Meme F

Mar. 8th, 2012 11:46 am
von_geisterhand: (Default)
The "F-Word" started it because of the "Daily Mail" and/or what it believes feminists find important, [personal profile] miss_s_b then took up the baton and [personal profile] davegodfrey soon followed suit. Who am I to disagree and drop the ball? Particularly as it seems to totally spurious and ridiculous. Mind you, there is a serious subtext somewhere under all the bovine dung. Find it, keep it, spread it. (Subtext and funnier answers can be found at the linked locations).


Can you vajazzle and be a feminist?

Can you what? Excuse me, is this what I think it is? Is Snoop Dogg involved? I never really liked his music, you know, much less what he has done to spelling.
(looks up "vajazzle")
Dear Gods, so it's less Snoop Dogg and more Bling Puzzy. Why would you want to put rhinestones there? What's the point of Swarowski anyway? But yeah, no feminist points deducted for this.
(lose 1d6 SAN, though)

Is it sexist to call a woman "love" or "dear"?
No, but please stop calling anyway. Mom is trying to sleep.

Does Katie Price let women down?
My friend Emma, who knows more about these thing than I ever will, says "No". Apparently, their version of "A whole new world" is quite decent. But I know what you mean: successful woman working in several areas and still finding time to raise and disperse a family. My, such a disappointment.

Should women take their husband's name when they get married?
No. The husband still needs it. Unless of course the woman is very domineering. In that case, he will only be called "Worm" from now on anyway and will not have much need for a name in the near future.

Is Rihanna a feminist icon?
I have no idea. The last popstar-and-supposed-feminist-icon that deeply disappointed me was Kelly Rowland. After that I really stopped caring.
But I mean, yeah, good on Rhianna for leaving her boyfriend after he battered her. Perhaps Whitney Houston would still be alive today if she had taken similar actions.
But please, no more music!

Who should pay the bill on a date?
Whoever can afford it and/or wants to delight the other person. Paying for whatever you ordere should be the default option.

Is stripping an acceptable career choice?
As long as the sight of you disrobing doesn't also strip paint from the walls, yes.
von_geisterhand: Monika küsst Jörg. Sie liebt ihn. (kiss)
Ich glaube nicht, daß ich mich normalerweise zu soetwas äußern würde, aber es gibt ein paar Aspekte/Details, die mich gestern ausreichend aufgeregt haben, daß ich vor der Wahl stand, einen Herzinfarkt oder ein Magengeschwür zu kriegen, oder eben doch etwas zu schreiben. Man möge es mir verzeihen, aber es geht hier dann eben doch um "meinen Bereich" und außerdem bin ich noch voller aufgestauter Wut von einer längeren Lektüre über Neofolk.

Also:
Erstmal das Thema, das andere direkter interessiert:
Das Schlossparktheater Steglitz, landesweit dafür bekannt, daß es unter der Leitung von Herrn Dieter "Didi" "Palimpalim" Hallervorden steht, zeigt seit letzter Woche das Stück "Ich bin nicht Rappaport", welches wohl hauptsächlich von zwei alten Männer auf einer Parkbank handelt, die sicherlich ihr Leben Revue passieren lassen und sich gegenseitig aufmunternde Sachen sagen. Ich wollte schon "The Bucket List" nicht sehen, also interessiert mich das hier auch wenig.
Die Sache ist allerdings daß einer der Männer amerikanischer Jude ist (gespielt von Didi, der gar kein Jude ist) und der andere Afroamerikaner (gespielt von Joachim Bliese, der weder Amerikaner noch Afro ist, und aus diesem Grund schwarz angemalt werden musste.)
You see how this might cause problems.
Und zack!, schon öffneten sich die Tore des elektronischen Zornes und wurden Worte wie "Minstrel Show" gezückt.
Ist das jetzt Rassismus oder was?
Nach meiner Einschätzung *wince* wenn, dann eher im übertragenen Sinne, aber das sehen andere Leute anders und vielleicht ist da noch was im Stück (welches ich nicht kenne, vielleicht ja die), was dazu Anlass gibt, aber letztendlich geht es mir auch überhaupt nicht oder nur periphär darum. Wenn sich jemand von dem Stück beleidigt fühlt, dann ist es sein/ihr gutes Recht, das auch so kundzutun.
IMHO ist die Erwähnung der Minstrel Show hier relativ unangebracht und zeugt von einer sehr eingeschränkten, konservativen Idee von Theater und der Regiearbeit. Roberto Blanco (bzw. wie er in Populärmedien präsentiert wird) steht für mich in der Tradition der Minstrel Show, was alle möglichen Metagedanken zulässt, aber die Austauschbarkeit von Ethnizitäten im Theater bzw. auch ihre Darstellung kann etwas sein, was Theater erst richtig interessant macht.
Othello muss nicht schwarz sein, aber er muss "anders" sein als die Soldaten um ihn herum. Man hat in der Vergangenheit Weiße zu diesem Zwecke schwarz angemalt, man hat auch schonmal einen Schwarzen weiß angemalt und ihn in eine ansonsten komplett schwarze Inszenierung gesteckt, aber was genau das "anders" ausmacht, bleibt der Kreativität der Produktion überlassen. "Romeo und Julia" gab es auch schon mit eingebauter Ethnikthematik, geht auch und das gut. Es gibt Kombinationen, die sich vielleicht nicht anbieten, aber manchmal kommen aus solchen unerwarteten Sachen auch die besten Ergebnisse. Es sollte aber niemand erwarten, daß jemand, der einen Juden auf der Bühne spielt auch unbedingt wirklich Jude ist, außer man ist sehr eingeschränkt in der eigenen Idee davon was Theater kann. Und ja, das heißt auch, daß man einen weißen Schauspieler schwarz anmalen kann, um ihn einen Afroamerikaner spielen zu lassen. Das ist in sich aber nicht rassistisch, außer natürlich die Rolle oder das Stück an sich ist es auch schon. Obwohl es die ganze Sache natürlich noch schlimmer machen kann. Man stelle sich Oliver Pocher schwarz angemalt in "Titus Andronicus" vor.... The horror, the horror.


