News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Nah. It's something they don't get bent out of shape for for any other religious artwork. Like nobody is up in arms about the memes of that shitty restoration of the picture of Jesus
There's plenty of satirical art/speech/expression about Christianity and people don't go through life being enraged at all of it until they're told to have that opinion by media.
Plus, from what I understand, the only "sacrilegious" element was that there were drag performers doing it? There's not even anything inherently anti-christian there except in that wearing the other gender's clothing is prohibited in like 3 verses. But again, people aren't typically upset by the identity of the author except in this case. Christians are only so vehemently anti-drag in the US because of media spoon feeding them opinions.
Other examples they dont get mad about
Or infinitely many others including ones with RuPaul, futurama, rick and morty, marvel, the charmin bears, pretty much any IP you can name has a version of this somebody made of it that is equally "sacrilegious".
I'm not defending their anti drag position, it is ridiculous.
But they find drag to be an affront to their beliefs, and thus them making fun of the last supper is offensive in this case (it isn't making fun of it, which I just learned, I'm speaking hypothetically here) and maybe not when it is referenced humorously in others.
It's like some white person getting up on stage and doing jokes about living fried chicken and watermelon. Maybe some people are mildly put off by it but most would just think it dumb. But put that white guy in black face and all of a sudden it's a lot more offensive. I'm not equating these two, just pointing out how context matters.
But I'm not even sure why that matters here because the statement was that it really isn't part of the bible, when it's clearly depicting a major moment in the Bible.
Not true, you were defending their anti drag position. Still am, a little because you don't understand how to back down
It's possible to understand that something offends a person, and think it wrong to intentionally offend them, and at the same time find it ridiculous that it does.
With severe cognitive dissonance anything is possible
Agreed. But, of course, this is a projection.