By those who preach and pray and teach

YouTube Preview Image

“The officer has kept the receipt in his vest since then, he said, ‘to remind me that sometimes people have it worse.'”

“We are asking individuals and faith groups to call for a real jubilee – cancellation of the unjust debts of the most indebted nations, promoting just and progressive taxation, and controlling lending.”

“It was one of the most uncomfortable and enjoyable conversations I’ve had in a long time, one very much worth having, and worth leaving my comfort zone to have.”

Malala Yousufzai would be an excellent and worthy choice for Time magazine’s Person of the Year. (AP photo)

“This legislation, if passed into law, it would automatically make me a serial offender and I would be sentenced to death.”

“Though the safety risk posed by Tazreen’s substandard equipments was understood well before [the deadly] blaze, the same conditions appear to be relatively common among Bangladeshi factories.”

“If these jobs don’t pay enough to keep people out of poverty, we’re all in big trouble.”

We don’t beat them by literally beating them.”

There’s money in making stupid people mad.”

“This isn’t just cognitive dissonance. It’s irresponsible reporting.”

“It turns out that they don’t like disabled people any better than gays, blacks, Latinos, or single women in law school who use contraception.”

“If you do not know what it means to be an evangelical Christian, it basically works like this: you say a prayer, ask Jesus into your heart and then you vote Republican and start watching Fox News. A lot.”

“Essentially, this approach has been our strategy for the last 30 years. How has it worked so far?”

I also would have steered clear of politics.”

“In Hosea ‘son’ means Israel and refers to the Exodus … well, that’s not quite the same as what Matthew was on about.”

“John Paul II did not smoke, but Pope Benedict XVI reportedly does (or once did), apparently favoring Marlboros.”

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Sunday favorites
Relitigating the Golden Rule
RIP Daniel Berrigan
That rug really tied the room together
  • Baby_Raptor

    Well, I now know I don’t smoke the same brand of cigarettes as the Pope. The weirdest things can brighten a person’s day. *lights another Newport*

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Ah…they’re just covering up the fact that the Pope starts to burn when exposed to direct sunlight. 

  • P J Evans

     I wouldn’t have thought it was a big problem, given how much coverage his assorted robes provide. Add a matching veil and pair of gloves, and he could go out any time.

  • Jim Roberts

    Fred, my favourite quote from the article about the cop is:

    “Mr. Cano volunteered to give the officer his employee discount to bring down the regular $100 price of the all-weather boots to a little more than $75.”

  • Carstonio

    I would have thought that religions would deem smoking to be sinful on general principle, even before knowing about the addictive and harmful properties. Somehow the image of the Pope lighting up isn’t complete unless he’s also getting drunk on whisky, gambling away the Vatican treasury in poker and blackjack, and regularly making lewd comments about nuns’ breasts. 

  • J-

    *…and regularly making lewd comments about nuns’ breasts*

    A priest finding something to appreciate about adult women: That would actually be a refreshing change.

  • JustoneK

    Not really.

  • J-

    Y’know it might actually have been that I wasn’t being completely serious. But I apologize: Though most have heard of a joke, I understand that not everyone has had the opportunity to meet one face-to-face.

  • JustoneK

    No, I got the joke.  It’s just very, very tiring to whittle down women’s worth to their breasts, that’s all.

  • J-

    Yes, because that’s totally what I was doing.

    I’ll stop responding now, because I know that no matter what I say, you’ve already decided that yes, that’s the ONLY thing I could possibly have meant and am evil and stupid and bad and misogynist and consider women just breasts with legs.

  • JustoneK

    Don’t get ahead of me.

  • J-

    Should have added: I’ll credit this community with really being on to something that being anti-baby-killer-satanists is indeed the Fantasy Identity that many RTCs glom onto. But guess what: This is what YOU people do–you are the Righteous Gotcha’ers of Antifeminist Language. Someone says something that, if you squint and stand on your head and bury and toad at midnight, could be interpreted as antifeminist.

    And from then on in, hoo doggies, you’re like one of those vicious Australian tunnel rats who never lets go once they bite down. No apology, no amount of explanation or self-evident sarcasm is enough for you: You’ve sunk your teeth in, you’ve caught of glimpse of yourself in the Heroes of Feminism mirror, you’ve applied the label, and dammit that’s the end.

    So here, I’ll save us all some time: I’m a horrible antifeminist misogynist bastard who loves rape and was the Elevator Guy and basically live on Men’s Right’s forae and fulfill every inkling you have of bad character. There are no mitigating good qualities about me and you have not misunderstood me the tiniest bit. Everything you have ever thought is completely correct.

    There, feel the surge of endorphins coursing through you? Merry Christmas.

  • JustoneK

    Dood.  Frinkle says relax.

    Did I say any of that?

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     So, one important part of classifying the “anti-baby-killer-satanists ” as a fantasy identity is looking around and noticing that there aren’t any dead babies in evidence.

    That is, it’s not just the behavior of what we often call the Anti-Kitten-Burning Coalition that makes them suspect, it’s the behavior combined with relative nonexistence of anything resembling the thing they claim to be fighting. If there were a lot of Kitten-Burning going on, the intensity with which the AKBC fights it might be reasonable, but since there isn’t, it’s not.

    Would you agree?

    So, when you assert that this is also what we Righteous Gotcha’ers of Antifeminist Language do when we call out such language, I infer that you’re claiming something analogous… that on your account there isn’t actually any harm being done in the first place. Perhaps if there were people being harmed by such language in some way, the intensity of the RGAL might be reasonable,  but on your account there is no such harm, and therefore it’s not.

    Am I correctly characterizing your view?

  • J-

    Is there any possible answer I could give that would *not* result in you stepladdering up my ass?

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”?

