Lol.
I guess she's also the most elegantly proper, and most American FLOTUS too?
Ignoring she's a clear gold digger and soft core porn model, it's an astonishing lack of self awareness to announce her anti bullying movement isn't about kids being bullied, it's about herself, the biggest victim of bullying ever! She's not even the biggest bullying victim of her husband, who's a professional bully.

Compared to the hyper racist, constant, even institutionalized bullying Michelle endured with calm and grace, Melania is treated like a Disney princess constantly. Michelle got everything Melania gets X5, but got (still gets) all the racial attacks as well. You just didn't hear her whine about it or start a national movement backed by the Whitehouse to try to stop her personal issues with trolls.

Consider, "people" like you insist a foreign nude model with little education, no degree like she lied and claimed to have from various universities (now proven false, she left after 1 year) and horrible English skills (almost as bad as her husband) who married the internet troll in Chief for money is a better spokeswoman/speaker than a well educated lawyer who's public speaking prowess is above reproach, head and shoulders above any person on the right, elected or not. Recall, Melania thought Michelle spoke so well, she plagiarized Michelle's speech.

Consider, you could not mention Michelle without calling her names, bullying her is so ingrained in the right's psyche it doesn't even register to you. I'm impressed you thought and changed "gorilla" to "dog". That's actually an improvement, which is an incredibly sad demonstration of how low the right has sunk, completely lacking civility while whining they aren't coddled enough.

These anti-bullying campaigns are always so worthless. No bully is going to suddenly stop bullying just because they are told not to do so. Crass as this may sound, school shootings are probably the most effective deterrent to bullying, though only if the bullies can establish a correlation between the two and believe that a shooting could actually occur at their school. Bullies only do what they do if they think they can get away with it, much like criminals. Fear of reprisal makes them think twice.

"I will survive" - Nerd Revenge in VH1 Anti-Bully ad has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Shit's complex. I was always anti-bully but then I had a few bullies in different periods growing up. At one point I lashed out with bully behaviour of my own because when I asked for help I was told to "be a man and stand up for yourself."

what i think the money of this show could have better been used for:
investing in the school system to teach kids about how to better deal with conflict.
investing in ads that promote standing up for others.
investing in anti-bullying communities.
investing in bullying help hotlines.
investing in gay right movements and support help lines.

4:54 - 5:05 THIS is the issue. choosing to stay out of the solution makes you part of the problem...

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

The laws in Leviticus do not apply to Christians; they were for Israel, for that time and place only. That was the Old Covenant, and Christians are under the New Covenant. In the New Testament, Romans 1:24-27, I Timothy 1:10, I Cor. 6:9-10, and Jude 7 clearly identify homosexuality as a sin. So, immediately his diatribe about shellfish and menstration is a strawman, because none of that applies to Christians in the first place.

In regards to slavery, Dan is purposefully misreprenting the bible, because it does not endorse it. In the Old Testament, there are rules that govern the treatment of slaves in Israel, but in Israel, slavery was not the same thing as it was in modern times. Slavery there was essentially a kind of profession, where people would sell themselves into slavery to have daily food and shelter in exchange for their labor.

Dan is also deliberately misrepresenting what the New Testament says about slavery. For one, Paul did say there are no slaves:

Colossians 3:11

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all

The bible says that every person has intrinsic worth and value. It says that all people are made in the image of God and He doesn't love the poor man any less than the rich man. In fact very often it condemns the rich man.

Dan also deliberately misrepresents what Paul wrote in the letter to Philemon, because it is the exact opposite of what he implied! Paul told Philemon to let his slave go, and if need be, Paul would compensate him out of his own pocket. Paul told Philemon that his slave had far more value as a free man, and what he said was actually a command to let him go.

Philemon 1:14-21

But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will. For perhaps he was therefore separated from you for a while, that you would have him forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much rather to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

If then you count me a partner, receive him as you would receive me. But if he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, put that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self besides). Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in the Lord. Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even beyond what I say

As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general. It doesn't matter if its true, or if it even makes any sense; people who bash Christians and the bible are instant heros here. A pretense of tolerance and equality is brought up when these subjects come up, but hypocritically Christians are always exempt, and often there is a "string em up" mentality as we see in this thread. That the sift denies this was inappropiate, especially at a conference about anti-bullying, is the least surprising thing I've seen today.

Let's face facts..if it were a Christian speaker saying things in a similar tone and manner to a group of homosexuals, it would be as if the world had ended, and many here would be calling for the speaker to be crucified.

What never ceases to amaze me is the inability of conservatives to think with any clarity or nuance.

