'Cloud' Twin Towers: Design Insults 9/11 Victims, Critics Say

[Teller]

See, rational, calm response....as opposed to :yikes: OMG You are a terrorist sympathizer!!!!

If someone said ANYTHING of that sort in this thread, I missed it.

[Teller]

The swastika is a holy sign for Hindu's. When they use it in temples and in their house hold, are they being insensitive to Jews around the world?

In a place where no one else can see it? Nope. Would someone possibly be offended if they used it elsewhere? You bet. Google Earth got the swastika building changed, even though in all likelihood no one who was offended ever physically saw it.

[No Excuses]

Actually, you're kind of close to something that I've observed in myself, and in a lot of others.

Often, whether something is "a joke" or "outrageously insulting" is who's saying it.

Example: I suspect that very few people think that Mel Brooks hates blacks, because of Blazing Saddles.

The theory I've come up with, to explain why, for example, I laugh at some ethnic humor, but am offended by others, is that whether it's offensive or not depends on whether I think the speaker believes the stereotype that he's pushing.

But it's just a theory.

No, and people recognize it as such, because they didn't first response with a hyper sensitive emotional response before asking, "Hey what's up with that? I've seen that symbol before and it was used in a very negative way, why do you use it?"

See, rational, calm response....as opposed to :yikes: OMG You are a terrorist sympathizer!!!!

This is my understanding of this situation as well. I think context matters. I have no reason to believe that the South Koreans would erect a building mocking an American tragedy. Take it north of the border, and I would fully expect that a-hole Kim Jong to do something like this, and then I would most likely side with the idea that he's being an insensitive jerk.

[polywog999]

The swastika is a holy sign for Hindu's. When they use it in temples and in their house hold, are they being insensitive to Jews around the world?

It's also a rune in paganism, one I am careful not use.

[No Excuses]

In a place where no one else can see it? Nope. Would someone possibly be offended if they used it elsewhere? You bet. Google Earth got the swastika building changed, even though in all likelihood no one who was offended ever physically saw it.

I think the person being offended should consider the context first. It is only offensive if the person looking at it isn't aware that before being adopted by the Nazi's, it was a Hindu religious symbol for centuries. I don't think it's offensive if you are aware of Hinduism and see a Hindu using it in religious manners. The same applies in this situation, at least for me. There is no reason to believe that the South Koreans would want to openly mock the 9/11 tragedy. Rather, I consider it an odd coincidence that at specific angles, it possibly depicts 9//11.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In a place where no one else can see it? Nope.

*points to the thread title....."'Cloud' Twin Towers: Design Insults 9/11 Victims, Critics Say"

Would someone possibly be offended if they used it elsewhere?

If they engaged their brains before letting their hypersensitivity take over then no.

You bet. Google Earth got the swastika building changed, even though in all likelihood no one who was offended ever physically saw it.

And that was idiotic too. Just how much did that cost? BTW, it wasn't even a swastika, but because some idiot staring at Rorschach blots saw Nazi buildings the whole thing had to be changed.

Halp! I see Nazis and Muslim Extremists!!!........:secret:.............Oh it's a test to see how I interpret an abstract image used to find out my state of thinking and it's not actually a picture of Nazis and Terrorists? ::whew:

[Teller]

I think the person being offended should consider the context first. It is only offensive if the person looking at it isn't aware that before being adopted by the Nazi's, it was a Hindu religious symbol for centuries. I don't think it's offensive if you are of Hinduism and see a Hindu using it in religious manners. The same applies in this situation, at least for me. There is no reason to believe that the South Koreans would want to openly mock the 9/11 tragedy. Rather, I consider it an odd coincidence that at specific angles, it possibly depicts 9//11.

So symbols can't be offensive without intent? I disagree with that entirely. I would agree that intent adds to whatever consternation the viewer already has, but to say that any object is just an object, without intent, seems pretty crazy to me.

And for the record, go back and quote me if you disagree, but not once have I said the South Koreans are mocking 9/11. Nor have I said that they shouldn't build the building. The ONLY thing I've said is that I can see why some would be offended by it. I don't see how anyone could logically argue with that. But I also understand that logic and ES arguments are often mutually exclusive.