Soviel dazu.

Wobei man allerdings sagen muss, daß die ganze Sache natürlich die Frage aufwirft "Warum konnte man keinen schwarzen Schauspieler für die Rolle finden?". Denn das ist es ja, was behauptet wurde: Man hätte einfach den besten Schauspieler für die Rolle gewollt und keinen geeigneten gefunden, den man nicht anpinseln musste. Das ist durchaus möglich, aber unwahrscheinlich. Wenn man jetzt bösartig sein wollte, könnte man sagen, daß sich das normale SPT-Publikum wahrscheinlich wirklich über Robert Blanco auf der Bühne gefreut hätte, was auch ganz gut ins restliche Programm des Hauses gepasst hätte. So zynisch wie ich dem Wilmersdorfer/Steglitzer/Dahlemer Rentner-/Spießer-/Bildungsbürgerpublikum gegenüberstehe, so glaube ich trotzdem nicht, daß sie den Vorstellungen fernbleiben würden, nur weil tatsächlich ein echter schwarzer Mann auf der Bühne vor ihnen steht. Es sind zwar die Wilmersdorfer Witwen (bzw. inzwischen wahrscheinlich ihre Töchter), aber soweit reicht es dann doch.
Warum also nicht? Ron Williams müsste doch inzwischen auch alt genug sein.
Es gibt wahrscheinlich keinen Grund außer die direkten Umstände.
Trotzdem interessant, wenn man sich mal anschaut, in was für Rollen "Nichtdeutsche" im Fernsehen immer noch landen müssen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jZiZO6SWahY

(Dieses "Traumhotel" oder wie es heißt sieht ja wirklich aus wie Unterhaltung der späteren 40er. "Sofort, Massa!" *kopfschüttel*)

Liest noch jemand? Ich hab nur noch 2 1/2 weitere Sachen.

1. Das Plakat ist ja man wirklich scheiße. Ich bin sowieso kein großer Fan des Hardcorephotoshoppings, welches das SPT den Leuten auf seinen Plakaten angedeihen lässt, aber ganz ehrlich, ich habe das Plakat jetzt schon eine ganze Weile gesehen und immer gedacht, daß der schwarz bemalte Mann ein geistig verwirrter Obdachloser a la "Fisher King" oder ein Beckett-artiger Freak sein sollte. Eigentlich, wenn man weiß, was es sein soll und sich die weit aufgerissenen Augen so anschaut, so fühlt man sich doch etwas an die Minstrel Show erinnert. Aber das Plakat wird jetzt wohl auch geändert.

