Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Baptist pastor performs in blackface at National Young Fundamentalist Conference   (patheos.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Christian Fundamentalists, pastors  
•       •       •

7795 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2014 at 3:49 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-08 12:12:25 AM  
Well, it was in Kentucky.
 
2014-03-08 12:21:01 AM  
Not one little bit surprised.  Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.  Appeal to the young people.  You know, like worship bands and all.
 
2014-03-08 12:47:33 AM  
Holy Crap..I'm less offended about the black face stuff than using Boxing and Violence in their Christian Ministry.
 
2014-03-08 12:49:56 AM  
Stay classy, Roman lion chow
 
2014-03-08 01:31:57 AM  
Isn't boxing dangerously close to dancing for Baptists?
 
2014-03-08 02:43:41 AM  
Soon they'll discover that The Power of Michael Buffer's Lawyer Compels You
 
2014-03-08 03:11:21 AM  
So? Have you seen a pic of teh baby Jebus? He was performing in whiteface every day.
 
2014-03-08 03:49:52 AM  
Someone should tell his mammy.
 
2014-03-08 03:54:51 AM  
Christ.  What an asshole.
 
2014-03-08 03:56:47 AM  
*sigh*

And we're the bigots.

-_-
 
2014-03-08 04:01:08 AM  
beijingcream.com

Does not approve.
 
2014-03-08 04:02:29 AM  
That blackface dig almost had me convinced, I really thought he was Ali...
 
2014-03-08 04:03:11 AM  
Oh noes.
 
2014-03-08 04:09:21 AM  
Your the real racists.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
 
2014-03-08 04:10:56 AM  
It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

oi62.tinypic.com
 
2014-03-08 04:20:41 AM  

DrPainMD: Does not approve.


Black guy in whiteface is funnier than the other way around, although it's just... No, it's not as full of racist stereotypes. White people made a bunch of stereotypes about black people but there aren't many degrogatory stereotypes the other way.
 
2014-03-08 04:33:33 AM  

AirForceVet: Well, it was in Kentucky.


Yeah, but I don't think old Kentucky is his home,
otherwise he'd know the darkies are gay.
 
2014-03-08 04:38:42 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


No it isn't. It's an old, false, and boring meme. It's about as far from "interesting" as any other made up RW paranoia.
 
2014-03-08 04:40:31 AM  

AirForceVet: Well, it was in Kentucky.


I can't believe no one went "dude don't farking do that". I've lived in Kentucky my entire life and the racists that you find every now and then are just weird.
 
2014-03-08 04:46:58 AM  

A Terrible Human: AirForceVet: Well, it was in Kentucky.

I can't believe no one went "dude don't farking do that". I've lived in Kentucky my entire life and the racists that you find every now and then are just weird.


I'm guessing the National Young Fundamentalists Conference is chocked full of weird.
 
2014-03-08 04:49:24 AM  

jso2897: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

No it isn't. It's an old, false, and boring meme. It's about as far from "interesting" as any other made up RW paranoia.


If that were really true then you wouldn't have felt compelled to react to that or this as well.
 
2014-03-08 04:52:01 AM  
You people shouldn't judge him. He's a man of GOD and nothing in the Bible forbids what he did so he did nothing wrong. Obviously this site is full of gay pedophiles, communists. dope smokers, and Obammy lovers.
You should all be reported to law enforcement and locked up for blaspheming our GOD!
 
2014-03-08 04:55:02 AM  
 
2014-03-08 04:55:11 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: jso2897: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

No it isn't. It's an old, false, and boring meme. It's about as far from "interesting" as any other made up RW paranoia.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have felt compelled to react to that or this as well.


Pointing out my stupidity PROVES I'M RIGHT!!! AAAAAAAABOOGABOOGABOOGA!!!! *drool* *slump*

/ *thud*
 
2014-03-08 04:57:08 AM  
As with every farking "blackface" link, this isn't blackface.

Closer than the last time, though, so good try I guess.
 
2014-03-08 05:01:42 AM  

Make More Hinjews: That Guy...From That Show!: jso2897: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

No it isn't. It's an old, false, and boring meme. It's about as far from "interesting" as any other made up RW paranoia.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have felt compelled to react to that or this as well.

Pointing out my stupidity PROVES I'M RIGHT!!! AAAAAAAABOOGABOOGABOOGA!!!! *drool* *slump*

/ *thud*


dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.
 
2014-03-08 05:03:28 AM  

phrawgh: You people shouldn't judge him. He's a man of GOD and nothing in the Bible forbids what he did so he did nothing wrong. Obviously this site is full of gay pedophiles, communists. dope smokers, and Obammy lovers.
You should all be reported to law enforcement and locked up for blaspheming our GOD!


He's aware of the risk.
 
2014-03-08 05:07:01 AM  
Religion is a very strange hallucinogenic....
 
2014-03-08 05:22:19 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


No, son, you're a racist. Just go ahead and admit it. Everyone knows already, come on out of the closet.
 
2014-03-08 05:22:25 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


I didn't realize how racist an American actor playing an Australian character playing an African American character in a movie inside a movie who's co-characters remind him that he's not really African American was. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
 
2014-03-08 05:22:55 AM  
It looks to me like he was trying to impersonate Mr. T (poorly, but that's beside the point)...which begs the question:

Are we not allowed to make ourselves up to look like a particular celebrity just because he happens to be black?
 
2014-03-08 05:24:42 AM  
I'm not a communist, what the f*ck??
 
2014-03-08 05:28:21 AM  
I see the GOP convention started a little bit early.
 
2014-03-08 05:34:07 AM  

moodyfark: It looks to me like he was trying to impersonate Mr. T (poorly, but that's beside the point)...which begs the question:

Are we not allowed to make ourselves up to look like a particular celebrity just because he happens to be black?


1. raises the question "are we not allowed..."
2. you are allowed, it's just that some people might take offense, partly because
3. it's easy to step into racial stereotypes when portraying a person of another race, but
4. if you just skip the skin-darkening makeup you can probably get by, because
5. the ignorant think "blackface" means a non-black person wearing makeup to look like a black person.
 
2014-03-08 05:40:45 AM  

wildcardjack: DrPainMD: Does not approve.

Black guy in whiteface is funnier than the other way around, although it's just... No, it's not as full of racist stereotypes. White people made a bunch of stereotypes about black people but there aren't many degrogatory stereotypes the other way.


that's because it's better to be white.
 
2014-03-08 05:40:56 AM  
imagecache2.allposters.com
While the guy is an idiot of the highest caliber, when I think of black-face, I think of stuff like Al Jolson, faint painted coal black with hugely exaggerated lips doing a 'Yessir mastah, you da boss mastah' routine.  In my mind, what this nutsack did was stupid and unfunny, but at the same level.  Looks like he was trying to do a Mr. T impersonation more than anything.  Not that kids today know who Mr. T is (and I pity those fools).  Without more information in the article, it's hard to say what the guys intentions were.  It may have been racist in motivation, or he may have tried (and failed) to be a comedian or some such shiat.

No matter how slice it, though, he's a farking moran of the highest level.  You can't do that shiat, regardless if intent.  It's just the way is.  Some things will never change.
 
2014-03-08 05:41:37 AM  
NOT!  Not as the same level.  Damn poofrreading skillz.
 
2014-03-08 05:46:12 AM  
Sorry, still a little drunk.

His /tweets are a hoot. Among the shout outs to his "bros" ,pictures of Mitch and Rand,and target practice at the range are gems like " THIS JUST IN: If it walks like, talks like, acts like, & LOOKS LIKE a DUCK...then bet the farm sweetheart...IT'S A DUCK. "
Dumbass.
 
2014-03-08 05:53:44 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]



Wow. You might be the first person over the age of 12 who didn't get the point of that movie.
 
2014-03-08 05:54:12 AM  

wellreadneck: Sorry, still a little drunk.

His /tweets are a hoot. Among the shout outs to his "bros" ,pictures of Mitch and Rand,and target practice at the range are gems like " THIS JUST IN: If it walks like, talks like, acts like, & LOOKS LIKE a DUCK...then bet the farm sweetheart...IT'S A DUCK. "
Dumbass.


Read through some of that to try and get his motivation - it was Mr. T as a boxer.  The rest of the tweets I could see were pretty typical Baptist stuff.  I've got some stuff blocked so I couldn't see the whole site.

Anyway, still a maroon.
 
2014-03-08 05:56:41 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: As with every farking "blackface" link, this isn't blackface.

Closer than the last time, though, so good try I guess.


True but we should cut him some slack. This song and dance is most prolly just distracting from his pedophiliac interests.
 
2014-03-08 05:58:18 AM  

wellreadneck: I'm guessing the National Young Fundamentalists Conference is chocked full of weird.


When I was a teenager, our church used to send us to Aquire the Fire and Youth for the Nations.

There was so much repressed homosexuality and sexual desire there you could swim through the hormones.
 
2014-03-08 06:06:25 AM  
Monkeyfark Ridiculous:5. the ignorant think "blackface" means a non-black person wearing makeup to look like a black person.

"Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used by white performers to represent a black person. " - The Ignorant, apparently.
 
2014-03-08 06:09:04 AM  
This pastor who runs a "National" young fundamentalists' conference has a whopping 109 followers on Twitter - way to go with that youth outreach there, rev.

And seeing as his congregation appears from the pictures on the church's website to be multiracial and his church  runs a ministry for the Spanish-speaking community, I'm going with him being clueless about teh internets and not bigoted, although the final call on that doesn't rest with us but with his flock.

They need to stay the fark out of politics, though. Living your ministry and legislating your ministry are at cross-purposes (so to speak) with each other.
 
2014-03-08 06:09:05 AM  

somemoron: wellreadneck: Sorry, still a little drunk.

His /tweets are a hoot. Among the shout outs to his "bros" ,pictures of Mitch and Rand,and target practice at the range are gems like " THIS JUST IN: If it walks like, talks like, acts like, & LOOKS LIKE a DUCK...then bet the farm sweetheart...IT'S A DUCK. "
Dumbass.

Read through some of that to try and get his motivation - it was Mr. T as a boxer.  The rest of the tweets I could see were pretty typical Baptist stuff.  I've got some stuff blocked so I couldn't see the whole site.

Anyway, still a maroon.



True,  It's certainly possible he didn't have a racist intent.
 
2014-03-08 06:09:27 AM  

hardinparamedic: wellreadneck: I'm guessing the National Young Fundamentalists Conference is chocked full of weird.

When I was a teenager, our church used to send us to Aquire the Fire and Youth for the Nations.

There was so much repressed homosexuality and sexual desire there you could swim through the hormones.


So you got laid?
 
2014-03-08 06:11:08 AM  

JoieD'Zen: So you got laid?


Well, let's just say that I found out I was bi one summer at 16 with a preacher's kid from Little Rock, Arkansas.
 
2014-03-08 06:11:18 AM  

stoli n coke: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


Wow. You might be the first person over the age of 12 who didn't get the point of that movie.


I would imagine that it's difficult to reply with such a large hook in your mouth but it seems you may be used to having one in there.
 
2014-03-08 06:11:33 AM  
cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.
 
2014-03-08 06:16:14 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: stoli n coke: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


Wow. You might be the first person over the age of 12 who didn't get the point of that movie.

I would imagine that it's difficult to reply with such a large hook in your mouth but it seems you may be used to having one in there.