  • BrokenBell

    Maybe “Sorry, I was trying to make a joke, but apparently it wasn’t appropriate. I’ll try to be more careful with my words in future”? Since you asked for suggestions. I dunno. What was actually said to you, here? A couple people were unimpressed with a joke you made, sarcasm or not. That was kind of it. Are you totally sure that warranted sweeping indictments of the community as being consumed by its own self-righteousness? Against whom was your tirade directed, exactly?

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Yes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    “…aren’t any dead babies in evidence…”
    And now you’ve got me thinking of Dead Baby Jokes.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Yeah, I considered going there but chose not to.

    Mostly, I prefer to avoid the “babykiller” metaphor here, because I’m aware that there really is a community of people who believe there’s a coalition of literal babykillers (of which I’m a proud member) that has taken over American politics. It’s rarely a good idea to use a controversial issue as a metaphor for discussing a less-controversial issue.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Someone says something that, if you squint and stand on your head and bury and toad at midnight, could be interpreted as antifeminist.

    Maybe you have to do all that work. We who have boobs as part of the factory default settings or who have installed that modification, we who are really fucking sick of being seen as nothing but the support infrastructure for our boobs (save the ta-tas! save second base!), it is really fucking obvious to us when someone says that the only relevant characteristic of adult women is that they have boobs.

    Nuns, even. Leaving aside the whole chastity deal, nuns are supposed to have, and to be known to have, something more than dust between the ears. Might be anything from a desire to enact the Church’s mission of fixing the world to a deep and abiding love for analysis of Aquinas and Augustine. (Assuming Catholic nuns, anyway. I don’t know what Buddhist nuns do all day.) Doesn’t matter what exactly it is. The point is it’s there (and, secondarily to my point, that it is religious in nature). That is the defining characteristic of nuns.
    And you still see something amusing about reducing these women to their boobs.

    Fuck off.

  • LL

    Eh, they do it to everybody.  Just ignore them. 

    I believe the technical term for them is “concern troll.”

    I mean, they have the right to their opinions, but they do get tiresome, quickly. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, ‘concern troll’ is ‘I truly support your cause, but have you considered the possibility that the other guys ought to win?’

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    There, feel the surge of endorphins coursing through you? Merry Christmas.

    And you are likewise welcome for that feeling of smug self-righteous superiority you’re feeling now

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    I’ll stop responding now…

    …and yet you didn’t…

    For those not familiar with J’s trolling tone and zero-to-screaming-douchebag conversions, let’s review the chain of events.

    J makes a joke*

    One post is made that disagrees with the joke. 

    J responds with a dry, patronizing remark intended to insult the respondant as well as anyone else who might disagree with his humor.

    Two other people chime in saying “we realize you were attempting humor, but it’s offensive”. 

    Aaand then J goes the full metal douche-bag, putting words in other people’s mouths and beating the strawmen with all his might. 8 minutes later, he’s in full frothing-at-the-mouth mode, insulting everyone who’s a regular reader, smashing through whole legions of strawmen in his quest to justify… a weak joke with a bad premise.*

    When J gets a calm, measured response to his unhinged ranting, he posts an overly defensive retort (stepladdering up your ass? If you hadn’t hung it out there, it wouldn’t be getting kicked so hard…)

    If history is a guide, we might get one more infantile outburst, and then he’ll retreat for the rest of the thread.

    *about that joke… the humor seemed to be grounded in a premise that priests don’t appreciate anything about adult women, so liking their breasts would be a step up. The problem is that the Catholic church appreciate adult women, but primarily as incubators and help-meets. (see also: contraception, abortion, and ordination) So adding a sexual component to that appreciation isn’t actually a step up at all. 

  • JustoneK

    Oh, I didn’t know he was a regular.  That does help with context.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I don’t think he is. As someone who often signs his emails -M, I think I’d have noticed a -J. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    J’s been around since Typepad.

  • stardreamer42

     If you would take even 15 seconds to THINK before posting a “joke” like that, you’d be able to figure out that it’s a bad idea. Don’t blame everyone else because you can’t be arsed to rub two brain cells together.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I can’t speak for JustoneK, of course, but I got that you were joking. I just don’t think it’s funny.

  • JustoneK

    See, I had understood that.  I also didn’t think it was funny.

    But clearly it’s because I am not educated in the ways of funny, and not a problem on his end.

  • Mark Z.

    I would have thought that religions would deem smoking to be sinful on general principle

    Why would you think this?

  • Carstonio

    Why would I expect religions to deem smoking sinful? Because for many years the habit was associated with macho rebellion, at least in the minds of many teens when they started smoking. Even today there are many adults who defend their smoking as proudly politically incorrect while complaining about laws banning it in restaurants and bars.

  • Aiwhelan

     It tends to be discouraged; in 2000, JPII declared a Jubilee year, and one of the things being promoted was an indulgence granted to anyone who quit smoking. The wording kind of put it with the 7 Deadly Sins- ie, something that isn’t so bad in and of itself, but causes harm to yourself and encourages you to greater evil.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori
  • Tricksterson

    If only.  Actually I’m willing to bet that there have been Popes who have done all of those things, especially during the Mideval and Rennaisance periods, just not where anyone could see.

  • vsm

    His Awesomeness Pope Alexander VI and some of his other Renaissance colleagues didn’t care all that much whether someone knew, actually.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Watching “The Borgias” I’m often struck that while Rodrigo is a corrupt murdering bastard, he’s often shown to be a better Pope than any of the popes of my generation (Palpatine or JPII) and better able to deal with the radicals in his coalition. (I’ve never cheered someone being burned at the stake before Savonarola) 

  • P J Evans

     well, probably not the smoking part. *g*

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I thought J was referring to the fact that a Catholic $BOSS_DUDE would actually be intrerested in adults.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    Whoa. When I see an URL with “fox-news-and-the-republican-party-are-not-your-friends” in it, I don’t expect the reason to be “because they aren’t extreme enough.”

