Is "Jesus off my penis" offensive?

[kc8tbe]

In this thread, I contended that the video clip "Keep You Jesus Off My Penis" was offensive. What I said was this:

I didn't think it was all that good. It didn't make me laugh, and I couldn't show it to any theist friends because its horribly offensive. Perhaps just not my style.

What I should have said was:
I didn't personally find it funny. I didn't personally find it offensive. I can't show it to my deeply religious theist friends because they (not I) would find it offensive. As such, I don't rate the video very highly.

I went on to give reasons a deeply religious theist might find the clip offensive:
1. Objectively, man with bare chest and midriff + religious iconography + singing about "Jesus" and "Penis" = blasphemous if you are a fundie Christian.
2. Objectively, some fundies don't like to hear the word "penis" in any context.
3. Subjectively, it should be obvious that most fundies will find this offensive.

I also mentioned something called the "Grandmother test", which is a term I coined to mean "If your grandmother would find it offensive, think twice before showing it to someone else who might find it offensive." As a number of posters pointed out, this is a subjective test.
Well, yes. The Grandmother test is a subjective test. What is offensive to someone is largely a subjective topic. Although it isn't logically rigorous, it helps to apply some common sense and empathy when deciding whether or not a person or class of persons will find something offensive.

It's also been pointed out that the clip is satire, and satire offends by design. Yes, satire is supposed to be offensive. It's supposed to poke fun. But there needs to be a balance. If a satire is too offensive, the people who need to hear its message most will be "turned off" to it. I think this is that kind of satire. I think that if the author of the video really wanted to change the minds of fundie Christians, he would make the video more palatable to them.

Post away.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Fundie godtards are offended by just about everything under the sun that moves, and most the things that don't. For that matter, calling them "fundie godtards" is quite offensive to them. Though they don't refrain from such odious pap as "Homosexuality is a choice! All fags choose to go to Hell!!!111" And "This is one nation under GOD!!!111" and "Jesus loves you! Even if you hate him and you're going to hell."

And, frankly, the piece sounds like it was intentionally produced to be blasphemous to fundie godtards, and seems to accomplish that quite well. And not all satire is aimed at those which it pokes fun at. Those who get that it's meant to make fun will be the sort of people who would be likely to produce it to begin with. Those who might have food for thought because of it will be those who are fence-sitters. Those whom are satirized, on the other hand, probably won't get it, and probably won't be at all amused.

Of course, the best way to change the mind of a fundie Bible-thumping whackaloon is to take proactive measures to ensure that a person never becomes one to begin with.

[General Zod]

I also mentioned something called the "Grandmother test", which is a term I coined to mean "If your grandmother would find it offensive, think twice before showing it to someone else who might find it offensive." As a number of posters pointed out, this is a subjective test.
Well, yes. The Grandmother test is a subjective test. What is offensive to someone is largely a subjective topic. Although it isn't logically rigorous, it helps to apply some common sense and empathy when deciding whether or not a person or class of persons will find something offensive.

If you can't come up with a test that's comprehensive to include as many people as objectively as possible, then frankly it's worthless for determining whether or not someone might be offended by it. Common sense dictates that if you personally think someone might be offended by it, and you don't want them to be offended, then you don't show them. There is no way of coming up with criteria that can fit the vast majority of Americans or people in general for that matter.

It's also been pointed out that the clip is satire, and satire offends by design. Yes, satire is supposed to be offensive. It's supposed to poke fun. But there needs to be a balance. If a satire is too offensive, the people who need to hear its message most will be "turned off" to it. I think this is that kind of satire. I think that if the author of the video really wanted to change the minds of fundie Christians, he would make the video more palatable to them.

If they're being 'turned off', then frankly they're the type of person that most needs to pay attention to it. Typically the whole point of satire is to make you think about what it's poking fun of and grab your attention in a way that's designed to be provocative.

[Pezzoni]

Getting offended over religion is a farcical idea to begin with - you wouldn't get offended if someone made a derogitory comment about your favorite political party: you might not like or agree with the comment, but 'that offends me, never say it again' would be way over the top.

