You Betray the Son of Man With a Ball Gag

Now that you've picked your jaw up from the floor and wiped away your pristine tears, tell me: What do you think of that ad? Because the thought of this ad promoting "the grandaddy of all leather events" is driving Christian groups to fits of rage.

[Stephen Bennett, president of SBM and a former homosexua] said, "I call upon the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, GLSEN, and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to publicly condemn this blatant mockery of Christians and Christianity by some within their community, and condemn this sick public display of immoral behavior. I call upon the Miller Brewing Company to pull their endorsement of this event. I call for the organizers of this filth to immediately apologize to Christians worldwide and remove this Last Supper mockery. I also call upon every law abiding official and citizen in America who has any morals to do what they can to shut down this Folsom Street 'Filth' Fair once and for all."

Dan Savage points out the tons and tons of Last Supper parodies already wafting through the culture and wonders what the big deal is. Andrew Sullivan has a challenge:

Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one.

Hm. How many "sacred Muslim scenes" are there, anyway? I can only think of one, although it would make for a dandy poster. Just imagine the double dildos and assless chaps.

Comments

Lamar | September 27, 2007, 11:16am | #

So gays are pretty much not welcome by Jesus? Gays can't be forgiven like every other sinner?

SM | September 27, 2007, 11:17am | #

"I call upon the Miller Brewing Company to pull their endorsement of this event. I call for the organizers of this filth to immediately ..."

I call upon ? Sure, this dude is a former sinner who found God, but somebody oughta tell him not to overdo the biblical language.

jj | September 27, 2007, 11:18am | #

Yes! Another silly little article about a few (and I mean few) silly little Christian groups ranting against a silly little advertisement.

Let's all fill the comments page with rabid frothing about the evil Christians. 1, 2, 3, Pavlov go...

sixstring | September 27, 2007, 11:19am | #

I call for pizza!

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 11:22am | #

Shouldn't St. Peter be portrayed by one of Heff's bunnies?

ed | September 27, 2007, 11:22am | #

Har har! Love it. And yes, probably only American Gothic has been parodied more than The Last Supper. I guess we've turned a corner when so many high-profile companies are willing to sponsor this camp. That's a good thing. Not that the red fist doesn't creep me out a little.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 11:23am | #

Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one.

But it can make one laugh, Andrew. However, I agree with him that if you want to prove that you have balls as a religiously offensive artist, mocking Mohammed is the way to go. Thing is, most "offensive" artists are total poser pussies who are playing for the gallery.

SPD | September 27, 2007, 11:23am | #

Any similarities between this and the Last Supper are entirely coincidental.

Maybe they're upset because "Jesus" is black? It's hard to tell with fundies anymore.

sixstring | September 27, 2007, 11:25am | #

Folsom Street Fair? Boy, did I take a wrong turn. I thought this was the Wholesome Street Fair!

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 11:25am | #

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

New World Dan | September 27, 2007, 11:27am | #

There's only one word for this ad: Fabulous!

The problem with doing a parody of a Muslim scene is that no one would get it. Heck, I can't even think of any classic Jewish images that would be great to parody.

Jim Bob | September 27, 2007, 11:28am | #

Stephen Bennett is a reformed homosexual, huh?

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 11:29am | #

Lamar,
the Christians don't say gay people aren't welcome, just that if they come and join the fold they can't keep being gay. The logic behind it is that yes, Jesus hung out with prostitutes and taxpayers, but those people changed their sinful ways after internalizing Christ's message.

That's why the aforementioned Stephen Bennet is a "former homosexual."

Stephen the Goldberger | September 27, 2007, 11:30am | #

this ad doesn't make any sense. what the hell does a leather festival have to do with the last supper before crucifixion? Unless crucifixion has become like a new bizarre fetish i've never heard about.

SIV | September 27, 2007, 11:31am | #

I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this.
If you want to be daringly provocative do an offensive parody of the Muslim faith.
Christianity historically has S&M and homo-erotic imagery in sacred art.

Check this out too.Smoking ban exemption for Muslims in Vancouver.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 11:31am | #

Heck, I can't even think of any classic Jewish images that would be great to parody.

I bring you the Fifteen [crash] Ten Commandments.

pinko | September 27, 2007, 11:33am | #

Brilliant ad.
To Andrew Sullivan, why the fuck would we parody Islam? Parodies only work on texts, imagery, and iconography that people have an opinion about in their respective culture. Last time I checked, when it comes to homophobia in the U.S., Mohammed wasn't even on the radar screen, but hysterical Christians were. I would love to see more of this stuff because Christianity is silly and annoying.

VM | September 27, 2007, 11:33am | #

... say...
isn't that Crane in the mask, there?

next we need a version of the Sistine Chapel, and instead of fingers touching, maybe the dongers or some boobs or something.

and a fire truck. gotta have the fire truck.

um... (sneaks off to Stevo's bunk)

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 11:34am | #

Pinko, what's brilliant about the ad?

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 11:36am | #

PS just to be clear I'm not a christian, don't think being gay is a sin, etc. I just don't like sloppy indictments of religions. But go after individuals all you like.

SIV | September 27, 2007, 11:36am | #

Unless crucifixion has become like a new bizarre fetish i've never heard about.

Think about it for a second: Whipping a naked guy, crown of thorns, tied/nailed to a cross, penetrated by a spear by a guy wearing a Roman soldier outfit......

Nothing new and nothing bizarre. BDSM motifs have their roots in that religous martyr stuff.

Jim Bob | September 27, 2007, 11:38am | #

The sight of that many shirtless sweaty beefcakes barely wrapped in tight leather probably caused Bennett to "reform" all over the inside of his drawers. The outrage is just a cover for his throbbing erection.

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 11:39am | #

How many "sacred Muslim scenes" are there, anyway?

There aren't supposed to be any, right? I mean there isn't supposed to be any Islamic iconography. That's why Islamic architecture (or rather religious buildings) is full of calligraphy, flower motifs and the like.

cls | September 27, 2007, 11:41am | #

It should be noted that there are more exChristians than exgays. And you rarely find an exChristian "accidentally" frequenting a hangout for Christians.

