Biddle in Battle!


Victor Pross

Recommended Posts

Barbara

"It has to do with the offensiveness of attempting to satirize someone's ideas by removing their clothes."

It was this line that I'm really responding to. Sorry for any confusion. I was also making a general statement.

:smile:

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm flabbergasted that anyone can take offense at Victor's caricature of Hsieh just while he gave her some titties in his sketch. I can explain that only as American prudery (cf. nipplegate!), whatever the rationalization may be. It's so completely innocent, he didn't put a nude photo of her on the net, neither did he depict her masturbating, with a detailed view of her rima vulvae (I shudder at the thought! :sick: ). Those offended people would be very surprised to see how some Dutch cartoonists sometimes depict their subjects (alas, I can't find an example on the net at the moment).

The bloated toad writes sanctimoniously (you see the pursed lips!): "Nudity doesn't bother me at all, but in this context it was super-creepy". What an incredible hypocrite... See for example my first post in the thread Queen Victoria on Solo. Those tartuffes are oh so good at dishing it out, but pretty bad at taking it, even in the mildest form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Dragonfly. It is all so fantastically idiotic.

What possible valid purposes can that serve?" Barbara asked, regarding my depiction of Lady Diana. Then she went on to state this:

“I did not say that you should not humiliate or embarrass Hsieh…or that you ought to care about her feelings, or that she doesn't deserve to be caricatured.”

What purpose did it serve? To humiliate her, that’s what purpose it serves—which you just said above that you have no objection to. Barbara, I don’t want to single you out, but you seem to be making a great effort explaining how *not offended* you are --while being offended at the drawing! [??] Pardon me if I’m now confused by the rubric cube you are presenting. Are you “offended” or not? If not, what’s the point of your post? If you are offended, then I did answer you above. How you can manage to be offended while not being offended is a pretty neat trick. :wink:

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't believe in humiliating people. If they deserve to be embarrassed, then embarrass them, ideally by reference to what they are about. Humiliation cuts both ways and I don't care to hurt myself so it's not a game I play. All is not fair in love and war. This matter is an obvious variation on a theme: what is right and wrong in a war and should one even be fighting a particular war.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, then take your argument to Barbara. I'm done with the 'great tit debate.' :tongue:

Barbara wrote before: “I did not say that you should not humiliate or embarrass Hsieh…or that you ought to care about her feelings, or that she doesn't deserve to be caricatured.”

And guess what, Brant? Attacking a person's ideas is to humiliate them--ideas and convictions are things people hold even more dear than thier privates. THAT'S the real huff-puff of the 'I'm so offended' lot--but they devert the issue with this bullshit tit thing. Very smart. See? It's not about tits and it's not about my "obsession" with lady Di.

Victor

ps

Your idea here is--'you can kill me, just don't humiliate me.' :blink:

Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

I see nothing to be gained by attributing an idea to a person that the person does not hold.

The gist I get from Barbara is vastly different than what I get from, say, Dennis. He has stated that he specifically finds the nudity qua nudity in your caricature disgusting (as is his right, but nobody has to agree). Barbara is nowhere near there.

I read her clearly as saying that nudity is a resource that calls attention to itself. The caricature has an important message - lampooning Biddle's philosophic endorsement of genocide in the name of Objectivism - and now the focus is off that and all the attention is being thrown on to an insignificant cheerleader.

Actually, that is a crying shame.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael

Yes, Michael, I see what you are saying. Tits can be that powerful--even those of an insignificant cheerleader, but they are not Lady Di's--they belong to a younger woman. I just don't think she appreciates my efforts.

I should re-visit the drawing.

["Off with her boobs!"] :fear:

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, then take your argument to Barbara. I'm done with the 'great tit debate.' :tongue:

Barbara: “I did not say that you should not humiliate or embarrass Hsieh…or that you ought to care about her feelings, or that she doesn't deserve to be caricatured.”

And guess what? Attacking a person's ideas is to humiliate them--ideas and convictions are things people hold even more dear than thier privates. THAT'S the real huff-puff of the 'I'm so offended' lot--but they devert the issue with this bullshit tit thing. Very smart. See? It's not about tits and it's not about my "obsession" with lady Di. Got it? Good.

Victor

ps

Your idea here is--'you can kill me, just don't humiliate me.' :blink:

If people are humiliated because their ideas are wrong and they cannot defend them that's their problem. But if it is one's intent to humiliate then take a good look in the mirror and make sure you like what you see before proceeding. If you like what you see ask what you'll be seeing later. This is generic advice.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor, what is the significance of the names on the skulls -- Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, Cat Stevens, John Coltrane, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philip,

They are individuals who are 'converts' or sympathetic to the philosophy of Islam...so they were killed, too. You see, to hell with those damn Westerners...from the Biddle world I suppose.

I only knew of Cat Steven's conversion. It was MSK who informed me of the rest.

Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, this whole deal on the boobs and/or nudity in my opinion is getting seriously blown out of porportion. It truly is quite ridiculous and unfortunate that anyone would take more offense to bare cartoon tits and/or nudity rather than to the depiction of death and destruction. I personally take more offense to the death and destruction aspect of it than a pair of cartoon tits and/or nudity. The death and destruction and War of it is the real issue and NOT cartoon boobs and/or nudity but that is my opinion. But so many are more concerned and focused on these cartoon tits and/or nudity than the real issues presented in the caricature, not Brant and a few others that are offended by it as they have contributed much to the Lepers thread in this respect as well.

If anyone asks me the question would I be offended if someone drew me in that light as Victor has done with Diana, honestly, NO, I would not. Why? Again, because I would NOT care what my ENEMY thinks of me or how they view me. Self-esteem issues and social meta crap involved heavily in this. You know, I've had much shit talked about me and I really couldn't care what anyone, especially what an enemy, thinks of me. I mean, come on, people, you can't be serious.

It really truly boils down to self-esteem, social meta crap, etc., how comfortable and confident you are with yourself and your body. And yes, I've been subjected to a lot of BS myself both online and definitely offline. Again it makes me laugh because they think I will care, they think it will damage me in someway and hurt my feelings and humiliate or embarass me or whatever, they think I will be offended by it. But in reality, I truly don't care. I mean, honestly, this is all being done by my enemy. Seriously, WHY would I care about what my enemy thinks of me or if he draws me in some caricature? Again self-esteem, social meta crap involved heavily here. But for me personally, reality is I wouldn't care. This floors me that someone would be offended by it, especially if the person doing it is an enemy. Obvioulsy, their thin skin, their bruised ego, social meta aspects, self-esteem, how comfortable and confident they are with their own body. Reality is YOU are NOT going to be liked by everybody for many different reasons according to each individual. It's that simple.

And then when it comes to name-calling, etc., towards me, I find it to be hilarious because their attempts and purpose in doing it is futile as it does not work with me. I find it very very revealing as to who they are if their main concern is on a pair of cartoon tits and/or nudity or name-calling and not DEATH and DESTRUCTION and how offended they've become by it. I could understand some serious issues being presented if it was an actual nude photo but it wasn't. It's a cartoon drawing. This whole thing is just utterly ridiculous. I also agree wholeheartedly with Victor and Dragonfly.

For the record, Victor is an absolutely amazing man and there truly are not many out there that are like him. I'm grateful and very appreciative that I know him the way I do, as many here at OL and on SOLO do not. To really know him is to love him, not just how he is online but offline as well. He truly is quite amazing.

Victor = :super:

Angie

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Angie, if I had been depicted in Victor's cartoon instead of Diana, I'd've asked Victor if I could buy the original! I'd've thought it very funny. (No, this is not an invite for Victor to do a caricature of me!) This is the first time I thought to consider it from this perspective.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I only just learned of your being banned on SOLOP.

Angie,

My opinion of the artistic merit of Victor's "caricature" was merely that, an evaluation of that "caricature" and nothing else. I happen to have lived in the Bronx, and Washington Heights, and have seen a lot of graffiti. I have seen a lot better artistic skill in some very intricate murals (as in skill in rendering likenesses, chosen themes, etc.) in my 15 years in NYC, and so I stand by my aesthetic assertion on that one piece. As for insults, not considering one piece of "caricature" above the juvenile level is not the same as calling the artist names, or saying that he works in the "cesspool" of "Objectivist Lying."

I stand by my "beneath those who have reached puberty," my "second-handed" and my "wasted effort" comments as well. They certainly were implied moral judgments, but not name-calling. Judgments of etiquette and insults are two different things. My comments were addressed to all parties on both lists who, rather than moving on to address exoteric, intellectual issues, continue endlessly addressing personalities that they can now ignore. Frankly, since I have not been posting on-line for a very long time, I am happy to remain blissfully ignorant of the nature of the personal fallings out that have occurred between various "factions" now existing in what used to be one community back in the late Nineties. I will judge the actions of those with whom I interact as I observe them. I am not going to go looking up old posts and choosing sides. In the meantime, neither you, nor Victor, nor Mike nor anyone else needs defending from me. And as a friendly aside, if you want to see how I actually do insult those who really do insult me, Google my name on RoR with the added key words of "pink tutu." But be prepared, and don't take the remarks out of context. Or, you might query Messrs. Kelly, Bidinotto, and Bissell if you want to know if I'm just some kook here to drop bombs.

I owe Andrew Durham a response on our exchange on his Existence article. I won't respond further on this topic. This is yet another 90 minutes spent just to show I'm acting in good faith. My thanks to Ms. Branden for her considerate and considered response to my previous post. Mr. Pross, my last name is Keer, not Kerr. It's a rare name, and so a common mistake.

Ted Keer, 15 October, 2006, NYC

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I only just learned of your being banned on SOLOP.

Angie,

My opinion of the artistic merit of Victor's "caricature" was merely that, an evaluation of that "caricature" and nothing else. I happen to have lived in the Bronx, and Washington Heights, and have seen a lot of graffiti. I have seen a lot better artistic skill in some very intricate murals (as in skill in rendering likenesses, chosen themes, etc.) in my 15 years in NYC, and so I stand by my aesthetic assertion on that one piece. As for insults, not considering one piece of "caricature" above the juvenile level is not the same as calling the artist names, or saying that he works in the "cesspool" of "Objectivist Lying."

