So, today I made a tacky joke.

Try to contain your surprise.

It was like many of the thousands I've made before, and was received across the spectrum with, "Woah, good one."  "Clever but too soon."  "Ouch. I'm going to hell, but I'm laughing."  "My god, that's dreadful," and "No, not funny.

Which is how my jokes are usually received.

Then it went semi-viral.

All of a sudden, a professional acquaintance I'm on decent terms with quotes it and asks into the ether if I'm the kind of person who (supports something bad).  Said acquaintance should know better, and should have tagged me, if he wanted a debate, rather than to just have online troglodytes hurl invective.

I enjoy the discussions with said acquaintance. I find them informative, and I appreciate the differing viewpoint. I understand he was offended to the point of bypassing that.

He then basically wanted me to sign a manifesto he wrote by means of expiation.  I have stated my position, vs my humor.  Being forced to sign someone else's statement would be disingenuous and prove nothing. Request respectfully declined.

The thread itself was most enlightening. Comments included things like (paraphrase):

"So, you just like to make things all about you."

Well, since the thread cites me by name, it sort of is about me.

"I know from that comment that you're the worst kind of monster possible."

No, the worst kind of monsters shoot up churches and schools, or feed people into gas chambers. They don't make jokes on Facebook.

"You'r e a racist.  I might tell a joke like that, but only in private."

Ah. Hypocrite.

"I do laugh at Blazing Saddles, but uncomfortably, because I know the humor is racist." 

So, finding that humor funny doesn't make you racist, just "uncomfortable."  Not finding my humor funny means you're not a racist, but I am, but Mel Brooks is not.  Fascinating.

"You can't actually have any friends."

No?  I may need to consult a therapist. I was sure I did and do. They say they're my friends, and support me.

"That comment tells me you're an ____, _____ and ___ with _____."

Fascinating. You can determine a stranger's entire personality from a single online comment? Have you consulted with scientists on this ability and had it tested? It could prove very beneficial and profitable.

"Comedians never joke about things like that."

Well, I'm not really a comedian, but a fictioneer.  However, Monty Python did.

"They never joked about things like that, or the Holocaust, or..."

Excuse me, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?  Monty Python took the piss out of EVERYONE and EVERYTHING just because they could.

"You're not Monty Python."

So, do they have Fame Privilege or Wealth Privilege that makes this double standard?

"Get ready to lose readers."

Unlikely. I expect most of my tens or hundreds of thousands of readers will never see my jokes.  In fact, most of the 5000 on Facebook won't.  Nor would most of them do more than just sigh or move on to the next post.

"You can't exploit something so soon."

Why not? The politicians and news whores are.

"Everything you say just proves you're MOAR RACIST."

Well, if you go looking for it, you'll probably find it.

"You're denying racism exists. THAT's RACIST!"

A: I am not.  2) See above.

There was much more.  but that's the more amusing ones.

I hope this answers all your questions.  If you've taken offense, then by all means find other entertainers.  I would never suggest you shouldn't. For myself, it takes more than an off-color joke for me to dismiss an entire body of work.


The clown at the top, that is.

Chu's post assumes that the only reason Brad would marry a black woman is to use her for political gain and cover.  If he can conceive of marrying and reproducing with someone for such reasons, it means he's considered them. Racist.

There's no evidence that Brad has ever done so, but Chu assumes this must be the case.  Why? Because he's a racist.

He assumes that the black woman is either too stupid or too gullible to recognize such a fact, and can't divest from it.  Racist.

He seems unaware that she is both liberal, and possessed of a PhD in liberal arts.  Or did he assume that wasn't possible because she's a black woman?  If so, racist.

As a minority himself, he has no doubt experienced prejudice and bigotry, but is quite willing to use it as a weapon.

He's quite willing to use the black woman, AND THE MIXED RACE CHILD, to make his racist point.

That makes him a racist without any honor or decency.

And in fact, in a healthy marriage, the partners ARE each other's shield, sidearm, support and reinforcement.

But then, if you take your cultural advice from a former game show contestant, don't expect deep thought.