Alas, poor Andrew. There are two things in the world he takes seriously. God and himself. And far too often he gets the two categories confused.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 11:43am | #

You homosexuals, sodomites, and sabbath violators are GOING TO HELL!

How dare you mock a painting inspired by our inerrant holy book! That's an insult.

People who live in glass houses...

Stephen the Goldberger | September 27, 2007, 11:43am | #

Nothing new and nothing bizarre. BDSM motifs have their roots in that religous martyr stuff.

I say that's a stretch. The ad is meaningless and merely meant to offend/get attention for the fair. And it's worked perfectly.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 11:45am | #

I think the ad is absolutely brilliant. The Stephen Bennett passage reads like a parody. Can anybody be *that* humorless?

Funny thing is that most Christians I know aren't so easily offended, but then many of them are Papists, so I suppose the Stephen Bennetts of the world don't recognize them as "true" Christians. But even most of the fundies I know aren't as shrill as the stereotype. What I see among the media-oriented fundies is a lot of "professional outrage."

Brian Sorgatz | September 27, 2007, 11:45am | #

lunchstealer:
Shouldn't St. Peter be portrayed by one of Heff's bunnies?

It's spelled Hef, you fool!

ed | September 27, 2007, 11:45am | #

If you want to be daringly provocative do an offensive parody of the Muslim faith.

Done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi2RcI7LKCc

dhex | September 27, 2007, 11:48am | #

i don't really see the last supper bit but maybe my monitor's off or something?

also there are hookah exceptions to the smoking ban in nyc as well, and it's not a religious thing. the national review should change its diapers before posting idiocy.

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 11:49am | #

Medieval Christian iconography, etc. (if you know how to "read" it) often enough mocks various aspects of the medieval church, society and indeed Christianity itself. You just have to look for stuff like a prophet as a ridiculed figure or some sort of mocked animal.

capelza | September 27, 2007, 11:51am | #

Andrew Sullivan should know better (I don't expect too much from CWA). The iconic composition of the Leonardo Last Supper is what recognisable. Tony Soprano as Jesus, apparantly a murdering thug is not offensive, or Homer Simpson, or that great scene from MASH, and on and on, but when the leather boys get ahold of it..OMGZ!!!!

Let's see, what famous Muslim art composition could they use...thinking, thinking, thinking..oh that's right, there isn't one. I have a feeling that a riff on a classic Persian miniature would fly right over everyone's head.

And as per usual, a poster for a local event now has national coverage. So stupid. But it gets the Christian victimhood thing going, good for donations and a good whinge.

I enjoy telling people so hepped up about this that the chances are extremely high that Leonardo himslef was gay and a heretic..so the "sacredness" of a fresco with world famous perspective is undermined in the first place.

pinko | September 27, 2007, 11:52am | #

"Pinko, what's brilliant about the ad?"

Randolph, where to start...

First off it's a wicked parody of something that has been so often parodied that one would think that parody in this case had run its course. It clearly hasn't.

Secondly, it makes something that I normally think is creepy, the leather fetish, look like an anaesthetized Romper Room.

Thirdly, all of the models look so earnest in their leather getups, you know, like Rob Halford when he belts out Victim of Changes or Frerddy Mercury. Dress up just cracks me up. Dress up in leather, priceless.

And the whip as a halo behind the black Jesus's head made me chuckle.

There, that wasn't that hard, and we didn't even get to any of the specific props laid out, the composition within the frame, the faux columns on the sheet behind them, etc.

If that all amounts to a sloppy indictment of religion, show me a clean one. And remember, IT IS AN AD, not treatise.

Borat | September 27, 2007, 11:52am | #

"You mean the man that put rubber fist in my anus was a homosexuals?"

jon | September 27, 2007, 11:55am | #

"Assless chaps"? I think if they have asses, they are called "pants". Just like aunts with testicles are called "uncles".

BakedPenguin | September 27, 2007, 11:56am | #

I think Stephen Bennett was part of this group.

ChicagoTom | September 27, 2007, 11:57am | #

I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this.
If you want to be daringly provocative do an offensive parody of the Muslim faith.
Christianity historically has S&M and homo-erotic imagery in sacred art.

How is it "daringly provacative" to do a parody of a minority culture rather than doing a parody of the majority of the culture? I think it is much more provocative to attack the people with real influence and power who are trying to dictate what "normal" and "natural".

Furthermore, last time I checked, in this country anyway, it's mainly the Christians who are pushing the hate the gay agenda and doing everything they can to demonise them. Wouldn't that be the group you want to target with parodies? The ones that have a beef with you and are attacking you every chance they get?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Muslims don't like people satirizing Mohamed. So I guess that means everyone should parody them regardless of it makes any sense or there is a reason to do so.

Warren | September 27, 2007, 11:57am | #

SIV is right, the crucifixion scene cliche among the BDSM crowd.

The ad is brilliant because it pisses of the right people. The religious overtones might strike a chord with a sub set (npi) of the gay leather crowd. However, the entire gay community is united in their animosity towards the fundy Christians who screech and throw feces at them. What makes this ad so clever, is that almost no one outside the gay community would see it if not for the apoplectic fits being thrown by guys like Bennett. You can't help but notice the irony of going out of ones way to obsess over being offended.

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 11:57am | #

sorry, Pinko, in re: the "sloppy indictments" I just assumed that the thread would turn into another 103 post orgy of "huh huh huh christians and their stupid religion are so stupid. They like totally hate gay people and they probably ARE gay! huh huh huh."

But that didn't happen, so kudos to H&R commenters.

Frankly, this isn't all that blasphemous, as long as everyone in the picture is married to someone else in the picture...

pinko | September 27, 2007, 11:58am | #

"Just imagine the double dildos and assless chaps."

