Full story here. Gotta love the look of resignation on the woman's face. Jesus didn't warn you to expect that, did he, fashioncakes?
PS: What's really funny about this is that corduroy is a cotton blend, and blended fabrics really are a sin!
Saturday, December 05, 2009
42 comments:
PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.
This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's really funnier is how pleased the guy is with himself. he's really happy to be hoisting that woman on her own hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteI would be too. It's brilliant!
Ahh, the freedom to stand in public places... the side of the coin godbots only realise when it's too late.
ReplyDeleteIf only she'd kept her bile to her private church, she could have sent him packing.
I really hope one of the people who showed up later had an "I'm with stupid" sign to stand next to her with...
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is that Ms. Mixedfabrics is going to go back to her church and gloat about how she survived the lion's den. These people masochistically live off feeling persecuted - what a sick pleasure.
ReplyDeleteHilarious.
ReplyDeleteThat is just delightful! Perfect way to 'fight back'.
ReplyDeleteArbitrary rules given from a ultimate authority figure is a sin.
ReplyDeleteCanned beer is the work of the devil.
ReplyDeleteFresh on tap is divine.
Yes, of course, a dude who hung with a dozen other dudes for days at a time, without the distraction of either an xbox or a ESPN network, will set you free of those pesky homosexual urges satan hath loosed in you. Sure thing, donchaknow.
ReplyDeleteNever understood why Christians never protested outside Red Lobster given how evil eating shellfish is. Then I found out from a fundy, apparently Jesus gave people carte blanche to pick and choose most of the rules of the Old Testament, especially the dietary related ones.
ReplyDeleteAmazing what you can read into the Bible if you really want to.
It seems all rather petty to me. Although I don't agree with the woman, I think she has a right to express her beliefs without being harassed for it.
ReplyDelete@Bberryman:
ReplyDeleteThat certainly doesn't make any sense. Do homosexuals have the right to do whatever they're doing without being harassed?
If yes, then she shouldn't be there.
If no, then why the double standard? The second guy has as much of a right to inflict his opinion on her as she has to inflict her opinion on her targets.
Just because her beliefs are stupid does not mean she shouldn't be allowed to advertise them.
ReplyDeleteShe is NOT harrassing gay people, she may as well say "People who drive red cars will go to hell", would that be a harrassment fo red car drivers?
Just as everyone else has a right to express their disagreements with everyone else's beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIf you say anything, you open yourself up to others doing the same to you.
Unless you're influencing the UN to pass anti-blasphemy resolutions.
Just because her beliefs are stupid does not mean she shouldn't be allowed to advertise them.
ReplyDeleteExactly so. And just because the other guy's commentary is silly and teasing doesn't mean that he shouldn't express them in exactly the same way.
@Kazim: There is a difference between the two actions though. She was demonstrating her opinions to the public at large, and not directed to any one individual. The guy, obviously wasn't demonstrating a serious opinion of his, but rather, attempting to harass the woman for expressing an opinion he doesn't agree with. Wouldn't surprise me if he has worn corduroy himself at some point.
ReplyDelete@Bberryman
ReplyDeleteObvious to you, maybe, but this is only harassment if the guy is stalking her.
It's an interesting point though, when does this become harassment? Standing next to her is not, but if she moves and he follows? Can he present his opinion as a counter-opinion and so it's pointless without hers and is that a valid excuse for following her aroung (while she has her sign)?
Up to American law I guess.
My two cents worth is that is she is making a public statement (carrying the sign) then he should be allowed to chase and counter that message as long as she is in public. If she puts the sign away then he cannot justify following her around with the sign, even on public land.
@Kazim: There is a difference between the two actions though. She was demonstrating her opinions to the public at large, and not directed to any one individual.
ReplyDeleteThat seems a bit disingenuous to me. The reason she was standing on a college campus was because she believed there would be gay people there. In the past, people like her have routinely stood at the funerals of gay people and soldiers, specifically with the intent of making a statement about the people being honored. They also go out of their way to target places that they believe to be encouraging homosexual activity, such as opposing churches that allow gay clergy, or parks like Disneyland that try to be gay-friendly. Standing on a corner with a sign condemning gays isn't just expressing an "opinion" for fun, as if she were holding a sign saying "pie is yummy." I don't know the specific reason she targeted this college, and neither do you.
