Russia Sucks (at least when it comes to gay rights)

Mother Russia is trying as hard as it can to avoid joining the 21st century when it comes to LGBT equality. They’ve recently outlawed “gay propaganda” (which is code for “any public assertion that gays are human beings”) and adoption of Russian children in countries that support marriage equality; they’ve sent police and soldiers to viciously attack gay rights protesters; and they’ve turned a blind eye to homophobic violence, up to and including murder. They’ve also issued confused and contradictory statements on whether they will equally harass foreign gay athletes and spectators at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi (which is apparently some shitty little burg way out in frozen buttfuck Russia). Oh, and check out the warning label under the heading of those articles from a Russian website:

This article contains information not suitable for readers younger than 18 years of age, according to Russian legislation.

Even talking about oppressing gays is “not suitable”! We’ll oppress them, but SSSHHH! Don’t talk about it! Oppression works better when no one talks about it in public!

It’s safe to say that Russia never fully recovered from its Stalinist totalitarian days, and Vladmir Putin is more than happy to stoke the bigoted irrational fears of right wingers in his country in order to solidify his power. Older gays must be having flashbacks to the days of a repressive Communist regime that ruled through fear and intimidation. But you know who the real victims are? The bigots, of course! Or at least, that’s what the English version of Pravda.ru wants us to believe.

Good bye, totalitarian Facebook

31.07.2013 | Source:

Pravda.Ru

See all that stuff I linked to in the first paragraph? Yeah, Facebook didn’t do anything like that, in case you’re wondering. So what makes Facebook so totalitarian?

Something has to be said. It has been over six week since I last posted on my Facebook account, and rarely opened it. I was trying to get rid of the addiction, communication with many people who became my close friends. It turns out that at times I shared with them my thoughts that were once spoken only among very close friends. I was flattered that these thoughts were discussed by people I’ve never met in person, but who turned out to be like-minded individuals.

I decided to put an end to this communication, and, likely, for good. It is a shame…: (

So Facebook helped you meet fellow dumb people. Why is this a problem for you? (I could tell you why it’s a problem for me, but you wouldn’t care.)

It’s funny, but six weeks ago I decided to stop using Facebook after the social network has blocked my account due to complaints of a sexual liberties advocate who called me a homophobe, and who I called a homophile in response.

“Homophile”? You must have gotten blocked for butchering the English language.

I posted some objections to the support team of Facebook Russia over the use of the antonyms “homophobe” – “homophile” in the Russian language. No one bothered to respond.

Can’t imagine why they weren’t prompt in getting back to you…

On my page I posted against gay propaganda aimed at children.

Right wingers are the same everywhere, aren’t they? Just like in America, Russian bigots just simply echo boilerplate terms without putting so much as a moment’s thought into it. In reading on the new Russian legislation, this term “gay propaganda” has pooped out of just about every bigot’s ass-mouth over and over and over, and it really just means “support for gay rights.” Are you publicly stating that gays should have human rights? Well, that’s gay propaganda! We must silence you, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!

I shared what I do not like about various public figures who oppose the independence of my country or call for what they believe to be freedom and democracy.

“Don’t they realize that only bigots like me get to have freedom and democracy?”

On my initiative, Pravda.Ru was nearly the first Russian online media outlet that started actively working with Facebook placing their interactive panel on Pravda.Ru’s pages.

*Golf clap*

In short, I tried a six-week long break in communication with the people I used to chat almost daily since 2009. Now I realized that I am not willing to work for people who can block my page because my thoughts are different from theirs.

I’m not privy to the entire ordeal, but I’m guessing they blocked you not for your thoughts, but because you’re an asshole.

I am not going to let some Facebook employees hired by a certain Katya Skorobogatova (who is she anyway?) to tell me what I can and what I cannot post on my account in the literary Russian language? ! 🙂

Oooo, literary bigotry! Dostoyevsky hates fags!

I am not a fighter with misfits like Skorobogatova and her staff on their territory and in their coordinates system. Why? Pravda.Ru Media holding that I own has over 20 resources where I, as a founder and editor, can post anything that does not contradict the Russian legislation without looking at Zuckerman’s boys and girls who moderate the opinions of their users when it comes to the issues of same-sex love.

I can say “anything that does not contradict Russian legislation.” That phrase right there should tell you who the real totalitarian is. A country that outlaws speech has no right to call itself free. But in this authoritarian’s mind, it’s a travesty that Facebook (a private company) would block his anti-gay bigotry, but perfectly okay for his government (which is supposed to represent the people) to use violence and prison sentences to silence anyone who publicly advocates for human rights.

Why would I fight with them? They are a minority on a global scale, because the most important thing for every normal person is children. Homosexuals cannot have children by definition.

I win because I procreate! It’s like Vadim Gorshenin thinks this cartoon (NSFW) is meant as actual advice on how to win a fight.

He also seems to think humans are fruit flies, whose only goal in life is to make more fruit flies. Sorry, pal, but some of us have broader horizons than that. It’s a stupid point, anyways, because gays are perfectly capable of procreating. They can also adopt, for that matter, unless some assholes in Russia pass an idiotic law prohibiting it.

While I was writing this, it grew into a column that I can publish on Pravda.Ru.

Translation: Pravda.ru will publish any horseshit as long as it’s bigoted, ignorant, and poorly reasoned.

Why do these thoughts deserve to be published in this online newspaper as opposed to a journal or a social network status?

Because the internet is an echo chamber of babbling inanity, hatred and delusion?

It is simple: I, like probably many others, faced sex-censorship by Facebook whose leader headed a gay parade of nearly a thousand employees of this gay social network (it must be the way since about a thousand FB employees joined him on this parade?)

How dare they hold a gay pride parade???

Hypocrisy, thy name is Vadim Gorshenin.

