LunchMeat Art

"The Blue Room (La chambre bleue) is a 1923 painting by French artist Suzanne Valadon. One of her most recognizable works, it has been called a radical subversion of representation of women in art.[1] Like many of Valadon's later works, it uses strong colors and emphasizes decorative backgrounds and patterned materials.[2] Valadon depicts a modern 20th-century woman, clothed and smoking a cigarette, in a pose traditional to female nudes, particularly 19th-century images of odalisques and prostitutes, such as Edouard Manet's Olympia.[3]" - wikipedia.org

8 Famous Women Painters Who Shaped Art History

www.thecollector.com/famous-women...

Books about women artists at PG:

www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/subje...

#art #womenshistory

No, you don't. Because the people that you are claiming are ok with genocide are using the same position you are about the killing and violence you are ok with.

You are doing the same thing as them, but pointing your finger in other directions.

True for plenty of Canadians as well. How are the mounties treating the indigenous peoples these days?

*isn't

Ok, well thank you for admitting you don't have a moral high ground then.

If it's ok for you, then it's ok for anyone, including people who are pro-israel.

That's why appealing to morals is a good strategy.

Yeah, but one also wanted to do worse still. The other only said they have a right to defend themselves.

And the people dying of lack of aid aren't just Americans. It's people from around the world. What you are saying is you are ok with people dying under specific circumstances that you get to be the judge and jury of.

If we want a better world, we need to actually build that. Just rejecting the world we don't like doesn't do anything for anyone.

Ok, so we have one person doing a murder. Three other people watching. One is in full support of the killing and worse, one is for supporting the killer as defending themselves, and one who just turns their back on it all but doesn't stop the killing.

Who has the moral high ground?

I DO hold her accountable. I'm also aware that there is plenty of blame to go around. I've been a third party voter my whole life and still financially support third parties, never Dems.

Swing and a miss.

The "moral issues need to be solved" part is where just standing on morals isn't enough. Again, if that is all you are doing then nothing changes.

I assume you didn't vote. Does that mean you are ok with no end to genocide AND people dying to ICE or lack of aid?

Yep. And that's a problem too. Multiple things can be problematic at the same time.

That's moving the goal post. Friends and family calling for help is one thing. We are talking about the people they called out to. What those people did was sit out and do nothing.

It's a moral issue, but moral issues also need to be solved and that requires planning and strategies. If all you do is say "this is awful and I want none of it" but nothing gets done to change anything, that's not helpful.

Our political system is absolutely part of the issue.

It gets boring how predictable and tired all their arguments are. Same song and dance every single time.

That's a nice way to avoid responsibility

That's assuming they called for help. I would argue they just turned their backs on it.

Strawman again. You don't know what my policies or politics are. Again, you appeal to morals and strawman as your only tactics. You haven't even answered the question about how to gain votes or actually make wins for a third party.

And if that person who didn't kill just watched and did nothing?

That's not what I'm asking, but it's a good strawman.

You not only did nothing, but by doing so you made things worse because the blood of all those who died after us aid was cut is also on your hands

Yes, we agree on that.

We are on equal footing unless we work together is what I am arguing for after all.

Unless you actually saved anyone, then no. You don't have a moral high ground. The end result of your action was the same.

You just like to convince yourself you are more moral so you can appeal to morals in arguments online.

And do you have enough votes to win? Because if not, nothing changes. How are you going to get enough votes to win?

Tidal Wetlands (2026) by American artist Jim Musil (born in 1969).

Acrylic on board

#art #painting #artist #BlueSkyArt

No, what they concluded was that was the most common reason amongst many why people didn't vote for them, with the economy being a close second.

Not voting for evil and then what? That's not a strategy and that is just giving up ground.

There is a big difference between escalation tactics and de-escalation tactics.
Conflict, at this point, is largely an inevitability to some extent but how much conflict and how/where/why/when is still on the table.

So, you're not wrong but that doesn't mean you're right

US foreign policy concerning the middle east/West Asia has largely been the same since the cold war and there are certain things that are going to happen there regardless of who is president (and that probably would also be true for most, if not all, third party presidents also)

However...

She didn't lose over Gaza. She didn't lose for any one specific reason, but many.

"Moral backbone" without strategy or planning is just paving the road to hell with good intentions and unless those young people have a viable alternative, we all end up giving up ground to bad people

A graffiti image of a skullified head (well, half a skullified head) - very toothy, in shades of blue

Central Eastside, Hosford-Abernethy, Portland, OR
#pdx #graffiti #streetart

I'm game. Every time I hear a little of one of your stories I can't help but think that you have had the kind of amazing life that should be in a book.