Imagine you’re the master race, confident and strong and then some people wear different clothes than you expected on TV and your whole world is just shattered lol.
olympic is now cancelled.
I’m not exactly the most religious person, but this seems to be step one in how to piss off a nice chunk of those watching.
Not the route I would have gone.
Well they can be pissed or grow up then I guess lol getting angry over a performance on tv, what are they, 6 years old?
If you can’t figure out to not take someone belief system or identity and use it… If you can’t figure out why that might piss people off let me help you.
If I as a heterosexual white male put on black face and dressed up in American Indian garb I’m pretty sure people would get pissed.
There are certain lines you just don’t cross.
Mocking someone for who they are (their race) and for their choice (the cult they joined) are entirely different things.
Still here you are trying to piss off people. Why don’t you change your tune, eh?
Have you still not figured out that it wasn’t even The Last Supper? The painting they were reenacting had zero to do with Christianity.
And religion, favorite Jolly Rancher flavor, or what car you drive is not one of them. Those are all conscious choices.
Mentally, yes. Lol
Drag cabaret was huge in France in the 1940s and 1950s and has continued to this day, so that part is not really especially weird or or provocative.
But then they decided to mix it with Paris Fashion Week and that made it far less interesting, at least to me.
You can’t live your life walking on eggshells because you’re worried you might offend one of the biggest snowflakes to ever exist
It was made to kind of piss right wing people, yes
Just curious would it have been ok if was designed to piss off left wingers? Or done to make fun of black people or trans people?
If they did it to Muslims, theyd get a repeat of Charlie Hebdo. And if I didnt know better, Id say they were making fun of trans people, in a really gross transphobic way
Because some of them are even more childish than the christians?
Do you know what Charlie Hebdo was?
Everything you listed is on different plains of existence.
The left isn’t there to tell others what to do. It’s here to push back on the right’s encroachment. So be it.
Neither black nor trans people choose to be who they are but being a right-wing Christian is a conscious choice people make every day. These people wake up and choose every type of violence.
Why would it be ok to piss off anyone else but the perpetrators?
Again with this paradox of tolerance bullshit. Just try think about the two situations and how they are similar and different… You’ll figure it out, I believe in you.
Is mocking a person for being autistic the same as mocking someone for choosing to be a white supremacist?
Do you get it yet?
The ceremony pissed off right wingers by not bending to their demands for censorship of anything that their religious beliefs tells them should be censored. Bending to those demands would essentially allow them to force their religious beliefs on others.
You suggested to piss off left wingers by bullying ostracized groups of people or being downright racist.
You can see how those are not the same.
This is really killing me. The Last Supper is a fucking painting. It ain’t in the book. There’s no part of the Bible where it says and Jesus sat down at a stupidly long table and all of his asshole Apostle sat down on the same side and posed weirdly. Why is the painting suddenly holy? Since when do conservatives like art? I’ve never met a conservative who didn’t want to burn most paintings.
You’d be surprised how much of the belief was added as expansion packs by the early church.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The painting is just another notable addition to the cinematic universe.
We don’t talk about the rival fanfic, or the original book fans. It’s not as good as ours. And our main character in the sky is totally different.
Judas: so lets get this last supper going.
Jesus: the what supper?
Judas: good supper, nice supper, normal supper!
good supper, nice supper, normal supper!
Super supper!
Matthew 26:20-29 ESV
When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.” Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ESV
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
The last supper is very much biblical
They weren’t saying the event called the last supper wasn’t in the bible, but that the artistic depiction of that event, “The Last Supper”, isn’t a part of the Christian religion. It is a painting.
It’s a painting of a scene from the Bible, though
A painting by a homosexual naturalist scientist that constantly gets co-opted by the church. Religious folk are so ridiculous on what you choose to get your feathers ruffled over. It’s just a stupid painting that he made to experiment with new materials for fresco murals.
I think religion is hogwash but criticizing a famous depiction of an event that happened in the Bible because it’s not actually being part of the Bible strikes me as desperate.
Nah. It’s something they don’t get bent out of shape for for any other religious artwork. Like nobody is up in arms about the memes of that shitty restoration of the picture of Jesus
There’s plenty of satirical art/speech/expression about Christianity and people don’t go through life being enraged at all of it until they’re told to have that opinion by media.
Plus, from what I understand, the only “sacrilegious” element was that there were drag performers doing it? There’s not even anything inherently anti-christian there except in that wearing the other gender’s clothing is prohibited in like 3 verses. But again, people aren’t typically upset by the identity of the author except in this case. Christians are only so vehemently anti-drag in the US because of media spoon feeding them opinions.
