip B. Corbett:
"I don't think these situations — the Milwaukee [condom-Pope] artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures — are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork. Also, there's no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bear this out. Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn't seem to be any comparable level of outrage.
Suck. My. Dick.
Did this asshole really fucken say what he said in the last sentence? Maybe because, you dolt, we're civilized? That we don't act with moral outrage like dip shit SJW's carrying around Mattresses shouldn't be mistaken for lack of disgust. Asshole.
IMAGINE, if it was Mohammed. Why, there would be blood and outrage on the streets. Heads would role! Literally. Pseudo-intellectual cries of 'I support freedom of speech but those dudes had it coming!' would pollute the air and tele waves as well as the Internet and chat rooms across the world.
Oh, the justifications for the murder we'd here. I mean, leftists still love Castro, right? So it's only natural they cling on to anything that remotely challenges - however absurdly and without a lick of decency or intelligence - anything that is Western first among them our fundamentally liberal traditions rooted in liberty.
They care not for liberty. Don't believe a word that they do. Harpies are good at deception.
There is no redeeming quality of any significance to this trash other than to incite. Call it for what it is. Anti-Catholicism. We all know it is. One can only surmise their feelings about Jews and Israel. It's not a courageous act in any conceivable manner as we've come to understand it. It's plain, plump, degenerative post-modern nonsense.
And the NYT celebrates it like the douchey, Dark Aged irrelevant rag of douchebaggery (with ascots. Gotta keep up the appearances amidst the stench of cowardice) it has become.
Matt Welch at Reason offers a wonderful perspective here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.