Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Tube Boobs 6.5

The past week revealed (no surprise) the expected truth that YT Skeptics hold Christians to a much higher standard than they hold each other. And naturally, it seems to have a lot to do with limited intelligence. Two examples were notable.

The first had to do with an encounter with a Napoleon-complex Skeptic styled “ReligionFreeDeist” (RFD). This character has apparently been lying in wait looking for ought against me, hoping for some chance to impress his peeps by laying a finger on JP Holding. You can see the sum of it at the link below; suffice to say for here, he made as much as he could of my expression of a concept in the popular language of the communicator rather than the technical language of the scholar. In the process, though, he committed a host of other bungles, including falling for the standard “his real name is Turkel” routine that these guys fall for when they dig out one of the “Holding hate sites” and swallow it gullibly. (It’s a bungle, but always good for entertainment on our side.)


I called down RFD for these bungles and his excess hyperbole, but in the end, he strained mightily to parse language and terms (again, ignoring the popular-technical dichotomy of expression I had specified) to preserve his honor among peeps. Now he says he wants to move on. Too bad. I don’t.


What’s next? I have some surprises, but I will lay out one here: I’m considering teaching this character a lesson by putting “Easter eggs” in my vids for him, in which I purposely use a technical term in a popular way, or even insert some actual minor error, causing him to jump on it and waste his time, bask in the glory, and then 10 days later have to eat it all when I reveal that the matter was intentional (and, I will tell some reliable witnesses what I’m doing ahead of time, so that they can verify that the use/error was intentional). I have had more than one way over the years to teach lessons to mini-Napoleons who try to use me to climb their own social ladders, but that said, one thing we can expect for sure: You can bet their peeps will still think they’re wiser than Solomon and capable of no wrong.


Such is what happened here: Even though he admitted the name error, there was not one peep from his peeps about his mistake. This, too, in spite of his Napoleonic declaration that his capture of my technical imprecision would be a “death blow” to Tekton. Really? Something that small? Even allowing for loudmouthed hyperbole, the implication seems at least to be some rather serious consequences. And by his own standard, this one blunder by him (not to mention others) ought to have seriously damaged his own credibility. But among his peeps…not a peep.


Nor did they call him down for an even wilder statement he made that evangelical scholars supported ministries like Tekton because they were “pressured” to do so. That was a particularly outlandish claim, and I challenged RFD to name 5 such scholars and explain how they were “pressured” to support a ministry they otherwise would not have supported. (According to RFD, this is also the case not just with me, but with Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel – the latter being an especially curious example, given Strobel’s penchant for making books that are mostly direct interviews with scholars). Nor, with one exception, did any of his peeps answer my challenge to name such scholars themselves. Of late, he did “respond” – by acting incredulous that I could doubt that such a thing were true, and then saying, well, he had ONE example…but it was given to him in confidence, so he couldn’t share it.


Wow. One secret example, and on that, we’re supposed to accept his assurance of the truth of a broad and sweeping generalization about the character of evangelical scholars. Nixon would be proud.

Needless to say, this speaks for itself. It was also notable that at least two of RFD’s peeps in leaving comments admitted they didn’t have the ability to judge which of us was right about the technical matter which started the whole rhubarb. There were surely many more who also did not actually understand the issue, but were loathe to admit it.


Another amusing point came of one of RFD’s peeps designated “botato” who accused me of cowardice for blocking RFD from commenting on my channel. I cannot see where he got such an idea; apparently he assumed that just because RFD was not commenting on my channel any more, I must have banned him. I had not, but consider what this means: His perception was clearly that RFD was a brave crusader who was sure to show up and deliver a few more mighty blows with his flyswatter, if only he could. Yet when botato’s error in presumption – both about the banning and RFD’s anticipated crusadery – were exposed, no admission of error was forthcoming. How curious.


This same character also made the rather amusing argument that because RFD’s response to me had more ”like” votes than mine, I should consider that he might have the better argument. Apart from the point (which I made in reply) that the manifest dishonesty and ignorance of RFD’s peeps made that sort of nose-counting meaningless, the stats also shows that only 8% of those who watched the vid voted “like” – which means, if we follow botato’s logic, that 92% of his viewers weren’t impressed enough to so much as care to vote. And all that takes is one little click of a mouse. Add to that, if “likes” mean anything, we all ought to become 9/11 conspiracy theorists, because Loose Change has over 24K likes, and only about 6K dislikes.


“Likes” and “dislikes” on YT are meaningless statistical tools. Someone could “dislike” a vid because they think the arguments are bad, or because they’re offended by an image, or because they simply hate that someone exposed their Dear Leader, Deist Jong Il, as a fraud. It takes a lot of blind naivete to suppose they are any kind of useful tool for arriving at conclusions about value or quality of arguments.


Such was one gallery of hilarity this past week; here’s another from the Double Standard Coterie. Those who have seen my vid on ProfMTH and Easter know that I used as a template the well-known Looney Tunes episode in which both Bugs and Daffy were being hunted in turn by Elmer Fudd, as they each tried to fool him into thinking it was the proper season to hunt either ducks or wabbits (er, rabbits). The episode ended with Bugs and Daffy uncovering a sign that said, “Elmer Season” – and turning the guns on him. In this episode of course, it was Daffy who ended getting blasted repeatedly, and my version of that had ProfMTH is his rabbit suit getting blasted by my fursona playing Elmer Fudd , in the same way. Keep that “same way” in mind.


