Christ Vies for the Queer Guys

[WinAce]

http://winace.clickhalah.com/queer_guys/queers_n_jesus.jpg

Mark 13:30
"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

Matthew 16:28
"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Well, it's been millennia since the Messiah promised to return. (You settle into your tomb for one short dirt nap...and holy cow!) Still, give him some credit; he's finally back! But how does a King of the Jews get some respect without an entourage? Christ's old, trusted pals are all dead. And recruiting new fishermen and tax collectors is just passé in this day and age; He'd be lucky to get 10 minutes on The Tonight Show! Famous celebrities are already brought by Scientology, while walking on water just doesn't seem as competitive with Hollywood's special effects. "I need another gimmick," the Son of God bemoaned. Two weeks, quite a few unmarked bills, and several discussions with LTN producers later, Christ Vies for the Queer Guys was born.

Join us every week, in scenic San Francisco, as Jesus tries to convince a random group of gay guys to "get thee behind him," just as the original Apostles did. But there's a catch: he can't openly use his superpowers, and must befriend them as a normal man would! Will he ply them with the finest wine, make grandiose promises, compliment their leather outfits or interior decorating skills? And more importantly, will it end there? Tune in every Wednesday to find out!

[HelenM]

WinAce,

In my opinion this is a rather mean-spirited expression of your humor and creativity. Why not use your talents in more positive ways than mocking what is sacred to some?

Helen

[LadyShea]

I think it's pretty funny.

Helen, the whole point of satire is to challenge others' various sacred cows. Would you consider a satirical ad of, I don't know, the Buddha selling Slimfast mean spirited mocking? People hold all kinds of things sacred, are they all eliminated from ridicule or humor?

[livius drusus]

I don't think it's particularly funny. It seems to me that it's basically a gay joke used to set up Jesus as a media whore. I don't find it deeply offensive on either of those levels, but it's hardly what I would consider deft satire.

[Godless Dave]

I find it neither funny nor offensive.

[LadyShea]

I don't think it's particularly funny. It seems to me that it's basically a gay joke used to set up Jesus as a media whore. I don't find it deeply offensive on either of those levels, but it's hardly what I would consider deft satire.

Well, not everyone will find it funny, I find much satire devoid of humor to me personally.

I found this one funny not due to the subject, but because the popularity and ridiculous premises of the reality TV shows boggles my mind...Jesus would have to compete with Growing up Gotti and such nonsense if he were to come back today.

[HelenM]

I think it's pretty funny.

Fair enough. What do you find funny about it? [edited to add - I see you answered this already in your latest post]

Helen, the whole point of satire is to challenge others' various sacred cows.

Do you think the above was intended as a challenge? Do you think anyone who believes in Jesus will have his/her beliefs challenged by it? If so, how?

Would you consider a satirical ad of, I don't know, the Buddha selling Slimfast mean spirited mocking?

I don't exactly know what people believe about Buddha. In general I would consider it mean spirited to mock someone's non-Christian religious beliefs, yes.

People hold all kinds of things sacred, are they all eliminated from ridicule or humor?

That's a good question; I can't give a blanket 'yes' or 'no' answer to it.

Perhaps "what people hold sacred" was not the best choice of words on a board whose membership is mostly nontheist. How about "what matters deeply to people"?

I think there are two basic issues; first, teasing/making fun of something can be done in a light-hearted, kind way or a nastier one. So, it makes a difference how it is done. The former way shows an underlying respect for/care about the person/people being teased. The latter doesn't.

Secondly, there's a big difference between teasing someone about a quirky habit, say, as compared with something more serious in his/her life. Teasing someone about their breakfast habits (for example) is an entirely different thing from teasing them for caring about something they care very deeply about.

Helen

[HelenM]

Well, not everyone will find it funny, I find much satire devoid of humor to me personally.

I found this one funny not due to the subject, but because the popularity and ridiculous premises of the reality TV shows boggles my mind...Jesus would have to compete with Growing up Gotti and such nonsense if he were to come back today.

This reminds me - I heard some satire I did think was pretty funny this week on Public Radio, combining sitcoms and polls; part of the 'sample episode' went something like this:

Dad: Son, why haven't you finished your homework?
Son: Dad, did you know that 95% of children don't finish their homework?
Dad: How would you like to be grounded for 95% of your weekend?
Son: Undecided.

[Ronin]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_ambiguouslygay.jpg

The New Dynamic Duo...They're simply Faaab -U- lous and they're only on ABC Fridays.

[WinAce]

WinAce,

In my opinion this is a rather mean-spirited expression of your humor and creativity.

It's not one of my subtler parodies, I admit. And it is pretty blasphemous. But--and livius drusus or viscousmemories are invited to correct me if I'm wrong--this board is targeted primarily at those who don't hold these beliefs dear, and may in fact consider them ridiculous. The few theists who post here are doubtless thick-skinned enough to bear much worse jokes at their beliefs' expense, but more importantly, I think they reject the key premise that would make this so offensive to fundamentalists--"being gay is evil."

If being gay isn't an abomination, like virtually everyone here will believe, Jesus having a reality TV show where he assumes the role of a flamboyantly gay character becomes merely irreverent, if admittedly outrageous going by mainstream society's reaction. Perhaps it's absurd enough to call stupid (you're welcome to do so), but nowhere near as mean-spirited as you imply.

I've held off on making some things that cross the line between "outrageous, but hopefully funny" and "tasteless for its own sake." I don't see how this can be considered the latter, even if it does come closer than other spoofs. Mind you, I also don't--necessarily--think the horribly tasteless is worse than the benign.

There is a time and a place for most jokes; many are perfectly okay, but inappropriate outside strict limits. I'll freely admit this isn't one I'd bring up with non-liberal Christians in the room, unless I was looking to piss someone off. I don't feel you've made your case for how it's inappropriate here, though.

[Ronin]

It's not one of my subtler parodies, I admit. And it is pretty blasphemous. But--and livius drusus or viscousmemories are invited to correct me if I'm wrong--this board is targeted primarily at those who don't hold these beliefs dear, and may in fact consider them ridiculous.

It has been my understanding that this is a board for "Freethought", hence the name "Freethought-Forum".

Personally I have never considered this place "targeted primarily at those who don't hold these beliefs dear, and may in fact consider them ridiculous."

That would, in my view, be the antithesis of Freethought.

[LadyShea]

Do you think the above was intended as a challenge? Do you think anyone who believes in Jesus will have his/her beliefs challenged by it? If so, how?

Maybe challenged was the wrong word. Perhaps some tenets of their beliefs, in light of modern society, might be challenged. The fact is, that if Jesus came back today he literally would have to pander to the media and compete with special effects wizadry to gain followers. Roaming around Jerusalem would simply not be enough. For example, what would it take for you to believe that some guy is actually Jesus here on Earth...there are many people who claim this, and claim to perform miracles, but they receive no notice.

I don't exactly know what people believe about Buddha. In general I would consider it mean spirited to mock someone's non-Christian religious beliefs, yes.