[SkinInsite]

A lot of people are offended by the Confederate flag, I seem to remember the general consensus was to get over it.

[No Excuses]

So symbols can't be offensive without intent? I disagree with that entirely. I would agree that intent adds to whatever consternation the viewer already has, but to say that any object is just an object, without intent, seems pretty crazy to me.

And for the record, go back and quote me if you disagree, but not once have I said the South Koreans are mocking 9/11. Nor have I said that they shouldn't build the building. The ONLY thing I've said is that I can see why some would be offended by it. I don't see how anyone could logically argue with that. But I also understand that logic and ES arguments are often mutually exclusive.

Intent is pretty subjective. I think you are underestimating the intellect of people by assuming that they cannot conclude for themselves whether a symbol is being used to offend or in another context. At first sight from some chosen angles, yes, it does seem a bit insensitive. But I think people are smart enough to come to the conclusion that South Koreans have no reason to mock our tragedy, thus it seems pointless to be offended by this oddly designed building.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So symbols can't be offensive without intent?

Symbols are benign, they don't mean anything other than what we attribute to them. A swastika has no inherent meaning...none.

[Teller]

Seriously, ASF, my position, stated several times in this thread is this: They shouldn't have to change the design of the buildings, but I can see why some people would be offended by it.

You'd really argue with that? Because it seems like that's what's going on.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 05:12 PM ----------

Symbols are benign, they don't mean anything other than what we attribute to them. A swastika has no inherent meaning...none.

That's true. But every person who sees any symbol has a different life experience than any other person who sees it. And therefore, people will have different reactions to any given symbol.

I suspect you're well aware of this, and just in a mood to argue.

[Jumbo]

Boy, the matters of symbolism, psychology of meaning, and human perception in multicultural contexts is really drawing some startling ignorance out of some "smart posters." I suggest some of you guys hit the study hall a bit (for a refresher at least). There is a "keep it simple" side to some of these things sometimes, but that's not the same as "keep it ignorant."

[AsburySkinsFan]

Seriously, ASF, my position, stated several times in this thread is this: They shouldn't have to change the design of the buildings, but I can see why some people would be offended by it.

You'd really argue with that? Because it seems like that's what's going on.

Are you asking me if I think it is reasonable for people to be offended by a Hindu swastika or the cloud buildings? If so then...NO I do not see it as reasonable, I see it as hyper sensitive and over reactionary.

That's true. But every person who sees any symbol has a different life experience than any other person who sees it. And therefore, people will have different reactions to any given symbol.

I suspect you're well aware of this, and just in a mood to argue.

But it is ALL about context, when I see a swastika in a Hindu temple I don't think Hitler, I think dharma. When I see a star I don't think Cowboys. Why? Because I allow my brain to work before my kneejerks.

[polywog999]

I don't think it's offensive on purpose, that being said it's a thoughtless idea and more people than not should agree on it,

[stupidmorals]

I opened this thread thinking, "All skyscrapers look the same, anyway." These are just my first impressions of the conceptual images of the building posted in the thread, so far. My gut reactions upon seeing them.

With the image in the OP, I could only partially see the resemblance to the twin towers. And I could only partially see the stated intent, that the building is rising through a cloud, or whatever. I had to kind of work to see it, like looking for that 3-D image on the back of a cereal box. My first thought was really just, "Oh, Christ, that building has grown a tumor."

The second image (close up colorized of the "pixelated cloud" area), I thought, "Oh, that actually looks kind of neat. I wonder what kind of systems they will use to provide for the trees growing out of the roofs. And I wonder what the support structure for those protruding pixels will be like; it's a lot more to support than a balcony." Yes, that is the boring crap I think about.

With that third image, the ground view, my gut reaction was, "Oh, ****, that is eerily similar to the twin tower explosions. I guess I can see what they're talking about."

But the rational thoughts after all of these things is just: it's a building. It doesn't really matter if it accidentally-kinda-sorta-if-you-squint-a-little does look like anything else. It's a building; you put people in it, and they do things. It doesn't matter. And if it did, it's not our call. It's not our cultural relevance, it's not our country, it's not our construction company, it's not our feelings that count. Let them build whatever the hell wacky-ass building they want. They're the ones that have to deal with it.

