dsayers Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 By laws, I assume you mean legislation. Legislation is the initiation of the use of force. So how could opposition be described as violent?
Think Free Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 By laws, I assume you mean legislation. Legislation is the initiation of the use of force. So how could opposition be described as violent? Yes, the image needs a lot of work to be clear. Legislation against discrimination and hate speech is violent opposition of non-violent opposition. Make sense?
dsayers Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 I think so. What you're saying is that the legislation IS the violent opposition? I think this is one of those times where less is more. Or put another way, trusting the intelligence of your audience makes the art more engaging. If you were to black out the words violent opposition altogether, people would see non-violent being eaten by legislation and get that you were saying that legislation is violent AND displaces non-violent alternatives. Keeping that in mind, even now as I re-examine the image, I'm curious about the acceptance area. Like it seems as if its placement relative to the other areas doesn't really add to it. Or am I missing something with that also? Like what if non-violent opposition was to the left of acceptance with some subtle clue indicating that you're communicating that it would lead to acceptance. Then you could have the legislation area coming from above to indicate it has no relation with the natural left to right progression, but instead is implemented top down. On a side note, I've always had a problem with the word discrimination as well as the phrase hate speech. The word discrimination implies wrong doing on the part of the perpetrator. However, what somebody does with their own property is their's to decide. If people found not hiring somebody because of such things as race or gender, they would alienate their customers for doing so. But it doesn't make the act itself wrong. As for hate speech, the phrase is dishonest. Racial slurs aren't the only form of "hateful" speech. I would even argue that you cannot legitimately hate something with which you're not acquainted, which would require more than the knowledge of their heritage. Not saying you should consider removing these ideas form your image. After all, they are widely understood ideas. Thought I'd share my thoughts since I was already thinking about the image.
Think Free Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 Some good thoughts. The reason I wanted to add acceptance is because violent opposition is trying to leave people with only one ethical alternative: acceptance.
dsayers Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Do you believe that? I thought the point of showing violence eating peaceful opposition was to show that coercion offers no alternatives. Coercion has a way of freezing something in time. In the case of hate speech or discrimination, coercion makes it so that people are afraid to say/do anything, not to re-examine their position and conform due to some moral awakening.
Think Free Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 I mean acceptance in a practical sense, not in the sense of internally believing in the goodness of something.
Recommended Posts