LOL XTIANS #45,982,761,305... April 4, 2007 10:21 AM   Subscribe

I don't understand why this was posted. Most LOL XTIANS get deleted; why is this one still here?
posted by Methylviolet to Etiquette/Policy at 10:21 AM (79 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Here are some crazy people using the Bible to justify their lust for fame. That's it. They don't have any political power whatsoever. They are a very small group of people -- almost exclusively one family. They are not violent or doing anything else against the law. This is no more authentic or relevant than a Big Brother episode.

Why legitimize them and give them the only thing they want? Imagine how happy they will be when they find out they were publicized here. Why are we feeding these trolls?
posted by Methylviolet at 10:22 AM on April 4, 2007


The Phelps family aren't just run of the mill Christians. They are, quite possibly, the most extreme homophobes in the United States. I, for one, certainly think that they're FPP worthy.
posted by MythMaker at 10:29 AM on April 4, 2007


They might not be relevant, but there's no way they aren't authentic.
posted by DU at 10:31 AM on April 4, 2007


Hrm, it's frustrating.

Fred Phelps has pulled off the biggest ruse in recent history, presenting himself, repeatedly, as representing the "Christian" viewpoint in the mainstream media. But the fact that he has done that is, in itself, rather noteworthy and FPP-worthy.

Look at it this way. Is this a worse FPP than Ted Jesus Christ God? Or the Hypercube guy? LOLCRAZY is okay once in awhile, XIAN notwithstanding.
posted by roll truck roll at 10:32 AM on April 4, 2007


this is a rather new and anticipated documentary by a well known documentarian.

Admittedly, the post is poorly fleshed out, and I'm not sure what the current atmosphere is in regards to copyright issues, but this doesn't seem to simply be a LOL XTIANS post.

Sure, that post did not give adequate background on the piece, but this is more a 'new movie' post than some sort of attack on the christian faith.
posted by fishfucker at 10:35 AM on April 4, 2007


The post is not about Christians, it's not about Phelps, it's about a certain presentation of information about Phelps. The discussion is along those lines, for the most part. Bad callout.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:36 AM on April 4, 2007


Fred Phelps is well-worth a documentary and an front page post because his position is so divisive. The protesting at military funerals does such a good job of exposing the cracks in the GOP party that that alone is worth extended comment.
posted by OmieWise at 10:36 AM on April 4, 2007


Poor Jesus.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:37 AM on April 4, 2007


Whoa! It would take the TROLL of ALL TROLLS to imply that these guys were "run of the mill Christians!" I certainly do not say so. They are societal trolls. That's all they are.

We are feeding them. We are fostering and legitimizing their message of hate by treating it seriously. We are spreading it through this high-profile website. How many click-throughs to their website did we generate this morning?

Don't you feel a little dirty? Is it really just me?
posted by Methylviolet at 10:39 AM on April 4, 2007


Fred Phelps is well-worth a documentary and an front page post because his position is so divisive.

Well, the divide in question is between his immediate family and the entire rest of the civilized world. Even Hannity and Fallwell don't want to be associated with this douchebag.

I'm not usually a fan of LOLXTIANS either, but Phelps and Co deserve all the mockery they get.
posted by jonmc at 10:41 AM on April 4, 2007


We are fostering and legitimizing their message of hate by treating it seriously.

I don't take Phelps seriously. I take his followers seriously, though, since they're the ones who usually follow through with violence.

How many click-throughs to their website did we generate this morning?

So their bandwidth bill goes up.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:41 AM on April 4, 2007


It's a hard line to draw. It's not like Phelps is new at this; people talking about an uncomplimentary documentary of his clan in 2007 is not going to be thing that either catapults him into the spotlight or encourages his timid first steps in agitation.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:42 AM on April 4, 2007


Don't you feel a little dirty? Is it really just me?