Of course.
i1098.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-08 06:21:00 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-08 06:22:55 AM  
img.fark.net

Man, this is hard to do, when you're an obsessive 'perfectionist' like myself.
 
2014-03-08 06:24:48 AM  

stoli n coke: That Guy...From That Show!: stoli n coke: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


Wow. You might be the first person over the age of 12 who didn't get the point of that movie.

I would imagine that it's difficult to reply with such a large hook in your mouth but it seems you may be used to having one in there.


Of course.
[i1098.photobucket.com image 555x455]


Or.....
Fark posts article link looking to provoke
Article was created looking to provoke
Tropic Thunder was created looking to provoke
I post in fark article topic about article looking to provoke and Tropic Thunder looking to provoke which provokes and causes a cascade of replies.

Try to save face all you will and your face probably leaks when you try to drink fluids.
 
2014-03-08 06:25:34 AM  

Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.


and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-08 06:25:57 AM  

Clint_Torres: [img.fark.net image 436x1500]

Man, this is hard to do, when you're an obsessive 'perfectionist' like myself.


Could replace that boxing glove with a BBC?
That would be perfect.
 
2014-03-08 06:31:11 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: stoli n coke: That Guy...From That Show!: stoli n coke: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


Wow. You might be the first person over the age of 12 who didn't get the point of that movie.

I would imagine that it's difficult to reply with such a large hook in your mouth but it seems you may be used to having one in there.


Of course.
[i1098.photobucket.com image 555x455]

Or.....
Fark posts article link looking to provoke
Article was created looking to provoke
Tropic Thunder was created looking to provoke
I post in fark article topic about article looking to provoke and Tropic Thunder looking to provoke which provokes and causes a cascade of replies.

Try to save face all you will and your face probably leaks when you try to drink fluids.


Tropic Thunder was created from the imagination of a screenwriter.
This article was not created. It merely reported what this idiot did.
Or are you one of those folks that thinks Newt Gingrich was taken out of context when networks ran unedited recordings of his actual statements?

Do you see the difference, or do you need a felt board and some puppets?
 
2014-03-08 06:32:12 AM  

cynicalminion: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

[i.imgur.com image 400x225]


users.content.ytmnd.com
media.tumblr.com
www.w3.org

mrwgifs.com
 
2014-03-08 06:37:26 AM  
New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.
 
2014-03-08 06:43:42 AM  

Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.


I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.
 
2014-03-08 06:44:51 AM  

hardinparamedic: cynicalminion: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

[i.imgur.com image 400x225]

[users.content.ytmnd.com image 300x225]
[media.tumblr.com image 500x293]
[www.w3.org image 512x384]

[mrwgifs.com image 300x169]


a) batman got stuck in said gelatinous cube
b) he watched
c) it went viral
d) img.fark.net
 
2014-03-08 06:49:13 AM  

somemoron: While the guy is an idiot of the highest caliber, when I think of black-face, I think of stuff like Al Jolson, faint painted coal black with hugely exaggerated lips doing a 'Yessir mastah, you da boss mastah' routine.  In my mind, what this nutsack did was stupid and unfunny, but at the same level.  Looks like he was trying to do a Mr. T impersonation more than anything.  Not that kids today know who Mr. T is (and I pity those fools).  Without more information in the article, it's hard to say what the guys intentions were.  It may have been racist in motivation, or he may have tried (and failed) to be a comedian or some such shiat.

No matter how slice it, though, he's a farking moran of the highest level.  You can't do that shiat, regardless if intent.  It's just the way is.  Some things will never change.


I wouldn't say you can't, but unless it has a real purpose, like tropic thunder (to show nutty the actor was) you are likely to offend (even when it was done for tropic thunder it offended some).
 
2014-03-08 06:49:27 AM  

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.


He was doing an impression of Mr. T wasn't he?  To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.
 
2014-03-08 06:49:44 AM  

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.


img.fark.net

sorry, despite actually agreeing with your standpoints on (most) things, back it up a notch, elrond?
 
2014-03-08 06:50:48 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: jso2897: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

No it isn't. It's an old, false, and boring meme. It's about as far from "interesting" as any other made up RW paranoia.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have felt compelled to react to that or this as well.


I'm sorry - I thought we were talking to one another on a publuc forum here. You said something I disagree with - namely, that the whining of "victimized", paranoid "Christians" is interesting. I don't think it is, and said so.
Excuse the shiat outta me, Your Highness.
 
2014-03-08 06:51:01 AM  

Slappajo: To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.


www.rerockstar.com

Tell him that.

But yeah. We're the real racists, blah blah blah.
 
2014-03-08 06:53:07 AM  

Slappajo: hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.

He was doing an impression of Mr. T wasn't he?  To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.


Who ban what all? Why? Nobody is talking about banning anything - except you.
 
2014-03-08 06:55:14 AM  

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.

[www.rerockstar.com image 427x427]

Tell him that.

But yeah. We're the real racists, blah blah blah.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-08 06:56:11 AM  

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.

[www.rerockstar.com image 427x427]

Tell him that.

But yeah. We're the real racists, blah blah blah.


No, that's not an impression of Mr. T.  It's a white guy with a mohawk.  That's more of an American Indian impersonation.  Damn now they're going to be mad too.
 
2014-03-08 06:56:17 AM  

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.


Put it this way - It's all about the context.

I wouldn't get quite so upset at say, some ignorant jerk from Russia putting on black face and doing a comedy bit. They don't have quite the same history with this as we do here in the States.

However, this guy, this southern guy, he knew better. He just didn't care, or he thinks other people shouldn't care anymore. He's wrong of course, but people out there like him will keep doing shiat like this because deep down inside they don't give a fark about how other people feel. I suppose being a pastor these days precludes any requirement to have empathy for people, particularly oppressed people. Such is the state of Christianity in America.
 
2014-03-08 06:56:21 AM  

wellreadneck: Clint_Torres: [img.fark.net image 436x1500]

Man, this is hard to do, when you're an obsessive 'perfectionist' like myself.

Could replace that boxing glove with a BBC?
That would be perfect.



Here you go.

i28.photobucket.com
NSFW!!!!!

At least I'll have an interesting breakfast topic.
"How was your night/morning?"
"It was okay. I got asked to Photoshop some BBC."
(blank stare)
 
2014-03-08 06:57:12 AM  

wildcardjack: DrPainMD: Does not approve.

Black guy in whiteface is funnier than the other way around, although it's just... No, it's not as full of racist stereotypes. White people made a bunch of stereotypes about black people but there aren't many degrogatory stereotypes the other way.


I don't know. I wouldn't let my daughter watch "White Chicks" back in the day mainly because, at the time, I think she was too young to really understand what was being thrown at her, even though all her friends saw it. It wasn't a popular decision at the time. But she's in college now and, of course, has seen the movie since then. Knowing me, she understands what she didn't as a middle schooler; that I tend to think stereotypes are hurtful no matter what and yes, even "reverse stereotyping" is wrong.

My comments about despising black stereotypes get a lot more attention on Fark than any comment I make about not liking white ones though, I can tell you that.

There are people who sit around and wait to pounce on a comment I make about racism towards blacks but if I make the same comments about whites and how it's just as unfair? Crickets.
 
2014-03-08 06:57:31 AM  

jso2897: Slappajo: hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.

He was doing an impression of Mr. T wasn't he?  To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.

Who ban what all? Why? Nobody is talking about banning anything - except you.


To relieve all of the butthurt about every time someone gets offended by something.
 
2014-03-08 07:02:21 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.


2/10. You might get a nibble.
 
2014-03-08 07:04:54 AM  

jso2897: Slappajo: hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.

He was doing an impression of Mr. T wasn't he?  To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.

Who ban what all? Why? Nobody is talking about banning anything - except you.


skip next "right wingnut attacking left-dingbat" and enjoy making fun of ourselves.
i1104.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-08 07:06:12 AM  

cynicalminion: skip next "right wingnut attacking left-dingbat" and enjoy making fun of ourselves.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-03-08 07:14:39 AM  

Gulper Eel: This pastor who runs a "National" young fundamentalists' conference has a whopping 109 followers on Twitter - way to go with that youth outreach there, rev.

And seeing as his congregation appears from the pictures on the church's website to be multiracial and his church  runs a ministry for the Spanish-speaking community, I'm going with him being clueless about teh internets and not bigoted, although the final call on that doesn't rest with us but with his flock.

They need to stay the fark out of politics, though. Living your ministry and legislating your ministry are at cross-purposes (so to speak) with each other.


"Fundamentalist" is like "communist"... The word has accumulated so much negative association that most fundamentalists call themselves "conservative evangelicals" just like most communists call themselves "socialists" or "social democrats."

A more accurate National Fundamentalist Conference would be the Southern Baptist Convention.
 
2014-03-08 07:15:13 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: moodyfark: It looks to me like he was trying to impersonate Mr. T (poorly, but that's beside the point)...which begs the question:

Are we not allowed to make ourselves up to look like a particular celebrity just because he happens to be black?

1. raises the question "are we not allowed..."
2. you are allowed, it's just that some people might take offense, partly because
3. it's easy to step into racial stereotypes when portraying a person of another race, but
4. if you just skip the skin-darkening makeup you can probably get by, because
5. the ignorant think "blackface" means a non-black person wearing makeup to look like a black person.


So does this qualify as anti-Semitic?

www.omgiloveyourhair.com
 
2014-03-08 07:15:30 AM  

indylaw: "Fundamentalist" is like "communist"... The word has accumulated so much negative association that most fundamentalists call themselves "conservative evangelicals" just like most communists call themselves "socialists" or "social democrats."


You do realize those three terms do not mean the same thing, right?
 
2014-03-08 07:15:38 AM  

indylaw: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

2/10. You might get a nibble.


lol, you posted that before reading ahead and seeing how many I caught.

/Good catch yourself for not getting caught.
 
2014-03-08 07:16:34 AM  

Slappajo: jso2897: Slappajo: hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.

He was doing an impression of Mr. T wasn't he?  To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.

Who ban what all? Why? Nobody is talking about banning anything - except you.

To relieve all of the butthurt about every time someone gets offended by something.


*shenanigans!*

>>poidh<<
 
2014-03-08 07:18:07 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-08 07:20:48 AM  
As much as I despise any group with the words "Young" and "Fundamentalist" in their title, I find it really difficult to muster any outrage about this.  There are so many examples of race reversal being played up for comic purposes that people should be able recognize satire for what it is, satire.  Maybe the guy is a racist asshole.  I don't know that and neither do you.  Just because he was impersonating Mr T for a comedy sketch does not immediately make him one.

The panties twisting hysteria of this stupid blog kinda soured me immediately.
 
2014-03-08 07:22:21 AM  
I like how the white guys were American patriots with the red white and blue trunks.
and how the "champ" was all in black. Even in the black corner.
and how he wouldn't stand to be beaten but had someone take his beating for him.
UnAmerican, Proud and a Coward.
 
2014-03-08 07:24:29 AM  

hardinparamedic: cynicalminion: skip next "right wingnut attacking left-dingbat" and enjoy making fun of ourselves.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 850x604]


"very funny, i'm a plant..."
"oh really, i thought men like you were usually called a fruit"

don't even TRY to pretend that we are now looking back at things like issa and seeing mccarthy.  or yvette's "convenient drink shelf"

media.giphy.com
 
2014-03-08 07:24:53 AM  

Clint_Torres: wellreadneck: Clint_Torres: [img.fark.net image 436x1500]

Man, this is hard to do, when you're an obsessive 'perfectionist' like myself.