Buddha is considered a perfectly enlightened being with complete understanding of the nature of the Universe and his place in it. If he were alive today, he would be considered obese and doing Slimfast commercials to get noticed or his message across to our modern, weight obsessed society might be considered mocking to him....but really, it is more an observation about US.

That's a good question; I can't give a blanket 'yes' or 'no' answer to it.

Perhaps "what people hold sacred" was not the best choice of words on a board whose membership is mostly nontheist. How about "what matters deeply to people"?

Again, all kinds of things matter deeply to people. Things that others may find ridiculous.

I think there are two basic issues; first, teasing/making fun of something can be done in a light-hearted, kind way or a nastier one. So, it makes a difference how it is done. The former way shows an underlying respect for/care about the person/people being teased. The latter doesn't.

Secondly, there's a big difference between teasing someone about a quirky habit, say, as compared with something more serious in his/her life. Teasing someone about their breakfast habits (for example) is an entirely different thing from teasing them for caring about something they care very deeply about.

Helen

Well, that is subjective. Something you may find hilarious might deeply offend another. It's not possible to create satire without offending someone.

Good discussion, Helen. I need to think about it some more.

[WinAce]

It has been my understanding that this is a board for "Freethought", hence the name "Freethought-Forum".

The audience here is de facto atheist, Ronin. The label "Freethinkers" isn't necessarily limited to non-Christians, but a disproportionate number of people attracted to it will be. I have not a shred of doubt this is borne out by the board's membership rolls and active posters. Christianity may not be unwelcome here like it would be at HeathenHangout, but jokes at its expense would be right at home. I dare say, and again invite the admins to correct me if such isn't the case, this includes tasteless and offensive jokes as well.

The "badness" of a joke will largely depend on its audience. You don't make "dead baby" jokes on an OB/GYN support board, for example. Personally, I can't think of a more on-topic board for this kind of humor, and I reject the notion that "what matters deeply to people" is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues.

You can argue this board isn't an appropriate venue; you can argue deeply-held beliefs should be immune from mockery; or you can argue 1) there's a reasonable limit to that mockery I should accept, and 2) my spoof passed it. But for the reasons above, I currently see this as a non-issue.

[Ronin]

The audience here is de facto atheist, Ronin. The label "Freethinkers" isn't necessarily limited to non-Christians, but a disproportionate number of people attracted to it will be. I have not a shred of doubt this is borne out by the board's membership rolls and active posters. Christianity may not be unwelcome here like it would be at HeathenHangout, but jokes at its expense would be right at home. I dare say, and again invite the admins to correct me if such isn't the case, this includes tasteless and offensive jokes as well.

I am an strong atheist, WinAce.

I also just happen not to be an anti-theist and would hope that the label "Freethinker" would include more of those of similar disposition.

The "badness" of a joke will largely depend on its audience. You don't make "dead baby" jokes on an OB/GYN support board, for example. Personally, I can't think of a more on-topic board for this kind of humor, and I reject the notion that "what matters deeply to people" is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues.

That just makes you an asshole and not a Freethinker.

Try not to ever confuse the two.

You can argue this board isn't an appropriate venue; you can argue deeply-held beliefs should be immune from mockery; or you can argue 1) there's a reasonable limit to that mockery I should accept, and 2) my spoof passed it. But for the reasons above, I currently see this as a non-issue.

I don't think this board is the appropriate venue and I, personally, need no admin to tell me otherwise. Once I get the notion that some consider it appropriate for such bullshit then I'll just split. No harm, no foul.

Your spoof was just stupid and reflects poorly on anyone espousing Freethought.

I can't be any more clear than that.

[LadyShea]

It has been made very clear, to me, that this is a freethought and free speech forum. That means that WinAce can be as offensive as he wants, and Helen can express her being offended, and everyone else is welcome to call either of them assholes or agree with them or disagree with them or ignore or make observations about whatver.

I wouldn't want it any other way

[viscousmemories]

It has been my understanding that this is a board for "Freethought", hence the name "Freethought-Forum".
The audience here is de facto atheist, Ronin. The label "Freethinkers" isn't necessarily limited to non-Christians, but a disproportionate number of people attracted to it will be. I have not a shred of doubt this is borne out by the board's membership rolls and active posters.
Actually the disproportionate number of non-theist members and subjects here is the result of the fact that most of the people livius and I have met in discussion forums we've met at IIDB, JREF, HH, and Skeptical Community which are all non-theist oriented boards.

However we deliberately eschewed the label 'freethinker' from the site name and all the site-related documentation because we hoped to avoid ideological discrimination as much as possible. More specifically, we envisioned a forum where any and all inclined could engage in freethought, regardless of whether they self-identify as a 'freethinker' (since that word has very definite atheistic overtones).

This is explained in the Introduction to the Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51), wherein we define the four guiding principles of the site as:

1. Freedom of thought
2. Freedom of expression
3. Community
4. Self-determination

Christianity may not be unwelcome here like it would be at HeathenHangout, but jokes at its expense would be right at home. I dare say, and again invite the admins to correct me if such isn't the case, this includes tasteless and offensive jokes as well.
It's very true that any thoughts - however offensive or unpopular - are acceptable here. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that any thoughts are de facto "right at home". The reaction of the membership is really the sole barometer of how welcome certain ideas are.

The "badness" of a joke will largely depend on its audience. You don't make "dead baby" jokes on an OB/GYN support board, for example. Personally, I can't think of a more on-topic board for this kind of humor, and I reject the notion that "what matters deeply to people" is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues.
My personal view (not at all to be mistaken for a policy or rule) is that open-mindedness is an essential characteristic of a freethought community, and I don't personally consider vicious mockery of a particular group of people or their ideological beliefs very open-minded. On the contrary, it seems quite biased and narrow-minded.

You can argue this board isn't an appropriate venue; you can argue deeply-held beliefs should be immune from mockery; or you can argue 1) there's a reasonable limit to that mockery I should accept, and 2) my spoof passed it. But for the reasons above, I currently see this as a non-issue.
I don't have an opinion of the spoof, honestly, and I don't personally have a problem with you having posted it or a problem with Helen disapproving of it. But it definitely isn't the case that our intention for this forum was to provide a venue for hostility toward religion to thrive. Had that been our intention we never would have abandoned the original FF, which was much better suited to that.

[WinAce]

Ronin, "anti-theist" strawmen aside, if you have an argument to make, please make it. I've seen your contributions at (among other places) ChristianForums, and you're intelligent enough to know there are more constructive ways to argue than calling people assholes. Otherwise, you're as entitled to whine as I am to make potentially offensive jokes; but no one's obligated to read either of our posts, so we're all happy. Good day.

[WinAce]

Thanks for the helpful clarifications, viscousmemories. Your post could also provide the start of an interesting discussion about the compatibility of open-mindedness with tasteless jokes, but I'm not sure I want to go there now.