It's a complex world. When it rains, the other alternative from not getting wet is staying inside 24/7. Maybe it pays to get wet, to know how the world works.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Maybe he'll look at his referrer logs and write a little speech denouncing us all as a site full of sphincter-worshipping fag enablers. That would kinda cool.
posted by jonmc at 10:44 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, OK, you're right Jonmc -- that would be seriously cool. But still.
posted by Methylviolet at 10:46 AM on April 4, 2007


"fag enabler" is a seriously funny phrase. Sounds like a profession, like a special carpenter who builds Sodomy Sofas and Tribadism Tables and stuff.
posted by jonmc at 10:50 AM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


As far as as I can see, it wasn't "lol xtians", more "for shame krzy ppl screwing up their kids".

As a matter of fact, the word "Christian" is only in the thread 3 times (well, 4 if you include jonmc's reference to the "Christina Right").
posted by davehat at 10:50 AM on April 4, 2007


Fred Phelps isn't LOL XTIANS. He's holy fucking great leaping mother of Jesus God Christian.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:51 AM on April 4, 2007


I wish I was still a smoker. I love my euphemisms as much as the next Brit and "fag enabler" is the best slang for a cigarette lighter I've heard in years.
posted by davehat at 10:54 AM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


"fag enabler" is a seriously funny phrase. Sounds like a profession, like a special carpenter who builds Sodomy Sofas and Tribadism Tables and stuff.

I prefer the term "spotters."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:54 AM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


a little speech denouncing us all

Would he be a "mee-feye" or a "meh-fee" person?
posted by CKmtl at 10:55 AM on April 4, 2007


Think I'ma gunna hoover me some acolytes. Spot me, willya?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:56 AM on April 4, 2007


BBC
posted by Otis at 10:56 AM on April 4, 2007


Imagine how happy they will be when they find out they were publicized here.

"Fred, Fred! Our TV show was linked to on Metafilter!"
YES! YESSSSSSSSS! WE HAVE REACHED THE PINACLE OF FAME! I HAVE ACHIEVED ALL MY LIFE GOALS! IT'S ALL DOWNHILL FROM HERE BABY! THERE'S NO POINT TO EVEN BEING ALIVE ANYMORE! WE MADE IT! METAFILTER! WOO! WOOO! WOOOOOOOOOO!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:58 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Talking about them doesn't legitmize them, and as far as I can tell, they actually believe what they are saying...

A "troll" is not someone who says something you don't like. A "troll" is someone who says something they may not believe to be true purely to get a rise out of you.

Phelps and kin do not give off the impression to me that they are doing what they are doing for any other reason than they truly believe in their nutty beliefs.

Brushing people like Phelps under the rug and sticking our fingers in our ears does not solve the problems they present. The best means to combat filth like Phelps is the strong light of truth and facts, with a side order of mockery. Lame callout.
posted by modernnomad at 10:59 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


A better question might be why it's necessary to delete posts that point out uncomfortable truths about XTIANS. From what I can tell it's never because the posts contain false information or pose a legal risk.
No, it seems that they get deleted because America's favorite victim group gets it's panties in a bunch when confronted with their own stupidity and whine and cry until a moderator comes along and makes it all better. Apparently god is powerless to defend himself against internet trolls.
posted by 2sheets at 11:01 AM on April 4, 2007 [6 favorites]


No, it seems that they get deleted because America's favorite victim group gets it's panties in a bunch when confronted with their own stupidity and whine and cry until a moderator comes along and makes it all better.

Our moderators aren't that spineless. The posts get deleted because Metafilter is about "the best of the web", and a lot of times posts on that subject aren't. But the internet is a free place, my friend! You can feel free to GYOFB and rag on Christians to your hearts content.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:05 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


No, it seems that they get deleted because America's favorite victim group gets it's panties in a bunch when confronted with their own stupidity and whine and cry until a moderator comes along and makes it all better.

What? I think they usually get deleted because they're ugly, stupid excuses to have one-sided rehashes of anti-religious snarkfests. Petitions from aggrieved Christians aren't really necessary, there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:06 AM on April 4, 2007


Fag enabler? Or fag facilitator?