2. Das ist jetzt keine spezifische Sache, die mit dem Berliner "Rappaport" zu tun hat, aber die Art, wie auf der Facebookseite des SPT protestiert wird, just fucking pisses me off. Es schmackt für mich von ungeheurem Herdentrieb, wenn es eine erboste Masse nur auf Reposts von "Absetzen" bringt (zumal "Umbesetzen" doch eher das Angebrachte wäre), oder, wenn es hochkommt, auf Links zu anderen Seiten/Videos, die sich teilweise dann auch eher auf amerikaspezifischen Rassismus beziehen. Wenn Du erbost bist, dann mach Dir wenigstens die Mühe, Deinen Zorn auszudrücken bzw. ausuformulieren. (So wie ich hier ;-)

2a. Mein Lieblingspost von den Erbosten war jemand, der/die mit den Worten "Das lässt tief blicken." auf ein Interview linkte, in dem D. Hallrvorden sagt, daß Adolf Hitler mal sein Vorbild war.... als er 6 Jahre alt war, sprich 1941. Und schon bald nicht mehr, aber das kann man ja ausblenden. Moralkeule-Godwin-Fail!

So. Ich habe mich ausgeschüttet und gieße mir einen Tee ein.

Hasi 2

Jan. 5th, 2012 06:20 pm
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Jemand hört mir offenbar zu. Oder hat ähnliche Gedanken. Auf jeden Fall wurde das kürzlich erwähnte Plakat gegen Tiermast mit den "Playboy"-Bunnies in der Zwischenzeit ausführlich kommentiert (mit zusätzlichen "Gefällt mir" von diversen weitere Leuten). Allerdings hätte es mich auch gewundert, wenn dem nicht so gewesen wäre. Schließlich ist ganz in der Nähe eine Plakatwand, die schon solange wie ich die Gegend frequentiere von einer Reizwäschemarke besetzt wird. Und genau solange dauert es auch meist nur wenige Tage bis jemand die Plakate mit Slogans, die sich über den empfundenen Sexismus auslassen, dekoriert. Keine der Parteien macht Anstalten aufzugeben.

Andererseits, wo sonst sind Bilder von Frauen in Reizwäsche so angebracht wie auf Werbeplakaten für letztere? Da stelle ich mir schon eher die Frage, was der ursprüngliche Gedankengang dahinter mit halbnackten Frauen für Tierschutz zu werben, war? Bei PETAs Anti-Pelz-Kampagne stand ja mal eine klare Logik dahinter, aber hier? Ist das nur der Wortwitz mit den Bunnies oder was? Tierschutz und Vegetarismus kann man damit bewerben, daß man an das Mitgefühl der Betrachter appelliert oder darüber, daß sich die Betrachter besser/edler/elitärer fühlen wollen, aber geiler? Soll das so funktionieren, wie wenn man in einem Club einer Frau, die man total heiß findet, anspricht und sie erwähnt, daß sie Vegetarierin ist, worauf man dann natürlich gleich sagt, daß man ja eigentlich auch nur Gemüse isst, aber natürlich nur aus rein fleischlichen Motiven. Soll das so funktionieren? Soll man sich denken: "Hey, wenn ich dieses Jahr keine Hasis esse, kommen die Bunnies dann auch zu mir und möchten sofort mit mir schlafen!"?
Das klappt nicht!
von_geisterhand: Monika küsst Jörg. Sie liebt ihn. (kiss)
For a start, there is a surprisingly sensible take on the BBFC's banning of "The human centipede II" from somebody writing for the *gasp* Daily Torygraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100091490/i-don%E2%80%99t-want-to-watch-human-centipede-ii-but-i-want-the-right-to-watch-it/

It is in essence what I thought when I heard about what happened to "A serbian movie" in the UK. I think I even blogged about it at the time. What Mr. O'Neill misses out on is the fact that this sort of shit has been going on for quite some time and that censors have in fact gone on record stating that there is in their opinion material that the educated classes can cope with sensibly while the low-intelligence proles surely will be driven to acts of violence and insanity. If you know your history, you will know that a bit further back in time, the same point was made along gender lines.
I would still rather live under the diktat of the BBFC than the one of the FSK/BPjM. Let's not even talk about the MPAA. (Well, from a convenience point of view, at least.)
And yes, I do want to see "The human centipede II" and I do want to see "A serbian movie" uncut.


Musicwise, here is my new favourite net-radio station:
http://www.laut.fm/nonpop
Chockablock with "difficult" stuff. I love it! :-)

There was a third link here somewhere but it seems lost. Ah well....
EDIT: Here it is: http://lab.andre-michelle.com/tonematrix

Have a good weekend, people.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
As you may or may not be aware, there was supposed to be an apocalypse at the weekend, or, to be more precise, the Rapture. Now, obviously the whole thing happened a fair bit different to the way it was supposed to pan out or maybe, it just happened somewhere else entirely. Alternatively, there is the very bleak Slayer/Einstürzende Neubauten-option, which suggests that the Rapture did take place and that it was simply a matter of nobody making the grade to be taken up, leaving God(tm) all alone in his attic, playing with the angels and a rifle.

