Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›7 »

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Some of the purpose of this thread is just to have a good laugh at the e-mails themselves, though.

Man, there are some awesome Mormon ones that I saw in a blog awhile back. I'll have to try and find them.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2009 21:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:20

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

ReverendFaux posted:

> If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have
> approved?

Didn't GWB grow the national debt by a huge margin, without a proposal? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2009 15:26

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

I have no idea how someone could afford an expensive Ivy League education without being rich. I've heard these rumors about Che Guevara and his guerillas offering things called "student loans" and "scholarships" but I dismissed them as leftist agitprop.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2009 15:13

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Bozz posted:

He works at a nut factory

So that's where these e-mails are coming from.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2009 16:44

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Good thing there were no payroll taxes before Obama took office. Them sure was the good ol' days.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2009 16:50

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Diogines posted:

Wow, that�s just some Old Style racism right here. I think that stamp is pretty neat. Why did you bother even responding to this idiot? It is clear that Harvey is racist and based on his own emails, a moron.

I'm amazed that a stamp which has been around since before Obama was a Senator is now being linked to him. What kind of idiot thinks stamps cost $0.42 at any point during this administration? :confused:

# ¿ Oct 1, 2009 20:21

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

LorneReams posted:

neo-mob

This is an awesome expression.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2009 21:16

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Zwabu posted:

What kills me is that the right wingers I know who send this sort of thing never seem to be embarrassed when it's shown to be fake. If I sent something to a bunch of people via email that was easily debunked, I'd be mortified.

After Hurricane Katrina, the Mormon Church helped relocate a number of survivors around the country, including in Utah. A really nasty e-mail chain started which claimed that the relocated folks were all convicted felons, which is why they weren't "evacuated early." Therefore, anyone running into these folks on the street or in church should keep their families close and be on guard.

The Church put out a pretty stern press release calling the e-mails bullshit. So the newer e-mails said, "Well, we have it on good authority that not ALL Katrina survivors are convicted criminals--but surely SOME of them are! The warnings in the original e-mail are still important for everyone to know! Read it and pass it on!"

:doh:

# ¿ Dec 13, 2009 22:03

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Gripen5 posted:

Of course I will believe that a bunch of odd ornaments taken at extremely close range had to come from no other place than the White House Christmas tree.

Actually, I just took a White House tour a couple weeks back, and there were indeed some crazy-rear end ornaments on that particular tree. I shot a pic of this one myself:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Dec 31, 2009 05:41

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

ManoliIsFat posted:

Ya, wasn't that a project for students?

No signs or anything indicating that it was a student project. Not that that means any ornaments on the tree represented the Obammunist Atheist Gay Death Panel Plans for America, but I just remember thinking, "With all this nice, elegant stuff around, wtf is up with Crazy Tree?"

# ¿ Dec 31, 2009 21:50

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Speaking of Christmas, I just received this e-mail from one of my organization's members.

Huge Jerk posted:

In your attempt to remain neutral or politically correct by stating Happy Holidays you have offended me. Have you ever stopped for a second and given it any thought that you might offend those of us who believe in the celebration of Christmas for what it truly is, the birth of Christ? It is so typical of a company to take this politically correct stance or "way out". I suppose it has become easier to offend those of us who believe in the true meaning of Christmas. I have been a loyal member for many years and want to let you know that I am very disappointed in your organization for taking this position.

And here's what got him so up in arms, the "Happy Holidays" message we put in our weekly political newsletter:

Our Newsletter posted:

December 22, 2009 - Happy Holidays!

Our Policy and Advocacy Department Staff want to wish you and your family Happy Holidays and a safe and prosperous New Year! So that we can all take some much needed time to relax with our families and friends, [Our newsletter] will not be published on December 29, 2009. Our next issue will be January 5, 2010. See you next year!

I begged my boss to let me send the bastard that awesome forwarded e-mail from a few pages bak that was like "Hey, it's me Jesus, and I'd rather have you worship Me by spending some time in a soup kitchen or being kind to people than bitching and moaning about people not saying 'Merry Christmas.'" She wouldn't let me. :sigh:

# ¿ Jan 4, 2010 17:28

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Another shorty:

But...but...I'm fairly a religious Christian, and I don't specifically go out of my way to attend church on Christmas unless it falls on a Sunday. :psyduck:

# ¿ Jan 8, 2010 17:25

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Oh yeah, that US taxpayer-funded UN. :rolleyes:

# ¿ Feb 4, 2010 16:03

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

It's funny, I went to an Ivy League college and I get that poo poo all the time. "ZOMG, were you totally friends with [insert celebrity's kid who went to same school]?" "Hey, I hear that [insert successful actor/businessperson/scientist] was in your graduating class. I doubt you were best friends or anything, but were you ever in the same courses?"