The video wouldn't pass the 'grandmother test' due to the genitallia referances - that being more due to the fact that I'd feel uncomfortable showing it to her, rather than the fact that she would be offended. From a purely religious aspect however, I really don't see a problem.

[CaptJodan]

It's supposed to poke fun. But there needs to be a balance. If a satire is too offensive, the people who need to hear its message most will be "turned off" to it. I think this is that kind of satire. I think that if the author of the video really wanted to change the minds of fundie Christians, he would make the video more palatable to them.

Post away.

Oh good, let's regulate satire. Surely no harm could come from that.

There are several shows on Comedy Central which run damn near exclusively on racial or sexual orientation jokes. Some of these shows go pretty damn far for the satire. Yet those that have live audiences are filled with the very people these shows are making fun of.

Fundies are a special group because they seem incapable of laughing at their own religon, or looking at it from other perspectives and seeing the truth behind some of the retoric. A hispanic, black, asian, or white guy may be able to laugh at some of the absurdities of their cultures, but a fundie can't do the same when someone points out the stupidity of their own arguments.

[Darth Wong]

I went on to give reasons a deeply religious theist might find the clip offensive ...

I don't give a flying fuck whether a Bible-thumper finds it offensive. Unless he can show that it's either hatemongering (which it isn't), pedophilia (which it isn't), or some other violation of my terms of service, it's not offensive enough to warrant censoring it from this forum.

I also mentioned something called the "Grandmother test", which is a term I coined to mean "If your grandmother would find it offensive, think twice before showing it to someone else who might find it offensive."

I don't give a flying fuck whether your grandmother finds it offensive. Your grandmother probably finds half the things that come out of my mouth offensive.

It's also been pointed out that the clip is satire, and satire offends by design. Yes, satire is supposed to be offensive. It's supposed to poke fun. But there needs to be a balance.

No, there doesn't.

[NecronLord]

Of course it's offensive, that's doubtless half the point. So what?

[CarsonPalmer]

I don't think he's trying to argue that it should be censored from the forum, he's saying its useless as satire because it would offend those its trying to reach so much that they won't listen to it. Animal Farm would not have been effective had it been this over the top, and had offended all communists so much they wouldn't read it.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't think he's trying to argue that it should be censored from the forum, he's saying its useless as satire because it would offend those its trying to reach so much that they won't listen to it. Animal Farm would not have been effective had it been this over the top, and had offended all communists so much they wouldn't read it.

A novel by George Orwell is a little bit different than a humorous satirical video clip in format and delivery, don't you think?

[CarsonPalmer]

I was just trying to get inside KCT8E's state of mind. It doesn't have to be a highminded satire, and can just be a crude joke.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think he's trying to argue that it should be censored from the forum, he's saying its useless as satire because it would offend those its trying to reach so much that they won't listen to it.

The kind of Christian who thinks that your sex life is his business is beyond reaching anyway. I see no reason to self-censor one's mockery of his idiocy in some vain attempt to curry favour.

[CarsonPalmer]

You missed my second post, I think, where I basically agreed with you. It doesn't have to be designed to convince someone.

[kc8tbe]

To respond to a lot of posts at once...

I'm not advocating that the clip be censored from the forum or that satire be regulated. It's lightyears away from that. Goodness, with his typical choice of vocabulary, we'd have to censor Darth Wong from the forum too.

I'm not exactly saying this is bad satire. I'm saying this is bad satire only if the objective of the satire is to actually reach some fundie Christians. If the satire is exclusively for the enjoyment of the rest of mankind (and I'm pretty sure it is), then there's nothing wrong with it. Hell, I watch and enjoy South Park regularly, and a lot of their satire is "over the top."

The grandmother test is not supposed to be anything more than common sense. We humans are very good at deceiving ourselves. If I wanted to show the video to a fundie friend, then I might try to convince myself that he wouldn't be offended by it; even though I rationally know that he probably would be offended by it. It's times like these when a known reference that is removed from the situation, such as one's grandmother, can help. And obviously, yes, everyone's grandmother will differ somewhat on what they find offensive. But most grandmothers will agree that a certain core set of things is offensive, making the test somewhat useful as a standard.