In short, I have three kids and I do not want any social network as part of their totalitarian “tolerance” prohibit heterosexuals from not just expressing an opinion, but simply defending it, eating antonyms of the insults they were insulted with, and dictating what should a “tolerant “community” be like.

Like American bigots, Russian bigots are complete fucking pussies. They bitch and whine like little children when some minor problem affects them, like getting blocked on Facebook. But they’re perfectly fine with gays being beaten and imprisoned.

I, unlike Zuckerberg and Skorobogatova, want to have grandchildren. I want to give them the love that parents do not have a chance to give their children…

How the fuck do you know they don’t want to have grandchildren? And what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

I understand that FB, through the hands of their moderators hired by Skorobogatova, does not let me share with you my thoughts as a father of three … If so – why don’t they get lost?

You seem to be the one throwing a hissy fit after they told you to get lost by blocking you. Fuck, Gorshenin has done everything but stomp his feet and hold his breath because Mommy wants him to eat broccoli at this point. He should be less worried about having children and more worried about not acting like one.

All I want to write will be publish by Pravda.Ru or VKontakte where I’ve moved for now.

Vadim Gorshenin

Yeah, see, that would be you fucking off, not them. I seriously doubt Facebook gives a flying assfuck about your whiny bullshit.

The comments are about on par with what one would expect from WingNutDaily. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were considerable overlap in readership between Pravda.ru and WingNutDaily. Here’s a pretty typical one:

Seeker World в 20:34 01 августа

Homosexuality -Proof Government Promotes Sickness. This is not “homophobic.” What homosexuals do is their business. This is about they pushing a destructive lifestyle on heterosexuals. Their satanically-inspired, social engineering is our business.  “Gay rights” and “Gay marriage” are a ruse to hide a deliberate attack on heterosexual norms.  Whether it is false flag state terrorism, vaccines or chemtrails, their agenda is to weaken, depopulate and enslave society. The promotion of homosexuality is designed to destroy the fundamental building block of a healthy society: the traditional family. The USofA is Morally bankrupt!

Chemtrails. Oy vey.

“Disturbing”

I’ve written about MassResistance before. They’re an incredibly bigoted anti-gay organization in Massachusetts who are, for all intents and purposes, just big fat fucking sore losers who can’t handle the fact that gay marriage is legal in their state.

There are tons of bigots out there. But if anything really stands out about MassResistance, it’s just how up front they are about saying that they are oppressed by gays simply because gays exist and are gay in their presence. All bigots ultimately feel this way, but most try to hide it and fabricate nonsensical reasons for why they’re bigots. But not MassResistance. They object to gays existing at all, and that’s quite apparent in their coverage of a recent gay pride parade in Boston.

CAUTION: SOME OF THE PHOTOS BELOW MAY BE DISTURBING

Here’s what they mean by “disturbing”.

A person who's different from me. I'm disturbed.

A person who’s different from me. I’m disturbed.

Yep. The most disturbing photos they can come up with are men who dress like women. But to MassResistance, a man wearing a dress is just about the most horrifying thing in the universe. In fact, they want to make sure we all know that a man wearing a dress is THE primary thing that frightens them.

Making a dysfunctional and dangerous behavior the “new normal”

If the transgender movement achieves its goals, this is what people in your businesses, government offices, classrooms, and public facilities will look like — whether you like it or not.

BELOW: These are all MEN

Men might wear dresses in your presence! Oh, the humanity!

Like I’ve said before, this is MassResistance’s fucking M.O. Merely existing while gay is an affront to them, and they routinely condemn gay people on no other basis than the fact that they aren’t hiding, ashamed, in the closet. But they go beyond that. Ed Brayton recently highlighted a MR article making excuses for Russian bigots who attacked gays for the “crime” of kissing in public.  And their bigotry goes even further than that. They recently posted a supportive article about legislation that’s on the verge of becoming law in Nigeria. Here’s what will happen if it is enacted:

Nigeria’s House of Representatives voted Thursday to ban gay marriage and outlaw any groups actively supporting gay rights, endorsing a measure that also calls for 10-year prison sentences for any “public show” of affection by a same-sex couple.

Just to be clear: Man wearing a dress? MassResistance calls this “Disturbing”. Russians physically assaulting people and Nigerians denying free speech and putting people in jail for 10 years just for kissing or hugging in public? MassResistance calls these atrocities “bold steps to fight back.”

There are fascists in America. People who think that violence is an appropriate response to a minority daring to be different in their presence. People who think that conformity should be enforced by law. People who think that disagreeing with them should be outlawed. People who think that the worst thing in the world is having to be in the presence of other people who don’t live the way they live.

I don’t use the word “fascist” lightly. In fact, I hate the fact that so many people use it loosely, and this might very well be the first time I’ve called someone fascist on this blog. But if anyone deserves to be called fascist, it’s MassResistance. They go well beyond the bigotry seen on most other fucking right wing dingleberry websites. They may not be fully fascist, but they definitely fall under the category that Umberto Eco called Ur-Fascism. Eco lists the traits of ur-fascism, and MassResistance meets them all:

  1. The Cult of Tradition (part of any movement to deny gay marriage)
  2. Rejection of modernism (a constant refrain is that the modern world has degenerated due to fags)
  3. Action without reflection (Supporting Russians who throw eggs at gays who kiss in public? Check.)
  4. Disagreement is treason (Supporting a Nigerian law that outlaws gay rights groups? Check.)
  5. Fear of difference (Duh. This is most of what they do.)
  6. Appeal to social frustration (They actually rationalize Nigeria’s law by saying Nigeria has an AIDS epidemic–never mind that most of those AIDS victims are straight)
  7. Obsession with conspiracy (The Boston parade is a conspiracy to promote transgenderism!)
  8. Enemies portrayed as both too strong and too weak (Gays are taking over! But they’re also degenerates who all die of AIDS!)
  9. Life is permanent warfare (Again, this is pretty much all anti-gay groups.)
  10. Contempt for the weak (MR actually argues that the gays who were assaulted in Russia INCITED violence against themselves merely by kissing.)
  11. Everyone is educated to become a hero (This goes hand in hand with the religious right’s persecution complex)
  12. Machismo (That man’s wearing a dress! Shame him!)
  13. Selective populism (Even the name MassResistance suggests this. They claim to speak for the masses. But they do so in order to crush a minority whom they despise, and the majority of Americans actually support gay rights. So they only speak for “the people” in their own twisted minds.)
  14. Newspeak (This is another one that’s so common on the religious right that it’s hard to find a religious right organization that doesn’t do it.)

