FROM PEREZ HILTON: JUNE 1, 2007:

(Does anyone remember the reverse argument put forth by the right wing back in the day of the first AIDS cases? [how AIDS was God's revenge on the Gays?] This Moby thing is an interesting twist on that/those theories..also, check out the last paragraphs. Same type of thing!)

I'm kind of digging Moby right now!


"Moby: God Destroys Right-Wing Republicans With Tornados, Hurricanes"

Hmm. Inneresting! CLICK HERE to read the article accompanying this headline.

Moby: God Destroys Right-Wing Republicans With Tornados, Hurricanes

Moby 'believes' God destroys Republicans with natural disasters. The musician - who is a staunch Democrat - is enraged by religious extremists who suggest hurricanes and earthquakes are sent by God to destroy sinners, and has come up with a new theory about why the tragedies might occur.
Moby wrote on his personal website: "You know how the religious right will every now and then say that some natural disasters - hurricanes, earthquakes, etc - happen because God is angry at secular sinners?

"I mean, personally, I tend to think that things like hurricanes and tornadoes happen for non-anthropocentric reasons and are, actually, just examples of extreme and arbitrary weather.

"But if natural disasters are, as the evangelicals maintain, a sign of God's wrath, then what does it mean that 90 per cent of the damage caused by tornadoes and hurricanes in the US happen in right-wing, Republican states that are heavily populated by evangelicals?

"Again, I'm of the 'weather tends to happen because of climatological factors' school of thought.

"But the evangelicals have on plenty of occasions tried to maintain that natural disasters are the products of God's wrath. For example, they said that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans because New Orleans was hosting a gay pride weekend.

"I'm not making light of the damage done by natural disasters in the US, I'm just trying to point out another small logical inconsistency on the part of our evangelical pals."

love that the headline has no interest in the nuanced irony of his argument

__________________
they made soup out of my research turtles.

Do you mean my headline or the one in the press?

I personally love how he's turned the tables on the right-wing bastards!

Hey tracy!

While I sort of understand his argument I am kinda pissed at him. He assumes everyone in the South is super right wing? 'Cuz I'm certainly not, and I had to deal with plenty of hurricane messes in 2004 - 2005.

__________________

Here's a spoiler for you: Chinese Democracy is shit

Hi Em!!

I know what you're saying...there's no such thing as all or nothing, and I know how it feels to be lumped into the "absolute" like that. I'm in a very "red" part of CA...exactly of the type in which Moby is referring. In fact, he would likely assume I'm one of THEM, just like he's assuming that you are.

However, in this town, all these neocons think I'm a fag-lovin' commie because I'm disgusted with everything they stand for. No matter what, people need to label others I guess.

So, I know what you're saying. I'm just finding it amusing that it's being heaped onto the right wing for a change. I mean no offense to people such as yourself (and even me for that matter!) whatsoever.

It's cool. Moby is kind of short tempered, he says some crazy shit sometimes even though I agree with the gist of what he is saying.

__________________

Here's a spoiler for you: Chinese Democracy is shit

are you guys nuts? I am neither right wing, nor religious, nor american, but I appear to be the only person who wants to bitchslap moby for saying something so inane, and frankly, disgusting.

It's just as bad, if not worse than the AIDS/gay statement. (which interestingly, was made about 25 years ago (approx.), by one stupid, stupid man, (jerry falwell,) and NOT by any political party/ or the "right wing", as tracyr implied.)

and kesh, "irony" is right! I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's (at least) mostly kidding.

I understand what he's getting at (that certain right wing Southern people have insane beliefs about natural disasters), it's just the way he said it was offensive. He is a bit of a dumbass though. I remember a few years ago apparently he made some shitty remarks to a British audience basically dissing England for no apparent reason, they obviously didn't react nicely to what he said. He needs to understand that in some cases he should use his "inside voice"...

__________________

Here's a spoiler for you: Chinese Democracy is shit

if you read what he says, he isn't actually subscribing to the logic that right-wingers are killed as an act of god, he is merely demonstrating that if you follow the logic of the evangelical argument, that natural disasters are sent by god as punishment, that it is actually mainly right-wing states (and here is generalising) that are being affected, he is just trying to show the absurdity of the argument in the first place with a keen sense of irony.

and i find it funny that whenever someone left of centre says something offensive they are hung out to dry, yet right wing people (i'm looking at you coulter) can make a career out of it without any of the same depth of criticism.

never was, thats true. I'm just saying, that inorder to prove your point, one shouldn't have to do the... well, the exact same thing as they're criticizing.

and he said:
"You know how the religious right will every now and then say that some natural disasters - hurricanes, earthquakes, etc - happen because God is angry at secular sinners?"

I want to say to him like,
"No, I don't know the religious right will say that every "now and then." I dont because THEY DONT DO THAT."

it's just not true.
his whole deal is based on one statement one (extremely hated) man made about a quarter century ago.

EDIT: and whomever in this thread said "right wing bastards" is missing the entire point of the article. bah!

he isn't doing the same thing, he is just showing how a proper application of the logic that was being used by others would result in a situation that said others would not like. he explicitly makes clear that he himself does not subscribe to that logic, hence it is not the same thing. it is kind of a cheap shot, if you want to call it that, but it does illustrate how 'leftists' get pulled up far more than those on the right when they say inflammatory things.

and it wasn't based on one statement,

I understand what youre saying. and youre right. I think it's just a really terrible, disgusting and offensive way to display a point.

That's the evangelicals, not the "right wing/republicans." Sorry if I didnt make it clear (which I am known for doing..) but I meant the right wing specifically, not religious groups. The "right wing" (religious or not) havn't made any statements like that at all, as far as I know.

he was being rhetorical in order to highlight the disgusting nature of the logic in the first place, again, as he said, he didn't subscribe to that logic himself. therefore, since he isnt endorsing the view himself, merely highlighting the obnoxious views of others, i dont see how he is the one being offensive. as he says:

and again

the term he used was religious right i think, which would clear up the misunderstanding

well, we can nitpick all we want, but I think it was really stupid way to prove a point. I think it was offensive. I just do.

to quote myself, "The "right wing" (religious or not) havn't made any statements like that at all, as far as I know."

it's not nit picking. i dont see how it is in any way offensive to say what he said, which was essentially this:
1) the religious right's description of natural disasters that affected new orleans as acts of god (because of that city's gay events) was stupid and offensive.
2) that natural disasters are actually due to weather patterns etc
3) that the view of natural disasters as acts of gods is doubly stupid because a large amount of natural disasters that occur in the US affect what are traditionally seen as strong holds of the religious right (at worst this is a generalisation). therefore, when the relgious right suggests that natural disasters are acts of god they actually end up condemning a great deal of their own believers, which highlights the illogical nature of the whole thing.

at no point does he say that natural disasters are acts of god, or that people are being punished by acts of god, or that he thinks this would be a good thing. therefore, what precisely, is offensive?

lol. murphy is a twat

__________________
they made soup out of my research turtles.

maybe yes, maybe no. sometimes I think it's good when people say outrageous things out loud. I'm not saying this is an example of one of those times, though I wasn't offended.
England does suck though doesn't it?*
*sorry I couldn't resist.

no, one shouldn't have to if one is dealing with rational intelligent people. But he's not. Plenty of people have said that the "logic" of the pat robertsons of the world is fucking retarded but it hasn't really attracted as much attention as this statement by moby.

kesh, I'm following you around the board this morning.
just thought you should know.

__________________