Other examples they dont get mad about
Or infinitely many others including ones with RuPaul, futurama, rick and morty, marvel, the charmin bears, pretty much any IP you can name has a version of this somebody made of it that is equally “sacrilegious”.
I’m not defending their anti drag position, it is ridiculous.
But they find drag to be an affront to their beliefs, and thus them making fun of the last supper is offensive in this case (it isn’t making fun of it, which I just learned, I’m speaking hypothetically here) and maybe not when it is referenced humorously in others.
It’s like some white person getting up on stage and doing jokes about living fried chicken and watermelon. Maybe some people are mildly put off by it but most would just think it dumb. But put that white guy in black face and all of a sudden it’s a lot more offensive. I’m not equating these two, just pointing out how context matters.
But I’m not even sure why that matters here because the statement was that it really isn’t part of the bible, when it’s clearly depicting a major moment in the Bible.
Not true, you were defending their anti drag position. Still am, a little because you don’t understand how to back down
It’s possible to understand that something offends a person, and think it wrong to intentionally offend them, and at the same time find it ridiculous that it does.
deleted by creator
That’s just artistic depiction. Scared Artwork (or Icons) are more about portraying and telling a story to an illiterate audience rather than realistically depicting something as we may think about some historical artwork nowadays. Although there are plenty of battle scenes in art which are clearly exaggerated also
I’ve never met a conservative who didn’t want to burn most paintings.
How does ignorant, fabricated hate get so many upvotes here?
Just a product of people having an overconfidence in themselves being right (and therefore good) while those that disagree are wrong (and therefore wrong).
The irony is that the most batshit insane MAGAs have the same thought process. Liberal tears and all that.
This is a “conservative tears” kind of thing. It’s a “they take the low road, we also take the low road” kind of strategy which only gives credence to the usually fallacious “both sides” arguments.
General lack of critical thinking skills. If you want a tolerant society, actively disrespecting the beliefs of others probably isn’t the best way to go about it.
lol. you are so fucking naive. you think they’ll return the favor if we respect their idiotic beliefs? do you think that aliens are going to land and take our side because we took ‘the high road’? there’s only one solution for christian conservatives.
Yup. Maga supporters are some of the worst I’ve come across. But what I’ve learned, especially on Lemmy, is that it’s not even remotely isolated to them.
Let me explain it this way. If I am going to sit somewhere, if we as left leaning individuals are going to sit and say “it’s not what you say it’s how others take it and be sensitive to that” then we need to follow the same rules.
If I tell a joke or do something that others take offense to, then maybe it wasn’t ok to say that, or to have done that.
If I am going to tell people to pay attention to how others respond to what they are doing or saying. Then i need to follow those same rules.
It is not ok for me to tell another person, you can’t say that (what ever that thing is) because of how others are viewing it or how it makes them feel. Then turn around and say but i can do what ever I want even if it offends others.
It is not relevant if we are talking about drag, or trans people, or black people, or minorities, or white people, or religions. What is relevant is that we are running around saying “you can’t do that because it is offending others”. Yet look through this thread, go all the way up to my top comment and look at all the responses. Notice something? People are acting like this was totally ok even though there are a shit ton of people that it offended.
So it’s ok for the left to put in rules that says “you can’t do that because it is offending others, but we the left can do what ever we want”. That makes sense?
and you are telling me to change my tune?
It wasn’t the last supper or anything with Christianity. Maybe if they were actually educated instead of being anti-schooling…
Maybe if they were actually educated instead of being anti-schooling…
Half of “Against School” is incredibly based, half is a bit rambly.
I saw people pissed off about this on social media last night. I didn’t even really understand what they were upset about. Other than the fact that it’s a handful of people sitting at a table, I didn’t really see any similarities with the Last Supper. Christians don’t own the concept of people sitting on the same side of a table.
TV shows put all the people on one side of a dinner table all the time - because of camera/blocking reasons. Is every episode of Eight Is Enough blasphemous?
I would like to hear from the actual people, rather than some historian just coming up with something that could be an excuse.
Additionally, I regularly go to museums, I took art elective art classes in both HS and college, including art history, and I’ve never seen this painting. Im willing to bed 99% of people haven’t even heard of the artist. So attacking people for not making this connection ss “ignorant” seems to be a bit much.
