I have a mouth, so I guess I must scream

There are a lot of things wrong with American society. Poverty, inequality, racism, sexism, crumbling infrastructure, selfish foreign policy, inadequate healthcare, insane incarceration rates, environmental pollution, gun violence, pitifully underfunded education systems…the list goes on and on. But these things are all very, very hard to fix. Even the simplest of those problems couldn’t be corrected in less than a very hard fought decade. But I want to look like I’m changing the world, without actually, you know, changing the world. So what should I do?

I know! I’ll write long screeds attacking pop culture! Attacking movies and music is so easy. Everyone sees movies , so I don’t have to explain anything complicated like long term economic trends or the greenhouse effect.  I just have to point at something on a screen and say “See? Look! Bad!” That way, I can pat myself on the back for making a difference, while not actually putting out any of the effort required to actually make a difference. Thanks, CNN!

Editor’s note: Lewis Beale writes about culture and film for the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and other publications. He has taught writing about film at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Keep this in mind as we go through this guy’s article. He teaches writing. In real life. To actual students.

In the latest “X-Men” film, Magneto levitates RFK stadium and drops it around the White House; the stadium is destroyed.

In “Godzilla,” the monster fights off what looks like the entire U.S. military while he flattens both Honolulu and San Francisco. And in the new Tom Cruise film, “Edge of Tomorrow,” opening Friday, Paris is left underwater after an alien attack, and a futuristic D-Day-like invasion leaves a French beach strewn with dead bodies and smoldering war materiel.

There’s plenty more mayhem to come as this season’s glut of blow-’em-up flicks rolls out: “Transformers: Age of Extinction” (aliens drop a cruise liner on a city), “Guardians of the Galaxy” (outer space vehicles liquefied by the dozens), “Hercules” (the title character fights off lions, sea monsters and a whole army of bad guys) and “The Expendables 3” (Sly Stallone and gang; train rams into prison).

Entertainment Weekly recently referred to it as “the summer of destruction.”

But let’s call it what it is: destruction porn.

When writing, you want to have some kind of theme linking together the various threads of your prose. Mr. Beale’s parenthetical statements attempting to establish his theme are what I would call “reaching”. “Outer space vehicles liquified by the dozens”? “[T]he title character fights off lions, sea monsters and a whole army of bad guys”? What the fuck? How exactly are these things linked?

What genuinely irks me, though, is that final sentence. He’s treating the term “destruction porn” like it’s an actual phrase in the English language that means something. Like it has a definition, or that anyone anywhere agrees on what counts as “destruction porn”.

“____ porn” has become the new “-gate” suffix of bad writing. It used to be, if you couldn’t come up with anything original to say, you just find some scandal and call it “[blank]-gate”.  Today, if you’re a hack with nothing to say, just find something that you know little about but think is over-indulgent, and call it “[blank] porn”. The Saw movies are “torture porn”. 50 Shades of Grey is “mom porn”. News coverage of weeping relatives of tragedy victims is “grief porn”. Fucking pathetic.

Like real porn, these movies play to our most atavistic instincts.

That’s not what “atavistic” means. A dolphin with hind limbs is atavistic. Our ancient ancestors millions of years ago couldn’t possibly have thrilled at skyscrapers crumbling or spaceships blowing up, because none of those things existed millions of years ago.  Get a fucking dictionary.

And where the fuck did you get the idea that “real porn” (whatever that is) is atavistic? People don’t have sexual urges any more? Jerking off is a thing of the past? Modern life, right now, doesn’t involve sexual indulgence? What planet do you live on?

They all include some sort of buildup, the titillation of expectation that really bad, but cool, things are about to happen. They generally climax — pun intended …

This guy teaches writing.

…with a massive set piece of CGI carnage. And like real porn, afterwards we’re supposed to feel deliriously fulfilled and exhausted.

I don’t think you know how “real porn” works. Maybe you feel “deliriously fulfilled and exhausted” after stroking yourself, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they were going for. What the hell does “deliriously fulfilled” even mean?

Additionally, the fact that you keep using the term “real porn” is a pretty clear indicator that you damn well know the term “destruction porn” is bullshit.

Fact is, we should hate ourselves for feeling this way, as if we’d just had really bad sex.

Writing professor, folks. Calling Dr. Freud.

But that’s not the reaction destruction porn elicits.

Can’t imagine why it doesn’t elicit your perverted reaction in most people. Maybe delirious fulfillment followed by self hatred just isn’t in vogue.

Even worse, we’re exporting this American blood-lust globally, giving outsiders the impression of a country that has totally gone over to the Dark Side.

Star Wars references kinda undermine what you’re going for here. Or does Alderaan not count as destruction porn?

It’s not as if there hasn’t been massive carnage in the movies before this. Hollywood has produced plenty of war films, ecological disaster flicks and alien invasion epics in the past. But the sheer frequency of destruction porn these days — at least 11 movies of this type in summer 2012 (“The Avengers,” The Dark Knight Rises,” etc.) and 12 during the same season last year (“White House Down,” “World War Z,” etc.)…

11 movies in 2012 and 12 in 2013. Please note that he’s throwing out these numbers without ever defining what counts as a “destruction porn” movie, and without ever specifying which movies fit his non-existent criteria, or how any movie possibly could. There were precisely 11 of such movies in 2012, but he won’t bother to explain where that number came from. These are entirely made up statistics. Well, I can do the same thing. I just created a new category called “Shitfuck journalism from hacks”. CNN published precisely one such article which I’m looking at right now.

…and our delight in seeing things blown up, should make us worry about the mental health of society.

Public schools failing, gun violence, suicide…no, wait, fuck all that shit. We should be worried about The Avengers. That’s the important shit.

Idiot.

Movies have always reflected the anxieties of their age. In the 1950s, we had plenty of nuclear paranoia films,often featuring mutated life forms. (Can you say “Godzilla”?)

Can YOU say Godzilla? You keep bringing up this imaginary entity called “destruction porn” as if it’s something new. Have you seen any classic Godzilla films ever? Do I need to explain to you the whole “Guy in rubber suit smashing cardboard buildings” leitmotif of the entire series?

But the recent spate of films seem to reflect a collective psychic collapse.

What the hell is a “collective psychic collapse”? Who the fuck watches Maleficent and thinks, “Yup. Collective psychic collapse.”?

Sure, there are reasons for this: fear of terrorism, the insecurity created by all those mass murders, like the recent episode in Santa Barbara. We feel that world has gotten even more chaotic. That there’s too much of everything. That society has gotten way too complicated, with too many people, too much technology, too many opposing ideologies clashing against each other.

Look at me! I’m vaguely aware of modern political issues! And I get paid to express that never-more-than-vague awareness with statements like “all those mass murders”! I teach writing!

I’m the 700 billionth person to point out that modern life has complications that didn’t exist in the past! I have absolutely nothing beyond that regurgitation to contribute to the discussion, but CNN needs to fill up space, so here I am!

It recalls the classic 1959 dystopian novel “A Canticle For Leibowitz,” by Walter Miller Jr., in which the end of industrial civilization is referred to as “the Simplification.” It’s as if we’re preparing for a global meltdown.

In your writing classes, do you ever address hyperbole?

And the summertime, when we’re supposed to be mellowing out,…

Who’s the fucking “we” in this sentence? The next time you eat at a restaurant, tell the over-worked and under-paid waiter that “we” are supposed to “be mellowing out” since it’s summer, and see what kind of reaction you get. My guess is it’ll be something along the lines of, “I’m smiling because if you don’t tip me, I starve.”

…is a perfect time for Hollywood to exploit our growing appetite for this kind of carnage. There are two specific reasons for this: Most filmgoers are in the under-40 demographic, looking for a night out away from the heat and to put their brains on pause — and believe me, there’s nothing more mindless than watching stuff blow up.

I can think of something more mindless.

The second reason is the importance of the foreign market, which now accounts for nearly 70% of total box office gross.

Our global neighbors tend to go for what we do best, which is make big budget films with state-of-the-art special effects, a minimum of dialogue (explosions speak a universal language) and lots of mayhem. Lots. Just to take two recent examples: the just-opened X-Men film has grossed $168 million in the U.S., and twice that much overseas. And the new “Captain America” flick — “Captain America,” no less! — has grossed $255 million domestically and a whopping $454 million overseas.