10 years out from graduation, I stay in touch with about four people and can tell you about maybe 20 or 30 people that I remember well. The other 1600 or so people in my graduating class? No idea. Hell, there were only 8 or 9 people in my major during my graduating year, and I don't remember a single one of them even though we took graduate seminars (classes with enrollment of 4 students) together.

I have no doubt that someone from my class will go on to receive major recognition, and I'll have no clue who they were. (But if it's one of my exes, I fully expect to be the guy who's like, "Hey Access Hollywood, come interview me! I totally hit that poo poo back in '96!")

# ¿ Feb 24, 2010 17:50

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

crime fighting hog posted:

Be honest, have any of YOU ever met the man? How do you know he exists?

I walked by him in the hallway in law school back in 2004. He looked stressed out.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2010 20:09

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

I knew those drat terrists were falling all over themselves to download the Spring Break pictures of our womenfolk. Now I need to dissociate my online banking from Facebook. [defriends Bank of America]

# ¿ Mar 3, 2010 05:33

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

wormil posted:

This one made the news:

http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2010/03/nothing_funny_about_this_monke.php

Glad to see that the guy who sent that got fired over it.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2010 03:45

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Well, when's the last time you forwarded something like that? I limit my pity to putting myself in another person's shoes. Cute 20-something intern coming on to me in the Oval Office? I'd be an rear end if I didn't admit that I wouldn't at least be tempted. Contractor wants to meet me in my Senate office with a suitcase full of cash in exchange for favorable legislation? Ditto.

But forwarding a racist e-mail to professional partners? A lot of liability for no payoff and a whole lot of stupidity.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2010 04:30

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Oh hey, an e-mail from mom. Oh sh

quote:

okay, i really don't care what political party you "lean toward" and/or how YOU feel the situation described in the YOUTUBE vid coming up.....
I am from NYC (sorta), but more than anything.... ANYTHING, i have been terrified by just this kinda thing since about 1972 when i'd been introduced by my (at the time) boyfriend to one of HIS friends with whom he'd gone to medical school, gone through residency (in India) and then suddenly met up him again in America where they were both repeating their residency (due to a coupla american laws and the ECFMG test which ferriners MUST take in order to be able to call themselves doctors...EVEN if they're american citizens who went to medical school in another country than america because for some reason they couldn't get into an american med school.
ANYWAY (i digress, sorry); anyway, one night this guy came to dinner at our tiny apartment in new britain, CT and he'd brought his koran with him (sorry, i REFUSE to use the arabic word for that book) WAIT!! i am NOT sorry.
anyways, after dinner, being jewish and knowing muslims follow the same dietary laws as jews: no pork, no shellfish, only certain cuts of beef, like no tenderloin, etc....i'd made a simple vegetarian indian dish (my boyfriend was/is indian===he's no longer my b/f and he IS my ex-husband)... we sat down in our "living room"---our apt. was SO small we actually had a small kitchen, a bathroom (of course), a teeny space which i really cannot call a living room, but we did have a small sofa, a chair, and the TV.
so, here we were sitting in the LVR and this guy starts spouting BS from his book.

having lived in new york most of my life, i KNEW i could find/learn about almost anything in the world AND have the opportunity to actually meet the people who wrote the books; NEW YORK CITY was a form of the internet years before the real one came along. i became quite dissatisfied with the jewish religion because when i asked the rabbi questions that bothered me, he couldn't come up with answers which satisfied my curiosity!! and so off i went, visiting all sects of christianity, islam (yeah, there was ALREADY a mosque in the 60s in NYC... very alarming, yes?
anyway, then i studied hinduism... and this is WAY before i met my bf husband to be. hinduism called to me the loudest; islam scared the shi*t outta me..... and thus............

