Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Gah, part two Previous entry: You’re On Your Own

Even when they’re winning, they’re losing

This video is being posted all over the liberal blogs because it’s such a nice reminder of how much of our opposition is composed of mindless theocrats.  I’m posting it because I like that her invocation of the Christian cliche, “I’ll pray for you,” is without any ambiguity. There’s going to be a point where upwards of 95% of threats to pray for someone will mean, “I wish I could force you to do X, but I know I can’t (yet), so I’m going to ask god to force you.”  We probably reached that percentage during this election season. 

But really, I want to point out how awesomely bitter this woman is.  She appears to have lost the ability to close her mouth without pursing her lips in a disapproving fashion.  It’s tempting to look at someone like that and think, man, they’re really angry that they’re losing.  And to a large extent, that’s true.  The ugliness has gotten more hideous as election day draws near with Obama still ahead in the polls.  But honestly, I suspect this woman and her fundie brethern will stay bitter even if McCain wins.  And even if he gets Roe overturned and helps make sodomy illegal again. 

It was a big frustration for liberals, how conservatives portrayed themselves as perpetually disempowered even when they had the Supreme Court, the White House, and both houses of Congress.  Conservative media is still about railing against the liberal elite who control everything, presumably through magic and in secret, because they sure as hell don’t control the government.  But I’ve been reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, and Azar Nafisi’s observations about the endless toil of the true believers in Iran to control and scold the population made me realize—-even when the theocrats get a theocracy, they aren’t happy.  The religious police are constantly on guard for subversion, because even though they completely control the country and have made life very hard for people of a secular inclination, they haven’t managed to get complete submission.  And so they can never relax but always have to find ways to torment people because the battle never ends, no matter how powerful you are.  It’s very exhausting.


In this country, our theocrats have to contend with the fact that even when they’re winning, they’re losing.  Eight years of Bush has crippled our economy and mired us in an unwinnable war, but it did not actually do a damn thing to make your kids quit fucking or make everyone convert immediately to fundamentalist Christianity.  Atheists still published books and those books sold.  Homosexuality not only didn’t disappear, it gained more social acceptance.  Women have not en masse abandoned our desires for careers and self-actualization in favor of servitude to men.  Fucking for pleasure instead of procreation remains as wildly popular as it has since they invented effective contraception, which is only slightly more popular than it was when people had to risk it.  Stopping the tide of modernism isn’t going to be as easy as winning an election or even winning every election.  Hollywood has to be toppled.  People have to give up TV.  Widespread literacy gets in the way.  People have tasted secular humanism and don’t want to go back to the Dark Ages, full stop.

I doubt women like this woman even fully grasp the extent of the problem they have before them, which is why they get bitter, because they think it shouldn’t be so fucking difficult and yet nothing they do achieves the intended results. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:37 PM • (95) Comments

“Servitude to men”. 

Jeezuz.

Comment #1: JL  on  10/21  at  07:23 PM

People like this scare the sh*t out of me.  This woman is so unhappy and angry, and the only way she can be made happy is if everyone thinks like she does, has the exact same religion she has, and has a name that is acceptable to her.  Nothing else matters.  Nothing.

Comment #2: aerdrie  on  10/21  at  07:27 PM

WOW!!!!!
Wouldn’t be comfortable with someone named Obama being President of the United States.
And not embarrased to say it.  In front of a camera.  I wonder if she knows that her preference is really because of racism, or does she REALLY believe McCain shares her religious worldview and “background”.

Comment #3: raspberryjamba  on  10/21  at  07:31 PM

“That’s not the Christianity I know”

i.e. it’s black.

I’m sure she’d be one of those people who wouldn’t have wanted their slaves to actually read the bible for themselves, but instead take whatever the slave master said at face value (which would have been great for them cause the bible condones slavery).

And yeah, whenever I’m home and someone says they’ll “pray” for me I go, “I’ll pray for you too, we’ll see who wins” and walk off:). Confuses the hell out of them.

Comment #4: UltraMagnus  on  10/21  at  07:38 PM

The religious police are constantly on guard for subversion, because even though they completely control the country and have made life very hard for people of a secular inclination, they haven’t managed to get complete submission.  And so they can never relax but always have to find ways to torment people because the battle never ends, no matter how powerful you are.

That reminds me of one of my favorite lines in Persepolis, where she’s chastised for running to catch the bus because of the way her behind wiggles, and she snaps back, “Well, then, stop looking at my ass!”

There’s a reason the Taliban closed down schools and forced women into seclusion when they were trying to create their little theocracy.  Keeping people in ignorance is the best way to keep them under control.

Comment #5: Mnemosyne  on  10/21  at  07:41 PM

Well, we know what Christian church Obama has been regularly attending for the past 20 years - along with 3,000+ other members of the congregation.

Please tell me what church Saint John has been regularly attending.

Does he even go to church?

Anybody?

Buehler?

Buehler?

Comment #6: nuQlerOstrich  on  10/21  at  07:43 PM

OK, I’ve let this go for too long, and this is the 3rd time today.

It’s BUELLER. FERRIS BUELLER.

Comment #7: Well, what?  on  10/21  at  07:45 PM

I saw that smirky frown all through my childhood—it’s a big part of the reason I felt an instant loathing for George W. Bush. It’s the smirky frown of absolute certainty that you are going to heaven and everyone who disagrees with you (and even some who are on your side) are going to hell. It comes from the certainty that facts don’t matter because facts can be wrong but God never is.

Comment #8: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  10/21  at  07:48 PM

What church?

Comment #9: nuQlerOstrich  on  10/21  at  07:48 PM

I would bet the husband is an atheist or an agnostic, just humoring his wife because it’s conveniant.

