and if you disagree with him and Oprah, you're a judgmental freak.
I'd rather stick with the scriptures and the prophets Dan*E boy. I pretty sure they'll get us to heaven quicker than Oprah will.
[Also, Dan*E's premise is fundamentally flawed. He apparently can't distinguish between disagreeing with someone and judging them. But that's a common flaw all over the 'Nacle. For all their supposed nuance, they actually have none.]
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
"I'm not racist. I can prove it by claiming you are instead!"
This thread is the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time. Thanks for the laughs, guys. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but I don't want to drive traffic to these Bloggernacle sites. I want to shut them all down.
Here's the summary so you don't have to go there:
Geoff B. posts a post (redundancy alert!) that basically says, "I'm not a racist! But all you durn liberals are!"
The rest of the conversation goes a little something like this:
The only way this thread could contain more smug self-righteous posturing mixed with politically correct knee jerk condemnation of anyone who disagrees would be if Margaret Young dropped by to comment.
UPDATE: Chris H. has a moment where he potentially sees the truth - "Maybe blogging is just crap and we should all give it up." It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath (not that I actually breathe, being an abstract entity who exists only on the internet).
Here's the summary so you don't have to go there:
Geoff B. posts a post (redundancy alert!) that basically says, "I'm not a racist! But all you durn liberals are!"
The rest of the conversation goes a little something like this:
Chris H. - No, conservatives are racists. Look at me, I'm not racist because I'm liberal! Liberals can't be racists because conservatives are.
Christopher (of Juvenile Instructor - a very apt name for his blog, considering how juvenile he acts) - I resemble that remark! In fact, I'm angry! Angry, I tell you! This is a group therapy session, right? Let me show how I know that I am an enlightened liberal and all you conservatives are racists because life hasn't been a perfect utopia for me.
Tossman - Being the only minority here, I'd have to say Geoff is right!
Christopher - Whatever. My wife is a minority! I condemn you as a racist conservative! Your mother smelled of elderberries! I fart in your general direction!
Geoff B. - Sorry, but I'm not the racist here. All of you are. I know this because I lived in Brazil!
Chris H. - Whatever! Talk to the hand.
David G. - What Chris H. and Christopher said, only with a lot more self-righteousness, bile, and ad hominem attacks (if that is even possible).
The only way this thread could contain more smug self-righteous posturing mixed with politically correct knee jerk condemnation of anyone who disagrees would be if Margaret Young dropped by to comment.
UPDATE: Chris H. has a moment where he potentially sees the truth - "Maybe blogging is just crap and we should all give it up." It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath (not that I actually breathe, being an abstract entity who exists only on the internet).
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Kaimi is Bizarro Adam Greenwood.
Once upon a time, Kaimi was interested in fruitful discussion and actually seemed interested in engaging those he disagreed with. He made honest attempts to understand others.
That was then. This is now.
He's apparently decided to become the bizarro Adam Greenwood. Content to rely on snarky asides and wildly distorted straw men (leave that to the snark sites, people), Kaimi has decided to decry and disdain instead of discuss.
[Of course, if he really is "Blogger of Nacle" or "Cafeteria Mormon" like the SnarkerNackle claimed, I take it all back - then Kaimi's feigned interest in real, productive debate was a feigned stance, designed to lull faithful, believing Mormons into a sense of complacency, so he could entrap them and drag them down to hell along with him.]
That was then. This is now.
He's apparently decided to become the bizarro Adam Greenwood. Content to rely on snarky asides and wildly distorted straw men (leave that to the snark sites, people), Kaimi has decided to decry and disdain instead of discuss.
[Of course, if he really is "Blogger of Nacle" or "Cafeteria Mormon" like the SnarkerNackle claimed, I take it all back - then Kaimi's feigned interest in real, productive debate was a feigned stance, designed to lull faithful, believing Mormons into a sense of complacency, so he could entrap them and drag them down to hell along with him.]
How did I miss this one?
(Oh, yeah. It's because no one actually read M&MStarlite).
Anyway, read yet another of Ivan's bizarre attempts to discuss every time he comes across the word Mormon in some book. I think I once heard someone on Cheers refer to Mormons once (or was it more men?) Perhaps I can write a post about it and pretend there's some larger significance to it. Fear my mad erudition skillz because I can read!
Anyway, read yet another of Ivan's bizarre attempts to discuss every time he comes across the word Mormon in some book. I think I once heard someone on Cheers refer to Mormons once (or was it more men?) Perhaps I can write a post about it and pretend there's some larger significance to it. Fear my mad erudition skillz because I can read!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
However, I did watch the inaguration.
Here are my thoughts, in an order designed for maximum rhetorical impact (not really):
* DKL’s response was painfully predictable.
* I wonder if this is the first time that so many Mormons have switched their primary allegiance from the Gospel to a new messiah. (Oh, wait. There was Ronald Reagan. Never mind. This is barely a blip then).
