Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is hilarious;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs7Y9iYf_uk


This thing has gone all over the net, because, you know, that's just comedy gold. But the funny thing about it to me is that everywhere this was posted everyone assumed the guy in question is an Evangelical Christian. It doesn't say that anywhere in the video, people just assumed it because he's anti-gay.

That'd maybe be some kind of argument that Evangelical Christians were being unfairly stereotypes as anti-gay buffoons... except all the people who made that assumption were right;
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/general-mills-arsonist-considers.html

It turns out it is fairly sensible to assume an anti-gay bigot is a christian. That gets me to wonder if there should be any concern among Evangelicals, or Christianity as a whole, that people are basically assuming anti-gay = christian. That we shall know them by their box of flaming cheerios.

Because the Christians are just straight up on the losing side of this, in part because they've been forced to retreat by a box of cereal, in part because there are no anti-gay arguments of any substance outside of 'don't like them', and mostly because the numbers are steadily moving against them and that trend is accellerating.

When all this finally shakes itself out of the system, do Christians really want to be known as the guys who tried to hold on to anti-bigotry as long as possible?

Depends on the church. Unity, while big in Christianity, is not big in Christianity. The label Christian is about as diverse as the label Hindu.

But that was awesome. I imagine if General Mills was angry enough they could do something about the guy setting their grass on fire.
I think being on youtube is punishment enough.

xole wrote:Depends on the church. Unity, while big in Christianity, is not big in Christianity. The label Christian is about as diverse as the label Hindu.

Sure, every religion is incredibly diverse. But as much as people can and should think 'this person is an individual therefore I won't assume elements of the stereotype apply to him', the stereotype still exists. The question is whether Christianity should be comfortable that their collective stereotype is having 'anti-gay' attached to it.

But that was awesome. I imagine if General Mills was angry enough they could do something about the guy setting their grass on fire.
I think being on youtube is punishment enough.

You'd think so, but I suspect people who have some kind of notion of shame don't end up that incompetent.

Who's the flamer now?

I was dissapointed his pants didn't catch on fire when he was trying to stomp it out.

AduroT wrote:I was dissapointed his pants didn't catch on fire when he was trying to stomp it out.

His cheeks must have been burning pretty good, though.

Man, Cheerios burn really well!

Gonna have to experiment sometime.

I like how his attempts to put the fire out only caused it to spread.

I like his statement where he says Cheerios is the treat of homosexuals. It put me in mind of an old style cerial commercial where, instead of kids running eagerly to the table to partake in milk sodden goodness, it's a bunch of stereotypical flamboyant gays running up in their silken pj's to the table to enjoy a homosexual treat.

sebster wrote:

xole wrote:Depends on the church. Unity, while big in Christianity, is not big in Christianity. The label Christian is about as diverse as the label Hindu.

Sure, every religion is incredibly diverse. But as much as people can and should think 'this person is an individual therefore I won't assume elements of the stereotype apply to him', the stereotype still exists. The question is whether Christianity should be comfortable that their collective stereotype is having 'anti-gay' attached to it.

But that was awesome. I imagine if General Mills was angry enough they could do something about the guy setting their grass on fire.
I think being on youtube is punishment enough.

You'd think so, but I suspect people who have some kind of notion of shame don't end up that incompetent.

Then it depends who the christians are. I would imagine the anti-gays would be proud, while the pro-gay christians would be unhappy. I was unhappy with it when I identified as a Christian. Some people may not see a "christian" stereotype, as they associate themselves more with a specific church therein.

It still makes me a little sad. There's so much potential in religion being wasted on intolerance.

To be honest, after all is said, this pro gay guy is on the same plane as the cereal burner. What could be surmised of his group?

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=Jg-jzlWcc0E

Those gays, they always liked those honey nuts...

xole wrote:Then it depends who the christians are. I would imagine the anti-gays would be proud, while the pro-gay christians would be unhappy.

Point is all the rest of the world who isn't Christian and what they think of those who are matters, because it affects the ability of Christians to bring people into the faith, and to argue from a position of moral authority.

In this modern age, where branding is everything, it seems we're at a point where the Christian brand, or specifically the Evangelical Christian brand, is so closely tied to the anti-gay thing that when people see anti-gay rhetoric they assume the guy is a Christian. And in at least this case that branding seems to be right.

I'd think that'd be a problem for Christians who don't want to be a ghetto for the ever shrinking bigot demographic.

It still makes me a little sad. There's so much potential in religion being wasted on intolerance.

True.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:To be honest, after all is said, this pro gay guy is on the same plane as the cereal burner. What could be surmised of his group?

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=Jg-jzlWcc0E

Sure. I mean, I'm not saying anti-gay people, or Christians have a monopoly on being stupid donkey-caves. We all know that isn't true.

My point is just that it seems to me a bad move for a whole lot of reasons to have people associating 'hates gays' and christian in their mind.

