Moontanman Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 You'll either love this or hate it, satire... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Sometimes religious people seem really nice even though they hold all those backward views. It's strange. Edited December 26, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I recently learned from FOX "news" that WBC is a liberal cult led by a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 I recently learned from FOX "news" that WBC is a liberal cult led by a Democrat. Well then it must be true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Well then it must be true... Yes. It was actually FOX and not the Onion or anything similar. This was an actual claim on the actual FOX website a few days ago. Let that sink in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 Yes. It was actually FOX and not the Onion or anything similar. This was an actual claim on the actual FOX website a few days ago. Let that sink in. Do you have a link? I have to think it's a classic case of projection... something Fox news is very good at doing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Here is the link directly to the article on their website. There is absolutely no chance of an error this egregious and obvious being an honest mistake. It's an outright lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 Here is the link directly to the article on their website. There is absolutely no chance of an error this egregious and obvious being an honest mistake. It's an outright lie. That is just... maddening, I know we all enjoy freedom of speech but do we or even should we enjoy freedom of lies? Does freedom of speech include intentionally deceiving people and telling lies as truth? Conservative bikers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) FOX News must have edited the article, because I cannot find them using the terms "liberal" or "left-wing" anywhere. The article still refers to Phelps as a Democrat, but the posters are debating that claim too. It looks like you can still read the original version by following their link to thegatewaypundit. According to Wikipedia, he tried to get through the Democratic primaries multiple times throughout the 90's. Not only did he fail each time, he has stopped trying. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to have been left-wing even then, since his group was protesting homosexuality back then too. Besides, by some criteria, even Democratic candidates are more right-wing than left-wing, despite being more left-wing than Republican candidates. Edited December 27, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 FOX News must have edited the article, because I cannot find them using the terms "liberal" or "left-wing" anywhere. Check the bold caption for the photo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVBXRPL Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Westboro Baptists might be backward thinking religious nutjobs, but at least they don't go around murdering people for kicks, unlike the soldiers whose funerals they protest at One of the great enigmas of the "human being" is why being an angry deluded religious freak is somehow worse crime than the cold blooded mass murder carried out by the "good ole soldier boys" And people say humanity is civilized......yeah right, keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better at night after you had your weekly fist fight or smacked your wife or abused your kids or whatever it is you do as part of society -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 ! Moderator Note ZVBXRPL, Your strawman argument here and the trolling here and elsewhere on the forum is not acceptable. As well, labeling soldiers as murderers is a violation of rule 1c. It would be in your best interest to review the forum rules, which you agreed to upon signing up to SFN, before posting here in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) If you're religious, you'll be offended by this. [YouTube clip removed] Edited January 3, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 ! Moderator Note Mondays Assignment: Die, Posting videos that are designed to be offensive to a group or groups of people is a violation of a SFN's rule 1c., which states: 1. Be civil. c. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. ! Moderator Note I've removed the video, but please be more wary of this in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Hang on! " Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited." The video in the OP probably ticks that box (at least from the point of view of the Westboro Baptists). It is, for example, unlikely that they all have a conspicuous unfamiliarity with hair conditioner. Not all of them are polygamous yokels (OK,. I'm guessing there, but it's a safe bet ). If I say that I consider a political group to be "self serving" am I in danger of being hauled over the coals for a breach of rule 1© because I have not offered evidence that it is true for each and every member of that group? On the other hand, I'm not suggesting a "free for all" where people can say what they like about whom they choose. How do we draw that line? This issue has been looked at before. The same tension exists in other forms of publication. There's a potential issue with choosing whose legal system we choose to follow, but libel laws and free speech are both well recognised concepts. I wonder if the site rules might take their lead from the established rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Do you have any idea who the Westburro Baptist Church is? Normally you would be correct byt they are a very small group of hate mongers who picket the funerals of American service men and loudly proclaim that god hates america because we allow homosexuals to live and that is why our soldiers die.... Their official website http://www.godhatesfags.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 John Cuthber, I removed the video clip by Monday as it was raised in a report. I do agree with what you're saying and hadn't in fact realised the nature of the video in the OP until Moontanman PM'd me earlier about it. I've since raised the issue with staff, though I personally don't have so much of an issue with the OP; though somewhat offensive in it's satirical approach to drive the point home, it at least has a point from which members have been able to draw discussion, whereas the video posted by Monday did not. Do you have any idea who the Westburro Baptist Church is? Normally you would be correct byt they are a very small group of hate mongers who picket the funerals of American service men and loudly proclaim that god hates america because we allow homosexuals to live and that is why our soldiers die.... Their official website http://www.godhatesfags.