America: A country where scenes of mass destruction are the norm, and carnage is preferred over peace, love and understanding.

Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious douchebag.

If you actually bothered to watch and think about the movies, rather than pontificate like a self-righteous blowhard, you’d see the themes in both X-Men and Captain America. X-Men is a metaphor for the gay rights movement, while Cap is about the surveillance state and the bullshit notion that we have to sacrifice our freedom and privacy for security. Neither film is subtle in this regard. They wear their metaphors on their sleeve. If you took two fucking seconds to think about it, you’d see it. But that’s asking way too much from you, Dr. Writing Professor.

Oh, and I can’t help but notice the term “global neighbors”. What other fucking neighbors do we have? What’s the difference between “global neighbors” and just plain fucking “neighbors”?

Is this the kind of negative image of America we want to export?

Better explosions than pretentious douchenozzles.

And sure, we all know that “It’s only a movie,” but don’t kid yourself: When we get geeked at the leveling of entire cities, it says something about who we are, and where our society is going.

No. It says something about who you are that this is the kind of thing you judge other people for.

And you’d think after 9/11 and the never-ending mass murders in this country we would be a bit more sensitive to scenes where cities are destroyed and thousands of lives lost, but the opposite seems to have taken place: We wallow in it. We cheer it. Like porn, we can’t take our eyes off it. It’s seductive and incredibly addictive.

Your presumptuousness is much more offensive to me than any explosion in a make-believe movie. “You’d think”. Fuck you. The difference between you and me is that I do actually think. Hey, Dr. Writing Professor and Film Critic, did you ever notice how the original Godzilla came out in 1954, just 9 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki got nuked? Did your tiny little pea brain ever consider the idea that movies are artistic expression, and that they reflect these societal anxieties precisely because that’s what art does? Yes, filmmakers are expressing their feelings about 9/11, and audiences are responding. You can see that in many modern films. This isn’t something new. It’s how art works.

Wish fulfillment? Catharsis? Just good old entertainment? It really doesn’t matter. While we’re in the grips of whatever social psychosis is stoking this ravenous appetite for mayhem, Hollywood will be happy to oblige.

You really are a complete tool, aren’t you?

You managed to write 1,000 words without ever saying a thing. You excel at speculation, allegation, and sensationalism, while stridently avoiding anything that even resembles actual fucking journalism. You pass judgment on others for the specific purpose of generating a headline. You invent terms without ever bothering to define them. You then invent numbers because numbers look like science and reason and that makes dumb people think you’re credible. You use pop psychology to make it look like your verbal diarrhea is actual human thought. And you do all this in the hopes that you’ll stimulate CNN’s audience into irrational fear of an imaginary problem, just so you can do it again next week.

You write news porn.

Intelligent Imbecility

There are lots of ways to promote bigotry and ignorance. The easiest and most obvious is to just run around shouting “Fuck faggots!”, which accounts for 90% of internet traffic. Another is to declare that you heard from an invisible, silent being that exists…somewhere…that faggots are bad and don’t deserve equal rights. Another is to assert that it’s just your belief that faggots are evil, and how dare you insult my beliefs (which are insulting to other people) (oh, and I want my beliefs enshrined in the law)?

The problem with these approaches is that the public is catching on to them. Stupid can’t hide for long, and more and more people are saying “Fuck your beliefs” and giving gays equal rights anyways. “Damn it!” says the bigot. “I have to deny people their rights, but I can’t do it by being an obvious dumbfuck any more! Whatever shall I do?” The answer is provided, luckily for the bigot, in today’s Washington Post. You gotta be a sneaky dumbshit bigot. You gotta take what you think the opposition believes (which is, of course, nothing like what the opposition actually believes–you are a dumbfuck bigot after all!) and turn it around on them! You gotta be, not really clever, but what you imagine to be clever in your tiny little pea brain. You gotta be an intelligent imbecile.

Behold.

Is gay marriage really progressive?

  • By Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman
  • February 20 at 6:38 am

Ha! Take that, liberals! We put a question mark in our title! That should fill you with doubt about your own beliefs. ‘Cause that’s how intelligent imbecility works. We’re tricky and shit.

Same-sex marriage advocates, and their lawyers, cite Jefferson’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to underscore everyone’s right to marry without state interference. Last week, they successfully challenged Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Given current legal trends, there seems little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree with U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling. Gay rights advocates believe this ruling is a major progressive advance.

I’m a gay rights advocate, and when I heard about that ruling the first thing I thought was, “Major Progressive Advance.” Except for the part where I never thought any such thing. Actually, my first thought was, “The bigots are gonna shit themselves,” and boy oh boy was I right.

We ask: Why is this progressive?

No you don’t. You never asked that. This is just a bullshit rhetorical device for you to try to make yourselves look smart while spouting idiocy. The only people you’re fooling with this shit are people who were already dumb enough to agree with you before you even wrote a word.

Or put another way: Why is giving the government more power over your personal life, as opposed to less, considered progressive?

Why are loaded, deliberately misleading questions the things you beat your wife with?

Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of line? I should have known you would never beat your wife. You just take out your frustrations by raping and murdering a hooker. My bad.

See? I can make up passive aggressive dogshit about other people and spout it without blinking! Publish me, Washington Post!

The government gives legal benefits to people in marriages that the government recognizes. All gay people are asking is that they receive the same benefits. It’s not that fucking hard to understand. This doesn’t involve government controlling their personal lives. But singling out gay people specifically to ban them from certain benefits? That DOES involve government interfering with people’s personal lives. No fucking duh.

Ironically, it may turn out that gay marriage advocates are trying to further cement a dangerous philosophical trend that they would normally see as conservative, retrogressive or even reactionary.

Ironically, there’s no irony here, since you’re just pulling this out of your tightly puckered asshole.

Gay marriage advocates believe the progressive position is to require every marriage to get the same governmental blessing. But this is actually not a progressive or liberating posture at all.

The right approach for those who believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” freed from government control is self-evident: no government control over marriage.

This is becoming the new right wing way to promote straight privilege. They ignore all the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, shared tax forms, tax benefits, etc.) and act like marriage is nothing but a word. But I guarantee you–if either of these guys’ wife is in the hospital, they’ll damn sure take advantage of the “government control” that lets them visit her. And when these two fucking nitwits file their taxes, they’ll damn sure let “government control” give them some marriage-based tax credits.

Which is to say, they’ll glad spew empty words about “government control over marriage” in a rag like the WaPo. That’s just words. But the moment it affects their real lives, everything they’re saying goes right down the shitter.

The same-sex marriage position requires first accepting the government’s right to sanction marriage.

It obviously doesn’t. It requires recognizing that straight couples get benefits that gays don’t. It requires recognizing how fucking unfair that is. It also requires knowing a right wing bullshit artist when you see one–and I see two that the WaPo decided deserved to have their verbal fecal matter spread to the entire country.

Moreover, advocates don’t merely agree to give government this power, they accept a state’s right to discriminate. The federal court decision overturning Virginia’s gay marriage ban is premised on the state failing to provide a sufficient reason for discriminating between couples wanting to get hitched. This presupposes the right of the government to sanction marriage. Ironically, this is the position of the supposedly conservative traditional marriage defenders.

Go back and read that paragraph again. The first sentence is supposed to tell us what the latter sentences will demonstrate. Read it. The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything that follows. Read it again. I challenge you to explain how the first sentence is even tangentially related to anything that follows.

Keep in mind: The WaPo published this illogical garbage. And the WaPo is purportedly a respectable newspaper. Yeah, fucking right.

But the really important point to keep in mind here is PRIVILEGE. These two fuckheads have probably taken advantage of marriage rights numerous times.  They just take it for granted. Pick up your kids from school? Sure, Mommy and Daddy are married, and legally that’s all that’s required to retrieve your kids from school (even if they aren’t your biological children). They don’t even think about it. The only reason they can flippantly tell gays “Just don’t get legal recognition” is that they’re so used to legal recognition that they can’t even realize they have it any more.

Trust me, no married couple would ever voluntarily give up the legal benefits they enjoy. Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman are no different.