If someone wants to make a good case for why that post was inappropriate, I'll take it under advisement. I won't even mention the fact I found my own spoof hilarious. At least, I won't mention it big black letters. :wink:

[Ronin]

Ronin, "anti-theist" strawmen aside, if you have an argument to make, please make it.

Your humor is anti-Christian and not a "strawman" in the least. I have not found it productive nor conducive to freethinking to behave or support such crap.

I've seen your contributions at (among other places) ChristianForums, and you're intelligent enough to know there are more constructive ways to argue than calling people assholes.

So you can produce offensive shit, but I am not constructive by calling you an asshole for such behavior?

Yeah, I see how far this "freethinking" thing goes with you.

Otherwise, you're as entitled to whine as I am to make potentially offensive jokes; but no one's obligated to read either of our posts, so we're all happy. Good day.

Did I oh-fucking-fend?

How does it feel?

[Ronin]

If someone wants to make a good case for why that post was inappropriate, I'll take it under advisement. I won't even mention the fact I found my own spoof hilarious. At least, I won't mention it big black letters.

Helen has already made a very good case, in my view.

You have already admitted that being offensive simply doesn't matter to you:

The "badness" of a joke will largely depend on its audience. You don't make "dead baby" jokes on an OB/GYN support board, for example. Personally, I can't think of a more on-topic board for this kind of humor, and I reject the notion that "what matters deeply to people" is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues.

Therefore, I don't think anything anyone says will make a very big impression upon you.

[beyelzu]

Thanks for the helpful clarifications, viscousmemories. Your post could also provide the start of an interesting discussion about the compatibility of open-mindedness with tasteless jokes, but I'm not sure I want to go there now.

If someone wants to make a good case for why that post was inappropriate, I'll take it under advisement. I won't even mention the fact I found my own spoof hilarious. At least, I won't mention it big black letters. :wink:
Interestingly, I thought the picture kind of crossed the line, it's kind of sophomoric here is jesus getting gangbanged by some gay guys. (dont you just love alliteration?)

On the other hand, I found the post to be funny as hell and a commentary on modern tv in america. Actually, when I read it, I thought damn winace doesnt have a fuckload of posts but his posts are uberbadass.

Or to quote Nicholson,"Where does he get those wonderful toys?"

[beyelzu]

The "badness" of a joke will largely depend on its audience. You don't make "dead baby" jokes on an OB/GYN support board, for example. Personally, I can't think of a more on-topic board for this kind of humor, and I reject the notion that "what matters deeply to people" is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues.

Therefore, I don't think anything anyone says will make a very big impression upon you.


I agree with Winace that nothing is above mockery and humor, especially when the humor is in the form of satire. The op has a point, I am curious as to whether you dislike the point or simply the delivery.

[WinAce]

Ronin, the above spoof pokes fun at:


Jesus.
Failed Messianic predictions.
Homosexual stereotypes.
Frivolous reality TV shows.
Short attention spans.
Sleazy producers.

Note how it wasn't posted at 1) Christian boards; 2) bi/gay groups; 3) Queer Eye fan websites; or even 4) Hollywood bigwig forums. But that's neither here nor there. You know as well as I do that a certain variety of jokes exist that explicitly target "sacred cows," and can provoke strong reactions.

You're already backtracking from your claim of "anti-theism," I see (hard to pull that off in a spoof that doesn't even mention God, rather, one famous religious figure from a theistic religion). The truth is that there's no consistent "Christianity" to be offended. Fundamentalists certainly would be; I'm not sure how many would be reading a "Freethought" board to get offended at, though. Nor do I care, since lots of them take offense at the live action Scooby Doo movies. The theists here will be overwhelmingly liberal, and (ironically) capable of taking a joke at their own expense better than you do.

That spoof was not meant to be "conducive to freethinking." Neither are Bill Clinton cigar anecdotes meant to facilitate open dialogue between Democrats and Republicans. Both are made to draw cheap belly laughs at the expense of a sacred cow that will make some laugh, some groan, some call for murder and some say "I don't get it"; nothing more, nothing less. If my aim was to convince, I would have posted serious (and back-bendingly polite) argument instead of a modified picture of EuroJesus dry-humping some college students. And if you aim to convince, as opposed to mock, go for some ironic flourish, or generally be a prick for the heck of it alone (all of which are every bit your prerogative with the current rules), you'd best abandon the insults. Different means for different ends; which one are you aiming for?

You'll need alot more practice to offend someone who's been reading zany boards for years, and collecting posts which put the Nazis to shame, but if it helps you sleep at night, what the hey.

You also inaccurately spun what I wrote. My post said "I reject the notion that 'what matters deeply to people' is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues." How you got "being offensive simply doesn't matter to you" is anybody's guess. Too much knee-jerk reaction spoils the broth of reading comprehension, you know.

[HelenM]

Do you think the above was intended as a challenge? Do you think anyone who believes in Jesus will have his/her beliefs challenged by it? If so, how?

Maybe challenged was the wrong word. Perhaps some tenets of their beliefs, in light of modern society, might be challenged. The fact is, that if Jesus came back today he literally would have to pander to the media and compete with special effects wizardry to gain followers. Roaming around Jerusalem would simply not be enough. For example, what would it take for you to believe that some guy is actually Jesus here on Earth...there are many people who claim this, and claim to perform miracles, but they receive no notice.

I do think you raise interesting issues, here. From a theological point of view the answer would have to be: Jesus would do what he needed to do to achieve what he wanted to achieve. What that would look like in 2004, I can't say.

I don't exactly know what people believe about Buddha. In general I would consider it mean spirited to mock someone's non-Christian religious beliefs, yes.

Buddha is considered a perfectly enlightened being with complete understanding of the nature of the Universe and his place in it. If he were alive today, he would be considered obese and doing Slimfast commercials to get noticed or his message across to our modern, weight obsessed society might be considered mocking to him....but really, it is more an observation about US.

I'm not against satire which pokes fun at American foibles, per se. It can be an effective way of pointing out things.

That's a good question; I can't give a blanket 'yes' or 'no' answer to it.

Perhaps "what people hold sacred" was not the best choice of words on a board whose membership is mostly nontheist. How about "what matters deeply to people"?

Again, all kinds of things matter deeply to people. Things that others may find ridiculous.

True. And I don't think the answer is to expect everyone to cater to the most easily offended person on the planet.

I think there are two basic issues; first, teasing/making fun of something can be done in a light-hearted, kind way or a nastier one. So, it makes a difference how it is done. The former way shows an underlying respect for/care about the person/people being teased. The latter doesn't.

Secondly, there's a big difference between teasing someone about a quirky habit, say, as compared with something more serious in his/her life. Teasing someone about their breakfast habits (for example) is an entirely different thing from teasing them for caring about something they care very deeply about.

Helen

Well, that is subjective. Something you may find hilarious might deeply offend another. It's not possible to create satire without offending someone.

I'm not sure I agree. If it's clever without being nasty, I think it might be possible.

Good discussion, Helen. I need to think about it some more.