But that's a side issue, because really the motivation for the people involved is irrelevant. Her expression of "opinion" is free speech, and so is that other guy's. Both of their signs probably bother somebody, but they don't have a right not to be bothered.
The guy, obviously wasn't demonstrating a serious opinion of his, but rather, attempting to harass the woman for expressing an opinion he doesn't agree with. Wouldn't surprise me if he has worn corduroy himself at some point.
Of course he doesn't believe corduroy is a sin. He is standing there with that sign because he thinks it's funny. Not only does he have a legal right to do so, but he's right IMHO: it is funny.
I empathize with his position, because I did something similar when I was in college. There was a student group information day once, where many organizations gathered in a public area. My juggling club was among them. There was also a street preacher taking advantage of the crowd. I stood behind him and juggled plastic chickens for five minutes before he figured out why people were laughing.
You might think I was "harassing" him, but hey... he had every right to be there and so did I. Free speech is a two way street, baby.
@March Hare: I thought your comment was on the mark!
ReplyDelete@March Hare: then he should be allowed to chase and counter that message as long as she is in public. If she puts the sign away then he cannot justify following her around with the sign, even on public land.
ReplyDeleteI could possibly agree, if it was truly a counter statement, but corduroy skirt? I say harassment.
Bberryman: There is a difference between the two actions though. She was demonstrating her opinions to the public at large, and not directed to any one individual. The guy, obviously wasn't demonstrating a serious opinion of his, but rather, attempting to harass the woman for expressing an opinion he doesn't agree with.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where you seem to have gotten the idea that free speech rights do not exist in the latter case, but it's as big a fail as this problem you seem to have with the concept of "act like a bigoted moron in public, get made fun of for it." If you have a good argument for why the woman should entitled to harass the entire gay population of the city with her sign, but the guy shouldn't be allowed to "harass" her back for such stupidity, you have yet to offer it. Until you do, you're concern trolling.
March Hare: My two cents worth is that is she is making a public statement (carrying the sign) then he should be allowed to chase and counter that message as long as she is in public. If she puts the sign away then he cannot justify following her around with the sign, even on public land.
And where do you find any indication he did any such thing?
@Martin: If you have a good argument for why the woman should entitled to harass the entire gay population of the city with her sign, but the guy shouldn't be allowed to "harass" her back for such stupidity, you have yet to offer it. Until you do, you're concern trolling.
ReplyDeleteGroup populations are different than individuals. This was aimed at one individual who was trying to express an opinion he didn't agree with.
This guy’s sign is too funny! Satire is extremely effective at getting across a point, e.g. the Daily Show, Colbert Report, SouthPark, etc. The problem with satire is that it is often lost on the recipients being “targeted”. I doubt the lady in the picture understands the underlying message, but many of the passersby will.
ReplyDeleteBberryman: Group populations are different than individuals. This was aimed at one individual who was trying to express an opinion he didn't agree with.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so they are different. Now why shouldn't the guy be allowed to do it?
@Kazim: Okay, so they are different. Now why shouldn't the guy be allowed to do it?
ReplyDeleteFrom a legal standpoint, he probably is allowed, though I'm no lawyer. From an ethical standpoint (my ethics, I realize everyone has their own) I think it's wrong to try to obstruct another's freedom of expression. He should have walked down the street a couple of blocks and set up his sign, but of course that wasn't his mission, which was to disturb and distract from the lady with the sign. Like I said in my original comment though, I think it's all rather petty and silly.
@Martin
ReplyDeleteI never said he had followed her around, or that she had put the sign away - what I was posing was a hypothetical situation to try to get tot he core of when it is and when it isn't harassment.
Group populations are different than individuals.
Not to shift the subject, but does that mean we can call either of them a hate crime?
Just because you can see that he is targetting (ridiculing) her specifically does not mean that he legally is. He is expressing an opinion about some people's sartorial decisions and not specifically targetting the lady. (Can someone so bigotted really be called a lady?)