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church I was under the impression that the video was less about WBC, a group that is disdained by most Americans and others around the globe, and more about using WBC to illustrate how similar they are in terms of their hatred and bigotry to conservative Christian groups, who are widely accepted by society to the point of being considered the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 I was under the impression that the video was less about WBC, a group that is disdained by most Americans and others around the globe, and more about using WBC to illustrate how similar they are in terms of their hatred and bigotry to conservative Christian groups, who are widely accepted by society to the point of being considered the norm. yes, that was my original reason for posting the video, it does indeed show how hatred and bigotry can be accepted if it is packaged correctly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) I was trying to make satire out of ZVBXRPL's wild accusations. The video's religious theme was peripheral. Iodine, I apologize for wasting some of your time. Edited January 4, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Do you have any idea who the Westburro Baptist Church is? Normally you would be correct byt they are a very small group of hate mongers who picket the funerals of American service men and loudly proclaim that god hates america because we allow homosexuals to live and that is why our soldiers die.... Their official website http://www.godhatesfags.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church My personal opinion is that they are a bunch of **** for whom the best use might well be as fertiliser. (and for the record, I rather liked the vid in the OP) But that's not the point. The W B C are a recognisable group of people and, according to our rules we are not permitted to display any prejudice against them. How do we choose what groups are so abhorrent that they don't deserve the protection afforded by rule 1 ( c )? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 For me the distinction comes in the wilfulness of the hatred espoused. This group is pretty obviously wilful in their hatred and disserve nothing but contempt. Other groups seem less wilful and more ignorant in their views; these disserve pity and patient guidance. Exactly where to draw the line in the less obvious cases would need very careful consideration, thankfully, we have moderators for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 An interesting interview with the WBC by Russel Brand. Probably the best, least offensive way they can be presented: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 5, 2013 Author Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) My personal opinion is that they are a bunch of **** for whom the best use might well be as fertiliser. (and for the record, I rather liked the vid in the OP) But that's not the point. The W B C are a recognisable group of people and, according to our rules we are not permitted to display any prejudice against them. How do we choose what groups are so abhorrent that they don't deserve the protection afforded by rule 1 ( c )? That is a good question, all i can say is i know em when i seem em... can intolerance really be completely tolerated? Would you give an organised racist group the protection of rule 1 © ? Edited January 5, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) That is a good question, all i can say is i know em when i seem em... can intolerance really be completely tolerated? Would you give an organised racist group the protection of rule 1 © ? Psychologists use various questionnaires to measure religious belief, e.g. the extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity scales, the fundamentalism scale, the quest religiosity scale. Anyway, Dan Batson conducted a relevant experiment. It suggested that people who score high on the Quest religiosity scale tend to be less prejudiced overall. However, their style of religious belief can be opposed with fundamentalism, so there was an Australian experiment to see if they would discriminate against fundamentalists. Anyway, Dan Batson criticizes the experimenters for assuming that fundamentalism and quest are opposite ends. When Dan Batson redid the experiment with a pure quest scale, he got a different finding. Although they generally don't discriminate against fundamentalists, they're generally unwilling to support oppressive/fundamentalist activities. If anyone is interested in the research on religion and prejudice, I gave analyses of a presentation by Dan Batson over here and here. I studied the presentation thoroughly when I used it for an essay. Edited January 5, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 That is a good question, all i can say is i know em when i seem em... can intolerance really be completely tolerated? Would you give an organised racist group the protection of rule 1 © ? I read your and JC's messages - and it is possible to see rule 1c as highly chilling on debate, but I am not sure that is the only interpretation. 1. Be civil. a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion. b. Avoid the use of vulgar language. c. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. d. Please refer to SFN's etiquette guide before posting. The WBC are a good example - their espoused doctrine and method of communication to the wider world seem hateful, bigoted, and antithetical to a progressive world view; so do they deserve protection in our small neck of the woods. To an extent yes - we should not judge them without knowledge of the facts of an individual situation, and should avoid insulting them egregiously. But that in no way limits the members ability to castigate them for their horrific and backward policies and views. Prejudice is an unthinking bigotry, it is irrational and not based on an understanding or knowledge of a situation or person; it does not coincide with (even a harsh and unstinting) critical attack on a person's or group views and/or condemnation of that person for publicising those views. Insults, slights, slurs are intended to be rude, obnoxious, or abusive - and again there is no need (although I can understand the want) for rational and polite debate to deteriorate to that level. Condemnatory, critical, and contradictory posts do not need to be insulting. That said, human nature being what it is and at least some of the moderating team being human, there is going to be more leeway (perhaps unconsciously) given to those who possibly fall foul of rule 1c when describing a group that is so far out of the norms of civilised behaviour. Personally, I liked your video and felt it used satire to critique religion in general and the comments about the WBC were acceptable as part of the general satirical mood and fictional aspect of the piece. In my opinion it was clearly designed to bring to light a hidden bigotry in the wider church and was cutting in its satire but nothing more. However; with the benefit of hindsight I can now see that others may not have such an accepting view of the first video. The second video - which I raised the concerns about - simply seemed to me to be a puerile song designed to offend and had little bearing on the thread. I think there is a qualitative difference between the two. I don't believe it is ever necessary to insult or abuse any group (although the temptation is often clear) nor is it part of a valid rational argument to make conclusions about them, or cast aspersions on them which do not have a prior basis in fact. nb These are just my views and not in any way official or indicative of the staff in general. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now