But that's not the issue here.
What I wanted to say was just how much I object to the whole concept of the "Rapture" that was put forward recently and energetically. This isn't even about Jesus or Christianity as such, this is very specifically about the projected scenario.
For a start (and yes, I mean this seriously): We don't need this kind of apocalypse.
The whole "Rapture"-idea has always struck me as the Hollywood/american take on Christianity, all dramatic piles of clothes left behind and hordes of the faithful flying up while the John Williams score swells. Which might be nice for some but just doesn't work for me and quite frankly, just like we did not need to start copying the american way of doing crime shows on TV or doing Christmas, we certainly do not need to copy the american idea of an apocalypse. Not when there is a long, colourful and highly creative history of apocalyptic scenarios in European art. Just think of Bosch and Blake.

More profoundly, what I hate about the whole idea is that it is such a hateful idea. Nobody ran around, handing out leaflets, calling TV stations and informing the world of the fact that paradise is near, that Jesus/God is about to make it all good and that from the 23rd on, you would not have to worry about your diet anymore. It was all doom, gloom and threat of punishment.

In a way, this was just a large-scale-spanking scenario: Either you were certain that you yourself are flawed/sinful/bad and therefore waiting for God to finally come round, tell you what a piece of shit you are and then sentence you to eternal torment, or you thought that you were good, or more specifically, better than everybody else, and therefore waiting for God to come round and sentence everybody else to torment while patting you on the back.
Both versions speak of incredible egotism and a severely disturbed emotional connection to the world around you IMHO.

Of course you may say "But let people believe what they want to." and, you know, on the whole, I do. But spreading this sort of aggressive, threatening material really is something I have very little patience and even less tolerance for.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/parl.htm#Abstaining_from_the_Real_World_5702

Not wanting to appear too acquiescent with a person who strikes me as incredibly disagreeable, I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with something Mrs. Dorries probably did not mean to say.
Let's start with the rather obvious: The intention to only target young women with your scheme speaks of a worldview that is somewhere between antiquated and downright stupid. Certainly, the prospect of having your womb occupied for the better part of the year as well as the discomfort that is bound to ensue in the subsequent birthing proceedings are a powerful incentive for a woman (of any age) to regulate access to her genitals responsibly. On the other hand, there is this recurring feeling/thought I have that suggests that an owner and habitual deployer of semen should handle said organ and fluid in an equally responsible manner. That incidentally goes for men of all creeds.


Dame Joan said that our society is saturated in sex: a typical prime-time hour on TV contains 2.6 references to intercourse, 1.2 references to prostitution and rape, and 4.7 sexual innuendoes.

I love imagining a little very eager Mary-Whitehouse-clone sitting there with a stopwatch and a calculator to come up with these numbers.


Incidentally, while I fully agree that the commercialised sexualisation of women, young girls, paerhaps even people is a worrying and disagreeable trend, I continue to wonder why it's always the "sexual" part that is seen as the problem, and never the "commercialised". And if you feel that there may be too much sex in "society's consciousness", I am not sure if school sex ed. material really is the first thing to cut in order to reduce this amount.

Young people will feel eager to fuck whether they hear about it in school or see it on telly or not. Having genitals and a shitload of hormones will soon make sure of that. It is quite possible and even somewhat likely that having some detailed lessons about the whole topic in school will even make them more interested and/or eager but that difference is bound to be marginal and at least they will be considerably better informed when taking the plunge than members of their age-bracket who grew up in less informative circumstances.

One factor constantly ignored by society is that peer pressure is a key contributor to early sexualised activity among the children of our country. Society is focused on sex. Our sex education teaches children how to have sex, not how to say no to sex.

It just occured to me that I have been cheated most severely. You see, getting my license for driving a car took a long time and involved many, many lessons. Yet, at no point during it was I taught that for some journeys I might be better off walking or riding a bike. God knows why I hardly drive anywhere these days.
Sex Ed should tell you about having sex. Making you secure enough in yourself and your choices and guiding you in making up your mind is something that one would hope is an integral part of the whole school business and hopefully also part of what parents try to instill. Handling peer pressure is a bastard and the average teen will make a fair few "wrong" decisions because of it, but that is a general issue, far from only related to sexual matters.