Me too :)

Helen

[HelenM]

The audience here is de facto atheist, Ronin. The label "Freethinkers" isn't necessarily limited to non-Christians, but a disproportionate number of people attracted to it will be. I have not a shred of doubt this is borne out by the board's membership rolls and active posters. Christianity may not be unwelcome here like it would be at HeathenHangout, but jokes at its expense would be right at home. I dare say, and again invite the admins to correct me if such isn't the case, this includes tasteless and offensive jokes as well.

If I understand you right, you're implying that all non-Christians enjoy jokes at the expense of Christianity, including tasteless and offensive ones.

I doubt this is true.

As a Christian I don't enjoy jokes at the expense of atheists (I was going to say atheism but then someone would probably say there's no such thing). Let alone tasteless and offensive ones. So I don't see why I would expect all non-Christians to enjoy jokes at the expense of Christianity.

The "badness" of a joke will largely depend on its audience. You don't make "dead baby" jokes on an OB/GYN support board, for example. Personally, I can't think of a more on-topic board for this kind of humor

Which is a good reason not to make "dead baby" jokes, imo. It's not as if the world needs dead baby jokes. I think humor which is offensive enough to many that you would only air it to a select audience is better not aired at all.

I dislike it because to me it constitutes 'negative bonding' - i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It doesn't build on what is positive; it is fueled by shared contempt and derision. It doesn't treat the 'objects' of the humor as people which I think is very dangerous because it encourages attitudes which make it easier to be cruel to others. Why not, if I can disregard that they have equal value to me, as human beings?

, and I reject the notion that "what matters deeply to people" is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues.

Please explain what an 'appropriate' venue is. And please explain the benefits of vicious mockery in an 'appropriate' venue. What good is achieved by it?

Helen

[WinAce]

If I understand you right, you're implying that all non-Christians enjoy jokes at the expense of Christianity, including tasteless and offensive ones.

No, I wouldn't say that. (It would be interesting to see how many non-Christians don't enjoy such jokes, but I bet this largely depends on the exact form that mockery takes.) Non-Christians (generally) won't agree that blasphemy, alone, is a reliable litmus test of disagreeable jokes. And how many of us don't enjoy a good tasteless joke as a "guilty pleasure" from time to time?

As a Christian I don't enjoy jokes at the expense of atheists...

I guess our views just differ, then. You may not enjoy these jokes, but others do. And for the most part, they can laugh at themselves as well as others. (One spoof I really need to finish is about Jesus-mythicism, a view mostly atheists hold...) But the analogy doesn't really hold up; atheism has no sacred cows, so there's not a lot of humor to be had by being irreverent towards it.

I respect the view that jokes which might stir up controversy shouldn't be made. I personally consider them amoral, though, not immoral, under most conditions. And they can be great in a way regular jokes miss out on, so bring on the Dishonest Dubya Action Figures (http://www.kaicurryservices.com/peacecandy/gwbush/dishonestdubya/)! :D

As far as "treating the objects of the humor as people," this spoof touches less on that than any "priest/rabbi/X in a bar" joke. No people are even mentioned, aside from a religious figure who's an abstract icon in this day and age. It might be lowbrow (not to mention ridiculous) to picture Jesus that way, but I don't see anything wrong with it, "Mohammed's Top Ten Favorite Pork Recipes" or whatever other equivalent you could name.

Depending on which cross-section of us you pick, we're atheists, theists, comedians, professors, Star Trek fans, Celine Dion listeners, avid Stephen King readers, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. What's wrong with targeting any of these things with irreverent sendups? A disproportionate interest in jokes targeting any single one of these might show an unhealthy obsession, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with any of them in moderation.

If you don't let your theism, or political ideology, or taste in books define you as a person to the exclusion of other traits which you have in common with the joker (which is the real thing that allows negative attitudes to fester), I don't see any issue here. Your mileage may vary.

Please explain what an 'appropriate' venue is.

For me, that would be one which isn't inappropriate, i.e., where a joke might cause actual distress or show an appaling lack of common sense, and preferably where it would be on-topic. Arguably, this depends more on the situation than the joke.

And please explain the benefits of vicious mockery in an 'appropriate' venue. What good is achieved by it?

What "good" is achieved by any joke? Laughter; relief of high blood pressure; maintaining a healthy irreverence around undeservedly serious subjects, which helps keep them down-to-earth and open to criticism as opposed to abstract and unassailable. There are probably others. IMO, analyzing jokes by how much "good" they achieve is a wrong-headed approach in the first place, but there you go.

Goodnight for now.

[livius drusus]

I agree with Winace that nothing is above mockery and humor, especially when the humor is in the form of satire. The op has a point, I am curious as to whether you dislike the point or simply the delivery.

Eh. The OP is not even WinAce's best work, nevermind quality satire in general. The point is less than sharp and the picture isn't funny enough to rescue it from its "your god is gay. huh huh... huh huh..." foundation.

If my aim was to convince, I would have posted serious (and back-bendingly polite) argument instead of a modified picture of EuroJesus dry-humping some college students.

What was your aim? You mentioned above that this board is unlikely to be home to a large number of fundamentalists who would equate gay with evil, so who was the target audience?

From your initial response you seemed to be saying that your audience was atheists, but if you don't think they'll be offended, then what is the point of all the mockery and humor? If it's just to elicit laughs among people who are likely to find gay=evil ridiculous, then so be it - as I said before, it doesn't work for me on that level - but if it's a real satire, shouldn't it aim to hit where it hurts, instead of preaching to the (putatively) converted?

Incidentally, thank you for engaging on all points, WinAce, and thank you Helen, for starting us down this genuinely interesting avenue of discussion. :)

[beyelzu]

I agree with Winace that nothing is above mockery and humor, especially when the humor is in the form of satire. The op has a point, I am curious as to whether you dislike the point or simply the delivery.

Eh. The OP is not even WinAce's best work, nevermind quality satire in general. The point is less than sharp and the picture isn't funny enough to rescue it from its "your god is gay. huh huh... huh huh..." foundation.



Interestingly, I thought the picture kind of crossed the line, it's kind of sophomoric here is jesus getting gangbanged by some gay guys. (dont you just love alliteration?)


as you can see I didnt find the picture to be funny at all. The text, on the other hand, I did find amusing in regards to the almgamation of bravo's reality tv and the messiah.

[HelenM]

If I understand you right, you're implying that all non-Christians enjoy jokes at the expense of Christianity, including tasteless and offensive ones.

No, I wouldn't say that. (It would be interesting to see how many non-Christians don't enjoy such jokes, but I bet this largely depends on the exact form that mockery takes.) Non-Christians (generally) won't agree that blasphemy, alone, is a reliable litmus test of disagreeable jokes.

I don't think it's a reliable test of good jokes either ;)

And how many of us don't enjoy a good tasteless joke as a "guilty pleasure" from time to time?

I suppose a tasteless jokes could be so clever that it's hard not to appreciate the cleverness of it. However, I think my main response would be that it's a shame the author of it, with such evident talent, didn't use it in jokes that aren't tasteless.

