Posted on 01/26/2002 9:02:00 PM PST by montag813
Did anyone see the disturbing (and quite unfunny) "TV Funhouse" segment on SNL this evening?
They were attempting (one supposes) to insult Pat Robertson, but succeeded only in ridiculing Christians and those who value life and the unborn.
They portrayed a fictional Robertson-sponsored cartoon, in which "embyonic cell" and "Ted Trimester" (1st-trimester fetus) characters were placed in a work environment, as if they were high-powered workers. The characters were unintelligable, yet the other adult characters responded as if those two were geniuses. Also interspersed were a "Mr Parkinson" man seeking to kill the fetuses for their stem cells, who, upon being shown Jesus' image by the the "cell" character, ripped up a homosexual porno magazine (the "Robertson" scharacter asserts that if someone has a disease like Parkinsons it must be because Jesus is punishing them for being gay) and gives up his gun.
The message was clear: it is absurd to suppose that life begins at conception, because it is absurd to suppose that fetuses could function in the workplace. Also the piece asserts that one would have to be an extremist, homophobic Christian to value the unborn or have a problem with harvesting fetuses for stem cells.
Christianity is mocked and absurdly portrayed throughout the piece, which received very few laughs from the audience (do they really expect it to be funny?)
My wife and I were shocked by this, and the more we thought about it, the more disturbed we became.
montag
But we both know that deletions go way beyond that. Many are simply for political bias reasons.
They showed Clinton trying to weasel his way in to the group, Bush, Ford, Carter, Reagan...Clinton was an oversexed buffoon and he was rebuffed by the others as useless. I'm sure they get complaints from both libs and Conservatives. And I remember a certain press dinner meeting not too long ago, with a cetain SNL cast member that everyone was having a love fest over....
That's a funny question, since you have to answer it as well -- how do you know that deletions are restricted just to the areas you say.
Anyhow, I've had posts deleted and I've read some that were later deleted. Usually the posts are there a while until some cultural conservative complains to the moderator that they were offended by non-conservative views.
The logical extention of this reasoning would conclude that anyone not capable of supporting themselves would be deemed unviable. What was that?...Oh, how ignorant of me. You're right. We already are half way down that slope.
What are they supposed to do? Pat Robertson is an idiot. To not make fun of him would be extremely biased in a very bizzare way.
How can you worry about a few posts being deleted when thousands of babies are murdered by abortion doctors every day??????
"TS"
I didn't see this, but this sounds extremely funny. Of course you have to see evangelicals in operation from the outside to appreciate this humor. How many times on FR has a debate occurred about, say, fossil evidence -- only to be met from the young-earthers with scriptural quotes, like that is going to make the fossil evidence go away.
Remember how in the vampire movies they always use the cross as a weapon against the vampire. Well that's how evangelicals of all stripes use scripture -- they think quoting it is going to convince their opponents of the folly of their positions. But it is just laughable. Great for cartoon humor such as this.
Seriously, if you think this is a real problem, I'd be very interested in seeing some proof. When you see a post that you think might be deleted because it is too eloquent in the liberal cause, why not save it? Accumulate a number of examples and you will have evidence of a policy. If you come up with evidence along these lines, please freepmail me with it, I really am interested.
If you actually can accumulate such evidence, I can guarantee quite a few members would be interested. One of the reasons I enjoy this site is that it is very free-wheeling when compared to DU or most others.
The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one claiming that you have seen examples of this kind of violation of FR's own posting policies. I am not saying that it doesn't occur, just that I have never seen it.
Say what? Go re-read my initial post. I said I make the assumption. I've seen enough posts deleted for political reasons. That's good enough to assume the pattern continues.
I agree. That is, or should be, their job. Haven't seen any equally vicious attacks on Muslim beliefs, though. Might not be healthy.
I didn't object to the skit because it attacked my beliefs, I objected because it wasn't funny. I've seen numerous funny things on SNL that made fun of my beliefs. Just not very often recently.
You are the one stating that a violation of posting rules is occurring on a regular basis. I cannot disprove this without having access to all posts that have ever been deleted. You can prove your case by coming up with a relatively few examples, enough to prove a pattern.
To prove my case, I would have to prove a negative, that violations are not occurring, which is essentially impossible. That's why the burden of proof is on you. It's like being asked to prove that I have never committed adultery. I can't do it, even though it is true. Evidence that I have, however, is easy to obtain, if true.
I dunno, I never thought any surgery was funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.