Wouldn't it be healthier for the religion in the long term to focus on things that are actually good for people?

Is it sad that most are much more anti-Christian than anti-gay simply because how Christians handle themselves in this regard?

I also don't trust the bible, it's been re-written so many times and translated so many times, with lots of the original parts left out that looking at the current state of the church, it's obvious they are missing important parts.

What, Sebster, so you're arguing that Christianity should be about accepting and sharing Jesus Christ's love and tolerance, and helping out other human beings?

Well, that sounds nice, but it doesn't get you in the news...

No open flames near grain silo I understand. I didn't think that applied to a box of Cheerio's. So one's explode and the other a flamer.....great "pinkshirt" just gave arsonist a new toy

Melissia wrote:What, Sebster, so you're arguing that Christianity should be about accepting and sharing Jesus Christ's love and tolerance, and helping out other human beings?

Well, that sounds nice, but it doesn't get you in the news...

Depends on how you do it. Stephen Colbert, of course, does it best.

Colbert decided to go directly to the source. "I would like to read to you what the Jesus said about homosexuality," he declared, breaking out his trusty Bible. "I would like to, but he never said anything about it. Evidently Jesus was so filled with rage that he was speechless."

Heh, that was amusing.

juraigamer wrote:Is it sad that most are much more anti-Christian than anti-gay simply because how Christians handle themselves in this regard?

I also don't trust the bible, it's been re-written so many times and translated so many times, with lots of the original parts left out that looking at the current state of the church, it's obvious they are missing important parts.

Like the part where jesus fought dragons as a toddler(Note, im not joking)
But in all Reality, Im still forced to go to church, and there are still things about protecting marriage there. Even in the middle of the bay area.
But when you get into a sociology and gender politics you can really see why the people who believe the most in gender roles, are anti-gay.

Of course its sensible to assume they are Christians. There is a perfectly logical pathway from devout theistic belief and homophobia and any fair minded observer can see it, you wont get any argument from me. People don't like it when you mention facts they don't like though.

Oh while you are on, don't forget the Muzzas though, I don't like threads like this without my acid-throwing pals in Afghanistan getting a mention. Funny thing they arent too hot for Gays either, as evidenced by the ridiculously absurd fact that the men in charge handed the World Cup to Qatar.

I would point out that at least some anti-gay gak from Christians is merely words 99.9% of the time, If you want to get outraged about this type of illogical brain washing gak, again, I suggest you look at the face burning Taliban, or the numerous British Muslims that are being busted for raping and prostituting little girls, clearly because they view them as less valuable than believers, but again, watch out, people don't like facts if they aren't ridiculously PC.

There was another two on the BBC website today, I actually keep count.

Or the Jews. They aren't much better.

Hang on, what have Cheerios got to do with homosexuality?

They're round, light color, with ahole in....nvm. WHo did the corperation donate to?

I doupt they donated, but ever since oreo did it many are coming out of the woodwork with beliefs from either spectrum.

Any one can win a debate that is not actually happening.

In this vid, we have a guy who is pretty clearly mentally impaired. It's a fair bet that his "accomplices" are taking the piss, setting this guy up to make a funny video. Sort of like "Angry Grandpa" and similar stuff, except Angry Grandpa eventually figures out that his real personality can be amped up into an act. (This guy only has one video at the moment.) So it's a wee bit absurd to look at this guy and say "people who disagree with me clearly have no arguments and are clearly morons" as if this guy stands for every viewpoint that doesn't coincide with yours.

But that's what is presumed -- so much so that OP can ironically pat himself on the back for presuming it in the first place. There is no real debate because the terms are pre-loaded. One side is for "freedom and equality" and the other side are "bigots" before the first word is spoken. The coherency/plausibility of any argument put forward is pre-conditioned by these parameters. The same thing has always been the case; the only difference now is that the tables have turned. This is no triumph for reason and dialogue. This is yet another fundamentalist rant about the eternal battle of good against evil. Fifty years ago, almost everyone was convinced homosexuality was on the side of evil. Nowadays, homosexuality is widely conceived of as being on the side of good. But it's the same old fundamentalist worldview that has no room for anything else but it's own "common sense."

Myself, I don't believe in a universal definition of good and evil. Only what suits me at the time.

Squigsquasher wrote:Only what suits me at the time.

Then you are certainly a man of your time.

Err, Manchu, did you read the OP? I don't see Seb as patting himself on the back...

Not sure if condemning or praising...

In paranoia mode...

I don't buy this video as being genuine. It feels like a skit to me. Plus, the dude is clearly gay himself.

A little research goes a long way. i don't see any real signs of being mentally impaired and this man has made other videos against gays and other things. I don't see anything to suggest this video is other than legitimate.

Come on, setting fire to a box of Cheerios is a bit "special".

And a waste of food.