Here you go…
Conservative critics widely denounced the act, featuring Katerine lounging on a table surrounded by drag queens, as mocking the Last Supper. But director Thomas Jolly told BFM-TV on Sunday that his inspiration was not the iconic New Testament scene painting by Leonardo da Vinci, but “a pagan feast linked” to the gods of Olympus.
“I’m a bit of an exhibitionist,” said Katerine, 55, whose modesty as Dionysus, the god of fertility, ecstasy and wine, was covered by a meager garland of leaves and fruit.
Thanks.
Is there a way to read the thread without having an X account? Because all I see is the first post saying it’s supposed to be the other picture and they don’t look that similar to me. I’m guessing he goes on to explain some of the context? In other self replies that I can’t read?
I wish people would stop using X/Twitter because of this kind of shit. Everyone needs to move over to Mastadon or at least Blue Sky, something I can read without having an account and being logged in.
Yes, here’s the unroll…
Thanks!
hard disagree. you assume that if you give them the same respect that you ask for, that they will give it back in return. you’re talking about christians. they just want to subjugate everyone else to their standard of living.
nope. fuck them. they are the enemy. they are the barrier to living in a better world. they do not understand cultural differences and don’t want to. they are a problem to be solved, not a class of people who must be tolerated. goose and gander thinking will get you nowhere.
so because I’m a christian … it’s fuck me? ignoring the fact that i do my best to treat everyone equally. ignoring the fact that I want a constitutional amendment that says “on average for a given voting precinct the people shouldn’t be standing in line for 8 hours, the average should only be 30 minutes so minorities aren’t disenfranchised from voting” … ignoring the fact that I believe everyone should have the right to marry who ever they choose (as long as they are consenting adults… your statement is
“you’re talking about christians, they just want to subjugate everyone else… fuck them”
that’s also ignoring the fact that I do not believe that the bible should be taught in public school.
you didn’t say some christians are that way … you basically said all christians. … so it’s fuck me. … nice way to enter the conversation there.
ACAB
Paradox of tolerance. Christians are actively trying to invite violence against LGBT people by calling them groomers. That’s the basis of their outrage, so it is simple to dismiss it as hateful or inauthentic.
Btw, someone saying something in the past doesn’t make it true.
Well, that’s a horrible argument.
Paradox of tolerance doesn’t really have an argument other than it being declared “this is what happens when you tolerate intolerance”
You’re right. Let’s all hug some nazis
Good point… So how does that relate to this thread?
Why can’t drag queens portray the last supper, even make fun of it, when
a) Jeezy Creezy himself invited sex workers to his shin digs. Also cracked a few jokes himself (“Why were you looking for me? I was in my father’s house”)
b) veggie tales is about sentient vegetables giving Bible lessons, Narnia is about a fursona giving Bible lessons
c) if Jesus can take being crucified I imagine he can take a joke
You’re right, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And in that spirit, I will treat these complaints exactly the way right wingers treat it when others point out that they’re being offensive and gross.
In other words, I will mock you for being offended and suggest that you’re trying to kill free speech any time you try to voice your point of view.
I kind of see where you are coming from, but doesn’t it make a difference WHY somebody is offended?
If I, for eclxsmple, use the N-Word, the offence this rightfully causes is rooted in it being used to speak about slaves in the past. I can understand that. I understand why this could hurt black peoples feeling. So I don’t use it.
The root of offence on the Paris case seemes to be that some Christian Fundamentalist (wrongly) think that Drag-People imitated the last Supper. Their offence is based in them hating Drags. That is nothing I can emphatize with. So I don’t see their offence beeing justified, since It is rooted in hate.
Would they be offended if white males immitated the last supper during the ceremony? Possible, and if so then I’d be interested to hear on what basis, since the scene has been mimiced in pop culture a lot without it causing any offence (on a level that would have made it noticeable to me).
Ao that’s the difference. I don’t blindly stop to do things the left labels as offensive. But If I understand how and why it causes people harm using phrases or doing things then I might change my behaviour on that base. Not because “the left says so” but because I can emphatize and understand the point. In this case I can do neither.
It is not relevant if we are talking about drag, or trans people, or black people, or minorities, or white people, or religions.
then why are you doing that?
also, username checks out.
Religion has been behind so much discrimination over the centuries. I, as a leftist, will never care to not offend religion.
Also I’m very strongly of the opinion that being a leftist is about ending capitalism. The acceptance/bigotry spectrum is a different axis. And while ending bigotry is an important fight, it’s a separate one from ending capitalism.