As a Christian I don't enjoy jokes at the expense of atheists...

I guess our views just differ, then. You may not enjoy these jokes, but others do.

And your point is? For what it's worth, 'others do' doesn't prove to me that something is best, right or appropriate.. I don't fly planes into skyscrapers but evidently and tragically, 'others do'.

And for the most part, they can laugh at themselves as well as others.

Then...I think it would be better if they did laugh at themselves and left off the vicious mockery of others, if that is what they're doing.

(One spoof I really need to finish is about Jesus-mythicism, a view mostly atheists hold...) But the analogy doesn't really hold up; atheism has no sacred cows, so there's not a lot of humor to be had by being irreverent towards it.

I don't find irreverence funny per se. I expect there are psychological reasons why people enjoy being irreverent. I think it's because whatever they are being irreverent about pushes their buttons and this is how they respond. I think they'd be better off if they could uninstall the buttons and then get on with their lives. But...that's just my opinion. And I daresay people could say the same about me and the things that push my buttons...

I respect the view that jokes which might stir up controversy shouldn't be made.

I don't know whose view that is; I wouldn't say it's mine.

I personally consider them amoral, though, not immoral, under most conditions. And they can be great in a way regular jokes miss out on, so bring on the Dishonest Dubya Action Figures (http://www.kaicurryservices.com/peacecandy/gwbush/dishonestdubya/)! :D

As far as "treating the objects of the humor as people," this spoof touches less on that than any "priest/rabbi/X in a bar" joke. No people are even mentioned, aside from a religious figure who's an abstract icon in this day and age.

I think of the people who are 'objects of the humor' as the ones who the joke would offend, not the ones named in it.

But anyway, I can't believe you would write that Jesus is just an abstract icon in this day and age. I think you know Christians believe Jesus is much more than an abstract icon.

It might be lowbrow (not to mention ridiculous) to picture Jesus that way, but I don't see anything wrong with it, "Mohammed's Top Ten Favorite Pork Recipes" or whatever other equivalent you could name.

Evidently.

Please explain what an 'appropriate' venue is.

For me, that would be one which isn't inappropriate, i.e., where a joke might cause actual distress or show an appaling lack of common sense, and preferably where it would be on-topic. Arguably, this depends more on the situation than the joke.

I think it depends on the joke, too.

And please explain the benefits of vicious mockery in an 'appropriate' venue. What good is achieved by it?

What "good" is achieved by any joke? Laughter; relief of high blood pressure; maintaining a healthy irreverence around undeservedly serious subjects, which helps keep them down-to-earth and open to criticism as opposed to abstract and unassailable. There are probably others. IMO, analyzing jokes by how much "good" they achieve is a wrong-headed approach in the first place, but there you go.

I wasn't asking about jokes, but about vicious mockery. I like humor which is victimless.

Helen

[beyelzu]

As far as "treating the objects of the humor as people," this spoof touches less on that than any "priest/rabbi/X in a bar" joke. No people are even mentioned, aside from a religious figure who's an abstract icon in this day and age.

I think of the people who are 'objects of the humor' as the ones who the joke would offend, not the ones named in it.

But anyway, I can't believe you would write that Jesus is just an abstract icon in this day and age. I think you know Christians believe Jesus is much more than an abstract icon.
If the object of humor is jesus then he can either take care of himself being omnipotent or he doesnt exist so cant be offended.

If the object of humor is anyone who might be offended then I doubt that there is such a thing as an irreverent victimless joke.

[Ronin]

Ronin, the above spoof pokes fun at:


Jesus.
Failed Messianic predictions.
Homosexual stereotypes.
Frivolous reality TV shows.
Short attention spans.
Sleazy producers.

No shit.

It also is fucking stupid (imho) and primarily is noted for using the commonly known benefactor and symbol of positive hope for another group (theists, in this case).

That you are known for such a fixation speaks more about you, in my opinion, that that of any theist (fundamentalist or liberal).

Note how it wasn't posted at 1) Christian boards; 2) bi/gay groups; 3) Queer Eye fan websites; or even 4) Hollywood bigwig forums.

So what?

How many boxes do you think humans live within?

It was posted at a "Freethought" forum and, as I have already said...your offering displays little to none of that.

But that's neither here nor there. You know as well as I do that a certain variety of jokes exist that explicitly target "sacred cows," and can provoke strong reactions.

And now you have a strong negative reaction from an atheist.

Will this profoundly change your fetish? I don't think it will.

You're already backtracking from your claim of "anti-theism," I see (hard to pull that off in a spoof that doesn't even mention God, rather, one famous religious figure from a theistic religion).

Horseshit. I even made my views more specific at your own request.

What a lame-ass excuse that is...especially when everyone can look at the "spoof" and discern the anti-theistic portrayal...even without a knowledge of your own vast history of anti-theistic crap.

The truth is that there's no consistent "Christianity" to be offended.

Bullshit. There is even an atheist's offense at your showing simply because it refutes the goal of freethought and more promotes to ridicule the worldview of others.

Fundamentalists certainly would be; I'm not sure how many would be reading a "Freethought" board to get offended at, though. Nor do I care, since lots of them take offense at the live action Scooby Doo movies. The theists here will be overwhelmingly liberal, and (ironically) capable of taking a joke at their own expense better than you do.

The fact that I'm a strong atheist apparently continues to fucking elude your notice.

Simply put, WinAce, treat others as you would like to be treated.

That spoof was not meant to be "conducive to freethinking."

That shoots down your choice of posting it here at a "Freethought" board as an excuse then.

Neither are Bill Clinton cigar anecdotes meant to facilitate open dialogue between Democrats and Republicans. Both are made to draw cheap belly laughs at the expense of a sacred cow that will make some laugh, some groan, some call for murder and some say "I don't get it"; nothing more, nothing less.

I sure wouldn't know that by your history.

Maybe you should just try some new material and go for offending blacks, hispanics or tribal natives and see what kind of responses you get.

If my aim was to convince, I would have posted serious (and back-bendingly polite) argument instead of a modified picture of EuroJesus dry-humping some college students. And if you aim to convince, as opposed to mock, go for some ironic flourish, or generally be a prick for the heck of it alone (all of which are every bit your prerogative with the current rules), you'd best abandon the insults. Different means for different ends; which one are you aiming for?

The one that gets you to admit that your sacred cows are such and unassailable, while the sacred cows of others are free game for viscious mockery to you.

As you polish the fake halo you've stapled to your head, you might just want to consider what is held dear by any human (theist or atheist).

You'll need alot more practice to offend someone who's been reading zany boards for years, and collecting posts which put the Nazis to shame, but if it helps you sleep at night, what the hey.

You are what you eat, WinAce.

You also inaccurately spun what I wrote. My post said "I reject the notion that 'what matters deeply to people' is immune from mockery, even quite vicious mockery, in appropriate venues." How you got "being offensive simply doesn't matter to you" is anybody's guess. Too much knee-jerk reaction spoils the broth of reading comprehension, you know.