    The bit Fred quoted is not ironic in the least. *boggles*

  • hidden_urchin

    Anyone else see that the Republicans voted down the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

    Remember, folks, a vote against a symbolic treaty on the rights of the disabled is a vote against the Anti-Christ.

  • Aeryl

    You know that cop story was cool, and it was awesome that he did, but boy did I EVER hate how it was reported. 

    The sensational way, the fact that they went and got the security footage of the cop in the store, the interviews with other customers in the store. 

    It was horrifying.  And the purpose of this glorification was to do something that Fred is always decrying, which is to push this idea that individual charity can overcome systemic problems. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I think it’s just the fact that cops are usually such fucking douchebags that one of them doing something NICE is a little shocking.

  • Jessica_R

    Today’s Team Slacktivist Heifer International Reminder, we’ve already raised 80 bucks guys! http://teamheifer.heifer.org/slacktivites

  • http://www.facebook.com/daniel.steckly Daniel L Steckly

    Both sides in this derail are stupid. J made a joke that could have been funny, but the subject material (child abuse) is just far too serious to joke about in the way he did. Then he gets attacked because apparently his assertion that Catholic priests don’t like women is sexist. The joke did not in any way reduce women to sex objects, the point of the joke is that the priests in question would be reducing the women to sex objects, and that’s (theoretically) amusing because it would actually raise the priest’s opinion of them, because they are normally only sexually attracted to children (which is why the joke isn’t funny).

    Then J reacts like a dumbass, and the whole conversation turns into a big dumb trainwreck. Then EllieMurasaki goes on a spiel because she saw somebody refer to women as having breasts.

    What I’m trying to say is, everybody shut up.

  • EllieMurasaki

    ZE. My pronoun is ZE.

    My problem is not with saying women HAVE breasts, it’s with saying that breasts are the ONLY IMPORTANT THING about people who have them, which is, guess what, EXACTLY what J said.

    Who the fuck are you, anyway? I’ve never seen your name before. And given that it’s an example of a stereotypically male wallet name (even if not necessarily your actual wallet name), I am absolutely confident in saying that starting your Slacktivist experience by mansplaining to us is not something you want to do. Little late for you, but maybe the next guy will learn from your example.

  • JustoneK

    How very dare you not laugh at the nice man’s jokes.

  • EllieMurasaki

    See? That is how one does humor right.

  • DStecks

    This is the person you’re replying to.  I’ve been a Slacktivite since Fred was about halfway through Left Behind. I’ve changed over accounts because I can’t make the comments not display my middle initial. I’ve always suspected that makes me look like a jackass, so it’s nice to have confirmation. Since you’ve asked who the fuck I am, I feel like I should state that I consider myself a feminist. We do not come from different places politically. 

    I have no idea what mental gymnastics you did to arrive at a place where J was saying that breasts are the most important thing. He said, and I quote: “A priest finding something to appreciate about adult women: That would actually be a refreshing change.” That statement simply does not say anything about the value of breasts, at all. Period. It just doesn’t. You are being willfully ignorant.

    I am not trying to say that I thought the joke was funny or in good taste, it was neither, but your response to it was categorically wrong.

  • EllieMurasaki

    So when J said a priest ogling a woman’s breasts (and by implication valuing nothing else about the woman) would be an improvement over the priest valuing nothing about the woman at all, that didn’t have anything whatsoever to do with the comparative value of breasts and the person they’re attached to?

    Somebody’s reading comprehension sucks. I’m pretty sure it isn’t mine.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NR2MMC4EJXJWJMLH6IF457XL64 Alex B

    Nope, it’s yours. The joke has nothing to do with “the comparative value of breasts and the person they’re attached to”, it’s “the comparative value of sexual attraction to adult women versus sexual attraction to children” to pretend otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse.

  • DStecks

    It didn’t. You are creating subtext where none exists. It was a simple “something is better than nothing” snark which you are imbuing with meaning because you saw the word breasts.

  • JustoneK

    Wellp, there we have it.  What I interpreted is clearly not what was meant, so I must be totally wrong.

    Glad this was explained to me in such a nice, not at all condescending fashion.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, this whole conversation feels very much like several people telling me no one is anywhere near my toes while they all do their level best to fracture my metatarsals.

  • GDwarf

     

    Somebody’s reading comprehension sucks. I’m pretty sure it isn’t mine.

    Words I never thought I’d say, but I’ve gotta side with J on this one.

    His joke was a bit tasteless, but it didn’t say outright nor imply (to me, anyways) any of the things you’re accusing it of.

    I know, I know, “Intent not magic”, etc. etc. But at some point we have to be able to say “This isn’t what the person meant to say” and have that count for something. Otherwise, to take the slippery slope, “I like pie” can be read to mean “Death to women!”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NR2MMC4EJXJWJMLH6IF457XL64 Alex B

    No. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. That’s not what J said at all, much less “exactly what J said”. Exactly what J said: “A priest finding something to appreciate about adult women: That would actually be a refreshing change.”

    That “something” was breasts, but the joke is not “women = breasts” but “priests = pedophiles”, which, as pretty much everyone agrees, isn’t really very funny.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I wouldn’t expect people outside the QUILTBAG community to be familiar with ‘ZE’.

    I’m not familiar with ‘wallet name’ myself. Was I supposed to name my wallet? It’s sad, lonely, and empty, so maybe a nice name will cheer it up. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, wasn’t actually expecting anyone to have known that (all else aside, this is a new thing for me), and I should have delivered that line much more calmly.