Jon, you read my mind. This has been covered many times before, but somehow "assless chaps" continues to be trotted out, like irregardless. I think that the word assless is so smile-inducing that no one cares about the redundancy.

ChicagoTom | September 27, 2007, 11:59am | #

Now I am no last supper expert so I ask who would be Judas in this ad?

SPD | September 27, 2007, 12:02pm | #

...who would be Judas in this ad?

They all are, Tom. They. All. Are.

[/Stephen Bennett]

BakedPenguin | September 27, 2007, 12:02pm | #

Oh, and you probably don't want to watch that at work.

whit | September 27, 2007, 12:03pm | #

"How is it "daringly provacative" to do a parody of a minority culture rather than doing a parody of the majority of the culture? "

because as everybody knows (even honest leftwing journalists) attacking/parodying christianity is de rigeur.

christianity has had a reformation. attacking christianity is like trying to stab yourself with a noodle. it's all show, with no risk.

people are AFRAID to parody mohammed. south park had a brilliant (they usually are) episode on this. we all know it. yes, christians are a majority. but they are not the ones demanding via threat of (and often implementation of) deadly force that people "respect their authoritah and liturgah"

there is nothing provocative about being the 1000th person to the party, doing the same darn thing over and over and over again.

yes, the christian faith (like all faiths) has the "perpetually offended" talking heads. but that's ALL THEY ARE... talking heads.

islam, as a religion, inspires numerous religious leaders in numerous countries, to kill people for being homosexual.

have a koran dunking party. THAT would be provacative.
I think it is much more provocative to attack the people with real influence and power who are trying to dictate what "normal" and "natural".

Bodom | September 27, 2007, 12:03pm | #

Perfect idea for something offensive to the muslim faith.

A naked man with a beard and turbin nailing a little girl as a poster for a NAMBLA event.

pinko | September 27, 2007, 12:04pm | #

No problem Randolph.

But I should disclose that I think we can never have enough blasphemy or dismissiveness vis-a-vis religion. Pointing out how silly organized religion is does not have to be a lowbrow, Beavis-and-Butthead style endeavor. I can actually show my contempt without inane giggling.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 12:05pm | #

Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one.

My first response was that if all jokes ever from here on out have to be about Mohamed, the joke/parody world will be a boring monochrome. Art, humor, and parody don't always have to go after the biggest target. Artists should be free to tackle whatever subject strikes their fancy.

I guess if you are going to prove that you have the biggest art-as-blasphemy dick on a global scale, then yeah, you'd go after Mohamed.

But that's a bit like saying "Hey, you just climbed Kilimanjaro, next year, climb Mount Everest, if you have the balls" or "You just wrestled a mountain lion. Don't you know that's only the fourth largest species of big cat? Next year, wrestle a tiger, if you have the balls."

If it's all about the balls, I'd argue that there may be more violent muslims world-wide, but if you look at just the US, there's a big, local contingent with a track record for producing individuals willing to enact violence against homosexuals right here in the US. Eric Rudolph was clearly getting support from locals while he was a fugitive, after all.

Ultimately, of course, I don't think their target was offending religious people. I think their goal was to get people to come have leather fun at the Folsom Street Fair. And the types of folks who will come to a leather parade are probably going to think that this is hilarious, and conveys an irreverent attitude that they want to be a part of. If they'd chosen Mohamed, it wouldn't convey irreverence so much as confrontation. This is just taking all the other last supper parodies and adding one more absurd last supper parody to the list.

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 12:06pm | #

A real revolutionary act would be an airdrop of pallets full of liquor and bud into every dry county and country in the world. Then people will learn the meaning of freedom!

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:07pm | #

Speaking of a christian of what some might call relatively fundamentalism leanings (I dont use the word so I have no idea myself), I found the ad neither offensive nor funny nor brilliant. Pretty lame. I generally found irreligous humor (when based on an element of truth) very funny. Why am I supposed to be wiping away tears?

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:08pm | #

sigh, my typing skills are getting worse as time goes on:

Speaking as a

Sigh.

jimmy | September 27, 2007, 12:10pm | #

i don't see the relevance of the story to this website. private citizens are free to create ads, and other private citizens are free to complain about them, after all. is it suddenly "libertarian" to laugh at privately-held religious beliefs? or is it "libertarian" to automatically defend anything gays do? i'm a non-religious gay male, and this ad embarrasses me. this is why i have nothing to do with "gay culture," especially tired events like folsom street, with the same old aging leathermen and drag queens and house music every year. maybe the ad tittilates straight folk and gives them something to chuckle about, or makes them feel morally superior because they are so tolerant and hip. like the people who inexplicably kept laughing at "will and grace" after the first couple seasons, i guess. free people are free to adopt an infantile culture, but that doesn't automatically make them worthy of any great respect.

Jim Bob | September 27, 2007, 12:11pm | #

Whit, go do or say or make something that you think will piss off Muslims. Nobody here is going to stop you.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 12:13pm | #

yes, christians are a majority. but they are not the [only] ones demanding via threat of (and often implementation of) deadly force that people "respect their authoritah and liturgah"

Fixed it for ya.

While muslim extremists may be getting all the press, Christians are not entirely without teeth.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 12:14pm | #

You can't help but notice the irony of going out of ones way to obsess over being offended.

Witness the explosion of blaspemous, derogatory images of the prophet since the Danish cartoon riots. Not the cartoons, that went unnoticed by the world at large. But after the riots, flag burning, rending of clothing, people just couldn't help themselves. This desecration doesn't make H&R w/o the outrage of Stephen Bennett.

SPD | September 27, 2007, 12:14pm | #

jimmy,

Maybe we don't have to respect them, as you say, but Stephen Bennett and others of his ilk want to, in his own words, "shut [them] down." That tells me their reaction goes far beyond the advertisement itself, into something far more extreme.

JBinMO | September 27, 2007, 12:14pm | #

"Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one."

These people are never gonna figure out that no one but them is affraid of muslims.

whit | September 27, 2007, 12:16pm | #

"Whit, go do or say or make something that you think will piss off Muslims. Nobody here is going to stop you."

i'm not trying to be provocative, edgy, etc. im saying that this ad isn't either. and if that's the intent, the true provacateurs would be ridiculing those who want to kill them (and do where they can), and who kill people who criticize and mock them.

like i said, it's not offensive (at least to me). it's boring and trite.

it's illusory provocation.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 12:16pm | #

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 12:06pm | #
A real revolutionary act would be an airdrop of pallets full of liquor and bud into every dry county and country in the world. Then people will learn the meaning of freedom!

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 12:17pm | #

I've never quite understood this sort of argument concerning who is an appropriate object of parody. That sort of thing seems like a choice best left to the individual or group doing the parody.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 12:18pm | #

Oops, preview people.

A real revolutionary act would be an airdrop of pallets full of liquor and bud into every dry county and country in the world. Then people will learn the meaning of freedom!

Just booze and bud? We're already way beyond that.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 12:19pm | #

I've never quite understood this sort of argument concerning who is an appropriate object of parody. That sort of thing seems like a choice best left to the individual or group doing the parody.

He said what I meant, only he used a LOT fewer words.

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 12:20pm | #

whit,

What is and isn't provactive is a matter of taste. You can't find the molecular weight or some such of the provactive.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 12:21pm | #

it's illusory provocation.

the only one being provoked is mr. bennett.

i don't think it's meant to be edgy so much as familiar and cute. (it took a while but i see the last supper motif, finally...)

Warren | September 27, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Re: Assless chaps.

As noted all chaps are in fact assless. The purpose they were designed for is to protect your pants while riding a horse on the dusty planes. They perform the same purpose when worn on a motorcycle riding the highways and byways of America.

What is key here is that they are meant to be worn over pants. When worn without pants they are obviously not being worn for the purpose they were designed for. Chaps without pants expose the ass. Hence the term assless chaps.

Stephen the Goldberger | September 27, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Sullivan's point is that in the western intellectual communities christian religions have been mocked and ridiculed mercilessly already. Why not mock and ridicule Islam, a faith which has official governments which are even LESS tolerant of homosexuality. It's vogue to condemn christianity but when it comes to Islam we must practice tolerance of others' beliefs. In any case I stand by my original statement that the ad's purpose was to generate publicity (as all ads are) with meaningless controversy and it worked.

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 12:23pm | #

lunchstealer,

Well, to the folks who made the ad apparently this sort of ad has greater resonance than one dealing with Islam. I really don't find that particularly surprising. If folks want to parody Islam they shouldn't demanding that this group of folks do that they should be doing it themselves.

neil | September 27, 2007, 12:23pm | #

So let me get this straight: the people who are misinterpreting this as an attack on Christianity believe that next year, they should attack Islam instead?

Alternatively, maybe they were trying to make an eye-catching poster to promote their event instead of a religious/political statement. What a concept!

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Stephen the Goldberger,

I get his point, I simply don't agree with it.

seethingcauldron | September 27, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Hey robc... I think that the fact that the ad doesn't offend an intelligent christian is half the point. Its only the knee-jerk fundies that get upset about this kind of thing... and they are exactly the people who deserve to be shaken up a little. There's nothing more here than a (successful) attempt to stir up interest.

But then again, I get just as offended when people attack freedom of speech and hide under the banner of 'religion'.

Warren | September 27, 2007, 12:29pm | #

OK you people claiming this ad isn't provocative are going to make my head explode. The only reason this thread exist if because it provoked people. People like Stephen Bennett, and Andrew Sullivan. In other words All the right people. The fact that this is lost on Sullivan is doubly funny.

I guess this point is more subtle than I first thought.

Stephen the Goldberger | September 27, 2007, 12:31pm | #

yeah i disagree with his point in terms of "creating a successful ad to generate publicity" but agree with his point in terms of "creating an ad which stirs debate and generates controversy" which would be pretty dumb. If you're looking to ads for social commentary and are upset to find something "easy and cheap" then you're clueless.

shecky | September 27, 2007, 12:32pm | #

I saw when Sullivan got huffy about this a couple days ago. I don't see the big deal. There's a pretty long tradition of parodying The Last Supper.

I think it'd be cute to make a parody putting Islamic figures in the scene, with Muhommad as Jesus. Trouble it, I don't think anyone would recognize any of the figures.

Jennifer | September 27, 2007, 12:32pm | #

Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one.

This makes as much sense as saying "Instead of parodying Republicans, why don't you have the balls to go after the neo-Nazis?" It's not because I'm afraid of neo-Nazis; it's because neo-Nazis don't have actual political power in this country, but Republicans do.

whit | September 27, 2007, 12:33pm | #

"What is and isn't provactive is a matter of taste. You can't find the molecular weight or some such of the provactive."

well duh.

it's a matter of opinion as to the provocative nature of a piece of (loosely defined) "art".

of course it's opinion and it's subjective. it is of course backed up by the fact that few christians do more than sigh (if that) when they see such stuff because they are used to it (especially in frisco). again, it's boring. it's trite. it's been done before.

something like "last temptation of christ" was provocative, as a counterexample. it was also a great movie. piss-christ was provocative. this is just trite. it's smacks of desperation. it's like the nerdy kid trying to be kewl. it just looks silly

Warren | September 27, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Why not mock and ridicule Islam, a faith which has official governments which are even LESS tolerant of homosexuality.

Because American Muslims aren't irritating the gay community the way the Christians are. It's not about who is most offensive it's about who is offending you most.