While the Supreme Court has made other important rulings on marriage in the past, no jurist ever suggested disagreement with state laws banning same-sex marriage — until recently.

It’s never been done before, so why do it now?

(Nota bene: This exact same argument could have been made against inter-racial marriage 60 years ago.)

Gay rights lawyers say such decisions were wrong, surely by today’s standards. We ask: What is progressive about conditioning the state’s right to sanction marriage on changeable judicial attitudes?

You don’t ask that. You’re not asking anything. Stop pretending that you’re capable of thought.

Anyone who reads this can see exactly what you’re doing. The bigots have lost the gay marriage debate on one front after another, so now you just wanna take your ball and go home. Just end legal marriage entirely! That oughta go over well! I’m sure the step-fathers out there who no longer have legal guardianship over their step-children won’t mind at all! Right wingers are smart!

The more principled approach, which is consistent across the philosophical spectrum, is leaving marriage to the religious and family institutions from whence it came.

What philosophical spectrum? Is there even such a thing as a philosophical spectrum? I’ve been studying philosophy since 2000, and I’ve never encountered any such thing.

Privilege is again at play here. What Leahy and Goldman are really asking is, “Can’t we just let the church (which already excludes gays) give us all the benefits and tell everyone who’s not like us to fuck off?” No, shithead, you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Marriage is a civil contract. It has been for a very long time. And I know, you really want all the benefits to yourself, even if sharing them with others won’t cost you a thing. That’s because you’re suffering from a common disorder known in psychiatry as Being An Asshole.

Marriage existed long before there were government bureaucrats looking to raise revenue by collecting license fees.

Yeah, that’s why the government recognizes marriages. The tiny fees they get from licenses.

https://i0.wp.com/affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/brilliant_cigar1.jpg

If a person meets whatever common sense, minimal legal requirements are established for people to wed — such as those related to age, health, mental capacity or banning incest — why should government approval be required?

That’s what the gays are asking. You seem to have missed this part.

You see, STRAIGHT marriages don’t require government approval. Wanna get married? Sure, why not. It’s not like there’s an exam. As long as you’re straight, you get married. Simple as that.

All gays are asking is that they be treated the same way.

If gay rights advocates truly believe marriage is a protected, inalienable right, then they should be in court arguing against state-sanctioned marriage per se.

It’s not that gays are destroying traditional marriage, it’s that they SHOULD be destroying traditional marriage. See how subtle and nuanced these bigots are becoming?

What about the traditional marriage position – that defining these unions is up to the states and that states have a vested interest in promoting traditional families? It runs counter to the conservative belief in limited government.

The true conservative position should be to let the church control everything. Christian hegemony for the win!

Same-sex couples are generally no better or worse at parenting than those with different sexual orientations. Limiting marriage on procreation grounds, even if legal, is a slippery slope that would trample the Constitution and personal liberties in a way worthy of China, not America.

That’s the only point in this op-ed where these two say anything even vaguely rational. But then they fuck it up by going, “China! Amiright?”

Most important, a marriage license is derivative, not the basic right at issue. If the right to marry is inalienable, then the government needs to stop seeing it as another revenue raiser or privilege creator.

We should just leave it to religious institutions! They secure privilege much more hatefully than the government ever could!

In practical effect, all same-sex marriage proponents are claiming is their inalienable right to be required to pay a marriage fee like everyone else.

How the fuck did this sentence make it past an editor?

All they’re claiming is a fee? So hospital visitation isn’t part of legal marriage? And neither is guardianship of children? What about inheritance rights? Adoption? Tax credits? Spouse benefits for insurance plans?

No, none of that exists. Well, it all does exist, but Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb are so caught up in their own privilege that they stupidly don’t even realize how much legal benefit they get from marriage. They think they can just erase the entire legal structure of the marriage cake and still get all the frosting. Well, sorry, fucknuts. It doesn’t work that way. If you actually got your way, you’d have no legal basis on which to claim you can visit your wife if she’s dying in the hospital. Think about that–if you ever even think at all.

Look, I’m not saying all conservatives are stupid. I’ve met a few smart ones. But too many of them are complete idiots. And the worst type of conservative idiot is the one who masters the English language just enough to make an argument that might be mistaken for rational human thought if viewed from a thousand miles away through layers of skin-melting fog. In other words, the one who’s able to gussy up his imbecility with just enough false erudition to be published in an overrated rag like the WaPo.

The First Church of Commerce

I hate the word “libertarian”. Not because I have anything against libertarians. Many libertarians are smart people with a lot of good ideas (and other ideas that I strongly disagree with). I like the fact that libertarians defy the two-party system and strive to transcend the tired, oversimplified, black-and-white politics of liberal vs. conservative. It’s not libertarians as a whole that piss me off.

What pisses me off is that any jackass can call him or herself a libertarian. This means that just as “socialism” has become an utterly meaningless term because of how people (including too many libertarians) apply it to others, so has “libertarian” as a label one applies to oneself. You might as well call yourself “smegmatarian” for all the word “libertarian” tells me about you. (Let’s just hope “smegmatarian” doesn’t work like “vegetarian”. Ew.)

Many so-called libertarians are virtually indistinguishable from your standard run-of-the-mill god-humper religious rightists. They stand for all the same things as the religious right, but because they worship the free market and think millionaires should be allowed to wipe their asses with starving children (we all know they’d do that if they got the chance), they call themselves libertarian.

Such is the case with Bob Livingston of personalliberty.com. And he really, really wants you to know just what a libertarian he is.

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom! Buy my book!

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom? Buy my book! It’s Free! (In that, you’re free to give me 30 bucks for it.)

For someone who loves personal liberty so much, you’d think maybe this guy would support the idea of people being free to practice harmless personal relationship choices without facing discrimination.  But this brings us to a problem I do have with libertarians in general: They usually understand personal liberty entirely in economic/commercial terms, and always purely from the supply-side. Any other form of personal freedom or rights just doesn’t register with them.

This is very much the case with Mr. Livingston, who just can’t comprehend why anyone might support gay marriage.

Gay Marriage Trumps 1st Amendment

December 10, 2013 by

No, it doesn’t. But that ain’t gonna stop you from pulling the dumbest fucking arguments in the galaxy from your liberty-hole, is it?

When government creates special rights for one group, it inevitably does so at the expense of the natural rights of the majority.

You sure you included enough dog-whistle terms in there? Maybe you should’ve found a way to cram in “job creators”, “gay agenda” and “urban thug”, just to be sure you’ve sufficiently whipped your Pavlovian conservative readership into an irrational frenzy.

Such is the case with abortion, where the courts created out of whole cloth a “right” for the mother at the expense of the unborn child’s right to life.

Fetuses are the majority now? When the fuck did that happen? Perhaps more importantly, HOW the fuck did that happen? Someone out there must have a serious case of clown-car vagina to make that work.

Or do you just not know what the phrase “such is the case” means? Well, you see how in your previous sentence you brought up the rights of the majority? Yes, I know how hard it is for god-humpers to remember the words they blurted out just seconds before, but really try this time. You see, when you end one sentence with “rights of the majority”, and then begin the next with “such is the case”, then what follows SHOULD BE A FUCKING CASE OF IT, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FUCK.

But none of this matters, because this claim about abortion is just god damn stupid. A fetus in the first two trimesters doesn’t have higher brain functions (I’ll avoid the obvious joke). It’s not thinking or feeling or experiencing or doing any of the things a person does. It doesn’t have any thoughts, so it doesn’t have rights any more than a rock or a tree or a Juggalo does. The woman carrying the fetus, however, does have thoughts and feelings and experiences, so she has rights. Once the fetus has a functioning brain and can survive on its own, this relationship changes. But before that happens, she could play fucking tennis with the fetus for all I care.

And such is the case with gay marriage and a recent judge’s ruling in Colorado that will require the owner of a bakery to serve homosexual couples over his religious objections.

Good galluping god gravy, man. Just stop using the phrase “such is the case”. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. You’re in the minority, Bob.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips declined to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when he learned it was to celebrate their “gay” marriage. Colorado doesn’t recognize gay marriages, but the men had “married” in Massachusetts.