    Google ‘nymwars’. There’s a lot of people who prefer a firm line of separation between online and offline identities (where ‘prefer’ in some cases means ‘if the distinction gets blurred, they’re in danger of losing their job, their living situation, and/or their life’), and an overlapping lot of people for whom their online name is their real name even if they do have to use their legal name for things like driver’s license and credit cards and other things that go in the wallet. Hence, ‘wallet name’.

  • Kirala

     “Wallet name.” I like that. I quite like my wallet name, I’m happy with the identity, associations, and connections it conveys, and would be content to frame my identity around it only; nevertheless, I still feel odd calling it my “real” name when Kirala is my real name in this milieu. Just like Ms. [Lastname] is my real name at the school where I work, and [Firstname] is my real name with friends and family. And these are some of the reasons why businesses with no right to nor need for my personal info are left with the impression that my name is Robin Goodfellow and that I live at the White House.

    I’m sorry, Pandora, but I’m not shopping at Potomac Mills any time soon. It’s not exactly within my everyday travel radius.

  • EllieMurasaki

    And these are some of the reasons why businesses with no right to nor need for my personal info are left with the impression that my name is Robin Goodfellow and that I live at the White House.

    I like that. I might steal it.

  • Nicanthiel

    Me too! And, in response to yourself, thanks for the introduction to “wallet name”, which is very very much my own situation (to the point that I often hesitate when meeting someone new and they ask my name, trying to remember which one I should use given the social context… lol)

  • Madhabmatics

     I called a friend of mine by his internet name for like a month after he moved in with me, I am terrible at adapting names.

  • Nicanthiel

    Hell, I’ve got a (non-bio/non-adopted) sister that I’ve known mostly online for years, and I still have the annoying tendency to refer to her by her original internet nickname rather than her currently chosen one (that has been current for at least 2 years. My brain just can’t parse very quickly all the time.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Hm. I actually followed that. Goldfish memory, I guess. Anyway, I’m happy to see Pagan folkies First Aid Kit up there: I suggest everyone check ’em out. “Lion’s Roar” is great, but I prefer “Wolf” – the video for the latter is a very neat mash-up of spooky ghost girls, the Blair Witch Project, and the Wicker Man. 

  • Jessica_R

    I’m still waiting for the second coming of Ken Russell who will make the movie about the Borgia Pope who held *nude prostitute races* in the *Vatican*. History is a delightful answer to the religious types who sigh that everything was better and proper in the good old days. 

  • ReverendRef

    So . . . detracting from the joke thread . . .

    “This legislation, if passed into law, it would automatically make me a serial offender and I would be sentenced to death.”

    On another site I follow this issue is a huge deal.  The Anglican church in Uganda sent a letter of some kind to the governing body in favor of this legislation stating that “it would be a nice Christmas gift for the people of Uganda.”

    I can think of lots of gifts to give at Christmas, this is not one of them.

    The schism that we here in Anglican-land are experiencing really revolves around human rights; as in, the Episcopal Church is trying to include all people, the conservatives in the family want to restrict not only who can be part of the church but, apparently, who is even human.  I know unity’s supposed to be a big thing in Christianity, but I’m more inclined to say, “It’s been nice knowing you.  Let’s talk again when you get around to loving your neighbor and respecting the dignity of all human beings.”

    Oh, and Baby_Raptor:  I now know I don’t smoke the same brand of cigarettes as the Pope.  I just had this image of Pope Benedict making like Mick Jagger singing “Satisfaction.” 

  • JustoneK

    That has a lot of potential as a music video.  How much footage of the Pope do we have?

  • EllieMurasaki

    The thing that really worries me? The people who are pushing for the gay ban in Uganda are the same people who push for gay marriage bans in the US. Which tells me that they’d be pushing for a gay ban in the US if they thought they could get away with it. Yes, I know, prioritizing my hypothetical future suffering over actual people’s current actual suffering is bad (though what I can do about the Uganda gay ban that I haven’t already done, I don’t know), but.

  • ReverendRef

     The thing that really worries me? The people who are pushing for the gay
    ban in Uganda are the same people who push for gay marriage bans in the
    US. Which tells me that they’d be pushing for a gay ban in the US if
    they thought they could get away with it.

    You would be correct.  A lot of the anti-gay legislation in Nigeria, Uganda, et al had is push from anti-gay church legislation that originated and was ghost written in the U.S. by former Episcopal priests/bishops who jumped ship to the more “orthodox” churches of Nigeria and Uganda.  There was a fair amount of tracking of this thing on a few other sites I follow.  In particular, one Jim Naughton did a piece on how money flowed from conservative supporters to groups intent on “bringing the church back from liberal decline and heresy” (my words).

    Should you care to read it, it’s here:  http://www.canticlecommunications.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/following_the_money.pdf

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     I’ve heard some reports which also suggest that there is a very tight correlation between renewed pushes for this “anti-homosexuality bill” and anyone suggesting that they might want to reduce some of the powers granted to the Ugandan Oil minister.

  • http://loosviews.livejournal.com BringTheNoise

    Talking of US supporters of this murdererous piece of shit bill: The Liar Tony Perkins apparently wants to downgrade to The Murderer Tony Perkins – http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2012/11/28/uganda-has-tony-perkins-support

    A piece of advice to Tony from one Christian to another: If you are endorsing murder in the name of Jesus, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG. COMPLETELY WRONG. TOTALLY WRONG. AS WRONG AS YOU CAN GET.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > The schism that we here in Anglican-land are experiencing really revolves around human rights

    Word.

    I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw a while back that read “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You … The Anglican Communion Not So Much!” I was giggling for days.

  • ReverendRef

     I remember that . . . still makes me laugh.

    We have a breakaway “Anglican” church here in town.  I found out recently that the parents of one of my (adult) parishioners attends there.  Said parishioner called it “Our Lady of Perpetual Bigotry.”