Religion is not and has not been particularly different from ideology historically.
Online Marxism really demonstrates that with the read “theory”(scripture). But of course it’s just as true on the right, not only for religious texts.
If the offense is that something exists, it’s not worth bowing down to. If the offense is that it is potentially harmful or dangerous, then it should be considered. Conservatives don’t get to just say they’re offended by others and get them to disappear.
Major false equivalency. One side is intentionally offending marginalized groups, knowing that they’re much more likely to commit suicide, etc. They only punch down. They literally think a significant number of normal, innocent people don’t have the right to exist and they base that belief on (I guess one of) the dumbest, most grotesquely disgusting holy books ever. And it’s not even a good story. None of them are any good.
The rest just want to be able to exist, and if criticizing the most popular religions in the world for teaching their followers that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist is offensive to them, well then I don’t know what to tell them.
See the difference? One group wants to eradicate entire groups of law-abiding, productive citizens because they have delusions that don’t comport with reality and are not compatible with modern society, the other is pointing that out and mocking them for it.
I would only say one of those things is actually offensive… Objectively. So I’m not sure why I should care if a conservative snowflake gets his coal rolled over it.
I’m a Christian for 13 years, I see this all the time Nowadays and it actually fortifies my beliefs even more, because our bible and particularly our Jesus, said would happen in the last days before he returns. If only you all had faith you could appreciate the magnitude of what’s to come, heaven isn’t a place in the sky, it’s another world ruled by aliens thar have been around long enough to create us and this entire universe.
Hilarious comment from an article I read. Meanwhile,I thought Da Vinci was excommunicated.
I just wish these people had reading comprehension beyond a third grader so they could actually read that awful book (the Bible)
Even in you take everything in it at face value, it’s not even a good story (overall), and all of the little stories are shit.
Christians need to: first, read the Bible, and the second, read a few pieces of classic literature. Your book is shit, most of it doesn’t even make sense
There’s actually a lot of interesting stuff in the text when you learn how to spot it between the lines of the revisionism. Both OT and NT.
The problem is you basically only have two camps.
One, that thinks the text as it exists today represents an unadulterated divine transmission.
And the other, that thinks anything to do with it is worthless nonsense.
So there’s very few people actually looking at it in between those two extremes, with most engaged with the material clustering around the former, or at very least with an anchoring and survivorship bias around the former cluster.
We’re left with audiences for the text that on both sides would be incredulous at the idea that, say, the Exodus narrative was in part an appropriation of the LBA/Early Iron Age sea peoples history when they were forcibly relocated into cohabitation with the Israelites, or say, that Jesus was taking about evolution with the sower parable.
Even though both those things have very compelling cases that can be made given emerging available evidence, the discussion is all about the acceptance or wholesale rejection of canon with little to no discussion of what actually exists in the absence of the BS.
It’s most disappointing for the latter group though. While I kind of get the way the trauma of proselytizing and indoctrination turns minds off to anything connected with the material, it’s very frustrating that what should be the healthy opposition cedes so many claims of authenticity to the faithfully blind.
I strongly, vehemently disagree. I could probably count the number of “good” stories. I.e.: actually make sense, aren’t just complete idiocy, aren’t in the Old Testament because everything that happens in that part is somehow simultaneously horrific, disgusting, incestuous, genocidal… And yet still so goddamn fucking boring… I can count those ones on one hand.
It’s almost entirely complete nonsense. Even the parts that are meant to be historical records “x beget y blah blah” are bullshit. Dozens of pages of alleged family trees, and none of it adds up. Oh yeah and people lived well into their mid -100s because why not. What the fuck is that?
The entity that we’re meant to want to worship after reading is described with such petty human emotions as jealously and rage. He is responsible for numerous genocides, child murder (large and small scale). The book of Job is an awful story of ruining the life of his most loyal follower (including murdering his family) just to prove to the devil that he’d remain faithful. So fucking stupid. Noah’s Ark has to be one of the most nonsensical stories ever and so many fucking people think it’s literally true.
Meanwhile, the “adversary,” the ultimate evil killed how many in the Bible again? What did he do other then just tell Eve that she actually could eat a piece of fruit from a tree if she wanted (the fact that the forbidden fruit would allow humans to discern good from evil isn’t sketchy at all). Who’s the bad guy again?
And these are the “interesting” parts. The other 95% is just garbage.