If you’re gonna use the smug conservative scare quotes, at least use them consistently. To punish you, I’m going to skip ahead to something you say just a few sentences later in your op-ed:

Note that there was no evidence in any of the cases that the businesses refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Remember that thing I said about conservatives being verbal goldfish, immediately forgetting what they said just a few seconds after they say it? Well, Livingston’s brain is hard at work flushing his own statements down his cerebral toilet with every word he types. One second, it’s “they refused to cater when they heard it was a gay marriage,” the next it’s, “Discrimination? What discrimination? I never said anything about discrimination.” *Flush!*

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney Nicolle Martin said the judge’s order puts Phillips in the impossible position of going against his Christian faith.

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” she said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

For example, he refuses to make cakes for divorced people getting remarried, because the Bible forbids that (in its many cake-related verses). What’s that? He doesn’t? He only applies this supposedly deeply-held belief to the gays?

What an asshole.

In a similar case, the New Mexico Supreme court ruled in August that a Christian couple could not refuse to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Gay marriages are not legal in New Mexico.

Let’s do that goldfish thing again. A few sentences after the above, we get this…

A common refrain from supporters of gay marriage legalization is that laws allowing gays to marry won’t affect anyone outside the couple. Clearly, this not the case.

*Flush!* As your New Mexico quote clearly indicates, this has NOTHING to do with legalizing gay marriage. Discrimination laws are a completely different thing. Your ball-fuckingly stupid argument contains its own refutation. The stuff you’re describing will happen whether gay marriage is legal or illegal, as you yourself clearly said.

So your argument against gay marriage isn’t even an argument against gay marriage. But your argument against discrimination laws is just as stupid. Freedom of religion does not include the ability to discriminate against others. You can’t just say, “God hates Jews” and then refuse to let Jews in your restaurant. That’s not how it works. The first amendment does not allow you to break the law.

But none of that matters to the freedom-loving libertarian, because he just simply can’t comprehend any kind of freedom other than businesses and corporations being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Discriminate against already oppressed minorities? Sure. Rape the environment? Yeah, why not. Destroy the economy by giving sub-prime mortgages to people who never had a chance of paying them off? That’s poor people’s fault for not understanding the complexities of finance. Why couldn’t they just go to Yale like me?

There’s more to freedom that just buying and selling. Hell, there’s more to LIFE than just buying and selling. And something that makes buying and selling marginally more inconvenient isn’t the end of the world. So ease off, libertarians. Shallow, paranoid, and tunnel-visioned is no way to go through life.

A failure of irony

Bill Hicks famously said that fundamentalism breeds a lack of irony. Fundamentalists often have extreme difficulty recognizing telling contrasts between what is said and what is implied by the context in which it is said. Often times, this failure can come in multiple layers. Take, for instance, the publication which calls itself American Thinker, which frequently publishes utterly thoughtless dribble that only repeats right wing talking points, such as the piece we’ll be looking at today, in which author Paul Schlichta actually quotes an author without realizing that the author was being ironic.

What’s wrong with Same-Sex Marriage?

By Paul Shlichta

There’s nothing wrong with it. The fact that bigots and fundamentalists keep trying and always failing to make the case that there’s something wrong with it is evidence of this.

This year, June’s wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages.

It’s funny how bigots always feel the need to speak of gay marriage in the most ominous tones, hoping to convince the reader that it’s the fucking scariest thing in the universe. In actuality, it’s utterly innocuous, and will have no effect at all on the vast majority of people. But maybe if we talk about it in Vincent Price voice, and have a Theremin playing in the background, and use a metaphor that invokes Edgar Allan Poe, we can make it scary. OoOOOooooOOooooOOOOooo!

By the way, since when are rafts ushered in by anyone to anything? Did I just miss some recent event where bells usher in rafts?

I hereby invoke a panel of experts — Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut — to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.

Bells, ushers, rafts, and now juries? Unmix your metaphors, Mr. Shlichta. You clearly don’t understand how writing works.

And really, Kurt Vonnegut? The agnostic socialist renowned for his transgressive writing that was frequently banned by conservative prudes and moral busybodies? You’re invoking him? This ain’t gonna go well for you.

Fr. Vandenberg’s new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:

The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school.

This is clearly bullshit. The greatest gift parents can give their kids is to love their kids. Even parents who hate each other and get divorced can still raise a good child by letting their love for the child overcome whatever disdain they have for each other. I’ve seen it happen, so I know it’s true.

Even if we go along with Vandenberg’s pseudo-philosophical ramblings, how is this a problem for gay couples? If they love each other very much, then they should be fine parents according to this. You have failed to make your point.

Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.

You see what Shlichta’s doing here? He’s throwing in “man and woman” as if it’s relevant to Vandenberg’s quote, but his parenthetical justification actually involves something completely different from what he quoted above. Instead of being about the importance of loving each other (which gays are perfectly capable of doing), it’s actually about “dual role models”. As if some other man or other woman couldn’t fulfill that role for them.

To this end, sexual passion and the bewildering differences between the sexes jointly play a vital role.

“Bewildering”? Does a vagina really confuse you that much? I can just imagine Mr. Shlichta at home, staring in utter disbelief as his wife inserts a tampon, muttering to himself, “I…I don’t understand…What’s happening???”

As Chesterton put it:

The differences between a man and a woman are at the best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be got over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest.  To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot…

Great. More metaphors. Besides, if men and women are so irreconcilably different, doesn’t that mean same sex marriage might be the better option?

Therefore, as Fr. Vandenberg goes on to emphasize, sexual intercourse is not merely a permitted “perk” or a reluctantly tolerated means of procreation but rather a vital and holy part of marriage…

If there’s one thing that makes my skin crawl, it’s a fundamentalist attempting to talk about sex. Seriously, if someone came up to me and said, “I slid my hard cock into her wet pussy, stuck my finger up her ass, and fucked her while she called me ‘daddy’ and cried,” it wouldn’t skeeve me out as much as the sentence quoted above. Not even if he added, “Then I made her lick expired Miracle Whip off my taint.”

…a divinely sanctioned means of demonstrating and intensifying conjugal love to make it withstand the rigors attendant upon raising children.

That’s how you see sex? It makes it easier to raise your kids? Fucking weirdo. How the fuck do you get off calling the gays “perverts” when this is what’s going through your mind when you fuck your wife?

Fortunately, as with all animals, men and women have the proper equipment for such activities.

He means cocks and cunts, which not all animals have.

The corresponding parts of the male and female body interact quite neatly for both mutual pleasure and procreation.

I feel so sorry for any woman you have ever slept with.

Not so for homosexual men and women. Whether or not there is anything wrong with their desires, they simply don’t have the proper apparatus to fulfill them.

This is entirely predicated on you knowing what they desire. You do not. Like all sanctimonious busybodies, you just assume you know what everybody’s business is and insert yourself into it. I’m not gay, but I would bet that if you said this to a gay person, their response would be to tell you to take your proper apparatus and fuck yourself with it.

They must resort to clumsy makeshifts, like cargo cult devotees trying to make airplanes out of straw.

A cargo cult is a phenomenon observed on Pacific islands after WWII. During the war, many islands, inhabited by hunter-gatherer tribes who had little contact with the outside world or modern technology, became the home of make-shift airfields. The soldiers at these airfields sometimes shared what they were flying in with the natives, who referred to it as “cargo”. After the war, the airplanes and soldiers (and cargo) disappeared, and on some islands new religions emerged in which the natives built airplanes out of bamboo and straw to try to make the cargo come back. They obviously had no idea how an airplane actually works. The physicist Richard Feynman used cargo cults as a metaphor for pseudoscience–someone who reconstructs the superficial appearance of something, but has no comprehension of its inner workings. Mr. Shlichta is invoking this idea.

Keep this in mind when he quotes Vonnegut later.

Alternatively, they submit to grotesque operations, trying to alter their bodies to suit their desires. The artificiality of these attempts to mimic normal sexuality will inevitably distort the emotions that arise from them and will tend to adversely affect any children living with them.

You know that part of the Bible where Jesus says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Yeah, Christians just kinda ignore that. They fucking LOVE judging people, and this article is just dripping with judgmental attitude.

You see those transgender people? They’re grotesque! And they’re just trying to mimic MY sexuality, which is totally NORMAL. It’s normal to view sex as primarily geared towards making you raise kids better. I’m normal! They’re the grotesque weird perverted ones!