What is more amazing is the logical pretzels that liberals tie around themselves in order to justify thier bigotry and hate. Savage was attacking thier religious beliefs, and he was doing it in a forum that was supposed to be 'anti-bullying'. You see, it is entirely possible to share an anti-bullying message without attacking religion. What a wild idea! But as with most liberals, he just couldn't help himself from being a rude, selfish, hypocritical jerk. So when He has a captive audience, he uses the the opportunity to flash his bigotry, and then to insult those who were offended by it. Yeah. 'Nuanced'...

The speech was not titled, "Christianity is B.S." If it was appropriately titled, then those who walked out could have just decided not to attend in the first place and saved Savage the embarressment of being shown up as a total douche. But Savage did a bait-and-switch. A bunch of kids sat down and he flies off on his personal obsessions about religion. The apologist justifications you guys are proffering up are not so much about 'nuance' as they are "I agree with his bigotry, and I like it when people I hate get what I think is coming to them. You Jesus people should just shut up and take it."

Whether you agree with Christianity or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this guy disresepcted and insulted fellow human beings, and thought it was funny. He showed his true colors - rude, selfish, and hypocritical. His lame 'apology' (like the apologies of most liberals) isn't really an apology. It's the typical, "I'm sorry if YOU WERE OFFENDED by my important message" bullcrap. I reject such faux crocodile tears, and also reject the lame arguments trying to justify his bigotry. It isn't complicated. You like his particular brand of bigotry, so that makes it perfectly OK in your perverse, sick minds. So much for leftists and thier sanctimonious 'tolerance' bologna. Tolerance is only for the people you approve of, eh?

If a journalism school advertised a speech about "Happiness and Tolerance", and the headliner was some gay bashing @$$hat, should all the gays in the audience be forced to sit down and listen to his 'clarity and nuance'? What a load of bullcrap you liberals swallow on a daily basis. I can't fathom having to live a life so dominated by that much hypocrisy, irrational hate, and bitterness that such bad behavior gets dismissed as just some BS sort of 'nuance'. How pathetic.

It might be if he actually used any bullying tactics but I didn't see any. I find it more ironic that supposed student journalists would walk out without listening to whatever he had to say no matter how distasteful they found his message.>> ^longde:

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.

Dan Savage's Blog this morning:

I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bullshit.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.

On other occasions I've made the same point without using the word bullshit...

We can learn to ignore what the bible says about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore what the Bible says about clams and figs and farming and personal grooming and menstruation and masturbation and divorce and virginity and adultery and slavery. Let's take slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. And the authors of the Bible didn't just fail to condemn slavery. They endorsed slavery: "Slaves obey your masters." In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that the Bible got the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced wrong. The Bible got slavery wrong. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? I'd put those odds at about 100%.

It shouldn't be hard for modern Christians to ignore what the bible says about gay people because modern Christians—be they conservative fundamentalists or liberal progressives—already ignore most of what the Bible says about sex and relationships. Divorce is condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ condemned divorce. Yet divorce is legal and there is no movement to amend state constitutions to ban divorce. Deuteronomy says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone the third Mrs. Gingrich to death.

...and maybe I shouldn't have used the word bullshit in this instance. But while it may have been a regrettable word choice, my larger point stands: If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. (The Bible also says some beautiful things that are widely ignored: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor... and come, follow me.” You better get right on that, Joel.)

Finally, here's Mark Twain on the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

I'm not guilty of saying anything that hasn't been said before and—yes—said much better. What is "bullshit" in this context but "upwards of a thousand lies" in modern American English? And while those slamming me most loudly for "pansy-assed" may be on the right, they are also in the right. I see their point and, again, I apologize for describing the walk-out as "pansy-assed." But they are wrong when they claim that I "attacked Christianity." There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other "sacred" text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical "shoulds," "shall nots," and "abominations" that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true.

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.

He calls bullshit, which is shorthand for a long and complicated polite sentence. The rest is declarative remarks, isn't it?

Since when did clearly stating a point of view become bullying? Especially when the thing you are complaining about has been used to demonize and attack you for your entire life?

I don't see any bullying.

>> ^longde:

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.

>> ^longde:

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.


I don't see any bullying tactics. What I see is someone saying that a Book written by people some 1600 years ago isn't right, and you shouldn't believe it. He didn't hit anyone, he didn't laugh in anyones face, they're out in the hall together standing up for what they believe in. Dan Savage is standing up for what he believes in, which both are allowed to do.

Your definition of bullying might be a bit too broad.

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.

Yea that's exactly it...

they used their anti bully video in southpark making fun of Kony 2012 video and how it's was just bullshit.

a scam hoax to get free cash from ignorant donators, and the creator of the kony video was of course found drunk masturbating in the streets.

so the whole "jackin' it in san diego" insult throughout the entire episode.