It ‘s a classic LT episode, and you’d have to be a fool to think much more of it than that. Well, enter the fool, styled “DarkMatter2525” (DM25). Those who think I never give credit to Skeptics, pay attention: I’ve seen maybe 2-3 vids by DM25, and while they were nothing but the usual childish and misinformed canards in terms of arguments, DM25 does at least have some ability to create a production that is both interesting and, as far as it can go, technically proficient. He doesn’t crib screenshots, and he’s not the type who will let his dog bark in the background. His technique involves use of animation software, and I will say that I consider it pretty poor in a technical sense; it’s not something DM25 can do much about, but the software produces scenes that are flat and characters that look like marionnettes having epileptic seizures.

DM25 also doesn’t hesitate to express himself. One vid I watched was plentiful in f-bombs, included bloodletting and barely obscured nudity, and didn’t make a single respectable argument. But when he saw my vid above remixing the LT themes, he let loose with accusations that I was advocating physical violence against ProfMTH.


Uh, didn’t we have this debate about LT themselves years ago? And didn’t we decide that those who claimed that LT encouraged physical violence were mostly wackos – including fundy Christians – who needed to get a life and just be better parents? I guess DM25 missed that one.


It is curious, naturally, that DM25 let loose with such an accusation, given his own penchant for violence in the vid I saw. He asked (clearly thinking it was a good question) what I would think if he released a vid in which he had characters engaging in “Christian Hunting Season”. I’ll let my reply, and related comments do the honors:

What would I think of that? I would think it is a "DarkMatter Production" using a gag inspired by Looney Tunes. Yeah, that's real violence there to Prof; turned him all gray like that. I hate him so much I want him to be gray. For someone who uses animation as a format you seem to not be too clear on its implications.


As to what I would feel: NOTHING. You expect me to say I'd feel threatened, offended, etc? No, sorry. I'd see it, again, as a version of the LT gag, especially if you had all the other ideas with it is as I did (eg, Elmer Fudd). So there's no reason to "feel" any of that, unless one is insecure or ignorant...and I'm not.

Hmm. Think there might be a double standard here? Nah….but to his credit, DM25 did allow that I was being consistent even if he disagreed with me. RFD, on the other hand, strained to maintain the fiction of a problem by saying that whereas Daffy and Elmer were fictional characters, ProfMTH was a real person. Um, yeah, Big difference there. As I said on TWeb of that sort of parsing:

As I just had to explain in a comment to someone, just because it makes fun of someone doesn't make it "immature". Editorial cartoons poke fun, often brutally, at public figures; the one that comes to mind for me is the way Jeff MacNelly often depicted Bill Clinton completely naked, except for an extra long necktie. That summed up the view that Clinton was a foolish womanzier unworthy of the office of President, and whether you agree with that view or not, it would be idiotic to label MacNelly (or other editorial cartoonists, or satirists like Swift or Voltaire) as "immature".

Like it or not, ProfMTH has made himself a public figure -- as have I. If we can't live with the results (and I can), we should withdraw back into private life. I think sites like jimbo's are full of laughable errors, but I knew they were the price of being a public figure. If ProfMTH, or his fans, or anyone else can't deal with that when it happens to them -- too bad.


I used the LT parody as a sort of picture to show that I had refuted ProfMTH's argument. To take it as some sort of advocacy of physical violence is itself ludicrous and only the sort of thing a childlike mind would suppose otherwise.

More broadly, it is amusing that so many YT Skeptics object to my portrayal of themselves as misinformed dolts. Their own staple for years has been to portray Christians in that very manner; but point this out, and you’ll get the electronic equivalent of a blank stare. Many Skeptics – and nearly all I have come across on YT – see themselves as bearing the “white man’s burden” when it comes to Christians. Well, of course we portray them as ignorant dolts, you ignorant dolt. That’s what they are. Duh. And it is OK to portray a collective in such negative terms (Christians), but not OK to portray a member of a collective in negative terms (ProfMTH). Yep, makes sense to me.

(And, I might add, some of them don’t hesitate to brutally parody individuals; NonStampCollector, for one, targets Biblical characters and even God. So it is all right to portray God negatively, but not ProfMTH? Yep. Makes sense.)


Now here’s a caveat. I’d hardly be the last to say that many Christians are ignorant dolts. But Skeptics don’t have a Get Out of Stupidity Free card either. We have Joyce Meyer, but they have Dan Barker. Nuff said: They have no immunity against being the subject of my parodies. But they think they do. And so the double standard.

Bottom line is the same as before – we need to do some work reforming the wasteland.


Sorry. I meant waistland.

Hmm. Now there’s an Easter egg I could use…


Link

2 comments:

  1. You already labeled a previous post tube boobs 6. This should be 7.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nah. Too simple. There, how's that?

    ReplyDelete