FIRE..ITS NOT MINE

Okay, let's step through this. Let's see if you can follow the logic.
You said, "…it reveals far more about the people re-posting and celebrating it than it does about any of the fictional characters it portrays."

I said, "And you are debating a fictional story. How lame does that make you?"

I was pointing out the fact that you were arguing over a fictional story, and at the same time you were insinuating that people who enjoyed the story, were in your opinion, bigots. Are you not stereotyping people as bigots, simply because they laugh at a joke?

Next: You said, "…Just pointed out that it's fake, and that folks who re-post it are revealing their bigotry by furthering the ridiculous stereotypes it advances."

Proof that you consider the person who posted the story was a bigot.
Then you said, "I see you found it to be a "great story". Interesting."

Although it doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand what you were insinuating, I asked you specifically, "So what do you find interesting by my use of the words "great story"?"

I knew what you were saying, but I wanted to see if you were really going to call me a bigot.

You responded: "That you find a story basing it's characters and entire premise squarely on blatantly bigoted stereotypes to be "great". Says a lot about you."

Okay, at this point it is obvious that you are calling me a bigot. What else would you mean by "Says a lot about you."?

In order to see how far you were willing to take this I asked, "Be more specific. What does it say about me? Do you know me? I find the story funny. I'm not so politically correct that I can't laugh about stereotypes."

It was more than evident at this point that you were calling me a bigot. I rejected your insult.

You responded with this, "I don't know you beyond this exchange, but this exchange alone tells me that you either have little to no awareness of, or you simply don't care about the damaging affects bigotry can have on people, even if it's through a story that you just find "funny"."

As you know the rest of the dialog, it simply boils down to this; You called me a bigot, whether you admit it or not. I really don't care. I know I'm not and it makes absolutely zero difference in my life if you think I am. What I find repulsive, even more than bigotry, is your pompous attitude that makes you think you are somehow morally superior to someone who posts a joke, or someone who laughs at a joke that you don't like. When I pointed it out that you are guilty of the same thing evidenced by your post about "arresting the Pope", you don't like it. You think you are justified in demeaning the Pope with insinuations and half-truths, and at the same time you want to claim moral superiority over me. Sorry, I'm not letting that happen.

Finally, you said; "Look man, you started this exchange. Don't try to get out of it by making false claims about me."

No, you started the exchange when you insulted CHUCK who posted the story, and anyone who finds the story funny. I never made false claims about you, I said you were a pompous, whining, sniveling wimp. Nothing there that is false as far as I can see.

"Are you not stereotyping people as bigots, simply because they laugh at a joke?"

No, I'm not. One, I never said that anyone who laughs at this "joke" is a bigot. I only said that the responses reveal a lot about the people who re-post and celebrate it. What I feel it reveals is most clearly explained in my more specific response to you that those who laugh at this "joke": "either have little to no awareness of, or...simply don't care about the damaging affects bigotry can have on people". So those who laugh at a bigoted joke could be insensitive, ignorant, or yes, bigots. But I made no overarching conclusions of bigotry about all who laugh at this.

And two, conclusions based on direct observation of individual behavior is not stereotyping. If I said "all Republicans enjoy bigoted jokes", that would be stereotyping. I'm only speaking to the actual, individual behavior of those who specifically re-post and celebrate this particular joke.



Before going on, it may be worth noting that I very intentionally avoid insinuations when engaging in a written exchange. I generally choose my words very carefully to make specific points. So what I've written is what I've meant. Any perceived implications or insinuations were not in any way intended by me.



"'...folks who re-post it are revealing their bigotry by furthering the ridiculous stereotypes it advances.'
Proof that you consider the person who posted the story was a bigot."

Indeed. It's one thing to just laugh at it out of ignorance and/or insensitivity. Re-posting it does step into a clearer realm of actual bigotry for me. I say that because it's no longer a simple response to reading this "joke" - it's actively participating in maligning the groups it targets. It could also be motivated by ignorance in this case, but I would still say that it's ignorance-inspired bigotry once you willingly take active part in spreading bigoted stories.



"'That you find a story basing it's characters and entire premise squarely on blatantly bigoted stereotypes to be "great". Says a lot about you.'
Okay, at this point it is obvious that you are calling me a bigot. What else would you mean by 'Says a lot about you.'?"

Honestly, I find it odd that you would assign your own meaning to my words when I directly answered your request to be more specific. Once again, my response was that "this exchange alone tells me that you either have little to no awareness of, or you simply don't care about the damaging affects bigotry can have on people, even if it's through a story that you just find 'funny'". I also later went on to specify that "you may be a bigot, or you may just not be aware of how damaging bigotry can be. Only you can answer that question."

Simply put, if I didn't directly call you a bigot, then I never intended to assign that label to you. If I felt that it was warranted, I would come right out and say it, as I have in regards to the person who posted the "joke" here on Sodahead.



"What I find repulsive, even more than bigotry, is your pompous attitude that makes you think you are somehow morally superior to someone who posts a joke, or someone who laughs at a joke that you don't like."

It's not about a joke I don't like. There are plenty of jokes I don't like that I couldn't possibly care less about. It's about a "joke" that's sole purpose is to hurt people by advancing derogatory stereotypes about them. That's simply wrong, and I'll speak out against it every single time. If you find that "pompous", then so be it. As I mentioned earlier, I know firsthand how damaging this kind of idiotic story can be to someone who's been on the receiving end of garbage just like it and worse their whole life. You calling me pompous for calling that out is meaningless to me in comparison.



"When I pointed it out that you are guilty of the same thing evidenced by your post about 'arresting the Pope', you don't like it. You think you are justified in demeaning the Pope with insinuations and half-truths"

I beg you, please show me a single "insinuation", "half truth", "stereotype", or flat out lie in my question about the Pope. Because all I included in that question is the conveyance of well known and documented factual events, the writing of the Pope himself about those factual events, and finally, a question about what people think about those factual events.



"Nothing there that is false as far as I can see."

Calling me a "hypocrite" was false. Claiming that I called you a bigot was false. Claiming that I was posting self-contradictory comments was false. Those are the things I was referring to. I don't care about the schoolyard insults.

Yes, I did post that question. And where exactly did I say in it that I believed "all Catholic Priests are pedophiles"? Nowhere, because I've never even come close to holding such a ridiculous stereotype.

Beyond that, nothing about the Pope's involvement in covering up the acts of priests who ARE pedophiles is stereotypical or fictional. I invite you to take anything out of the question I posed and illustrate it's basis in stereotypes or fiction. Anything at all. I'll even make it easy for you by cutting and pasting the entire text of my question here:



Calls for the arrest of Pope Benedict XVI have begun as a result of revelations about his complicity in covering up sexual abuses committed by multiple priests.

Specifically, in 1985, then Cardinal Ratzinger was made aware of a case of a 38 year old priest who tied up and sexually molested an 11 and a 13 year old boy. In response to the request presented him to have the priest defrocked, Ratzinger wrote this reply:

"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner." ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... )

So by his own hand, we see the proof that Ratzinger put "the good of the Universal Church" before the good of the molested children, as well as before the good of any children that may (and ultimately were) molested by the same priest in the future.

Additionally, Ratzinger is known to have approved a burial with full priestly honors for a priest who sexually abused disabled children at a school for the deaf in Wisconsin.

Given the pattern of complicit behavior that has been revealed through these cases, do you think that the Pope should be arrested upon his arrival in Britain as most anyone else who isn't the Pope would be, or as Pope, does he deserve special treatment?



Okay, so go ahead and show me the stereotypes and fiction in there.