MassResistance certainly isn’t the only group that fits this bill, but they are definitely one of the worst anti-gay groups–much worse than, say, NOM. Their complaint is that gays exist at all, and they have repeatedly endorsed violence and draconian tactics to address their complaint, and blamed such anti-gay violence on gays themselves. If they’re not already fascists, they’re uncomfortably close.

Good Ideas Don’t Need Death Threats to Protect Them

A group of Muslim extremists is demanding death for “insulting” their precious, delicate religious sensibilities. Must be Tuesday. Oh, wait, it’s Sunday. Guess it could be any day of the week, come to think of it.

Dhaka, Bangladesh (CNN) — Tens of thousands of radical Muslims marched toward the capital on Saturday to demand laws to target bloggers they said denigrated Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.

Muhammad must be a colossal wuss if he can’t handle a few bloggers making fun of him. Or could it be that Islam is all just complete bullshit unsupported by facts and reason (shock!), and the only way it can stand is by threatening and intimidating those who ask questions for which it has no answer?

Anyways, I’m 100% on the side of those bloggers.

The bloggers initiated a recent sit-in at Shahbagh Square demanding the death penalty for people involved in war crimes perpetrated more than four decades ago.

Okay, maybe not 100%.

Can we ever have a rally in a Muslim country that doesn’t involve calling for someone to be killed? That would be nice. Look, I’m all for punishing war crimes, but the death penalty is not the answer to all of our problems. Answering cruelty with more cruelty is not the right way to go.

But let’s also be careful not to equate what the bloggers are doing with what the Muslim extremists are doing. The bloggers are calling for the death penalty for war crimes. The extremists are calling for the death penalty for saying mean stuff. I’m not for the death penalty either way, but at least in the former case an actual crime was committed.

Muslim hard-liners under the banner of Hefazat-e-Islam on Saturday rallied against bloggers and authors.

Poverty. Starvation. Violence. Crime. Communicable diseases. Illiteracy. Superstition. Misogyny/rape culture. Ethnic hatred. Under-funded schools… What? Oh, sorry. I was just making a list of the problems faced by a struggling, third world country like Bangladesh. I’ll let you know when I get to “bloggers and authors.” Infant mortality. The lingering effects of the 2005 tsunami. Unsafe work conditions in factories. Political corruption…

The Hefazat rally branded the government as cohorts of the atheists and said they wanted it to meet 13 demands, including reinstatement of “absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah” in the constitution and capital punishment for those who would denigrate Islam and its prophet.

The demands included declaration of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect as non-Muslim, a ban on free mixing of men and women, making Islamic education mandatory at all levels and no installation of any sculpture in any public place.

That’s all a bunch of oppressive bullshit, but I’m almost with you on that last one. Wish more people were on board with that in my country, at least as far as publicly-funded property goes.

Speaking of my home country, let’s check in on how far we’ve come in our own struggle for civil rights and equality.

ROCHELLE, GA – …

Stephanie and Keela are white and Mareshia and Quanesha are black. They’re seniors at Wilcox County High School, a school that has never held an integrated prom during its existence.

“There’s a white prom and there’s an integrated prom,” said Keela.

The rule is strictly enforced, any race other than Caucasian wouldn’t dare to attend the white prom.

Sigh. It’s days like this that I just want to give up.

Oh, and hey, South, are you listening? I say this as a person who was a resident of you for many years: I want you to find every sharp object available and just ram it right up your tightly wound, bigoted asshole. Just fuck yourself with every sharp object known to man, and just keep doing it ’til you bleed out and die and let the rest of us finally try to make some real progress on racial equality in this country.

Segregated proms. In 2013. Fucking shameful.

DJesus Freaks Uncorked

The fact that SNL somehow still finds a way to remain relevant convinces me that the American public hates comedy and wants to see it crushed beneath the iron heel of predictability, laziness, and immaturity. The show is almost always utterly unfunny, and yet somehow remains on the air after almost forty years of Nickleback-level mediocrity and scrotum-scraping tediousness in almost every sketch the show has ever aired. It is rare to see a skit that is actually funny (a few of the Celebrity Jeopardy skits managed some genuine laughs).  Most of the time the best “comedy” that the show can come up with is a sketch that’s funny in concept, but lazy and predictable in execution.

The recent Tarantino spoof called “DJesus Uncrossed” is an example of this. Is a movie about a vengeance-crazed DJesus storming through DJerusalem viciously killing Romans and avenging the plight of the DJews a funny idea? Fuck yeah, it is. I would like to see it done well. Alas, this is SNL, so ’twas not to be. Instead, we just get Jesus killing people. Obviously a Jesus parody based on Django Unchained will involved Jesus murdering Romans. That’s supposed to be the starting point of the DJoke. It’s the premise of the DJoke, not the DJoke itself. You’re then supposed to build on that, adding new humorous layers and observations. Maybe have DJesus walk across the water to kick off the heads of swimming Romans like footballs off a tee. Maybe have a weird thing about the holes in his feet to parody Tarantino’s creepy foot fetish (we all know he’d love to fuck a foot-hole). Or point out that, unlike Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained, there’s no evidence to show that it didn’t actually happen this way. (At least, no less evidence than what the Gospel accounts have.)