Homosexuals who engage in such desperate expedients shouldn’t be condemned for wanting to do so. As the psychoanalyst in Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mr. Rosewater  explained:

Let’s assume that a healthy young man is supposed to be sexually aroused by an attractive woman not his mother or sister. if he’s aroused by other things, another man, say, or an umbrella, or the ostrich boa of the Empress Josephine or a sheep or a corpse or his mother or a stolen garter belt, he is what we call a pervert. Let us hasten on to the admission that every case of perversion is essentially a case of crossed wires…

Vonnegut was being sarcastic, you fucking nitwit. All you have to do is just read a little further down the page to see that. Here’s what immediately follows the Vonnegut quote above:

Mother Nature and Society order a man to take his sex to such and such a place and do thus and so with it. Because of the crossed wires, the unhappy man enthusiastically goes straight to the wrong place, proudly, vigorously does some hideously inappropriate thing; and he can count himself lucky if he is simply crippled for life by a police force rather than killed by a mob.

You see that part about police brutality and lynch mobs at the end? That’s the part where a rational mind reflects on what he/she read before and realizes it shouldn’t be taken on face value, that Vonnegut is actually making a quite different point than what a literal reading of the words might indicate. It’s called fucking irony. But for our noble busybodies at the American Thinker, that just doesn’t register with them. They see “pervert” and their feeble minds go no further.

In fact, there is neurological evidence that at least some homosexuals are wired differently and cannot help their proclivities. Others contend that homosexuality may be one of the aftereffects of sexual abuse during childhood. In recognition of such factors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church proposes the apparent paradox of condemning homosexual acts while urging that people afflicted with homosexuality be treated with sympathy.

Every major psychiatric organization has reached a consensus that homosexuality is not dangerous and should not be treated as a disorder. So everything in this paragraph is pseudoscientific bullshit that has no bearing on modern psychological medicine.

But we cannot debase the whole concept of sex and marriage merely to oblige them. The objective of what a gay activist has called the “”war we’ve already won” is to reduce marriage to a lowest-common-denominator status that will inevitably include polygamy, which is already being touted on ABC-TV as  “normal” and being campaigned for in Canada. That’s too high a price to pay for making homosexuals feel better about themselves.

None of this follows from anything you’ve said above. Not a single bit of it can be logically inferred from anything that proceeds it in the article. It’s just yet another bigot declaring by fiat that gays are evil because imaginary Jesus says so.

And the gay marriage initiative is not about making gays feel better about themselves. It’s about treating them like humans who have the same rights as other humans. Honestly, I don’t give a fuck about how they feel. All I care about is treating people equally.

Unfortunately, the institution of marriage is currently being attacked by several forces that, deliberately or inadvertently, are destroying it and thereby undermining our society:

  • The current fad of cohabitation. Single mothers usually do not assume this role voluntarily but are forced to do so by the perfidy and selfishness of men who desert them when they become pregnant. In consequence, the children suffer from the absence of a father and seek a male role model and mentor, often by joining gangs.
  • Ultrafeminists, who regard men as “the enemy”. They encourage the idea that men are unnecessary for raising children and regard lesbian couples as the new “normal”. To this end, they cite psychological studies that fall apart when examined.
  • Our protosocialist state, which seeks to diminish the concept of family in order to make the state the primary “parent”. This may be one reason why liberals are so enthusiastic about same-sex marriage — because it weakens the status and importance of families.

Now we’ve degenerated into the all-too-typical right wing freak out about how gays and feminists will destroy the universe. I especially love how his first point (aside from confusing cohabitation with single mothers) puts all the blame on men, and then his second point puts all the blame on “ultrafeminists” who supposedly hate men. Make up your mind, assfuck.

But whatever the causes, the debasement of the concepts of marriage and family will destroy us. Lycurgus achieved it in ancient Sparta and produced a nation of racist brutes. The USSR tried it, with partial success, in the last century and begat a dysfunctional society that is now painfully groping its way back to normality. These are hardly encouraging precedents. The legalization of same-sex marriage is a decisive step down that slippery slope.

Neither the Spartans nor the Soviets legalized gay marriage. And, in fact, both society’s were actually quite conservative. And Lycurgus, as our primary source Plutarch even admits, probably never even existed. He’s a legend, cobbled together from the storied lives of several different Spartan kings.

Of course, I’m not at all surprised that your ultimate evidence is fables and legends. That’s all religion is good for.

Do you like watching movies about gladiators?

Well, let’s see here. I’m just gonna dig through some of the shitty right wing blogs I check from time to time and see what idiotic fucknugget pops up. Haven’t been to The American “Thinker” in a while, might as well see what they’re up to. Hmmm… What’s this?

The Gladiator: Sarah Palin, We Need You Back in the Arena

By Lloyd Marcus

Oh, this is gonna be good.

Hello, calling Sarah Palin!  Has anyone seen her?  Where is she?  Has Sarah Palin left the building?  Is the Palin magic gone forever?

You haven’t seen her because you’ve got your TV permanently tuned to Fox News, your only source of information, and they canned her ass. [See UPDATE below.]

No.  The Palin charisma and mass appeal are still alive and well.

Is “mass appeal” another one of those terms that means something totally different to godbots than it does to the rest of the universe?

Certain people are born gifted with “It” — something that compels you to watch them.

Please note that this mystical “It” also applies to Honey Boo Boo.

Sarah Palin is one such individual.  Though politically tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail by the left and a few spineless Republicans, I pray for the day when my favorite gladiator Sarah Palin returns to the arena.

I can never hear the word “gladiator” without thinking about this. And now I wish Sarah Palin would just move to Australia so they have to deal with her shit and we can be left in peace.

Unquestionably, the vitriolic attacks on Palin and her family, the betrayals by Republicans and associates left Palin severely wounded.  Who among us could endure and survive the full weight of the MSM launched to destroy you?  It is quite understandable and reasonable for Palin to say, Forget this.  Todd and I are goin’ fishin’.

Let me interject: The WELL DESERVED vitriolic attacks. Some people fully deserve to be ruthlessly mocked and ridiculed, and Sarah Palin joined that club the moment she first opened her big, stupid mouth in public.

But, the Bible says, to whom much is given, much is required.

Something tells me you’ll be conveniently forgetting about this Bible verse very soon…

While Palin has not reported seeing a burning bush,

That’s understandable. Not many people would want to publicly announce they have crabs.

At the moment, there is no one on the national stage who inspires the masses to follow and act on their convictions like Palin.

No one does it like her. Mostly in the sense that a dried up catfish with a pencil stuck through it would do a better job of it than she has.

Please allow me to share my personal testimony of the “Palin Effect.”

She gave you crabs?

From inside our Tea Party Express tour bus, as we approached the site, I saw seniors parked a mile away, making their way to the event using walkers.  It gave me goosebumps.  Obviously, this woman, Sarah Palin, represented the America they loved and feared was slipping away.

That reminds me of another Bible verse that Christians like to forget whenever it’s convenient.

Despite all of the scandals, lies, outrageous government overreaches, and abuses of our civil liberties under this administration, Obama still gets a pass in the minds of far too many ill-informed Americans.  Decades of dumbing down students have produced exactly what the left wants: sheep totally dependent on government, clueless regarding U.S. history and the cost and value of freedom.

The only way to stop dumbing down America is to elect the dumbest politician to run for office since Orgg the caveman accidentally castrated himself while running for Chief Rock Stacker.

And you don’t get to call other people sheep while writing a fucking sycophantic puff piece about Palin with a barely concealed boner.

So Obama can ignore the Constitution and do whatever he pleases as long as the food stamps, disability checks, welfare checks, and free phones keep coming.  Under Obama, an unprecedented half of the country are eating, talking on their phones, and driving without working for it — a Democratic party dream come true.

There we go repeating that same fucking bullshit lie that Romney inflicted on the world last year. There are lies, then there are damned lies, then there’s typical Religious Right talking points.

And seriously, eating? You object to them EATING? You’d rather poor people just starve? Along with their children? Hell, the godhumpers get more vile every day.