Gaynabler
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:07 AM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


No, it seems that they get deleted because America's favorite victim group gets it's panties in a bunch when confronted with their own stupidity and whine and cry until a moderator comes along and makes it all better

Worse yet, when the post doesn't have much to do with any of that, but gets painted with that brush anyway.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:08 AM on April 4, 2007


If it matters, I'm an atheist. I may be whining and crying, but not because I'm a Christian.

Modernnomad: A "troll" is not someone who says something you don't like. A "troll" is someone who says something they may not believe to be true purely to get a rise out of you.

Really? So if I said something like "Christians" -- or whoever -- "are fools who fear the unknown so much that they purposely delude themselves" and I believed it, I would not be trolling? No, I don't agree. A troll is someone who says something purely to to get a rise out of you, but we don't need to be privy to their inner feelings to know them when we see them.
posted by Methylviolet at 11:15 AM on April 4, 2007


jonmc typed "Maybe he'll look at his referrer logs and write a little speech denouncing us all as a site full of sphincter-worshipping fag enablers. That would kinda cool."

MetaFilter has such a rich history of subjects and experts registering in order to comment in their threads. I would seriously love to see Phelps do that.
posted by roll truck roll at 11:20 AM on April 4, 2007


So if I said something like "Christians" -- or whoever -- "are fools who fear the unknown so much that they purposely delude themselves" and I believed it, I would not be trolling?

No, you would not be trolling, because, as said above, a troll haraasses people for fthe fun of it. If you truly believed what was said above, you'd just be trying to make your point. A fool's errand, to be sure, but there is a difference.

Just because what the Phelps has to say offends *you* does not make them "trolls" and is not in and of itself grounds for a post about them to deleted from Metafilter.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:21 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's important to ignore anti-gay bigots -- if you ignore them long enough, anti-gay bigotry will go away by itself, with a little help from our moderators.

I mean, it's not that these people (the bigots, not our moderators) are a major force in American politics and a key constituency that provides massive funding to the political party who's bending over backwards to pack American courts with similarly anti-gay, authoritarian extremists. No sir. It's just an Internet phenomenon, and a powerless one at that.

Thank God soon it'll be (Good) Friday, and we'll have plenty of Flash games to read, discuss and analyze.

I can only imagine MetaFilter in the 1950s -- please ignore segregationists and delete the LOL DIXIECRATS posts. One does not want to be shrill, after all.
posted by matteo at 11:22 AM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter has such a rich history of subjects and experts registering in order to comment in their threads. I would seriously love to see Phelps do that.

He'd call me a 'fag,' and then I'd tell him to blow me.
posted by jonmc at 11:27 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Really? So if I said something like "Christians" -- or whoever -- "are fools who fear the unknown so much that they purposely delude themselves" and I believed it, I would not be trolling?

No, I don't think you would be trolling, especially if it were in a conversation about religious beliefs. Hell, I agree with that statement fully!

I don't want to get into a big thing about trolling, because I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to point out inconsistencies in my off the cuff definition when it comes to arguing about something stupid like Macs vs PCs. I stand by the general idea that "hurt feelings" do not constitute trolling if they are caused by genuinely held beliefs.

In any event, the characterization of trolling is not what makes this callout wrong, because I would add that if Phelps & Co. are so extreme they make "average" homophobes wince, then there might indeed be something valuable in their discourse, insofar as it can show the absurdity of homophobia in general.

After all, Phelps' essential position boils down to "we believe God hates X. Therefore anybody who does X or does not stop other people from doing X must hate God. We believe God requires us to actively demonstrate our belief."

Sound familiar?
posted by modernnomad at 11:30 AM on April 4, 2007


Just wondering, what's so bad about laughing at xtians anyway? They're valid for sociological assessment so FPP-able plus they do stupid things, hence laughter.
posted by biffa at 11:42 AM on April 4, 2007


Someday in the future, the mere act of searching Google for something will cause that item to be called into existence, fresh and new from the replicator deep in the maddening corridors of Google Labs. In this age of wonders new ideas will flourish and want shall cease. In the meantime, my Googling "Sodomy Sofa" was nothing but a mild letdown.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 12:01 PM on April 4, 2007


You used the wrong search terms.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:10 PM on April 4, 2007


Don't you feel a little dirty? Is it really just me?