Could replace that boxing glove with a BBC?
That would be perfect.


Here you go.

[i28.photobucket.com image 600x412]
NSFW!!!!!

At least I'll have an interesting breakfast topic.
"How was your night/morning?"
"It was okay. I got asked to Photoshop some BBC."
(blank stare)


Thanks. Me, too.
"Morning, watcha up to?"
"Not much. Asked someone to Photoshop a BBC."
(cocked eyebrow)
 
2014-03-08 07:26:57 AM  

Slappajo: jso2897: Slappajo: hardinparamedic: Slappajo: New rule...no one of one race can impersonate anyone of a different race.  If you're going to do impersonations, you must stay within your own race.  Oh hell, let's throw no men impersonating women or women impersonating men in there either too just to be safe.  Don't want any feminists getting riled either.

I hate to break this to you, but "Blackface" has been off limits for whites since the 1930s.

Sorry. It's not an "impersonation". It's a pretty damn offensive racial stereotype that was used to make fun of perceived black culture during the Jim Crow era.

He was doing an impression of Mr. T wasn't he?  To do that, he used black face paint.  Had he not, it would have been a shiatty impression of Mr. T.  But using black face paint apparently hurts some people's feelings.  We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...therefore BAN IT ALL.

Who ban what all? Why? Nobody is talking about banning anything - except you.

To relieve all of the butthurt about every time someone gets offended by something.


Not an option. You'll have to think of something else.
Maybe you should close your eyes, and think of England.
 
2014-03-08 07:27:23 AM  

cynicalbastard: [img.photobucket.com image 584x600]


media.giphy.com
 
2014-03-08 07:28:54 AM  
Big deal.

Meanwhile you have this cRap "music" that has lyrics like this:

"I kill a devil right now ... I say kill whitey all nightey long ... I stabbed a farking Jew with a steeple ... I would kill a cracker for nothing, just for the fark of it ... Menace Clan kill a cracker; jack 'em even quicker ... catch that devil slipping; blow his farking brains out"
"fark a Record Deal"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of Thorn EMI; called The EMI Group since 1997, United Kingdom.

So compared to that, blackface is like, meh.
 
2014-03-08 07:34:33 AM  

Miss Alexandra: Big deal.

Meanwhile you have this cRap "music" that has lyrics like this:

"I kill a devil right now ... I say kill whitey all nightey long ... I stabbed a farking Jew with a steeple ... I would kill a cracker for nothing, just for the fark of it ... Menace Clan kill a cracker; jack 'em even quicker ... catch that devil slipping; blow his farking brains out"
"fark a Record Deal"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of Thorn EMI; called The EMI Group since 1997, United Kingdom.

So compared to that, blackface is like, meh.


Yeah, 2 douchebags with one record almost 20 years ago totally makes everything even for Jim Crow, the KKK, Lynching, Minstrel Shows, and of course, Slavery.

Big deal! Totally!
 
2014-03-08 07:35:58 AM  

Miss Alexandra: Big deal.

Meanwhile you have this cRap "music" that has lyrics like this:

"I kill a devil right now ... I say kill whitey all nightey long ... I stabbed a farking Jew with a steeple ... I would kill a cracker for nothing, just for the fark of it ... Menace Clan kill a cracker; jack 'em even quicker ... catch that devil slipping; blow his farking brains out"
"fark a Record Deal"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of Thorn EMI; called The EMI Group since 1997, United Kingdom.

So compared to that, blackface is like, meh.


The fact you think the earth is the center of the universe is far more offensive if me as a representative of the white race than a bunch of rap lyrics are.
 
2014-03-08 07:42:21 AM  
hardinparamedic: Miss Alexandra: Big deal.

Meanwhile you have this cRap "music" that has lyrics like this:

"I kill a devil right now ... I say kill whitey all nightey long ... I stabbed a farking Jew with a steeple ... I would kill a cracker for nothing, just for the fark of it ... Menace Clan kill a cracker; jack 'em even quicker ... catch that devil slipping; blow his farking brains out"
"fark a Record Deal"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of Thorn EMI; called The EMI Group since 1997, United Kingdom.

So compared to that, blackface is like, meh.

The fact that you think the earth is the center of the universe is far more offensive if (to?) me as a representative of the white race (oh, FFS don't start that shiat again) than a bunch of rap lyrics are.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-08 07:44:33 AM  
I don't know how people muster the energy to be so offended by so many things.

I was looking through my old collection of National Lampoon a couple months ago and realized that they simply couldn't publish that today. That magazine had some legendary and historically (maybe too strong a term) important satirists and comic artists publish their works in it. The last thirty years would have been a much drearier place without Doug Kenney, Michael O'Donaghue, John Hughes, P.J. O'Rourke, Gahan Wilson, Harold Ramis, etc.

I'm guessing the majority of humor would offend someone, even though the number of offended parties might be small.

The guy did a bad Mr T impression. Farkin get over it. Unless you're Mr T, you really don't need to be offended unless you need too to get erect or something.
 
2014-03-08 07:45:13 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not one little bit surprised.  Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.  Appeal to the young people.  You know, like worship bands and all.


Yeah, the hardcore stuck-in-the-bubble bands are pretty much the only thing that's ever made me wish that there were  more serious Christians around.  Because if there were even a couple moderately skilled musicians around that occasionally did a song about how Jesus was a pretty hoopy frood that always knows where his towel is, the bubble bands wouldn't be able to get away with the terrifyingly bad shiat they can put out because of lack of competition in their target demographic.

Basically any respect I would normally have for someone going for their dreams and just happening to be bad is canceled and more by the fact that they don't even  try to develop any skills musically.  They intentionally keep churning out shiat because no one's forcing them to be better, and that's just not cool.  And as a bonus, it reflects poorly on their dedication to their  god as well, so I pretty much assume they're terrible  christians to boot.
 
2014-03-08 07:52:43 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Benevolent Misanthrope: Not one little bit surprised.  Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.  Appeal to the young people.  You know, like worship bands and all.

Yeah, the hardcore stuck-in-the-bubble bands are pretty much the only thing that's ever made me wish that there were  more serious Christians around.  Because if there were even a couple moderately skilled musicians around that occasionally did a song about how Jesus was a pretty hoopy frood that always knows where his towel is, the bubble bands wouldn't be able to get away with the terrifyingly bad shiat they can put out because of lack of competition in their target demographic.

Basically any respect I would normally have for someone going for their dreams and just happening to be bad is canceled and more by the fact that they don't even  try to develop any skills musically.  They intentionally keep churning out shiat because no one's forcing them to be better, and that's just not cool.  And as a bonus, it reflects poorly on their dedication to their  god as well, so I pretty much assume they're terrible  christians to boot.



Not to mention there are only so many ways you can write "Jesus is awesome." The songwriting for a very large amounts of Christian Rock bands are predictable and boring.

Ironically, that's the same problem so-called Satanic bands run into.
 
2014-03-08 07:54:09 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Benevolent Misanthrope: Not one little bit surprised.  Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.  Appeal to the young people.  You know, like worship bands and all.

Yeah, the hardcore stuck-in-the-bubble bands are pretty much the only thing that's ever made me wish that there were  more serious Christians around.  Because if there were even a couple moderately skilled musicians around that occasionally did a song about how Jesus was a pretty hoopy frood that always knows where his towel is, the bubble bands wouldn't be able to get away with the terrifyingly bad shiat they can put out because of lack of competition in their target demographic.

Basically any respect I would normally have for someone going for their dreams and just happening to be bad is canceled and more by the fact that they don't even  try to develop any skills musically.  They intentionally keep churning out shiat because no one's forcing them to be better, and that's just not cool.  And as a bonus, it reflects poorly on their dedication to their  god as well, so I pretty much assume they're terrible  christians to boot.


That musician exists.  His name is Phil Keaggy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aoDEMETXek
 
2014-03-08 08:06:01 AM  

stoli n coke:Not to mention there are only so many ways you can write "Jesus is awesome." The songwriting for a very large amounts of Christian Rock bands are predictable and boring.

Ironically, that's the same problem so-called Satanic bands run into.


Counter-point: actually reasonably-skilled popular rock music can be entirely summarized by "I'm fond of my current sexual partner" and "I dislike my previous, now estranged sexual partner", and they still haven't run out of entertaining ways to say it.

Close2TheEdge: That musician exists.  His name is Phil Keaggy


The fact that you have to rewind to the '80s to find a counter-example is, in the larger sense, more agreeing with me than disagreeing, I think.

Solidification of "Christian music" as a separate genre was still ongoing in the 80s, iirc, the battle station wasn't fully armed and operational as an isolated echo chamber until the early '90s.  Rock was considered a bad influence pretty much from its inception, but it wasn't media-duct-taped to the Devil until the satanic cult panics of the '80s.  Before that, it was a bad influence because of the association with  black people, which was a question the religious people were much more divided on than, y'know, Satan.  You had a lot more crossover with otherwise secular artists occasionally doing things like write an outright hymn before then... that's actually kinda what I was hoping would come back.  Elvis occasionally randomly breaking out into a spiritual, that kind of shiat... gives the dedicated-religious dudes something to let them know they should be ashamed of themselves until they put in another 10k hours of practice.
 
2014-03-08 08:07:15 AM  
Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.
 
2014-03-08 08:15:46 AM  

jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.


You have to realize that just like the Union, the Baptists split over slavery too. The Southern Baptists were basically the racist assholes of the time (and still pretty much are). Their grand tradition lives on.

Case in point:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44658-2004Jun15.html

The Southern Baptist Convention pulled out of the Baptist World Alliance, despite being a founding member, because they BWA wasn't sexist/racist enough for them. Evidently when your religious organisation starts following the actual teachings of Jesus Christ, it just becomes too gosh darn Liberal for decent Americans to tolerate - at least if by "decent Americans" you really mean, "retrograde, sexist, racist, bigots."
 
2014-03-08 08:21:49 AM  

Make More Hinjews: Monkeyfark Ridiculous:5. the ignorant think "blackface" means a non-black person wearing makeup to look like a black person.

"Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used by white performers to represent a black person. " - The Ignorant, apparently.


True as far as it goes, but it'd be wrong even by the terms of that article itself to take that sentence as a complete definition (blackface performances have also been done by black performers, for instance), and IMO it's highly misleading to use an overbroad definition of the term to conflate "wearing makeup to look more like Mr. T" with "blackface minstrelsy playing to broad racial stereotypes."

/but point taken; I retract the "ignorant"
 
2014-03-08 08:31:25 AM  

SquiggsIN: jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.

stupidity and ignorance aren't the same thing.  stupid and smart are hereditary (and partially environmental) and there's not a whole lot you can do to become 'smarter'.  However, ignorance is a personal choice. (religion in ALL forms = willful ignorance)


Taking on the beliefs of a group or another person as your own is irresponsible and ignorant. religion isn't the only example of this.
 
2014-03-08 08:40:27 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]


Your right, they both involve fantasy.
 
2014-03-08 08:41:31 AM  

Close2TheEdge: So does this qualify as anti-Semitic?