In our sex education programmes, we need to promote the notion of abstinence and all the advantages that it brings, such as self-respect and not making relationship mistakes.

Abstinence works, you know. It can really keep you safe from getting pregnant and all the STDs you cannot catch from a toilet seat. It will not save you from relationship mistakes, unless of course it is relationships you are abstaining from. As for your self respect, see above. I remain convinced you can fuck somebody very respectfully, just as under certain circumstances not having sex with somebody means disrespecting both yourself and the other person(s).

It [abstinence] has to be taught alongside everything else so that young girls can say, I have been told to say no.

For this is the way to develop self-respect: Blindly following what somebody else said. This may well be to most inane sentence of the whole piece.
von_geisterhand: Monika küsst Jörg. Sie liebt ihn. (kiss)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11846906

This is one of the two current issues regarding censorship floating round my head these days and being insistent enough for me to want to blog about them. The other subject is the fact that "Call of Duty: Black Ops" was "flash-indexed" and may well become illegal to sell in Germany pretty soon* (and is already on difficult legal ground), which might well make mne want to write a longer post on the inanity of the German "moral authorities" and the idiocy that is the § 131 of German law.
However, I do not play a great deal of computer games and am not even certain if I have ever played any "Call of Duty"-game full stop, so maybe I should rather discuss things I know a lot about and feel directly affected by every day. (Even if several of the points that need to be made in terms of films also apply to the discussion of computer games).

Actually, my argument is terribly simple: The version of "A Serbian Film" that will appear on UK screens will be missing 4 minutes and 11 seconds of footage, which probably everybody will agree is a significant portion of a normal-length feature film. Why is this footage missing? Because somebody, who believes that they know better than you what is acceptable to you has decided that this material is unacceptable.
This has nothing to do with protecting the youth, as the film would be rated as (18) uncut as it is now, this is supposedly about keeping the moral and order of the country intact. And that's bullshit. The BBFC does not protect the moral fibre of the country and "A Serbian Film" is as little out to undermine what is right and proper as, say, "The Evil Dead" was 30 years ago. This is simply about the comfort level of the members of the BBFC and about their feeling of superiority.
Is "A serbian film" likely to shock viewers? Well, I consider myself a bit of a connoiseur of extreme films and judging by all I have read about the film, yes, I expect that I will be shocked if I ever get the chance to view the uncut version. But I know that and I expect that and, let's be honest here, I want that. Nobody is standing in front of rollercoasters, either, telling you that you cannot go on there because you might throw up after. You go on the rollercoaster because you want to feel your guts and its contents take a round-trip of your whole body, because it makes you feel exhilerated in a way the merry-go-round simply cannot and if you are sick in the process, that is the risk you take. Or not, if you decide that it looks too much for you. But you make that decision yourself and don't let it be made by somebody whose experiences with food, movement and rollercoasters might well be totally different from yours.

*I do realise that a lot of what I complain about here could easily be countered by "Well, there are ways to circumvent the law and get what you want through other channels.". That may be so, but somehow I feel that "Well, you can always turn to crime" is not a satisfying solution in any supposedly civilised society.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11846906

This is one of the two current issues regarding censorship floating round my head these days and being insistent enough for me to want to blog about them. The other subject is the fact that "Call of Duty: Black Ops" was "flash-indexed" and may well become illegal to sell in Germany pretty soon* (and is already on difficult legal ground), which might well make mne want to write a longer post on the inanity of the German "moral authorities" and the idiocy that is the § 131 of German law.
However, I do not play a great deal of computer games and am not even certain if I have ever played any "Call of Duty"-game full stop, so maybe I should rather discuss things I know a lot about and feel directly affected by every day. (Even if several of the points that need to be made in terms of films also apply to the discussion of computer games).

Actually, my argument is terribly simple: The version of "A Serbian Film" that will appear on UK screens will be missing 4 minutes and 11 seconds of footage, which probably everybody will agree is a significant portion of a normal-length feature film. Why is this footage missing? Because somebody, who believes that they know better than you what is acceptable to you has decided that this material is unacceptable.
This has nothing to do with protecting the youth, as the film would be rated as (18) uncut as it is now, this is supposedly about keeping the moral and order of the country intact. And that's bullshit. The BBFC does not protect the moral fibre of the country and "A Serbian Film" is as little out to undermine what is right and proper as, say, "The Evil Dead" was 30 years ago. This is simply about the comfort level of the members of the BBFC and about their feeling of superiority.
Is "A serbian film" likely to shock viewers? Well, I consider myself a bit of a connoiseur of extreme films and judging by all I have read about the film, yes, I expect that I will be shocked if I ever get the chance to view the uncut version. But I know that and I expect that and, let's be honest here, I want that. Nobody is standing in front of rollercoasters, either, telling you that you cannot go on there because you might throw up after. You go on the rollercoaster because you want to feel your guts and its contents take a round-trip of your whole body, because it makes you feel exhilerated in a way the merry-go-round simply cannot and if you are sick in the process, that is the risk you take. Or not, if you decide that it looks too much for you. But you make that decision yourself and don't let it be made by somebody whose experiences with food, movement and rollercoasters might well be totally different from yours.