And no, Jesus isn’t any better. Unless you’re cool with slavery I guess…
Actually, the book of Job is nearly verbatim a combination of the opening of the Canaanite A Tale of Aqhat where Anat petitions El to kill the son of Danel as the lead in to a near copy of the dialogue on suffering of the Babylonian Theodicy. With what appears a sloppy edit to make it monotheistic later on, changing Anat from being a different god to simply ‘adversary’ and spawning fanfiction for millennia.
Understanding the context helps a lot in meaningful analysis.
Without the context, yeah, a lot can go over your head and it just seem pointless.
Edit: And Noah’s ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.
Edit 2: And the eating of the fruit by the first two people was probably adapted from the Phonecian creation myth around the first man and woman with the woman discovering the technology of eating fruit from the trees.
The interesting context, I appreciate. The subtle condescension, not so much… I’m well aware that Christianity was cobbled together like Frankenstein’s Monster using various parts of existing religions and pagan traditions. I assure you that these stories have not gone over my head.
You seem to think that the main issues I have with these stories are: the questions of historical veracity; or whether they were original stories. It’s really not. Sure, for stories like Noah’s Ark, where we know for certain it didn’t happen.
Or how we can say with near-certainty that Moses never parted the Red Sea, and crushed “Pharaoh’s’” army (side note: it’s funny to me how they always just call them that in the Bible. Just, “Pharaoh”. And I guess we’re supposed to pretend that we don’t know they had names and histories known to us?).
How do we know? Because their remains would be all over the bottom of the sea. Also, I’m pretty sure that Egypt, during the times when Pharaohs ruled, was known for keeping pretty good records. No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there’s no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.
Anyway, I digress…
And Noah’s ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.
Throwing these claims out with zero sources or backup? Like c’mon guy (or gal, etc.) that’s quite the stretch. Let’s see the the sources.
I guess all of this was to say that I find the meanings and lessons of these stories to be downright appalling. Whether or not Job was a real bloke isn’t really the point.
No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there’s no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.
As I said in my earlier comment, this narrative was probably appropriated from the forced relocation of the sea peoples into the southern Levant. The Egyptians do have extensive records of conflict with them, who they note in that conflict were without foreskins (as opposed to the partial circumcision more common at the time), and there’s an emerging picture of Aegean cohabitation with the Israelites in the early Iron Age along with Anatolian trade with an area where the Denyen were talking about their founding leader Mopsus.
Here’s the source for the Noah’s Ark as originally a famine narrative: https://scholar.harvard.edu/dershowitz/publications/man-land-unearthing-original-noah
You’re welcome to find the material as you like, but I’m telling you that there’s a lot more value to careful analysis of it within it’s broader context than you (and many others) seem to think. Whether you find that stance condescending or not.
Why did you just focus in on that one part when I literally say that I don’t really care about that? My issue isn’t that the stories are borrowed or stolen. Read the rest of my comment maybe.
I have read the Bible and cried because of how beautiful it is but okay
I particularly like Revelation of St John when the good Lord smites degenerates with fire and brimstone.
The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!”
Beautiful 🥲
That’s like looking at a beautiful art piece and focusing on the tiny stain from the time when it was being painted that someone looking at it spilled coffee on it 🤣
Oh you meant the beautiful parts of the new testament where it tells women to cover their hair and says they’re not allowed to speak in public if they’re with their husbands! So beautiful
I think you’re referring to the rules surrounding the church in Corinth as to maintain dignity and order, but feel free to take anything out of context 🤣
So, in order to maintain dignity and order, you believe women should be covered up and silent, or what?
“dignity and order”
So you’re not as stupid as you seem, but you are as bigoted.
what is undignified about women talking? please be specific.
Except that piece of art isn’t guiding millions of people’s beliefs. What a dumb statement.
And what if it did?
Then it should be condemned and called out for the hate and bigotry that it represents. Lol. Not a hard concept.
Cool
Removed by mod
Are you seriously comparing clothing and makeup to skin color and ethnicity my guy?
Blackface demonizes/makes fun of being black. Drag does not demonize femininity; quite the opposite actually. Your logic doesn’t logic.
Considering you post a lot of porn of women with objectifying remarks all over your profile, it’s unsurprising you have misogynistic views… at least keep them to yourself man.
in some ways, drag does reduce a woman’s identity to just the clothes she wears and some makeup. he’s not completely wrong.