Weak argument.

The connection is obvious.

[HelenM]

I don't think this board is the appropriate venue and I, personally, need no admin to tell me otherwise. Once I get the notion that some consider it appropriate for such bullshit then I'll just split. No harm, no foul.

A principle of this board is to allow freedom of expression as far as possible and along with LadyShea I respect WinAce's freedom of expression. I would be bothered if he were allowed to post what he did and I weren't allowed to express my view [I think I got those 'were's right but they sure look odd]. Or if I were but there had been a fairly unified group-think response along the lines of "Of course making fun of Jesus is funny - duh!!!"

I think the way this thread is going illustrates that the participants here who've commented in it are freethinkers with differing views about the OP and what I really appreciate is that we've each been able to express our views here without the thread degenerating into nothing but insults. (So far, anyway ;))

Helen

[HelenM]

As far as "treating the objects of the humor as people," this spoof touches less on that than any "priest/rabbi/X in a bar" joke. No people are even mentioned, aside from a religious figure who's an abstract icon in this day and age.

I think of the people who are 'objects of the humor' as the ones who the joke would offend, not the ones named in it.

But anyway, I can't believe you would write that Jesus is just an abstract icon in this day and age. I think you know Christians believe Jesus is much more than an abstract icon.
If the object of humor is jesus then he can either take care of himself being omnipotent or he doesnt exist so cant be offended.

Jesus is named but I would say the object is Christians.

I agree with what you say about Jesus; what I have posted in this thread is not about Jesus. Except my incredulity that WinAce would call Jesus an abstract icon, when surely he must have read otherwise in Christian posts countless times.

If the object of humor is anyone who might be offended then I doubt that there is such a thing as an irreverent victimless joke.

As I wrote earlier, teasing people about things can be done gently or viciously. When I said victimless I suppose I really mean, no seriously hurt victims. Sometimes a bruised ego can be a good thing ;)

Helen

[beyelzu]

I don't think this board is the appropriate venue and I, personally, need no admin to tell me otherwise. Once I get the notion that some consider it appropriate for such bullshit then I'll just split. No harm, no foul.

A principle of this board is to allow freedom of expression as far as possible and along with LadyShea I respect WinAce's freedom of expression. I would be bothered if he were allowed to post what he did and I weren't allowed to express my view [I think I got those 'were's right but they sure look odd]. Or if I were but there had been a fairly unified group-think response along the lines of "Of course making fun of Jesus is funny - duh!!!"

I think the way this thread is going illustrates that the participants here who've commented in it are freethinkers with differing views about the OP and what I really appreciate is that we've each been able to express our views here without the thread degenerating into nothing but insults. (So far, anyway ;))

Helen


If he would have been allowed to or was allowed to do whatever and I had not been able to or was not allowed to .

and no livius, just because I know proper grammar doesnt mean that I intend to engage in it.

[beyelzu]

As I wrote earlier, teasing people about things can be done gently or viciously. When I said victimless I suppose I really mean, no seriously hurt victims. Sometimes a bruised ego can be a good thing ;)

Helen
How would you have felt about the op if the picture hadnt been included?

[HelenM]

If he would have been allowed to

Good point.

or was allowed

Should be were, imo.

to do whatever and I had not been able to or was not allowed to .

See above two comments.

and no livius, just because I know proper grammar doesnt mean that I intend to engage in it.

Rather an apropos comment in a thread about sacred cows :giggle:

(I've been dying to use that smily)

Helen

[HelenM]

As I wrote earlier, teasing people about things can be done gently or viciously. When I said victimless I suppose I really mean, no seriously hurt victims. Sometimes a bruised ego can be a good thing ;)

Helen
How would you have felt about the op if the picture hadnt been included?

[Pause while I go read it again and consider this question]

I would say, about the same; it would have taken me a little longer to get there though. Because a picture has a quicker impact than paragraphs.

As well as making fun of Christian belief it rather stereotypes gay men. Does no-one find it a little insulting in that regard (I'm not just asking gay men, but anyone who thinks gay men are demeaningly stereotyped)?

Helen

[beyelzu]

If he would have been allowed to

Good point.

or was allowed

Should be were, imo.

to do whatever and I had not been able to or was not allowed to .

See above two comments.

and no livius, just because I know proper grammar doesnt mean that I intend to engage in it.

Rather an apropos comment in a thread about sacred cows :giggle:

(I've been dying to use that smily)

Helen


sorry but I think you are wrong here

were Audio pronunciation of "were" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûr)
v.

1. Second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative of be.
2. Past subjunctive of be. See Usage Note at if. See Usage Note at wish.
from dictionary.com

I think you need an if or wish to use were for a singular first or third person.

[beyelzu]

As I wrote earlier, teasing people about things can be done gently or viciously. When I said victimless I suppose I really mean, no seriously hurt victims. Sometimes a bruised ego can be a good thing ;)

Helen
How would you have felt about the op if the picture hadnt been included?

[Pause while I go read it again and consider this question]

I would say, about the same; it would have taken me a little longer to get there though. Because a picture has a quicker impact than paragraphs.

As well as making fun of Christian belief it rather stereotypes gay men. Does no-one find it a little insulting in that regard (I'm not just asking gay men, but anyone who thinks gay men are demeaningly stereotyped)?

Helen


not really, I didnt like the picture but I really thought the op was aimed at an almagamation of queer eye and jesus. I thought it was more of a slap at bravo then gay men.

[HelenM]

sorry but I think you are wrong here

were Audio pronunciation of "were" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûr)
v.

1. Second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative of be.
2. Past subjunctive of be. See Usage Note at if. See Usage Note at wish.
from dictionary.com

I think you need an if or wish to use were for a singular first or third person.

But there is an 'if', before the 'and'. So I think it is the past subjunctive.

Helen

[beyelzu]

sorry but I think you are wrong here

were Audio pronunciation of "were" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûr)
v.

1. Second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative of be.
2. Past subjunctive of be. See Usage Note at if. See Usage Note at wish.
from dictionary.com

I think you need an if or wish to use were for a singular first or third person.

But there is an 'if', before the 'and'. So I think it is the past subjunctive.

Helen


and if I had any reading comprehension skills whatsoever I would have noticed.

oops

[HelenM]

and if I had any reading comprehension skills whatsoever I would have noticed.

oops

not a problem :)

Helen

[HelenM]

Incidentally, thank you for engaging on all points, WinAce, and thank you Helen, for starting us down this genuinely interesting avenue of discussion. :)

You're welcome. I'm glad this is a place where this sort of discussion can happen. Thank you (you and vm) for making it possible!

Helen

[livius drusus]

as you can see I didnt find the picture to be funny at all. The text, on the other hand, I did find amusing in regards to the almgamation of bravo's reality tv and the messiah.

I know you thought the pic was less than palatable. It was kind of an assumption in the way I phrased my comment, but clearly I didn't make myself clear. That's what I get for posting when I wake up in the middle of night.