No, it's just you. I like to know the enemy. As matteo says (in his charmingly belligerent way), ignoring them isn't going to make them go away.
posted by languagehat at 12:14 PM on April 4, 2007


The X is for Christ, not Chris. It should be "Xians," not "Xtians." thx.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:20 PM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


I dunno AZ, without the alliteration it just seems so... dirty. Not something worthy of placement in the Sexeteria next to the Perversion Pianola and Carnal Cupboard.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 12:27 PM on April 4, 2007


I suspect we could have posts about certain Christians without any problem if it were actually possible to do so without the same repetitive and obnoxious assholes having to show up and make generalized comments about all Christians, as if the same enlightened and oh-so-edgy point had not been make approximately 242352 times here. Hell, even in this thread, there are numerous people who felt compelled to make their point about how stupid and delusional religious believers are (Thanks. It was enlightening, it really was... I never thought about the issue that way.).

Find me a post where there is a nuanced discussion about a specific Christian issue, and I'll applaud it as worthy of Metafilter. But as long as the posts serve as mere pretexts for people to make same tired points that amount to LOL Xians, then I suspect that we will keep seeing deletions and the need for them.

The problem is not that we need to protect Christians. The problem is that we need to protect everyone against the same un-original prats who feel the need to make the same points over and over and over for their own sake.
posted by dios at 12:38 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


I like to know the enemy.

This is why my sick, demented boyfriend has subscriptions to Focus on the Family, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and who only knows how many other obnoxious newsletters. "Gotta keep a closer eye on the enemy than you do your friends."
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:43 PM on April 4, 2007


The problem is not that we need to protect Christians. The problem is that we need to protect everyone against the same un-original prats who feel the need to make the same points over and over and over for their own sake.


The desire for protection against sustained critiques of one's beliefs is LOL so very Xian.

/unoriginal prat.
posted by modernnomad at 12:46 PM on April 4, 2007


Not sure where this kneejerk demand to delete Christian-mocking posts came from either. If Christians do something funny, I would link to the funny thing they did on MetaFilter. I'm very saddened at how many people seem to think linking to funny or interesting things something or somebody did somehow stopped being the point of this website.

The problem is that we need to protect everyone against the same un-original prats who feel the need to make the same points over and over and over for their own sake.

I just shat my colon trying to digest all that irony.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:53 PM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


Don't you feel a little dirty?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:56 PM on April 4, 2007


If Christians do something funny, I would link to the funny thing they did on MetaFilter.

I'd add that I'd hope that decent, sincere Christians would be more embarssaed by Phelps and his ilk than anyone.
posted by jonmc at 12:56 PM on April 4, 2007


I'd add that I'd hope that decent, sincere Christians would be more embarssaed by Phelps and his ilk than anyone.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mahatma Gandhi
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:02 PM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


A loud mouthy contingent of them are, XQUZYPHYR. It's unfair to tar a group so large with one brush, don't you think?
posted by jonmc at 1:04 PM on April 4, 2007


Someday in the future, the mere act of searching Google for something will cause that item to be called into existence, fresh and new from the replicator deep in the maddening corridors of Google Labs. In this age of wonders new ideas will flourish and want shall cease. In the meantime, my Googling "Sodomy Sofa" was nothing but a mild letdown.

**searches for "Tlon Uqbar Orbis Tertis hronir"**
posted by LionIndex at 1:06 PM on April 4, 2007


Whoa! It would take the TROLL of ALL TROLLS to imply that these guys were "run of the mill Christians!" I certainly do not say so. They are societal trolls. That's all they are.

I think you're forgetting the power of the troll.

You remember those days when a few trollish comments here and there could derail an entire days worth of a discussion board? They had power. It might be a different kind of power than you like, but power nonetheless.

The same thing goes for Phelps & Co. Just because they're extreme and sound like trolls makes it seems like they shouldn't have any power. In reality, the opposite is quite true. Among certain groups of evangelicals, his ilk hold a special power. To deny Phelp's power is to ignore the power of th religious right- power that we experience every day in the US government.