Is it possible to be offended by something other than religion? I think so. If someone accuses my favorite politician of lying when he knows that it isn't so, I find that offensive. When a software company tries to patent an open source technology claiming that they invented it, I get offended. Is it possible to say something bad about a religion but not offend that religion's followers? Sure. Tell a Buddhist that it's easier to get enough protein if you eat meat. Tell a Jew that chickens don't give milk, so there's really no reason not to mix chicken meat with dairy products.

[Zadius]

The grandmother test is not supposed to be anything more than common sense.

That's so fucking stupid.

My grandmother is offended by the fact that I'm an atheist, but then... she's also offended by boys kissing each other. "Common sense" my fucking ass.

Critising religion may be offensive to some people, but it's not wrong.

[CaptJodan]

The grandmother test is not supposed to be anything more than common sense.

That's so fucking stupid.

My grandmother is offended by the fact that I'm an atheist, but then... she's also offended by boys kissing each other. "Common sense" my fucking ass.

Critising religion may be offensive to some people, but it's not wrong.

To take this a step further, my grandmother is offened by the existence of black, indian, or asian people. A similiar effect to my grandfather's opinions on the other side of my family.

It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it moral. And when my grandmother or grandfather makes a racial slur in front of me, I point it out to them (after all, they are fundie Christians as well, and it's not like you can't use their good book against them in that area).

Pointing out religious stupidity...specifically religion's need to place it's beliefs into our laws, is no different.

What you are arguing, however, is that the method won't change their minds. Who the fuck cares? We kind of knew that already. If you go at them with logic and a civilized conversation, you stand little to no better chance of changing their minds.

[kc8tbe]

My grandmother is offended by the fact that I'm an atheist, but then... she's also offended by boys kissing each other. "Common sense" my fucking ass.

Critising religion may be offensive to some people, but it's not wrong.

Do fundies find atheism offensive? Typically, yes.
Do fundies find boys kissing offensive? Yes.
So far, the grandmother test works.

And I never meant to imply that criticizing religion is wrong or that offending people is wrong. It's just that offending someone isn't always the best way to offer criticism.

[rhoenix]

Do fundies find atheism offensive? Typically, yes.
Do fundies find boys kissing offensive? Yes.
So far, the grandmother test works.

It also creates a highly subjective appeal to authority. My grandmother would find different things offensive than your grandmother would. For your "does my grandmother find this offensive" litmus test to have any practical validity whatsoever, all grandmothers in the entire world must hold the same opinion. I can assure you, they do not.

And I never meant to imply that criticizing religion is wrong or that offending people is wrong. It's just that offending someone isn't always the best way to offer criticism.

Not to insult you or the people you know, but that sounded very similar to remarks I heard from Muslims over the Denmark cartoons.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not exactly saying this is bad satire. I'm saying this is bad satire only if the objective of the satire is to actually reach some fundie Christians. If the satire is exclusively for the enjoyment of the rest of mankind (and I'm pretty sure it is), then there's nothing wrong with it.

So you're backpedaling away from your "there needs to be a balance" and "this is that kind of satire" (referring to offensive satire) comments?

The grandmother test is not supposed to be anything more than common sense.

If common sense were valuable, it wouldn't be common. Einstein had a most uncommon sense, and that's what we need more of in society.

We humans are very good at deceiving ourselves. If I wanted to show the video to a fundie friend, then I might try to convince myself that he wouldn't be offended by it; even though I rationally know that he probably would be offended by it.

OK, this shit is getting tiresome: WHY THE FUCK SHOULD IT BE JUDGED BY WHETHER FUNDIE ASSHOLES LIKE IT?

[Zero]

DW, I agree with the main point of your post. We shouldn't give a shit about what fundies consider offensive. However...

If common sense were valuable, it wouldn't be common.