my bf's friend told me things i HAD NOT found in my readings, such as: mohammed had ruled that islam would follow parts of the old testament, like moses, abraham, and methusela (oh, and this is where the dietary laws they "borrowed" from the jews comes in); and he ruled that parts of the new testament, like jesus christ and his mom, mary, and all those apostles, etc., etc.; and, lastly, mo ruled 'his people' would follow laws mo put forth, two of which are REALLY scary.... like: ppl of islam do NOT and NEVER SHALL be friends with ppl who are NOT muslims AND the one which REALLY gives me nightmares: muslims' MAIN and SINGULAR purpose of existence is to destroy ALL infidels unless they agree to convert to islam ideals.... thus, women would be oppressed, men would become the superiour "superman" of the family/community and even young boys from ages 7 or even younger are taught how to shoot guns to KILL THE INFIDELS!! oh, by the way.... just in case you don't know what the INFIDEL means.. ANYONE WHO IS NOT MUSLIM IS THE INFIDEL! in the jewish religion, those who are not jewish are called "gentiles." well, that is... i was called a gentile by a mormon couple.... got me by the throat they did... all i could do was stare at them and wonder just how far they were in space!

well, hell.... now that you all know more about me than you ever wanted to know... i was just trying to 'set-up' the scenario so when you're watching the video (youtube) it'll make it easier for you to understand what the guy is talking about........ IF the guy speaking had managed to inform his audience the location or the website where one could go and join the protest... that woulda been great; unfortunately, he did not and there was NO other way, except, perhaps, to google the ALMOST info.... but i'll set myself down and tell you all...... if i could get myself to new york, i'd be a part of the protest... and i'll say, i wish i had money and/or power cuz i would make myself heard......... i did it in the 60s, but THIS... this is ever so much WORSE than an illegal war happening half a world away.

last thought: i really thought the pacific islands (tonga, tahiti, hawaii, fiji, etc.) would be the next area to 'go down' because indonesia was taken over by muslims.... very silently, very quickly, VERY SCARY..... but now i say, i was wrong....... now i say: continental US is gonna be the next place to "go down"...
WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!!
so, again, i say, it doesn't matter what religion you follow nor what political beliefs you have.... if you care about your country.... YOU MUST not allow THEM to take OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!! there are already so many americans, MEN, of course, since they benefit the most by converting: bigamy and/or polygamy, the right to kill anyone who opposes you, etc.

ever since i met that man... who, god help us is supposedly a doctor... although, my bf--ex-husband told me there were MANY muslims who would go to india and their daddy's MONEY bought them a diploma and the license to be a doctor... most didn't even bother to attend the classes---if THAT doesn't scare you, well, there's something wrong with you...... and i cannot see it because i KNOW ALL OF YOU........this is why i send you this kind of things because I KNOW you will be empathic about this... IF you can get yourself to new york OR cali OR minnesota OR texas OR ANY WHERE our country... US people are being threatened of our very existence, especially we women........I KNOW you will act!!!!!!!!
and all of you who are so up in arms (so to speak) about the mexicans coming to america... the muslim threat is SO MUCH more DEADLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok. i'll stop, but i just HAD to tell you where i am, how i feel, what i will do to PREVENT this and all the other threats to we americans.....so, okay i've told you and i know you all well enough to say im not gonna lose your friendship because we are ALL alike when it comes to this kinda thing!!!!!!

ok.. i'll get off the soapbox now. i apologise if i bored the sh*t outta you...but you know, you could have just deleted me OR skipped the message altogether and went directly to the gist of this message... you know, the "meaty" part. ;o)

Some very serious info here.....

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

# ¿ Jun 28, 2010 20:49

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

crime fighting hog posted:

holy poo poo

The amazing thing is that she actually talks like this too.

My wife has grown smart over the years, and strongly encourages me to keep my communications and visits with mom to a minimum.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2010 21:10

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

The Ugly Duchess's crazy e-mail posted:

Simple. Christians cannot be enslaved.

Phew, good thing all those African slaves in America were freed once they converted to Christianity. I guess the Civil War wasn't about slavery after all! Those poor ol' slaveowners were just trying to bring their slaves to Christ, and let them all go once they got saved. We fought a whole war for nothing.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2010 14:31

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Naet posted:

Those are the laziest terrorists I've ever seen.

Lying down on the job, as it were.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2010 23:22

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Dr. Faustus posted:

Sorry if these are old news. I just got these at work, I share them here without additional comment:

Wait--didn't Bush deplete the Clinton-era surplus then run us into a huge deficit? :psyduck:

# ¿ Sep 16, 2010 19:10

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Ah, my fault for confusing terms. Thanks for explanation.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2010 19:23

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Thenipwax posted:

I like that you can see "proof" of how this will cause children to disrespect "traditional" parents by reading a review on Amazon.

