Thursday, May 12, 2011

Those Immauture Looney Tunes!

As a follow up to Tuesday’s post, I have some new information regarding the charge that it is “immature” to subject persons in my vids to LT-style gags. One response made was that because ProfMTH is a “real person” while Daffy Duck is not, one can be deemed “immature” while the other can not.

I pointed out some flaws in this reasoning last time, and I can now add another one that deals the death blow (sorry!) to the objection – or else forces objectors to expand who they call “immature” even more.

The fact is, even live cartoons target “real people” for their gags. In my consult are a couple of people who are experts in the field of cartoons and entertainment. One of them gave me several examples of celebrities or public figures who were parodied, caricatured, and made into victims of gags by early LT shorts.

A particularly illustrative (and hilarious!) example is one we’ll feature below. Here, Daffy Duck hammers Adolf Hitler with a mallet right in the middle of a speech, causing Hitler to bawl like a child. So either it was “immature” for LT to do this…or it isn’t “immature” for me to do it. Take your pick.

Of course, I can hear the whines already, so:

Are you comparing ProfMTH to Hitler? Dah – no, except in the sense that both are public figures (just as I am). Of course, back in the day on early LT, average joes like me didn’t have any way to make films, and guys like Hitler were the easiest targets, and the ones people would most recognize. The age of electronic communication has expanded the opportunity for such lampooning tremendously.

Aside from that, as noted, celebrities were also so treated; my consult noted as example of W. C. Fields having his bulbous nose pinched.

I fully expect one of the Skeptics to try to do the same to me someday (in fact, some of them think they're doing it already, with a stolen picture of me). But they'd better do a good job of it, or I'll be all over it in more ways than one.

So where does it stop? Don’t think a line can’t be drawn here: The key is PUBLIC figures. Lampooning someone like my next door neighbor would cross the line, because he is not in public arenas. Lampooning someone like the spouse of one of these Skeptics would be out of bounds, too; they’re not involved in what they do. As I said before, if these critics want celebrity and attention – it all goes with the territory, and always has. Even academics are subject to this when they go off the wall, like Ward Churchhill did.

In the end, though, even without these examples, it is clear that a double standard remains where many of these YT Skeptics are concerned. I noted on ReligionFreeDeist’s channel that one of his group was addressing a Christian member – one who was very polite and nonconfrontational – with language suggesting that he took my side because, metaphorically, he engaged in homosexual relations with me. On another Skeptics’ channel, I noted a user with a username that implied homosexual relations between Jesus and the Muslim deity Allah, using specific slang terms for genitalia and the buttocks. Yet no one seems to raise any protest to these or multiple other examples I have seen and found – and except for modern and false portraits of Jesus contrived to say so, there’s no reason for us to sit around and take it lightly, either.

Hmm. If that’s what Skeptics call mature, I’ll stay with my “immature” stuff, thanks.


  1. Not to mention the many video games that include real historic characters in fictional situations, e.g. the Assassin's Creed trilogy, which covers the history of the Crusades as well as 15th-16th century Italy culminating in the assassination of several political figures including Pope Alexander VI himself.

  2. How immature! Get a real gun and shoot him instead, THAT is mature!

  3. I have an occasional series on my blog called "The Consistent Atheist." In it, I write as an atheist who applies the reasoning that atheists typically use to reject Christianity to everyday life. In the only post thus far, Tom (the fictional atheist) gets divorced and slapped with a restraining order for following his wife everywhere to make sure she is where she (or her friends) say she is. After all, eyewitness testimony is unreliable!

    Atheists have universally decried this series. Even though I'm upfront that Tom doesn't exist and I am writing Tom as satire, most commenters add that Tom is neither real nor representative of them. One has added that this series reflects poorly on my character.

    Why the double standard? Why can Christians not use parody and satire to make a point? Why is that immature or a sign of low integrity when we do it, but when the other side lampoons us it's hilarious and "dead-on?" I've never seen the atheist outcry for Non-Stamp Collector's parodies of Christians or of God, nor has anyone yelled at the founder of Landover Baptist Church. Atheists think those are great!