The story of the SAHRC complaint, which illustrates once more that people still expect that religion should qualify for special considerations.
Izikhokho Show - Jesus is a Shangaan
'Luthon64
The video is out on the web. It is not clear to me what exactly the plaintive expects the HRC to do about it. Ban YouTube? Just for safety’s sake, I downloaded me a copy of the video, even though I don’t find it particularly funny. Neither the Christian fundies, nor the HRC, are going to tell us what we are or are not allowed to view, so if they manage to get YouTube to remove it, I will do a “spear” all over again and spread the thing around a bit. Perhaps the lesson will eventually sink in that in the age of the internet, for better or for worse, neither censoring nor enforcement of copyright is possible anymore.
What tickles me about this story is the irony. The complainant is a Shangaan woman who is objecting to Jesus being classed as a Shangaan because she and her child were/are objects of derision because they are Shangaan. In the cartoon, Jesus doesn’t want to be Shangaan — and clearly the complainant wishes she wasn’t either. The situation plays right into the hands of those who generalise about Shangaans being daft. I think the woman is expecting the SAHRC to issue a public proclamation that it’s not okay to make jokes about Shangaans or Jesus. The case illustrates that when tribalism and religion meet, abject stupidity is sure to follow, and this thing is riding on the coattails of the JZ and The Spear saga.
Imagine for a moment if people start complaining to the SAHRC about Irish, German, Australian, Polish, van der Merwe, etc. jokes. Maybe we should just cover all the possible ways people could conceivably offend one another by issuing a blanket ban on all comedy, satire and lampoonery. Then we’ll have a humourless society where everyone can feel equally validated and mundane.
'Luthon64
It makes little sense to me why most individuals are capable of laughing off a matter, while others feel they must go out of their way to mute those who express themselves artistically or satirically.
Also, I know nothing about psychology (a fact that got hammered home even more since my wedding day), but since mere ignorance about a subject is no reason to shut up about it, here is my theory:
People leap to the opportunity of declaring themselves offended (or morally outraged) because of one or more of the following :
- They enjoy the equestrian altitude;
- They secretly enjoy feeling victimized;
- They enjoy the attention that complaining provides;
- They crave the support that the underdog “deserves”;
- They repress deep seated uncertainties about themselves (aka issues/baggage etc.);
- They understand neither the satire, nor the magnitude in which they add to the satire;
- They feel obliged to defend an all powerful God who happens to be a bit shy;
- None of the above
Thank you.
Rigil
They are attention seeking.
So Jesus wasn’t a Shangaan??
I personally have made a point of stopping being morally outraged. It almost reached a point at one stage of me getting a hart attack.
No you can change things without having to get all upset out it. Purposeful decisive action it the best way to go. And choosing your battles wisely.
… a reliance, perhaps unconscious, that their moral indignation will always trump your reasoned argument, no matter how well-constructed it may be. That is, an idea is more compelling and less vulnerable to criticism in direct proportion to the amount of passion with which it is infused. It’s a reversal of ad hominem into huffiness: “Your disagreement with my beliefs is an insult to me! Are you sure you want to insult me?”
Just look at his parents’ lineage…
'Luthon64
You mean the spirits of the fathers?
The record is somewhat confused: Direct lineage of King David or Yahweh??..generational count also gives conflicting info. Must be a Shangaan then.