I don't know. Wouldn't surprise me if it rubbed someone the wrong way.

upload.wikimedia.org

Look, acting is about pretending to be something you aren't, and personally I don't have a problem with an actor playing a character of another race, religion, gender, sexuality, whatthefarkever. (And wearing whatever makeup, prosthetics, etc is useful in conveying that.) But you and your makeup people are running a heightened risk of playing to stereotypes and caricatures rather than individual character, and I won't really blame people for calling you on it.
 
2014-03-08 08:41:41 AM  

jso2897: Christ.  What an asshole.

 
2014-03-08 08:49:41 AM  
www.qwipster.net

Blackface is only appropriate when trying to sneak past the cops to catch a train
 
2014-03-08 08:51:42 AM  
I think that this thread has a lot of(deliberately?)
 \
  \
   \ ___________ in it.
 
2014-03-08 08:59:07 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.


Poe's law in action.
 
2014-03-08 09:03:12 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not one little bit surprised.  Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.  Appeal to the young people.  You know, like worship bands and all.


Yes, because when I go to church each Sunday we all put on black face and sing "Somebody's diggin in my potatoes" to the children.  It's a bigot thing, not a Christian thing.
 
2014-03-08 09:06:09 AM  

wildcardjack: DrPainMD: Does not approve.

Black guy in whiteface is funnier than the other way around, although it's just... No, it's not as full of racist stereotypes. White people made a bunch of stereotypes about black people but there aren't many degrogatory stereotypes the other way.


Also, there is another inconvenient fact. Whiteface isn't making fun of Whites--its making fun of Blackface. And that is also why anyone who's seen Tropic Thunder knows Downey was also making fun of Blackface--that why the film depicts him trying to bond with the actual African-American actor with that cheesy Jeffersons line.
 
2014-03-08 09:16:01 AM  

Somacandra: wildcardjack: DrPainMD: Does not approve.

Black guy in whiteface is funnier than the other way around, although it's just... No, it's not as full of racist stereotypes. White people made a bunch of stereotypes about black people but there aren't many degrogatory stereotypes the other way.

Also, there is another inconvenient fact. Whiteface isn't making fun of Whites--its making fun of Blackface. And that is also why anyone who's seen Tropic Thunder knows Downey was also making fun of Blackface--that why the film depicts him trying to bond with the actual African-American actor with that cheesy Jeffersons line.


The fact that this has to be explained to anyone should shock me, but nothing really shocks me at this point.

When blackface is the target of the joke, it's acceptable and could be funny. When black people are the target of the joke, it's probably racist and would take great skill to be funny. Generally a white preacher in blackface does not possess such comedic skill.

If this concept is confusing to you, you're probably racist.
 
Rat
2014-03-08 09:17:09 AM  
Are gays and drag queens in blackface ok?

© or should I be outraged like if a straight guy like Andre Agassi did it?

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-08 09:26:43 AM  

hardinparamedic: JoieD'Zen: So you got laid?

Well, let's just say that I found out I was bi one summer at 16 with a preacher's kid from Little Rock, Arkansas.


Everyone gets laid at church camp. That's half the point of going.
 
2014-03-08 09:27:47 AM  
i176.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-08 09:29:54 AM  

Rat: Are gays and drag queens in blackface ok?

© or should I be outraged like if a straight guy like Andre Agassi did it?

[img.fark.net image 640x478]


why? Are you worried you'll come off as a racist at your next grindr party?
 
2014-03-08 09:30:30 AM  

SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?


That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.
 
2014-03-08 09:30:33 AM  
Does anyone have another link to this story?
 
2014-03-08 09:30:36 AM  
Once again, arguing about God based on the misinterpretation of humans. It doesn't help that the story is linked through a site with the obvious intent of reassuring those denying God's existence that they are correct because of the questionable actions of a handpicked few.  That's okay, though. Jesus didn't come to save the righteous, he came for the sinners.
 
2014-03-08 09:35:19 AM  
That little Kentucky church runs an $8000/year college on the side. Read the faculty qualifications; that is really depressing. Maybe black-face acting is about all these kids can look to as a way of a profession out of their poverty.
 
2014-03-08 09:35:59 AM  

TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.


Nobody's butthurt about this except for the whiny racists who are upset that it's unacceptable to mince around in blackface in the year 2014. The rest of us are mocking them and you. This dumb racist pastor doesn't offend me, I'm laughing at him. The difference isn't even subtle, it's obvious.
 
2014-03-08 09:40:56 AM  

TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.


Where is the double standard? Is this an attempt at "satire" by the pastor? If so, I might be able to see a comparison. Perhaps the pastor is merely ignorant of the cultural history of the United States over the last 100 years?
 
2014-03-08 09:56:31 AM  
You're really shocked by this? Well.. OK.
 
2014-03-08 09:59:19 AM  

The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Nobody's butthurt about this except for the whiny racists who are upset that it's unacceptable to mince around in blackface in the year 2014. The rest of us are mocking them and you. This dumb racist pastor doesn't offend me, I'm laughing at him. The difference isn't even subtle, it's obvious.


You seriously need to learn what blackface is and isn't. But thank you for again proving that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal worldview is automatically a racist.
 
2014-03-08 10:04:10 AM  

mutterfark: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Where is the double standard? Is this an attempt at "satire" by the pastor? If so, I might be able to see a comparison. Perhaps the pastor is merely ignorant of the cultural history of the United States over the last 100 years?


The double standard: if it's a "friend of Hollywood" portraying a black person, it's fine. But if it's one of those horrible right wing Nazi/Anti-Semite/Racist/Fascist/Homophobic/Sexist (did I miss any other buzz words?) who does it, then it's a problem. If he would have gone out there in true blackface saying "mammy!" and tap dancing, you might have a case. But you don't.
 
2014-03-08 10:06:21 AM  

TerminalEchoes: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Nobody's butthurt about this except for the whiny racists who are upset that it's unacceptable to mince around in blackface in the year 2014. The rest of us are mocking them and you. This dumb racist pastor doesn't offend me, I'm laughing at him. The difference isn't even subtle, it's obvious.

You seriously need to learn what blackface is and isn't. But thank you for again proving that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal worldview is automatically a racist.


It has nothing to do with a "liberal world view" FFS have you posted a single thing in this thread that isn't a horrific strawman?

Painting yourself and then acting like a black guy, when not satirizing the act of blackface itself, is Farking racist. I'm sorry if that offends you. I really am. I'm sorry that being accurately identified as a racist offends you. It's not my problem it's yours. You need to come to damn grips with who you are.

I'm so tired of handling conservative crybabies like yourself with kid gloves. Always playing the goddamned victim card. You're not a victim because you can't put on blackface without being called a racist. You're just a damn racist, either own it, or stop being racist, but either way stop Farking WHINING about it all the time.

I thought liberals were damn crybabies until this country elected a black president, that's when you pathetic conservatives took the whole victimology thing to 11.
 
2014-03-08 10:09:04 AM  

TerminalEchoes: mutterfark: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Where is the double standard? Is this an attempt at "satire" by the pastor? If so, I might be able to see a comparison. Perhaps the pastor is merely ignorant of the cultural history of the United States over the last 100 years?

The double standard: if it's a "friend of Hollywood" portraying a black person, it's fine. But if it's one of those horrible right wing Nazi/Anti-Semite/Racist/Fascist/Homophobic/Sexist (did I miss any other buzz words?) who does it, then it's a problem. If he would have gone out there in true blackface saying "mammy!" and tap dancing, you might have a case. But you don't.


Seriously, how old are you. 10? 12? You don't even know what a double standard is and you're trying to lecture the class on 100 years of race relations throughout history.

Cry more. How many more victim cards can you play? Tell daddy all of the mean names those nasty wiberals said to you...
 
2014-03-08 10:12:38 AM  

hardinparamedic: Miss Alexandra: Big deal.

Meanwhile you have this cRap "music" that has lyrics like this:

"I kill a devil right now ... I say kill whitey all nightey long ... I stabbed a farking Jew with a steeple ... I would kill a cracker for nothing, just for the fark of it ... Menace Clan kill a cracker; jack 'em even quicker ... catch that devil slipping; blow his farking brains out"
"fark a Record Deal"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of Thorn EMI; called The EMI Group since 1997, United Kingdom.

So compared to that, blackface is like, meh.

The fact you think the earth is the center of the universe is far more offensive if me as a representative of the white race than a bunch of rap lyrics are.


I love how no matter what the topic is, no matter what that poster says, someone makes sure to immediately remind everyone of that.
 
2014-03-08 10:13:26 AM  

Gulper Eel: This pastor who runs a "National" young fundamentalists' conference has a whopping 109 followers on Twitter - way to go with that youth outreach there, rev.

And seeing as his congregation appears from the pictures on the church's website to be multiracial and his church  runs a ministry for the Spanish-speaking community, I'm going with him being clueless about teh internets and not bigoted, although the final call on that doesn't rest with us but with his flock.

They need to stay the fark out of politics, though. Living your ministry and legislating your ministry are at cross-purposes (so to speak) with each other.


I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.
 
2014-03-08 10:13:31 AM  

TanSau: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

Ultima 6, one of the better ones.

Nice


Hehe yep... at least a year lost to that.
 
2014-03-08 10:16:23 AM  

cynicalminion: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

[i.imgur.com image 400x225]


I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.
 
2014-03-08 10:20:22 AM  

moodyfark: It looks to me like he was trying to impersonate Mr. T (poorly, but that's beside the point)


That's what happens whenever Christians try to adapt anything popular to Christianity

Christian rock - terrible
Christian cartoons - terrible
Christian summer camps - terrible
Christian pantomime? - terrible
 
2014-03-08 10:23:49 AM  

Witness99: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: mutterfark: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Where is the double standard? Is this an attempt at "satire" by the pastor? If so, I might be able to see a comparison. Perhaps the pastor is merely ignorant of the cultural history of the United States over the last 100 years?

The double standard: if it's a "friend of Hollywood" portraying a black person, it's fine. But if it's one of those horrible right wing Nazi/Anti-Semite/Racist/Fascist/Homophobic/Sexist (did I miss any other buzz words?) who does it, then it's a problem. If he would have gone out there in true blackface saying "mammy!" and tap dancing, you might have a case. But you don't.

Seriously, how old are you. 10? 12? You don't even know what a double standard is and you're trying to lecture the class on 100 years of race relations throughout history.

Cry more. How many more victim cards can you play? Tell daddy all of the mean names those nasty wiberals said to you...

The Homer Tax - I'm curious your opinion on masks that are accurately color matched.


It's stupid to do, but doesn't have the direct relation to a specific act of racism like painting your skin. This is common sense people, if at any point in time you find yourself painting your skin like a black person, without making a commentary on the act of doing so itself, and think "this is a GREAT idea!" Then there is simply no hope for you.

Sorry white people, we can't paint ourselves black, we just can't. Well have to keep busy doing all the other multitudes of things that make being white so awesome. Almost everything in our lives is tilted to our advantage. Race related costumery isn't, we're going to have to get over that.
 
2014-03-08 10:29:07 AM  
www.chicagoreader.com
 
2014-03-08 10:29:24 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: jso2897: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

No it isn't. It's an old, false, and boring meme. It's about as far from "interesting" as any other made up RW paranoia.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have felt compelled to react to that or this as well.


Ah, that old Morton's fork, so popular among Creationists:

1. If you ignore me, that validates me because it proves you're unable or afraid to debate my point.
2. If you don't ignore me, that validates me because it proves I'm worth your time and attention.
 