As for your proud eschewal of the grammar, all I can say is that I much enjoyed that spanking Helen gave you. :beaugest:

[HelenM]

I much enjoyed that spanking Helen gave you. :beaugest:

:giggle:

[LadyShea]

As well as making fun of Christian belief it rather stereotypes gay men. Does no-one find it a little insulting in that regard (I'm not just asking gay men, but anyone who thinks gay men are demeaningly stereotyped)?

Helen

Well, I have had a number of gay male friends, and all of them have used the stereotype for humorous purposes....especially those who fit the stereotype to whatever extent. Those that don't fit the flamboyant stereotype aren't offended and those that do just seem to play it up and have fun with it. In fact, it was a bit difficult for me to get used to and understand. Of course I can't speak for gay men, just relate my experience.

[viscousmemories]

As well as making fun of Christian belief it rather stereotypes gay men. Does no-one find it a little insulting in that regard (I'm not just asking gay men, but anyone who thinks gay men are demeaningly stereotyped)?

Helen

Well, I have had a number of gay male friends, and all of them have used the stereotype for humorous purposes....especially those who fit the stereotype to whatever extent. Those that don't fit the flamboyant stereotype aren't offended and those that do just seem to play it up and have fun with it. In fact, it was a bit difficult for me to get used to and understand. Of course I can't speak for gay men, just relate my experience.
That has been my experience too, but I think there's a big difference between gay men making light of the stereotype and others perpetuating it. I wouldn't say I find the stereotyping of gay men as portrayed in that picture offensive, necessarily, but definitely puerile.

I missed a lot of the intended humor because I didn't even bother to read the OP. I saw the picture and assumed the intent was (as liv implied earlier) a Beavis and Butthead type attempt to ridicule Christians by portraying their God as a flaming homosexual. Now that I've gone back and read the text at Winace's behest I can see what he was trying to do, but I honestly never would've bothered to dig deep enough to see the satire if it weren't for the discussion that has evolved around it.

[beyelzu]

As well as making fun of Christian belief it rather stereotypes gay men. Does no-one find it a little insulting in that regard (I'm not just asking gay men, but anyone who thinks gay men are demeaningly stereotyped)?

Helen

Well, I have had a number of gay male friends, and all of them have used the stereotype for humorous purposes....especially those who fit the stereotype to whatever extent. Those that don't fit the flamboyant stereotype aren't offended and those that do just seem to play it up and have fun with it. In fact, it was a bit difficult for me to get used to and understand. Of course I can't speak for gay men, just relate my experience.
That has been my experience too, but I think there's a big difference between gay men making light of the stereotype and others perpetuating it. I wouldn't say I find the stereotyping of gay men as portrayed in that picture offensive, necessarily, but definitely puerile.

I missed a lot of the intended humor because I didn't even bother to read the OP. I saw the picture and assumed the intent was (as liv implied earlier) a Beavis and Butthead type attempt to ridicule Christians by portraying their God as a flaming homosexual. Now that I've gone back and read the text at Winace's behest I can see what he was trying to do, but I honestly never would've bothered to dig deep enough to see the satire if it weren't for the discussion that has evolved around it.


I think your statements bring us back to an interesting point.

I think the op would be more effective satire without the picture, because the picture is too much of an instant turn off to most people. While I might find the picture amusing in some photoshop tasteless joke thread, as a leadin to a serious piece of satire it leaves alot ot be desired.

[beyelzu]

as you can see I didnt find the picture to be funny at all. The text, on the other hand, I did find amusing in regards to the almgamation of bravo's reality tv and the messiah.

I know you thought the pic was less than palatable. It was kind of an assumption in the way I phrased my comment, but clearly I didn't make myself clear. That's what I get for posting when I wake up in the middle of night. No worries, you can probably just chalk up the misunderstanding to my lack of reading comprehension skills, note my inability to actually notice the if in Helen's post.

As for your proud eschewal of the grammar, all I can say is that I much enjoyed that spanking Helen gave you. :beaugest:

:shakefist:


:D

[Goliath]

In my opinion this is a rather mean-spirited expression of your humor and creativity. Why not use your talents in more positive ways than mocking what is sacred to some?


Helen,

When are you going to realize that there are people on this planet who don't hold your religious beliefs (or anything else, for that matter) to be sacred?

Why should Winace or I care about your beliefs?

If you don't like the OP, you can put the thread on ignore.

[livius drusus]

Have you read this thread? Helen has every right to respond to WinAce however she pleases, as does Ronin, as do I. This thread has seen some excellent discussion up until now. Your trademark hostility on matters of religion is not only thoroughly uncalled for, but is the only post on this thread I consider utterly devoid of content.

Why can't you just avoid these discussions, Goliath? You obviously have no interest whatsoever in exploring the issues in any kind of detail or you wouldn't limit yourself to asking some surly, eye-rollingly rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything.

[Goliath]

Have you read this thread?



I just finished reading all of it.

Helen has every right to respond to WinAce however she pleases, as does Ronin, as do I.


Agreed, and I never said otherwise.



Your trademark hostility on matters of religion is not only thoroughly uncalled for,


Why is it uncalled for? Because I question why we aren't allowed to attack something that Helen holds sacred?

Ah, so you and Helen can respond, but when I respond, it's uncalled for. Is that right?



Why can't you just avoid these discussions, Goliath?



Who said that I can't?



You obviously have no interest whatsoever in exploring the issues in any kind of detail or you wouldn't limit yourself to asking some surly, eye-rollingly rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything.

Wrong. The questions weren't rhetorical, otherwise I would not have asked them. Similarly, if I had no interest in discussing the issues in this thread, I would never have replied at all.

[HelenM]

In my opinion this is a rather mean-spirited expression of your humor and creativity. Why not use your talents in more positive ways than mocking what is sacred to some?


Helen,

When are you going to realize that there are people on this planet who don't hold your religious beliefs (or anything else, for that matter) to be sacred?

I realize it already. What's more, I think you probably know that I realized it already.

Why should Winace or I care about your beliefs?

I don't recall writing "You should care about my beliefs". If I did then link me to where I wrote it and ask me against why you should care about them.

If you don't like the OP, you can put the thread on ignore.

True. But I'd rather discuss it than ignore it. That's why I did.

Helen

[Goliath]

What's more, I think you probably know that I realized it already.


Not particularly, no.



I don't recall writing "You should care about my beliefs". If I did then link me to where I wrote it and ask me against why you should care about them.



Fair enough, I shouldn't have asked that question. I apologize. Let me rephrase: Why should I care about whether or not you're offended by the OP?

[livius drusus]

I just finished reading all of it.

So you just jumped right in with an assault on Helen as soon as you read her post, then?

Why is it uncalled for? Because I question why we aren't allowed to attack something that Helen holds sacred?

More rhetorical nonsense. Nobody said anything about "allowed".

Ah, so you and Helen can respond, but when I respond, it's uncalled for. Is that right?

If your response were substantive instead of purely confrontational then it would be the best fucking day of my life. But on matters of religion, I fear that day will never come.