There might have been ways to make these things funny, and that’s what they should do. But that requires the writers to make an attempt to do their jobs. Instead we just get 2 minutes of DJesus killing Romans in re-creations of scenes from various Tarantino movies, as if the mere sight of it will be funny every single time. It’s not. The humor wears off almost immediately, and there isn’t an attempt to build on the premise until the very end, when a fictional critic describes it as a less violent version of the Passion of the Christ, followed by a swipe at the fact that Tarantino likes to include the word “nigger” in his scripts a lot. Too little, too late.

“SNL skit sucks” isn’t news. It’s in the same category as the Pope’s Catholicism and bears’ woods-shitting. But at least I can get some enjoyment out of this crappy skit, because (quite predictably) the god-humpers are freaking out about it. All it takes is a couple jokes about their imaginary friend, and their heads go *POP* as tears come gushing out over the sad plight of the adherents of the most dominant religion in the Western Hemisphere. Yes, Christians, let me taste those sweet and salty tears!

The following comments were also posted on “SNL’s” website:

–”Seriously SNL? I am one of your biggest fans, but you really crossed the line with this. I am thoroughly disgusted…”

–”Interesting how SNL continues to mock Christ. As a Christian, I was highly offended. No doubt you would not dare to attack other faiths; Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, You can do better.”

–”This is just wrong. Once again, Christians are slammed. I find it ighly unfunny making fun of something that so many hold dear…”

It’s funny how people on the right wing love to talk tough every chance they get, but when something hurts their precious religious beliefs they turn into the biggest pussies on planet earth.

My favorite response so far comes from some dingleberry named Frank Kaufmann, who seems to be yet another religionist who thinks that unthinking, reactionary, gut-based babblings can be made respectable by adding a thin veneer of superficial erudition.

The LA Times explains, “DJesus Uncrossed” may have crossed the line, with some calling it the single most offensive skit in “Saturday Night Live” history.” [sic]

A lot bothers me about the SNL airing of Djesus Uncrossed using the risen Lord Christ as subject matter to parody Tarantino’s Django Unchained.
Something tells me it’s not going to be the right things about it that bother him. Maybe it’s the pomposity of saying “risen Lord Christ” rather than just simply “Jeebus”…
These include the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, the pathological schizophrenia the [sic] obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent).
Nope. None of the right things. Let’s go through these one by one.
  • the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, [Dude. They’re told to cheer. There are frickin’ signs in the studio that say “Applause” and “Laughter” on them for this purpose. Obeying them is part of the agreement for being in the audience. Your complaint is like yelling in response to the laugh track on Full House, “Hey! That wasn’t funny! Stop laughing!”]
  • the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, [Fucking YouTube comments? Haven’t you figured out how the internet works yet? ALWAYS IGNORE YOUTUBE COMMENTS!]
  • the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, [It’s fine to offend anyone as far as I’m concerned. One of the reasons I feel that way is that “offensive” only sounds like a legitimate objection to someone who is him/herself offended. Case in point, Christians who cry persecution whenever someone makes fun of Jesus but don’t give a shit when gays complain about a gay joke.]
  • the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, [Getting even more pearl-clutchy and offended by every little thing would only accelerate that decline.]
  • the pathological schizophrenia the obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, [“Pathological schizophrenia”!  Gotta sound smart when attacking the “elite” straw man that every dumb Christian blubbers about whenever the TV appears to be smarter than he/she is.]
  • and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent). [We demand that shitty comedies on networks hardly anyone watches any more schedule according to our silly holiday rituals! But just ours. No need to pay attention to Ramadan or any bullshit like that. We might get offended if you avoid offending Muslims.]
Six objections have been raised, not a single one of which is even remotely legitimate. This was definitely written by a Christian.
The core of my disappointment lays [sic] not in moralist or liturgical obsessions involving legitimate charges of blasphemy (in my view a proper injunction) but in more widely applicable negatives namely that material like this is ignorant and childish. [sic]  Like a 1 year old smearing poo everywhere thinking herself an avant-garde rebel against constraining norms. [sic]
Or maybe said 1 year old wiped her ass with a thesaurus and needlessly smeared “liturgical” and “injunction” on the walls. Oh, and if you’re trying to look smart, you probably shouldn’t confuse “lay” with “lie” and put a run-on sentence right next door to a sentence fragment.
The difference between SNL’s skit and the little one smearing stink is that the child is not heavily funded, and does not participate in a network of self important figures in the multi-billion dollar entertainment industrial complex, spending your money and drinking your wine. The 1 year old thankfully is limited to her own rear-end, her own walls, her own face and hair, and she doesn’t have a thousand people excitedly cooing, under [sic]  a YouTube video imagining themselves champions of courageous and daring horizons of self expression.
I’ll give Frank this: I have never before seen a poop-based analogy pursued with such dedication. Bonus points for the overly-elaborate poop joke in a paragraph accusing the opposition of being immature.
I have, however, seen the kind of mind-reading Frank is attempting. I’ve seen it precisely 378 gajillion times (using Steven Seagal math). It’s pretty common for religious dingbats to create straw atheists motivated by whatever pet boogedy-boo(s) the author obsesses over. Obviously, Frank’s boogedy-boo is (perceived) transgressiveness in the art world, and he imagines a world full of liberals who think anything that offends Frank is therefore a masterpiece of rebellion. Never mind if anyone actually thinks that way, and in this case I would say hardly anybody possibly would. I find the mind-reading particularly amusing in this case, since no human being in this world or any other could use terms like “avant-garde” or “courageous” or “daring” to describe SNL. It does say a lot about Frank’s understanding of what the rest of the world considers to be daring or transgressive, though.
The putrid outcome of the little one in her diapers further resembles the Djesus skit in that neither is funny.
Jesus. You are really fucking committed to this poop thing, aren’t you?
SNL has long been lazy in creating elaborate enactments of profoundly average ideas. This skit had a single funny line, calling the SNL grotesquery less violent than Mel Gibson’s cartoonish and bloody depiction of Jesus.
You’ll get no argument from me on this point. It shows that at least part of you sees the real problem with this sketch. Now, let’s get back to the part of you that’s stupid and whiny.
The delighted squeals and cheers from the SNL live audience can probably be forgiven. Anyone who’s ever been a part of a live TV audience knows the demeaning experience of being manipulated by second rate comics or MCs telling you when to laugh and when to applaud. It is embarrassing. Some years back I went to see Tracy Chapman on the Letterman Show. Loved her, hated being told what to do all night long by cue card holding clowns.
Then why in the fuck did you object to it at the beginning of your op-ed? And why in the holy cunt-shitting, cocksucking, ass-badgering, poodle-fucking hell would anyone ever go to a Tracy Chapman concert? If Tracy Chapman were headlining the Free Limitless Beer and Pussy Festival I still wouldn’t go.
The freedom to offend Christians in a politically correct America is a disgrace.
Yeah! Fuck freedom!
Calling an athlete athletic has cost commentators their jobs and careers.
CITATION PLEASE.
Defiling the sacred and offending sincere religious believers is fine.
Especially if it’s someone else’s “sacred” that’s being defiled. How many people wanna take a bet on whether Frank complained when South Park ridiculed Scientology, Islam, or Mormonism?
A US army handbook in preparation reported by WSJ warns “that soldiers should avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” [and] “any criticism of pedophilia.” [sic] So we must be careful not to criticize pedophilia, but it is fine to portray the beloved object of worship and love for millions of Americans as a violent, underdeveloped, sadistic thug.
“We”? Are “we” all in a combat zone in Afghanistan? Because that’s the only possible way the two situations would be comparable. Oh wait. I forgot your were doing that Muslim Dog Whistle thing. The thing where you treat two completely unrelated situations as the same, but it’s okay because it involves Muslims.
This is the contemptible double-standard in contemporary America.
No, this is the safety-standards for soldiers serving in Afghanistan (who are trying to avoid getting blown up by religious freaks even more insane than the freaks in America) and the existence of a crappy SNL skit in America that makes god-humpers feel poopy inside (which leads to smearing shitty op-eds everywhere). Two unrelated situations. No double-standard at all. But lot’s of well-deserved references to feces.
Furthermore SNL chooses to air this skit to coincide with the dawn of the Lenten season, when millions of quiet, sincere, humble American Christians are seeking help from Jesus to be sorry for our shortcomings, and to try to be better people.
You can’t make fun of us, because we’re so GOOD! You’re also not allowed to make fun of the fact that we have this disgustingly self-righteous attitude about ourselves!
And galloping god-balls would I like to see more of these “quiet, sincere, humble American Christians.” I’m getting really sick of the whining, bigoted, thin-skinned, humorless, sanctimonious, complaining, asshole variety.
The core tragedy of the piece lies most fully in associating Jesus with violence and revenge.
Here’s what I’ve learned about Frank so far. He confuses prolixity with profundity. He thinks “Hurts believers’ delicate, precious feelings” is a legitimate objection. He really, really, really likes poop jokes. He really likes the word “core”. And it’s good to see that he’s finally realized the difference between “lies” and “lays”. But he’s fucking cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs if he thinks Jesus hasn’t been associated with violence and revenge for the past 2000 years.
Jesus refused that a single sword be drawn, even in his own defense when his life was in danger. As a violent mob descended on Jesus, he demanded a follower put up (re-sheath) his sword (Mt 26:52), and warned him about escalating cycles of violence.
That same godly motherfucker, according to your own bullshit gospels, also did this:

John 2:13-17

Jesus Clears the Temple Courts

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

He whips people for promoting capitalism at church! Hell, Christian Christ-fetishists have already included Jesus’ violent behavior in their cunt-sniffing hagiographical films of the bastard:
Where’s the outrage over this violent depiction of Jesus’ behavior? And keep in mind, the SNL hacks were just making a bad joke. The makers of that even shittier film, on the other hand, claim Jesus actually did that shit.
SNL has Jesus as a gruesome figure of revenge, yet the final act in Jesus life was to pray for the Romans. As Jesus hung to die, Roman Centurions gambled over his clothes. Jesus begged God’s forgiveness of them. With barely breath in his lungs Jesus tried to speak in defense of these men, arguing that their misdeeds were because of their ignorance. They did not understand what they were doing. (Luke 23:34)
The gospels differ on what his last words were. But they’re all in agreement that those were not his last words. In fact, Christian tradition has him saying six more things after the whole “They known not what they do” blubbering. (Did it ever occur to you that they knew exactly what they were doing, Jesus? Maybe a god who sends people to eternal torment for refusing to believe without evidence shouldn’t be welcome on this planet.) Hell, those aren’t even his last words in the very gospel Frank is quoting. Luke 23:43 and 23:46 have him saying and doing other things later on. Read your god damn Bible, Frank!
SNL producers choose to portray a vengeful and violent Jesus on the eve of the most sacred and most reflective 40 days of the liturgical calendar. Hear still that barely audible prayer recorded in Luke.
Hear also the violent, vengeful Jesus portrayed throughout the book of Revelation. Hell, Revelation could easily be titled “Jesus Haploid Christ Ass-Fucks the Entire Human Species” without misrepresenting its message.
I’m sick and tired of the religious trying to have it both ways. They want even non-believers to treat their invisible friend with reverence and respect and gush about how peaceful and loving he was, and they want to say that said non-believers will all be killed and thrown into the pits of hell for eternal torment simply for the crime of being non-believers. Jesus, as conservative Christians view him, is a sick, disgusting, violent, bigoted god, and anyone who says differently hasn’t read Revelation. Pretty much the only thing that SNL got right was the fact that there are a frighteningly large number of Christians out there who have a gigantic god-boner just thinking about the day when Jesus will return and destroy all the atheists and Muslims and everyone else who doesn’t buy into their twisted, sadistic eschatology. Prince of Peace my ass.