Comment #10: Sirkowski  on  10/21  at  07:55 PM

That’s painful to watch.

Comment #11: ice weasel  on  10/21  at  08:11 PM

Incertus, Nacho Daddy wrote-
I saw that smirky frown all through my childhood—it’s a big part of the reason I felt an instant loathing for George W. Bush. It’s the smirky frown of absolute certainty that you are going to heaven and everyone who disagrees with you (and even some who are on your side) are going to hell. It comes from the certainty that facts don’t matter because facts can be wrong but God never is.

YES.
It just makes me want to punch those types of people in the mouth (this crazy lady included) for all those times that I couldn’t defend my younger self.

There’s a bit of Marguerite Perrin about her… I was expecting her to say “GARGOLLES!!!! STARS!!!”

Comment #12: Danica Lefse Queen  on  10/21  at  08:12 PM

You have to wonder what went wrong in this persons life to make her the way she is. Why is she so angry that she can’t control everyone.

Comment #13: karl  on  10/21  at  08:20 PM

JL, let’s have an argument about historical facts!  That should be fun.  Pop quiz: Did the Southern Baptist Convention make a big show a few years back out of highlighting the Bible verse about how wives are to be subservient to their husbands as a literal truth?  Or does your worldview allow you to deny inconvenient facts drawn directly from reality? 

Anyway, pointless to argue with a wingnut.  Further evidence that they’ve lost the war for hearts and minds—-they have to pretend to have liberal values while arguing for conservative ones.  The imperialist Iraq war is a fight for democracy.  Banning abortion and contraception are supposed to be about “life” and helping women.  Open sexism is just denied instead of celebrated.  That relentless bad faith has to be demoralizing, because again, even if you get people to agree with you, you still lost because you reinforced the overall view that liberal ideas—-anti-imperialism, feminism, etc.—-are right.

Comment #14: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/21  at  08:20 PM

Oh god, that look is EXACTLY what I had as a kid.  And it STILL irritates me, even though I’m (arguably) an adult.

Comment #15: Antigone  on  10/21  at  08:28 PM

If I had to live with that woman, I’d turn to atheism in a heartbeat. But Obama shouldn’t worry about losing her vote; he never had a chance to get it anyhow.

Comment #16: CHV  on  10/21  at  08:28 PM

Funny thing is, no matter who he votes for, he’s going to tell her he voted for McCain, guaranteed, because she’ll make his life a living hell if he doesn’t and Obama wins.

Comment #17: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  10/21  at  08:30 PM

If I had to live with that woman, I’d turn to atheism in a heartbeat. But Obama shouldn’t worry about losing her vote; he never had a chance to get it anyhow.

Considering she’s offended by his “funny name” and parents’ beliefs (regardless of what he himself believes), I’d say that’s a given.

Comment #18: luzzleanne  on  10/21  at  08:35 PM

Amanda, don’t underestimate the value of “I’ll pray for you.” Said in a sincere, slightly patronizing yet gentle tone TO wingnuts, it makes their heads explode. Wingnuts live in a fantasy world where they’re the only ones who really know, and persecution and insults just feed their fantasies about how y’all will be sorry when JESUS comes. The notion that other people see them the same way…well.

Comment #19: mythago  on  10/21  at  08:35 PM

what a maroon.

Comment #20: Taylor  on  10/21  at  08:36 PM

Mythago, I sometimes wish that atheists had a passive aggressive saying that had the impact of the pseudo-pious things Christians say.  “Bless your heart” has become secular through use, and I totally use it, with variations like “Disco Ball bless him.”  It’s a great way to call someone a fool.  But I don’t dispute the impact of “I’ll pray for you.”  It’s a thorough lie, and it still irritates me and I wish I had a similar arrow in my quiver of insults.

Comment #21: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/21  at  08:39 PM

Are the fundies really dense enough to think we don’t understand that their “I’ll pray for you” words really translate to “Fuck you!”?

“Well I guess God was a lot more demonstrative back
When he flamboyantly parted the Sea
Now everybody’s praying
Don’t prey on me”
  - Bad Religion, “Don’t pray on me”

Comment #22: BlackBloc  on  10/21  at  08:45 PM

I sometimes wish that atheists had a passive aggressive saying that had the impact of the pseudo-pious things Christians say.

How about “I hope science finds a cure for you”?

Comment #23: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  10/21  at  09:02 PM

Count me in with those who have run into people with that unhappy, angry, tight-lipped smile, and hate it.  It is always bad news.  Nobody looks like that and likes you, or tolerates you if you disagree with them in any way.

Comment #24: seeker6079  on  10/21  at  09:05 PM

Yes, the remark on “Obama in the White House” referring to his Christian denomination probably is racism in disguise.  But speaking as someone who has fundamentalist relations, I can tell you that even if you are a Christian, if you are the “wrong” type of Christian (Catholic, Episcopal, anything but hardshell Baptist or do not have a personal relationship with Christ) this woman might well have the same reaction to you.

“It’s not the Christianity _I_ know…” 

The acid test for this: If Biden (Catholic) becomes President, would she be o.k. with it?

Comment #25: SLP  on  10/21  at  09:07 PM

I sometimes wish that atheists had a passive aggressive saying that had the impact of the pseudo-pious things Christians say.

I hope you’ll evolve soon!

