He paid for it, it’s his art to destroy now.
If you don’t like that, or think I’m being insensitive, then maybe we shouldn’t let rich people buy and hoard art.
If they’re culturally or historically important, why are they in a private collection?
Is it sad to see? Yes, absolutely. But not any more sad than it falling into the hands of a private collector in the first place.
Fuck Assange, he worked with the right wing to get Trump elected, not an impartial leaker, not a journalist, not a whistleblower, he’s a right wing shill:
A week after Guccifer 2.0 appeared online, WikiLeaks sent the persona a message saying to “send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.”[52] After not receiving a reply, on July 6, 2016 WikiLeaks sent another message that said “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” Guccifer 2.0 responded “ok … i see,” and WikiLeaks added “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary … so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”[53][54] On July 14, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 sent WikiLeaks an email with an encrypted attachment labeled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”[55] According to the indictment, the email explained that “the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents.”[52]
Four days later, WikiLeaks responded that it had received “the 1Gb or so archive” and would release the files that week.[52] The DNC emails were released several days later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
@DarkGamer just to be clear are you arguing that this means he should be subject to solitary confinement and other treatments the US govt likes to mete out to suspected terrorists etc?
The bit I’m asking you about is whether that means that it’s okay for him (or anyone else you have no sympathy for) to be subjected to these kinds of treatment.
If they’re culturally or historically important, why are they in a private collection?
That’s a really, really crap argument that is permissive of all kinds of cultural genocide. A LOT of artwork is in private collections that by no right should be. I make no claims about this guy’s collection, but the mere fact that it is being bought and sold has no bearing. After all, I live in country that used to “legally” buy and sell people.
I’m sorry, I’m having difficulty following your point.
That’s a really, really crap argument that is permissive of all kinds of cultural genocide.
Isn’t it the opposite? He’s arguing that work of cultural importance should NOT be in private hands. You might say, “Who gets to determine what’s culturally significant? And why do we trust governments to do a better job than private collectors?” Those are fair questions, I think, but then I get lost again:
A LOT of artwork is in private collections that by no right should be.
Right, that’s what he’s arguing too.
I live in country that used to “legally” buy and sell people.
Ok, so… You acknowledge that just because it’s legal to trade in something, doesn’t mean that it’s moral or ethical. So is that also true of culturally-significant artwork?
He paid for it, it’s his art to destroy now.
If you don’t like that, or think I’m being insensitive, then maybe we shouldn’t let rich people buy and hoard art.
If they’re culturally or historically important, why are they in a private collection?
Is it sad to see? Yes, absolutely. But not any more sad than it falling into the hands of a private collector in the first place.
Agreed 100%.
Also Assange is a whistleblower and is in jail for it… Sad.
Assange is not really a whistleblower… He’s a journalist who published the content whistleblowers gave him
More like an editor, even. Making the persecution just so much sadder.
Fuck Assange, he worked with the right wing to get Trump elected, not an impartial leaker, not a journalist, not a whistleblower, he’s a right wing shill:
@DarkGamer just to be clear are you arguing that this means he should be subject to solitary confinement and other treatments the US govt likes to mete out to suspected terrorists etc?
I’m arguing that I have no sympathies remaining for the man. he seems good at alienating others and is on the wrong side of history.
@DarkGamer yes I get that part.
The bit I’m asking you about is whether that means that it’s okay for him (or anyone else you have no sympathy for) to be subjected to these kinds of treatment.
Calm down glowie, everyone hates your 3 letter agencies, not just Assange.
That’s a really, really crap argument that is permissive of all kinds of cultural genocide. A LOT of artwork is in private collections that by no right should be. I make no claims about this guy’s collection, but the mere fact that it is being bought and sold has no bearing. After all, I live in country that used to “legally” buy and sell people.
Read more than the first sentence of the comment.
I’m sorry, I’m having difficulty following your point.
Isn’t it the opposite? He’s arguing that work of cultural importance should NOT be in private hands. You might say, “Who gets to determine what’s culturally significant? And why do we trust governments to do a better job than private collectors?” Those are fair questions, I think, but then I get lost again:
Right, that’s what he’s arguing too.
Ok, so… You acknowledge that just because it’s legal to trade in something, doesn’t mean that it’s moral or ethical. So is that also true of culturally-significant artwork?
See why I’m confused as to your argument?