Naked Naughty “Nuns” get sued

This is the kind of headline that grabs one’s attention:

Catholic group to sue naked feminist protesters

I saw that Neil Gaimon had tweeted it from Joe. My. God. and had to check it out. So, what’s going on here?

Catholic group Civitas is suing the group Femen for “sexual exhibitionism” in front of children, as well as protesting illegally and insulting a religious group by mocking their appearance.

So what is this “sexual exhibitionism” that so scarred these poor children?  Well, the protesting women’s boobs were, like, visible and stuff. (Image NSFW) They weren’t even properly naked, just topless. I generally demand more from my sexual exhibitionism. They could at least have made out or something. Maybe a little fisting. Just a little.

This is in France, by the way. This Catholic group is suing for showing boobage in France. Seriously, who doesn’t show their boobs in France? I’ve seen a French film or two. I seriously thought boobs were so common in France that people barely noticed them. “Hey, Jacques. You ever notice how hard it is to see the futbol game with all these boobs in the way?” “What boobs?”

And “insulting a religious group by mocking their appearance”? Is that really illegal in France? Insulting people should never be illegal. Religious people need to learn that the law is not your bah-bah that you can suck on whenever you get your feelings hurt and feel all poopy inside. And let’s keep in mind–these naked feminist nuns were counter-protesting a Catholic run anti-gay march. So it’s okay for the Catholics to march to deny gays equal rights, but it’s not okay to make fun of the Catholics’ silly costumes. Christian privilege, much? Oh, and fuck boobies. Children might see them. And we all know how scarring that would be if a boob were visible and a child saw it. It might do horrible things to him, like make him giggle for a few seconds. Oh, the humanity.

So who is this lesbian feminist group? From what I can gather at Le Monde (my French is rusty), they’re a rather outlandish women’s rights group that has drawn quite a bit of controversy for their over the top protests which they always do topless. This has led to the legitimate question of whether they are actually conveying a message or if people just see the breasts and forget everything else. European feminists worry that if Femen becomes the face (or chest) of feminism it could distract people from the message, and maybe that’s true. Honestly, in my opinion, while I’m all for feminism and gay rights and lots of other left wing issues, I’ve never participated in a protest of any kind and probably never will. It’s just too herd-mentality for me. But I support other people’s right to do it, even in the nude. So long as they don’t get violent…but we’ll get to that in a moment.

The feminist protesters turned up to the march against the proposed marriage for all law wearing only knickers and stockings, and with graffiti criticising the march written on their bodies.

I’m not sure if I’m comfortable calling gay marriage “marriage for all”. That seems to play right into the dumb ass slippery slope arguments that the right loves to use, where gay marriage will lead to people marrying box turtles and lawn sprinklers. Although maybe this is a translation problem.

Well, anyways, they’re criticizing an anti-gay march. Good for them!

They also fired canisters of tear gas at the marchers.

NOT good for them.  What the hell, girls? Spraying tear gas? That is way out of line.

That is, it’s way out of line if it’s true. I see some reason for doubt. Here’s a YouTube video of the event (NSFW, obviously, because of boobs. People, for some odd reason that I’ll never understand, hate seeing boobs.)

You can definitely see them spraying….something. But is it tear gas, or any kind of dangerous gas? Everyone exposed to it seems to be fine. I don’t see anyone rubbing their eyes or reacting to it in any way. I was at a hockey game a while back when a drunk guy six or seven rows back from me got maced by security. Even though I was several yards away, it irritated my eyes quite a bit. And that was just one guy getting sprayed with a small amount of mace.  In the video, the…whatever it is they spray seems to go everywhere, but people seem to be doing just fine.

One thing that is clear from the video is that they are attacked by the anti-gay protestors.

Some members of the feminist group were attacked and injured by the marchers.

Yeah, I just said that. Try to keep up, article I’m commenting on!

Five people have since been arrested in connection to the violence.

Who were these five people? Were they from Femen or Civitas? What did the police have to say about the allegations of tear gas or that the anti-gay protestors attacked the feminists?

Jesus titty balls, the French media is even worse than American media when it comes to leaving out relevant information. It’s hard to form a well-reasoned opinion on this with such sparse reporting. Who attacked whom first? That’s really important info.

Alain Escada, the president of Civitas, said the catholic group would also be suing Femen for spreading a message in a violent manner, organised violence with arms and threatening the freedom to protest of others.

If they actually did any of those things, you should sue. Why was this story all about the suing for boobs and dressing up in “insulting” costumes if there was the possibility of violence in this protest? Why did this shit come up at the end of the article? It’s definitely the more important stuff. But it’s also the stuff where the information becomes so sparse that the article is mostly useless. Also, I can’t help but notice that the journalist who authored this article has apparently spoken only to members of Civitas, but not Femen. Why weren’t the women asked for a statement on this? Are we following some arcane Catholic rule that only lets the men speak? What the hell?

Of course, I tend towards the naked feminist nuns’ side, since 1.) I agree with gay rights and feminism and 2.) I like boobs. However, if they did really spray tear gas into a crowd, then that’s simply inexcusable behavior and they should be in jail. On the other hand, maybe that was just some kind of harmless smoke bomb they set off, and the Civitas bigots attacked them unprovoked, in which case it’s the bigots who should be in jail. Or maybe it really was tear gas or mace, but they only sprayed it in self defense after someone attacked them. It would be nice if the article provided enough information to resolve this issue, but the stuff I quoted is all we get.

It would also be nice if the article focused on the violence rather than the boobs. As I said, I like me some boobs, but anti-free-speech violence is a much more pressing issue. (I also like pressing boobs.) It makes me think that perhaps the critics of Femen’s method might have a point. Except for the fact that if this story hadn’t involved boobs, the odiousness of Civitas’ protest against gay marriage would not have spread across the world. It’s doubtful that this story would have gotten any attention outside of France if not for the boob angle. So, yay for boobs! I guess.