  • Fusina

     My mother attends one of the breakaway ex-Episcopalian churches, and I was married in another one of them. The priest who married me is currently a bishop with the Ugandan bunch.

    This depresses me a lot, and doesn’t help the clinical depression I already have.

    On another front, just found out a guy I was friends with in high school (and still am friends with) is now out of the closet. I think I must have known something was off, because it made perfect sense–like a picture that is suddenly in focus, if you see what I mean, and not just because he was happier than I’ve ever seen him before.

  • Tricksterson

    Now I want to see those Gregorian chant monks do a cover of “Satisfation”.  Or maybe the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

  • Jessica_R

    And in today’s (or really one of today’s) they will know we are Christians by our unrepentant douchebaggery… http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/12/lincoln_road_seashell_menorah.php

  • Madhabmatics

    Yo let’s not forget that dude’s hilarious meltdown and claims of horrid persecution came from two people literally just saying “Yeah that’s not very funny”

    is that really an appropriate response to “yeah dude your joke sucks”

  • Madhabmatics

    people tell me my jokes suck sometimes and in response I just tell better jokes

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Well, except that technically, J didn’t actually tell a joke. He made a nasty, insensitive, inappropriate comment because he wanted to make a cheap dig at the church. When he was called on it, he pretended that it was a joke so he could get self-righteous about all oversensitive folks not being able to take a joke.

    It wasn’t just not funny, it wasn’t a joke.  (And “The Room” wasn’t a comedy)

  • Madhabmatics

    like what do you do with a space man?

    you park in it, man!!

  • JustoneK

    Ungh that’s terrible and I am stealing it to use on others.  Yer a bad influence.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You’re confusing ‘sucky joke’ (example: your pun) with ‘not actually a joke even if the speaker says it’s supposed to be’ (example: J’s wisecrack).

  • Madhabmatics

    that was an exquisite burn against my pun

  • AnonymousSam

    Criticizing it as a bad joke against the church is one thing. Much of the criticism was about how the joke was misogynistic. I can see the former, but not the latter.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    TBH, I think of myself with my “wallet name”, so to that extent my real name and wallet name are the same. Handles and pseudonyms I use on online fora are a part of my identity, but I don’t go so far as to call such names my actual honest to god names. (so don’t call me “Neutrino” IRL, just use the name I use when I introduce myself :P )

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which is perfectly normal and nothing wrong with it and in fact the usual state of affairs. It’s just that it is also perfectly normal, if less common, for the online name to be the real one, and distressingly common for there to be some degree of risk associated with people who know one’s wallet-name persona to connect that with one’s online-name persona. So as long as everybody remembers that ‘real name’ is not always synonymous with ‘wallet name’, we’re all good.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    1. The Catholic position on smoking is that it is not morally great to knowingly do things that are bad for your health. The catechism says that you should take reasonable care of your health, taking into account the needs of others and the common good. The moral weight of smoking would be mitigated to some extent if you became addicted before knowing how bad it was, or had an especially hard time quitting. On the other hand, the moral weight would be exacerbated if you harmed other people as well as yourself. Subjecting others to second hand smoke now that we know how harmful that is–sinful.

    [Incidently, the catechism also makes the following point:

    Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.]

    2. J was saying that all Catholic priests are paedophiles. I imagine he thinks that’s funny and/or clever, just like he appears to think it is clever to say that all religious people are stupid.

  • Carstonio

    My expectation that religious would oppose smoking has nothing to do with the harm and everything to do with smoking’s social and cultural associations. One  grocery store near my home sells cigarettes, liquor and lottery tickets at a separate counter. If they added a rack of NSFW reading material, they could call the counter One-Stop Vice.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Oh. Nah, it’s not that, not for Catholicism anyway. There are still Catholic-dominant countries where smoking is quite socially acceptable, especially for working class men. But the teaching explicitly refers to the known damage that smoking does to health. If you’re going to have a strong pro-life theology you kind of have to be against things that are incredibly damaging to life, don’t you?

    My grandmother was SDA and they don’t smoke or drink, and have a strong focus on the moral value of doing whatever you can to promote health. Can’t speak for other religions than those two, though.

  • EllieMurasaki

    [Incidently, the catechism also makes the following point:
    Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.]

    Which clearly explains why the US Catholic Church hierarchy is so vehemently opposed to measures that would make an unexpected-and-wanted-but-unaffordable pregnancy result in a baby not growing up in poverty instead of a poverty-stricken little family or an abortion to avoid being a poverty-stricken little family.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    That is clearly explained by the qualifier “US” at the beginning of “US Catholic Church hierarchy”. American bishops being unable to follow their own catechism doesn’t make the content of the catechism disappear. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    I know, I know, it’s just.

    Hypocrisy in people in power really should no longer surprise me.

  • AnonaMiss

    I did find J’s joke a little misogynistic, because to me the implication was that instead of sexually harrassing/abusing minors, priests should be sexually harrassing/abusing adult women. It didn’t faze me personally, but I stand with/behind those who found it offensive.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Having seen “The Magdelene Diaries”, it’s really not any better when the priests harass teenage/young adult women.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SA4B4QAYJUC3VHHKJ677K2XFSM Anne

    Oh, for God’s sake.  There are people here who need to to hear the words “pot”, “kettle”, and “black”.  

    We’re seeing a micro-example of how the description for “politically correct” changed from “not being an asshole” into “being an asshole while telling other people how to act.”

    I’m not saying that no one is ever rude, but can we all just deal with the planks in our own eyes?  

