EXCITING NEWS! One “Jason Parsley” (of unknown provenance) has graciously offered himself up as an object lesson for the benefit of my many tens of loyal readers. In response to my recent essay, entitled Dan Savage offends Christian students? Oh, my, our new friend writes:
It’s unbelievable to me that an absolute dimwit like Dan Savage would be allowed to push a political agenda in a public school. No wonder we have such a sour and terrible a=education system in this country, we give people like Dan Savage a forum to spread their hate. With absolutely zero evidence that any of the Christian students in the audience bullied anyone Dan Savage condemned all students who are Christian and even bullied them with the support of the school system! I understand that Iris Vander Pluym isn’t the most intelligent person to ever grace the internet, but her ridiculous assertions that it is OK to demean school students if they are Christian only perpetuates the “bullying” they pretend to want to stop. Dan Savage does not give a hoot about bullying, nor does Iris, they are simply here to push a political agenda. You can’t blame the students for walking out on a school sponsored program that is hate speech, by all definitions of hate speech. I like how he fit his little attack in on Callista Gingrich (as if it is relevant to gay suicides), simply political posturing by a morally bankrupt pansy-ass.
Welcome, Jason! We are so glad you’re here. As you probably already know, the Palace operates the preeminent national research program for the study of Conservative Personality Disorder, and we are always appreciative when such exemplary specimens as yourself volunteer as research subjects.
Okay, class: is everyone ready to take notes? Then let’s begin.
It’s unbelievable to me that an absolute dimwit like Dan Savage would be allowed to push a political agenda in a public school.
Here we have a spectacular display of both reading comprehension failure and fevered delusion typical of right wing conservatives. As the unimpaired who read my post would readily know, Dan Savage — whatever one thinks of his intellectual prowess or lack thereof — did not in fact hold forth “in a public school,” but at a “National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle.” If for some reason that were not clear enough, a cursory Google search would inform the reader that the convention took place at the Washington State Convention Center, where Mr. Savage was one among fourteen speakers. Interestingly, those speakers included John Hamer, a former Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, the infamous clown circus whose singular mission is to destroy and undermine science education in public schools and replace it “with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,” i.e. the fiction of creationism. Their aim is to pursue “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions” according to a Federal Court in 2005.
This is of course the very definition of pushing a political agenda in public schools. And of course anyone who cares about American education is absolutely right to abhor it.
But at a student journalist conference, on the other hand, one would expect and indeed hope to see a variety of different, controversial, and even embarrassingly stupid viewpoints represented. Of course, if aspiring “journalists” prefer never to have their views challenged, perhaps they might have considered looking into whether Liberty University hosts a student “journalism” conference more to their liking.
Further, it is quite extraordinary to see “anti-gay bullying” defined as a political agenda. We are talking about the physical safety and wellbeing of any and every American public school student, are we not? Suffice it to say that anyone whose political agenda is averse or indifferent to the physical safety and wellbeing of American public school students is a ginormous @$$hole of epic proportions. We should never take anything he or she says seriously.
No wonder we have such a sour and terrible a=education system in this country, we give people like Dan Savage a forum to spread their hate.
(Not sure what happened to your attempted HTML there Jason, but our sincere apologies if WordPress was the culprit as they sometimes are.)
Anyway! Note that to the conservative mind, when a target of violent homophobia calls the explicit violent homophobia in the bible “bullshit,” this is “spreading hate.” Further, the reason we have such a terrible — or “sour,” if you prefer (?!) — education system in the U.S. is because when conservatives are not busy making American science education the laughingstock of the civilized world and rewriting social science and history textbooks to suit their political agenda, they are attacking, undermining and defunding public education at every opportunity.
With absolutely zero evidence that any of the Christian students in the audience bullied anyone Dan Savage condemned all students who are Christian and even bullied them with the support of the school system!