Freedom for me, but not for thee

I saw Ed Brayton’s brief commentary on this article and had to throw in my two cents. The article is in WorldNutDaily, so you already know it’s gonna be goatballs crazy. But even by WND standards, it’s a whopper. The author, Erik Rush, calls his column “The Other Rush”, which one would think means that he’s happy being second fiddle to America’s most notoriously bloviating gas bag. But it seems rather that he’s trying to one-up Limbaugh in terms of just what a hateful right wing authoritarian he can be.

The title lets you know exactly what you’re in for:

How to disarm the Mainstream Media
Exclusive: Erik Rush wants ‘treasonous’ reporters prosecuted for misuse of free speech

“Misuse” of free speech isn’t very clearly defined in US law, Holmes’ overrated “fire in a crowded theater” standard notwithstanding. Regardless, if the purpose is to “disarm” the “mainstream media”, then it’s pretty clear that whatever this is about, it’s unconstitutional. The First Amendment explicitly protects the press from being disarmed. Kinda like how all those rednecks keep reminding us the Second Amendment does for American gun owners. Except in this case, the media isn’t actually gonna blow anybody’s head off.

Well, it’s Free Speech Week, an annual celebration of Americans’ right to free speech hosted by the Media Institute. Partnering organizations include media organizations across the political spectrum. What’s ironic is the extent to which Americans’ free speech is under assault at present. While this is more evident among the non-liberal, non-secular folks among us, this oppression is just part of a design that will ultimately stifle all of our speech and liberties to varying extents.

I think we need to start a Self Awareness Week. During Self Awareness Week, people will be encouraged to pay attention not only to what they’re doing but also to the context in which it’s done, and to notice things like the fact that you’re publishing this on the internet without any repercussions whatsoever so obviously no one has taken away your free speech you stupid fuck.

Since it is Free Speech Week, I can’t think of a more perfect time to clarify just what free speech is and, more importantly, what it is not.

Translation: I’m gonna make sure free speech only applies to “non-liberal, non-secular folk”.

I’m going to get ahead of myself here and presuppose a Mitt Romney victory in November. This is the only scenario in which America will be able to get her feet back under her, so to speak, and plot a course out of the bog in which President Obama has situated us. An Obama re-election will essentially mean a national bracing for impact, and all bets may be off with regard to preserving our liberties to any meaningful degree.

What liberties, exactly, has Obama taken from you? At least with Bush people could point to specific legislation, the PATRIOT Act, for example, which expressly curtailed certain freedoms. But what has Obama done that affects anyone’s freedom? Usually the “freedom” people accuse Obama of taking away is the “freedom” to take away other freedoms, such as the “right” to deny birth control coverage to an employee. And, as we’ll see, the “freedom” to take away other people’s freedoms is exactly the kind of “freedom” Rush wants to protect.

Yes, many Americans are now cognizant of the fact that progressives have “progressed” America dangerously close to being a Marxist-socialist nation and that we are collectively responsible for not having checked that progress.

Have you ever read the writings of Marx or any other socialist? America is nothing like the society they envisioned. It’s not even close. America is about as Marxist as Honey Boo Boo is talented.

…there are other widespread, organized threats to America’s ongoing concern as a representative republic with guaranteed personal liberties, free speech foremost among them.

Here, I am speaking of the press

Fucking First Amendment! It violates the First Amendment! Or something…

the conglomeration of national broadcast, digital and print media organizations that has been incrementally packed with ideological liberals and socialists, and so has disqualified itself as the impartial government watchdog it once was.

Okay, a few things here. 1.) If you think the media was ever impartial, I’ve got three words for you: William Randolf Hearst. 2.) Being liberal disqualifies you from being a government watchdog? I see what you did there. 3.) The existence of Fox News contradicts all such “liberal mainstream media” demagoguery. 4.) HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS AFFECT YOUR FREE SPEECH? You can’t have free speech so long as liberals have free speech? You do realize that free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being disagreed with.

Oh, wait, we’re operating on the right wing conception of “freedom”, which means “taking freedom from others.”

During my lifetime, I have seen the press become an advance force for social engineering and global socialism.

During my lifetime I’ve seen the press become an ADHD fever dream of sensationalistic headlines and flashy graphics that convey almost no information and perpetuate the “careers” of people like Paris Hilton far beyond their expiration dates. But, yeah, global socialism and all that.

In the matter of this president, the press largely facilitated the ascension of Barack Obama. The instances wherein they have promoted, shielded and aided him are beyond enumeration.

This goes beyond such things as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and his man crush on Obama – I’m talking about treasonous collusion.

You keep using that word “treason”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And how exactly is supporting the President “treason”? When people on Fox gushed about Bush, was that treason too?

One particularly scandalous incident occurred during the second presidential debate, when CNN moderator Candy Crowley made an interjection that appeared to have been as spontaneous as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ murder, and which led to a solid point scored for Obama.

Romney said something which was demonstrably false, and she asserted so. I don’t know if it’s flattering or frightening that you see “true” as meaning “a solid point for Obama”.

Most recently, after Mitt Romney brought up Obama’s 2009 “Apology Tour,” the press did their best to support Obama’s claim that this never happened, despite boundless reams of footage that exist chronicling the event.

Well, the footage proves that there was a tour. But it’s the whole “apology tour” thing that the press is denying. And so they should, as the tour had nothing to do with apologies. But when exactly do you plan to get to the part where any of this is treason?

In perhaps the worst recent transgression, on Oct. 21, Phoenix, Ariz., CBS affiliate KPHO ran a lower-third graphic indicating that President Obama had won the Nov. 6 election over Gov. Mitt Romney. A technician’s cute stunt, or subliminal propaganda? In any case, it was technically a prosecutable offense the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission should be all over.

