1008 replies to this topic

[Shakeyhands]

Uh oh, more incovenient truth...


No real suprise here. Christianity is still the only acceptable target in society today, to practice one's bigotry. It's amazing how accurate this thread really is.

It's about as accurate as your signature line is Shady. Keep fishing.

[Shady]

It's about as accurate as your signature line is Shady. Keep fishing.

And you keep denying, since you can't formulate a defense of the double-standard that's been illustrated. Just continue to keep your head buried deep in the sand.

[kimmy]

Yep. And I recall you bitching about it about it, too.

Yep. I can't recall Newt Gingrich and One Million Moms and American Family Association denouncing Kelly Bundy though.

Poor "persecuted" blondes, eh? Sometimes it's all I can do to get out of bed in the morning and face the cold cruel world.

So overall I gather you agree that Shady's claim that GCB is "persecution" is pretty weak.

-k

[kimmy]

Uh oh, more incovenient truth...


No real suprise here. Christianity is still the only acceptable target in society today, to practice one's bigotry. It's amazing how accurate this thread really is.

Ah, Shady, you're always in such a rush to be a failure.


The claim that this demonstrates a double standard is dependent on the two ads being equivalent, which is highly debatable. The Pam Geller ad features a cartoon dismissing Muslim anger over the Quran burning incident, which remains highly volatile issue in areas of the world where US troops are stationed. The Times claim that they rejected Geller's ad because they believe it might have put US troops in danger. That's questionable, and their decision to not run the ad is questionable, but the idea that the two ads are directly comparable is false. Just the fact that the ad came from Pam Geller strains the comparison: an ad from Pam Geller directed at a Muslim audience would be viewed with as much skepticism as an ad from David Duke directed at blacks.


And the claim that the FFRF ad is persecution is laughable. And the fact that people like Bill Donahue are crying about it really drives home what a pampered group Christians really are in the US.

There's an argument to be made that the HHS contraception mandate might be real actual persecution. This stuff? A TV show where some of the Christian characters are portrayed negatively? An ad challenging liberal Catholics to leave the church? Retailers who wish people "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? President Obama neglects to thank Baby Jesus during his Thanksgiving speech? They removed the twelve-foot tall crucifix that some dumb-ass soldiers bolted to the multi-faith chapel at Camp Pendleton? This stuff isn't persecution. This stuff is laughable. It is flat out hilarious that some people are arguing with a straight face that these things constitute an "assault on religion". I can hardly wait to see what's next. Looking forward to the day Bill Donahue calls for a boycott of PetSmart after a chihuahua bites a priest in San Antonio; I'm sure it's not far off.


-k

[Shakeyhands]

And you keep denying, since you can't formulate a defense of the double-standard that's been illustrated. Just continue to keep your head buried deep in the sand.

The defense has been formulated many times over, you are just too programmed to see it. Whatever, I enjoy reading your posts, they're actually pretty funny.

[Bonam]

This perspective was much needed in this thread, but to be fair it's still not alright when they do it to Christians. It's not alright when they do it to anyone. Nevertheless, the hypocrisy of the moral outrage from some people about this show is way over the top.

Actually it is alright, when they do it to anyone, christians or otherwise. Even in canada. Its freedom of speech.

[American Woman]

Yep. I can't recall Newt Gingrich and One Million Moms and American Family Association denouncing Kelly Bundy though.

Kelly Bundy is merely a character in a show - the show is not called Dumb Blonde Bitches/Belles (whichever you prefer to believe the title stands for) - and it's not about a whole cast of dumb blondes. If it were, I don't doubt that you'd be irate over it, and quite frankly, I wouldn't find it amusing either. Also, brunettes and redheads aren't considered off-limits. In other words, it's not politically incorrect to make fun of brunettes and redheads and it certainly has been done; blondes aren't the only ones portrayed as dumb - we aren't expected to walk on eggshells lest we offend, say, brunettes.

So overall I gather you agree that Shady's claim that GCB is "persecution" is pretty weak.

You tell me. You are the one who went off on a tangent about how blondes are the only group that it's acceptable to say anything about. Does that mean you think blondes are persecuted? - if not, why are you claiming that Christians who feel the same way you do believe that they are "persecuted?" Perhaps they just don't like the fact that it's acceptable to poke fun at Christians while we must walk on eggshells regarding other religions - and have spoken out about it, same as you have made your feelings about the 'dumb blonde' stereotype known. Do you think they should just STFU about it?

[cybercoma]

Actually it is alright, when they do it to anyone, christians or otherwise. Even in canada. Its freedom of speech.

It explains a lot about you that you think it's alright to treat people like garbage because "its [sic] freedom of speech."

[cybercoma]

Kelly Bundy is merely a character in a show - the show is not called Dumb Blonde Bitches/Belles (whichever you prefer to believe the title stands for) - and it's not about a whole cast of dumb blondes.

So there's a threshold? One character that perpetuates a derogatory and stereotypical view of young blonde women is acceptable, but if it's 3 or 4 characters, not so much? Or are you saying it's ok for television show characters to be offensive becuase it's just TV?

Edited by cybercoma, 16 March 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[American Woman]

So there's a threshold? One character that perpetuates a derogatory and stereotypical view of young blonde women is acceptable, but if it's 3 or 4 characters, not so much? Or are you saying it's ok for television show characters to be offensive becuase it's just TV?

Are you saying you can't comprehend what I said?

[cybercoma]

I ask for clarification and this is how you respond. Meanwhile, you're the first to whine and complain about disrespect. Why do I even bother responding to you?

[Bonam]

It explains a lot about you that you think it's alright to treat people like garbage because "its [sic] freedom of speech."