D000000000d. Christianity, vis-a-vis the bible, is a violently homophobic ideology. (See, e.g., Lev. 20:13.) To deny this is to be astonishingly ignorant of its text, or, alternatively, a violent homophobe or apologist for violent homophobes oneself. I would not like to think that about you, Jason. Seriously, I would not. But just so you know, this is what you sound like:
With absolutely zero evidence that any of the Nazi students in the audience personally killed any Jews, Dan Savage condemned all students who are Nazis and even called them Nazis with the support of the Washington State Convention Center!
Now before you get yer beanie all a-spinnin’ I am not equating Nazis with Christians, or Naziism with Christianity. (Even if I wished to do so, I wouldn’t have to; the Nazis did that all by themselves.) What I am equating is one irrational, hateful and violent ideology with another.
I understand that Iris Vander Pluym isn’t the most intelligent person to ever grace the internet,
OMFG d00d, you have no idea! As this genius recently pointed out —on the actual Internet, no less! — I am “stupid,” “dull-witted,” and “not very bright.”
Thanks for reminding me that I totally need to update my press page. Rest assured: your insightful and well-respected opinion will be featured prominently!
but her ridiculous assertions that it is OK to demean school students if they are Christian only perpetuates the “bullying” they pretend to want to stop.
Oops! I mean, no. No. When those who are violently oppressed by Christian bullies and their allies fight back against their oppressors, this is manifestly not “perpetuating bullying.” FYI, (1) a victim of bullying who fights back is not the asshole, and (2) playing nice with bullies does not work. (Shut up and take it, gay people! That’s when all this bullying will stop! Fer chrissakes.)
Dan Savage does not give a hoot about bullying, nor does Iris, they are simply here to push a political agenda.
Oh, absolutely. That’s why, as we all know, it was conservative Christians who launched the It Gets Better campaign.
Wait, did you just say that Iris is “here” — on her own blog — to push a political agenda? The horror. (*giggles*)
You can’t blame the students for walking out on a school sponsored program that is hate speech, by all definitions of hate speech.
Bzzzzt! According to the Palace panel of distinguished judges, your answer is only partially correct: you are correct that I cannot blame students for walking out of any speech. Why, I myself have on occasion walked away from speech I found deeply offensive. I left the room, changed the channel, closed the book, wrote a letter to the editor, or started a blog. Unlike some people, I understand and even embrace the concept that I have no right not to be offended by the speech of hateful @$$holes. (Threats of violence are, of course, another matter entirely.) And you know what? I like it this way: it’s one of the things that still makes our beleaguered country great. And because I am actually an American patriot, I wholeheartedly support a relatively obscure concept called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Note for dimwits: this means that I believe strongly that the very best response to speech with which one disagrees, especially political speech, is more speech—not censorship.)
But Jason, the reason you lost the Palace’s multimillion dollar jackpot prize is your hilarious assertion that Dan Savage’s comments amount to “hate speech, by all definitions of hate speech.” Here’s one fairly standard definition of hate speech I found on the infallible and impartial Innertubes:
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.
The Bible, we’ll just talk about the Bible for a second ah. People often point out that they can’t help it – they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong.
We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people. [applause] The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. [applause] We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it. The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn’t say “Christians don’t own people.” Paul talks about how Christians own people.
Translation: hey, everyone! Let’s get out the pitchforks and stone all the Christians!
On the other hand, the biblical pronouncements against homosexuality are undeniably hate speech:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
“One of these things is not like the others; which one is different, do you know?”
I like how he fit his little attack in on Callista Gingrich (as if it is relevant to gay suicides), simply political posturing by a morally bankrupt pansy-ass.
To be fair, Jason, I did not understand the reference to Callista Gingrich. Perhaps this is because I pay even less attention to Callista Gingrich than I do to Newt Gingrich. The comment was made in context with stoning virgins to death, and although the audience apparently approved of Savage’s sentiment, frankly right now I just cannot be arsed to look it up and investigate this perfidy.
Your homophobia is noted.
And, well, we all know what they say about homophobes.
Have a great day!