Comment #26: Quaker in a Basement  on  10/21  at  09:08 PM

Incert, Quaker: Those are openly aggressive.  Well-performed passive aggression looks conciliatory on its surface, but is actually nasty.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/21  at  09:16 PM

Count me in against genteel remonstrances.  What’s wrong with looking people in the eye and saying, “you’re immune to reason, aren’t you?  You’ve made up your mind and you believe that god’s on your side, and so you won’t budge an inch.  Why don’t you have the stones to come out and admit that you’re really not an American as most Americans—- and the rest of the world—understand the term.  You’re not really not a believer in the constitution, really not a believer in freedom.  You’re actually theocrat that wants a christian government.  You just want to pretend that freedom is a good thing to soothe those vestigial parts of your conscience that aren’t tied to your faith.”

The downside of that is some people are beyond shame about this.  I once confronted an ultra-right Canadian Jew about his views, challenging him with, “what you really want is a Jewish Iran, where the rabbis furthest to the right have all the power, no matter how tiny a proportion of the population they may be or represent, and they get to bully and terrorize the crap out of everybody else”.  His response?  “Yes.  So what?  It’s a Jewish state and that’s how it should be.”

Comment #28: seeker6079  on  10/21  at  09:25 PM

BTW, this woman bears a startling resemblance to my kid’s flute teacher, who took an instant shine to my wife and an instant dislike to me, and has treated me with phony politeness and that tight little smile that radiates “I don’t like you but look what a good person I am to not say so” for years now.  So I miiiiiiiiiiiiiiight be a tad biased.

Comment #29: seeker6079  on  10/21  at  09:27 PM

I wonder if the crazy has made her eyes that way or if there’s some sort of inherent connection between having crazy eyes and being crazy.

And that “I’ll pray for you” crap is totally a passive aggressive way of saying:  “You filthy, disgusting sodomite.  Get the fuck away from me!”


Oh, and McCain supposedly goes to Cindy’s church, but that hardly seems possible since they pretty much haven’t lived together for 20 years.

Comment #30: keshmeshi  on  10/21  at  09:29 PM

SLP: “Racism in disguise”? She’s not comfortable having a president called Obama and that’s racism in disguise?

Comment #31: Rebecca  on  10/21  at  09:30 PM

Smugness and ignorance is such a vile combination.

Comment #32: pablo  on  10/21  at  09:32 PM

Oh, and re “I’ll pray for you”:

My preferred response tends to be along the lines of “Don’t bother with me. Pray for your own politicians.”

Comment #33: Rebecca  on  10/21  at  09:32 PM

But I don’t dispute the impact of “I’ll pray for you.” It’s a thorough lie, and it still irritates me and I wish I had a similar arrow in my quiver of insults.

Well, now, if they don’t know you’re an atheist, you can still use it, can’t you?

You also don’t have to be Christian (or pretend to be) to look sorrowful, perhaps with a slight shake of the head, and say “That’s not very Christian of you, Sir/Ma’am.” Or to start quoting Scripture at them. Matthew 5:22 is good, as is Matthew 43:44. Man, they hate that.

Comment #34: mythago  on  10/21  at  09:38 PM

There’s an atheist passive aggressive response to the pious smirkers. Let them say whatever zany-ass thing is on their mind. Pause briefly. Look them right in the eye, in sincere confusion. Reply: “I’ll have think about that.”

Comment #35: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  10/21  at  09:46 PM

People have tasted secular humanism and don’t want to go back to the Dark Ages, full stop.

I’ve been reading Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.  I;ve just passed the Black Death chapter, and one of the ideas that Tuchman keeps driving home is how screwed the 14th century Europeans were.  THe Church said X, and every single other part of their lives said Y.  The ultimate in “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” 

I don’t think that a lot of the Dark Ages people wanted to live in the Dark Ages.

Comment #36: Technocracygirl  on  10/21  at  10:22 PM

I think this lady might be the most hateful person I’ve ever seen. She’s seething more than Fred Phelps. That thing she does with her eyes is wild… It’s like she’s trying to will the reporter to burst into flames.

“What’s the most important issue for you, in this election?”
“The one that has the most faith in the lord.”
“That’s… make or break for you.”
“That should be make and break for everybody. “

True dat. It’s definitely make and break to me.

Comment #37: banisteriopsis  on  10/21  at  10:30 PM

I don’t know what I’d rather do with that smug Palinistic “I don’t need know nuttin cause god’ll tell me” piece of work: smack her smug face silly, or give her a hardcore, closed book Bible quiz and laugh at her and tell her she is going to hell every time she fails to get a question right ... because it is pretty clear that her “Bible-based Christianity” has not likely even taught her the actual contents of the New Testament.

Comment #38: Ms Kate  on  10/21  at  10:34 PM

I wonder if that’s poly cotton she’s wearing?  Does she keep a Kosher kitchen?  Everybody should ...

Comment #39: Ms Kate  on  10/21  at  10:40 PM

I can’t even imagine being married to someone like that.

Comment #40: Andy  on  10/21  at  10:45 PM

Ah now, there’s a woman who’ll tear down her house with her own hands.

I like how her eyes grow wider when she says she doesn’t want a president named Obama in the Whitehouse, and also the way she grimaces when talking about her faith – as if daring the reporter to question it: “Go ahead; rack me for the glory of the Lawd! You know you wanna!”

It’s funny: I have a picture of myself with that exact grimace on my face, taken while I stood with my back to a mountain precipice. I suspect I also do that to people who say things like, “Smile; it isn’t so bad” and to folks – strangers on the bus, usually – who chatter at me about minutia when I’m trying to read. 

I wonder if the crazy has made her eyes that way or if there’s some sort of inherent connection between having crazy eyes and being crazy.

No, there isn’t.