As usual, quoted out of context. The book apparently is pretty bad on its own merits, but the review says (emphasis mine): "All in all, it's a mean-spirited, sniping approach to a topic that deserves thoughtful treatment."

# ¿ Jan 6, 2011 15:22

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

berzerker posted:

No, that was Washington.

Washington freed all the slaves he owned upon his death, and left each of them individually sufficient resources to educate themselves, purchase land, or otherwise ensure their own livelihoods. His wife owned a substantial number of the slaves at Mt. Vernon (she was much wealthier than he was when they got married), however, and I think she retained ownership of them and passed it on to her children. Source: information from the awesome tour at Mt. Vernon.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 20:55

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

^^^ Nebraska distributes their votes proportionately, because the Lincoln/Omaha metro area was tired of getting lumped in with the rural western part of the state (or vice versa).

To contribute, just saw a blog post that's not crazy and really drat refreshing. Warning: was written by a religious person, so there is a bit of religion at the end. But it's a response to solider-worship, so it's definitely reasonable.

quote:

This is the Son of God. These are Men in Uniform. Don�t Confuse the Two.

A slight acquaintance, into whose mass-email-forwarding address book I have had the misfortune to fall, regularly sends me � stuff. Political stuff. Religious stuff. Sometimes stuff that combines the two in ways I find ludicrous, or offensive, or awash in sentimentality.

Much of this stuff is military-related.

It started with the general theme of �We Support Our Troops.� Fine. I do, too. If we�re going to send them out there, regardless of whether we support the specific political agenda that sent them, we should make sure they have what they need, where and when they need it.

It progressed to �We Love Our Troops.� Okay. I do, too. When men and women put their lives on hold to answer the call of their country, and as long as they act legally and honorably and morally in their individual conduct, they deserve respect � love is an alternate term for that.

But now it has reached the point of �We Worship Our Troops.� No. This is where I draw the line.

The last email began with some xenophobic anti-immigrant bad taste. The kicker, though, was this:

�Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: Jesus Christ, and the American Soldier.�

This is not true, for starters.

My mother offered to die for me when she went through the valley of the shadow of death to bring me into this world.

My father offered to die for me when he stepped between me and a snarling dog that threatened to attack.

If I were ever trapped in a burning building or under an earthquake-flattened one, or were caught in a flood, or fell over a ledge while hiking, I am 100% certain that there are men and women in my community who would offer to give their lives in the attempt to save mine. I worked for the Clark County [Nev.] Fire Department for a couple of years � it�s the only job I�ve ever had where my starry-eyed admiration for heroes grew stronger instead of fading through familiarity. Those men (they were all men in the �70s) would help a stranger with no questions asked, at the risk of their own lives. That�s what I think of whenever I hear a siren in the distance: Someone is in trouble, and someone else is rushing to help.

The epidemiologists who lock themselves into sealed rooms with deadly viruses and toxins in the quest to understand and conquer them are offering to die for me. The storm chasers and volcanologists who deliberately head into the most dangerous spots on earth in the pursuit of knowledge that will protect future generations are offering to die for me. The drug enforcement agents who investigate reports of marijuana fields in our national parks are offering to die for me. The highway patrolman who stands unprotected next to speeding traffic while he checks out a suspected drunk driver is offering to die for me.

And yes, the soldier is offering to die for me.

None of those people wants to die. They may be willing, they may have made the offer, they may eventually pay the price, but they don�t expect or hope to die in the line of their vocations. Every one of them would rather go home safely at the end of the day, to play with their kids or throw a football around or take that class in New Testament Greek or do whatever else is meaningful in their lives.

Jesus Christ, on the other hand, was born with the explicit anticipation that he would die, that he must die, for all and every soul on earth. He didn�t expect to avoid it; he didn�t hope to make it through his shift day after day and eventually retire to a villa on the Sea of Galilee. Whereas mere mortals, like law enforcers and firefighters and chemists � and soldiers � count it a success when they aren�t hurt on the job, the mission of Jesus Christ would have been a failure � indeed, all of Creation would have been a failure � had he not only been willing to die, but in fact died, in the way and at the time and for the purpose that was necessary to bring about the Atonement.