    And if we find certain people so rude that we can’t resist the impulse to respond, can we at least do so while using an interpretation of their actions that assumes good intentions rather than bad ones?  Maybe with a friendly reminder that, “while we’re all sure that no offense was intended, nevertheless other, less charitable people might find a way to take offense”?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Google “intent is not fucking magic”.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SA4B4QAYJUC3VHHKJ677K2XFSM Anne

    EllieMurasaki, you misunderstand me.  I’m not saying that people have no right to be offended just because the intent was not to offend.  I’m saying that if you find yourself offended to the point where you are compelled to correct the person who offended you, then the words of your complaint contain the assumption of no intent to offend. Rather than backing the other person into a corner with pure condemnation, you might want to give them room to back away from the behavior you find so offensive.

    Do you want the other person to stop doing what offends you?  Or do you just want a chance to condemn someone?

    Of course, being gracious in your complaint then requires the other person to be just as gracious – some form of either “I see now that of course my clumsy words were sure to offend someone and you are more than charitable not to be more angry” or “I politely disagree that there was offense in what I said, but since you are being so polite I’ll respect your right to your opinion.”

    This is how grown-ups act.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    So, now I’m really curious: is “This is how grown-ups act” an example, on your view, of a graciously worded complaint that encourages the other person to change their behavior? Or is it an example of condemnation for the sake of condemnation? 

    For my own part, I prefer to approach people’s bad acts with an eye towards encouraging change rather than condemnation. That said, I also acknowledge that there is social value to public condemnation of bad acts, and if other people prefer to approach bad acts that way they are contributing something of value to the community. And sometimes I do it myself.

  • EllieMurasaki

    So I should be gracious and generous and extremely careful never to do the slightest damage to the tender feelings of the people who are hurting me, every single time someone hurts me, and never ever ever let any individual instance or the cumulative effect get to me in any way visible to anyone who’s hurting me?

    Google ‘microaggression’, too.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SA4B4QAYJUC3VHHKJ677K2XFSM Anne

    I never said that YOU should be gracious and generous  – I said that your words should be if you want to change someone’s behavior.  Otherwise you’re just engaging in condemnation, which might feel good but doesn’t solve the problem.  (It also requires that you be 100% in the right – has any of us ever been so?)

    I also never said that the people hurting you have “tender” feelings” – in fact, in wording it that way, you are doing the opposite of what I suggest by putting the worst interpretation on my comment.

    And I know I’m slightly misstating what you just said, but as to whether you should try to control yourself and not allow previous slights dealt to you by other people influence your response to a single individual… well, yes.  That single individual is not responsible for the harm done by others.

    If you can’t help but overreact with undue anger because the sheer weight of those previous slights is such that not to let it influence your behavior is impossible, then no one could accuse you of doing it just for the chance to condemn someone – that’s entirely forgivable behavior.  Not acceptable, but forgivable.  

    Life isn’t fair.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Supposing for a minute that you’re right that being gracious and generous towards the perpetrators of offensive behavior is always more likely to change that behavior for the better than blowing one’s top at them is.
    (You’re wrong. Sometimes gracious and generous works, sometimes blowing one’s top works, sometimes the approach doesn’t matter because the desired effect isn’t going to happen. And gracious and generous is quieter and thus easier to ignore than blowing one’s top, which means any effort to get someone who’s blowing their top to try gracious and generous instead is an effort to get that someone to shut up and go away, however the effort may be intended. Google ‘tone argument’.)

    I am not perfect. I cannot consistently respond to provocation by refusing to be provoked.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SA4B4QAYJUC3VHHKJ677K2XFSM Anne

    No one said you were perfect or that you had to be.  But just because you are not required to be perfect doesn’t absolve you from having done wrong in any particular given situation.  If you think using the “blow one’s top” method as your first response to a particular person (not your first response in your own history, but your first response to a particular person) — if you think that this is an acceptable response, then I repeat my implication that this is not the behavior of an adult.

    If you think that due to prior offenses by other people it is an understandable and forgivable response (as I think you are implying), then we are in agreement.  Except, forgivable implies that you are at least partly in the wrong and owe someone an apology, or at least some effort to tone it down or let it go.

    I am not asking you to shut up and go away.  I was complaining that certain people were overreacting and indulging in emotional self-justification rather than conversation.

    Finally, I should point out that for someone complaining about suffering from constant slights and insults, your constant instruction to me to Google various things that I am presumably too ignorant to know already is a little hypocritical.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You’re sure as hell not acting as though you already know the things I have told you to Google. Now go actually Google ‘microaggression’ and ‘tone argument’.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SA4B4QAYJUC3VHHKJ677K2XFSM Anne

    Edit: Nevermind.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The debut album for Firewater?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Also, though I’m not convinced you actually care, a recap of how this discussion began:

    J:

    *…and regularly making lewd comments about nuns’ breasts*

    A priest finding something to appreciate about adult women: That would actually be a refreshing change.

    JustoneK:

    Not really.

    J:

    Y’know it might actually have been that I wasn’t being completely serious. But I apologize: Though most have heard of a joke, I understand that not everyone has had the opportunity to meet one face-to-face.
    EllieMurasaki:

    I can’t speak for JustoneK, of course, but I got that you were joking. I just don’t think it’s funny.

    JustoneK, simultaneously:

    No, I got the joke. It’s just very, very tiring to whittle down women’s worth to their breasts, that’s all.

    J:

    Yes, because that’s totally what I was doing.

    I’ll stop responding now, because I know that no matter what I say, you’ve already decided that yes, that’s the ONLY thing I could possibly have meant and am evil and stupid and bad and misogynist and consider women just breasts with legs.

    J’s next comment was in the same vein only even more nasty and point-missy, and that is the comment for which I felt the only useful response was yelling.

    So aside from all the usual reasons why tone arguments are bad? I tried your way first. It didn’t work.

  • Madhabmatics

    Yo her first post was

    “I can’t speak for JustoneK, of course, but I got that you were joking. I just don’t think it’s funny.”

    (That’s the entire post!)

