--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious > > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty > > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the > > Simpsons and the Family Guy. > > Are they really funny, or are they just mean?
The fact that THE CORRECTOR cannot tell the difference makes Curtis' whole point about her compulsively defending "privileged" religious beliefs that do not need defending. The Simpsons is the longest-running American sitcom, the longest-running American animated program, and in 2009 it surpassed Gunsmoke as the longest running American primetime enter- tainment series. The Simpsons has won dozens of awards since it debuted as a series, including 25 Primetime Emmy Awards, 26 Annie Awards and a Peabody Award. Time magazine's December 31, 1999 issue named it the 20th century's best television series. The only thing THE CORRECTOR can see is someone being "mean" to people by mocking their "privileged" religious claims. One of the points that Curtis has been trying to make is that the compulsive "defenders" of religion (especially when it's theoretically not their *own* religion they are compulsively defending) are basic- ally closet Victorians. As in the description of codependency I posted not long ago, they view people as being *unable to defend themselves or take care of themselves*. The codependent activist feels that it is his or her *job* to defend these weak people that others are being "mean" to. But the whole bot- tom line of the disorder is that the "defense" is a closet way of putting them down. "They're too weak to stand up for themselves, so I have to do it." The religions in question that have been mocked by The Simpsons have wisely *laughed along* with the mockery, and hopefully in a few cases even learned from it. An exception, of course, is Scientology, which tried to adopt THE CORRECTOR's approach and have the episode mocking them *banned*. THAT is what her stance is really about. She is trying desperately to make Curtis the Bad Guy for mocking something that just *screams* to be mocked. Her goal on FFL is to encourage one or more other posters to post something critical of Curtis for expressing his stance. In this she has FAILed as completely as she has when trying the same thing with other posters she was trying to demonize over the years. The wisest promoters *of* the beliefs being mocked realize not only the unprovable but also the ridic- ulous nature of many of their beliefs, and thus laugh along with the audience when they are poked fun at well. All that THE CORRECTOR can see is someone being "mean" to weak people that she, being "strong," must defend. What a crock. What self- serving, self-important crap. THE CORRECTOR had several paths open to her when Curtis began his latest round of challenging and poking fun at certain religious beliefs like karma, reincarnation, and the caste system. She could have laughed along with the mockery (like the millions who laugh along when The Simpsons make fun of belief systems equally tenuous and unprovable). She could have gone all "serious" and tried to make a case for karma and reincarnation and the caste system episto- mologically or philosophically, and thus put her *own* opinion and ass on the line. But she didn't. But she chose the easiest and the laziest path of all -- she chose to try to make Curtis out to be a Bad Guy for mocking beliefs *she* is too lazy to actually defend intellectually. It's always the same -- when someone says something that gets a laugh on this forum, *especially* if the laughter is justified because it reveals the shaky foundations of a belief system she secretly believes in but is afraid to admit to believing in herself, the only reason she can think of for provoking the laughter is someone being "mean." It *challenges* her that someone has poked fun at a belief, and rather than take the adult route when so challenged and either laugh along at the fun-poking or refute it intellectually, she goes *almost every time* for trying to demonize the comic. I think that THE CORRECTOR has by far the LAZIEST mind on this forum. Her responses are predictable because by now *everyone* knows what they will be. She will take the "low road" and play "kill the messenger" rather than deal with the challenge to the message EVERY TIME. Once caught doing it, she will deny that's what she is doing forever, hoping to prolong the discussion so that she can get in several more "strategic strikes" against "the enemy" before everyone tires of the argument. THAT is what is going on in this argument. Meanwhile Curtis is still in the same place he was when he started the ball rolling -- having fun with the exploration of ideas. He started by challenging something that rarely gets challenged here, and he's still doing it. And he's willing to discuss any aspect of the thing he's challenging, with all comers, even those whom most other posters have written off as too loathsome in their tactics and too devoid of real ideas to ever interact with again. Meanwhile THE CORRECTOR just attacks. Over and over again, trying to portray someone who did nothing more than challenge a "privileged" idea for being "mean" by doing so. To turn THE CORRECTOR's own question around, is that habitual behavior of hers really intellectual, or is it just mean? I'm gonna go with The Simpsons as both intellectual and funny, and with THE CORRECTOR as just mean, using bluster and a junkyard-dog attack mentality to hide the fact that she's an intellectual lightweight.