I'm not the oly one to see it, btw:

With thanks to my fans for many additions:

A man is drowning 50 feet from shore.
A Republican throws a 25 foot rope and tells the man to swim to it.
A Democrat throws a 50 foot rope, then drops his end and goes off to help someone else.
A Libertarian tells the man he'll throw a rope for $20.
A Socialist complains that the government should have rope throwers stationed around the lake against such an emergency, and America is a third world country for not providing this service.
A Green laments that the man will die and deserves it since he's polluting the water.  Then the Green will demand the lake be off limits so further drownings don't hurt aquatic animals.
The EPA will agree with the Greens and fine the man's family, then declare the lake a wetland and refuse to allow removal of anything, including his remains.
A Wahhabist will wait to find out the man's national origin and religion before either cheering his death, or blaming America for failing to save drowning Muslims.
If the man is black, Al Sharpton will fake a bunch of statistics showing blacks are more likely to drown and this is proof of white dominance and repression.
A white nationalist will wait to see if the man can get out alone. If not, he'll claim the man's death is due to inferior genes from other races weakening him.
A feminist will cheer that a future rape has been prevented.
A CEO will demand to know why the man wasn't at work and fire him posthumously.
His insurance company will insist it was a self-inflicted injury and not covered.
A marijuana activist will insist that if the man had smoked a couple of joints, he wouldn't have been in the lake and would have been fine. Also, pot cures drowning and is better than any medication the government medical conspiracy has devised.
A homeopath will grab a tube of the water, dilute it 1:10,000 and sell it as a cure for drowning.
The conspiracy groups will insist the man was killed by the Jewish Banker/Royal Family/FEMA/Bush-0bama conspiracy to keep him from talking.
Greenpeace will insist the man has "Water privilege" and he should be grateful to live in a nation where it's possible to drown.
Hashatag activists will share photos of the incident 6 miliion times with #Icantbreathewater and #yesallponds to draw attention to his plight.
Livestreamers and Youtubers will take video of him drowning, with selfie content to prove they were present.  20% will make duckfaces.
Crowdsourcers will each send in 4" of some sort of twine, string or rope, and wonder why it wasn't successful with a total of 300 feet.
Brian Williams will claim to have been present, under fire, while hauling the man in himself.
Dan Rather will insist that Brian Williams' reports are "fake, but accurate."
Fox News and Breitbart will report that 0bama's immigration policies led to the man drowning due to the resources being used by illegals.
A Former Green Beret Seal Marine will explain the proper way to avoid drowning and offer to sell the video for $24.95
Anti-Vaxxers wil claim the man was in shock induced by the combination of cold water on a metabolism weakened by the MMR vaccine, and not immunizing your kids will let them develop natural immunity to drowning.

The local police will claim they suspected him of cooking meth, which is why they didn't try to save him but did shoot his dog, and congratulate themselves on going home safe at the end of the shift.
The Bloc Quebecois and La Raza, supported by Occupy, will demand to know why the lake didn't have multilingual warning signs.

Bernie Sanders will Facebook meme that if the man had been at a job paying a $15/hr living wage, he wouldn't have been at the park drowning.
If the man is a cismale heteronormative straight white Christian male, SJWs will complain about the attention paid to him when thousands of POCGLBTQXYZs drown every day without media coverage.
An atheist will claim the man's drowning proved the non-existence of a loving god.
NPR will do a lengthy story interviewing a Georgetown professor about drowning in great works of literature.
Some asshole will insist it's 15.4 meters and Americans should standardize on 15 meters, not 50 feet.
History Channel 2 will insist that aliens were behind the drowning.
MSNBC will insist Republican obstructionism made it impossible for lifeguards to be present, but no one will watch the show anyway.
Eventually some decent person who will strip off, dive in and rescue the guy. Once ashore, they'll find their wallet, watch, and cellphone stolen, and get arrested for indecent exposure.  Then the state will sue them for not being licensed for water rescue.
His Congressman will introduce "The Safe Parks and Ponds Act" which will cost $5 billion, result in three agencies writing five different safety standards that are resolved after 7 lawsuits reach the Federal courts, but the rider ban on home-farming of turnips will remain.
A Christian homeschooler will blame secular public education, and make their children study the story of Noah's Ark.

China would issue a statement that the drowned man was violating waters that were their traditional maritime territory.

North Korea issues a statement condemning the drowning as a Capitalist propaganda ploy and claims that every year, a thousand thousand North Koreans drown far more skillfully.


The Charlie Hedbo magazine will print an issue mocking the drowned man in the front page.

Putin would jump into the lake, pose shirtless for pictures, then walk out and order his troops to invade Ukraine.

Hillary would deny that there was such a lake, until confronted about the physical existence of said lake, and then say that drowning in lakes was legal years ago.

Trump would say that there is a drowning man in a lake, and yes, there are a lot of lakes, and let me tell you, the people have spoken and said that we have great lakes, and all over the place, those lakes are the greatest lakes in all of the, let me tell you, everyone has said that they're the best, unlike those people, you know which people, who don't like lakes and are always, of course, you know that we're going to make America great again!

Cheney would shoot the drowning man with a shotgun, and then blame the man for entering a lake during duck hunting season.

I posted this article, and several of us discussed it.

Someone observed that many Americans really aren't clear on the difference between Muslims and Sikhs.

I said:

Hell, Mormons are closer to Muslims than Sikhs are.