    If you are going to complain about people “not acting like grown-ups” because they used the “blow one’s top method” you should first stop by reading J’s response where he freaks out about how the ~feminists~ are going to accusing him of being a ~rapist~

    that was literally his response to “I just don’t think it’s funny.”

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yo her first post was

    ‘Zir’ for me, please.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I’ll try to keep that in mind when I refer to you, you are rather eloquent. Just please don’t get upset if I flub it, don’t know many people who prefer “zir, zer, zis”.
    For the record, I’ve also heard of “jher, jhis, jhe”.

  • EllieMurasaki

    There’s a whole bunch of gender-neutral third-person singular English pronouns. Mine are ze, zir, zirs, actually. And it won’t bother me if you get it wrong at first. I’m trying to get used to the idea myself.

  • British Girl

    My ha’penny worth on the subject, I read J’s original comment not as a slur on women, rather as taking the mick out of the stereotype of a smoking, gambling, drinking, womaniser. (And yeah, I found it funny. Not riproaring comedy gold, but it made me chuckle) My mental image came up with the endearing image of the pope in a smoky gambling den best seen on the set of Paint your Wagon. Noticed a slight dig at catholic priests on the side on a second reading to see what had got peoples knickers in a twist.

    I have read and generally agree with the principle of intent isn’t magic. But it isn’t meant to be used as Occam’s Razor, pulled out at anything and everything. And if it is pulled out every time as if it was the be all and end all of debate, then quite frankly it gets shrill and wearing. Yes someone can be honestly mistaken about use of words (the list of which seems to get longer and longer everytime I come across the intent isn’t magic phrase), No this doesn’t negate any hurt or offence caused by said words. But the fact that the speaker did not know that such words were verboten does not indicate that they are a nasty nasty person out to deliberately disturb the wider population with their ill chosen words. Intent isn’t magic, but it should count for something.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oddly enough, the only person who has accused J of being misogynist (as distinct from ‘saying a misogynist thing’) on the basis of his original comment is J.

  • AnonymousSam

    He may have been the first person to say so, but am I mistaken in interpreting your earlier remarks as an attack of the same nature?

    My problem is not with saying women HAVE breasts, it’s with saying that breasts are the ONLY IMPORTANT THING about people who have them, which is, guess what, EXACTLY what J said.

    I’m usually solidly behind you when smacking down a misogynistic use of scripture or whatnot is the subject, but the above really does not appear accurate to me.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, you are mistaken.

  • AnonymousSam

    Then saying that he thinks the only important thing about women is that they have breasts is not an accusation of misogyny? Um. That would make me very, very confused.

  • EllieMurasaki

    There is a difference–subtle but very fucking important–between “you are a misogynist” and “you are saying/doing a misogynist thing”.

  • AnonymousSam

    Regardless, I saw his post as neither. The entire subtext of “male ogling female breasts” was from the post previous to it; rewritten to remove the pedophilia aspect, J’s post is simply a crack at how many priests seem to view women as loathsome baby vessels and to discover one rising from “hateful misogyny” to “sexist misogyny” would be a refreshing change (if not an improvement, sadly enough).

    Given how often priests have nothing but disparaging remarks about women for wanting to have a say in what they do with their bodies, I actually found his post amusing, albeit less so once I re-read it and saw that it specified adult women (because let’s face it, no matter how many times it crops up in the news, pedophilia jokes about priests are never particularly tasteful). It was a joke at the expense of priests, not women, unless acknowledging women as the victims of church misogyny is somehow misogynistic toward women.

    I’m trying to understand this, but I really don’t.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You seem to be under the impression that it’s impossible to acknowledge one aspect of misogyny while perpetrating another.

  • AnonymousSam

    More specifically, I’m at a loss as to how misogyny entered the joke at all, at least specific to J’s addendum to it. Please understand, I’m simply not following the trail of logic at all. I feel like there’s a second half to the post in question that isn’t being displayed. The “that’s EXACTLY what he said” doesn’t follow when he didn’t say anything of the sort.

  • EllieMurasaki

    To quote the offending comment in full:

    *…and regularly making lewd comments about nuns’ breasts*

    A priest finding something to appreciate about adult women: That would actually be a refreshing change.

    In what possible way can I read J’s comment to be about anything but the bit J quoted from Carstonio?

  • AnonymousSam

    Then we are looking at the same bits, but getting completely different emphases out of them — I see a crack toward priests and nothing else, whereas you appear to be focusing entirely on it being a crack toward women. I don’t see how it is. It’s not advocating this behavior toward women, stating it as a logical outcome of male attention or anything of the sort. The image is of men doing stereotypical low-class male things and just so happening to be priests, and the joke is that even this behavior could be an improvement for priests.

    I just don’t get how this is in any way exploiting, condemning or slandering women. Priests, yes, but not women. Can you please elucidate what I am missing and how this a misogynistic joke?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Reread the fucking thread.

    (Yes, of course it’s anti-priest. It’s J. We expect this sort of thing from J.)

  • AnonymousSam

    I get that J is/can be an asshat. On the other hand, there are times when I can understand the kind of angry meltdown that ensued. Much as I usually like it, this community can sometimes go straight into high-horsed-down-your-throat antagonism while skipping all the intervening “what you said was wrong and this is why” steps of an argument in good faith, and I doubt most people have the patience to go through that more than once without being ready to froth and flounce at signs that it’s happening again.

    I understand (or at least I’m strongly getting the impression) that you’re angry and suspect you feel like you’re under attack, in which case, I apologize for the implied tone of my first post to you, but I just can’t share your anger when, to me, it seems to have less to do with the joke and more to do with the person and the argument itself . It’s not self-evident to me. I don’t know if that’s because of my APD, my terrible memory or something else.