Comment #41: The Devil's Advocate  on  10/21  at  10:46 PM

I, uh, wow. What do Obama’s parents’ beliefs have to do with his? I have no idea what McCain’s parents believed, but if they were both atheists, and he were a devout Christian (like Obama arguably is), she’d be praising him for his wisdom and moral fortitude.

But yeah, I agree, people with unusual names should not be allowed to be president. Woodrow, Millard, and Ulysses, I’m looking at you. Grover, you have the name of a Muppet, for God’s sake. You are a national disgrace.

Comment #42: Lauren O  on  10/21  at  10:51 PM

Lady, I’ll be thinking for you!

Comment #43: Ms Kate  on  10/21  at  11:00 PM

Amanda,

Are you going to allow any sort of dissenting views regarding this or any other thread, specifically the voter fraud thread?  I’m not sure what the founder’s intentions are for this site.  A blog for differing views or an echo chamber?  If the latter then kindly say, so others do not need to waste any of their time.

Comment #44: Cyd  on  10/21  at  11:13 PM

Definitely an echo chamber, Cyd. No need to waste your time here when you could be on Free Republic engaging in hearty, robust debate. Seriously, you can’t get out of this place fast enough. Cheers.

/jamesgblaine

Comment #45: mythago  on  10/21  at  11:25 PM

Cyd, speak intelligently, on topic, provide evidence as needed, keep the racism, sexism, and general bigotry to a minimum, and fire away.

Go off-topic into some semi-coherent rant about Obama being a Marxist and that the fetus is the ultimate expression of humanity, or some such shit, and you can take it elsewhere.

A conversation exclusively amongst the choir is not as interesting as it could be.  But a good (bad) troll can fuck up a thread in minutes…

Comment #46: MikeEss  on  10/21  at  11:27 PM

Behold God’s Glorious Works: He hath made it so this woman can sit, speak & make strange faces.

Comment #47: garyb50  on  10/21  at  11:30 PM

Hey Cyd, go chase this tidy little dogbiscuit: Obama in Hawaii to defend a petition against his birth certificate by some NYC Putz, not to visit his ailing grandmother.

Good boy! Get the biscuit!  Get the Biscuit!

Comment #48: Ms Kate  on  10/21  at  11:49 PM

See, she likes to put on airs that she’s convinced that everything her pastor’s told her is true, but she has doubts.  She pushes them down hard, but they are there, waiting to pop out and tempt her to evil if there were any other options or choices available.

That’s why the theocrats want their totalitarian theocracy.  They can’t afford temptation because they will fall.  If every temptation is illegal and impossible, then they can go about their business without thought…since thought might lead to choices and choices means sin is a possibility.

The correct response to these assholes is to ask why they are so weak in their faith.  Why can’t they avoid temptation?  And if they are so damn sure that they are correct and that the sinful amongst them are going to hell, why do they care if Sodomites get turned into salt again?  They’ll be safe, right?  At the right hand of the Lord?

As for not believing in the possibility of a “President Obama”, the reporter should have called her out on the racism.  LANCE THAT BOIL.  Don’t let them try to pretend it’s something better than that.

She KNOWS he’s black.  He has a funny name that’s not “American”.  He’s not a real Christian.  She KNOWS these things to be true, so make her own them.  Be proud of them.  No matter what the facts are, he’s black so he’s unacceptable.  SAY IT!  OWN IT!

What good is it being unamerican if you don’t even have the courage to spit on the Constitution openly?

Comment #49: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/22  at  12:13 AM

Not some “NYC putz”, but specifically Andy Martin, crusading, raging anti-Semite. Best known for saying “I can understand why the Holocaust happened” in response to being barred from submitting any more lawsuits in New York by, in his view, “Jew bastard judges.”

Comment #50: Chet  on  10/22  at  01:03 AM

She reminds me of the woman I talked to when I ran for judge, and was going door to door trying to get people to sign my nominating petitions.  She asked me, in a very severe tone of voice, “ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?”  I said, “I’m not really very religious.”  (Understatement of the year:  I’m a flaming atheist.)  She reiterated, “ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?  THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD . . . .”  I interrupted her, “Ma’am, maybe I’m not you’re kind of person.” and moved on to the next house.

Comment #51: Frederick  on  10/22  at  01:21 AM

Er, “your,” not “you’re.”  I guess I should use that preview thing.

Comment #52: Frederick  on  10/22  at  01:24 AM

My response to “I’ll pray for you” (which, granted, does not happen that often to me here in secular Australia). I put on my bestest most beamingest smile and say, “oh honey, that’s soooo sweet!” You can substitute any other form of endearment you like for honey (I often use darl or mate if it’s a bloke). It’s in no way offensive, could possibly be read as genuine thanks but leaves much room for doubt in the heads of the prayer.

Comment #53: JC  on  10/22  at  01:55 AM

I actually saw this interview when it first aired, and I felt such a strange mix of emotions toward this woman. Part of me was angry at her and part of me felt sad and embarrassed for her that her patheticness was going to be broadcast far and wide and part of me felt glad that she revealed her true feelings and motivations.

And thank you for reminding me to reread Reading Lolita in Tehran. I had been abroad for more than two years when I first read it, so I don’t think I thought of the parallels much. But in recent years, I have spent a fair amount of time pondering why our fundamentalists seem both ever more extreme and ever more victimized, even as they have their way with the rest of us. I should revisit Nafisi’s insights.

Comment #54: chingona  on  10/22  at  02:06 AM

Amanda, don’t underestimate the value of “I’ll pray for you.” Said in a sincere, slightly patronizing yet gentle tone TO wingnuts, it makes their heads explode. Wingnuts live in a fantasy world where they’re the only ones who really know, and persecution and insults just feed their fantasies about how y’all will be sorry when JESUS comes.

