Archive for the ‘entertainment’ Category

How to Counter the Phelps Clan and the Westboro “Baptist” “Church”

March 3, 2011

As I’m sure you all have heard by now, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Phelps and his Minions regarding freedom of speech. And while I don’t ultimately disagree with their ruling, it frustrates me that there isn’t a way to punish these monstrous, vile, sub-human pieces of filth (Edited to clarify: I don’t actually advocate punishing them, but I wish I could frustrate them as they do me). But we have no right to legislate against idiocy. I’m paraphrasing a paraphrase of Thomas Jefferson through Mark Crislip that the only remedy for nonsense is ridicule, and I whole-heartedly agree. I want to get to a point where they’re beyond ridicule.

I hear and read all the time that if only “the media” would let go of it, if we all just ignore them, they’ll go away. I think we all know that and agree deep down, but I don’t think shouting “just ignore them” is going to change a damn thing. It’s like gawking at a traffic accident. While we’re in the back of the traffic jam, we curse those in front who gawk, but when we get up there, we can’t help but do it ourselves. Same thing with WBC. “Ignore the wreck and just keep going” aint ever gonna happen.

So, the question then is, What Next?

Below, about a year ago, I highlighted a roaring success of a counter-protest launched against the Westboro goons. The fact that they did fundraising for local gays and lesbians was AWESOME, and that they seized the opportunity to turn a hateful event into a positive and uplifting one with positive or funny signs, people giving out hugs, etc. was EVEN AWESOMER.

While I agree with those aspects (of positive messages and raising money), I think we need to do more. Standing around and holding signs? Kinda cool. Holding up bigger objects in front of them to block them from view? Eh, I guess kinda better. C’mon, I think we could do WAY BETTER THAN THAT – do more with this passion and this energy, more with the anger and frustration that we may have regarding this ruling, the restlessness and helplessness that some of us may feel.

So, here’s my proposal:

The only way to ever get the Phelpses to stop is to go after what they’re going after – to ensure that their goals are countered at every stop, so that it no longer is worth their effort, no longer worth their time, no longer worth their money, and no longer an effective means to spread their childish, hateful message. (Again edited to clarify: I am not proposing that we stop them from exercising their right to free speech. What I am proposing though is that we show through our action that the content of their speech is crazy on its face, because right next to the people saying gays are the cause of all the problems in the world, all the gays and atheists and christians and whatever are coming out and working together to actually make it a better place.)

Their whole schtick, in a nutshell, is that the death of soldiers, national tragedies, and other random disasters is the pouring of their god’s wrath upon America for being more accepting of homosexuals (and I think we still have a long way to go in that regard, but that’s a topic for another post). So, their goal is to have people be less accepting, more hating, more afraid of homosexuals, right?

So then our goal should be to turn each of their “protests” into events that directly benefit homosexuals: their communities, their educational opportunities, their career advancement, their reputation in the eyes of ignorant haters. Instead of just standing around with posters, and in addition to doing fundraising to benefit to local LGBTQ community group, local counter-protesters should do public – and publicizable – acts of charity and good works. We should all get together and do a street clean-up. Set up a mobile soup kitchen down the road from the wackos with the dayglo signs. Bake sales and sexy sexy car washes with proceeds benefiting local groups. Let’s get creative, people!

Don’t get me wrong, I love the funny and poignant and love-filled signs, but it just strikes me as not enough. It’s not enough just to mimic them, to copy their method. We’re reacting with the same action when we need to meet their action with an equal and opposite reaction.

As recent events have shown, social media are powerful mechanisms for effecting change. The Dub-Bub-Chubs announce where they’ll be and when, and so I encourage anyone and everyone who reads this to spread the word, organize, get out there, and turn it into a positive event. Positive for the ones they target, positive for the community, positive for the human race. And again, to emphasize, I laud those who have guarded mourning families with their wings, their flags, their bodies, their signs. And certainly the existing mechanisms for countering the “church” should continue. I just don’t think it’s enough. I want to see a future where wherever they go, there’s something better going on to report on, where their only mention is brief and cursory – as “those wackaloons again”- and then move on to the real story of how we raised 20K for scholarships to high school gays. How we cleaned up the park and beaches. How we raised enough money to renovate a youth center. How we made sandwiches and soup and gave it out to the homeless. How we made lemonade, literally and figuratively.

So – University unity groups, church groups, atheist groups, any loners out there who’ve always wanted to help counter the Phelpses’ message, let’s get out there! Find out when they’re coming to your area, organize a positive event based on your community needs, and let’s all be the ones to take advantage of them for a change!

Advertisements

A Song About ZOMGitscriss by The RETAR Crew

January 29, 2010

These guys did a parody of the Christian Side Hug song which is BRILLIANT, and then came up with this. Freakin awesome!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Creation “Museum” — Also Ugly

January 22, 2010

You might as well put a saddle on old Ken Ham these days. That poor old dinosaur is getting ridden constantly. Every time someone bothers to write about his Creation “Museum,” they come away with the same basic reaction: “Oh, the Creation … ‘Museum.'” It is important to make a full, and distinct, “airquotes” motion with your hands, because someday in the future, it will be the gold standard for denoting sarcasm.

This time, it is A.A. Gil from Vanity Fair who gets the sour taste of Ken Ham’s “museum” (Ken Ham will be alright though, most of his audience isn’t allowed to read a sinful thing like Vanity Affair).

What is truly awe-inspiring about the museum is the task it sets itself: to rationalize a story, written 3,000 years ago, without allowing for any metaphoric or symbolic wiggle room. There’s no poetic license. This is a no-parable zone. It starts with the definitive answer, and all the questions have to be made to fit under it. That’s tough.

Ahh, so true. It reminds me again of what Fred Clark has pointed out — these people are living with a serious false dichotomy. It is a sad thing to have people living with rigid minded thinking taken to its very limit — the impossible is true, or nothing is true. After writing my previous post on Ken Ham, I poked around Answers in Genesis a little, and came across this gem. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, Dr. Jason Lisle:

Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Oh snap! I was about to get popcorn but it looks like my frail worldview is about to get face-fucked by god again! Alright, I can take it, whip it out Jason!

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

Boom! GG fellow atheists, the jig is up. We cannot be rational because you can’t stub your toe on logic. With logic like that, who needs faith? The good doctor has just explained to us, (in so many words) that the god of the bible is literally true, or else there could be no such thing as ideas. And you certainly don’t think that there aren’t no ideas right? So God exists! GG again, thieving atheists. And to think all this time I thought logic proved god wrong, I was just proving *I* was wrong, because logic proves god! Bam! Dr. Jason Lisle continues on like this, even bringing up the smelly old arguing about the existence of air bit. Such thin gas, but so foul. QualiaSoup (from youtube) has several excellent videos that discuss this kind of flawed thinking quite well.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Critical Thinking", posted with vodpod

It is a bad place for a person to be. Unfortunately, this is the place that millions of Americans are, and where people like Ken Ham are trying to keep them. Getting them to move away from that place is going to be a lot harder than it is to make fun of Ken Ham.

Meme It

January 20, 2010

meme (meem) v. To fortify a meme by consciously using it in such a way that the uninitiated reader would immediately discern its novel application.

So.

Now that you’ve seen it, meme it!

to glenn beck

January 15, 2010

Just in case any of you missed what my dear colleague has done here, I’d like to reiterate the point.

glenn beck (glen-bek) v. glenn-beck•ed, glenn-beck•ing. 1. To popularize a  meme by fighting it judicially under the guise of copyright/patent/trademark infringement.  2. To call attention to a minor issue by means of its attempted squelching.  3. To make a fool of one’s self by publicly sparring a strawman which was purposefully presented as a parody. —n. 1. The act of glenn becking. 2. The act of turning a meme into a supermeme, which evolves into an object lesson in 1st Amendment principles.  –glenn-beck•ish adj. –glenn-beck•ly adv.

Usage: Did Glenn Beck glenn beck Glenn Beck?

Synonyms: to Dr. Laura, to Sylvia Browne, to Jerry Falwell

Related: The Streisand Effect

On August 31, 2009 08:32:26PM on Fark.com, user “oldweevil” birthed the Glenn Beck 1990 meme when he asked, “Why haven’t we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?” (source: pg 7)

This prompted one reader to register the domain name “glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com” which has since been relocated to “didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com” and “gb1990.com

This strange query by oldweevil is actually a combination of Beck’s own rhetorical style (e.g. Interview with Congressman Ellison) with The Gottfried Technique. (e.g. Comedy Central’s Roast of Bob Saget).

The cartoon South Park immortalized this rhetorical favoring of Beck’s, and illustrates that the only way to combat it is with satire and humor:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
In September of 2009, the registrant of the domain name glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com received a Notification of Complaint, and learned that Glenn Beck had sought rights to the disputed domain through an International Panel.

The Panel rejected Beck’s complaint, for reasons too numerous to contain herein (click to download the full WIPO Decision), and he did not win the disputed domain.

However, having proven his point, the registrant handed over the user/pass of disputed domain to Beck in a scathing open letter.

The “glenn beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990” meme has morphed into the “glenn beck 1990” or GB1990 meme, which has now been consolidated nicely into the “glenn beck” meme, which is here defined.

Did Glenn Beck “glenn beck” Glenn Beck?

December 29, 2009

The internet is a vast and lonely place. Websites come into existence, pour out their information, then wink out, sources forever lost. But the internet, like the universe, is a large place.

So it was with shock and horror that I noticed “glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com” had gone down. The link was broken (and still is).

Thankfully, I only had to ask myself “DID Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?”, and my shocked horror was quickly replaced, by mellow relief (also because you can just use GB1990.com instead). But the reason for the minor change in url, even better.

It seems that despite having no case, appealing to an international court, and what could have been some furious crying, Glenn Beck could not “glenn beck” the meme (by way of website) which had him deploying his lawyers en mass. After winning the case, domain owner Issac Eiland-Hall sent Beck a letter with a delicious finishing move: he gave him the user/pass to the site which he fought so hard to get taken down with his silly lawsuit.

Well done, Issac (and his awesome lawyer Marc Randazza). Satire superslam complete, first amendment defended, intenet meme now dipped in gold. The actual website domain? Not really all that important. I think “didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com” is just as funny as “glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com” was, (though GB1990.com is better still) and even more on point, too. ‘Cause we don’t know if he, in fact, did do that. I’m not saying he did it, but he certainly hasn’t denied doing it.

But the point isn’t about the actual domain, its that Glenn Beck can’t cry defamation for searing satire, just because he doesn’t like it.

2009’s Misinformer of the Year leans on the 1st Amendment almost every time he opens his mouth on TV. *I* don’t like him, but *I* don’t own a media network, so on he goes, spreading his own particular brand of weird right-wing lunacy. Such is free speech in this country. Its a wonderful thing, even if we have to live with people like Beck being allowed on TV as a consequence.

But for Beck to try to reach around the first amendment, while standing behind it shows just how much we really do need to hear him deny that he raped and murdered that young girl in 1990. You can do it at any time, Beck.