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Warren,

Im all the right people, not Bennett and Sullivan.

whit | September 27, 2007, 12:37pm | #

"This makes as much sense as saying "Instead of parodying Republicans, why don't you have the balls to go after the neo-Nazis?" It's not because I'm afraid of neo-Nazis; it's because neo-Nazis don't have actual political power in this country, but Republicans do."

they don't have much political power, but they have plenty of power. they scared the NYT et al into NOT printing frigging cartoons that were undeniably newsworthy. the same media outlets that had no problem posting various other such stuff in regards to christians and jews, and that vilified guiliani for daring to suggest that art offensive to christians should not be in first in line for PUBLIC funding, was completely afraid of showing cartoon images of muslims.

as im sure the bush admin would admit, having power over the NYT in getting them not to print stuff is REAL power, whether or not it is political.

that is a very real power. but you are correct, muslims have very little political power.

as one (honest lefty journalist) admitted, journalists (himself included) had no problem criticizng/mocking christians and their "holy" artifacts because they knew it was safe to do so. otoh, he (and any honest journalist) freely admits that doing the same with islam was too dangerous

if that's not power, nothing is.

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Warren basically hit the nail on the head.

Stephen the Goldberger | September 27, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Because American Muslims aren't irritating the gay community the way the Christians are. It's not about who is most offensive it's about who is offending you most.

Good point. It's a good ad, will get people's attention, and will attract people in the leather community who are unlikely to be alienated by it's mockery of the last supper (and will probably enjoy it given American christian intolerance). I don't think Sullivan or Bennett (even though he probably wants to) would be coming to this event anyways so to piss them off would be meaningless, and generates good pub.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Sullivan's point is that in the western intellectual communities christian religions have been mocked and ridiculed mercilessly already. Why not mock and ridicule Islam

Stephen,

Well we would mock Islam, but there are two big problems with that. A - Islam rarely gets up in our personal grill. Grow up in a place like South Carolina and you'll get a strong sense of Christianity as an issue. Islam will sound like some crazy thing done in a desert across the ocean, but Christianity keeps putting flyers on your door. I never got an Ali Tract as a kid, but I've seen lots of Chick Tracts (in the wild, mind you, not just on snarky libertarian blogs) telling me all the ways I'm going to hell.

B - The West has chosen a different form of mockery for Islam. Our mockery of Islam right now is of a more military, bombs-from-the-sky and troops-going-door-to-door variety.

Warren | September 27, 2007, 12:41pm | #

robc,
If the ad doesn't offend you, then you aren't the one it was intended to offend. Unless you think homosexuals are evil and should not be extended the same rights and privileges under the law as everyone else.

People who are offended by this ad.
People opposed to same sex marriage.
I'll bet the the union and intersection (pi) those sets differs by less than 5%

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Speaking of Chick tracts, thats some good parody. Unlike this hack work, they actually manage to offend me on occassion.

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 12:45pm | #

This ad will tear the christian leather community asunder! Fie upon it!

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 12:45pm | #

whit,

Lots of American newspapers reprinted the cartoons. Of course reprinting them wasn't really necessary, since they were plastered all over the internet.

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Warren,

Im not offended.
Homosexuality (not the people) is evil.
Im opposed to same sex marriage.
Im also opposed to government licensed marriage in general.

Maybe Im part of the 5%, but I dont think so.

If your goal is to offend, go after me, Im a tough target. Offending the easily offendable is lame. Heck, I do it by accident on nearly a daily basis.

ChicagoTom | September 27, 2007, 12:46pm | #

they don't have much political power, but they have plenty of power. they scared the NYT et al into NOT printing frigging cartoons that were undeniably newsworthy. the same media outlets that had no problem posting various other such stuff in regards to christians and jews, and that vilified guiliani for daring to suggest that art offensive to christians should not be in first in line for PUBLIC funding, was completely afraid of showing cartoon images of muslims.

Uhmm whit, it sounds like your beef with the ad is that it doesn't go after the people you would prefer being targetted.

I don't think the gay community overall gives a shit about whether or not Muslims were able to silence the NY times. What would be the purpose of mocking Muslims in an ad promoting this event -- other than gratuitous mockery without any real purpose?

It's like your bothered with the Folsom people because their priorities aren't aligned with yours.

SIV | September 27, 2007, 12:46pm | #

sorry, Pinko, in re: the "sloppy indictments" I just assumed that the thread would turn into another 103 post orgy of "huh huh huh christians and their stupid religion are so stupid. They like totally hate gay people and they probably ARE gay! huh huh huh."

But that didn't happen, so kudos to H&R commenters.

Randolph:

Did you miss ChicagoTom's comment at 11:57?
So fucking knee-jerk leftist cliched it read like parody.

Lamar | September 27, 2007, 12:47pm | #

Knee-jerk fundies use this for fund-raising purposes. Sort of like the hypocrite theater group in Tennesse vs. Kathy Griffin. It was a publicity stunt. These people think Jesus waltzed into the Temple and said, "Christ, we need more money changers."

SIV | September 27, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Jennifer:

There is this little thing outside the borders of our country called "the rest of the world". It has a billion Muslims in it and they have power.The idea Muslims have no political power in the US is absurd.

Warren | September 27, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Speaking of Chick tracts, thats some good parody. Unlike this hack work, they actually manage to offend me on occassion.

Chick tracts aren't parody. That's what makes them funny.

tk | September 27, 2007, 12:51pm | #

(sees pic, does double-take, looks even more closely...)


"Dad?!?"
"Awww... come on...."

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Warren,

Am I going to have to add you to the list with joe of people who dont get my jokes?

At this point, its probably easier to just keep a list of people who do get my jokes.

D. Greene | September 27, 2007, 12:52pm | #

"I call upon the Miller Brewing Company to pull their endorsement of this event."

Evangelical Christians boycotting beer? Miller Brewing Co. must be positively shaking in their leather stirrups.

pinko | September 27, 2007, 12:54pm | #

Warren,

I think everyone gets that chaps are assless. That's what makes them chaps. But why not then call a speedo "legless pants", or a vest a "sleeveless shirt"? More to our point, the equivalent would be calling a speedo a legless ballhugger or a vest a sleeveless vest. Do these assless chaps folks do that? Of course they don't. They have committed a specific redundancy that can be corrected.

They, unlike the leather daddies in the ad, can still be saved. Chaps are assless without saying they are assless. What people (myself and a few other annoying pedants) are taking issue with is that the term assless is entirely redundant.