2014-03-08 10:32:58 AM  

CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.


Wrong, care to try again?  The purpose of the law is NOT to legislate morality.  The purpose of the law is to ensure that in the eyes of the law everyone is treated fairly.  Want to run a flower business and refuse to make bouquets for the gay couple because you believe their pairing is an abomination?  Fine.  That's your opinion and you have a right to it.  What you don't have a right to is to be shielded from boycotts and criticism from more intelligent people that think you are an ignorant, bigoted, backward moron.
 
2014-03-08 10:33:58 AM  
Because white guys be driving like this....

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-08 10:35:34 AM  
Thanks Mambo!


".....birdy num-num!"
 
2014-03-08 10:38:55 AM  

CanisNoir: Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.


They're not defining what's morally correct - they're defining what is and isn't sinful based on their doctrine. There's a distinct difference. All the dorm-room Solomons saying "we shouldn't legislate morality" have it exactly ass backwards. The state should legislate morality, but should not legislate that morality based on anybody's interpretation of what is and isn't sinful, because sin is a specifically religious concept.

Yes, I think same-sex marriage should be legal - but that's legislation based on the absence of a personal belief system. In other words, my opinion doesn't matter one bit in the affairs of a household other than my own. And as for the state, there is no compelling reason for the state to favor one sort of union of two consenting adults in a true and committed relationship over another sort. It's none of our farking business other than to treat all such unions equally under the law.
 
2014-03-08 10:40:03 AM  

The Homer Tax: Witness99: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: mutterfark: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Where is the double standard? Is this an attempt at "satire" by the pastor? If so, I might be able to see a comparison. Perhaps the pastor is merely ignorant of the cultural history of the United States over the last 100 years?

The double standard: if it's a "friend of Hollywood" portraying a black person, it's fine. But if it's one of those horrible right wing Nazi/Anti-Semite/Racist/Fascist/Homophobic/Sexist (did I miss any other buzz words?) who does it, then it's a problem. If he would have gone out there in true blackface saying "mammy!" and tap dancing, you might have a case. But you don't.

Seriously, how old are you. 10? 12? You don't even know what a double standard is and you're trying to lecture the class on 100 years of race relations throughout history.

Cry more. How many more victim cards can you play? Tell daddy all of the mean names those nasty wiberals said to you...

The Homer Tax - I'm curious your opinion on masks that are accurately color matched.

It's stupid to do, but doesn't have the direct relation to a specific act of racism like painting your skin. This is common sense people, if at any point in time you find yourself painting your skin like a black person, without making a commentary on the act of doing so itself, and think "this is a GREAT idea!" Then there is simply no hope for you.

Sorry white people, we can't paint ourselves black, we just can't. Well have to keep busy doing all the other multitudes of things that make being white so awesome. Almost everything in our lives is tilted to our advantage. Race related costumery isn't, we're going to have to get over that.


It's only offensive when the makeup purposefully exagerates stereotypes (which this did not). By insisting upon a double standard, you are doing just as much harm to racial harmony as old school segregationists. Harmony through equality, not inequality. Focusing on innocuous actions such as this breeds resentment.
 
2014-03-08 10:44:58 AM  

CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: Witness99: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: mutterfark: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Where is the double standard? Is this an attempt at "satire" by the pastor? If so, I might be able to see a comparison. Perhaps the pastor is merely ignorant of the cultural history of the United States over the last 100 years?

The double standard: if it's a "friend of Hollywood" portraying a black person, it's fine. But if it's one of those horrible right wing Nazi/Anti-Semite/Racist/Fascist/Homophobic/Sexist (did I miss any other buzz words?) who does it, then it's a problem. If he would have gone out there in true blackface saying "mammy!" and tap dancing, you might have a case. But you don't.

Seriously, how old are you. 10? 12? You don't even know what a double standard is and you're trying to lecture the class on 100 years of race relations throughout history.

Cry more. How many more victim cards can you play? Tell daddy all of the mean names those nasty wiberals said to you...

The Homer Tax - I'm curious your opinion on masks that are accurately color matched.

It's stupid to do, but doesn't have the direct relation to a specific act of racism like painting your skin. This is common sense people, if at any point in time you find yourself painting your skin like a black person, without making a commentary on the act of doing so itself, and think "this is a GREAT idea!" Then there is simply no hope for you.

Sorry white people, we can't paint ourselves black, we just can't. Well have to keep busy doing all the other multitudes of things that make being white so awesome. Almost everything in our lives is tilted to our advantage. Race related costumery isn't, we're going to have to get over that.

It's only offensive when the makeup purposefully exagerates stereotypes (which this did not). By insisting upon a double standard, you are doing just as much harm to racial harmony as old school segregationists. Harmony through equality, not inequality. Focusing on innocuous actions such as this breeds resentment.


Painting yourself black and acting like Mr T is blackface, I'm sorry that you don't understand.

It's not a "double standard" you don't know what that phrase means. You're using it improperly to excuse a racist act. You're simply wrong on this and you're not as clever as you think you are when you try to flip it around and say "you're the real racist for saying it's racist!"

You're not smart, you're not clever, you're just wrong. It's OK to be wrong sometimes, like you are. Right now.
 
2014-03-08 10:45:26 AM  

TwistedFark: Miss Alexandra: Big deal.

Meanwhile you have this cRap "music" that has lyrics like this:

"I kill a devil right now ... I say kill whitey all nightey long ... I stabbed a farking Jew with a steeple ... I would kill a cracker for nothing, just for the fark of it ... Menace Clan kill a cracker; jack 'em even quicker ... catch that devil slipping; blow his farking brains out"
"fark a Record Deal"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of Thorn EMI; called The EMI Group since 1997, United Kingdom.

So compared to that, blackface is like, meh.

Yeah, 2 douchebags with one record almost 20 years ago totally makes everything even for Jim Crow, the KKK, Lynching, Minstrel Shows, and of course, Slavery.

Big deal! Totally!


I wouldn't bother.   Miss Alexandra has done drive-bys before in other threads.  I don't expect her to come back to the thread.
 
2014-03-08 10:45:40 AM  

StrangeQ: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

Wrong, care to try again?  The purpose of the law is NOT to legislate morality.  The purpose of the law is to ensure that in the eyes of the law everyone is treated fairly.  Want to run a flower business and refuse to make bouquets for the gay couple because you believe their pairing is an abomination?  Fine.  That's your opinion and you have a right to it.  What you don't have a right to is to be shielded from boycotts and criticism from more intelligent people that think you are an ignorant, bigoted, backward moron.


Uh no. The idea of equality under the law is a relatively new idea in the world and is based upon the moral idea that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights". Every piece of legislation at it's base is what people think is morally correct.
 
2014-03-08 10:47:33 AM  
Gulper Eel:They're not defining what's morally correct - they're defining what is and isn't sinful based on their doctrine. There's a distinct difference. All the dorm-room Solomons saying "we shouldn't legislate morality" have it exactly ass backwards. The state should legislate morality, but should not legislate that morality based on anybody's interpretation of what is and isn't sinful, because sin is a specifically religious concept.

Yes, I think same-sex marriage should be legal - but that's legislation based on the absence of a personal belief system. In other words, my opinion doesn't matter one bit in the affairs of a household other than my own. And as for the state, there is no compelling reason for the state to favor one sort of union of two consenting adults in a true and committed relationship over another sort. It's none of our farking business other than to treat all such unions equally under the law.


Then how do you define morality?  Morality is by definition someone's opinion on what is right and wrong.  Marijuana prohibition and prohibition and general (such as Sunday liquor laws that are still on the books) is the very definition of legislating based on "morality" instead of a rational and logical take on personal liberties.
 
2014-03-08 10:50:30 AM  

Gulper Eel: CanisNoir: Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

They're not defining what's morally correct - they're defining what is and isn't sinful based on their doctrine. There's a distinct difference. All the dorm-room Solomons saying "we shouldn't legislate morality" have it exactly ass backwards. The state should legislate morality, but should not legislate that morality based on anybody's interpretation of what is and isn't sinful, because sin is a specifically religious concept.

Yes, I think same-sex marriage should be legal - but that's legislation based on the absence of a personal belief system. In other words, my opinion doesn't matter one bit in the affairs of a household other than my own. And as for the state, there is no compelling reason for the state to favor one sort of union of two consenting adults in a true and committed relationship over another sort. It's none of our farking business other than to treat all such unions equally under the law.


Yet "Live and let live" is a moral philosophy and the one you base your legislative decisions on, just as the opponents base thiers on a differing philosophy.
 
2014-03-08 10:50:46 AM  

CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.


The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.
 
2014-03-08 10:51:41 AM  

CanisNoir: Yet "Live and let live" is a moral philosophy and the one you base your legislative decisions on, just as the opponents base thiers on a differing philosophy.


Except that no, he didn't say that was his philosophy.

/seriously, painting your face black and acting like Mr. T is racist. Mr. T is a walking stereotype.
 
2014-03-08 10:52:58 AM  

CanisNoir: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

Wrong, care to try again?  The purpose of the law is NOT to legislate morality.  The purpose of the law is to ensure that in the eyes of the law everyone is treated fairly.  Want to run a flower business and refuse to make bouquets for the gay couple because you believe their pairing is an abomination?  Fine.  That's your opinion and you have a right to it.  What you don't have a right to is to be shielded from boycotts and criticism from more intelligent people that think you are an ignorant, bigoted, backward moron.

Uh no. The idea of equality under the law is a relatively new idea in the world and is based upon the moral idea that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights". Every piece of legislation at it's base is what people think is morally correct.


"All men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence. Our system of government and laws is based on the Constitution, not the DoI. You are wrong again.

At some point it becomes acceptable to cut your losses and bail from the thread.
 
2014-03-08 10:55:27 AM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ...By insisting upon a double standard, you are doing just as much harm to racial harmony as old school segregationists.


Okay.  You're either exaggerating to attempt to make a point you're failing at making OR you're a complete moron worthy of being ignored by all the adults in the room.


It's a little bit if both. He's exceptionally uninformed but thinks he's really really smart and clever. There's nothing more annoying than a dumb-dumb who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
 
2014-03-08 10:56:46 AM  
CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.
 
2014-03-08 10:56:57 AM  

soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.


I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.
 
2014-03-08 11:00:15 AM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ...By insisting upon a double standard, you are doing just as much harm to racial harmony as old school segregationists.


Okay.  You're either exaggerating to attempt to make a point you're failing at making OR you're a complete moron worthy of being ignored by all the adults in the room.


Exagerating to make a point. The seperation imposed by a double standard is far more subtle but just as insideous as a "whites only" drinking fountian. Both are barriers between the races.
 
2014-03-08 11:02:08 AM  

CanisNoir: My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system


So Sharia law is okay?

I mean, do you even KNOW what the first Amendment is about?

Hint: It's about not allowing religious law to be established as the governing order of the country.
 
2014-03-08 11:02:24 AM  

CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.


We have a document that defines what our laws can and can't do. Attempting to legislate ones religious beliefs into law violates that document. You are creating a false equivalence, but you've been told that on this site several times over the years when you've attempted to make this argument that you think is very very clever before.
 
2014-03-08 11:03:54 AM  

CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.


Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.
 
2014-03-08 11:06:59 AM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ...By insisting upon a double standard, you are doing just as much harm to racial harmony as old school segregationists.