Mythago, I’ll second that. Speaking as an Anglican (Episcopalian if I were in the US), and on the liberal end of the Anglican spectrum, me saying “I’ll pray for you” to some God-botherer drives them up the frakking wall. Not that I do it very often. I have difficulties with my poker face, so there’s always the temptation to burst into giggles when I get a look at their aghast faces.

For a more militant, muscular version of “I’ll pray for you,” remember Natalie Six saying precisely that phrase to Cavil early in Season 4 of BSG? Remember the air of menace she gave those words? Remember what happened to Cavil at the end of the episode? Let’s face it, the people who say “I’ll pray for you” (and not as a shit-disturbing tactic to stun someone whose convinced they have the ONLY hotline to God, and how can YOU pray for THEM, when you’re the sinner and they’re the saint), many of those people would love to pull a Natalie, in their heart of hearts.

Comment #55: Raincitygirl  on  10/22  at  02:44 AM

“I’ll pray for you.”

*Radiant smile*

“You will? That’s adorable.”

Comment #56: Vitameatabaramin  on  10/22  at  03:45 AM

Whoa.  If flounders could talk, they’d look like that.

No, more seriously: a sane person’s face does NOT move like that.

Comment #57: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/22  at  03:53 AM

Obama professes to be a Christian, but I think he’s faking it. At least I hope he is. I am a huge Obama supporter. I caucused for Obama in the convoluted Texas hybrid primary/caucus system, and Obama told me how to do this. I heard radio ads about the Texas Two Step from Obama while Hillary was silent.

But what really turned me toward Obama was his account of his mother’s views on religion. The hand that Rocks the Cradle and all that.

Comment #58: Bacopa  on  10/22  at  03:56 AM

If I had to live with that woman, I’d turn to atheism in a heartbeat.

Pshh!  I’d turn to Jack Daniels.

Comment #59: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/22  at  03:56 AM

As for not believing in the possibility of a “President Obama”, the reporter should have called her out on the racism.  LANCE THAT BOIL.  Don’t let them try to pretend it’s something better than that.

I strongly disagree: the reporter is not there to EDUCATE the interviewee.  She did a fine job of getting the interviewee to reveal her views.

It was nice to see someone who knows how to conduct an interview w/o interjecting herself into the story (in the clip we saw).

Comment #60: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/22  at  04:03 AM

What’s got “cyd’s” panties in a big-ol wingnutty wad?

Comment #61: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/22  at  04:05 AM

Are you going to allow any sort of dissenting views regarding this or any other thread, specifically the voter fraud thread?

Cyd

From my observations at this site, I’d say Amanda Marcotte generally takes a medium open view of dissent. That is, if there were a spectrum of openness toward dissenters at blogs, with total openness to anything, (something I’ve never seen), at 10, and enforced subscription before you could post comments combined with a definite tendency to ban anyone who says anything contrary at 0, then I’d put this blog at about 7.

My reasoning is that there are people commenting here who have a POV quite different from most of the regulars, such as “Dana”, who don’t get banned because they mostly stay on-topic and polite. There have been others recently such as “KLH” who seemed to have no purpose beyond rather rudely attacking everyone. Ms. Marcotte eventually banned “KLH”.

Comment #62: atheist  on  10/22  at  06:52 AM

For many years, my good catholic mother owned an “inspirational” book store here in town.  She specifically did not cater to fundies, but they were a big portion of her client base.  Her answers to the following most vomited bit of wingnut platitudes:

Not-always-well-meaning-customer:  “I’ll pray for you.”
My mom:  “I’d rather you didn’t.”

Not-always-well-meaning-customer:  “Have you been born again?”
My mom:  “I was born once.  It is a scientific impossibility to do it again.”

Not-always-well-meaning-customer:  “Have you been saved?”
My mom:  “Yes.  1997 years ago.”  (Or whatever year it was, count backwards to the crucifixtion).

And my favorite, when some of these same customers found out that mom was selling the bookstore to help take care of her youngest sister, who was dying of AIDS:

Not-always-well-meaning-customer:  “I’ll pray that your sister has learned the error of her ways and finds the lord.”
My mom:  “My sister is closer to god that you’ll ever be.”

Comment #63: kac90b  on  10/22  at  07:57 AM

I usually tell those who say “I will pray for you” that, in exchange, I will sacrifice a small animal, bathe in its’ blood, and dance naked under the full moon on their behalf.  Being one of those overfed, long haired, leaping gnome types, the imagery isn’t too pretty, and they usually get the point.

You never pray for peace
You pray for victory
You never pray for love
You pray for abstinence
Your mind’s stuck in reverse
And life keeps getting worse
You say you pray for blessings
But it works just like a curse
You pray for the godless ones
The ones who will not pray
You pray for a savior
Who will blow them all away
You pray on your Bible
You pray on bended knee
And every time you say a prayer
You prey on me, you prey on me

You pray to God each day
That your son won’t turn out gay
And your daughter won’t bring home
Someone like me

[snip]

Prey, Timbuk3

Comment #64: Sibling Shotgun of Reasoned Discussion  on  10/22  at  08:20 AM

I’d have to disagree with the two lucid comments above in response to mine.  I was on topic, provided links and was respectful, as if speaking in person.  The only semi-snide remark was referring to Godwin’s Law when a commenter immediately made a Nazi reference to my post.  Though that comment never saw the light of day, despite the majority of it being on topic and referenced.  I think most people here do not appreciate the level of screening going on.

BTW, I’m not interested in changing the topic of this thread so we don’t need to continue this any longer.  Let’s see if what happens from here on out.