Anyways, this whole paragraph is just gonna go down the memory hole, because in the very next paragraph…

I asked friends at dinner, “How did Ronald Reagan win in a landslide touting Conservatism?  Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority was said to have figured in the mix.  Americans, for the most part, are a moral and just people.

You just called half of Americans dirty freeloading bastards for the sin of not starving. And now you’re saying most Americans are moral? Do I need to explain to you what the word “most” means?

I was a 20-something black kid from the East Baltimore projects back then.  I knew nothing about politics.  All I knew was that every time I heard President Reagan speak, I felt good about my country and myself.  Reagan made me feel I could achieve and contribute to this wonderful country, in which I was blessed to be born, called America.

So you were utterly ignorant, but Reagan made you feel all warm and fucking fuzzy inside, and that was all you needed to vote for him. How, exactly, is it our side that’s dumbing the country down?

Oh, and by the way–YOU LIVED IN THE PROJECTS??? As in public housing? As in paid for by tax dollars? And you have the fucking gall to tell poor people today to starve rather than get a little assistance?

GO.

FUCK.

YOURSELF.

Where are the voices inspiring folks to love and contribute to the greatness of their country?  I know, I know.  Such talk sounds corny and naïve today.  In Obama’s America, signing up for government assistance and approving of government confiscating the earnings of high achievers for redistribution is the new definition of compassion and patriotism.

Hey, remember that Bible verse about how to whom much is given, much is required? No? Didn’t think so.

We need a hero, folks — someone willing to stand up for America, boldly waving our flag and touting the virtues of hard work, self-reliance, family, God, and country.

We’ve already got a fuckton of those hypocritical, jingoistic shitbiscuits running around. We don’t need any more.

I believe that Sarah Palin can pull it off.

No need to be so up front about it. I already knew you wanted her to jerk you off.

Reading my own words sound a bit corny even to me.

You are so motherfucking far beyond corny that the light from corny would take a million years to reach you.

Sarah Palin, please come back.  Run for office.  We long to cheer you on as our gladiator in the arena.

Plus it would be comedy gold.

________________________________

UPDATE (6/19/13): Well, she was canned until a few days ago when Fox News inexplicably brought her back. Un-fucking-believable. We just can’t get rid of this ass-barnacle of a human being. It seems that some malevolent force is determined to keep her hideous face in the news to torture all right-thinking people in perpetuity. However, we can find some solace in this excellent Daily Show episode.

How to be a Christian asshole

Evangelism plays an interesting role in Christianity. Superficially, evangelism is Christians converting non-Christians into Christians. But in reality, evangelism literature is aimed primarily at people who are already Christian. Rather than a tool for bringing in new members, it’s more a tool for reinforcing the beliefs of those who are already members. The odious Ray Comfort’s ludicrously implausible evangelism anecdotes are a sterling example of this, and this one is a doozy.

How to share the gospel with homosexuals

Exclusive: Ray Comfort turns to couple on airplane and says …

Oh, this is gonna be a good one. (Nota bene: I live in an alternate universe where “good” means “offensive and imbecilic.”)

I was flying from Los Angeles to Miami when I found myself sitting next to two women. Sarah was sitting closest to me. She was 29, inappropriately dressed, with a ring through her nose, and she wasn’t the friendliest person I have sat next to on a plane.

Always start out your gospel-sharing by being a judgmental prude. It really makes people want to go to Heaven when they’re confronted with the notion that Heaven means spending eternity with billions of Ray Comforts. Side note: “Not the friendliest person I’ve sat next to on a plane” was voted as “Biggest Understatement in the Universe” by everyone who’s ever sat next to Ray Comfort on a plane.

After we took off I couldn’t help but notice that her friend kept kissing her on the cheek, holding her hand and rubbing her shoulder.

Pervert.

They were “gay,” and that little revelation lifted my planned witnessing encounter up a big notch on the awkward meter.

“Planned witnessing encounters” are pretty fucking high on any awkwardness meter anyways. And, keep in mind, Comfort has been complaining about how unfriendly the lesbians were. Apparently, being lesbian in his presence is unfriendly, since he provides no other evidence that they did anything wrong other than be two people in love with each other.

I really didn’t want an angry homosexual couple complaining to the airline (and the media) that I was a homophobic fundamentalist, imposing my “hate speech” by saying that they were going to hell because they were gay.

Ray Comfort is the victim! Gay people behaved as gay people near him! It was horrible! He couldn’t help but notice it, because he watches lesbians a lot to…witness to them. And there’s nothing hateful about telling a stranger that they’ll burn forever just for living a different lifestyle.

I waited until she had eaten, finished her movie, and simply said, “Sarah. I have a question for you. Do you think there’s an afterlife?”

She wasn’t sure, so I asked, “If heaven exists, are you going there? Are you a good person?”

She predictably said she was, so I took her through three of the Ten Commandments – had she lied, stolen and taken God’s name in vain?

And here we have Comfort’s foundational con. This is how he “witnesses” to EVERYBODY. YouTube is awash with videos of him and his buttfuckingly idiotic followers pulling this exact same schtick on whatever stranger is tolerant enough to appear on camera with them. The argument is utterly unconvincing to anyone who hasn’t already granted the Bible some kind of special moral privilege, and its application is no more relevant to homosexuals than it is to stamp collectors who look like Peter Lorre. It’s just shit he’s shoveling into Christian mouths so they’ll give him more money, because that’s what evangelicals do: They pay already wealthy people to feed them bullshit and work against their own interests.

I didn’t mention her sexual orientation; I didn’t need to, nor did I want to. I simply shared the moral law (the Ten Commandments), because the Bible says that the law was “made” for homosexuals – see 1 Timothy 1:8-10. She wasn’t offended, and I kept her friendship and stayed out of jail.

Number of people who have been jailed in the USA simply for being anti-gay bigoted shit-for-brains: ZERO.  But Ray Comfort needs to portray himself as the brave hero so that Christians will fund his ministry, so he needs to pretend that there was some kind of risk in asking a lesbian if she’s dumb enough to belief the dogshit in the Bible. Without the self-aggrandizement and posturing, his dumbfuck followers wouldn’t donate.

By the way, this concludes his story about witnessing to gays. The rest of the article is about a girl who wanted to have an abortion. So to summarize the story described in the title

  1. Ray Comfort judges a girl’s dress and jewelry on a plane.
  2. Ray Comfort can’t help but watch two lesbians act like a couple who’s in love. Being a couple in love makes them sinners who burn, burn, burn.
  3. Ray Comfort annoys them with Bible verses.
  4. ….
  5. Ray Comfort is a hero who narrowly avoided jail!!!! Give Ray Comfort money!
  6. Ray Comfort says don’t pay attention to the fact that most of Ray Comfort’s stories are primarily about Ray Comfort with other humans serving only as props.

What a fucking repulsive freak of a human being. And he’s just getting started.

What about a woman planning an abortion?

What about her? It’s none of your fucking business.

Trying to witness to someone who is about to take the life of her child is also high on the awkward list.

It’s even higher on the Misogynistic Douchefuck list.

It’s awkward, mainly because the mind of this person is preoccupied with what she is about to do and therefore it’s difficult to get her attention.

Ray Comfort: Understander of Women. If only women would stop thinking so much about their own lives and bodies and pay more attention to Ray Comfort!

However, if she would stop and talk, I would handle the situation similarly to my conversation with Sarah.

No shit. That’s how you handle conversations with all human beings everywhere.

The reason for that is that I don’t want to reform people. I didn’t want Sarah to stop being gay and end up in hell for her lying, theft and blasphemy. I don’t want to just stop a woman from killing her child and have her go to hell for her other sins. With God’s help I want to see more than a change of mind. I want to see a change of heart.

Not surprising, seeing as “The omnipotent ruler of the whole universe deliberately made you imperfect and will send you to burn for eternity simply for being how he made you so you should love him more than anything” isn’t going to have much appeal to anybody’s mind.

Contrary to popular opinion, most who take the life of their child through abortion believe in God.

What fucking “popular opinion” are you referring to?

Even the staunchest fundamentalist atheist believes in God.

Oh, so by “popular opinion” you mean “idiotic horseshit that only the most deranged god-humping cuntburger would believe”…

I know because I have an inside source. I have a “whistleblower”

It better not be the Bible.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:20-22).

