I mean, for all intents and purposes, they kinda are. They’re both pictures of artists making a political statement with their art.
One is clearly a beheading. The other is just calling the guy an idiot. Sure, both political statements but in no way the same.
Isn’t calling for the beheading of a man who is trying to make himself king over America, the most patriotic thing ever? It’s what America was founded on.
the French might have a thing or two to say about this sort of thing
Probably a quote on high-quality guillotines.
They are extremely different, and both should be perfectly acceptable in their repective contexts.
GRIFFIN: I did say, I want to do some kind of a picture to shame Trump.
SANDERS: Griffin said she was mad at Trump for what he said about Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News host, after she grilled him in a presidential debate in 2015.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her - wherever. But…
not a call to violence
fuck that
when are we allowed to call for violence then? How many people does a fascist have to kill before we are allowed to wish death back on him?
How Nazi does a Nazi have to be before you’re allowed to kill it?
I didn’t say a call to violence wasn’t warranted, just that Griffin’s photoshoot was not a call to violence.
i didnt misunderstand you, i was speaking to the royal you
I think you’re swell and you did a good job conveying your thoughts above
The pearl-clutching about political violence is rich coming from people who celebrate political violence on 7/4 every year.
im not suggesting political violence
im suggesting self defense against social murder and fascism
but yes i agree w you
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
Political systems hinge on people following the nonviolent bureaucratic process for them to exist, so anyone who supports a political system’s existence will always condemn violence for political gain, and will punish any violence they feel threatens the status quo. You can still do violence, but you will face punishment for it. Same as during the Union Wars.
thats a good fucking point actually
its unreasonable to demand that your opponent follows the rules without doing so yourself.
im mad that my opponent has broken some of the rules, but if i start doing it too then what was the point
In the eyes of our law? They likely are
Certainly, but one art is of a severed head, and the other makes use of a mask. They are not the same, in the way so many in Cult 45 want to equivocate them.
Edit: So I guess, to one or two intents and purposes (art/political speech), they’re the same. To the rest, not so much.
They’re actually both Trump masks, just one is covered in ketchup. Griffin has talked about the whole thing a lot, since it essentially ruined her career.
I think situational common sense is critical here. We’re talking about a comedian expressing herself in a way that some people might consider offensive. That’s pretty much her job description, and she’s great at it. Knowing her and her work makes these two pictures essentially the same.
I’m pretty sure the addition of extra elements to make it more resemble a severed head is covered in my point that one is art of a severed head and one is just a mask.
Edit: If adding the ketchup makes no difference, why would you mention it at all in comparing them? So it must make a difference, which already shows that they’re not the same picture, and without the same intent. The obvious intent with Griffin’s is to make it look like a severed head, which is absent in the picture of Armstrong.
Moreover, Billie Joe improvised that bit, it wasn’t planned like Griffin’s was. He took the mask from an audience member: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/green-day-trump-mask/
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attacking Griffin or justifying her cancellation. I think she was exercising her right to free speech, and this kerfuffle right here just proves that even about this, Cult 45 doesn’t actually care about the truth, they’re just looking for reasons to foam at the mouth.
Cult45 doesn’t have the mental capacity to look for reasons to foam at the mouth. They sit and watch fox “news” waiting for their orders of who to foam at the mouth for.
The ketchup is supposed to be his fake tan, not blood, right?
Absolutely. Both are well within their rights of freedom of speech and expression. I like em both more because of it. I mean, I already liked them for their work.
To hear the stories Kathy tells about the death threats after this image are pretty crazy.
Who cares? I thought you guys liked the first amendment
They also want to scratch out parts of the first amendment and nationalize Christianity. So says P25
Not as much as the second amendment…
And they don’t even know what the 3rd Amendment says. 4th is a coin toss.
I wanna say one of those is about the quartering of soldiers in a civilian home and the other is about the right to assembly (though I might by misremembering that as part of the first amendment) ngl I don’t really pay much attention to the constitution cause it doesn’t come up much in my daily life.
Who cares if they were?
What, no GWAR?!
What did I miss?
So basically both blown out of proportion.
By people who are the target customer for this 》》
Both are useless against the Kracken.
-deleted-
OOTL
They are different. True. So?
Yeah, people like Green Day.
Kathy Griffin was washed up well before the top picture was taken.
I had no idea she did that. I never really liked her, but today, I’ve found a new respect for her.
She got in a surprising amount of trouble for that. Definitely cost her some jobs.
Yeah, Green Day had attention and used it to make political statements. Kathy on the other hand uses political statements to get attention.