Comment #65: Cyd  on  10/22  at  08:32 AM

Personally, I like to respond to “I’ll pray for you” with a big smile and a “Thanks! Say hi for me.”

Then watch their minds ratchet. It works best when they have decided to “pray for me” for something like being gay that in their minds disqualifies me from the human race, much less Christianity.

Similarly, I respond to assertions about what God says or the Bible says with “Funny, that’s not what He said to me.” (Or, on a topic I happen to know they are misquoting the Bible on, “Funny, that isn’t in my copy.”)

My very, very favorite is to respond to some stupid assertion of their beliefs like “I believe the Bible is literally true” or “I believe in traditional marriage” with a simple and sincere, “No you don’t.”

A secretary at a previous job didn’t speak to me for a week after I called her on “I believe marriage is about having children.” She shut down about the point that I asked her at what point she thought heterosexual marriages should be forcibly annulled for not producing said children.

Comment #66: Lymis  on  10/22  at  08:57 AM

The problem with a rejoinder like “I know God better than you know God” such as being the first to the punch with “I’ll pray for you” or “That’s not what He said…” is that the wingnut base already has a defense mechanism in place: the Devil/Antichrist. They are firmly of the belief that their interpretation of religion is the correct one, and that anyone claiming to speak for God who does not reflect those views is either actively working for the devil, or is being deceived by the Devil into thinking that they are really working for God. So there wouldn’t be any head-exploding or flustering, they would probably just redouble their efforts to save your soul, particularly if they felt that you were just igornant and not evil.

Comment #67: Mighty Ponygirl  on  10/22  at  09:53 AM

The notion that wingnuts come here for “debate”—-oh my god, that’s some funny stuff, Cyd!  Debate!  Debate? I can barely type wiping tears of laughter from my eyes.  I also like the idea that slavish ass-licking of the wealthy class and evangelical Christians is “dissent”.  Black is white and up is down, you’ll be telling me next.

In order to debate, darling, you have to have basic skills you don’t have: The ability to be persuaded, to be able to think instead of just react with prejudice, and change your opinions based on facts.  I have yet to see a wingnut troll able to do even one of these things.  We let a few hang around because they slink off in shame when they’re had in a pseudo-debate, but they are not thoughtful people and they don’t change their minds.  They just pretend it never happened and come back spouting the same lies.

You’re here to disrupt.  And if you can be on-topic and not racist or sexist or breaking the stick rule, then you can stay.  I suspect that you won’t last long, though.

Comment #68: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/22  at  10:11 AM

Cyd, troll, darling.  I’ve seen Amanda put up with more bullshit “dissent” here than just about anybody else in the blogosphere.  As long as you’re reasonably coherent, she’s pretty patient.  A lot more patient that a lot of us commentators, mouse love her.  She goes places where I would have inserted bunnies and kittens long before.

So, just shut the fuck up and be thankful you’re here.  You might learn something.  But I doubt it.

Comment #69: kac90b  on  10/22  at  10:25 AM

Do I get a cookie for misspelling ignorant?

Comment #70: Mighty Ponygirl  on  10/22  at  10:32 AM

  As for not believing in the possibility of a “President Obama”, the reporter should have called her out on the racism.  LANCE THAT BOIL.  Don’t let them try to pretend it’s something better than that.

I strongly disagree: the reporter is not there to EDUCATE the interviewee.  She did a fine job of getting the interviewee to reveal her views.

It was nice to see someone who knows how to conduct an interview w/o interjecting herself into the story (in the clip we saw).

Sorry, Meme Rejector, but I’m sick of it.  I agree she did a good job interviewing, in that you could see the disbelief in her head, but there should have been follow up questions that made it clear that what this woman wants is about as anti-American as it gets.  She doesn’t have to interject herself into the interview, she just has to ask decent follow-ups.

Just letting the statement “I can’t imagine a President named ‘OBAMA’” hang there…not good enough.  Why not?  What’s wrong with the name “Obama”?  Does she believe it’s a scientific fact that B. Hussein must be genetically Muslim?  Or are the sins of the father visited upon the sons for seven generations?  Is that in the Constitution?  Should it be in the Constitution?


Yes, her head will spin, but I want it out there.  I want to hear that McCain has the racist vote locked up.  I want the racists to just admit it.  Get it out there in the open and stop pretending it’s anything better. 

She doesn’t want to vote for Barack Obama because he’s black.  That’s her RIGHT.  She can vote for McCain b/c she thinks Sarah’s glasses are pretty.  She can cast her vote anyway she wants, and I’ll fight for her right to do so, but when questioned, I’m sick and tired of seeing assholes weasel out of it.

When she sits there self-satisfied touting that her husband ‘knows the right thing to do” and that God wants her to vote for McCain, she should be questioned about whether she believes her religious beliefs should affect everyone or if it’s just her own personal belief.

I understand the reaction of seeing the crazy and wanting to get away, but when she’s being interviewed for her reasons for voting, I’d like to know just how far her authoritarian streak goes.

Comment #71: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/22  at  11:44 AM

Sorry, Meme Rejector, but I’m sick of it.

I’m sick of it too, Caren.  I am no longer tolerant of their intolerance.  I’ve finally realized the general progressive’s attitude of tolerance has helped dig this hole we’re in as a society.

Comment #72: kac90b  on  10/22  at  11:47 AM

uh, wouldn’t you be bitter if you were her?  I mean, just think, she has to look herself in the mirror every morning.  She has to live with the swamp in her brain, caused by a lifetime of ignorance.

I’d be bitter too, were I her.  Obama was not so far off in that comment he got so much flack for.

Comment #73: LL  on  10/22  at  11:58 AM

You ‘ll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle….

