[ snip, lots of stuff, I can say what I want to say without needing to
quote all of it and respond to every point, as there's rather a lot of
repetition. I you have specific objections to me removing any of this,
please go ahead and raise them ]
>
> I had simply asked a question. A completely valid question, with absolutely no
> indication of how 'seriously' I took the Maozilla graphics. You read that
> question, assumed I was about to rail on about how offended I was, and proceeded
> to defend the indefensible, deny the fact that the graphics are "neo-Soviet",
> aka "commie graphics" with a "commie vibe".
>
Yes, I did assume that you were making a point about finding them
offensive. The use of the word commie (a derogatory term for a
communist) and the word 'dripping' when used in this context strongly
imply disapproval. The use of hateful language implied that you were at
least being serious, not making light in any way. Indeed, a simple and
valid question, but one whose language was revealing.
What I guess I didn't understand was precisely why you disapproved. What
where you feeling when you asked the question?
As an aside: Your use of deliberate mispellings (Maozilla) is
unnecessary. I personally will give your words more weight if you can
stick to arguing in English. I believe many others will too. In using
these misspellings, you choice of terms causes people to imply things
about how you feel, just as your original question causes people to
reasonably imply things. If you prefer these implications not be made,
use neutral language. Criticising people for making interpretations of
your views when you send clear signals through your choice of language
seems disingenuous.
I didn't "defend the indefensible". I didn't deny it was possible to see
a "commie vibe" there. I did assume you disapproved, because of the
language you used. Therefore I responded with an attempt to point out
that many styles of art can have communist implications. We appear to
disagree on which styles exactly have that association. In the part I
have removed, you comment more than once that I over-reacted. I find it
hard to understand how an attempt at humour can be an over-reaction. It
was perhaps ill considered, but I did not attack you or claim you were
wrong about anything.
Let me be precisely clear: yes, I can see why the artwork could be
considered communist.
I can also see that similar artwork in use elsewhere (Metrowerks, Active
State) could also be considered communist. We aparently disagree about
what styles of artwork heavily imply association (not support!) with
communism. You seem to regard the Mozilla graphics as "dripping" with
it, whereas you see no such association in some of the others. I
personally see them all as having a degree of said assocation.
Given we agree we can both see the how the assocation can be made, I
will answer you question (also from the removed part) about how I see
the artwork: I don't find it offensive, neither do I feel its
particularly "hip and trendy" or "in your face", or that it makes some
important "anti-establishment" statement. If I felt anything about it at
all, 2 years ago when I first saw it, it was that it was intended as a
"rallying cry" for people to band together and work hard on the project.
I'm not going to second guess how you'll react to that statement, I'm
merely answering your question.
I'll also direct you to the post in this thread by Jesus X who points
out this style of art was used in American propoganda from the same
period. But once again, that depends if we're talking about the red
stars in isolation (which many people have pointed out have a great many
non-communist associations in this thread) or the overall effect created
by all elements of the artwork, which he addresses.
In short: I can see an association with communism. I can see an
association with many other things (eg, Netscape, because of the
dinosaur). I personally do not find the overall effect either offensive
due to an association with communism, nor do I believe it was done
solely to try to offend "the establishment" (who you seem to feel you
speak for). Instead I saw it as a positive call for action; to make a
better browser.
I don't disgregard that some people will see what they bring to the
table, but I object to being belittled because I can see other
interpretations than the one you feel is paramount.
>
> I called you 'Mr. "Take that establishment!" Overreaction Kiddie.'. Maybe
> that's mud, maybe it ain't, and it's certainly not one of my best, but I think I
> hit the nail pretty square on the head regardless.
And in the parts of the post I deleted you called me a great many other
things, claiming that I'm not sufficiently mature to follow what you're
trying to say, or that if I am, my only possible "defense" would be to
claim that I'm immature and couldn't hope to understand.
Its genuinely distressing to me that you feel the need to belittle those
you speak to (or speak against).
I look up and down this thread, and there's scant little time spent
discussing, what's ultimately the style of some art.
I'd ask you to consider whether attacking those you speak against, and
repeatedly associating the project and those people you reply to with
some of the worst crimes ever commited by humanity is a very mature way
to behave? Are you simply trying to provoke people?
You accuse me and others of being immature. You accuse me of
overreacting. Yet you are the one calling people names, and suggesting
by having some graphics Mozilla is supporting oppresive regimes, and
even the actions of the Nazis.
I understand the reasons people use hyperbole to make a point. In small
doses it can be effective. As a half dozen or more posts full of attacks
its just childish. Its precisely the kind of shock tactic you find so
derisory when you perceive that others are using it. ("I ... am, beside
myself with laughing my ass off at the kiddies trying to "shock" their
elders.")
One of us is calm. The other speaks in terms of hate.
--
AndyT (lordpixel)