Okay.  You're either exaggerating to attempt to make a point you're failing at making OR you're a complete moron worthy of being ignored by all the adults in the room.

Exagerating to make a point. The seperation imposed by a double standard is far more subtle but just as insideous as a "whites only" drinking fountian. Both are barriers between the races.


There's no double standard, you're just too dumb to understand the difference between the two situations.

If I shoot a guy who is breaking into my house and threatening me with a knife or if I just shoot someone on the street because I don't like his face are two different situations even though both involve me shooting a guy. It's not a "double standard" because context matters. Most people can grasp this concept.
 
2014-03-08 11:15:16 AM  

soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.


If a person believes gay marriage is wrong they are fully justified in and legally allowed to push that view legislatively regardless of how they came to that conclusion. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to because their position is religiously motivated borders on "thought crimes".
 
2014-03-08 11:19:10 AM  

SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?


Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.
 
2014-03-08 11:20:17 AM  

CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.

If a person believes gay marriage is wrong they are fully justified in and legally allowed to push that view legislatively regardless of how they came to that conclusion. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to because their position is religiously motivated borders on "thought crimes".


They can try, but it should never make it into law because it violates the founding document of our country. So at some point it becomes stupid to try. NAMBLA is trying to make boy Farking legal. According to your absurd argument this is the exact same thing as trying to enact legislation to enhance benefits to veterans since both are based on "morality."
 
2014-03-08 11:21:56 AM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.


Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.
 
2014-03-08 11:23:19 AM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based ...

I think you just don't understand what the word 'just' means inside the concept of justice.


I'm starting to think he doesn't understand what most words mean.
 
2014-03-08 11:31:02 AM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: soporific: CanisNoir: I'm going to take issue with your last statement. Do you believe gay marriage should be legal? Regardless of how you answer you will be for enacting legislation based upon your personal belief system. Why is it okay for you and not them? Everyone supports legislation based upon their definition of what is morally correct, you'll just have to deal with the fact that a majority of your countrymen will have thiers colored by religion.

The concept of equality in the eyes of the law is not just a personal belief system, it is an ethos that provides the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not about "beliefs" because that ethos exists whether one believes in it or not. It's the same thing as believing in a literal version of Genesis or in science. Science exists whether you believe in it or not. Even if no one believes in it, it's still there.

But let's say we do decide, for the sake of argument, to view this issue strictly in terms of "belief." If the anti-gay side gets to legislate its beliefs, people are hurt. Gays will be discriminated against and denied the 1138 rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. However, if the pro-gay side gets its way, the anti-gay people aren't hurt. No one takes away their ability to marry, ability to worship, ability to express their opinions. They are simply denied the ability to hurt people with whom they disagree, and the gays get to marry and enjoy those 1138 rights.

Therefore, one belief results in injustice, the other results in justice. The belief that results in justice is superior.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

Except that apples are not oranges even though both are fruit. Morality based on ones interpretation of a religious text is not the same as legislating based on the U.S. Constitution and the legal and secular principles on which is it based. To simply call both "morality" is to be over-simplistic to the point of ignorance.

If a person believes gay marriage is wrong they are fully justified in and legally allowed to push that view legislatively regardless of how they came to that conclusion. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to because their position is religiously motivated borders on "thought crimes".

They can try, but it should never make it into law because it violates the founding document of our country. So at some point it becomes stupid to try. NAMBLA is trying to make boy Farking legal. According to your absurd argument this is the exact same thing as trying to enact legislation to enhance benefits to veterans since both are based on "morality."


Correct and based upon my personal philosophy of right and wrong, I would oppose NAMBLA but support Veterans. I wouldn't, however, say NAMBLA shouldn't be allowed to try and convince people they were right and get laws changed.
 
2014-03-08 11:33:17 AM  
TerminalEchoes:

The double standard: if it's a "friend of Hollywood" portraying a black person, it's fine. But if it's one of those horrible right wing Nazi/Anti-Semite/Racist/Fascist/Homophobic/Sexist (did I miss any other buzz words?) who does it, then it's a problem. If he would have gone out there in true blackface saying "mammy!" and tap dancing, you might have a case. But you don't.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I do not have formal debate training, but I believe it is not a double standard in this case because of a false equivalency. One is clearly satire, the other is... well that was the question in my post wasn't it?
 
2014-03-08 11:35:39 AM  
The Constitution specifically forbids the establishment of an official state religion. For example, Methodism or the Episcopal church can not be the official church of the United States. The idea that laws will not be based on the religious beliefs of the law makers is ludicrous.  Its not complicated.  Many people make decisions based on their moral convictions.

/Many others can be said to make decisions based on a lack of moral convictions.
 
2014-03-08 11:37:48 AM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.


Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.
 
2014-03-08 11:39:43 AM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.


And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well. 

I'll keep checking to see if he keeps talking, though.  He's an amusing troll, in the way that cat toys are amusing.  Not too great in themselves, but it's awesome seeing them get smacked around over and over ...
 
2014-03-08 11:48:11 AM  

vicioushobbit: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well. 

I'll keep checking to see if he keeps talking, though.  He's an amusing troll, in the way that cat toys are amusing.  Not too great in themselves, but it's awesome seeing them get smacked around over and over ...


Way to fail reading comprehension. I was not saying he was incorrect about the topic of this thread I was rebutting his point from our conversation. It's obvious this pastor did nothing wrong, which I was addressing with a different poster in a different conversation. Sorry but your Trolldar is faulty.
 
2014-03-08 11:49:06 AM  

CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.

Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.


For the record, this is the second time you've tried to unsuccessfully portray me as a bigot. You need a new schtick.

Opposing bigots isn't bigotry, that argument has never, ever worked on anyone who has a logical mind.
 
2014-03-08 12:02:19 PM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.

Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.

For the record, this is the second time you've tried to unsuccessfully portray me as a bigot. You need a new schtick.

Opposing bigots isn't bigotry, that argument has never, ever worked on anyone who has a logical mind.


Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.
 
2014-03-08 12:02:41 PM  
Here, let me, a BLACK WOMAN, explain it to all of you.

SATIRE: a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc. : humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

So a white person in Black face who is making fun of WHITE people (notice I said WHITE people) "acting" Black it's satire and if the comedian/actor is good; it's funny.
A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!

Tyler Perry dressing up as a Madea Simmons isn't satire or funny. It's demeaning to Black women. Why because he's a Black man who SHOULD HAVE and COULD HAVE (but didn't) have hired a BLACK WOMAN to be Madea (that would have been satire.) Playing the part himself, aside from being racist was also sexist. Do you understand the difference?
 
2014-03-08 12:05:38 PM  

CanisNoir: Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry


No, it isn't. People should base legislative decisions on the LAW, not religion. The law is not based in religion. Never has been in the US, never should be.

You can't even provide an example where it has been.
 
2014-03-08 12:05:59 PM  

cynicalminion: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

[i.imgur.com image 400x225]


JESUS Christ I can never unsee that, you bastard.
 
2014-03-08 12:09:46 PM  
Yet another failure to heed what I call the Fat Cosplayer Rule. It's fine to dress up as a character you don't really look like - just acknowledge that you realize this in some way.

But since this is a fundamentalist baptist preacher from Kentucky, I'm given to think that he knew fairly well a racist bit would go over well with his audience.
 
2014-03-08 12:15:55 PM  

allylloyd: Here, let me, a BLACK WOMAN, explain it to all of you.

SATIRE: a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc. : humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

So a white person in Black face who is making fun of WHITE people (notice I said WHITE people) "acting" Black it's satire and if the comedian/actor is good; it's funny.
A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!

Tyler Perry dressing up as a Madea Simmons isn't satire or funny. It's demeaning to Black women. Why because he's a Black man who SHOULD HAVE and COULD HAVE (but didn't) have hired a BLACK WOMAN to be Madea (that would have been satire.) Playing the part himself, aside from being racist was also sexist. Do you understand the difference?


I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.
 
2014-03-08 12:19:37 PM  

hardinparamedic: JoieD'Zen: So you got laid?

Well, let's just say that I found out I was bi one summer at 16 with a preacher's kid from Little Rock, Arkansas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4339EbVn8
 
2014-03-08 12:21:34 PM  

vicioushobbit: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well. 

I'll keep checking to see if he keeps talking, though.  He's an amusing troll, in the way that cat toys are amusing.  Not too great in themselves, but it's awesome seeing them get smacked around over and over ...


I don't think he's a troll, it's why I've never blocked him.

He's just really, really dumb and he thinks he's really, really smart. Think of him like an amusing pet.
 
2014-03-08 12:21:39 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.

boy has this thread jumped a shark (or two).  did i miss a sharknado alert today?

You're saying a person can't disconnect their personal feelings from how they'd want legislation in their country and that is absolutely wrong.  I provided 1 example regarding my personal stance as pro-choice on abortion.  I wouldn't want anyone to have an abortion BUT, I can't insist that my morality apply to the rest of the country.  I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for something that I know would inhibit another person's ability to have their own moral code different from my own.   I have no problem with your personal code.  I have a problem with people insisting that we pass laws based on THEIR code without realizing it's against the spirit of the 1st amendment.


And as I pointed out, that is in itself a personal code of morality. Someone else could say that they could not in good conscience allow someone to murder an innocent and suffer the emotional trauma involved with an abortion. They would be serving the community more by keeping abortions from happening, in their view.
 
2014-03-08 12:24:07 PM  
...and why has no one brought up the desecration of the 3 Stooges???
museum.theclubhouse1.net
Speakin as a fawmuh New Yawkuh, Oim moitified!
 
2014-03-08 12:32:35 PM  

jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.


images.nationalgeographic.com
Frowns at your shenanigans.
 
2014-03-08 12:33:42 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ....

I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.

From my perspective (male with German, Dutch, Scot, and Shawnee heritage) I didn't think his intent was racism and I would not assume the man is racist based on what he did.  He is, however, incredibly insensitive to reality to either not recognize or to assume that it wouldn't be considered offensive and in poor taste by some.


Honestly I think it was more of him not recognising the power of the internet and the wider audience it creates. He wasn't being insensitive because it was intended for a small audience which most likely would not find it offensive.
 
2014-03-08 12:35:06 PM  

CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: StrangeQ: CanisNoir: all [humans] are ... equal

That is not a moral idea, that is an intrinsic fact.  Also, I fixed it to remove any additional biases.

The founding fathers are on a pedestal to most in this country but, they certainly wouldn't fit in here in modern America.  Sexist, racist, misogynist jerks.... who just so happened to set us on the path to where we are.

CanisNoir: I'm not debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. My point is that people are just as justified in pushing legislation based upon religious beliefs as they are for any other belief system. I take issue with the statement "they should not legislate their morality" because everyone legislates their morality.

NO, you're wrong.  Go read the Bill of Rights again.  Yes, people do it, NO, it isn't justified, quite the opposite.  The inability for people to separate their personal ethics from their voting is a problem because in our nation even the majority doesn't have the right to impose their religious morality on the rest of the nation.

Ex1 : Abortion.  I don't like abortion.  I think it's a lazy way out for people who were irresponsible (*exceptions happen don't label me misogynist quite yet) BUT, I AM PRO CHOICE because MY moral code doesn't justify legislation requiring the rest of the 330 million Americans here to think and believe the way I do.

Again... this thread was on the relative inappropriateness of a church pastor, right?

Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

Seriously, are you ever right about anything? The establishment clause of he first amendment was designed to protect religion from the government and vice-versa. Read the federalist papers, you might learn something.

Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.

For the record, this is the second time you've tried to unsuccessfully portray me as a bigot. You need a new schtick.

Opposing bigots isn't bigotry, that argument has never, ever worked on anyone who has a logical mind.

Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.


Like several other words you've used in this thread to try and sound smart, you also don't know what "bigotry" means.
 
2014-03-08 12:35:33 PM  

allylloyd: A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!


How about a black person in white face making fun of white people?
 
2014-03-08 12:36:54 PM  

CanisNoir: allylloyd: Here, let me, a BLACK WOMAN, explain it to all of you.

SATIRE: a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc. : humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

So a white person in Black face who is making fun of WHITE people (notice I said WHITE people) "acting" Black it's satire and if the comedian/actor is good; it's funny.
A white person in Black face who is making fun of BLACK people (notice I said BLACK people) isn't satire, it's RACIST!

Tyler Perry dressing up as a Madea Simmons isn't satire or funny. It's demeaning to Black women. Why because he's a Black man who SHOULD HAVE and COULD HAVE (but didn't) have hired a BLACK WOMAN to be Madea (that would have been satire.) Playing the part himself, aside from being racist was also sexist. Do you understand the difference?

I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.


I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T
 
2014-03-08 12:37:40 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: Except for the fact that the position of "people shouldn't base legislative decisions on their religious beliefs" isn't opposing bigotry, it is bigotry. Not every religious belief is biggoted. By your standard if someone believes that outreach to the poor is a foundation of their religion, they should not be allowed to push for it legislatively and definately not mention the religious basis for their activism. That is antireligious bigotry.

boy has this thread jumped a shark (or two).  did i miss a sharknado alert today?

You're saying a person can't disconnect their personal feelings from how they'd want legislation in their country and that is absolutely wrong.  I provided 1 example regarding my personal stance as pro-choice on abortion.  I wouldn't want anyone to have an abortion BUT, I can't insist that my morality apply to the rest of the country.  I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for something that I know would inhibit another person's ability to have their own moral code different from my own.   I have no problem with your personal code.  I have a problem with people insisting that we pass laws based on THEIR code without realizing it's against the spirit of the 1st amendment.

And as I pointed out, that is in itself a personal code of morality. Someone else could say that they could not in good conscience allow someone to murder an innocent and suffer the emotional trauma involved with an abortion. They would be serving the community more by keeping abortions from happening, in their view.

Agree to disagree.  (i'll even smoke you up, notmadatu)


Deal :)
 
2014-03-08 12:40:06 PM  

SquiggsIN: xtrc8u: The Constitution specifically forbids the establishment of an official state religion. For example, Methodism or the Episcopal church can not be the official church of the United States. The idea that laws will not be based on the religious beliefs of the law makers is ludicrous.  Its not complicated.  Many people make decisions based on their moral convictions.

/Many others can be said to make decisions based on a lack of moral convictions.

If a given law abides by Religion1 requirements for "good" morality but doesn't fit Religion2's requirements for the same isn't that specifically establishing laws that favor a religion?  Isn't that exactly what the 1st amendment says is a no-no?

I get that you're saying it happens.  I'm saying it's not JUSTIFIED to pass laws based on SUBJECTIVE things like morality.  Which is a pretty difficult concept in itself because most people would say that there is and must be a common morality for any government to function. We must agree on basic things like don't kill, don't steal, don't inflict harm on others and those can be considered morally-based by religion but religion is not required to follow such simply ethical rules.  The majority passing laws that infringe on the minority are still unconstitutional regardless of the justification the majority had for passing them.

Another example that's unpopular for me to point out is the federally recognized holiday of christ mass.  there is zero legal basis for it being recognized by our federal government but, they did it at a time when xtians had excessive power to the point of being able to ignore the 1st amendment when it pleased them.  (same goes for 'in god we trust' on currency)


I understand what you are saying, however, I disagree. If a law is passed, and that law fits religion1's viewpoint but not religion2, then  religion2 is not necessarily injured.   In the U.S., we have majority rule and minority protections. So, if the law inhibits the exercise of religion2, the law is deemed wrong, or the law must be limited in scope (like school systems not being able to penalize students for missing school on religious holidays).  You mentioned "don't kill."  That is part of the 10 Commandments. Certainly we won't repeal this law because it is associated with a religion because it a concept also common with those who do not see themselves as "religious."  Christmas is a national holiday because the majority wants it to be. It does not harm those that do not celebrate Christmas because a person can spend that day however they want to. In the U.S., its not about excessive power. It is about majority rule and minority rights.

Also, while I'm at it, and because I really don't want to do a lot of posting, just because someone has a right to something does not mean someone else has an obligation to provide it for them. That's not a response to anything you said, it's a new piece.
 
2014-03-08 12:40:53 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ....

I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.

From my perspective (male with German, Dutch, Scot, and Shawnee heritage) I didn't think his intent was racism and I would not assume the man is racist based on what he did.  He is, however, incredibly insensitive to reality to either not recognize or to assume that it wouldn't be considered offensive and in poor taste by some.


I don't think the pastor was attempting to offend and be racist towards black people with his MrTinstral show. However, I think the fact that he didn't realize what a terrible, terrible idea it would be is because he's racist to some degree.
 
2014-03-08 12:41:44 PM  

DrPainMD: jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.


Frowns at your shenanigans.


I think the fact that you had to go back half a century to find a counter example speaks volumes.
 
2014-03-08 12:41:46 PM  

CanisNoir: Prohibition wasn't struck down because it violated the establishment clause yet was based in large part on religios beliefs. Same with sodomy laws and a whole host of other laws. A person supporting an individual piece of legislation because it agrees with their religious beliefs is not attempting to establish a state religion. At some point you'll have to grow out of your antireligious bigotry and face the reality that people are motivated by a myriad of reasons of which religion is just one.


The "grow out of bigotry" and "face the reality" bits are pretty nice touches, but they don't really make your points sound that much less stupid.  They really, at this point, just make you sound petulant.
 
2014-03-08 12:42:56 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-08 12:43:22 PM  
You know who is doing a bad imitation of Blackface?

(can't tell you so I don't get banned again)
 
2014-03-08 12:44:30 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir:Honestly I think it was more of him not recognising the power of the internet and the wider audience it creates. He wasn't being insensitive because it was intended for a small audience which most likely would not find it offensive.

Well the guy does only have 109 twitter followers according to another thread comment so I guess that's plausible.


DrPainMD: jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]
Frowns at your shenanigans.

Even visionaries can be ignorant/incorrect.  (i wouldn't use the word stupid because it's not appropriate)


Ok, how about James Clerk Maxwell?
 
2014-03-08 12:46:04 PM  

SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)


Not directed at you, but directed to people who don't understand why what this guy did was bad:

You can say "pity the fool" and make all the MR T references you want *without* painting your skin brown. I promise, it's possible.
 
2014-03-08 12:47:49 PM  

DrPainMD: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir:Honestly I think it was more of him not recognising the power of the internet and the wider audience it creates. He wasn't being insensitive because it was intended for a small audience which most likely would not find it offensive.

Well the guy does only have 109 twitter followers according to another thread comment so I guess that's plausible.


DrPainMD: jmr61: Every time I see the term baptist I equate it with stupid. It seems I'm correct.

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]
Frowns at your shenanigans.

Even visionaries can be ignorant/incorrect.  (i wouldn't use the word stupid because it's not appropriate)

Ok, how about James Clerk Maxwell?


You had to reach back even farther for that one.

Got any examples from the 21at century?
 
2014-03-08 12:52:02 PM  

SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)


From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.
 
2014-03-08 12:57:39 PM  

CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.


Which part required him to paint his skin brown again? Whichever part couldn't he have gotten across without that, exactly?
 
2014-03-08 01:02:25 PM  

The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

Which part required him to paint his skin brown again? Whichever part couldn't he have gotten across without that, exactly?


I'm guessing the part where Mr. T is a blackman. To accurately portray a black man, I think looking like a black man would be required.
 
2014-03-08 01:05:33 PM  

CanisNoir: The Homer Tax: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

Which part required him to paint his skin brown again? Whichever part couldn't he have gotten across without that, exactly?

I'm guessing the part where Mr. T is a blackman. To accurately portray a black man, I think looking like a black man would be required.


Good point, he probably could never have gotten the character Mr T across without painting his skin brown.

Also being a black man was central to his point of "overcoming adversity." There's no way he could have got that message across otherwise.

For the record, I'm only pretending to agree with you for purposes of mockery. "Dumbface" if you will...
 
2014-03-08 01:07:36 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

I'd argue that there are a million better examples to showcase to a youth group.  None of those kids have seen the Rocky movies.  Dolph Lundgren is actually a great role model.  Very smart man.


Or, crazy idea but bear with me...

He could have been, I dunno, Rocky? You know, the one who actually had to overcome the adversity, who conveniently requires no skin painting to portray?
 
2014-03-08 01:07:54 PM  

vicioushobbit: CanisNoir: Incorrect. It is designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This country has a long tradition of legislating personal beliefs; and imho we're better for it because personal beliefs grow and evolve.

And this is the exchange that solidifies my opinion that CN is a troll.  It's either that, or he's not only thick as an elephant's ass, but delusional as well.


CanisNoir  may be what is sometimes called a "clever silly," someone of above-average intelligence who clings tenaciously to ideas which even someone of below-average intelligence can easily see are irrational and illogical.  Sometimes people, instead of using their intelligence to recognize and then dismiss dumb ideas, instead use their intellect to defend them against all opposition, including common sense.

It's rather like "playing Devil's advocate," only without the "realizing that the position you're arguing for isn't one that you should agree with" part.  It's also a bit like being a troll, only again, without the self-awareness that the true troll has.

Basically, if you (1) aren't stupid, (2) argue for stupid ideas, and (3) are not joking or trolling or otherwise aware that the ideas are stupid, you're probably a clever silly.
 
2014-03-08 01:19:39 PM  

The Homer Tax: SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: SquiggsIN: The Homer Tax: I'm going to hate myself in the morning but I HAVE to know what "serious point" you think this pastor was trying to make that required painting his skin brown and acting like Mr T

Does he "pity the fool" that doesn't follow his religion?  I hate to out myself but I never actually watched the video.  :)

From the boxing metaphore I took the meaning to be about perserverance and "fighting the good fight" Rocky was the underdog fighting through adversity to eventually win. He might have been better served using Drago instead but of Rockys opponents, Mr. T is the most easily recognizable so I understand why he chose him.

I'd argue that there are a million better examples to showcase to a youth group.  None of those kids have seen the Rocky movies.  Dolph Lundgren is actually a great role model.  Very smart man.

Or, crazy idea but bear with me...

He could have been, I dunno, Rocky? You know, the one who actually had to overcome the adversity, who conveniently requires no skin painting to portray?


I am assuming there was another person playing that part. The article is lacking in details.
 
2014-03-08 01:21:16 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope [TotalFark]
2014-03-08 12:21:01 AM


Not one little bit surprised. Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.

Speaking of bigots. Surprised it took you this long.
www.eonline.com


// not excusing the retard in the story, but bigots blaming "all _____ folks" are just as asinine.
 