Chaps are assless pants and not assless chaps.

whit | September 27, 2007, 12:55pm | #

"Uhmm whit, it sounds like your beef with the ad is that it doesn't go after the people you would prefer being targetted."

your hearing is off :)

like i said, my only criticism of the ad is that it is boring, uninteresting and trite.

i have no problem with edgy, interesting, provocative parody of christians, or anybody else. like i said, i thought last temptation of christ was excellent.

i love south park (that routinely skewers christians), etc.

i am saying that it is about as provocative (especially in san fran) as a PTA meeting.

"I don't think the gay community overall gives a shit about whether or not Muslims were able to silence the NY times."

your omniscience into the mind of the 'gay community' is amazing.

" What would be the purpose of mocking Muslims in an ad promoting this event -- other than gratuitous mockery without any real purpose? "

right. mocking people that want to actually kill you (vs. not wanting you to get married), and routinely do all over the world, has no purpose whatsoever. also, courage is admirable. it takes courage to mock people who are significantly more likely to respond violently.

capelza | September 27, 2007, 12:55pm | #

D. Greene

Miller did require them to remove the Miller logo I believe, so yeah.

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:56pm | #

D. Greene,

Evangelical Christians boycotting beer? Miller Brewing Co. must be positively shaking in their leather stirrups.

I should start an org: Southern Baptist Homebrewers of America. Membership might be a bit low. I already boycott Miller though, but thats because they suck.

robc | September 27, 2007, 12:57pm | #

I just realized SBHA wont work, you could never get two of us at the same meeting.

Loundry | September 27, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Because American Muslims aren't irritating the gay community the way the Christians are.

Pardon me, but what gave you the right to speak for the offendedness of all gay people everywhere? As a voting member of the gays, I think that conservative Christians are pretty well-tamed. They practically have to apologize for looking anti-gay nowadays! Sodomy laws are gone, and homosexual sex is much more tolerated than it's ever been. Sure, I'd love to have marriage rights, but that's simply not going to happen until a few million crunchy old Christian codgers die off. So I take heart in the fact that I live a better life as a gay man than most gay men do in the world, and I count my blessings. Christians hardly even register to me any more.

It's not about who is most offensive it's about who is offending you most.

Is that a tacit admission that Muslims are more offensive than Christians? I have to agree with you! Islam has all of the bad that Christianity has and none of the good. The death penalty for homosexuality is Islamic law. Period. And I'm supposed to tolerate that? What an evil religion! Islam delenda est!

What's more, I find all of the justifications for not parodying Islam by the supposedly "brave" and "provocative" art aficionados here to be pathetic. What a bunch of pussies you are. Just admit that you're afraid of being killed by Muslims and that is precisely why you won't parody their pedophile murderer of a "prophet".

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Can we argue about angels on the heads of pins now?

de stijl | September 27, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Here's a whole slew of The The Last Supper parodies collected by Dan Savage.

tk | September 27, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Loundry -

Word! (seriously)

Warren | September 27, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Pinko,
We say 'assless chaps' because it flows off the tongue better than 'chaps worn without pants so everybody will notice your big, harry, pale, framed ass cheeks'

Alan | September 27, 2007, 1:01pm | #

I think the ad's great, but it did remind me of this classic Onion article:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

tk | September 27, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Syloson of Samos -

Are they naked gay angels clad only in chaps?

pinko | September 27, 2007, 1:03pm | #

"The idea Muslims have no political power in the US is absurd."

No it isn't, SIV. Muslims have no power to push a homophobic agenda domestically outside of, say, whatever the Hell district Dearborn, Michigan is in. None.

There are no equivalent Mullah Dobsons or Mullah Robertsons or any sort of Muslim 700 Club or Focus on the Fatwa.

This leather Fair is not happening in Mecca or Rabat. It's happening in San Fran. The fundie Christians are deservedly the target.

It is your comment that is absurd.

Syloson of Samos | September 27, 2007, 1:04pm | #

tk,

Certainly.

pinko | September 27, 2007, 1:05pm | #

Warren,

I disagree. I think people just think the word assless itself is funny.

tk | September 27, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Syloson of Samos -

Cool...

Rhywun | September 27, 2007, 1:09pm | #

I haven't RTFA but does it say where this ad appears? I mean, I can't imagine this ad appearing anywhere but a gay magazine which begs the question of how the "ex-gay" found the ad in the first place.

there are hookah exceptions to the smoking ban in nyc as well, and it's not a religious thing

It isn't? I can't imagine what else it could possibly be.

de stijl | September 27, 2007, 1:11pm | #

The idea Muslims have no political power in the US is absurd.

A quibble, but there is one Muslim congressman (Keith Ellison).

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Are they naked gay angels clad only in chaps?

That's just ridiculous. Everyone knows gay naked angels don't dance on pins. That's an offensive stereotype.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 1:12pm | #

It isn't? I can't imagine what else it could possibly be.

they're treated like cigar bars.

Just admit that you're afraid of being killed by Muslims and that is precisely why you won't parody their pedophile murderer of a "prophet".

stop chuggin' the weaksauce, bro.

SIV | September 27, 2007, 1:13pm | #

there are hookah exceptions to the smoking ban in nyc as well, and it's not a religious thing

It isn't? I can't imagine what else it could possibly be.

The article in the Vancouver news said it is a cultural thing. Of course the brilliant dhex says it is wrong because Steyn at NRO links to it.

tk | September 27, 2007, 1:16pm | #

SIV -

My friends and I used Hookahs all the time in college, and it wasn't a cultural thing at all.

We had a different name for them though.
I think we called them "Bongs" or something like that.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 1:17pm | #

The idea Muslims have no political power in the US is absurd.

Absolutely. Fundamentalist Muslims are the reason that you can't buy beer after midnight on Sundays sundown on Fridays around here. They were also instrumental in passing the various defense-of-marriage amendments around the country, because fundamentalist Muslims are terrified that if we allow same-sex marriage, it might lead to polygamy.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:18pm | #

I'd call on Stephen Bennett to kiss my ass, except the utter bullshit behind the phrase "former homosexual" suggests that it might not be a wise course of action.