Although, if I were a window washer, I think I would be super pissed off with this thing...

[Larry]

So symbols can't be offensive without intent?

Well, now, as a factual matter, "offense" is something that happens exclusively in the mind of the viewer. Obviously, what's in the mind of anybody else is completely irrelevant.

I assume that what you meant was whether such offense is justified.

And I think it's an interesting question.

That said, though, I'll observe that in many cases, the audience sees a symbol, and they use it to judge intent.

Far as I'm concerned, show me somebody with the confederate flag in the window of his pickup, and as far as I'm concerned, the fact that it's there is sufficient evidence for me to judge his intent. So much so that, if said person stands there and tells me a story about his southern heritage or his dislike of Washington or his great grand-daddy, then I will conclude that he's a proud lying racist.

But yeah, at least in my case, if you can show me somebody who did something that he didn't intend to be offensive, then I think that goes a long way towards saying that yeah, the offended really should back off.

(Although, granted, that just gets us to the next question: If it wasn't intended to be offensive, but some people think it's offensive, anyway, then is the actor obligated to modify his actions, to prevent offense? If he doesn't, then is he now intentionally offending?)

----------

I'll also observe that there's a spectrum of "justifiable offense", where I think that part of the scale you should use is how many think it's offensive. I would assert that "swastika" is near one end of the scale, and that the name "Redskins" is near the other.

[Bang]

I can see how some people might be bothered by it.

It does look like a lot of those photos.

Maybe the sticking point in a lot of these debates like we currently have is the word "offended".

It denotes an offense, an affront, and that in turn assumes that there's not only negativity towards whatever, but there's a personal disgust towards it that can't be tolerated.

Is it possible to be bothered by something without being 'offended" ?

I am certainly reminded of 9/11 in seeing them, and i don't much like that, but I don't necessarily find it offensive unless that was the intent of the designer.

~Bang

[skinsfan07]

I can see how some people might be bothered by it.

It does look like a lot of those photos.

Maybe the sticking point in a lot of these debates like we currently have is the word "offended".

It denotes an offense, an affront, and that in turn assumes that there's not only negativity towards whatever, but there's a personal disgust towards it that can't be tolerated.

Is it possible to be bothered by something without being 'offended" ?

I am certainly reminded of 9/11 in seeing them, and i don't much like that, but I don't necessarily find it offensive unless that was the intent of the designer.

~Bang

Agreed, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't the intent of the designer but nonetheless, still a pretty dumb decision by them. Although it does look like a very cool way to design a building.

[sjinhan]

This is where I kind of tend to agree. I think the Koreans are trying to be innovative and not offensive with the design. When I read the title, I thought this was somewhere in NY. I do agree with others who say that the building is cool looking.

of course people are missing the fact that.... although this building is being proposed to be build in South Korea, the architects that are responsible for this design are based in Europe and not in South Korea.

[Teller]

I can see how some people might be bothered by it.

It does look like a lot of those photos.

Maybe the sticking point in a lot of these debates like we currently have is the word "offended".

It denotes an offense, an affront, and that in turn assumes that there's not only negativity towards whatever, but there's a personal disgust towards it that can't be tolerated.

Is it possible to be bothered by something without being 'offended" ?

I am certainly reminded of 9/11 in seeing them, and i don't much like that, but I don't necessarily find it offensive unless that was the intent of the designer.

~Bang

"Bothered" is definitely a better word. And I think that will help the discussion, so thanks for that.

We've basically all conceded there is at least a slight resemblance to the 9/11 attack images in this building. Can we all agree that the families of the victims would be bothered by that, even though the Koreans aren't intentionally pouring salt in an open wound?

[No Excuses]

I think that's a fair way to put it.

[mcsluggo]

I am now that you've pointed it out. I feel it growing retroactively for all those years I glorified an attack on Americans. I'm starting a movement! Wait. That might just be the cheeseburger I had at lunch.

if i have inspired a new avenue of distrust and vitrol...my work here is done.