How does that work? Evolution should have hardwired us apes into having enough sense to cope with the real world. Shouldn't common sense be part of what's hardwired into us to deal with common situations? The situation in which one of us social apes must determine if something is offensive to other social apes is a fairly common situation.

That doesn't mean common sense is rational, I just don't get why you seem to be implying that common sense isn't valuable or useful.

[kc8tbe]

It also creates a highly subjective appeal to authority. My grandmother would find different things offensive than your grandmother would. For your "does my grandmother find this offensive" litmus test to have any practical validity whatsoever, all grandmothers in the entire world must hold the same opinion. I can assure you, they do not.

As I've already mentioned in the previous post, all grandmothers don't agree on what is offensive and the test is not an "appeal to authority." It's a "common sense" test. Since most grandmothers find a core set of themes offensive, I can be fairly certain that your grandma doesn't find apple pies to be at all offensive.

I don't know for sure that your grandma finds the movie "American Pie" offensive, but I would at least feel uncomfortable showing it to her. And, unsurprisingly, a good many fundamentalist Christians also find "American Pie" to be offensive! Due to variability in grandmas, the grandma test sometimes gives false positives (like grandmas who find Asians offensive), but it rarely gives false negatives.

A completely objective test for offensiveness that can be applied as easily and quickly as the grandma test would be preferable. If you know of one, please share it with me.

So you're backpedaling away from your "there needs to be a balance" and "this is that kind of satire" (referring to offensive satire) comments?

Perhaps a bit. I think satire basically has three purposes.
1. To make the subject of the satire think about what he is doing.
2. To make others think about what the subject of the satire is doing.
3. To entertain.

Typically, satire should aim for a "balance" between these three purposes. Not all satire fulfills all three purposes, and not all satire aims to. "Keep Your Jesus of my Penis" was probably only going for (2) and (3).

Satire is allowed to be offensive because being offensive is necessary to achieving any of the three purposes. Of course, if the satire is too offensive then you lose (1). That's OK. Sometimes you just want (2) or (3).

Personally, I didn't find that the video did (2) or (3) for me. Obviously most people on the forum feel the opposite way. That's fine; we all have different tastes. That's why we don't censor or limit artwork based on what a single person likes or dislikes. And we can agree that the video doesn't do (1). So look at the video from my perspective: It's a video that offends a group of people, isn't funny, and doesn't make me think about the big issues. Basically, a dumb offensive video.

We've all seen pictures of Dubya compared to a monkey. The pictures are funny because Dubya actually looks (and often acts) a lot like a monkey. But what would we think of pictures of Dubya compared to a giraffe? Some people would find this funny, but a lot of people wouldn't. And to the people that don't find it funny, it would just be dumb picture of Dubya and a giraffe. And that would be offensive to the giraffe.

If common sense were valuable, it wouldn't be common. Einstein had a most uncommon sense, and that's what we need more of in society.

Kidneys are common. And they're extremely valuable if yours happen to need replacing.

Common sense is checking to see if the computer is plugged in before you remove the memory and test it for defects. There are a suprising number of people who don't do this.

Sometimes common sense demands rejecting what is actually a good idea out of hand. Common sense, gut feeling, intuition, etc., can be valuable clues, but only a fool bases an important decision entirely on common sense.

Uncommon sense is great for uncommon things like discovering the theory of relativity. But uncommon sense doesn't always help you do common things. A lot of autistic people lack common sense. Some of them make great discoveries by thinking differently from everyone else. Most need help because they are unable to perform day-to-day tasks.

I agree that we need more people who are willing to go beyond common sense, think critically, remain open minded, make uncommon discoveries, etc. But that's no reason to think that common sense isn't valuable.

OK, this shit is getting tiresome: WHY THE FUCK SHOULD IT BE JUDGED BY WHETHER FUNDIE ASSHOLES LIKE IT?

You know, fundies are people too. And not all of them are assholes.

Offending a person or group of people (not just fundies) isn't something to strive for. If you wake up in the morning and think "How can I offend group X" then you are an asshole. Often, offending someone is a negative side effect of an otherwise positive piece of artwork. Offensiveness is a detractor, but it is not the sole basis of judgement.