My point was that thinking that  "All those people in turbans are terrorists" is grossly untrue, especially as few Muslims wear turbans. That's a caricature that's wrong, and it's ignorant prejudice to think so.

I didn't pay much attention to the thread, but I got this IM a while later:

Andrew Rowley
Chat Conversation Start
7 hours ago

I am done, sick of the LDS attacks, you cant clump LDS with Muslims. Im out.

I said:

Sorry you're prejudiced.
Now, let's look at it: They both worship the same god, they both eschew drugs and booze, they both have or recently had support for polygamy.


Sikhs do none of the above.

So, "Mormons have more in common with Muslims than Sikhs" is not an attack. It is a factually correct statement.

So fuck off.

Andrew  Rowley said:
No they don not worship the same God. period... I see you for who you are a totally bigoted politically incorrect gun nut.... you only like to start controversy and will bring any topic into the matter. No hold barred. Nothing is sacred to you. You are so misguided in you pokes at religion. I' take the f comment as your final good bye.


I probably should be kind to him. If his reading skills match his writing skills, he probably has trouble grasping it.

So:  What I said was, "These religions have some aspects in common, but the other two have almost nothing in common."  Again, this is a factually correct statement.

Christians, Jews and Muslims are the Abrahamic religions, and use the same first five books—the Pentateuch.  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.  It's the same god. They see Him/it in different ways, but fundamentally, the same being.

And, gee, I guess all these people must be "totally bigoted" too:

Jesse: LDS and Islam are both Abrahamic religions. Sikhism is an independent faith established in the 15th century without any antecedents.

Based on those simple facts, Mike's statement seems pretty accurate.

Adam: Andrew Rowley: Michael is correct, both Islam and LDS are Abrahamic faiths, Sikhism is not. So there are a few commonalities between Muslims and Mormons, there is essentially none between either group and Sikhs.

OhΓÇöAndrew deleted all his posts. He didn't actually want to discuss the matter.

Adam: Andrew:

LDS is a branch of Christianity, which itself branched off Judaism. Islam also branched of Islam. All three branches are considered Abrahamic faiths.

Please do your research before accusing people of not knowing their way around basic families of religions.

Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are the...

Nikhil: Sikhism is its own faith but broadly aligned with the Dharmic faiths (Hinduism and Buddhism). Some consider it an offshoot, most do not. The Eastern faiths (including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Shinto) have nothing to do with Western faiths and are built on wholly different philosophical premises.

The western faiths include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is true historically, doctrinally, and epistemologically. Artificial distinction between Islam and other Western faiths is intellectually dishonest and well, silly.

Art: Andrew Rowley, I, too, am LDS. Our religion stems from a covenent from God as does the Muslim faith. The Muslim God and our God are the same God. It's how we gain approval of our God that things drastically change. Judaism is similar. The difference between Jews and us is that we believe Christ's first coming started with Christ's birth. Jews don't believe Christ was the Messiah. Muslims believe that Christ was an OK dude... but he was just a prophet. He was not Allah or any relation to Allah.

Obviously, you and I both know that things go in all kinds of different directions from there.

Sikhism is based off of none of the above. It is a practice and believe that is barely even theological in nature.

Mike is absolutely 100% correct. Islam is closer to the LDS religion than it is to Sikhism.

You need to ensure you know what you are talking about before you berate others, sir. Please use this opportunity to clean the egg off and let's get away from the Strawman.

(Wait, a Mormon is also an anti-Mormon bigot?  How is that possible?  Those evil fact things!)

Rick: The Christian God is NOT the same as the Muslim god. The Christian God is a Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Muslims view that as heretical polytheism. It is just plain wrong to equate them.
8 hrs ┬╖ Like ┬╖ 2

Adam: Rick: The Muslims, like the Jews, only recognize the Father, not the full Trinity. Allah (and YHWH) are in fact the same God, but only a part of the same god.
8 hrs ┬╖ Like ┬╖ 2

Steve (a Jew): Rick, whether you open your egg from the big end or the little end, it's still an egg.
12 hrs ┬╖ Like

Greg: Wrong Adam. Muhammed CLAIMS they are the same, but they certainly are not. Muhammed was a plagerist of both the Old and New Testaments.
12 hrs ┬╖ Like ┬╖ 2

Art: Muhammad is not their God. He is their prophet.

The religions are both based from the same initial details.
12 hrs ┬╖ Edited ┬╖ Like ┬╖ 1

Michael Z. Williamson Reminds me of a Catholic explaining to me how the Christian Trinity* is a trinity, but the Celtic trinity is only a trinity, not a trinity.

There ARE Christian sects who don't accept a literal trinity, considering it a metaphor.


So there we go. I'm sure we're all racist and this is Bush's fault.

But how can we have a proper discussion about Islam, when half the people out there don't even know what it is?

More next time.