I am grateful to soldiers � and teachers and doctors and search-and-rescue teams � who are willing to put themselves at risk in the service of others. But I don�t worship them as I do my Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. It bothers me that misplaced patriotic hyperbole confuses deity with unselfish mortal service. Stop it. Just stop.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 14:10

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Mooseontheloose posted:

Secondly, Nebraska isn't exactly proportional. Each district is voted on separately, and whoever wins the majority in the state gets the two senate votes. Exactly like Maine.

Didn't know that. Thanks.

The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 17, 2011

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 18:51

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Econosaurus posted:

Oh my god.

Among other madness in this piece of poo poo:

quote:

George Washington did not have the power to free "his" slaves, since they belonged to his wife, whose family could have gone to court to stop the loss of "their" property. Washington and Jefferson also knew what we tend to forget, which that "freeing" a slave in his old age is in effect stealing his retirement pension. That's why Washington had to wait until Martha's death, and why he gave the slaves a choice to remain, if they chose to do so.

It's true that most of the slaves at Mount Vernon were Martha's, however:

1) George Washington not only freed his own slaves in his will, but he provided financial endowments so that each of them could attain education, land ownership, or whatever else was necessary for them to support themselves. Okay, fine, this isn't common knowledge and you mostly learn about it by visiting Mount Vernon and hearing (very interesting) stories about slavery there from the guides. But:

2) Washington couldn't have waited for Martha's death because he died 3 years before she did. :doh:

# ¿ Apr 5, 2011 19:51

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Zwabu posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

This is fantastic. Hundreds of millions of dollars were pumped into development of a broken machine, even as Soviet technology advanced to the point that the entire concept of the Sgt. York platform was pretty much done. But the military insisted on adding more money to fix the problems. Finally Congress demanded a test of the weapon's battle readiness before additional funds would be released. Test results:

Wikipedia posted:

The results were abysmal. Unable to hit drones moving even in a straight line, the tests were later relaxed to hovering ones. The radar proved unable to lock even to this target, as the return was too small. The testers then started adding radar reflectors to the drone to address this "problem", eventually having to add four. Easterbrook, still covering the ongoing debacle, described this as being similar to demonstrating the abilities of a bloodhound by having it find a man standing alone in the middle of an empty parking lot, covered with steaks.[21] The system now tracked the drone, and after firing a lengthy burst of shells the drone was knocked off target. As it flew out of control, the range safety officer had it destroyed by remote control. This was interpreted by the press as an attempt to "fake" the results, describing it as "sophomoric deceits".[22] From that point on, every test success was written off as faked.[23]

# ¿ Apr 16, 2011 05:50

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Yeah, I was just going to ask where the bill is. :sigh:

# ¿ Apr 27, 2011 22:43

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Sarion posted:

3) Reducing or eliminating benefits to our elected representatives is a bad idea. The whole idea is that our government is selected from the people. Granted many of those people are already from the wealthy class. But if you reduced or eliminated Congressional pay, the only people that could afford to be in Congress would people who are so wealthy they don't need pay or benefits.

Also, as my history teacher pointed out, not paying your elected officials a decent salary makes bribery look even more appealing to them.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2011 17:55

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Ashcans posted:

What is the going rate on a Senator, anyway? I imagine that it varies if you just want them to jump your way on specific issue, or call you before they make any stand on anything. At that point, would they also do your kids parties?

$50,000 up front for the campaign, plus the promise of a six-figure "consulting" job upon retirement.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2011 20:11

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

I also love the constant GOP talking point about cutting Federal dollars for WMATA (the Washington DC transit authority). Really, maybe they should go ahead and defund WMATA.

...
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
DC Area Government, Corporations in Complete Shutdown After Transit Defunding Creates Nation's Worst Traffic Jam

"I left for work a week ago and haven't gotten out of my driveway yet!"

Northern Virginia Tech Firms Lay off Tens of Thousands

"Nobody can get to work because I-95 and I-66 are completely shut down, we can't get deliveries in or out--time to move this poo poo overseas!"

# ¿ Aug 15, 2011 15:48

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

vxskud posted:

My favorite part about the pledge of allegiance is that it was instituted by people who seemed to believe that communists were some sort of vampire like creatures that would burst into flames at the very mention of the word God.