I stand by my "beneath those who have reached puberty," my "second-handed" and my "wasted effort" comments as well. They certainly were implied moral judgments, but not name-calling. Judgments of etiquette and insults are two different things. My comments were addressed to all parties on both lists who, rather than moving on to address exoteric, intellectual issues, continue endlessly addressing personalities that they can now ignore. Frankly, since I have not been posting on-line for a very long time, I am happy to remain blissfully ignorant of the nature of the personal fallings out that have occurred between various "factions" now existing in what used to be one community back in the late Nineties. I will judge the actions of those with whom I interact as I observe them. I am not going to go looking up old posts and choosing sides. In the meantime, neither you, nor Victor, nor Mike nor anyone else needs defending from me. And as a friendly aside, if you want to see how I actually do insult those who really do insult me, Google my name on RoR with the added key words of "pink tutu." But be prepared, and don't take the remarks out of context. Or, you might query Messrs. Kelly, Bidinotto, and Bissell if you want to know if I'm just some kook here to drop bombs.

I owe Andrew Durham a response on our exchange on his Existence article. I won't respond further on this topic. This is yet another 90 minutes spent just to show I'm acting in good faith. My thanks to Ms. Branden for her considerate and considered response to my previous post. Mr. Pross, my last name is Keer, not Kerr. It's a rare name, and so a common mistake.

Ted Keer, 15 October, 2006, NYC

Hi, Ted

I understand where you are coming from. It truly is on a personal level and who considers what an insult. For me personally, being told that I'm a second-hander is an insult. I'm also not the only one who saw it as insults being thrown by you but it was being done in a very subtle way. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate being called a second-hander or a parasite out of the starting gate for expressing views that may be harsh or not towards you. Since I am not the only one who saw insults being thrown, the posts will stand and others can be the judge of it. Once again, it's not what is insulting to you but what is insulting to the person you are speaking with. I just found your post very interesting and spotted some subtleties that I wanted to point out. We both stand by our comments.

Angie

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Car,

I agree with you that many of those New York Graffiti artists are very good, take a look at this caricature.

http://www.greathoboes.com/features/julio/graff036.jpg

Excellent work! I have been to New York a few times and I'm always inspired by the art there. It's too bad you don't think too much about my work. Oh, well. You can't please everybody. :wink:

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I have seen you make an error several times now, so please excuse me while I make a correction:

I am happy to remain blissfully ignorant of the nature of the personal fallings out that have occurred between various "factions" now existing in what used to be one community back in the late Nineties.

I hate to say it, but there never were any good old days when there used to be "one community back in the late Nineties." Objectivists have been in factions and at each others throats since the beginning (starting with the founder).

:)

(I'm laughing, but it's true...)

In my particular case, I lived in Brazil until a couple of years ago, but I saw Ayn Rand once at the Ford Hall Forum in the early 70's when I was a college student in Boston. I have been into Objectivism since my late teens, but I simply missed the whole schism show by being in another country. I was blissfully unaware of the Rand-Branden split before I left. While in Brazil I missed the Kelley-Peikoff, Peikoff-Reisman (etc.) splits.

I posted for the first time on an Objectivist forum in 2004 while still in Brazil and that was only about 2 or 3 posts. I believe I sent an e-mail or two to Objectivist-type people I found on Google searches. Here in the USA I started posting in earnest around February 2005 on SoloHQ, eagerly wanting to return to Atlantis after decades in the wilderness.

It didn't take all that long to see that the name of the game of the leaders was prestige and power, not individualism and reason and integrity and production. So I did like I always do when I get bitterly disillusioned. I make a mess of things, competently and with style.

:)

btw - You make some damn interesting posts at times. Also, I couldn't agree with you more about using your own mind to judge. That's the only way to fly.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that's settled. Victor, you can just call me Ted, but the original is Kjær, which is okay too. Mike, I meant the good old days on Kirez Korgan's list when everybody but ARI was posting. I only found Rand after she had passed, in 1984. It took until 1989 for someone at ARI to insult me to my face gratuitously. But still, this is gossip. Good night all.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more about using your own mind to judge. That's the only way to fly.

Michael

Oh, yeah, you better believe it, Mike !! :w00t:

The average Naked Mole-Rat colony is one female and 300 males, so naked definitely does have some advantages, depending on who you are...

Oy, that poor little girl. No wonder why she is butt naked. I'm sure she doesn't have a problem staying warm though. She's got 300 bodies to keep her warm.

I only need one warm body to keep me warm !! :wink::wink: Hey, where are you, Honey? I'm so cold. :brr:

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I was talented, but my hat is off to you.

Victor

You are very talented, Honey. That's why you are considered a very successful Professional and are a Celebrity in Toronto and not the back alleys in the ghetto. Obvioulsy you are doing something right and many many people like your work. If they didn't, you'd be in the ghetto someplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now