Akron 'Space Jam' mural featuring LeBron James defaced

Yappi

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
1627439807209.png



A “Space Jam” mural featuring LeBron James in Akron was defaced with a red clown nose, along with the words “LA FLOP," Monday.

The mural, located on the front of a West Market Street business, was created by Akron artist Chardae Slater who posted a video of the vandalism done to her artwork on Monday.
Click to expand...
www.news5cleveland.com

Akron 'Space Jam' mural featuring LeBron James defaced

A “Space Jam” mural featuring LeBron James in Akron was defaced with a red clown nose, along with the words “LA FLOP," Monday.
www.news5cleveland.com www.news5cleveland.com
 
 
Oh the humanity.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Lebum should support this as he is with the sBLM thugs who have been defacing statues this past year.
 
Support him or not, I would never support defacing someone's personal property. People work too hard to have to deal with some mutton head thinks he's clever with no effort. Some loser whose balls haven't dropped did this.
 
My first thought is that no one should be defacing the hard work of others.

My second thought was that we have been living through this for the last few years where people decide they don't like a representation displayed by others and they choose to destroy it, deface it, or change it's meaning.

This is not good for a responsible society but is entirely predictable based on how we have "evolved" our political speech.
 
Meanings are personal. It is absolutely ok for society to change their perspective as it grows/changes. It's ok for society to remove it. This was a unilateral action, that is MY objection.
 
eastisbest said:
Support him or not, I would never support defacing someone's personal property. People work too hard to have to deal with some mutton head thinks he's clever with no effort. Some loser whose balls haven't dropped did this.
Click to expand...
He supports the acts of sBLM and defacing monuments, so why would he not be supportive of this act?
 
Yappi said:
My first thought is that no one should be defacing the hard work of others.

My second thought was that we have been living through this for the last few years where people decide they don't like a representation displayed by others and they choose to destroy it, deface it, or change it's meaning.

This is not good for a responsible society but is entirely predictable based on how we have "evolved" our political speech.
Click to expand...
A Pagan society is not a self governing society.
Queue the atheists telling us how there is no God.
The massive issue with that dogma is if there is no God then man becomes God.
When that happens you will have mass murder.
Examples if this are replete though out history.
 
Yorktown said:
A Pagan society is not a self governing society.
Queue the atheists telling us how there is no God.
The massive issue with that dogma is if there is no God then man becomes God.
When that happens you will have mass murder.
Examples if this are replete though out history.
Click to expand...
“Pagans” aren’t atheists they are polytheists.
 
thavoice said:
You watched it?

Foolish.
Click to expand...
Yeah, had a bit of a party with some family members and their kids because they were really looking forward to it.

Kids loved it, and obviously it is marketed towards them.

No real cross-generation appeal though unless you're looking for Warner Bros characters in the audience
 
eastisbest said:
Meanings are personal. It is absolutely ok for society to change their perspective as it grows/changes. It's ok for society to remove it. This was a unilateral action, that is MY objection.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Most decisions to remove artwork recently have been unilateral. There is very little discussion and the small group in power are making these decisions without public discussion. They know what they don't like and everyone has to accept their decision. This is true of the random person on the street with a paint can or the Speaker of the House.
 
Yappi said:
Agreed. Most decisions to remove artwork recently have been unilateral. There is very little discussion and the small group in power are making these decisions without public discussion. They know what they don't like and everyone has to accept their decision. This is true of the random person on the street with a paint can or the Speaker of the House.
Click to expand...

THIS example was a unilateral action. For sure there are a few taking on themselves to pull down statues, probably hoping for that social media immortality ala-Sadam.

I don't know that I agree that MOST decisions to remove artwork are unilateral. I don't know anyone that has kept track. Even the removal of Jackson from Jackson Square in New Orleans was preceded by much public dicussion. I think those calling it forced down their throats were simply on the wrong side of public opinion. Note that Stone Mountain in Ga,, which would be even more offensive to the anti-confederates than Jackson alone, still stands (though demphasized and advertised with nice photos of black and mixed race families enjoying themselves in the park)..
 
Yorktown said:
Exactly… there is no such thing as an atheist…
”Atheists” inevitably worship someone or something thus they are really pagan all along.
Click to expand...
There are lots of atheists.

Definition of atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top