The pledge didn't always have "under God," they added that in the 50s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22

For my part, I always felt terrible for oppressed minorities. "Hey negro kids! You can't go to a nice school, but you'd better drat well start your day by talking about 'Justice for All!' or else you're a commie!" :mad:

# ¿ Aug 26, 2011 14:41

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

JerkyBunion posted:

10-Year-Old, Won't Pledge Allegiance To A Country That Discriminates Against Gays

Wow, can we get a million more kids like him?

quote:

Jay Phillips, asked if his son was prepared for the media attention, said his son saw it as an opportunity to raise awareness. "He felt that just because he's ten years old doesn't mean he doesn't have opinions, doesn't mean he doesn't have rights, and doesn't mean he can't make a difference."

# ¿ Sep 6, 2011 15:45

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Kosmonaut posted:

And on the great stone edifice were chiseled the awful tenets of the Amerilib party:

WAR IS BAD

FREEDOM DOES NOT EXCUSE YOU FOR BEING A DOUCHEBAG

BOOK LEARNING IS STRENGTH

This is kind of fantastic, on a side note.

Back to topic, I just had to explain to my mom what a Nigerian 419 scam is. For like the 3rd time. I think she's getting to that age where she's vulnerable to this kind of thing. :ohdear:

# ¿ Oct 13, 2011 14:42

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Ugh, saw this article on homosexuality on a cousin's FB status:

quote:

How Might Homosexuality Develop? (Part 1)
How do genes, environment, and other influences contribute to homosexuality?

by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
Excerpted from "The Complex Interaction of Genes and Environment: A Model for Homosexuality" by Jeffrey Satinover,M.D.

It may be difficult to grasp how genes, environment, and other influences interrelate to one another, how a certain factor may "influence" an outcome but not cause it, and how faith enters in. The scenario below is condensed and hypothetical, but is drawn from the lives of actual people, illustrating how many different factors influence behavior.

Note that the following is just one of the many developmental pathways that can lead to homosexuality, but a common one. In reality, every person's "road" to sexual expression is individual, however many common lengths it may share with those of others.

1. Our scenario starts with birth. The boy (for example) who one day may go on to struggle with homosexuality is born with certain features that are somewhat more common among homosexuals than in the population at large. Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.

What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than "problems," for example a "sensitive" disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.

No one knows with certainty just what these heritable characteristics are; at present we only have hints. Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas) we would certainly soon clarify these factors - just as we are doing in less contentious areas. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.

2. From a very early age potentially heritable characteristics mark the boy as "different." He finds himself somewhat shy and uncomfortable with the typical "rough and tumble" of his peers. Perhaps he is more interested in art or in reading - simply because he's smart. But when he later thinks about his early life, he will find it difficult to separate out what in these early behavioral differences came from an inherited temperament and what from the next factor, namely:

3. That for whatever reason, he recalls a painful "mismatch" between what he needed and longed for and what his father offered him. Perhaps most people would agree that his father was distinctly distant and ineffective; maybe it was just that his own needs were unique enough that his father, a decent man, could never quite find the right way to relate to him. Or perhaps his father really disliked and rejected his son's sensitivity. In any event, the absence of a happy, warm, and intimate closeness with his father led to the boy's pulling away in disappointment, "defensively detaching" in order to protect himself.

But sadly, this pulling away from his father, and from the "masculine" role model he needed, also left him even less able to relate to his male peers. We may contrast this to the boy whose loving father dies, for instance, but who is less vulnerable to later homosexuality. This is because the commonplace dynamic in the pre-homosexual boy is not merely the absence of a father - literally or psychologically - but the psychological defense of the boy against his repeatedly disappointing father. In fact, a youngster who does not form this defense (perhaps because of early-enough therapy, or because there is another important male figure in his life, or due to temperament) is much less likely to become homosexual.

Complementary dynamics involving the boy's mother are also likely to have played an important role. Because people tend to marry partners with "interlocking neuroses," the boy probably found himself in a problematic relationship with both parents.

For all these reasons, when as an adult he looked back on his childhood, the now-homosexual man recalls, "From the beginning I was always different. I never got along well with the boys my age and felt more comfortable around girls." This accurate memory makes his later homosexuality feel convincingly to him as though it was "preprogrammed" from the start.

4. Although he has "defensively detached" from his father, the young boy still carries silently within him a terrible longing for the warmth, love, and encircling arms of the father he never did nor could have. Early on, he develops intense, nonsexual attachments to older boys he admires - but at a distance, repeating with them the same experience of longing and unavailability. When puberty sets in, sexual urges - which can attach themselves to any object, especially in males - rise to the surface and combine with his already intense need for masculine intimacy and warmth. He begins to develop homosexual crushes. Later he recalls, "My first sexual longings were directed not at girls but at boys. I was never interested in girls."

