big thumbs up
Well that was tasteless. I don't know who's character it impugns more, yours for posting it or ours for looking at it. The description should have been warning enough.

Yet another celebration of "look how jaded and ironic I can be, I must be cool." Half the photograph by-lines indicated they were of homeless people. Funny how you mother can work so consistently to lift people out of those circumstances, yet you have to actively search the net to find some collection of over-stimulated over-indulged middle class wankers who feel the need to exercise their right to step on somebody else. How about some bumfight movies to go with it?

And don't try that half-cocked "I said it was in rather poor taste when I posted it", this goes beyond the pale. It's a ticker-tape parade for the most curled piece of dogshit that could pass itself off as human.
----Evil Bastard Fri Aug 20 09:39:47 2004
Well, Evil B, tell us how you really feel. And as for the war against poor taste, how about changing your screen name?
--Harry Fri Aug 20 09:56:06 2004
I wasn't going to check it out, but after reading more about it in the above anti-endorsement by EB, I think I might check it out later at work.
--LAN3 Fri Aug 20 10:19:31 2004
Well, I strengthed up the warning, EB, and removed some of my own smarminess from the writeup.

I think this can be interpreted as a form of social satire, and a redirection of some of the rage about the prison scandal. It's getting harder and harder for satire to keep its ability to shock and so limits will keep getting pushed. It could also just be smug middleclass wankage, like you suggest. 

Only a few of the pictures involve the homeless; the legitimate concern is "does being used as a prop in this kind of photo further erode their human dignity". And yeah, there is that risk with some of those photos.
--Kirk Fri Aug 20 10:32:50 2004
yeah, i looked, i'll admit it, but the photos of those who were obviously homeless hit a nerve. i closed the browser. kirk, don't feel bad for posting. if nothing else, i'm at least reminded, again, how truly awful humanity is.
--FoSo Fri Aug 20 12:56:12 2004
It's all in good fun . . . ok maybe not good fun . . . but fun of some sort. 

OK, actually it's kind of glorifying and celebrating man's baser instinct, so maybe I should feel guilty for enjoying.

No . . no guilt. I just found it funny and harmless.
--Cole Fri Aug 20 13:12:02 2004
So, in trying to turn the negative of some of those photos into a chance for reflection:

Sometimes I think back to my church days and the first part of Matthew 26:11: "The poor you will always have with you" (which always seemed tough to reconcile with our culture's image of Jesus and charity, but hey) So there will always be the poor; but we should still consider action to help out our fellow people.

Anyway, I think it's an important question: why are the photos w/ the homeless guys so offensive? Homeless people are very much at risk for being hungry, cold, beaten-up, and sick. These photos don't increase any of these risk factors, but they seem to be mocking the individuals that we should be having sympathy for and acting charitably toward. You can make the assumption that some of the subjects would be humiliated if they saw the context of the photos, and that is unkind to people who have faced enough unkindness. I guess that knock on their human dignity is enough of a reason to find the photos disgusting, and maybe not worth whatever commentary on Abu Gayarab they may or may not be providing, or the hubris of well fed people having a laugh at the less fortunate. (You're almost risking taunting Murphy and his almight law with some of those...)
--Kirk Fri Aug 20 13:34:48 2004
--BumFighter ! Tue Sep 28 12:45:25 2004

Comments Disabled... (Thanks Dirty Rotten Spammers)
Feel free to write kirkjerk at gmail dot com!