    Putting it a bit more plaintively, Ellie, I’ve always liked you and I don’t want to walk away from this with a negative impression of you. Please help me see this from your perspective. If for no other reason than because me understanding why this is a problem will help me avoid from reinforcing women’s issues in my ignorance. I’m taking it on faith that I’m in the wrong in some way here — please explain how so that I can correct this fault of my own.

  • http://www.aqualgidus.org/ Michael Chui

    I wrote a thing, but rather than risk a second nuking here, I’m just going to link to this.

    http://www.anamardoll.com/2012/11/deconstruction-how-to-be-male-ally.html

  • AnonymousSam

    All very good information (admittedly I started to skim while looking for relevance), but I don’t see how it applies. I’m struggling with this, I really am, and I can’t help but start to get frustrated when my requests for an explanation are being bat back at me as “do your damned homework.”

    I am. I have. I remain ignorant. This is being treated as something so obvious that it doesn’t deserve an explanation, when that’s just not the case. No amount of personal reflection appears to be aiding me in making the intuitive leap between

    A priest finding something to appreciate about adult women: That would actually be a refreshing change.

    and

    breasts are the ONLY IMPORTANT THING about people who have them

    I don’t know how much more humble I can get when I’m stating that I’m willing to accept that I’m wrong, whether I can see it or not, and would like help in understanding how my interpretation (that the two quoted statements are not identical, and that the former does not imply the latter) is in error. Start from square one and assume that I’m an idiot. I don’t often find this to be the case, but at this point, I’m saying “Stop giving me so much credit. Apparently I must be a moron. I’d rather have the answer as if I was a small child than walk away angry and ignorant.”

  • EllieMurasaki

    I think I see the problem. You’re looking at J’s comment in isolation, without the bit of Carstonio’s quote that J quoted to respond to. Out of context, your view is the obvious one, I agree. But J quoted Carstonio talking about priests making lewd comments about nuns’ breasts. Either J’s comment is a total non-sequitur, or nuns’ breasts are relevant to what J said. And J said ‘priests finding something to appreciate about adult women’, not ‘priests appreciating adult women’, and the difference implies that the particular something the priests are appreciating is the only thing important here.

  • AnonymousSam

    *Headscratches* But I did acknowledge that in a previous post.

    The entire subtext of “male ogling female breasts” was from the post
    previous to it; rewritten to remove the pedophilia aspect, J’s post is
    simply a crack at how many priests seem to view women as loathsome baby
    vessels and to discover one rising from “hateful misogyny” to “sexist
    misogyny” would be a refreshing change (if not an improvement, sadly
    enough).

    That was how I got it, and what made it somewhat amusing to me — that as bad as that is (and I fully acknowledge it as sexist behavior), it could still be an improvement compared to some priests’ hatred of women.

    Perhaps this is only because I frequently stop to enjoy the terrible irony of how conservative readings of the Bible offer a quarter of a loaf to women (by today’s standards), and how even that quarter-loaf was considered radical liberalism by those standards. After all, Fred just posted an article about a university allowing women to speak if they speak as a duo with their husbands, and even that pitiful allowance got someone to resign for being radical interpretation of Biblical law.

    I’m seeing this the exact same way: it’s a joke because being sexist is terrible by any decent person’s standards, but to some people, it would still be outrageous to have even that high an opinion of women. I could just as easily add a third punchline to the joke: “Fortunately, the Pope would never sully his immortal soul that way (smoking, drinking, playing poker and talking about nuns’ breasts). Everyone knows he has no interest in dirtyfilthy breasts.”

  • http://www.aqualgidus.org/ Michael Chui

    Sorry, the link was more relevant for others than you, really.

    For me, the problematic part wasn’t J’s initial “joke”, which could be passed off as ignorance. It was that he doubled down on it. The issue isn’t so much that he has poor taste, but that his response to discovering that he was hurtful was to pour it on. BrokenBell explained it just fine on the first page.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    49% of Republicans  will answer the question “Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?” with “ACORN stole it” – http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/republicans-not-handling-election-results-well.html (poll question is in the PDF linked there)

    The number who’d come up with ACORN as an excuse without being prompted is a more interesting question, especially since it doesn’t exist anymore.

    ETA: I’d had the question from the 2009 survey, when it was at 52%. Fixed to the nearly-identical current one.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I suspect similar numbers would choose option B for any question where option A is any statement that supports the Obama Presidency, no matter how little relationship B has to reality.

    “Do you think that Barack Obama is doing a decent job as President, or do you think he is sacrificing every American to his satanic masters?” will likely get 50% of Romney voters saying the latter.

    These kinds of survey results only make sense to me when I posit that quite a lot of survey respondents parse the question socially rather than epistemically. That is, they treat the question as “Do you root for side A, or side B?” and answer accordingly.

    Along those lines, I’m sure someone somewhere has done a survey where they compare the difference between responses to “Do you support the Johansenn-Morley proposal?” and “Do you support the Johansenn-Morley bill recently proposed by House Republicans?” and “Do you support the Johansenn-Morley bill recently proposed by House Democrats?”

  • Tricksterson

    “The number who’d come up with ACORN as an excuse without being prompted is a more interesting question, especially since it doesn’t exist anymore”

    Obviously they used time traavel.  Maybe magic.

  • Madhabmatics

    You see using the word “fuck” in a post is not adult at all!

    What is adult is responding to “This isn’t funny” with a huge wall of text about the how anyone who doesn’t think your joke is hilarious is a feminazi who is going to accuse you of being a satanic-baby-killer and a rapist. This Is The Most Adult Thing

  • student

    I am a woman and a feminist, I am well aware of the various terms that have been referenced, and I parsed the whole discussion in exactly the same way that AnonymousSam did. I won’t disagree about the quality of the joke, but I see no misogyny.

  • Turcano

    I guess we were overdue for an outbreak of Tumbritis, weren’t we.

    Sigh.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X