*I do realise that a lot of what I complain about here could easily be countered by "Well, there are ways to circumvent the law and get what you want through other channels.". That may be so, but somehow I feel that "Well, you can always turn to crime" is not a satisfying solution in any supposedly civilised society.
von_geisterhand: (misanthropy)
Die Bayern gehen wieder mal ihren eigenen Weg und sorgen dafür, daß die Schulnoten gut bleiben und den Schülern die "Ehrfurcht vor Gott" nicht abhanden kommt.

Weil Kritik an Fundamentalisten ja schon zuviel ist."

Xenu!

Oct. 28th, 2009 11:43 am
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Now, some of you might have seen that special which Martin Bashir did on Scientology and in that case you will also have seen Tommy Davis (You remember the guy constantly hassling the reporter from "Panorama"? Him.) walking out of the interview when questioned by Mr. Bashir about whether or not he believes in the "Xenu"-story, calling it a "disgusting perversion of Scientology beliefs that can be commonly found on the internet" and deeply offensive to him and his beliefs.
Look ye here, if you haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZ23jKZXWA&

Okay, nothing new there. Mr. Davis says something that could be read as "The whole story is ridiculous and no Scientologist truly believes this." without actually saying anything concrete except for "I don't want to talk about this. You even asking is offensive. If you continue, I will leave". And then leaving. Apparently, the only way to truly understand all of this is to undergo Sci courses.
Coming from a suited, fair aggressive man (and you only need a little experience with office politics to spot the trained behavioural patterns and tactics to gain control of the conversation) in a high profile interview, this is bullying, plain and simple. However, the image I constantly keep having is an elderly aunt at a family get-together being asked about her husband molesting and beating the neighbourhood children for decades. I can imagine her trying to avoid the question with as much verbal slipperyness, indignation and fury. before walking out in a huff, suggesting that the only way to truly understand the situation would be to meet her husband in a dark cellar while being naked and tied at the wrists.
So, nothing new there.

Except that things went a little different in an interview Tommy Davis did with KESQ. There may be more in the full video but what I like best is their reporter presenting Tommy with a print-out of the OT III material:


Nathan Baca: Somebody from the Village Voice apparently said the Church of Scientology is about "ridding the body of space alien parasites." And your reaction then and now is what exactly to that claim?

Tommy Davis: You know, here's the thing. There are outrageous claims out there on the internet about what Scientologists believe. These are claims that are forwarded by anti-Scientologists. The best and easiest and most transparent way in which people learn about it is through L. Ron Hubbard's books and lectures.

NB
(pulling out 650 page book of "Technical Notes of Operating Thetans"): Looking at Mr. Hubbard's own works, what seems to be in a sense curious is at least, according to L. Ron Hubbard's own words, and I quote, "the head of the galactic confederation. Seventy-six planets around larger stars visible from here..."

TD: I can stop you. I know what you're talking about. I'm familiar with the material. I think what you're getting at is the confidential scriptures of the Church.
(...)
For you to talk to me, you as somebody who is not a Scientologist to talk to me about what my beliefs are or to ask me to explain any core religious belief, that's an offensive concept. Nobody should ever be asked to do that.

NB: And is that the reasoning for the cease and desist letter for just about everybody who has published these works, the esoteric works. From Sunshine Press to Google, I believe, has also been given a cease and desist letter from Moxon & Kobrin (law firm). That's the reasoning behind it, correct?

TD: Absolutely, I'm not interested in somebody else's version of my religion or somebody else's idea of what my religion is, or something that somebody stole from the Church that is legitimately Church materials and is trying to show it to me for the only intent of knowingly violating my religious beliefs and knowingly violating how it is I see fit to practice my religion.


Full interview including video: http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=9996728

Let's start off easy: "For you to talk to me, you as somebody who is not a Scientologist to talk to me about what my beliefs are or to ask me to explain any core religious belief, that's an offensive concept. Nobody should ever be asked to do that."