[Superman]

kc8tbe, just a quick observation here...

You're really deciding on what you can and cannot say or do based from the standards of other people. It offends your friend, or it offends your grandmother... Ok, so what? You validate yourself, your likes, your feelings, etc., by what your friends and grandmother thinks?

I'm just curious as to why you feel the need to live your life according to what other people believe, find offensive, etc. If you want to live this way, might I suggest actually becoming a fundie? You will fit right in.

[Lord of the Abyss]

How does that work? Evolution should have hardwired us apes into having enough sense to cope with the real world. Shouldn't common sense be part of what's hardwired into us to deal with common situations?

First, evolution changes far more slowly than society; instincts evolved to deal with a stone age tribe don't work very well with a modern culture. In general, evolution doesn't create ideal solutions that conform to objective reality; it evolves kludges that work just good enough, in the circumstances they arose in.

How often do you get the urge to punch someone or worse, in situation where it's counterproductive ? Bashing everyone who irritates you might work well in a primitive tribe, but it's a quick route to jail in the modern world - but our instincts don't know that or care.

Second, evolution selects for what promotes the genes; not what's good for you or society, and certainly not what's moral or scientifically accurate. Evolution is not your friend.

[General Zod]

As I've already mentioned in the previous post, all grandmothers don't agree on what is offensive and the test is not an "appeal to authority." It's a "common sense" test. Since most grandmothers find a core set of themes offensive, I can be fairly certain that your grandma doesn't find apple pies to be at all offensive.

Common sense dictates that not all people will be offended by the same things. So your "test" is hardly based in any kind of common sense whatsoever.

I don't know for sure that your grandma finds the movie "American Pie" offensive, but I would at least feel uncomfortable showing it to her. And, unsurprisingly, a good many fundamentalist Christians also find "American Pie" to be offensive! Due to variability in grandmas, the grandma test sometimes gives false positives (like grandmas who find Asians offensive), but it rarely gives false negatives.

Bullshit. My Aunt is one of the most religiously fundamental people in my family, and she had a blast watching American Pie. Strike 2.

A completely objective test for offensiveness that can be applied as easily and quickly as the grandma test would be preferable. If you know of one, please share it with me.

Why should we bother coming up with one when it's not even fucking necessary in the first place? You'll always find something that someone will be offended by, even if 99% of the population isn't.

Typically, satire should aim for a "balance" between these three purposes. Not all satire fulfills all three purposes, and not all satire aims to. "Keep Your Jesus of my Penis" was probably only going for (2) and (3).

Why the fuck does there have to be any type of balance whatsoever in a satire, you gibbering dimwit?

Satire is allowed to be offensive because being offensive is necessary to achieving any of the three purposes. Of course, if the satire is too offensive then you lose (1). That's OK. Sometimes you just want (2) or (3).

Why the fuck should something have to be "allowed" to be offensive? Or does the freedom of speach mean nothing to you?

We've all seen pictures of Dubya compared to a monkey. The pictures are funny because Dubya actually looks (and often acts) a lot like a monkey. But what would we think of pictures of Dubya compared to a giraffe? Some people would find this funny, but a lot of people wouldn't. And to the people that don't find it funny, it would just be dumb picture of Dubya and a giraffe. And that would be offensive to the giraffe.

Do you have a point or are you just babbling here?

Sometimes common sense demands rejecting what is actually a good idea out of hand. Common sense, gut feeling, intuition, etc., can be valuable clues, but only a fool bases an important decision entirely on common sense.

Funny, that's what you seem to be doing with what you consider offensive.

You know, fundies are people too. And not all of them are assholes.

As long as you at least believe similarly to them. Fuck forbid you believe the wrong thing or you don't believe in anything at all. Most of them will say flat out that you're going to hell and then almost immediately begin condescendingly asking you to change your ways.

Offending a person or group of people (not just fundies) isn't something to strive for. If you wake up in the morning and think "How can I offend group X" then you are an asshole. Often, offending someone is a negative side effect of an otherwise positive piece of artwork. Offensiveness is a detractor, but it is not the sole basis of judgement.