Psychotherapeutic intervention at this point and earlier can be successful in preventing the development of later homosexuality. Such intervention is aimed in part at helping the boy change his developing effeminate patterns (which derive from a "refusal" to identify with the rejected father), but more critically, it is aimed at teaching his father - if only he will learn - how to become appropriately involved with and related to his son.

5. As he matures (especially in our culture where early, extramarital sexual experiences are sanctioned and even encouraged), the youngster, now a teen, begins to experiment with homosexual activity. Or alternatively his needs for same-sex closeness may already have been taken advantage of by an older boy or man, who preyed upon him sexually when he was still a child. (Recall the studies that demonstrate the high incidence of sexual abuse in the childhood histories of homosexual men.) Or oppositely, he may avoid such activities out of fear and shame in spite of his attraction to them. In any event, his now-sexualized longings cannot merely be denied, however much he may struggle against them. It would be cruel for us at this point to imply that these longings are a simple matter of "choice."

Indeed, he remembers having spent agonizing months and years trying to deny their existence altogether or pushing them away, to no avail. One can easily imagine how justifiably angry he will later be when someone casually and thoughtlessly accuses him of "choosing" to be homosexual. When he seeks help, he hears one of two messages, and both terrify him; either, "Homosexuals are bad people and you are a bad person for choosing to be homosexual. There is no place for you here and God is going to see to it that you suffer for being so bad;" or "Homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable. You were born that way. Forget about your fairytale picture of getting married and having children and living in a little house with a white picket fence. God made you who you are and he/she destined you for the gay life. Learn to enjoy it."

6. At some point, he gives in to his deep longings for love and begins to have voluntary homosexual experiences. He finds - possibly to his horror - that these old, deep, painful longings are at least temporarily, and for the first time ever, assuaged.

Although he may also therefore feel intense conflict, he cannot help admit that the relief is immense. This temporary feeling of comfort is so profound - going well beyond the simple sexual pleasure that anyone feels in a less fraught situation - that the experience is powerfully reinforced. However much he may struggle, he finds himself powerfully driven to repeat the experience. And the more he does, the more it is reinforced and the more likely it is he will repeat it yet again, though often with a sense of diminishing returns.

7. He also discovers that, as for anyone, sexual orgasm is a powerful reliever of distress of all sorts. By engaging in homosexual activities he has already crossed one of the most critical and strongly enforced boundaries of sexual taboo. It is now easy for him to cross other taboo boundaries as well, especially the significantly less severe taboo pertaining to promiscuity. Soon homosexual activity becomes the central organizing factor in his life as he slowly acquires the habit of turning to it regularly � not just because of his original need for fatherly warmth of love, but to relieve anxiety of any sort.

8. In time, his life becomes even more distressing than for most. Some of this is, in fact, as activists claim, because all-too-often he experiences from others a cold lack of sympathy or even open hostility. The only people who seem really to accept him are other gays, and so he forms an even stronger bond with them as a �community.� But it is not true, as activists claim, that these are the only, or even the major stresses.

Much distress is caused simply by his way of life � for example, the medical consequences, AIDS being just one of many (if also the worst). He also lives with the guilt and shame that he inevitably feels over his compulsive, promiscuous behavior; and too over the knowledge that he cannot relate effectively to the opposite sex and is less likely to have a family (a psychological loss for which political campaigns for homosexual marriage, adoption, and inheritance rights can never adequately compensate).

However much activists try to normalize for him these patterns of behavior and the losses they cause, and however expedient it may be for political purposes to hide them from the public-at-large, unless he shuts down huge areas of his emotional life he simply cannot honestly look at himself in this situation and feel content.

And no one � not even a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool, sexually insecure �homophobe� � is nearly so hard on him as he is on himself. Furthermore, the self-condemning messages that he struggles with on a daily basis are in fact only reinforced by the bitter self-derogating wit of the very gay culture he has embraced. The activists around him keep saying that it is all caused by the �internalized homophobia� of the surrounding culture, but he knows that it is not.