No. He is completely wrong. Drag isn’t “reducing a woman’s identity” to anything, because femininity isn’t a woman’s identity. People who do drag aren’t pretending to be women. Drag partially exists to blur gender lines and challenge our perceptions of gender, and mostly exists because many people feel affirmed by femininity and are most comfortable when they’re participating in what we see as feminine culture.
Cultural perceptions of femininity aren’t equivalent to womanhood. Femininity does not “belong” to women and masculinity does not “belong” to men. Imagine how insane it would be if we called women wearing pants and other clothes that used to be associated with men “blackface for men” lol.
you have a point.
Removed by mod
Not at all. Drag does not mock women. Guarantee you’re a dude.
There it is. The dumbest comment I’ll read on the internet today. And it’s barely even noon.
You obviously don’t proofread yours then.
Ratio.
And I’m really not surprised by your response…
Least braindead TERF
It’s amazing how far a culture can plummet.
Yeah, imagine if America fell to the conservatives. It would be hell on earth.
You’re living in “hell” now.
LoL. Wherever people like you are in charge, that’s hell.
America is lost - no matter who wins the election. It is over.
Yeah, we can have people like you not understanding things and you still get a voice. It’s pretty sad how low we’ve gotten.
Removed by mod
degeneracy
There it is. Wannabe Nazi detected.
Nope, it’s specifically when people start talking about the degeneracy of culture, behavior, etc. It’s a giant raging clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
For someone who claims to like history, you seem to be missing some major parts. Degenerate art is a specific phrase used by the Nazis during their short time in power. They claimed gays, jews, and other scapegoat groups were degenerate and blamed their issues on them instead of addressing their actual issues. One of their first book burnings was at the Institute of Sexology, which was targeted for it’s study and treatment of homosexual and transgender (at the time more commonly called transexual) people. This was a civilization soon to decline, not the one that was open to new ideas.
The term is brandished around to such an extent it has no meaning.
Nazis certainly would like everyone else to believe that.
Ah, yes. People enjoying themselves and making art that hurts no one is degenerate. Please, oh enlightened one, what is the proper form art should take? Were Victorian plays with men playing female characters degenerate? What about the Greeks and the Romans (who I should mentioned loved to have sex with men frequently and with vigor)? What point in time was ideal humanity, and when did it start degenerating? Was it only when white men were in power in the US and women couldn’t voice an opinion and black people were property? Please, let me know which time period we should return to to make the sky daddy (or mommy) happy!
Removed by mod
Go read your Bible… then follow it
Removed by mod
Of course, no real response other than dismissal. You’re the one who came here to claim some decline in civilization. I’m not the one who needs to calm down.
Removed by mod
You still haven’t answered the question. Which point in time are we degenerating from? Anyone can make an assertion. You can’t back yours up, which is why it is less than worthless.
Case in point.
deleted by creator
They got a bbw Jesus!
NBC’s coverage only detracted from the ceremony. They cut most of the fashion show. And the hosts did nothing to explain or put the various acts in cultural context.
For those who don’t like the queer fashion show, no one is forcing you to watch it. It’s a cultural expression of the host country. It’s like going to Gramany and hating the beer or the Netherlands and hating the tulips.
It’s like going to Gramany and hating the beer or the Netherlands and hating the tulips.
Happily, alcoholism bad and the tulip bubble was dumb.
Some people just live in anger, don’t they?
It was a joke
Guess we all missed the joke, sorry fam
Pretty sure when I counted, the numbers were off. Not even 13 people in the supposed last supper shot.
The entire opening ceremony was riddled with elements that were exaggerated specifically to give the middle finger to people who can’t help but force their personal religious beliefs on others. And seeing how riled up they’ve been getting over it, I must say it worked.
An event that’s supposed to bring people together, instead purposely creates division. I’m agnostic af, but I can clearly see this is bad taste.
If you like creating division, then by all means celebrate it I guess…
It’s Christianity causing the division. Not the inclusions of the LGBT.
Drag !== LGBT.
LGBT is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, three sexual orientations, and Transgender- a modifier of gender expression.
Drag is a performance.
The only people creating division are religious people who can’t switch off their offended brain for once and laugh a little.
Same logic can be applied to people being (rightfully) outraged at blackface
Since you bring up logic, the logical fallacy you’re displaying is called the false equivalence fallacy. Blackface is outrageous because the purpose is to demonize and humiliate black people. The purpose of drag is to CELEBRATE freedom of feminine expression, regardless of sex/gender. One is inherently exclusive, while the other is inherently inclusive.
