Has Lady Gaga finally taken things too far? Singer is slammed by disability groups after performing on stage in a wheelchair

[Neildown]

Then don’t look!!! I didn’t and won’t.

It’s kind of hard not to when its just THERE without warning . I would advise that!

 

[bquinnan]

Does that mean that if an artist dies in obscurity without anyone appreciating his talent, that it isn’t really art until it is discovered a century later?

Great question. Indeed, art sometimes goes undiscovered in an artist’s lifetime, either because the never presented their art (by choice or due to lack of opportunity) to the right people, or because the people who saw it somehow failed to appreciate it. But, as individuals, I don’t see the point in paying for art that we don’t like or understand, on the off chance that someone down the road might see something in it that we missed.

 

[bquinnan]

Strangely, this past April…a group of christians put a screwdriver or icepick to a print of the photo. I find that to be disturbing and very intolerant.

Maybe they were trying to make an artistic statement.

 

[nicolep]

It’s kind of hard not to when its just THERE without warning . I would advise that!

I honestly don’t get how something like that could offend someone else. I’m sure you know what female anatomy looks like? I get that you don’t want it thrown in your face so to speak, so now that you know Gaga could potentially show things you don’t like, then don’t look at her pictures.

As mentioned previously in this thread, someone gets offended over everything that is ever done. It’s exhausting. I can dislike something, but not get all offended and worked up because it’s indecent. I don’t particularly care to see a guy in Speedo swim trunks, but I don’t campaign to have them stopped.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. This is just mine.

 

[nicolep]

If you scroll down through ALL the pictures you may note that her “baggage” [to put it discreetly] is quite noticeable.

I looked throgh them all so I can honestly debate the point. I really don’t see “quite noticeable baggage” anywhere. She’s either well covered or wearing basically a swin suit. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Neildown]

I honestly don’t get how something like that could offend someone else. I’m sure you know what female anatomy looks like? I get that you don’t want it thrown in your face so to speak, so now that you know Gaga could potentially show things you don’t like, then don’t look at her pictures.

As mentioned previously in this thread, someone gets offended over everything that is ever done. It’s exhausting. I can dislike something, but not get all offended and worked up because it’s indecent. I don’t particularly care to see a guy in Speedo swim trunks, but I don’t campaign to have them stopped.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. This is just mine.

I’m not saying I’m going to ban Lady Gaga, I’m just saying her way of showing off her body is disgusting and inappropriate… Nor do I care to see people in Speedos, lol.

 

[ringil]

So it’s a double standard if I don’t find a pop singer doing a song while sitting in a wheelchair as egregious as immersing an image of our Lord and Savior in a bottle of urine?

Not a double standard for you as I would feel the same. Feelings are neither right or wrong.

I don’t think it would be consistent to question someones OTHER PERSON"S feelings of offense as uncalled for. Each person will be offended at different things. No “offense” is more valid than another person’s offense.

Art or whatever we want to call it shouldn’t be censored because some group would be offended.

 

[nicolep]

I’m not saying I’m going to ban Lady Gaga, I’m just saying her way of showing off her body is disgusting and inappropriate… Nor do I care to see people in Speedos, lol.

Really, all of our “anger and offense” should be directed at dudes in Speedos. Those things are WRONG!

 

[bquinnan]

No “offense” is more valid than another person’s offense.

I disagree. Some statements are clearly intended to insult certain people, and the insulted parties have every right to be offended. Some statements are not intended to be insults, but reveal the speakers negative views toward certain people, and it is understandable that people take umbrage to it. Some statements aren’t really intended to be negative statements, don’t necessarily reveal any negative views, but could reasonably be misunderstood, and usually the speaker will quickly apologize in such cases, and will immediately be forgiven by reasonable people. However, some statements are clearly not intended to insult anyone, and could only be interpreted as insults through a series of strenuous mental gymnastics that would only be undertaken by people who enjoy the attention they get when they play victims. The self-proclaimed victims in such cases deserve no apologies nor even a moment’s attention.

Art or whatever we want to call it shouldn’t be censored because some group would be offended.

One can refrain from censorship but still avoid an artist’s work and refuse to pay for it. Yes, Lady Gaga is free to do things that may be offensive (but again, I don’t think sitting in a wheelchair dressed as a mermaid qualifies), but we are equally free to avoid watching or listening to her, or even to avoid buying anything from those who promote her, if we see fit. And if the free market makes promoting Lady Gage unprofitable, so be it.

 

[ringil]

I disagree. Some statements are clearly intended to insult certain people, and the insulted parties have every right to be offended. Some statements are not intended to be insults, but reveal the speakers negative views toward certain people, and it is understandable that people take umbrage to it. Some statements aren’t really intended to be negative statements, don’t necessarily reveal any negative views, but could reasonably be misunderstood, and usually the speaker will quickly apologize in such cases, and will immediately be forgiven by reasonable people. However, some statements are clearly not intended to insult anyone, and could only be interpreted as insults through a series of strenuous mental gymnastics that would only be undertaken by people who enjoy the attention they get when they play victims. The self-proclaimed victims in such cases deserve no apologies nor even a moment’s attention.

One can refrain from censorship but still avoid an artist’s work and refuse to pay for it. Yes, Lady Gaga is free to do things that may be offensive (but again, I don’t think sitting in a wheelchair dressed as a mermaid qualifies), but we are equally free to avoid watching or listening to her, or even to avoid buying anything from those who promote her, if we see fit. And if the free market makes promoting Lady Gage unprofitable, so be it.

I disagree with your first paragraph. Feelings of “offense” are neither right nor wrong. If an individual is being deceptive and pretending to be offended for a political agenda then that would be an issue. I imagine we may questions someone’s true motive, but it would be difficult or impossible to really know.

Certainly, the “offender” would have a choice as to whether they want to apologize or not.

On a side note- I do believe that some people do feign being offended, but as to those who are actually offended by something I do not believe that we can judge the validity of their feelings. What offends me may not offend you.

Again, feelings are neither right nor wrong.

It looks like we agree on the issue of censorship. Art, or c#$p called art should not be censored.