God fucking damn it.

What I said about evangelism being more about appealing to those who already believe has a lot of variation. Some Christians do it more than others. Comfort is notable for how flagrantly his “evangelism” is aimed at no one other than fellow Christians. He doesn’t even try to hide it. He has precisely zero interest in converting non-Christians. His only goal is to bring more Christians into his following so they give him more money. I seriously doubt that he’s even capable of expending energy on any other task, or thinking about any other goal.

Those who abort the life of their children are “idolaters,” illustrated in the fact that their god condones the taking of a human life.

Actually, I’m pretty sure that idolatry is more aptly illustrated by things like this.

They have no fear of God before their eyes. So your agenda, with the help of God, is to stir her God-given conscience to do its duty and put the fear of God within her, and you can do that as I did with Sarah and her homosexuality, without even mentioning the elephant in the room – the impending abortion.

Ladies, if you’re in a room where abortion is an elephant, get out of that room. The people in it are assholes.

Do not use the “God has a wonderful plan” message, because it is both unbiblical and will do more damage than good. If you really believe that that message is biblical, think for a few moments about how the first eleven disciples were murdered for their faith.

So god’s plan sucks and fails his followers. Gotcha.

If you know Church history, you will know that the foundation of the church is founded in the blood of the saints. Jesus warned that people would kill Christians thinking that they are doing God a favor.

And the fact that he did nothing to prevent this, despite his supposed omnipotence, proves that he was an evil cocksucker.

Imagine you have been asked to preach the gospel to 1,000 people on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center the night before 9/11.

No.

You know that within 24 hours every person looking at you will die a death so horrific it defies human imagination.

Fuck you. Are you seriously gonna use fucking 9/11 in your fucking evangelism scam? Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Many will be burned alive.

Unfortunately, you weren’t among them, you disgusting piece of human filth.

Others will jump 100 stories to their deaths on the unforgiving sidewalks of New York.

You are a wretched, appalling, horrible person. The fact that you would invoke the terrible suffering of 9/11 victims in your pathetic evangelism scam is so fucking low, so fucking depraved, so fucking repellant, that I’m literally shaking with anger. The people who lost their lives that day were better than you could ever hope to be. You, of all people, have no business invoking their names. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Others will fall with the building and be so crushed that their bodies will never be recovered.

I say this in all seriousness:

GO FUCK YOURSELF. HARD. WITH SOMETHING SHARP. THEN BLEED OUT YOUR ASS AND DIE.

This is a fucking disgusting display. Comfort has transitioned from harassing gay people on airplanes to exploiting the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of fundamentalists who happen to be from a different bullshit religion. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

What are you going to tell them – that God has a wonderful plan for their lives? You can’t say that to people who are about to die!

I’m just glad that the people who suffered and died in 9/11 didn’t have to hear your bullshit as a final insult to their legacy. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Instead you would soberly tell them that it’s appointed to man once to die and after this, the judgment. You would tell them that God is holy, that He will judge them by His perfect law, that hell is very real and that they desperately need a Savior. You would tell them that they could die within 24 hours, and plead with them to repent and trust alone in Jesus.

The only thing more repulsive and immoral than Ray Comfort is the imaginary being Ray Comfort pretends to worship. And the only thing more pathetic than his op-ed is the simple-minded dope who donates to his ministry after reading this horrendous goatshit.

If you have to change the message you normally preach, then you are not preaching the biblical gospel. Why would you have a different message for people who are walking the streets of this world and are about to die? Every day 150,000 people throughout this world pass into death, many of whom will die in terrible ways – through horrific car accidents and through the suffering of cancer.

Fuck your useless, heartless god harder than you fuck yourself.

The instant someone is converted to Jesus Christ, they know that means no more lying, stealing, lust, pornography, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, idolatry and no murdering of your own children.

Comfort is using the word “know” to mean “keep doing it, but judge others for it.”

Such faithful talk will cause the sinner to tremble as Felix trembled when Paul reasoned with him – not about some wonderful plan, but of “sin, temperance and judgment.”

No, it will cause any sane person to despise you.

The stirring of the dormant conscience coupled with a knowledge that a holy God will hold her accountable should be enough to put the fear of God within someone who is about to commit the murder of her own offspring. May God help us to be faithful, courageous and give us wisdom and help us to stop such slaughter.

Going around telling strangers that they will burn forever because the being who created them the way they are will burn them forever unless they believe what Ray Comfort says without evidence is not a wise move. Such admonitions only work on the stupid, the vulnerable, the confused, the disingenuous, and the malicious. It is not in any way how two humans converse rationally with each other. Comfort’s approach amounts to only one of two things: A deliberate attempt to exploit vulnerable and confused people, or a callous and cynical attempt to keep Christians who might be straying within the fold.

It’s hard for me to express just how disgusting Ray Comfort is to me. He’s a predator whose weapons are stupidity and ignorance. He preys on Christians who are too fucking ignorant and/or stupid to know how a fucking rational argument works or how people other than themselves think. There really are people out there who think he’s telling the truth with his bullshit conversion stories, and they give him money to perpetuate his obvious fucking scam of a ministry. It’s pathetic, it’s disgusting, it’s disheartening, it’s just plain sad.

Ray Comfort has turned being a stupid Christian asshole into a profession. Woe is America.

All the kewl kids are bigots

Hey, kewl kids! I’m hep wit da lingo, yo, and I wanna tell you dudes about all the krunk shiznit my dawg Jesus be doin’, yo! If you wanna be da Big Dawg, you gotta be down wit da Lynch Mawb, yo! Word to yo’ mama, bitch! Those whack liberals be trippin, yo, if they ain’t down wit da rope, dawgz! Lynchin’ nigs iz DA BOMB, y’all! Jesus loves lynching, homies!

I presume the above wasn’t enough to convince anybody that lynching is the hip, cool thing to do. I presume this because I don’t think people are utter morons who need to be lead around like sheep. But that’s because I’m not Christian.

Basically any time society decides that some practice is a backwards, cruel relic of a more ignorant time that should be abandoned, someone will come along to try to make it “cool” again. I can’t imagine how it could ever work, and know of no instance where it has, but making outdated, boring, bigoted crap out to be the hip cool thing is a common pass time amongst conservatives who just can’t deal with the fact that society (like almost everything else) changes over time, but also don’t want to be viewed as a complete fossil by the under-30 crowd.

Enter this douche-toaster:

His name is Doug Giles, and unfortunately he’s not nearly as cool as that other Giles, despite being much younger. No, this Giles is senior pastor at Clash Church (apparently Rob Liefeld consulted on the name). This is how he describes himself at his TownHall.com profile:

Doug Giles is the Big Dawg at ClashDaily.com. Watch him on ClashTV. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. And check out his NEW BOOK, Sandy Hook: When Seconds Count, Police Are Minutes Away.

“Big Dawg”. Jesus titty balls, do I hate these guys. The “hip” preachers, the ones who try to make Christianity out to be something other than the outdated, irrelevant superstition that it is.  When I was a kid and my parents forced me to go to church, our youth group was subjected to endless amounts of simpering, pandering horseshit from these types, and endless amounts of inane praise “music” cynically designed to mimic modern pop music without any of that nasty nuance or originality or creativity. These guys are an utterly empty marketing ploy more ill conceived, out-of-touch and downright cringe-inducing than McDonalds’ infamous I’d Hit It campaign. Honestly, I’d rather listen to one of the stodgy old preachers and the classic hymns than have to spend five minutes around one of these types.

Religion is not, nor will it ever be, hip. It’s not cool. It’s not edgy. It’s not. It’s just not. Religion is everything old and backwards and boring and patronizing. It’s the apotheosis of the status quo, the lionization of the imagined past, the bulwark against which anything new or progressive or challenging or groundbreaking must contend. Religion is Spam, station wagons, public lynchings and “Damn kids get off my lawn” all rolled up into one big, greasy, hypocritical wad of irrational dogma. Wearing sunglasses and calling yourself “dawg” won’t change that. You’re not hip. You’re lame. Deal with it.

But of course, he won’t. Rather, he’ll write insufferable op-eds at Town Hall full of hamfisted humor and confabulated coolness to try to convince the millennial generation that all the kewl kids want to interfere with gay peoples’ relationships.