Now there’s someone whose life peaked at seventeen. Bet she was a cheerleader. Top of the social heap. Quite the catch. Now…just another miserable drone looking to take it out on someone else.

Comment #74: PanAmerican  on  10/22  at  11:59 AM

Even a theocracy isn’t enough, not because of the unbelievers who persist within it, but because the believers still have doubts and disagreements. There has to be an other to persecute (or pretend you’re being persecuted by) or else the whole thing won’t work.

Comment #75: paul  on  10/22  at  12:14 PM

Caren, we’ll have to disagree here.  I’ve seen far too many, let’s say, Rivera-ian interviews that didn’t lead to anything except the reporter’s aggrandizement.

While this reporter didn’t achieve “Harvest of Shame” levels of transparency (if you’ve never, you should see it, fantastic), she did a pretty good job.  And, as an ex-newsie (shooter, KHQ-TV, KREM-TV, stringer) I’m always aware that we don’t know what got left out in the edit.

Could she have pressed harder? Very likely, but she also might have felt the interview would be terminated (although it’s a rare civilian who can do so gracefully).

I do think it’s important that a reporter strive to elicit views, and not try to convince or argue their own stance.  At a certain point, the kind of questioning you (and most here I suspect, myself included) would have liked to have seen could become rather badgering, at least in the interviewee’s eyes.  (Unless the reporter is really really diplomatic and clever.)

Comment #76: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/22  at  12:22 PM

When someone tells me, “I’ll pray for you,” my response is usually, “Don’t bother.  I’m already going to hell.”

I love watching for that moment when it clicks in their head that I know they’ll be “praying” that I burn in Hell forever. 

Hehehehhe.

Comment #77: Mhorag  on  10/22  at  12:29 PM

“When someone tells me, “I’ll pray for you,” my response is usually, “Don’t bother.  I’m already going to hell.””

I’ve tried similar things in the past and they’ve often backfired because the target decides I’m sending out a secret plea for them to help save my soul.

I haven’t found a surefire method of scraping off the fundies and getting them to leave me alone without making myself a social pariah.  Sometimes that’s okay, but at work it can be a real problem…

Comment #78: MikeEss  on  10/22  at  12:37 PM

AaaaaahH! I give up!! I’ll convert!!! I’ll believe anything you want me to believe if you’ll just stop doing that with your mouth!!!

Comment #79: Quaker in a Basement  on  10/22  at  12:50 PM

For god’s sake, Quaker, AVERT YOUR EYES!

>8^D

Yeah, it’s scary.

Comment #80: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/22  at  01:36 PM

A bit of pedantry, for technocracygirl especially -

Medievalists don’t use the term “Dark Ages.” If bloodshed, war, and violence are a measure of darkness, look no far back than the 20th century—the bloodiest, deadliest century in all of human history. Tuchmann’s rather old hat, and she grossly oversimplified matters.

I’m not saying I’d like to live in 14th-c. Europe, though I’d like to visit the republic of Florence under its radical guild regime of 1378-82 (in which a majority of the city’s working male citizen population had political representation; unfortunately, an oligarchic republican regime followed, then the Medici).

Christian theology got very interesting in the 14th c.—several thinkers (Auriol, Olivi, Wyclif, Autrecourt) tested its limits in ways that deeply disturbed the era’s conservatives. Notions of *a body of people (or of men, at least)* as the foundation of authority developed (e.g., the Conciliar movement against papal monarchy; Marsiglio of Padua’s _Defensor Pacis_; the Florentine guild republics of 1293-5, the 1340s, and 1378-82).

The really crap pre-modern European era is the Reformation and Wars of Religion. You have plagues and famines still. And you have your witch craze, really effective state-sponsored courts of inquisition, the formation of absolute monarchy and the social-control mechanisms of modern states, and real killjoy theocracies like Calvin’s Geneva. Oh, yes, and states used their new powers to marginalize and repress women and “sodomites” as no medieval authority could (or even would) ever dream of doing.

Comment #81: wapsie  on  10/22  at  01:37 PM

SLP wrote: “The acid test for this: If Biden (Catholic) becomes President, would she be o.k. with it? “

It did occur to me that perhaps if Obama spelled his name “O’Bama” this woman would be more comfortable with it, but everybody knows that anyone with an Irish name is Catholic, so probably not.

I also grew up with that look (although not at home, fortunately). I saw it less when I went away to college, even less in grad school, and practically never when I started working in degree-required jobs in higher education. There *could* be a correlation.

Comment #82: Old Meanie  on  10/22  at  01:42 PM

I’ve always been tempted to respond to “I’ll pray for you,” with “Why wait?  Let’s pray now!”—take their hands in a very firm grip—“Blessed Athena, please grant us wisdom…”

But, er, I don’t want to be known as a “devil worshipper”, so I don’t. 

Change the woman ins the video’s hair and she’d pass for one of my SILs, and if you dropped her into one of my family reunions she’d fit right in.  In my experience anybody with that mean little mouth is likely a pissant in pastels, just itching for an Inquisition of their own.  I think that’s why Palin revolts me.

Comment #83: graylor  on  10/22  at  01:59 PM

My favorite response to “I’ll pray for you” is “Whatever you pray to, I don’t want to be brought to its attention!” But that’s definitely not passive-aggressive.

Comment #84: Redshift  on  10/22  at  02:52 PM

I don’t want Jerry Rivers, Eric, but I’m sick of the false equivalencies and the meek acceptance of any “God-based” answer as untouchable.

This reporter did okay.  I want to see more, though.  Maybe it is on the cutting room floor, but I sure wish we could have a real press back.  I can haz 4th estate?