If a particular group is doing something that's genuinely stupid, why the fuck shouldn't I try offending them when the chance comes up for their stupidity?

[Darth Wong]

A completely objective test for offensiveness ...

Thank you for proving that you're an idiot. Do you even realize how fucking stupid that idea is?

Perhaps a bit. I think satire basically has three purposes.
1. To make the subject of the satire think about what he is doing.
2. To make others think about what the subject of the satire is doing.
3. To entertain.

Wrong. The objective of any particular piece of satire is whatever its author wants it to be. YOU are not in any position to dictate to people what their satire should be attempting to accomplish.

Common sense is checking to see if the computer is plugged in before you remove the memory and test it for defects. There are a suprising number of people who don't do this.

If it's not instinctive to do it, then it's not really common sense. Common sense is gut instinct, and it is only useful when dealing with situations that you've dealt with many times before. It is not useful when encountering something new.

Uncommon sense is great for uncommon things like discovering the theory of relativity. But uncommon sense doesn't always help you do common things.

Who gives a fuck? The point is that you can't dictate what is and isn't good for people to do by "common sense", which is what you're doing in this case.

You know, fundies are people too. And not all of them are assholes.

Wrong. All fundies are assholes. It just takes the right situation to trigger their assholery, like saying "I'm gay" or "I'm a Muslim and I'd like to marry your daughter".

Offending a person or group of people (not just fundies) isn't something to strive for. If you wake up in the morning and think "How can I offend group X" then you are an asshole.

Bullshit. If I kiss my (white) wife in front of a white supremacist, I will offend him. If I do so knowing that this offends him, does that make me an asshole? It does according to your imbecile logic.

[CaptJodan]

As I've already mentioned in the previous post, all grandmothers don't agree on what is offensive and the test is not an "appeal to authority." It's a "common sense" test. Since most grandmothers find a core set of themes offensive, I can be fairly certain that your grandma doesn't find apple pies to be at all offensive.

I don't know for sure that your grandma finds the movie "American Pie" offensive, but I would at least feel uncomfortable showing it to her. And, unsurprisingly, a good many fundamentalist Christians also find "American Pie" to be offensive! Due to variability in grandmas, the grandma test sometimes gives false positives (like grandmas who find Asians offensive), but it rarely gives false negatives.

The race issue still applies and isn't as rare as you think it is. Go to the deep south or even small town midwest and find yourself a few retirement homes. There are plenty of "grandmothers" who grew up in in the 30s, 40s, and 50s who would have unfond opinions of particularly black (or perhaps on the black side, particularly white) people. Your SUBJECTIVE test is just that, and you can always find a grandmother who will find nothing offensive (there are liberal grandmothers out there too who would find this joke funny, and a fundie offensive.) It's an idiotic test with no true baseline.

What you're suggesting is that we ask a fundie grandmother whether it's offensive.

Perhaps a bit. I think satire basically has three purposes.
1. To make the subject of the satire think about what he is doing.
2. To make others think about what the subject of the satire is doing.
3. To entertain.

This whole topic has been you trying to suggest that the author clearly wanted to sway a whole shitload of people over to his side of thinking. Did it ever occur to you that he may not give a fuck what people like your friends actually think? Perhaps he was making this in response to being harassed by a large portion of fundies who thought he was offensive by the way he lives his life. He doesn't have to fit into your little box of what you think satire should be.

You know, fundies are people too. And not all of them are assholes.

Blatenetly untrue, as DW already pointed out. There are certain critiera for being a religious fundie, be it Muslim, Christian or whatever. These tend to be certain negative traits which infringe on the rights of other people.

Offending a person or group of people (not just fundies) isn't something to strive for. If you wake up in the morning and think "How can I offend group X" then you are an asshole.

You mentioned you watched South Park (under a sentence that it's fine if it's for the enjoyment of the rest of mankind). You don't think Matt and Trey don't wake up every morning thinking just that? That's their bread and butter. It's what their show thrives on.