* John Williams’ is still riding the coattails of his Star Wars success. Seriously - he's not that good of a composer. Yeah, yeah, Wagnerian motiffs, etc. etc. It's the same old same old.
* Itzhak Perlman was born in Tel Aviv, Yo Yo Ma was born in Paris. Gabriela Montero was born in Venezuela. I have no idea if this means anything at all. I was born on the internet, so what does that make me?
* Dick Cheney needs a cat to stroke and metallic hands. It would have also helped if he had had his back turned to the audience so no one could see his face.
* Aretha Franklin’s outfit was freshly killed that morning, I heard.
* Obama’s missteps in the presidential oath will mean whole loads of right wing nutters will argue that he isn't really president. Those who are a little smarter will notice that the oath was administered again the next day, and instead argue that everything Obama did on his first day in office doesn't count.
* Obama’s inaugural address was pretty much the same as the last two. (Yeah, yeah - I linked to that in the last post. So what?)
* Elizabeth Alexander’s reading was, I believe, post-post-post-modern performance art. There's really no other explanation.
* I got distracted before Joseph Lowery’s Benediction, so I missed it. The music afterward was typically overblown, but that's a bipartisan fault.
In the end though, I'm sure that critics of this administration will be consumed by the unprecedented, hateful hysteria that has surrounded our last president (the main difference is that Obama will enjoy a solid, worshipful base that Bush never had).
* DKL’s response was painfully predictable.
* I wonder if this is the first time that so many Mormons have switched their primary allegiance from the Gospel to a new messiah. (Oh, wait. There was Ronald Reagan. Never mind. This is barely a blip then).
* John Williams’ is still riding the coattails of his Star Wars success. Seriously - he's not that good of a composer. Yeah, yeah, Wagnerian motiffs, etc. etc. It's the same old same old.
* Itzhak Perlman was born in Tel Aviv, Yo Yo Ma was born in Paris. Gabriela Montero was born in Venezuela. I have no idea if this means anything at all. I was born on the internet, so what does that make me?
* Dick Cheney needs a cat to stroke and metallic hands. It would have also helped if he had had his back turned to the audience so no one could see his face.
* Aretha Franklin’s outfit was freshly killed that morning, I heard.
* Obama’s missteps in the presidential oath will mean whole loads of right wing nutters will argue that he isn't really president. Those who are a little smarter will notice that the oath was administered again the next day, and instead argue that everything Obama did on his first day in office doesn't count.
* Obama’s inaugural address was pretty much the same as the last two. (Yeah, yeah - I linked to that in the last post. So what?)
* Elizabeth Alexander’s reading was, I believe, post-post-post-modern performance art. There's really no other explanation.
* I got distracted before Joseph Lowery’s Benediction, so I missed it. The music afterward was typically overblown, but that's a bipartisan fault.
In the end though, I'm sure that critics of this administration will be consumed by the unprecedented, hateful hysteria that has surrounded our last president (the main difference is that Obama will enjoy a solid, worshipful base that Bush never had).
Something in the air over at T&S (or the water, or both)
They really love that Obama guy over at T&S. It's from on extreme to another. After years of pouring out hate filled rants about Bush or shameless attempts to (mis)use tragedies for political ends, Julie has decided Obama really is the Messiah - the scriptures even prophesy of him, according to her. (Some may notice Adam Greenwood has already called her on this, but he does it with his characteristic lack of class, so no one will pay attention anyway. Since my only existence is as an abstract concept, I don't care if no one is paying attention.)
Meanwhile, Marc Bohn (oh, the entendres possible with his last name!) has taken a quote from Elder Ballard every so slightly out of context, and interpreted it to mean that everything Obama wants to do is great and God-blessed. I think Frank might be making some good points against Marc's post, but it's so buried in bizarro-economic jargon (but I repeat myself), I can't be quite sure what he's really saying.
So, over at Totally & Sincerely worshiping Obama instead of the real anointed one, I can look forward to many, many posts about how those who will not support Obama are just not good members of the church. Perhaps Kaimi will get his wish to have "do you prove you aren't racist by believing Obama is God's anointed servant" added to the temple recommend interviews (and why isn't Kaimi an apostle yet? He's clearly much smarter and more in tune with the Spirit, with a greater understanding of the Gospel than the people we currently have in that office).
Of course, that may change when the realize the new boss is pretty much the same as the old boss. (Ah, who am I kidding? These Servants of Obama have already handed over what little bit of their critical thinking they had. They're hopeless. I had some hope that since the permabloggers in the 'Nacle already had, nominally, a religion, they might not go for the Obama worship so full throttle. Well, they've crushed my hope. There is no change here).
Meanwhile, Marc Bohn (oh, the entendres possible with his last name!) has taken a quote from Elder Ballard every so slightly out of context, and interpreted it to mean that everything Obama wants to do is great and God-blessed. I think Frank might be making some good points against Marc's post, but it's so buried in bizarro-economic jargon (but I repeat myself), I can't be quite sure what he's really saying.