What’s that? Some low level techie at a local TV affiliate in Arizona made a dumb mistake? Kill him! Kill him!

You think I’m kidding about the kill him part?

It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.

Still think I’m kidding? Treason is a capital crime, so Rush is in fact saying that people who support liberalism in the media should be killed. No joke.

And as for the “improbable” situation that Rush alludes to, something of this nature, in which people were saying “un-American” things in the press like “Let’s secede from the Union”, did in fact happen to our founders, culminating in the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. And SOME of them, such as John Adams, did support rounding up dissenters and jailing them. OTHERS, such a Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, opposed the act. The Founders weren’t a homogeneous unit that agreed on everything. They had disagreements just like everybody else. And, in the case of the Alien and Sedition Act, it would surely be ruled unconstitutional today, and it led to numerous problems for the people who supported it. In fact, Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican) pardoned those convicted under the act, and then turned around and used the act against the very Federalists who had originally supported it!

The lesson? As our founders learned, if you support laws to prosecute your enemies for their speech, it won’t be long before that law is turned around and used on you. So don’t support such laws. But learning this lesson requires self awareness and foresight, things which are entirely lacking in today’s right wing.

This is not likely to occur, however. Radio personality and nascent media mogul Glenn Beck…

*Snort* Just a sec. I gotta take a moment to laugh at even the suggestion that Glenn Beck is a “media mogul”. I’m better now, please continue…

…has the intention of putting the establishment press out of business. While I wish him every success, it doesn’t seem likely that he will accomplish this through his organizations alone. In addition to the advent of powerful alternative media sources, I believe it will be necessary to codify – or reaffirm – the nature of crimes against the Constitution and the American people. In this manner, we can thwart the designs not only of the press, but all global socialists operating in America.

Again, what are these crimes, other than the “crimes” of disagreeing with you and (allegedly) supporting a candidate that you don’t support? And who the hell are these global socialists? And what exactly is so threatening about the media?

Let me check up on our Illuminati Lizard People Overlords over at CNN just to see what dastardly plots are unfolding… Oh God. They have a headline on the front page of their website that reads “‘Dancing With The Stars’ Goes Country”. Rush was right! This truly is the end!

Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

So God gave you the “liberty” of not having other people vocalize opinions that differ from your own? And how much of a fucking pussy are you if you can’t even handle people in the media saying things you disagree with?

The wingnuts, if we took them seriously, would have us believe that America is simultaneously the strongest country on Earth and so fragile that it could be taken down by puffy faced blabberers like Chris Matthews. And that the only way to protect liberty is to take it away. And that we should make government smaller by expanding its ability to control individual expression. And that our unbridled, exploitative capitalist economy is “Marxist” and should be replaced by unbridled, exploitative capitalism. And that Chuck Norris has interesting things to say.

This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

They think they can effect change through free speech! How un-American! Don’t they know that here in America we effect change by shutting down people who suggest we might need to change something?

If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.

The right wing sure is getting bold, isn’t it? My guess is that ten years ago WorldNutDaily would never have published such an unambiguous call for all those who oppose them to be silenced by force. Fascism was indecorous back then. But now, as a lovely infographic over at xkcd illustrates, the far right has pushed itself into the mainstream by taking over a big chunk of Congress (especially the House), and as the mainstream becomes more looney, the looneys see this as an opportunity to push the boundaries of “acceptable” lunacy.

The Overton Window has shifted, and we’re now living in a world where right wing authoritarianism can rear its ugly head unabashed and unafraid. Tell rape victims that God wants them to have that child? Sure. Declare that corporations are people? Why not. Call 47% of Americans freeloaders and unapologetically praise the greed of the wealthiest Americans? Of course! Transvaginal ultrasounds? Disenfranchising black voters? More warmongering with Iran after two failed wars? Second Amendment remedies? Women who use birth control are sluts? Football players should be silenced when they express an opinion? Jail people for being liberal in public on the charge of crimes against the constitution? Hey, the sky’s the limit!

Ed (not Brayton) over at Gin and Tacos gave a rather bleak assessment of our current cultural dialogue. While I’m not as pessimistic as he is, I have to agree that we as liberals have failed at something basic. In our misguided attempts to be “fair and balanced”, we’ve let the meaning of terms shift (including the term “fair and balanced”), and we’ve allowed the looniest of the far right lunatics to control the tenor of the debate and say the most ludicrous things without fear of reprisal or scorn.

Of course, I’m not a lunatic like Rush, and under no circumstances should even lunatics being censored just for disagreeing (I say this even when it comes to “hate speech” laws in Canada and Europe that penalize people for spouting homophobic garbage). But allowing free speech should never mean failing to mock and deride people who says stupid or bigoted things. Just look at Rush’s article for an example of how dangerous it is to play the “respect people’s beliefs” gambit. Rush is so emboldened that he now believes it is a CRIME to disagree with him. He’s grown so accustomed to seeing the media put kid gloves on when dealing with creationists, global warming deniers, market dogmatists, homophobes, and all sorts of goatfucking crazy people that he now perceives the mere presence of liberals to be treasonous.

When somebody says something stupid, there should be a chorus of dissenters pointing out how wrong and stupid the claim is. Of course the stupid person will say that being called stupid is a violation of the First Amendment, but the fact that he or she believes this is part of what makes him or her stupid. The people with truly indefensible ideas can’t withstand scrutiny, so their only recourse is to silence those who would contradict them. Bad ideas need external, non-intellectual support. And as long as we have this mentality of “respecting beliefs” no matter how insane or demonstrably false those beliefs are, we are giving them that support, and opening a window for them to completely alter how our nation discusses important issues.

I say let the wingnuts like Rush have their word. But then I’m gonna have my word. And if the wingnuts don’t like it, they can go fuck themselves.