And the purpose of mocking Christianity is…? I didn’t mention drag here.
Are you this outraged every other time someone parodies the Last Supper?. Sounds like your issue is not parodies of a Christian scene but the parody being done by drag queens.
Yes.
You’re dissenting in a thread about Christians hating drag. It’s implied you’re talking about drag. Further, blackface is a common dog whisle the alt-right uses to attempt to demonize drag.
I haven’t mocked Christians in a very long time. Some people are mocking Christians, but the intent of the original performance, and the intent of this thread, is very clearly to mock people that USE Christianity as ammunition against people and things they don’t like. Which is (obviously) an exclusionary act… Which the Olympics is against, given that it exists to bring people with differences together… Hence, the performance…
Wtf
Ah yes, inclusion is division. Good double speak here.
No no, you don’t get it. They don’t like drag, and we should’ve known christian’s don’t like drag and wouldn’t want to go to a drag show. So by us doing them anyways, knowing they won’t be there, we’re excluding them by not excluding them while they exclude themselves. We’re the assholes y’all.
We’re the assholes y’all.
ah damn it, if you put it like that.
They included everyone who has been excluded from the beginning and made a statement that they will not pander to those who want them excluded anymore. Those who were angry at this are those who wanted to keep these people excluded. I’d say it’s a pace in a good direction to bring people together. There is only a group of people who will need to learn they can’t force their way on others anymore.
For crying out loud had these people had their way again we wouldn’t even have had that badass metal music show in front of the
BastilleConciergerie, where Marie Antoinette was trialed and sentenced to death.badass metal music show in front of the Bastille.
Didn’t realize that was in front of the Bastille, you can’t get more anti authoritarian than that.
My bad, the building it took place at was La Conciergeie, which is the location where Marie Antoinette was trialed and sentenced to death. The Bastille no longer exists.
But I mean, the anti-authoritarian vibe immediately peaked at the beginning with a beheaded Marie-Antoinette singing about hanging the aristocrats.
you can’t get more anti authoritarian than that
You could drown Macron in the Seine, to start with. (I mean, he’d probably suffocate rather than drown, but still.)
It’s the agnostics who want to force our churches to go woke in Europe.
The other way around. It’s the agnostics who defend your right to do whatever you want inside your church, as long as it isn’t illegal. It’s outside your stupid church you don’t get to say or command anything. And that’s what offends religious folks. Losing the power to force others to obey your religion is not oppression, leave us the fuck alone.
Learn to read. “the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views have sway around the Commonwealth and beyond […] the Lords Spiritual number 26 votes in our unelected upper chamber of parliament. These people still have power. ” That’s a religious issue within that religion that affects non-religious people. You see how that reinforces my point? I don’t fucking care whatever the the church end up deciding to do because I don’t fucking belong to that church and therefore that stupid church has no power over my life. But when the assholess inside the church influence civil decisions, then that becomes a problem. Either get out of political life, or change and accept that your worldview not only sucks, but isn’t supported anymore.
if you have to conform to what a single group wants while ignoring the actual countries who created the games and those who host them, that’s not”bringing people together” it’s just giving in to narrow views and acting as if only one group has legitimacy and the right to decide on anything. there is no “bringing together” of different people and things in that.
The sad part is, that this just gives them more ammo. Having said that though, they look for ammo constantly, even without olympics they would find something else.
i’m glad they’re triggered. fuck christians.
Who cares
But only against christians, no othetlr religion or lack thereof.
So you’re indignant that the middle finger was only to Christians? And not everyone else? Weird hill to die on. And I’m pretty sure the middle finger wasn’t specifically to Christians, but to literally every moron with a stick up their ass about what other people do in their personal lives.
Also, the “lack thereof” is called atheism and attacking atheism is like attacking someone for not collecting stamps (to bastardize Penn Jillette). Quite a waste of time and effort.
That’s because other religions are minorities in the West and get too much hate and vitriol as it is.
Isnt the olympics about unity? If you have to single out a group to make fun of, maybe you shouldnt
nah. fuck christians.
Rejecting your religion’s bigotry is not “singling you out”.
Wow get over your jurt feelings because of a, … checks notes …, a screenplay with colored people or gays or something.
Aren’t you christians supposed to be inclusive and not hating bigots?
Grow up lol.
Not unity specifically. Excellence, Respect and Friendship without discrimination. Technically “unity” is not a core mission statement and what is considered culturally significant is left to the host country to decide.
