This really is another storm in a bloody teacup.

@ChaosEngine brought up the perfect example of what's wrong on both sides of this type of thing with the Penny Arcade Sixth Slave comic debacle. That comic was absolutely innocuous. Having a slave say they were raped to sleep by dickwolves was merely a ludicrously horrible statement to show what a terrible existence the slave had, and why the player ignoring their pleas because they had fulfilled their quota was such a hilariously callous reaction.

To think that someone could read that and be offended, be offended enough to write a bloody blog post, is just stunning. It absolutely demonstrates a demeanour that's looking for the worst in everything and not the humour. I get that you may not find the comic funny, but to actually get riled up by it, to actually think it was worth telling people that you got riled up by it is stunning.

But then we get to the other ugly side of things. We have people who get angry at the people who got offended, and so they start attacking them (verbally), and start saying just horrible, mean spirited, ugly things. They start saying misogynistic, aggressive things that seem to demonstrate an ACTUAL core of anger/hatred towards women.

And that becomes scary.

So I think both sides are usually wrong in these cases:

* Those who get offended:
A lot of the time have very little reason to actually be offended (especially in the penny arcade example), it's as if they're attuned to their own little sphere of outrage and if someone mentions one of their keywords then they'll go nuts, regardless of the intent of a given joke.

* Those who made the initial joke and/or those who defend them:
Far, far, FAR too often they end up really attacking those that were offended, becoming vile and disgusting and not showing any restraint or compassion at all. Mike Krahulik demonstrates how NOT to handle something like the dickwolves incident. The correct way? 'Sorry you were offended by it, really don't understand how anyone could be, we're not taking it down as we don't see anything wrong with it. Let this be the end of it'. But nooo, he pushed and pushed and pushed it.

Louis CK, as usual, demonstrated that he can joke about horrible things and come up trumps because it's ALWAYS obvious that he's saying things in jest and from a good place (or for pure shock value). When someone says something so shit as 'It'd be funny if she was gang raped right now' without a damn strong demonstration that it was in jest and in no way meant to be mean or serious... well then that's a dick move and probably should be called out.

But for it to be as big as it's got? Gah!

"The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in a unanimous Supreme Court decision of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell - 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Given the disclaimer, “No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose," it's hard to imagine how anyone could reasonably interpret it as "stating actual fact". Even outside the context of Hustler magazine without the disclaimer (which probably should have been part of the image itself), photoshopped images like this are usually pretty obvious. I haven't been able to find an uncensored version of it, though, so I can't really say, but assuming the editing is obvious, the above argument still holds.

Cenk's point about the image being circulated without their permission is a good one. Clearly you couldn't hold Hustler Magazine accountable for unlicensed distribution, any more than you can hold an ammunition manufacturer accountable for a murder committed with one of their products.

I think one could make a valid legal argument against Hustler if, for instance, an image of her being gang-raped was created and published. In that case, there would be a further issue of promoting violence in general, and upon her in particular. I don't know if it would work, but I think the argument could be made.

All that said, this is really slimy, even for Larry. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone denouncing the image and the actions of the creator/publisher.

And to answer your question @bobknight33, "if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy [sic], Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok[?]," - for the first three, legally yes, but also just as slimy, laughable, and worthy of ridicule/shaming. A mom who isn't a public figure is red herring in this context, but nice try at the emotional jab.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

Recent Searches always cracks me up:

Kpop, christwire, gang rape, girl, bewbs, rape, godzilla, The Big Bang Theory, pimples, skyrim, masterbating, dave story, sex education, changing room, physics, tits, boobs, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Oliver Sacks, male

I'm surprised Gang Rape didn't follow.

>> ^Confucius:

your intentions may have been good but now the entire world of the internet knows that she was gang-raped and drugged and comes from an abusive family. And what a coincidence that Im from tampa too......might make for an awkward encounter....Oh hi...Miss February of Tampa, i heard about you online.
You didnt make a mistake in posting this....you made a mistake in divulging personal information like that and then making it so that any twat with an internet connection can find out who she is.


she does not live here anymore.
but you are right.
bad decision is bad.
*discard

your intentions may have been good but now the entire world of the internet knows that she was gang-raped and drugged and comes from an abusive family. And what a coincidence that Im from tampa too......might make for an awkward encounter....Oh hi...Miss February of Tampa, i heard about you online.

You didnt make a mistake in posting this....you made a mistake in divulging personal information like that and then making it so that any twat with an internet connection can find out who she is.

THIS.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.
Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.
On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.

Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.

On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.

Thanks for the clarification -- I'm glad this is in the comment stream.

Yeah, I think lies is a great thing to add -- and take out parody. Lies is more accurate.