Also, "run of the mill Christians," consist of a large majority of all xians. It's the few that give the rest of us a bad name (or so I tell myself). But, as is usually the case, those few manage to wield significant power and resources. We're not laughing at the "run of the mill[ers]," but rather that extremists.
posted by jmd82 at 1:25 PM on April 4, 2007


This callout is just peculiar. Methylviolet - do you not get the difference between a 'LOL XTIANS' and 'Look, here is a good documentary to watch'? And why are you writing as if only the post, not the documentary, exists? It seems a safe bet that you didn't watch the documentary, or read the thread before rushing to whinge.
posted by jack_mo at 1:28 PM on April 4, 2007


Woops, the troll just showed up.
posted by languagehat at 1:50 PM on April 4, 2007


The desire for protection against sustained critiques of one's beliefs is LOL so very Xian.

Kudos.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:55 PM on April 4, 2007



I'd add that I'd hope that decent, sincere Christians would be more embarssaed by Phelps and his ilk than anyone.


Exactly. It's because of people like him that I can't even have a reasonable discussion about what I think the problems with homosexuality are. (I mean, seriously, Fred - have you ever heard of Romans chapter 2? I think it has a section all about you and your type.)
posted by niles at 2:57 PM on April 4, 2007


I'm an atheist and I didn't get "Christian" out of either this fpp or the documentary. It's a post about a documentary about a bunch of gay bashing fools, and it shows them up to be exactly that. Even the post doesn't mention "Xian" anywhere? What is there to not understand?

I don't think this documentary was aimed at an American audience and as far as I'm aware Metafilter isn't an American only site.
posted by twistedonion at 3:00 PM on April 4, 2007


I would like to state for the record that I absolutely despise the viewpoint that says we shouldn't draw attention to people or movements we disagree with. If we all abstain from discussing bigotry, for example, then only bigots talk about it and the first time anyone hears about it it's in the context of "hey check out how awesome this is!"

now, this is not to support axe-grinding or linking to stormwatch or anything like that. there's only so much room on mefi, but linking to an interesting documentary about a bigot isn't exactly posting yet another link to hate material or grinding an axe.
posted by shmegegge at 3:09 PM on April 4, 2007


...have you ever heard of Romans chapter 2...

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; ... "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Nice.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:12 PM on April 4, 2007


They are, quite possibly, the most extreme homophobes in the United States.

i don't think they fear homos one little bit. hate, yes. fear? not in your wildest dreams. the word is overused and abused.
posted by quonsar at 3:18 PM on April 4, 2007


is it really, or is it just that english (as it has done so many times before) has taken a greek word and put it to related but not indentical uses?
posted by shmegegge at 3:38 PM on April 4, 2007


Why would someone be considered a Christian or representative of Christians who thinks that God hates any of his people? Perhaps hate is in the eye of the beholder.
posted by Cranberry at 3:40 PM on April 4, 2007


I've always thought Fred Phelps and his group was cool --- a kind of absurdist, black comedy troupe that brings the unspoken prejudices of many fundamentalist Christian churches to the surface. Does anybody really think this guy is serious?

I thought he was just a very clever actor, who always remains in character.
posted by jayder at 4:23 PM on April 4, 2007


I thought he was just a very clever actor, who always remains in character.

Sexual Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Heaven?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:31 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


I thought he was just a very clever actor, who always remains in character.

Pardon me, I've been looking for a new pair of rose-colored glasses...yours look very nice. May I ask where you got them?
posted by voltairemodern at 5:30 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


modernnomad writes "A 'troll' is not someone who says something you don't like. A 'troll' is someone who says something they may not believe to be true purely to get a rise out of you."

I blame languagehat for the confusion (sorry, languagehat). Languagehat is a noted linguist, and also a descriptivist. While "trolling" indeed initially meant "saying something to get a rise out of you", ignorant folks have used it to mean "saying something divisive which I happen to disagree with", and once the number of ignorant misusers reach critical mass, the descriptivist run in with their bells and funny hats and declare the misused meaning an Official Real and Federally Protected meaning.
posted by Bugbread at 6:32 PM on April 4, 2007


"No, it seems that they get deleted because America's favorite victim group gets it's panties in a bunch when confronted with their own stupidity and whine and cry until a moderator comes along and makes it all better."