Who said that I can't?

Okay. Why don't you, then?

Wrong. The questions weren't rhetorical, otherwise I would not have asked them.

Since neither of them had any relation whatsoever to anything Helen actually said, I don't see how they could be considered substantive. Who knows though? Maybe her equanimity and reasonableness will draw something of value out them.

Similarly, if I had no interest in discussing the issues in this thread, I would never have replied at all.

Then I await with eagerness your replies to Ronin on what is offensive or your reply to LadyShea on the nature of satire.

[HelenM]

What's more, I think you probably know that I realized it already.


Not particularly, no.

Fair enough. I thought you did but evidently I'm wrong.

Anyway, I cannot name a future date when something will happen that I think has already happened.



I don't recall writing "You should care about my beliefs". If I did then link me to where I wrote it and ask me against why you should care about them.



Fair enough, I shouldn't have asked that question. I apologize. Let me rephrase: Why should I care about whether or not you're offended by the OP?

Do you think you should care?

Incidentally, I wasn't exactly offended by the OP. Rather, it was an unwelcome reminder to me that some people (evidently) aim to offend others simply to amuse themselves. I find it discouraging seeing people be that disrespectful.

Helen

[Goliath]

So you just jumped right in with an assault on Helen as soon as you read her post, then?

Strawman, as I have yet to assault anyone in this thread.



Nobody said anything about "allowed".



Fair enough, let me rephrase: Why do you not have a problem with you, Ronin, Helen, and LadyShea responding, but have a problem with me responding to Helen?



If your response were substantive instead of purely confrontational



Why must the two conditions be mutually exclusive?



Okay. Why don't you, then?



Because I felt like discussing the matter. I wish I hadn't bothered to open my mouth. In fact, I almost wish that I had never come to this board in the first place.



Since neither of them had any relation whatsoever to anything Helen actually said,



Why is that, exactly?



Then I await with eagerness your replies to Ronin on what is offensive or your reply to LadyShea on the nature of satire.

Ah, so if I want to discuss the issues in this thread, then I must reply to all people in the thread? I don't think so.

[Goliath]

Do you think you should care?

No.

[livius drusus]

So you just jumped right in with an assault on Helen as soon as you read her post, then?

Strawman, as I have yet to assault anyone in this thread.

That is a matter of opinion. "When are you going to realize that there are people on this planet who don't hold your religious beliefs (or anything else, for that matter) to be sacred?" sounds like an assault to me, since it is not only rhetorically overblown, but also assumes facts not in evidence about a person. Have you stopped beating your wife yet is also an assault, imo, even though some might consider it just a simple question.

Fair enough, let me rephrase: Why do you not have a problem with you, Ronin, Helen, and LadyShea responding, but have a problem with me responding to Helen?

I have a problem with your response because it degrades the many issues discussed in this thread into a discussion about one person, something none of the other posts have done.


Why must the two conditions be mutually exclusive?

They don't have to be, but in my opinion they were in this case for the reason stated above.

Because I felt like discussing the matter.

I saw nothing in your post that reflected a desire to discuss the matters raised in this thread. Again, see above.

I wish I hadn't bothered to open my mouth. In fact, I almost wish that I had never come to this board in the first place.


Then you'd never have your George Foreman grill.

Why is that, exactly?

1. Helen never said that there aren't people who don't hold her religious beliefs sacred so your first question was spurious.
2. Helen never said you or WinAce should care about her beliefs so your second question was also spurious.

IOW, you were putting words in her mouth, the very thing you hate the most when you think it's being done to you.

Ah, so if I want to discuss the issues in this thread, then I must reply to all people in the thread? I don't think so.

No, but if you want to discuss the issues in this thread then you should actually address the issues in this thread. Your OP did not.

[JoeP]

Goliath, you have assaulted me. Your confrontational responses in threads like this are painful to read. I refuse to put the entire thread on ignore because I'm interested in the substantial content. I don't want to put you on ignore because I find your posts in other kinds of threads enjoyable. It's not enough to put you on ignore, anyway, because that leaves everyone else's responses to you, and they're not fun to read either.

So I repeat vm's question: Why can't you just avoid these discussions, Goliath? Meaning: please choose to avoid these discussions, because your contributions spoil the experience of the board for me (and, I claim, some others), and because they don't add value (I often do not find them substantive), and most of all because they show you in a bad light that I do not believe reflects your true nature.

joe

[Goliath]

"When are you going to realize that there are people on this planet who don't hold your religious beliefs (or anything else, for that matter) to be sacred?" sounds like an assault to me, since it is not only rhetorically overblown, but also assumes facts not in evidence about a person.


Such a statement involves no such assumptions, since "I do realize that there are people on this planet who don't hold my religious beliefs sacred" is an answer (and, if you'd notice, it was the answer that Helen gave).



I have a problem with your response because it degrades the many issues discussed in this thread into a discussion about one person, something none of the other posts have done.



But Helen made part of the discussion about herself when she stated that she didn't like the OP.



I saw nothing in your post that reflected a desire to discuss the matters raised in this thread.



That doesn't change the fact that I did want to discuss the matters raised in this thread.

What you see is not necessarily what's there.



Then you'd never have your George Foreman grill.



Yes, but I also wouldn't have been spending at least 3 out of 5 nights for the past several weeks in tears.



1. Helen never said that there aren't people who don't hold her religious beliefs sacred so your first question was spurious.



Wrong (see above).



2. Helen never said you or WinAce should care about her beliefs so your second question was also spurious.



It is not, since Helen asked me if I should care about her beliefs.



IOW, you were putting words in her mouth,



You're welcome to prove this at your convenience.



the very thing you hate the most when you think it's being done to you.



Correction: when it is done to me. And it's done to me around here all the fucking time.

[Goliath]

Goliath, you have assaulted me.

I apologize if fending off multiple interlocutors offends you, but that won't stop me from defending myself.



So I repeat vm's question: Why can't you just avoid these discussions, Goliath?



Why should I? Why should I be the one who is censored?

[seebs]

Hmm.

I am not sure whether it was offensive or not. It didn't strike me as particularly funny; I think the problem is that it ends up feeling like it's trying a little too hard, pushing a few too many buttons.

I don't really care about the poking at religion, per se; I just don't think the joke worked.

[HelenM]

2. Helen never said you or WinAce should care about her beliefs so your second question was also spurious.



It is not, since Helen asked me if I should care about her beliefs.

But I only asked that because you raised the issue. I didn't ask it before you asked me why you should care about my beliefs. I asked that question after you raised the issue, not before.

Correction: when it is done to me. And it's done to me around here all the fucking time.

I agree with liv that you by implication you put words in my mouth, because you asked me questions in a way that suggested you were responding to things I had said, when in fact you weren't.

I don't understand why you would do something to me which infuriates you when others do it to you.

And, if you aren't seeing that you did put words in my mouth, perhaps that's also true of those you accuse of putting words in your mouth. Maybe they don't see what you see.

Helen