The stresses of �being gay� lead to more, not less, homosexual behavior. This principle, perhaps surprising to the layman (at least to the layman who has not himself gotten caught up in some pattern, of whatever type) is typical of the compulsive or addictive cycle of self-destructive behavior; wracking guilt, shame, and self-condemnation only causes it to increase. It is not surprising that people therefore turn to denial to rid themselves of these feelings, and he does too. He tells himself, �It is not a problem. Therefore there is no reason for me to feel so bad about it.�

9. After wrestling with such guilt and shame for so many years, the boy, now an adult, comes to believe, quite understandably � and because of his denial, needs to believe � �I can�t change anyway because the condition is unchangeable.� If even for a moment he considers otherwise, immediately arises the painful query, �Then why haven�t I...?� and with it returns all the shame and guilt.

Thus, by the time the boy becomes a man, he has pieced together this point of view: �I was always different, always an outsider. I developed crushes on boys from as long as I can remember and the first time I fell in love it was with a boy, not a girl. I had no real interest in members of the opposite sex. Oh, I tried all right � desperately. But my sexual experiences with girls were nothing special. But the first time I had homosexual sex it just �felt right.� So it makes perfect sense to me that homosexuality is genetic. I�ve tried to change � God knows how long I struggled � and I just can�t. That�s because it�s not changeable. Finally, I stopped struggling and just accepted myself the way I am.�

10. Social attitudes toward homosexuality will play a role in making it more or less likely that the man will adopt an �inborn and unchangeable� perspective, and at what point in his development. It is obvious that a widely shared and propagated worldview that normalizes homosexuality will increase the likelihood of his adopting such beliefs, and at an earlier age. But it is perhaps less obvious � it follows from what we have discussed above � that ridicule, rejection, and harshly punitive condemnation of him as a person will be just as likely (if not more likely) to drive him into the same position.

11. If he maintains his desire for a traditional family life, the man may continue to struggle against his �second nature.� Depending on whom he meets, he may remain trapped between straight condemnation and gay activism, both in secular institutions and in religious ones. The most important message he needs to hear is that �healing is possible.�

12. If he enters the path to healing, he will find that the road is long and difficult � but extraordinarily fulfilling. The course to full restoration of heterosexuality typically lasts longer than the average American marriage � which should be understood as an index of how broken all relationships are today.

From the secular therapies he will come to understand what the true nature of his longings are, that they are not really about sex, and that he is not defined by his sexual appetites. In such a setting, he will very possibly learn how to turn aright to other men to gain from them a genuine, non-sexualized masculine comradeship and intimacy; and how to relate aright to woman, as friend, lover, life�s companion, and, God willing, mother of his children.

Of course the old wounds will not simply disappear, and later in times of great distress the old paths of escape will beckon. But the claim that this means he is therefore �really� a homosexual and unchanged is a lie. For as he lives a new life of ever-growing honesty, and cultivates genuine intimacy with the woman of his heart, the new patterns will grow ever stronger and the old ones engraved in the synapses of his brain ever weaker.

In time, knowing that they really have little to do with sex, he will even come to respect and put to good use what faint stirrings remain of the old urges. They will be for him a kind of storm-warning, a signal that something is out of order in his house, that some old pattern of longing and rejection and defense is being activated. And he will find that no sooner does he set his house in order that indeed the old urges once again abate. In his relations to others � as friend, husband, professional � he will now have a special gift. What was once a curse will have become a blessing, to himself and to others.

Copyright � NARTH. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.

About the author
Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D. has practiced psychoanalysis for more than nineteen years, and psychiatry for more than ten. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University, a past president of the C.G. Jung Foundation, and a former William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He holds degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Harvard University. He is the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996).

So according to this article, nobody with a healthy attachment to both parents will "become" gay. Also, according to this article I am as gay as a tree full of hummingbirds, because I was not close to my father, was bookish, and did not relate to boys my own age. :doh:

But I'm most creeped out by this sentence: "Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas) we would certainly soon clarify these factors..." Holy poo poo.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2011 14:11

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

It's funny--this guys psychoanalytic theories are pure Freud, but in googling Freud's views on homosexuality, I found that he'd written this in a letter to a woman with a gay son (seeking a "cure"):

quote:

Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime �and a cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.

By asking me if I can help [your son], you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies, which are present in every homosexual; in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted.

What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2011 14:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:20

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Sarion posted:

Oh golly gee, we're so American.

"And then our Cuban guest said, 'Don't you people ever put garlic on anything? This stuff tastes bland as poo poo.'"

# ¿ Jan 30, 2012 21:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›7 »