SIV | September 27, 2007, 1:18pm | #

pinko,

Where is this alternate universe?

This leather Fair is not happening in Mecca or Rabat. It's happening in San Fran. The fundie Christians are deservedly the target.

Th one where Fundy Christianists control San Francisco?

iih | September 27, 2007, 1:20pm | #

Pinko:

No it isn't, SIV. Muslims have no power to push a homophobic agenda domestically outside of, say, whatever the Hell district Dearborn, Michigan is in. None.


In fact it was in Michigan that there was a potential coalition between Muslims and Gay groups to push for the redefinition of marriage from "one man - one woman" to something more general that may allow for same sex marriage and "one man - 'more than one' woman". There was a debate back in 2005, but I have not followed up on it since then.

Muslims could be some open minded people if you ask me. Just don't rely on the two-minute snippets that the MSM feeds repeatedly 24/7.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 1:20pm | #

The best reason for not parodying Islam in this type of ad is that no one would get it. Islamic art does not have iconic status in the USA and is probably far too abstract to have any resonance in such a parody, anyway. The ad would be nothing more than a bunch of ornate flowery abstraction with classical Arabic calligraphy thrown in. Not very funny.

Rimfax | September 27, 2007, 1:22pm | #

For those who don't get it, it's about the titillation of symbolic transgression. There's a prominent BDSMer in the D.C. area who has an exceptional outfit in which he performs ceremonies as Cardinal Sin and another who wears a complete nun's habit as Sister Holy Terror. It's unsurprising how many BDSMers are, or were, Catholic.

Rimfax | September 27, 2007, 1:25pm | #

The only thing that creeps me out there is the lady that looks like a furry. Is she supposed to be a pony girl? The picture isn't high enough resolution to tell and I'm not about to search for a better one at work.

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 1:26pm | #

You could call them "pantsless chaps," but then people will think you're talking about de-pantsed Limeys.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Rimfax,

I think it's supposed to be more of a Divine/Vegas-showtranny look, only more leather.

whit | September 27, 2007, 1:29pm | #

" I can't imagine this ad appearing anywhere but a gay magazine "

in San Francisco?

you are kidding me right?

dhex | September 27, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Of course the brilliant dhex says it is wrong because Steyn at NRO links to it.

hey fuckwit, where do you live?

i live in the motherfucking dream capital of the eternal cosmic lie you call the united states (i.e. the place with the ban in question) and there is an exception in said ban (besides some bars in the bronx, brooklyn, staten island, queens and manhattan after midnight on a saturday because they can get away with it) for cigar bars. now we all know that the islamofacist regime is big on cigars (because of bill clinton, a notorious sixth columnist whose little cigar gag was a typical islamo-illuminati in-joke) and uh ok sigh...

listen it's real simple. cigar bars and other establishments which could show that a significant portion of their income came from tobacco sales could still have smoking. now a bunch of the hookah bars in jackson heights and surrounding environs (we're also talking like 25 bars or something like that here) are apparently getting some cop harassment here and there because of the whole nannystate smoking is evil especially in a place that's explicitly about smoking thing but that's an issue with this shit.

anyhoo...yeah. incidentally, steyn is a fucking baby.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 1:32pm | #

rimfax, are you thinking of the sisters of perpetual indulgence?

also bongs are not hookahs, kids. hookahs have tubes. bongs have grateful dead stickers.

and now you know...

iih | September 27, 2007, 1:36pm | #

The best reason for not parodying Islam in this type of ad is that no one would get it. Islamic art does not have iconic status in the USA and is probably far too abstract to have any resonance in such a parody, anyway. The ad would be nothing more than a bunch of ornate flowery abstraction with classical Arabic calligraphy thrown in. Not very funny.

Right, and you do raise a good, slightly irrelevant, point -- the West does not appreciate Islamic "culture" because much of it is abstract such as calligraphy, let alone in an entirely different language, and geometric and other artistic designs. In my office I have a hand drawing of a bird made out of the words "In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Gracious". Visitors only see the bird, I further see the caligraphy out of which the bird is constructed, and, more importantly, the message it conveys. The "bird" symbolizes freedom, and the "bird" is made out of a fundamental Islamic statement "In the name of God...". But that is too abstract for the (much above) average visitor Joe I get in office.

While other activities are dormant, the aspect of Islam that gets filtered to Western media is the most striking aspect of Islamic societies today -- violence -- even though violent Muslims are a very small percentage of the overall population (when was the last time you saw violent Malays, violent Moroccans, in the most part Egyptians, or Ethiopian, Ghanaian, Senegalese or Chinese (oppressed 50M people in Western China) Muslims?

tk | September 27, 2007, 1:36pm | #

dhex -

For the record, our bong had tubes AND GD stickers.
Just wanted to set that straight...

iih | September 27, 2007, 1:38pm | #

I forgot to add that Islamic culture/art is best known for the prose (poetry, poetic daily spoken word, etc), far less accessible to the Westerner, except for the Sufi Westerners (and even they, they read a mere translation).

Mel Gibson | September 27, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Think about it for a second: Whipping a naked guy, crown of thorns, tied/nailed to a cross, penetrated by a spear by a guy wearing a Roman soldier outfit......

Um...I'll be in Stevo's bunk.

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 1:40pm | #

iih,
I read a bunch of Sufi stuff a while ago, and the concordance pieces I had that explained all the wordplay/double meanings was bigger than the text itself. I guess I'll just have to learn Persian.

bill | September 27, 2007, 1:40pm | #

At least Mohamed was a real person unlike Jesus.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Rhywun | September 27, 2007, 1:41pm | #

in San Francisco? you are kidding me right?

Oh please. I've lived in San Francisco and it's not all that you imagine.

they're treated like cigar bars.