Stupid crazy world. Things are better, thank god. And stupid crazy world.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Personally, I did not find this video very funny - well, other than in the "better-to-laugh-than-to-cry" way - thus the fear, history and controversy channels (and no comedy channel). The parody channel was added by @ant, and I interpret that as synonymous to "a travesty" (no offense to transvestites), especially vis-à-vis what you point out, i.e. that gang-rape is a very male (and almost always heterosexual) vice. What is really alarming is that there are still hateful bigots out there depicting the lesbian "agenda" in this way today (see for example Pat Robertson on "lesbian babykilling"). It seemed to me that the * lies contained in this propaganda film were so obvious that adding that channel would be redundant, but perhaps I should just in case?

One caveat though: women can and do commit sexual abuse, albeit to a far, far lesser extent than men.

Some statistics for the US: http://ifritah.livejournal.com/211376.html

Personally, I did not find this video very funny - well, other than in the "better-to-laugh-than-to-cry" way - thus the fear, history and controversy channels (and no comedy channel). The parody channel was added by @ant, and I interpret that as synonymous to "a travesty" (no offense to transvestites), especially vis-à-vis what you point out, i.e. that gang-rape is a very male (and almost always heterosexual) vice. What is really alarming is that there are still hateful bigots out there depicting the lesbian "agenda" in this way today (see for example Pat Robertson on "lesbian babykilling"). It seemed to me that the * lies contained in this propaganda film were so obvious that adding that channel would be redundant, but perhaps I should just in case?

One caveat though: women can and do commit sexual abuse, albeit to a far, far lesser extent than men.

Some statistics for the US: http://ifritah.livejournal.com/211376.html


>> ^bareboards2:

So, sorry to be a downer on this almost hysterically funny vid...
I watched this with great amusement until the "gang rape" part started. It took a turn to the dark for me, but I thought maybe I was being all uber-sensitive. So I sent the link to my Resident Expert Lesbian and asked her what she thought. She said this:
"I mean, I GET the melodramatic aspect, which is sort of amusing, but because this is how we've been portrayed as fact in recent HIStory, it's so creepy AND damaging and you know it must have been believed. So it's painful for me to watch as well, you know?
Women just don't rape, and especially don't gang rape. Grossest male behavior. I'm so glad I know so many gentle lovable men! Anyway, thanks for sharing-I never knew this was produced!"

So, sorry to be a downer on this almost hysterically funny vid...

I watched this with great amusement until the "gang rape" part started. It took a turn to the dark for me, but I thought maybe I was being all uber-sensitive. So I sent the link to my Resident Expert Lesbian and asked her what she thought. She said this:

"I mean, I GET the melodramatic aspect, which is sort of amusing, but because this is how we've been portrayed as fact in recent HIStory, it's so creepy AND damaging and you know it must have been believed. So it's painful for me to watch as well, you know?

Women just don't rape, and especially don't gang rape. Grossest male behavior. I'm so glad I know so many gentle lovable men! Anyway, thanks for sharing-I never knew this was produced!"

We had to go through a similar video at DirecTV.

IT was an Anti telecommunication workers of america union video where it talked about how evil unions were.

Then we had to sign a paper when hired promising we'd never join a union, and that if we did it would be grounds for immediate termination. And we had also signed over our rights for any lawsuits due to signing the Mediation clause most employers are now carrying.

those mediation clauses suck, the most famous mediation clause went before congress of a young girl went to Iraq for extra pay for Haliburton and was gang raped, then detained in a box for days she tried to sue but was never able to and courts/police/fbi all ignored her.

Senator Franken brought the matter before a judiciary committee trying to BAN mediation clauses for employers. Dunno where it went after that, but yea.

I worked there for 3 weeks at directv, we had solicitations to join the unions when we'd go to lunch people would walk up to us, eventually a bunch of us couldn't handle the stress and quit. Cause you never knew if it was directv employees testing you, cause even if you took pamphlets they'd fire you.

it was a mess....

This is hard to watch. On one hand, its just a big piece of metal, and they should really have just collected their belongings and left it to the rioters (and collected their insurance later.) The last place in the world I'd want my teenage daughter to be is attempting to protect her car from a bunch of raving idiots. It's a good way to get gang-raped.

On the other, what a giant bunch of dicks. Seriously, fucking assholes all of them.

@burdturgler, @bareboards2, @Opus_Moderandi, @KnivesOut

My constant outrage is justified. There is enough awful shit taking place in the world.

Yesterday, that outrage was direct at you dudes because you all watched a moment of peaceful objection.
A group of beleaguered individuals coming together to stand up for themselves in any simple way they can.

And all your brains could fart out was - "Oh look at that. Guh, Stupid idiots!"
~~

Opus, for you to even suggest that this simple, non-violent protesting isn't as important or "as good as" the protests in Egypt & around the Middle East is just moronic.

I can't see any journalist being gang-raped in this peaceful dancing protest.
~~

I said it once and I'll say it again. You're all dumb hypocritical assholes.

You all object to many injustices that you feel are worth protest [maybe even dying] for. i.e. Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Drug Rights

But just because the message or the circumstances aren't extreme or dire.. this kinda of protest isn't worth supporting?
~~

You three, remind me again. How does that one famous quote go..?

"First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Peaceful Dancing Protesters,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Peaceful Dancing Protester.

Then they came for me.."