The other day I was on a radio show being interviewed about my new Sandy Hook Massacre book when the conversation turned to gay marriage. I’m sitting there thinking, “Huh?” … “I didn’t sign up to talk about gay marriage” … “Good Lord, man, I’d rather watch Yoko Ono do an interpretive dance to “Riders on the Storm” then yap about two big lesbians wanting to get hitched.”

Huh huh. It’s funny ’cause they’re fat. And gay. Gayfat is funny. Huh huh.

Number One. Before I directly address the gay marriage issue, allow me to state that I care more about the $16.7 trillion in debt that our nation’s mired in, our evaporating Bill of Rights and national security issues than I do whether or not Brad and Chad can be betrothed. Call me selfish and ill focused.

Okay. You’re selfish and ill focused.  Talking about gay marriage doesn’t stop you from also talking about other (real or imagined) problems. And the fact that you’re writing an entire article on gay marriage makes me suspect that your claim that you don’t want to talk about it is disingenuous at the very least. But more importantly, the reason you don’t want to talk about it is that you want to be able to outlaw someone’s basic rights without ever having to justify your actions to the public. You don’t want to talk about it because it’s easier to oppress a minority when no one talks about them. So, yes, you’re selfish and ill focused. You’re also an assfuck.

In addition, I told my host that, as long as we have men and women in harms way who have to ration food, fuel and ammo due to the sequestration, I don’t give a rat’s backside about gay marriage. I’m so mean, eh?

Listen, right wing nuts. We need to get something straight. Do you, or do you not, support budget cuts? It seems like you’re always asking for them, but then when they come (along with the loss of jobs that always coincides with budget cuts) you suddenly start bitching and moaning about how horrible budget cuts are.

You got what you asked for. The government slashed the budget. People lost their jobs as a result. This is what you wanted. Stop fucking crying about it.

With that said, I went on to inform Mr. Radio Show Host, that if he really wants to get down to brass tacks regarding where I stand on the gay marriage issue, well then, here it is: I am against gay marriage, especially Liza Manelli’s former marriage to David Getz. That was the gayest thing that I have ever seen in my life and it should have never happened.

Sigh… This is just getting tedious.

Not knowing why he was so interested in the gay marriage debacle I asked him, “Why do you care? Do you want to marry a man or something? Do you think you got a shot at Ryan Seacrest?” He was speechless.

“Speechless” is the hip new lingo for this:

https://i2.wp.com/fc09.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/330/2/a/Facepalm_by_iceman_3567.jpg

As our segment was wrapping up I told him if he wanted someone on his show that’s a staunch supporter of gay marriage then he should invite on some divorce lawyers because they can’t wait for the gay marriages to get a-crankin’.

That’s funny, seeing as divorce lawyers tend to be busiest in states like Oklahoma, where gay marriage is illegal and churches are more common than Starbucks and red dirt. (I don’t say this to demean Oklahoma–I love my home state. I just wish it didn’t contain so many hypocrites and morons.)

In all seriousness, I’m kind of torn on the gay marriage issue

How long is this “seriousness” thing going to last?

I’m split between Ted Nugent’s take on homo-matrimony and Jesus Christ’s opinion on the issue.

Not even one sentence, I see.

Nugent told me a few years back that he didn’t mind gay marriage if: A). We didn’t call it marriage. B). We didn’t have to pay for it via our tax dollars and C). it was only between two good-looking lesbians.

This is why A) nobody gives a fuck about Nugent, B) I wish our tax dollars didn’t go to either of his two marriages (but nobody ever asked me–at least he only married 2 out of the 4 women he’s had children with…), and C) telling the same joke for a 1,067th time doesn’t make it funny.

Hmmm. Interesting, Uncle Ted but what would Jesus do? What’s Christ’s take on the gay marriage conundrum?

No, let’s go back to Nugent. I can almost take him seriously.

I’d like to know because, as a Christian, I probably ought to listen more to Jesus than to the “Motor City Mad” man on such a serious issue, right? Right.

Wrong. You shouldn’t listen to either of them.

According to Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus said, many moons ago when He was walking the mean streets of Galilee, that marriage is a union that God ordained between a man and a woman. He said it. I didn’t. So, if you’re going to get pissy then take it up with the Son of God.

How ’bout I take it up with the bloviating frat boy douchenozzle insisting that I should give a fuck about what this alleged “Son of God” had to say at all?

Now, I would remind those who supposedly take their cue from Jesus that there were gay dudes and dudettes around Him in His day.

Ugh. Just ugh. You are not hip, motherfucker. Stop trying. I’m only 31, and already I’m old enough to know better than to try and talk this way. Just give it up, “dawg”.

It’s not like homosexuality just started showing up during Liberace’s lifetime.

Holy shit balls! Liberace was gay! That’s such a clever pop culture reference!

Gays have been around since the dawn of man. Matter of fact, I think that was the name of the first gay rock band.

Can we please just go back to Ted Nugent? He’s a piece of shit and all, but at least he’s unintentionally funny sometimes. This shit is just becoming intolerable.

Indeed, several cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah celebrated homosexuality, as did ancient Greece and Rome. By the way, what ever happened to those cities and cultures?

They declined, as all cultures eventually do. The decline had nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact, the Roman Empire’s decline actually coincided with its widespread acceptance of Christianity. Not that you care about stupid, uncool things like facts.

The God of Love said, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of a culture that contained gays, that when it comes down to what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes, well … that would be a union that is fundamentally betwixt a guy and a girl.

Lo, doth he bravely proclaim the majority opinion in a society where a minority doth have the temerity to exist! And in public!

But then again … what does Jesus know? Heck … He can’t be smarter than a postmodern twenty-something, can He? Surely, He’s not keener than a radical Leftist. Jesus couldn’t have been shrewder than say, Rosie O’Donnell when it comes to the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity, right? Huh?

He was certainly not as smart as Thomas Jefferson, and yet Jefferson owned slaves. The man was a product of his times, and no matter how smart he was, he was still wrong on many issues. There’s no reason to think Jesus had any special insights on sexual politics in the 21st century; just like Socrates, smart as he may have been, is not a very good source for erudition on modern geopolitics. And what the fuck is “the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity”? Theology seems to give people this weird predilection for lapsing into laughable prolixity whenever they want to say something like “Fuck fags” or “Bitches need to get back in the kitchen.”

So, what do you guys think? Was Jesus out to lunch on what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes or what?

Yes. His lunch was penis.

With all that said, how effectively is Doug Giles reaching America’s youth? Let’s look at some comments on his op-ed…

Ann Anon Wrote: 12 minutes ago (8:57 PM)

 Imagine; in the 50’s I stopped some of my girlfriends from speculating on the relationship between our girl team’s two coaches who were ah, roommates and the subject of homosexuality. A suspicion like that would get them both fired. I told them it was a terrible thing to accuse two nice ladies of without any more proof than a lease in common. They agreed and never mentioned it again. I thought I was really brave to stand up to my fellow students. And now in the year 2013 that makes me a homophobe.
I see he’s locked in the crucial Under 80 demographic.
Georgetwin-In-Pa Wrote: 2 hours ago (6:57 PM)

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!The FAT PIG, Rosie O’Doughnuts is ALREADY divorced!!!http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rosie-odonnell-kelli-carpenter
Bwahahaha! That totally validates Nugent’s multiple marriages!
uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:41 PM)

if the gays are so wildly accepted, where are the movies? the silly comedy romances? if they were truly so accepted the theaters would have lines 2 blocks long for the gay loves gay movies. so far all we had was broken back mountain. one movie.
The pop culture knowledge is strong with this crowd. I’d tell them about my favorite gay movie, Room in Rome, but I’m having trouble shouting over the gigantic erection I get every time I watch it.
uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:36 PM)

gays are mutants and i think if we throw society over to them we might as well have 6 fingers pride parades or spinal bifida studies in the public schools starting with kindergarten. churches can welcome their new cystic fibrosis members, and the muscular dystrophy legation can petition for acceptance in the nba. after all, fair is fair.
Dear Doug Giles,
This is your audience. You brought this on yourself.
Sincerely,
Wes
P.S. Go fuck yourself.