Ah. I think I'll open up a BYOB cigarette bar and see how far I get with that.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 1:42pm | #

For the record, our bong had tubes AND GD stickers.
Just wanted to set that straight...

multitasking, ehhh?

the real question being ice cubes or hot water?

something to chew on | September 27, 2007, 1:43pm | #

http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

dhex | September 27, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Ah. I think I'll open up a BYOB cigarette bar and see how far I get with that.

yeah good luck with that. there's all of like 15 cigar bars in the city iirc anyway.

on the other hand you could smoke in the old nat sherman store (dunno about the new one, they're moving) in the upstairs humidor area.

CFisher | September 27, 2007, 1:50pm | #

So, an image making a mockery of their faith is put up and those evil Nazi Christians...

Peacefully protest, exercise their free speech rights, and call on advertisers to pull out of sponsorship of the event.

Those evil Christians! /sarcasm.

Jennifer | September 27, 2007, 1:51pm | #

There is this little thing outside the borders of our country called "the rest of the world". It has a billion Muslims in it and they have power.The idea Muslims have no political power in the US is absurd.

So what pieces of anti-gay-rights legislation in America passed thanks to the upswell of Muslim support? Or, alternately, what piece of pro-gay-rights legislation failed because of the American Muslim outrage?

Rhywun | September 27, 2007, 1:52pm | #

there's all of like 15 cigar bars in the city iirc anyway.

My impression of that exemption was that it was meant to appease the good ol' boy network. I wouldn't be at all surprised if new smoking establishments were prohibited.

iih | September 27, 2007, 1:53pm | #

Randolph Carter:

I personally did not like the prose because it was too abstract, but I preferred reading the treatises such as Ibn Al-Araby's.

iih | September 27, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Jennifer:

So what pieces of anti-gay-rights legislation in America passed thanks to the upswell of Muslim support? Or, alternately, what piece of pro-gay-rights legislation failed because of the American Muslim outrage?

None. To the contrary, above I said:

In fact it was in Michigan that there was a potential coalition between Muslims and Gay groups to push for the redefinition of marriage from "one man - one woman" to something more general that may allow for same sex marriage and "one man - 'more than one' woman". There was a debate back in 2005, but I have not followed up on it since then.

Loundry | September 27, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Absolutely. Fundamentalist Muslims are the reason that you can't buy beer after midnight on Sundays sundown on Fridays around here.

lunchstealer, I don't know where you live, but in the fine state of Georgia (where Sunday liquor sales to *consumers* are part of the many thousands of state liquor laws here) the so-called "Blue Laws" are a result of collusion between Southern Baptists and liquor distributors. I know it's fun to play "bash the Christian" around here, but we as devotees of "reason" (yeah, right) should be counted on to put blame on all the appropriate parties.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 1:57pm | #

My impression of that exemption was that it was meant to appease the good ol' boy network. I wouldn't be at all surprised if new smoking establishments were prohibited.

as far as i know the one loophole is if you're the owner and the sole operator of a place, which applies to one or two joints in the whole city. (someone was telling me about this the other day)

SIV | September 27, 2007, 1:58pm | #

dhex

Vancouver BC not New York City
Are you fucking retarded? Or just functionally illiterate?

dhex thinks he lives here

There I cleaned upthe nasty National Review link so you won't get all scared by mean old Mark Steyn. You fucking stupid pussy.

SIV | September 27, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Looks like they may close the cigar establishments in Vancouver- not part of Muslim Culture and all.

muhummad | September 27, 2007, 2:05pm | #

"If you want to be daringly provocative do an offensive parody of the Muslim faith."

Every day my dog farts allah.

God Jr. | September 27, 2007, 2:05pm | #

I call on all my followers to stop fighting. My father's house has many closets.

Sambo | September 27, 2007, 2:07pm | #

""If you want to be daringly provocative..."

Say something true and negative about black folk (e.g., nigger is a mental illness)

iih | September 27, 2007, 2:07pm | #

There is another major difference between the "offensiveness" of this ad to Christians and the "offensiveness" of the Danish cartoons to Muslims:

While it may be true that the people behind the ad meant it to be offensive to Christians, we really can't tell. May be they are saying "we're gay but we are also Christian" kind of thing.

The Danish cartoons were outright in-your-face offensive. It came across to Muslims as saying "we know it offends you, and we mean it". There was no room for any other "sincere" interpretation.

Timothy | September 27, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Loundry: DUDE, SARCASM.

Rhywun | September 27, 2007, 2:10pm | #

SIV,

*I'm* the one who made the comparison to NYC--we are allowed to make comparisons around here, you know; especially as without a doubt more of us live in NYC than... Vancouver, was it?

Take a chill pill.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 2:10pm | #

SIV, change the dosage.

VanDoosie | September 27, 2007, 2:11pm | #

"The Danish cartoons were outright in-your-face offensive. It came across to Muslims as saying "we know it offends you, and we mean it". There was no room for any other "sincere" interpretation."

That's just stupid. Have you even seen the Danish cartoons???

Jennifer | September 27, 2007, 2:12pm | #

IIH, I KNOW that Muslims aren't the ones behind most anti-gay attitudes in AMerica. That was the point of my comment.

iih | September 27, 2007, 2:13pm | #

VanDoosie:

When I said: The Danish cartoons were outright in-your-face offensive.

I meant to Muslims. Yes, I have seen them.

iih | September 27, 2007, 2:15pm | #

Jennifer:

And I was in agreement with your comment. I think it came across differently :-)

I do think Muslims do not have any political muscle in the US. But they have learned a lesson the hard way after 9/11. They are becoming more active nowadays, and in more pragmatic ways than one may think (e.g., the coalition with gay groups back in Ann Arbor MI at the time I was there in 2005).

SIV | September 27, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Rhywun lunchstealer,

dhex originally responded to my post about Vancouver that it had nothing to do with them being Muslims.

The Dumbass didn't RTFA he just reacted knee-jerk because I linked to Steyn's comment on it at NRO.

He started the name calling.