I didn’t see that in Ybabe’s post. She was differing between symbols that serve merely to identify a belief/non-belief system…and those that serve to “poke fun at/parodize/mock” someone elses beliefs. I don’t think any group is “exempt” from parody, but those who choose to parodize another group, whether it’s a group of believers, or a particular ethnic group…may find that the parodized group is offended. Abercrombie and Fitch learned this the hard way.
Where exactly did I imply that? They are no more “exempt” from parody than atheists are. But tell me this - should atheists or Christians be flattered and pleased when they see some else parody their seriously-held beliefs? (In an attempt to “stick it” to them, or to “get back”.) Does anyone like this?
As usual, somewhat else already said it better than I did.
What beageldave said. 
My apologies for mis-spelling “atheist”.
The mistake you’re making is assuming that the intent is to “incite” anything, when someone puts a darwin fish on their car. Yes, it’s a parody of the Jesus fish–that doesn’t mean that the atheist is question is looking for a fight. The fact that some Christians are offended says nothing about the motives of those bearing the Darwin fish.
Parody mocks, but is also an expression of an opinion. That’s what differentiates it from a simple attack.
Not a literal “fight”, but I doubt that many people who mock something want a knock-down-drag-out “fight”. They DO mock for a reason - so what do they expect? A happy response? The subject of their mockery to be flattered and pleased? I don’t believe so.
And it is quite simple and easy to express an opinion without simultaniously “mocking”. There are plenty of bumper stickers out there that DO NOT mock a Christian symbol.
One chooses to mock. It’s a deliberate choice. When someone chooses to mock, the recipient of their mocking cannot be expected to ignore this choice. How do you expect them to respond? When a Christian mocks atheism, do atheists like it? Even if it is also “an expression of opinion”? Does that really make that much of a difference?
CAn’t you tell from the orientation?
Where did I imply that someone should be pleased to have their deeply held beliefs parodized, or that some sense of being offended was irrational?
To raise an issue dear to Yosemitebabe’s heart, I remember posters that were a take-off of the “This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs” ads: under “This is your brain” was the Apple logo; under “this is your brain on drugs” was the Windows logo.
As someone who has used PCs rather than Macs his whole life, I would have to consider myself to be grouped under the lower half of the poster. Ha ha, clever joke. Being the butt of the joke doesn’t justify tearing down the poster, or even taking it so seriously that it was worth worrying about, and to be that offended misses the point that Apple lovers really love their Apples and have an honest and sincere appreciation for the brand. It’s not about denigrating PC users, so get over it.
Comparing the Darwin Fish to a swastika (did I spell that right, grienspace?) counts as an instance of Godwin’s Law.
Agreed, the attack is more complex. I’ve often asked the question of whether atheism would flourish in the absence of religion.
But, as much as I love my Mac, it is not a religion. Many people take their religion far more seriously than they do their computer.
Who here is saying it is? It is totally inappropriate to vandalize a car, over a stupid bumper sticker!
Yeah, actually, it IS about offending PC users, at least a little bit. (Where have YOU been?) And how do you know it’s not about offending PC users? And how do you know that some PC users weren’t offended? Have you ever engaged in one of the platform wars on this board? Things get pretty hairy.
Just because the Darwin Fish is offensive to some Christians (and it is) it does not justify vandalism, or serious hand-wringing. I’m just saying that I notice that the bumper sticker is mocking a seriously-held symbol, and I find something a little mean-spirited in that. (Not in each and every person who adorns their car with the sticker, but the general premise of the sticker.) I’m not the only one that finds something a little mean-spirited in that. It is not mandatory to “mock” something else in order to get your point across. Just because you don’t “mean” to offend, it doesn’t mean that you won’t offend. How many times have we heard someone protest “But I didn’t mean it that way!” And yet if people found sufficient reason to be offended, they were still offended.
Well, more acurately I compared the Jesus fish to the swastika with regard to their association with periods of severe persecution although there is an obvious difference between the two in so far as cherish/despise is concerned.
There must be a corollary to Godwin’s Law that states " The validity of comparison to the nazis is directly proportional to how early in the discussion the comparison is drawn.
To summarise:
Lightnin’ posts a rant about someone destroying his property. Muad’Dib and others respond that he “had it coming”.
You will have to forgive me for feeling that certain Christian dopers aren’t very Christian.
If I put a bumpersticker on my car saying “Jesus is fucking worthless you idiots”, any christian who sees it has a right to be offended. They still better keep their hand off of my stuff.
As I mentioned earlier, I see a lot of bumperstickers that I find offensive yet I somehow refrain from vandalising their property.
Please copy and paste such statements about “had it coming”. It’s possible I missed something. I believe some of us are trying to say that we find the sticker offensive, but I don’t recall any of us saying that vandalism was appropriate, or that anyone “had it coming”.
Will this do yosemitebabe,
More to the point, the intent of some posts seems to be “I can see where the vandals were coming from.”
If a female doper posted a rant about being sexually harassed and male dopers responded “what were you wearing?” they would be rightly vilified. I just don’t see how this is different than my hypothetical case.
The Ryan: No. Many times people place the things so they look good to the beholder. There’s also the whole issue of those who have Buddhist swastika pendants. Those tend not to stay in a nice two-dimensional existance.
Hmmm is grendel identifying all the negatively responding posters as “Christians”…or just assuming that?
Surely you jest. No, it will not. Kabbes was being facetous (obviously) and he was not talking about the “anti” Christian stickers, he was talking about just about ANY sticker! (I also doubt that kabbes is Christian, but you’ll have to ask him about that.)
If that’s the best example you can give me of “got it coming”, I am sorry, you will have to do better than that.
Please copy and paste where anyone said that. I may have missed that.
It is different, because the no one is “justifying” vandalism (that I can see - please copy and paste any justifications of vandalism). The topic has somewhat strayed, is all. Threads do that sometimes.
If you may recall, my first post on this thread commented about how I think the whole “bumper sticker wars” thing has gotten out of hand. I started a thread about this exact thing many moons ago, as a matter of fact. I don’t like the ill-will that “stickin’ it to ya” bumper stickers generate. This is a different subject than vandalism. We are now (mostly) discussing the bumper sticker war phenomenon, not vandalism.
Obviously the person who is continually vandalizing the OP’s car is a complete jerk. It’s just a damned bumper sticker!
I guess yr right beagledave, not everyone who is offended is necessarily Christian.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is damn tacky to turn this thread around to attack Lightnin’. Blaming the victim is a fucking classless act no matter who does it.
I don’t have a Darwin fish myself, I don’t want one. I don’t see getting worked up enough over another persons car accessories to vandalise their stuff- and I sure as hell don’t understand calling the victim of this shit “classless”.
Fair 'nuff
Not everyone who responded is blaming Lightnin’. FTR, I don’t think anyone has the right to rip bumper stickers or other doo-dads off of someone else’s car. What I did suggest in my first response is that people (including Lightnin’) were really quick and anxious to blame this act of idiocy on some anonymous “Christian”. That makes as much sense as blaming all acts of church vandalism on atheists, or blaming the theft of “For Sale” signs on commies.
It should be manifestly obvious that in the absence of religion, not only would atheism flourish, it would be positively common. What else do you imagine would be present in the absence of religion?
Also, you seem to be under the misimpression that atheists are incapable of holding “deeply cherished beliefs” and that the opinions they express are only meaningful vis a vis Christianity. This is, of course, stupid in the extreme.
yosemitebabe:
I’m not entirely unacquainted with the paraphernalia of Christian worship, and it seems to me that the “fish” symbol has only become “seriously-held” in the last fifteen years or so. It certainly existed before that, but didn’t appear to become important in the way that crosses and crucifixes and the Pentecastol flame, etc., are until the rise of Christian conservatism in the mid-80s. If anything, until then, it was something of a historical artifact in Christianity. My impression is that a lot of Christians started adopting it is a symbol because of some perceived “victimhood” status. Not all of them, but a lot of them.
No church of which I’m aware uses it as a symbol or in any significant way in worship. I somewhat think that the depth to which it is “seriously-held” is strongly related to the extent to which parodies of it appear. What’s more, not all parodies or co-options of symbols are intended to mock, or take the piss, or whatever. Some are intended simply as commentary, some are intended as tribute, some are made with other intentions entirely.
I think the fact that the Darwin fish is assumed by so many to be meant to be derogatory towards Christians is related in no small way to the fact that the people who use it are assumed to be atheists.
No - it’s been longer than that. I remember seeing the fish on cars when I was a kid, and (I am shy to say) that was a lot longer than 15 years ago.
I have no idea what the motivation behind people adorning their cars with fish. Have you been polling all the people who adorn their cars with Jesus fish? I always assumed that it was a simple, elegant symbol, horizontal in design rather than vertical, and perhaps it looked a little nicer adorning a car than a Christian cross would.
I saw the regular Jesus fish far longer than I’ve seen the Darwin fish. I am speaking from my own personal recollection, of course. It was years after I saw the first Jesus Fish that I saw the first Darwin fish. So - what’s your point? That the Christians who put the Jesus Fish on their car (or any Christians who recognize the Jesus Fish) shouldn’t be offended by a parody of it, just because the trend of the Jesus Fish bumper sticker isn’t a kajillion years old? If the Jesus Fish is a symbol that they feel represents their Christian faith, why shouldn’t they take it seriously as a symbol? And why shouldn’t they feel entitled to be offended when someone else mocks it?
But does anyone here think that the Darwin Fish is not, at least in part, meant to mock the Christian Fish? Some of the attitudes here, and on some of the mail-order bumper sticker companies seem to indicate otherwise. So - is it really a “tribute”? A “commentary” and nothing else? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.
What exactly is your point here? Who cares who is “mocking” the fish? If a Christian feels that a symbol they take seriously is being mocked, they may not like it. They don’t have to go further and decide who is mocking them. The fact that they are being mocked usually is enough.