2014-03-08 01:26:39 PM  

cynicalminion: Make More Hinjews: cynicalminion: dibs on your dropped treasure, and your mom's in the wagon for later.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x200]

Thanks, but I've got five party members with prior dibs.

and i've got a gelatinous cube.

*yoink*

[i.imgur.com image 400x225]


www.themonolith.com
 
2014-03-08 01:31:08 PM  

Spaced Lion: Yet another failure to heed what I call the Fat Cosplayer Rule. It's fine to dress up as a character you don't really look like - just acknowledge that you realize this in some way.


How do you suggest that a fat cosplayer "acknowledge that" she doesn't really look like Lum (or whoever she's dressed as), exactly?  Is she supposed to wear a sign saying "I acknowledge I'm fat" or what?
 
2014-03-08 01:35:36 PM  

cynicalminion: hardinparamedic: Miss Alexandra: Big deal.

Meanwhile you have this cRap "music" that has lyrics like this:

"I kill a devil right now ... I say kill whitey all nightey long ... I stabbed a farking Jew with a steeple ... I would kill a cracker for nothing, just for the fark of it ... Menace Clan kill a cracker; jack 'em even quicker ... catch that devil slipping; blow his farking brains out"
"fark a Record Deal"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of Thorn EMI; called The EMI Group since 1997, United Kingdom.

So compared to that, blackface is like, meh.

The fact that you think the earth is the center of the universe is far more offensive if (to?) me as a representative of the white race (oh, FFS don't start that shiat again) than a bunch of rap lyrics are.


^ my new favorite meme..
 
2014-03-08 01:35:43 PM  

OnlyM3: Benevolent Misanthrope [TotalFark]
2014-03-08 12:21:01 AM


Not one little bit surprised. Just Christians doing what Christians do to get the kids involved.
Speaking of bigots. Surprised it took you this long.

// not excusing the retard in the story, but bigots blaming "all _____ folks" are just as asinine.


Great example. Ted Danson was rightfully pilloried for that. Despite being a "friend of Hollywood" or whatever garbage reasoning idiots were using earlier in the thread.
 
2014-03-08 01:53:13 PM  

The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Nobody's butthurt about this except for the whiny racists who are upset that it's unacceptable to mince around in blackface in the year 2014. The rest of us are mocking them and you. This dumb racist pastor doesn't offend me, I'm laughing at him. The difference isn't even subtle, it's obvious.

You seriously need to learn what blackface is and isn't. But thank you for again proving that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal worldview is automatically a racist.

It has nothing to do with a "liberal world view" FFS have you posted a single thing in this thread that isn't a horrific strawman?

Painting yourself and then acting like a black guy, when not satirizing the act of blackface itself, is Farking racist. I'm sorry if that offends you. I really am. I'm sorry that being accurately identified as a racist offends you. It's not my problem it's yours. You need to come to damn grips with who you are.

I'm so tired of handling conservative crybabies like yourself with kid gloves. Always playing the goddamned victim card. You're not a victim because you can't put on blackface without being called a racist. You're just a ...


So just to sum this up your view...if a white person impersonates a black person and wears black makeup, then that person is a racist?
 
2014-03-08 01:58:46 PM  

Slappajo: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Nobody's butthurt about this except for the whiny racists who are upset that it's unacceptable to mince around in blackface in the year 2014. The rest of us are mocking them and you. This dumb racist pastor doesn't offend me, I'm laughing at him. The difference isn't even subtle, it's obvious.

You seriously need to learn what blackface is and isn't. But thank you for again proving that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal worldview is automatically a racist.

It has nothing to do with a "liberal world view" FFS have you posted a single thing in this thread that isn't a horrific strawman?

Painting yourself and then acting like a black guy, when not satirizing the act of blackface itself, is Farking racist. I'm sorry if that offends you. I really am. I'm sorry that being accurately identified as a racist offends you. It's not my problem it's yours. You need to come to damn grips with who you are.

I'm so tired of handling conservative crybabies like yourself with kid gloves. Always playing the goddamned victim card. You're not a victim because you can't put on blackface without being called a racist. You're just a ...

So just to sum this up your view...if a white person impersonates a black person and wears black makeup, then that person is a racist?


Unless they are satirizing the act itself, yeah, pretty much.

White people: don't paint yourself like black people, just don't do it.
 
2014-03-08 02:08:10 PM  

SquiggsIN: CanisNoir: ....

I understand your distinction but was the pastor being racist by attempting to portray Mr. T's character from a Rocky movie to demonstrate a serious point? It wasn't satirical but rather an attempt to accurately mimic a specific character. I don't find it racist in the least because of the message being portrayed. It wasn't mocking or demeaning.

From my perspective (male with German, Dutch, Scot, and Shawnee heritage) I didn't think his intent was racism and I would not assume the man is racist based on what he did.  He is, however, incredibly insensitive to reality to either not recognize or to assume that it wouldn't be considered offensive and in poor taste by some.


I think part of the problem lies is the definition of the "audience" these days.  I'm not defending the preacher, in fact I am not a fan of Southern Baptists at all, but I'm going I would suppose that he was addressing what he considered his "audience" and the idea that it would offend someone in his "audience" didn't even cross his mind.  However, in today's world anything you do can potentially be broadcast to an entirely different audience which has no context of the what the original message was.

I'd venture to say that if bits and pieces of things people said around their friends were broadcast over the internet to other audiences, that everyone would consider everyone else a horrible person.
 
2014-03-08 02:17:58 PM  

The Homer Tax: Slappajo: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Nobody's butthurt about this except for the whiny racists who are upset that it's unacceptable to mince around in blackface in the year 2014. The rest of us are mocking them and you. This dumb racist pastor doesn't offend me, I'm laughing at him. The difference isn't even subtle, it's obvious.

You seriously need to learn what blackface is and isn't. But thank you for again proving that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal worldview is automatically a racist.

It has nothing to do with a "liberal world view" FFS have you posted a single thing in this thread that isn't a horrific strawman?

Painting yourself and then acting like a black guy, when not satirizing the act of blackface itself, is Farking racist. I'm sorry if that offends you. I really am. I'm sorry that being accurately identified as a racist offends you. It's not my problem it's yours. You need to come to damn grips with who you are.

I'm so tired of handling conservative crybabies like yourself with kid gloves. Always playing the goddamned victim card. You're not a victim because you can't put on blackface without being called ...


I could understand that if he was deliberately trying to portray a negative stereotype related to the black race.  He wasn't.

I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist.  However, for a portion of the population, when arguments are made that something like this is racism, it really detracts from the people who really make valid points when instances of racism actually occur.
 
2014-03-08 02:40:00 PM  

Slappajo: The Homer Tax: Slappajo: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: The Homer Tax: TerminalEchoes: SquiggsIN: That Guy...From That Show!: It's interesting that bigots will go after Christians for doing the same thing that the bigots applaud others for doing.

[oi62.tinypic.com image 720x480]

Kirk Lazarus doesn't drop character until he's done the DVD commentary.  (Robert Downey actually stays in character for the commentary track as Osiris until nearly the end when he goes Kirk Lazarus for a few minutes and then finally finishes it as himself)

and isn't your offense cute?

That was the most piss poor excuse/defense of the double standard I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like the guy was trying to be Clubber Lang, who was played by Mr. T., who happens to be black. Big farking deal. The Butthurt Brigade needs to pick their battles more wisely because I stopped taking them seriously twenty years ago.

Nobody's butthurt about this except for the whiny racists who are upset that it's unacceptable to mince around in blackface in the year 2014. The rest of us are mocking them and you. This dumb racist pastor doesn't offend me, I'm laughing at him. The difference isn't even subtle, it's obvious.

You seriously need to learn what blackface is and isn't. But thank you for again proving that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal worldview is automatically a racist.

It has nothing to do with a "liberal world view" FFS have you posted a single thing in this thread that isn't a horrific strawman?

Painting yourself and then acting like a black guy, when not satirizing the act of blackface itself, is Farking racist. I'm sorry if that offends you. I really am. I'm sorry that being accurately identified as a racist offends you. It's not my problem it's yours. You need to come to damn grips with who you are.

I'm so tired of handling conservative crybabies like yourself with kid gloves. Always playing the goddamned victim card. You're not a victim because you can't put on blackface without being called ...

I could understand that if he was deliberately trying to portray a negative stereotype related to the black race.  He wasn't.

I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist.  However, for a portion of the population, when arguments are made that something like this is racism, it really detracts from the people who really make valid points when instances of racism actually occur.


We've spent the whole thread hashing this out. You're wrong. White people can't paint themselves to look like black people. Just don't do it. Just stop.

I said it earlier but even if he wasn't purposely trying to mock black people, he didn't even *think* about how people might react. It never once crossed his mind that what he was doing would be offensive.

There's really no reason ever for a white person to paint himself to look like a black person, outside some very specific satire-related exemptions.
 
2014-03-08 02:42:51 PM  

SquiggsIN: SquiggsIN: Everyone go watch Cosmos tomorrow or I'll hijack Dr Evil's moon base!

In all seriousness.  Cosmos is likely the singular, most important thing those young fundamentalists need to be shown.


Something about bears.
 
2014-03-08 03:26:49 PM  

SquiggsIN: grumpfuff: SquiggsIN: SquiggsIN: Everyone go watch Cosmos tomorrow or I'll hijack Dr Evil's moon base!

In all seriousness.  Cosmos is likely the singular, most important thing those young fundamentalists need to be shown.

Something about bears.

URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  URSA  ?


"Ursa Major", thank you very much.
 
2014-03-08 06:26:24 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: CanisNoir: Yet "Live and let live" is a moral philosophy and the one you base your legislative decisions on, just as the opponents base thiers on a differing philosophy.

Except that no, he didn't say that was his philosophy.

/seriously, painting your face black and acting like Mr. T is racist. Mr. T is a walking stereotype.


I've never thought of Mr. T as a Stereotype of black people.

Maybe of muscle heads. But more ofa characture. Of one.
 
2014-03-08 08:01:28 PM  

wellreadneck: somemoron: wellreadneck: Sorry, still a little drunk.

His /tweets are a hoot. Among the shout outs to his "bros" ,pictures of Mitch and Rand,and target practice at the range are gems like " THIS JUST IN: If it walks like, talks like, acts like, & LOOKS LIKE a DUCK...then bet the farm sweetheart...IT'S A DUCK. "
Dumbass.

Read through some of that to try and get his motivation - it was Mr. T as a boxer.  The rest of the tweets I could see were pretty typical Baptist stuff.  I've got some stuff blocked so I couldn't see the whole site.

Anyway, still a maroon.


True,  It's certainly possible he didn't have a racist intent.


Huh.  I've never heard of that.  For me, it was always Bugs Bunny insulting someone by calling them a moron, but using the wrong word, and showing himself to be a moron as well.  So yeah, that phrase coontil now) had never entered my mind as being race-based.  Learn something new everyday, I guess.
 
2014-03-09 01:24:02 AM  

hardinparamedic: indylaw: "Fundamentalist" is like "communist"... The word has accumulated so much negative association that most fundamentalists call themselves "conservative evangelicals" just like most communists call themselves "socialists" or "social democrats."

You do realize those three terms do not mean the same thing, right?


they do for the democrats in here in the US
 
2014-03-09 12:34:08 PM  
....buwahahahahah
 
Displayed 213 of 213 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report