Making a TV show that uses a stereotype of a particular group or a stock character in order to provide humor or drama is not "treating people like garbage". The fact that you think the tiniest implied insult or offense is "treating people like garbage" and that freedom of speech should be secondary to no one's feelings ever getting hurt "explains a lot about you".

[dre]

Generally how society views this stuff is based on how vulnerable the group being targeted by incendiary speech is. You can say stuff about white people that you wouldnt be able to get away with saying about homosexuals, or jews or retards, simply because the white majority doesnt face a real threat from that kind of speech. Some of those other groups do.

Society has a history of turning on vulnerable minorities so we are a little bit more carefull about that kind of speech. Call it a double standard, but its there for a reason.

[kimmy]

Kelly Bundy is merely a character in a show -

She's an example of a widely used and very well-recognized stereotype that has been a fixture on television for a very long time without any notable complaint.

the show is not called Dumb Blonde Bitches/Belles (whichever you prefer to believe the title stands for) - and it's not about a whole cast of dumb blondes.

Neither is GCB, as far as I can tell.

If it were, I don't doubt that you'd be irate over it, and quite frankly, I wouldn't find it amusing either. Also, brunettes and redheads aren't considered off-limits. In other words, it's not politically incorrect to make fun of brunettes and redheads and it certainly has been done; blondes aren't the only ones portrayed as dumb - we aren't expected to walk on eggshells lest we offend, say, brunettes.

Sure, there's been dumb redheads and dumb brunettes on TV as well, but it's never become a stereotype.

You tell me. You are the one who went off on a tangent about how blondes are the only group that it's acceptable to say anything about.

Either you misread something, or you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said blondes are the only targets of this sort of thing.

I mentioned blondes as an obvious counter-example to Shady's claim that Christians are the only acceptable targets for this sort of thing.

The point is not that blondes *are* the only targets, but rather that Christians *are not* the only targets. That should have been obvious.

Does that mean you think blondes are persecuted? - if not, why are you claiming that Christians who feel the same way you do believe that they are "persecuted?"

The point is not arguing that blondes are persecuted, but rather disputing Shady's claim that Christians are persecuted.

Perhaps they just don't like the fact that it's acceptable to poke fun at Christians while we must walk on eggshells regarding other religions - and have spoken out about it, same as you have made your feelings about the 'dumb blonde' stereotype known. Do you think they should just STFU about it?

Do we "walk on eggshells" around other religions? I agree that people walk on eggshells around the Jews... one misstep and you get called a Nazi or the KKK. But other religions, I'm not seeing it.

And Newt can certainly use this to try and portray himself as a defender of Christians... anything to revive his failing campaign. And the "One Million Moms" can certainly try and create a boycott.

And I'll laugh at them for it. Media portrayals of Christians are generally very positive... but along comes GCB and suddenly they think they're martyrs. It's funny, that's what it is.



-k

[American Woman]

She's an example of a widely used and very well-recognized stereotype that has been a fixture on television for a very long time without any notable complaint.

I don't recall Jackie and Kelso - two dumb brunettes - generating any complaints either. Which is rather my point - it's not politically incorrect to make fun of brunettes and redheads, either. Everyone is fair game.

Neither is GCB, as far as I can tell.

You don't think Good Christian Bitches/Bells is about Christians? Seriously?

Sure, there's been dumb redheads and dumb brunettes on TV as well, but it's never become a stereotype.

So what? It's been done; no one is saying it's not PC to portray redheads and brunettes as dumb.

Either you misread something, or you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said blondes are the only targets of this sort of thing.

And I didn't say that you said blondes were "the only target;" I said, correctly, that you said blondes are the only acceptable targets.

I mentioned blondes as an obvious counter-example to Shady's claim that Christians are the only acceptable targets for this sort of thing.

FYI, Shady was referring to religions - not the world at large. Your bringing up blondes is really comparing apples to oranges, but I found in interesting in light of the fact that you have gone off about blondes being unfairly portrayed - and how there's nothing funny about it. I just find it rather ironic that you would in turn criticize Christians for not liking the same thing - and claim that they think they are "crucified" because they speak out about it

The point is not that blondes *are* the only targets, but rather that Christians *are not* the only targets. That should have been obvious.

What should be obvious is that lots of people are targeted for different things, but this issue is strictly in regards to religion.

The point is not arguing that blondes are persecuted, but rather disputing Shady's claim that Christians are persecuted.

I'm arguing your claim that Christians who speak out against Christians being portrayed in such a manner are no different from your speaking out about the portrayal of blondes. You are the one who said that Christians are persecuted in America, and from what I can tell, your claim is based on Christians speaking out against negative portrayals of Christians exactly as you have spoken out against negative portrayals of blondes. So I'll ask you again - would you use the word "persecuted" to describe yourself - and if not, why do you use it against like minded Christians?

Do we "walk on eggshells" around other religions?

No. Not at all. People, networks, tv shows are portraying Muslims negatively all the time without any criticism at all. The media can portray Muhammad anyway they chose, and not a word is said.

I agree that people walk on eggshells around the Jews... one misstep and you get called a Nazi or the KKK. But other religions, I'm not seeing it.

Perhaps you should open your eyes.

And Newt can certainly use this to try and portray himself as a defender of Christians... anything to revive his failing campaign. And the "One Million Moms" can certainly try and create a boycott.

He, and they, certainly can.

And I'll laugh at them for it. Media portrayals of Christians are generally very positive... but along comes GCB and suddenly they think they're martyrs. It's funny, that's what it is.

That's not the only thing that's funny.