--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote:
Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man. Now I can get back to this Blind Boy Fuller song I'm working one with nothing to add here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnoeTmbUmZw&feature=PlayList&p=8B9F82CB6A5DBD76&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8 http://tinyurl.com/ye78fu8 > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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. >
