1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador

[mlandman]

--He planned the attack
--He damaged an exhibit in a museum
--He did this based on an assumption that the intent was one thing, when he doesn't really know what the intent was...because he didn't create it

And what if the exhibit was a wax figurine of a palestinian walking into a cafe filled with kids, and he had dynamite strapped around his waist? Is someone who plans to deface that exhibit a fucking idiot? If your answer is yes, then I don't know what to say to you.

If your answer is 'no', then I ask you how different is the scenario we're talking about? I submit that it's not so different such that the guy who defaces the exhibit is 'a fucking idiot'.

I don't like violence, and the idea of marching into a museum or other public place to destroy something certainly does seem way way out of line. But to say that the content of the exhibit has no bearing on whether or not it might be rational to deface it doesn't seem right to me.

What if the exhibit was a car running over your family? Would you be A FUCKING IDIOT to do something about it? Yes, clearly it's not the same thing, but now you must admit we're talking about shades of grey. So tell me, why is it SO OBVIOUS that what he did makes him a FUCKING IDIOT, and you WOULDN'T be a FUCKING IDIOT to deface an exhibit of someone killing your parents and kids? The next time you see a exhibit in a museum of someone raping your 3 year old child, remember, you're a FUCKING IDIOT if you tear it down.

Personally, if I saw you tear something like that down, I'd sympathize with you. I certainly wouldn't default to thinking you're a FUCKING IDIOT.

So which is it? Are all exhibits off limits? Or, if some exhibits are fair game, please tell me precisely why he's a FUCKING IDIOT for choosing that one.

-mike