You, sir, are mistaken. It is one of the bases of inter-faith communication (and I use that term reservedly) to ask people of a certain faith to explain aspects of it. Just because I'd like to know what a particular buddhist's stance on eating meat is does not mean that I have to shave my head and spend a month in a buddhist monastery. And I believe that asking somebody why exactly they believe that homosexuals/adulterers/jews/the disabled need to be exterminated and requesting quotations from "The Holy Scripture" backing this up are perfectly legitimate.
Obviously Tommy stumbled here, on such an easy hurdle. As an official representative, coming across like a spoiled brat isn't great PR for any organisation.

More interesting, however, is this: "I'm not interested in somebody else's version of my religion or somebody else's idea of what my religion is, or something that somebody stole from the Church that is legitimately Church materials"

You see what he said there? Tommy Davis has just stated that the OT III-materials, that whole Xenu story so lovingly recreated in "South Park", are legitimate Scientology-scriptures used and revered by members of the Organisation. Not some silly slander created by feeble minds crazed by too many Lolcats and sugary drinks, but the real deal written and perfected by L. Ron Hubbard.

Soilent Green ist Menschenfleisch. Sagt es allen weiter!

von_geisterhand: (Default)
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/0,1518,656122,00.html

Hillary Swank zeigt sich dem sechsjährigen Sohn ihres Partners öfters nackt. Und denkt sich nichts dabei. Weil sich kleine Kinder ja bei nackten Menschen auch nichts denken.
Da sagt ein Psychologe "sie sei schließlich nicht die Mutter des Kindes, wer wisse denn schon, wie der Junge sich später sexuell adjustiere?".

o_O Ja, wie, was jetzt? Wird der Junge später schwul oder pervers, weil er in seiner Jugend schon eine nackte Frau sah? Oder eventuell ausgeglichen und will dann keine unterdrückte sexuelle Erregungen schlecht sublimierende Medien konsumieren? Ja, mein Gott, da könnte ja die ganze westliche Welt einstürzen! Was soll nur werden wenn die jungen Männer der Zukunft später nicht "Transformers 4" sehen wollen?

Argh!
von_geisterhand: (Default)
The other day, while doing our weekly shop, I bought for my two children Benjamin and Ofelia, a packet of Haribo Maoam lemon-and-lime confectionery. It was only after I was leaving the checkout that I noticed the appalling illustration on the packaging. This consists of a lemon and lime locked in what appears to be a carnal encounter. the lime, who I assume to be the gentleman in this coupling, has a particularly lurid and distasteful expression on his face.

I demanded to see the shop manager and during a heated exchange my wife became quite distressed and had to sit down in the car park.

I was told to register my complaint with the manufacturer. I'm glad I spotted this before my young children, who are both very sensitive.

My wife and I have always tried to maintain their innocence - and to think our years of careful parenting could have been wrecked by, of all things, a sweet wrapper makes me livid.

I received a reply from the company saying that the wrapper design had been introduced in Germany in 2002 with a view to making the fruit figures 'more modern and lively' to 'better appeal to the consumer.' It said 'at no point was it intended to create sexual images.' It had been shown to a number of children and adults of different age groups, none of whom has made any comments referring to sexual content.

I consider this response to be less than satisfactory. As a member of our local church, I'm now urging other members of our flock to boycott Haribo products until this illustration is removed.

SIMON SIMPKINS
Pontefract, West Yorkshire.


http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/nw.htm#Bitter_and_Bonkers_3952

How terrified do you have to be of sex to see something filthy in cartoon fruit? And think that it will corrupt your children?
von_geisterhand: (Default)
http://adammacqueen.blogspot.com/2009/08/this-person-cannot-really-exist-can-he.html

Letter to the Daily Mail:
"The other day, while doing our weekly shop, I bought for my two children Benjamin and Ofelia, a packet of Haribo Maoam lemon-and-lime confectionery. It was only after I was leaving the checkout that I noticed the appalling illustration on the packaging. This consists of a lemon and lime locked in what appears to be a carnal encounter. the lime, who I assume to be the gentleman in this coupling, has a particularly lurid and distasteful expression on his face.

I demanded to see the shop manager and during a heated exchange my wife became quite distressed and had to sit down in the car park.

I was told to register my complaint with the manufacturer. I'm glad I spotted this before my young children, who are both very sensitive.

My wife and I have always tried to maintain their innocence - and to think our years of careful parenting could have been wrecked by, of all things, a sweet wrapper makes me livid.