Is a fashion show featuring people dressed to reference Greek Gods off brand for the French?Not really. Historically speaking the Nobility used to employ people to dress up to become Greek gods in tableau to serve as living lawn ornements.
The original Olympics, both the ancient practice and the og international competition used to also feature arts and culture. Since the painting they were referencing was not the Last Supper and about Greek Gods it wasn’t an intended act of disrespect or division … But other forces are definitely choosing to make it so based on the idea that these things should be of the broadest possible appeal.
isn’t faith about humility? it’s arrogant to turn a celebration of a different culture into an attack on one’s “faith” yet we see cosplay christians do this literally every single day. spiritual materialism isn’t spiritual in any way. it’s using the trappings of religion like a weapon to attack others and gain power over them. it’s not about any relationship with God, or following any teachings. no faith in any god is shown by such reactions. it’s selfish, quick to anger, blind, unforgiving, arrogant, hypersensitive, and morally wrong.
Really? They fully declared the performance was unquestionably for Christians? Not everything in the world is about Jesus.
It was literally the Last Supper. I dont know how much more christian specific you can get
it literally was not. i guess you skipped most of this discussion? and the article itself? it’s explained what it was a scene from. (hint: not from christianity).
Da Vinci’s the last supper is much more of an art accomplishment than a symbol of Christianity. I’ve seen soooo many parodies of the last supper that just wanted to make a simple joke using something people recognize. Again, not everything is about religion, for example, the satanic temple has “Christian symbols” but is a fully securely belief system.
Edit: so it turns out they were actually doing “Jan Harmensz van Biljert’s Feast of the Gods, painted +/- 1635”. It’s the most Christian thing to do to just assume cause it reminds you of your symbolism, you get to restrict how people use it.
Pretty sure some of these other religions have a problem with scantily clad women, gay people and drag queens. That you think this was “only against christians” is pretty telling.
I would imagine if it was a bunch of straight people in silly costumes we would be having a very different conversation… Maybe about how art was once part of the Olympics. That would be a fun thing to talk about.
“How dare the queers…” is so tiring a conversation to keep having over and over.
I’m having this exact discussion with someone else in the comments. There are so many parodies of this painting but this is the one that causes outrage. I wonder why…
And we aren’t the ones beheading teachers and shooting up art studios
No, you’re just the ones producing most of the stochastic terrorism in the US
Yes, because condemning terrorism is also terrorism. Do you guys even hear yourself?
do you guys even hear yourself
Given what you said has nothing to do with what I said I ask the same back to you, buddy
The Bible doesn’t say to commit terrorism.
And yet Christians keep doing it in the name of their god
Unfortunately.
So you guys just do it for fun, then?
That’s a worse reason, you do understand that?
I haven’t committed terrorism, I don’t plan on committing terrorism, I don’t support committing terrorism, so I won’t defend those who are committing terrorism. And you’re right, it is a worse reason.
they think that. somehow it doesn’t occurs to the “christians” that the olympics aren’t about them and aren’t focused on them at all. it wasn’t the last supper. it was homage to greek and french culture and history. because the olympics originated in greece and are being held in france. sheesh.
Surely there have never been any parodies of the Last Supper before this one.
(I’m partial to this one)
This is the one that always stuck in my head.
TAKE THIS PHOTO DOWN NOW, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
The guy who played Hyde is a serial rapist. He was in the running for Trumps VP.
Thanks, will keep that in mind when I watch that 70s show and suddenly get urges to copy Hyde without question.
? I understand not liking the joke but idk where that comment comes from lol
A lot of people believe that if an artists turns out to be a bad person, you should not consume their art.
Imo boycotting makes sense but any work of art should be able to be enjoyed regardless of where it came from.
That wasn’t the joke I was making though. My joke was that Trump was considering making a serial rapists his VP pick. I don’t disagree with the point you’re making I’m just confused as to why you think it’s relevant.
At first I didn’t realize it was a joke tbh. Thanks for explaining
I like how they have a painting of ol’ Ronnie Raygun on one side of the wall with Putin on the other. If only he was alive to see them now.
It was supposed to be the Last Supper?
I totally didn’t get that.
Also, I was hoping for a real drag show when I saw them, but instead I got a sort of “gender bent catwalk” thing. Boo.
It was supposed to be a representation of a bacchanal or dionisya. There are dozens of paintings of those celebrations that look sorta like the last supper, if you squint very hard and turn off your brain.
Some people really just wake up looking for something to get rankled about.
