Hypocrisy at the NY Times? Who would have believed it??
Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities.Oh, but that was WAY back in January. This is almost the end of May--an entire five months later. So you won't be surprised to learn that during that long, loooong period of time the folks at the Times have evolved incredibly. In fact, they've "evolved" so fucking much in five months that their new position is that it's perfectly wonderful to print "art" that offends "religious sensibilities."
Of course you think I'm using "hyperbole" to make a point. Well, you're right: the brave editors and owners of the Times are perfectly willing to print pics of hideously offensive "art"--as long as it offends...Christians.
See, modern art loves to offend Christians because that's "edgy." What they used to call "avante-garde." So when some collector decided to sell a painting of the mother of Jesus covered with elephant dung (so the dipshit artist says, anyway), the Times had to run a pic of the "work."
When it came to cartoons of mohamhead, though, the Times was hugely considerate: It decided readers didn't need to actually, you know, see the cartoons that allegedly prompted the massacre in Paris, because--and this is a verbatim quote from the paper:
After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand [the story of the January mass murder by Muslims in Paris.]But when it comes to a story about the forthcoming auction of a painting of the mother of Jesus covered in elephant dung, merely describing the piece in question was totally inadequate to convey the masterful work of this faabulous artist. Or something.
As I said: They've evolved. That is so faabulous. Us ordinary folks in flyover country would just say they were hypocritical cowards.
But then, we're not nearly as evolved.