Comment #85: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/22  at  03:04 PM

When someone tells me, “I’ll pray for you,” my response is usually, “Don’t bother.  I’m already going to hell.”

My response is usually something to the effect of, “Honey, I’m already going to hell.  But if I get there first, I’ll make sure to save you a good spot right close to Satan.” said in a sickly sweet tone.

Comment #86: ks  on  10/22  at  03:46 PM

Caren, this interview was from NOW, a news magazine on PBS that is one of the most blatantly left-wing shows on a mainstream station. And this might seem like a distinction without a difference to you, and maybe it is, but maybe she doesn’t think someone named Obama should be president because he seems foreign, not because he’s black. Maybe she’d be okay with President Jefferson but not with President Xiaoping. I don’t know. I thought the reporter did fine. The interviewee appeared frightening and ridiculous. I don’t think she could have looked worse.

Comment #87: chingona  on  10/22  at  03:50 PM

@ Chingona

So? What, somebody with a Chinese name like mine can’t be President someday because it sounds foreign?

That’s just racism again, from a cultural standpoint; ooh look funny non-white names. Can’t possibly be American!

Nobody gives flack about what part of Scandinavia the Olsen Twins’ ancestors came from because they read as White. Same goes for that tool O’Reilly, though it wasn’t so long ago that Irish weren’t White.

No slack for people who think lazily like that woman in the interview, none.

I grew up on Looney Tunes reruns and ate Froot Loops and had Thanksgiving turkey and went trick-or-treating on Halloween, I went to Fourth of July fireworks shows. I’m an American and so are a myriad of others who do not have “normal” names. That’s just racist.

Comment #88: Norvegica  on  10/22  at  04:12 PM

” If bloodshed, war, and violence are a measure of darkness, look no far back than the 20th century—the bloodiest, deadliest century in all of human history.”

And most of those conflicts religion was involved. Yes Communism under Stalin was a religion. The state became god.

Also the 20th century had more people then a hundred past centuries combined. For most of human history the population was just a few hundred million till science improved agricultural methods and medicine expanded the lifespan past 40 and made most offspring survive past the age of three. So per population density the Dark Ages were much worse for Europe then any time in history.

It’s why 30% of a population dying in an accident is more dreadfull when the population is 100,000 then 100,000,000 million. That 100,000,000 replaces the lost members in a blink of an eye in comparison to the 100,000.

Comment #89: tootiredoftheright  on  10/22  at  04:35 PM

Same goes for that tool O’Reilly, though it wasn’t so long ago that Irish weren’t White.

Certainly there must have been SOMEBODY named Bill O’Reilly that can be linked with terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Comment #90: Ms Kate  on  10/22  at  04:48 PM

but maybe she doesn’t think someone named Obama should be president because he seems foreign, not because he’s black

I don’t know why you’re eager to proffer such ridiculous excuses for bigotry, but if you must, at least make them plausible excuses. The idea that people with Chinese or African last names are “foreign” but people with German or Welsh last names are “American” is racist.

Comment #91: mythago  on  10/22  at  07:10 PM

Yes, her head will spin, but I want it out there.  I want to hear that McCain has the racist vote locked up.  I want the racists to just admit it.  Get it out there in the open and stop pretending it’s anything better.

And they are his base now and his only secure voting bloc. Look at what he said in the third debate when called on his supporters’ actions - any sane person, or rather a candidate for any sane party, would have repudiated the mob without even thinking about it. (I blogged about this in detail at City of Ladies.)

I am no longer tolerant of their intolerance.  I’ve finally realized the general progressive’s attitude of tolerance has helped dig this hole we’re in as a society.

Too true. My psycho ex, who since we broke up has gone totally fundie, was complaining today that this supposedly tolerant classroom doesn’t tolerate his Christianity, and I was just fuming and thinking “Dude, we’re fine with your Christianity. We are not fine with your bringing it up at every other question, telling people that their religious views aren’t OK, or criticizing some aspect of their behavior based on your own religion.”

Comment #92: Rebecca  on  10/22  at  08:06 PM

This is because theocracy is expected to bring earthly paradise, or the closest to it attainable. When it inevitably doesn’t, someone has to be blamed. So of course it’s the usual suspects.

As for tolerance, it only helps facilitate conflict resolution if everyone at least accepts the notion. The fundies have been explicitly preaching against it for at least 30 years.

Comment #93: me  on  10/23  at  03:23 AM

Reading Lolita in Tehran is an excellent book and got me interested in reading more classical literature. It’s interesting to compare it with the state of conservatism in our country. Richard Dawkins has compared the Christian Right in America to the Taliban. Which may be a little extreme, but it’s true that they seem to always be whining about how Christians are a minority steadfastly defending their faith in a nation of Godless heathens… Riiiight. As if the majority of people I know aren’t Christian. I think belief in God is definitely the norm, even if it’s not the Christian God. I’d say atheists/agnostics have more reason to complain than Christians who control a good slice of the government.

Comment #94: ArtOfMe  on  10/23  at  09:40 AM

ArtOfMe, that’s because they’ve decided that everyone who doesn’t believe exactly what they do isn’t really Christian.

I had a lovely conversation with a fundamentalist Republican once that went something like this:
Him: Dislike of McCain&Palin;is bias against Christians! Intolerance I tell you!
Me: WTF are you on about, Obama and Biden are both Christian.
Him: If they’re Christians, I’m an astronaut. (his actual line)
Me: So basically, you’re intolerant of anyone whose beliefs differ from your own. How’s the view from out there?

People are bizarre.

Comment #95: Rebecca  on  10/23  at  09:12 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.