So, over at Totally & Sincerely worshiping Obama instead of the real anointed one, I can look forward to many, many posts about how those who will not support Obama are just not good members of the church. Perhaps Kaimi will get his wish to have "do you prove you aren't racist by believing Obama is God's anointed servant" added to the temple recommend interviews (and why isn't Kaimi an apostle yet? He's clearly much smarter and more in tune with the Spirit, with a greater understanding of the Gospel than the people we currently have in that office).
Of course, that may change when the realize the new boss is pretty much the same as the old boss. (Ah, who am I kidding? These Servants of Obama have already handed over what little bit of their critical thinking they had. They're hopeless. I had some hope that since the permabloggers in the 'Nacle already had, nominally, a religion, they might not go for the Obama worship so full throttle. Well, they've crushed my hope. There is no change here).
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Who is more damaging to the Church?
Devyn S. or Ex-mormons?
I was thinking about this question the other day as I read Devyn S.'s rather odd post wherein he compares a specific group with largely quantifiable aims, philosophies, and practices (ACLU) with a largely undefined and undefinable group with various competing goals, theologies, and customs (the so-called "religious right"). So, I figured I'd do the same to him.
Now, Devyn S. is (apparently) a faithful member of the church, and claims to believe in it on some level. However, Devyn is a bigot. Bigots are prejudiced against other groups, so much so that they see those groups as fungible, and claim they all contain the same negative traits. The bigot is incapable of seeing "those people" as individuals, and while a bigot may have some "best friends" from among the group they aim their bigotry at, on the whole they condemn the group. Devyn created perhaps the most bigoted post ever on the 'Nacle when he attacked married Mormon graduate students for sometimes using government aid (in a rather judgmental post that also exposed Devyn for being a hypocrite, as he constantly attacked others for being too judgmental). Now, Devyn is also clearly a bigot when it comes to the religious right, treating it as though it were equivalent to the ACLU, and everyone in it exactly the same.
Ex-mormons, even when indulging in anti-mormonism, have left the church and therefore can only attack it from the outside. They have no power to drag any substantial number of members along with them.
I would say then, that Devyn S. is more damaging. There are too many Ex-mormons predict what they as a group (if they can even be considered a group in any sort of demographic sense) would do or not do to the church. Devyn S., on the other hand, outright hates married Mormon graduate students on welfare, people with large families, and the religious right. As a (suppossedly) faithful, active member, he has more power to spread this bigotry amongst the members. Therefore, Devyn S. is a grave danger to the church as a whole.
I was thinking about this question the other day as I read Devyn S.'s rather odd post wherein he compares a specific group with largely quantifiable aims, philosophies, and practices (ACLU) with a largely undefined and undefinable group with various competing goals, theologies, and customs (the so-called "religious right"). So, I figured I'd do the same to him.
Now, Devyn S. is (apparently) a faithful member of the church, and claims to believe in it on some level. However, Devyn is a bigot. Bigots are prejudiced against other groups, so much so that they see those groups as fungible, and claim they all contain the same negative traits. The bigot is incapable of seeing "those people" as individuals, and while a bigot may have some "best friends" from among the group they aim their bigotry at, on the whole they condemn the group. Devyn created perhaps the most bigoted post ever on the 'Nacle when he attacked married Mormon graduate students for sometimes using government aid (in a rather judgmental post that also exposed Devyn for being a hypocrite, as he constantly attacked others for being too judgmental). Now, Devyn is also clearly a bigot when it comes to the religious right, treating it as though it were equivalent to the ACLU, and everyone in it exactly the same.
Ex-mormons, even when indulging in anti-mormonism, have left the church and therefore can only attack it from the outside. They have no power to drag any substantial number of members along with them.
I would say then, that Devyn S. is more damaging. There are too many Ex-mormons predict what they as a group (if they can even be considered a group in any sort of demographic sense) would do or not do to the church. Devyn S., on the other hand, outright hates married Mormon graduate students on welfare, people with large families, and the religious right. As a (suppossedly) faithful, active member, he has more power to spread this bigotry amongst the members. Therefore, Devyn S. is a grave danger to the church as a whole.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Well someone at BCC really, really hates Israel
I would come up with a good response to their inane embrace of cliched anti-Israel talking points, but instead, I'll just link to that neo-con stooge and right wing shill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Considering how often those at BCC talk about how awesome Reid is, I'm sure they'll start taking the pro-Israel side soon. They can't be that in thrall to the left-wing pundits, can they? At least Reid shows occasional signs of being able to think for himself.
Considering how often those at BCC talk about how awesome Reid is, I'm sure they'll start taking the pro-Israel side soon. They can't be that in thrall to the left-wing pundits, can they? At least Reid shows occasional signs of being able to think for himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
