Remember when Chris Crocker defended Britney Spears in this tearful, screaming, epic video? Well he’s back with more emo in this tearful, screaming rant against Christians who insult Chris’ purpose or meaning.
I admit I laughed when I first watched it (wide-eyed, drama-shocked, nervous laughter). The crown of thorns? Wow. God instructs people to brush their teeth? Okeedoke.
I played it again and realized that beneath the hysterics, there is a worthy, relevant message. How could any Christian (or non-christian, but the video is about believers) point a finger at someone who’s different and off the beaten path of social acceptability and claim to know anything about how god feels about them or what god would want them to do? It is intensely arrogant that anyone could claim to speak for an infinite, unexplainable, unimaginable deity. If this god is so large and so all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving, then how could one man, book, tradition, or creed even grasp one minute speck of an idea about what god is or wants?
I’d like to welcome 7,500 United Kingdom gamers to the fate of the Hell-bound Heathens™. We’re a friendly bunch, and we’re having a BYOB hullabaloo once we reach the specific hell of whichever deity gets to us first.
So, you’re wondering how you were suddenly screwed out of your immortal bliss? Blame GameStation and your own laziness:
GameStation has today revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of customers, thanks to a clause it secretly added to the online terms and conditions for the official GameStation website.
The “Immortal Soul Clause” was added as part of an attempt to highlight how few customers read the terms and conditions of an online sale. GameStation claims that 88 percent of customers did not read the clause, which gives legal ownership of the customer’s soul over to the UK-based games retailer.
The remaining 12 percent of customers however did notice the clause and clicked the relevant opt-out box, netting themselves a £5 GBP gift voucher in the process. … more than 7,500 customers fell for the simple ploy and missed out on the gift voucher.
My joy to be bound in damnation with you is short-lived, however. The executives will be contacting you shortly to issue a nullification. Sigh.
If you still want to come to the party, just become a heathen like us! It’s gonna be kickass.
A Canadian game show called Just Like Mom aired from 1980-1985. Fergie Olver [whose name I kept misspelling, which is now fixed] and his wife Catherine Swing co-hosted the show for 4 of those years. Mr. Olver seemed to have a little obsession with affection, and a viewer caught on to that trend and edited the video you’ll see below. This is what it can look like when an adult is showing inappropriate sexual attention to a child.
I’m neither a psychologist nor expert on these issues, but I’d like to share my interpretations and thoughts about what’s going on here:
Why don’t the mothers do anything about Olver’s behavior? They’re sitting right next to their daughters who are being pressured into giving out kisses to a middle aged man. I think they hold back out of embarrassment or fear. If they say something, it’s on television in front of an audience that wants lighthearted entertainment. The producers and director would be angry for the disruption. They’d draw attention to themselves. Maybe it’s not a big deal, they might think. This is just funny and non-threatening.
- Can someone who was the age of those children or older tell me what affection with strangers or family friends was like back then? Was it more socially acceptable?
Is it nervous laughter we hear in the background, or is it truly amused chortles? It bothers me to hear little snippets of cheering when a girl finally gives in to the pressure.
Fergie Olver uses a light, playful tone of voice when talking to the girls. He showers them with compliments and asks about their personal life–even the dating practices of one girl. He uses his body to get very close, covering their personal space with his arm around the back of the chair and his head stooped low to make eye contact. He moves closer and tricks the girls into bringing their faces up before stealing a peck on the cheek or even the lips.
When a girl refuses or acts nervous, Olver either goes for the kiss anyway and ignores their feelings, or he tries to persuade them; he even tells Alison (0:46) with a whisper in her ear that if she gives him a kiss, she’ll win the show. When she refuses, he warns her of the consequences. What do we call coersion of a sexual nature? That’s right kids: sexual harrassment.
What. A. Fucking. Skeezebag. I wonder what Olver’s wife thought of his sexual miscunduct on the show? What was he like in private when the cameras weren’t rolling?
Who’s my favorite kid? Alison (0:46) who says clearly that she does not give out hugs and kisses freely and that no she will not give him one even when he asks repeatedly. Alison’s mom calls him a “dirty old man” after he tries to bribe Alison. That’s the one piece of honest observation we get to see in this video, and I don’t feel that anythiing is amusing or wrong about her saying what everyone should have been thinking.
The girls’ body language should say enough: We see two of the girls physically move away from Olver when he goes in for the kiss. They’re startled, frightened, and uncomfortable. That is called unwanted sexual touching.
How did this douchebag get away with such flagrant behavior? Have we simply grown more aware of the dangers of that sort of attention than we were back then? What do you think of these clips?
One of my friends on plurk sent out this quote:
Let your desire for pleasure and your desire for feeling good be your only guiding light.
So far, I’m the only one who has reacted negatively to the message, and I suppose I’m not surprised. I take a lot of things seriously, and I’m not exactly a wild and crazy free spirit. Hedonism has always prompted an inner dissonance for me, and I’m trying to get to the bottom of why. I wonder if I’m an outlier in the secular community. Perhaps I’m missing the mark.
What is Hedonism?
Hedonism is an ethical system that stems from this truth: people are motivated primarily by the production of pleasure and happiness and the avoidance of pain. It argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. I agree that we humans do in fact desire our own happiness so strongly that it can outweigh most other impulses or values.
What bothers me? Selfishness and a lack of compassion. Hedonism strikes me as ultimately self-serving and love-less. When a person embraces his or her passions and vices to the detriment of another’s wellbeing or the social good, then I lose respect for that individual. Hell, I even lose respect for myself when I seek my own happiness and comfort over that of another person. I admire those who seek the greater good and the contentment and peace of the group over their own pleasure; I wish I could say I acted this way more often.
Living a hedonistic lifestyle may not be the best choice for imbalanced individuals. Should a pedophile seek pleasure and happiness even though sexual satisfaction is at the expense of a child and against the law? what about addictions? Isn’t moderation or the agony of quitting better even if it is painful or difficult? Perhaps I’m thinking of sily examples, but the people I’ve met who have said they embrace hedonism have often been those who are rebelling against limits and healthy living in moderation. Perhaps they don’t understand it in its ideal form—whatever that may be. Hey, I’m no expert!
What should we value? Should the seeking of pleasure and lack of discomfort trump an altruistic or sacrificial decision?