Re^3: RFC: Acme::BottomsUp

[radiantmatrix]

Take it from me; among those who honor the name of Jesus, this particular combination of terms is the written equivalent to a slap in the face.

Sigh. See, this is exactly the problem I have with the easily-offended:

1. The post in question never actually uses the name "Jesus"
2. The word "christ" is just anglicized Greek for "annointed one"
3. You've assumed that every person who honors Jesus Christ (that is, every Christian) agrees with you
4. You've assumed that something offensive isn't still funny

I'm not Christian anymore, but still have a great respect for the religion (after all, I used to be an ordained minister) and for the teachings of Christ. I found the phrase "galloping gay christ" to be hilarious.

A quick informal poll among my friends (many of whom are devout Christians) revealed that 80% thought the phrase was funny; of those who thought it wasn't funny, none cited "offensive" as even part of the reason.

This is now horribly off-topic (sorry, folks), but I think it's important to understand that posting "offensive" material -- especially when it's clearly intended to be humorous, doesn't mean the poster has a "lack of respect for others".

[rodion]

Sounds like you're arguing that Dr.Hyde's post should not be read as a causual blasphemy. I don't think that's tenable.

I'm somewhat puzzled that sexual references are used for swearing, but they are used that way. I don't find them offensive, but some do. If no one found them offensive, they wouldn't be much good for swearing, or for humor. Swearing would have to move on to another topic.

The power comes from crossing some boundry of courtesy or a suggestion of crossing that bound, as in "Good Gravy!". Once something offends no one, and doesn't even make a weak reference to saying something offensive, it doesn't make much of a swear.

"Breakfast!, that's hideous!"

doesn't quite do it, except as a parody.