I received a reply from the company saying that the wrapper design had been introduced in Germany in 2002 with a view to making the fruit figures 'more modern and lively' to 'better appeal to the consumer.' It said 'at no point was it intended to create sexual images.' It had been shown to a number of children and adults of different age groups, none of whom has made any comments referring to sexual content.

I consider this response to be less than satisfactory. As a member of our local church, I'm now urging other members of our flock to boycott Haribo products until this illustration is removed.

SIMON SIMPKINS
Pontefract, West Yorkshire."


How sexually repressed do you have to be to get aggravated about this?
I will probably entertain myself all through the day by reading out this letter in my "Disgusted from Surrey"-voice. XD
von_geisterhand: (Default)
... where BBC Radio 4 still has the power to offend.

"Christian Concern for our Nation are probably wishing they lived in Ireland right now. In their latest mailshot they urge readers to complain to the BBC about “blasphemy” on Radio 4’s Now Show:

The BBC Radio 4’s Now Show has allowed a blasphemous satirical tirade against the Lord Jesus and the Word of God. We urge you to complain to the BBC (click here) at the offence caused to Christians and the corrupting effect of this kind of behaviour on a vulnerable audience.

They also helpfully provide a pdf transcript of Marcus Brigstock’s tirade, in which he opines uncontroversially that the Bible contains

acts of wanton genocide, infanticide, fratricide, straight murder, rape, pedophilia, enslavement, brutality and frankly, a level of sexism that would make John McCririck go “woo steady, now give the little ladies a break”

(ctd. on http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/07/24/bbcs-satirical-tirade-provokes-christian-complaints/)

Also:


Shake Mr. Brigstocke's hand when you see him, please.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
A GERMAN evangelical pastor has incurred the wrath of Germany’s favourite toy company, Playmobil, by using one of its Klicky figurines to create an Eve with boobs, and by nailing another to a miniature cross.


http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/04/05/biblical-figurines-%E2%80%98breach-copyright%E2%80%99/

Playmobil. It's not just for children:
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Personally, I think that he is simply taking the piss. You can see him run out of material towards the end. If he is serious, however, I am bracing for feminist fury flying. And rightly so.


von_geisterhand: (It is to indifference that I say)
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/03/26/controversial.cartoon/index.html

(CNN) -- Two leading Jewish watchdog groups are denouncing a prominent cartoonist's illustration about Israel's offensive in Gaza, saying it uses anti-Semitic imagery.
The cartoon was published Wednesday in newspapers and on the Internet.

The Anti-Defamation League, which has been fighting anti-Semitism since it was founded in 1913, called the syndicated cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winning Pat Oliphant "hideously anti-Semitic."

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which, among other things, fights anti-Semitism and educates people about the Holocaust, said "the cartoon mimics the venomous anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi and Soviet eras."

Published Wednesday in newspapers and on the Internet, the cartoon shows the small figure of a woman, labeled Gaza, carrying a child. She is being pursued by a headless, jackbooted figure wielding a sword, marching in an apparent goose-step and pushing a fanged Jewish star on a wheel.

The Anti-Defamation League said the cartoon used "Nazi-like imagery" and a "hateful evocation of the Star of David."

Abraham H. Foxman, the ADL's national director, said the cartoon's "outlandish and offensive use of the Star of David in combination with Nazi-like imagery is hideously anti-Semitic."
[...]

magery and rhetoric comparing Israel to Nazis have been deployed by Israel's persistent critics, who decry the Jewish state's treatment of Palestinians as oppressive and brutal. Israel and its supporters defend the state as humane and say it has properly defended itself against attacks.

There has been sharp criticism of Israel's offensive against Hamas militants in Gaza who launched rockets into southern Israeli towns.

Human Rights Watch said Wednesday the Israeli military's firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas during the offensive "was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes," a claim denied by Israel.

von_geisterhand: (Coffee)
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/11/15/blasphemous-poetry-given-ams-go-ahead-91466-22262751/

Mr. Green isn't happy about that.
Mr. Black (South Wales West AM) says that he "of course has every right to object to the contents of this book but he does not have the right to prevent other people reading it or listening to its author read from it". And that Mr. Green isn't invited to the reading anyway.

I wish I had some Green & Black's.
von_geisterhand: (It is to indifference that I say)
Religious freedom does now seem to cover incitement of murder.
Very worrying.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6403.html

Profile

von_geisterhand: (Default)
von_geisterhand

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
45678 910
111213 14151617
181920 21222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 28th, 2017 10:25 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios