2 Likes
Classy as fuck.
2 Likes
The concept that someone can “belittle” an atheist for not believing in god makes as much sense as some getting genuinely upset over a 2 year old calling them a poopy head. You have to be incredibly immature or have extremely thin skin.
1 Like
I am a huge fan of Mr brooks, but if he did “what young kids do today” (lawn, off!) He’d be murdered on twitter.
Roll in the hay? Elevate me? Megamaid went from suck to blow? Chew your gum? Matched luggage that you can’t live without? Druish princess? I invented the centerfold?
This crime against humanity?
I love Mel. But taken out of context (which is what twitter does) everyone one of those could be a news story.
Edit
I think Noah will be just fine.
1 Like
Mel understands context. What you’re saying is that if Mel said things in the wrong context it wouldn’t be funny or satire. The problem with that argument is that Mel does understand the proper context for satire and his comedy while some do not. There is a reason Mel brooks doesn’t have horrible tweets and it isn’t because he doesn’t tweet.
1 Like
Sure, and the other extension to that is if someone misjudges context they shouldn’t be roasted. “Know your audience” is as much of an axiom as “location, location, location”.
But comedians get audiences wrong, and restaurants get buildings wrong.
Is that you, Michael Richards?
Except no one said that. He is belittling atheists by misrepresenting their views and then chiding them for his strawmen in order to promote a Christian agenda. You presume too much. I’m not thin skinned. My feelings aren’t hurt. I just see it for what it is.
1 Like
That’s General Patton “Lee Harvey” Oswald, to you!
1 Like
Promote a Christian agenda? What agenda is that? Hell the one’s I read are relatively tame in snark. Joke for joke the ones poked at Christians are more plentiful, and often times, more mean spirited, especially when they butt of the joke is someone actually respected and revered. Examples like calling Jesus a Zombie Vampire, as he rose from the dead and wants you to drink his blood.
At the same time, comedians can hit on these sorts of topics, often times using stereotypes or half truths, and not be promoting any agenda per se. For example, does the South Park episode with the atheist Otters in some sort of civil war or the one where Dawkins fucks Mr/Ms Garrison promote a Christian agenda?
At any rate, no matter what the beliefs are of this new guy, he will tell the jokes the writers write and the editors approve.
2 Likes
Eh, Louis ck mis represents children’s agendas, andrew dice clay misrepresents nursery rhymes, and George Carlin… Well he was actually correct about literally everything.
Luckily I am not an atheist and have accepted His Noodly Appendage into my heart.
1 Like
Perhaps, but they don’t do it with hackneyed straw-men to support an agenda.
If this is the biggest disagreement I have with someone today, things are going good 
My best to you and yours!!
1 Like
Yeah, it was so much better in the past when people could just say whatever they wanted if they were famous and had a platform, and nobody could talk back to them about it.
2 Likes
To be clear I was making the observation that a 140 character, basically ‘pub chat’ isn’t the measure of a persons jib.
2 Likes
One other observation, if everything I said was recorded I would offended at least 15% of people. Then I would apologize to the set I hadn’t 
tempest.setTeapot(true)
1 Like
No one is suggesting as much. We are looking at an overall pattern.
But ‘tweet’ has been mentioned in a third of the comments here and is even in the headline. Not to mention the linked article.
Edit
I apologize for attacking a rhetorical device you used. It isn’t useful. It was a means to express the opinion that nuance is stripped in certain forms of communication, and I think this is a good example.
That’s because many of his comments have been recorded in the form of tweets. Tweeting is a form of communication. Sometimes I use the word comment instead of tweet.
I don’t know on what planet those can be construed anti-Atheist. They kind of strike me as “why is there a skull in your head?” attempts to be clever that kinda fell flat. The offensiveness of his jokes is actually less worrisome than Noah’s attempts at wry observational humor falling flat. He may be an anti-Athiest, but I don’t see it in those tweets. But if Twitter is the medium, I’m prepared to consider his talents elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Atheist here… who largely thinks our reputation for being regressive douchbags is somewhat deserved. Somehow, somewhere *cough*Dawkins*cough*, being a dick became the same thing as being “strident” and “brave.” (P.S. Atheists existed before Dawkins, it’s okay to let him go.)
2 Likes
