Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

[Uragand-2]

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.

“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”

This sounds like it is turning into a case of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" (who will watch the watchers?); in this case, arguably, an anti-bullying activist became the bully himself.

Is political correctness now being enforced under the guise of preventing bullying?

 

[Apex]

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes



This sounds like it is turning into a case of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" (who will watch the watchers?); in this case, arguably, an anti-bullying activist became the bully himself.

Is political correctness now being enforced under the guise of preventing bullying?

This site is filled with Foxophobes. So expect a string of posts ignoring the article and, instead, going on anti-Fox rants. Other than that, I have only heard a little about this. What it sounds like is someone thinks Christians are all biblical literalists. Ill have to read more about it after work. I also saw this blog post, from one of the more popular "Skeptics" about that talk:
Christianity is ********, and I’m not apologizing for saying that | Blag Hag

 

[Storm]

Dan Savage? Dan freaking Savage is the founder of It Gets Better?!??! Ugh....

Savage is a mediocre shock jock and a world class douche bag. I'm all for anti-bullying, but I wouldn't have wanted to be associated with him BEFORE he cussed out a school. And btw, what illiterate twit invited this jerk to speak AT A SCHOOL?!

 

[Revoltingest]

Meta-bullying?

 

[Storm]

This site is filled with Foxophobes. So expect a string of posts ignoring the article and, instead, going on anti-Fox rants. Other than that, I have only heard a little about this. What it sounds like is someone Christians are all biblical literalists. Ill have to read more about it after work. I also saw this blog post, from one of the more popular "Skeptics" about that talk:
Christianity is ********, and I’m not apologizing for saying that | Blag Hag

I didn't even notice it was from Faux News, but if that *** was really speaking at a school, I don't doubt it happened.

That said, criticizing a source that's been caught deliberately spreading misinformation time after time is not irrational. Quite the opposite. "Foxophobes" is a seriously lame argument.

 

[gnomon]

All I saw, given the video on the Fox page, was Savage talking about the mentions of homosexuality in the Bible many literalists use and shot back with the whole shellfish, slavery, etc. thing no longer accepted as moral precepts to follow. It was at that time in the video all the students from that class started walking out.

I'm not going to bother looking for a video of the entire event. The students walking out appeared to be a bit staged for me. All of the students from that class think alike and are just going to walk out over a very short part when he discusses the Bible which is used by literalists to do all sorts of **** to homosexuals?

I'll let others go find the more relevant parts to show where the actual bullying occurred.

 

[YmirGF]

Dan Savage? Dan freaking Savage is the founder of It Gets Better?!??! Ugh....

Savage is a mediocre shock jock and a world class douche bag. I'm all for anti-bullying, but I wouldn't have wanted to be associated with him BEFORE he cussed out a school. And btw, what illiterate twit invited this jerk to speak AT A SCHOOL?!

O M G.......

Storm and I agree on something 100%!

Savage is also the man behind, errr, ahem, the nasty business on Google regarding Rick Santorum. Frankly, behavior and ethics doesn't sink much lower than this fellow. And to think he was just honored by an invitation to meet the President at the White House. Putting Savage in charge of any kind of an "Anti-bullying" campaign is akin to putting Adolf Hitler in charge of the Simon Wiesenthal center.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't even notice it was from Faux News, but if that *** was really speaking at a school, I don't doubt it happened.

That said, criticizing a source that's been caught deliberately spreading misinformation time after time is not irrational. Quite the opposite. "Foxophobes" is a seriously lame argument.

"Foxophobe" is a term for those with a Pavlovian frothing at the source, & a tendency to deflect from the real issue presented.
It is no more irrational than the common epithet of "Faux News". To deliberately spread mis-info is common to media on the left,
right & in between, so to single Fox out is to miss the larger picture, ie, that we should be skeptical of all sources.
Example: Just recently, I heard on NPR how Zimmerman murdered Martin. Funny....I thought that hadn't been adjudicated yet.

Now, back to the OP. Tis strange how those advancing a particular good value will sacrifice it when gripped by fervor.

 

[Uragand-2]

Here's a video of the speech:

[youtube]ao0k9qDsOvs[/youtube]
Dan Savage discusses bible at High School Journalism convention - YouTube

 

[Father Heathen]

This site is filled with Foxophobes. So expect a string of posts ignoring the article and, instead, going on anti-Fox rants.[/URL]

It's not a case of "foxophobia"... It's simply a fact of not trusting a source that has a long, sordid history of bias, distortion and dishonesty. There is an obvious political agenda behind the network. It's an issue of objectivity, standards and integrity.
For example, you don't like it when people get their "info" on Mormonism from blatantly anti-Mormon websites, do you?

 

[9Westy9]

he sounds like a hypocrite to me

 

[gnomon]

Here's a video of the speech:

[youtube]ao0k9qDsOvs[/youtube]
Dan Savage discusses bible at High School Journalism convention - YouTube

But that's the part in the article. The article implies there was more before that part of the speech. If the whole of his speech that is being called bullying is that approximately three and half minute bit where he used the word ******** it's a fairly weak argument.

 

[Storm]

"Foxophobe" is a term for those with a Pavlovian frothing at the source, & a tendency to deflect from the real issue presented.
It is no more irrational than the common epithet of "Faux News". To deliberately spread mis-info is common to media on the left,
right & in between, so to single Fox out is to miss the larger picture, ie, that we should be skeptical of all sources.
Example: Just recently, I heard on NPR how Zimmerman murdered Martin. Funny....I thought that hadn't been adjudicated yet.

Contempt for pathological liars is neither Pavlovian nor irrational.

Every media outlet has its biases, yes. Not all are proud propagandists whose patterns of misinformation are repeatedly proven.

IOW, no one's perfect, but some are worse than others. I don't apologize for being aware of the worst of the lot.

 

[Sunstone]

I like Dan Savage. For one thing, he's a hell of a lot wittier than his critics.

 

[Revoltingest]

Contempt for pathological liars is neither Pavlovian nor irrational.
Every media outlet has its biases, yes. Not all are proud propagandists whose patterns of misinformation are repeatedly proven.
IOW, no one's perfect, but some are worse than others. I don't apologize for being aware of the worst of the lot.

Perhaps their being the worst is in the eye of the beholder. NPR is subtler in its subterfuge. MSNBC is more brazen in its brainwashing.
If we pick one side & throw stones only at the other, then we become blind to the sins of our own.....it becomes irrational & Pavlovian.

I note that those who criticize "Faux News" have no harsh words for MSNBC & other leftie sources.

 

[Storm]

I like Dan Savage. For one thing, he's a hell of a lot wittier than his critics.

Really? Why?

The first time I read his column, he called a 19-year-old a lying ***** for wanting to back out of a threesome.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

But that's the part in the article. The article implies there was more before that part of the speech. If the whole of his speech that is being called bullying is that approximately three and half minute bit where he used the word ******** it's a fairly weak argument.

That's the part they're labeling "bullying". The bit where he referred to parts of the Bible as ******** and where he called the walk-out pansy-*****.

He actually did apologize for the latter.

 

[Father Heathen]

I note that those who criticize "Faux News" have no harsh words for MSNBC & other leftie sources.

Because there's no comparison in regards to proportion.

 

[Storm]

I note that those who criticize "Faux News" have no harsh words for MSNBC & other leftie sources.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I recall several posts criticizing MSNBC from people who would question Fox if they said the sun would rise.

As for myself, did I not just say that every source is biased? That said, there's a sharp and crucial difference between political leanings and deliberate dishonesty for the sake of ideological propaganda.

The epithet you so scorn has been well earned. I've seen middle school news broadcasts with more journalistic integrity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because there's no comparison in regards to proportion.

I see otherwise. MSNBC seems to be Fox's doppelganger. NPR strikes me as even more insidious in their sophisticated
pretense of neutrality & objectivity, while slipping in distortions & prevarications, eg their treatment of Zimmerman.

Some like to present the argument of "False equivalence! Fox is far worse! Only they are worthy of demonization!".
This rationale seeks refuge in a straw man so as to avoid the very real need for questioning of all sources. There
is no "equivalence", but there are similarities & shared traits.