Why do people keep asserting this in these meta threads? It's simply not true. The people that complain about Christian-bashing posts are predominantly atheists and agnostics. The persistence of this delusion that it's mefite Christians protesting anything critical of Christianity is disturbing. It's too reminiscent of the conservative alternate reality.

"A troll is someone who says something purely to to get a rise out of you, but we don't need to be privy to their inner feelings to know them when we see them."

This is a nice example of a non-contrived conflict between language prescriptivism and descriptivism. The original usage of the word troll on USENET and other early online places described someone who said outrageous things they didn't believe in order to get a reaction. As in trolling for fish. It's like playing a joke on someone. The trick is to say something that people would take seriously even though it was clearly provocative. A good example would be to say something offhand about Canadians and igloos.

However, as web discussion grew, people who encountered the term troll but weren't familiar with its usage misinterpreted it to mean merely being provocative and associated it with the idea that the person is ugly, like a troll under a bridge.

I think the latter usage has thoroughly swamped the former, it's now what the term has come to mean. Personally, I think that's unfortunate because trolling in the old sense was sly fun while the new usage has become nothing more than a convenient club against those one strongly disagrees with. If people could limit their usage to those who are truly egregiously provocative, I'd be okay with it. But they don't. The way people tend to use it seems to express an implicit idea that anyone that says anything they find very disagreeable must necessarily be saying it only to annoy them. It's very narrow-minded and self-indulgent.

On Preview: I sorta disagree with Bugbread.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:45 PM on April 4, 2007


It's not LOLXTIANS because the Phelps family are not XTIANS. Not by any rational standard, anyway.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:06 PM on April 4, 2007


niles: Exactly. It's because of people like him that I can't even have a reasonable discussion about what I think the problems with homosexuality are.

So... if it weren't for the batshitinsane, you'd get a better reception to the airing of your "problems" with the love-lives of consenting partners, and activities that nobody's asking you to engage in? I suspect not.

If that was sarcasm, my meter needs adjusting.
posted by CKmtl at 8:22 PM on April 4, 2007


Christians, democrats, homophobes, whatever: It was a lame FPP.
posted by Slap Factory at 8:54 PM on April 4, 2007


So... if it weren't for the batshitinsane, you'd get a better reception to the airing of your "problems"...?

I think so. Because when I discuss it, it doesn't (shouldn't, at least) come across as hateful, just as disagreement. But when most people hear that I think homosexual activity is wrong, they immediately think of someone like Fred Phelps. Sure, maybe to you it's along the lines of the protesting of novels and the waltz back in the day, but I've been able to have perfectly amicable discussion with gay friends. Yes, gay friends.
I just can't help but think that enlightening conversation would happen a lot more often between oposing viewpoints if these "trolls" weren't running around. Same with the (small but vocal minority of) pro-lifers who go around blowing clinics up. Who are they trying to kid? Violence and hate doesn't really lend itself to explaing what you thing.


Don't worry about it - your meter's fine.
posted by niles at 10:06 PM on April 4, 2007


er, what you think, rather
posted by niles at 10:23 PM on April 4, 2007


Well, you got us. You outed the secret MeFi Christian cabal that's been controlling this entire operation from within. But then, it's been that way all along. Jessamyn is actually head preacher of a Vineyard church in Rutland. Mathowie is a pseudonym for a Focus on the Family board member. And cortex? Catholic priest, big wheel in Opus Dei.

The LOLXIANS posts on the site are actually honeypots meant to draw the strongest critics in. When Phase II begins, we will round up our strongest opponents and purge them (right after the ceremonial eating of breakfast tacos), then the IMG tag will be turned back on and posts will be flooded with Ceiling Cat pics that will induce a Snow Crash sort of thing in you. Once that happens, it will be all ReligionFilter, all the time. And Flash Friday.