I think a more general point is that if you are chosing to speak out in public on an issue then people have the right to confront you about it, even indirectly as in this case. If you do not wish to face questions on your views then do not spout them publically. When you speak out in public in this manner you cease to have a right to privacy.
@Bberryman. I think you are missing the whole point of the counter sign. If the lady had not been publicly expressing her opinion (which she is entitled to do) then the counter sign guy would not have been "harassing" her. If you want to publicly state your ideas then don't get all pissy when someone disagrees or makes a fool out of you. Its called freedom of speech. Its not called getting a pass from criticism call you believe in jebus.
ReplyDeleteFrom an ethical standpoint (my ethics, I realize everyone has their own) I think it's wrong to try to obstruct another's freedom of expression.
ReplyDeleteOh, good grief. The guy standing there with his little sign is in no way preventing her from expressing herself freely. This is just getting silly.
He should have walked down the street a couple of blocks and set up his sign, but of course that wasn't his mission, which was to disturb and distract from the lady with the sign.
Of course he wasn't going to hold his sign a few blocks down the street, because that wouldn't have been funny. Geez man, have some sense of dramatic staging.
Like I said in my original comment though, I think it's all rather petty and silly.
Shrug. One man's belly laugh...
Bberryman: Group populations are different than individuals. This was aimed at one individual who was trying to express an opinion he didn't agree with.
ReplyDeleteAgain, show me the clause in the first amendment that says "public criticism of groups allowed, individuals not allowed."
It is simply a figment of your imagination that "group populations are different than individuals." No such distinction exists under free speech laws, so not only are you conjuring this distinction out of thin air, the only basis for it you're providing is that your personal sense of decorum has been offended. The entire tortured point you seem to be making can be boiled down to "Awww, that's mean." Here's a konk on the head with the cluestick: Bigotry is meaner. Is it perhaps your point that bigotry should only be mocked and criticized when it is expressed by a group?
Seriously, dude, quit while you're behind.
Kazim: Oh, good grief. The guy standing there with his little sign is in no way preventing her from expressing herself freely. This is just getting silly.
ReplyDeleteYes it is, but concern trolling is silly in pretty much every case. Honestly, if a guy can't tell the difference between "poking fun" and "obstruction," that's just willful obtuseness taken to the level of self-parody.
I'm curious how far B man's critique of mocking individuals for expressing their mockable beliefs goes?
ReplyDeleteIs it wrong to to make goofy ghost noises behind a Klansman protesting on the steps of a state building?
Is it wrong to do "Right in ze furhers face" song when neo-nazis do their march?
Is it wrong to snark people in the internet?
Is it wrong to hold up "god hates shrimp" behind Fred Phelps?
Is it wrong to get more personal at Phelps and hold up signs behind Phelps about how god can make you not fat (he had a obesity problem that he's hyper sensitive about you see)
Is it wrong to hold up ads for Battlestar Galactica behind Realians?
Is it wrong to wear V masks and do funny dances around Scientologists?
To do the "Dumb Dumb dumb dumb dumb song" to Mormons campaigning for prop 8 clones (getting that in my state now)
The following is an off-topic post:
ReplyDeleteWhat if there were Atheist Experience fanfiction? I think it would go something like this:
“I would like to have that stricken from the record!” yelled Russell Q. Glasser, president of the Ambivalent Atheists’ Association. “I have never heard such slander in all my days!”
“Nonsense!” shouted Matthew Periwinkle Dillahunty, “That’s the whole truth and you know it!!!”
“Shut up all of you!” screamed Tracie F. Headhunter, barging in holding a chainsaw in one hand and a dead raccoon in the other.
This is completely off-topic - sorry about that. I went looking for an email address for Matt, but couldn't find anything available, so I figured I'd post it here.
ReplyDeleteMany of you have likely encountered Circular Sye Tenbruggencate (of http://www.proofthatgodexists.org fame). Lately he's been hanging around the SMRT forums and Eric Hovind's blog, spreading up his usual brand of christian presupposition.
After deleting opposing comments at Eric's blog, he now claims he'd like to debate folks on an atheist site, supposedly to remove the possibility of him stifling debate (see here).
This may be old news, or you may not want him to call into your show or whatever - I just thought I'd mention it here, in case you're interested.
Again, sorry for the OT post. Cheers everyone...
@gnomes
ReplyDeleteI don't know...the look on her face seems to betray a lot of comprehension:) I won't be able to read the baby 'Pocket for Corduroy' with a straight face for some time.
@Bberryman-When someone speaks in public about an issue, he/she opens his/her opinions to criticism. This man was in no way opressing her or bullying her, even in the slightest. He criticised her through sarcasm and irony. If her opinion cannot stand the criticism, maybe it is not worthy of being an opinion in the first place.
ReplyDelete@ng-Coming from a place where sadly Raelians grew and prospered, I can tell you that there are two sure ays to get them mad with anger: 1)Sing the Satellipopette team song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVcZpeu1_vk) and 2)mention Serge Chapleau, a cartoonist who humiliated Rael in public (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x11l90_rael-vs-serge-chapleau_people).
@Guillaume: If her opinion cannot stand the criticism, maybe it is not worthy of being an opinion in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhether you or I think it is worthy or not, is not the point. She should have the right to express it, free of undo harassment. It wasn't just one guy with a sign either, he was joined by about 100 others.
1: The guy, obviously wasn't demonstrating a serious opinion of his, but rather, attempting to harass the woman for expressing an opinion he doesn't agree with. Wouldn't surprise me if he has worn corduroy himself at some point.
ReplyDelete2: Of course he doesn't believe corduroy is a sin.
But the thing is that this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what this guy thinks. Corduroy IS a sin! That's just a fact - according to the very same book, in fact the same section of the same book, that this woman is using as the basis for her allegation that homosexuality is a sin. So if she is allowed to say what she says and think that she's right, then he must be allowed the very same thing, because both their claims have the exact same basis in fact. They even have the same source. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
For the record, I think that this is hilarious and brilliant. :-)
She should have the right to express it, free of undo harassment.
ReplyDeleteShe does not have this right. You have already conceded that you have no legal justification for this claim. Therefore, it is not a right. At best you are arguing that she should have that privilege. And the fact is, you haven't convinced anybody that she should.
It wasn't just one guy with a sign either, he was joined by about 100 others.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
@Kazim: At best you are arguing that she should have that privilege. And the fact is, you haven't convinced anybody that she should.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's my opinion. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, just wanted to air my opinion.
@Bberryman-But she DOES have the right and she DOES use it. He does not harrass her, he criticises her, as he has ALSO the right to do. Freedom of expression is now impunity of expression: you say what you want, but you are susceptible to criticism, ridicule and sarcasm. Saying whatever you like does not and should not protect you from being questioned. What the guy is doing is criticising her through irony, and she deserves such criticism. You are basically calling for censorship. Why should he let her spread her crap without answering back? You remind me of a homophobe who was a friend of my wife at university, and in an evening wanted to say how bad homosexuality was, why it was so bad and even what brainwashed public opinion to think it is okay...but said before he started bullshitting about it that he did not want to start a debate or anybody to contradict him. I told him right away: "you started talking, don't ask me to shut up". You are asking this homosexual to shut up, to turn the other cheek when he is being attacked. It is cowardly. And don't say that you are not homophobic yourself, because that's not the point: you are in effect letting bigotry and hatred spread around. I think they can be, should be and must be opposed. And that means opening your mouth.
ReplyDeleteI love how BBerry seems to be arguing harassment and meanness is BETTER if it's to a large group of people rather than an individual. To use an amazingly bad metaphor that would mean getting a lighter sentence for a biggot who kills 30 people of his chosen hated ethnicity than the guy who kills his wife...cause you know...killing those 30 you were targeting a group not one individual personally.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with this is that you're on thin ice criticizing a woman for the clothes she wears. Then I thought, why does she wear such dowdy clothes in the first place? And of course it's to make a statement, clothes should make a woman look as unattractive as possible. By implication of course that means that all those women who are attractively dressed are at best, distracted from spiritual things or at worst, whores! Much like burka wearers who are all making implicit claims to moral superiority by wearing it. "I am dressed as god wishes me to be, you are not, I am therefor a good person and you are going to hell!" Well perhaps I overstate it a bit but that's the gist I feel. All the more reason to get stuck into that ghastly skirt!
ReplyDelete