But now that you revealed the truth, our identities are blown, meaning you're doing exactly what Dick Cheney would do in this situation. How does that feel, huh?
posted by dw at 10:27 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


What EB said, including the regret. I don't make the changes, bugbread, I just note they happen.
posted by languagehat at 5:54 AM on April 5, 2007


And cortex? Catholic priest, big wheel in Opus Dei.

Plus my dad's Jewish, so, you know, I've got that going for me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:49 AM on April 5, 2007


And I should say, as part of a Usenet group that once frequently trolled other groups, putting an off-kilter post in another newsgroup to pull a reaction was called baiting, and we referred to each other as fishermen.

Troll, as in the under-the-bridge troll, was never the intended meaning. I'm not sure when the meaning switchover happened.
posted by dw at 7:14 AM on April 5, 2007


I watched this last night and it was pretty good. Louis Theroux does have an style that is more interrogation than interview -- he's not trying to get their views as much as he is trying to get them to self-denounce, and he does not try to be objective. However, Theroux seems more interested in *how* growing up in this environment has affected the children than engaging Phelp's doctrine at all.

This documentary pretty clearly casts the Phelps 'denomination' as a cult, or at the very least, an extreme religious sect, so much that it'd be hard to imagine someone having watched the documentary saying that it is critical of all Christians, or any Christians at all.

I was disappointed that the documentary failed to show how Fred Phelps manages to hold such sway over his followers -- he does not appear charismatic or well-spoken. Of course, I think a majority of his followers are his children, who have been indoctrinated from a very early age, so perhaps they have less ability to be critical of his preaching.
posted by fishfucker at 8:32 AM on April 5, 2007


Because when I discuss it, it doesn't (shouldn't, at least) come across as hateful, just as disagreement. But when most people hear that I think homosexual activity is wrong, they immediately think of someone like Fred Phelps.

This may be true, but I can think of people (such as my gay friends, yes my gay friends) who would take strong objection to that viewpoint whether phelps existed or not. It's not so much that condemning gay love as wrong has been stigmatized as it is that people strongly object to the idea that a lifestyle such as that one falls under some classification that allows it to be judged and criticized at all. To my mind, they are entirely justified to feel that way. This is not to say that any time you express yourself that people should feel free to scream at you and call you a bigot or anything like that, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps it's too easy from your perspective to see perfectly justified objection to your viewpoint as a form of prejudice.
posted by shmegegge at 9:33 AM on April 5, 2007


niles: Because when I discuss it, it doesn't (shouldn't, at least) come across as hateful, just as disagreement. But when most people hear that I think homosexual activity is wrong, they immediately think of someone like Fred Phelps.

You may not be a hatemonger, or even a hateful person*, but you're still acting Phelps-ishly. By which I mean that you're under the impression that your personal distaste for, or moral objections to, homosexual activity should matter to anyone other than yourself.

*part of me wants to congratulate you, but then another part realizes that acting like a decent person shouldn't need to be congratulated

Sure, maybe to you it's along the lines of the protesting of novels and the waltz back in the day...

How is it not along the lines of those things? Because objecting to novels and the waltz is now considered silly? Novels and the waltz don't harm you or anyone else, neither do homosexual activity or relationships. If you don't like novels/dancing/buttsex, don't participate in them. Maybe you're not protesting in a picket-line and banner fashion, but the objection is just as bizarre.

... enlightening conversation would happen a lot more often between opposing viewpoints if these "trolls" weren't running around.

What 'enlightening' is there to do from your perspective? You politely 'disagreeing' with homosexuality isn't going to make any homosexuals slap their foreheads and realize the error of their ways.

Personally, I don't find black men attractive. No hatred or racist leanings, no problems with them as people; they're just not my cup of tea in terms of physical attraction. But I don't feel the need to approach anyone married to, dating, or lustily drooling over a black man and express my personal non-attraction to them. Because there's nothing wrong with their attraction, and my non-attraction has nothing to do with whether or not they should find black men attractive.
posted by CKmtl at 10:10 AM on April 5, 2007


« Older Grow a skin, people.   |   healthy dialogue Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments