May 2015



RSS Atom
Powered by InsaneJournal

Mar. 23rd, 2013

You're Not Helping

I wasn't going to blog about this.

I seriously wasn't. The topic of PyCon and Adria Richards doxxing two guys for laughing about the word “dongle” in public has been covered to death and saying anything about it is like poking a dragon in the eye- it won't end well. I know that by writing this I may have left myself somewhat vulnerable to loonies on either side of the debate. I wasn't going to cover this.

And then, it made Yahoo News, the lowest common denominator of the Internet.

A few of my readers like to come here to hear me talk about political stuff (although why, I've no idea, I'm not all that smart, to be honest). Some others like to hear me talk about computery stuff. Because this is the collision of computery and political stuff, well... it seems like it would be perfect for this blog.

For those of you who don't know what happened, last Sunday, an incident went down at PyCon, the official convention for the Python programming language. Two guys in the audience made a joke about big dongles (dongles are things you plug into the USB port on the computer- and yes, they are rather unfortunately named), and a comment about forking code. Forking code, although it sounds like an innuendo (“I'd fork HIS code!”) is actually a legitimate programming term- it refers to taking existing code and modifying it to fit a different project.

The woman sitting in front of them, Adria Richards, turned around, took a picture of the guys, sent it over Twitter with the comment that they were making obnoxious sexist comments. Then the Internet exploded.

Because I'm still trying to parse exactly what happened and the potential consequences this situation set off, I'm not going to make a final judgment one way or another yet. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the way that Ms. Richards handled this, because it has the potential to cause problems for women in IT fields. What kind of company wants to hire someone that they're afraid will end up costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits and lost revenue? But at the same time, no one should be obligated to put up with actual harassment... I just don't think two guys going “huehuehue... dongles!” is harassment. Dongle is funny word. I think everyone in the IT field has made a dongle joke at least once in their careers. Even people who aren't in IT who come across dongles generally think they're funny. The first time my mother ever got a Bluetooth enabled phone, my dad was trying to explain to her how it worked, and told her that if she wanted to transfer the data from the computer to the phone or vice-versa, she'd have to use the connectivity dongle because the computer didn't have a built-in Bluetooth connectivity. She responded the “CONNECTIVITY WHAT?!”

In the grand scheme of things, dongle jokes are harmless, and Richards overreacted.

But at the same time, no one should be getting threats.

I just really don't know here. I'm inclined to oppose what she did, but the way the Internet blew up isn't exactly a good thing, either.

I think the important thing to learn from this is that you shouldn't stick your nose into other people's business. Especially when it has nothing to do with you. Also, if you get a dad with three little kids laid off, the Internet is going to come after you with cacti and pitchforks.

I might write more on this eventually. I'm still just trying to process.

For context, here's some artcles from both sides of the issue, both from Forbes Magazine.

Quora aggreeing that she overreacted and opened herself up to legal issues

DeAnna Zandt disagreeing, saying thatshe did the right thing.

Also, comments are closed for this. It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like hosting yet another branch of this battle.

Oct. 24th, 2012


Today's post is yet another semi-political rant, but it's quite a bit less serious than the last few. If anyone actually thinks this is a pressing issue, then I honestly don't know what to say to them other than that their priorities are kind of messed up. Fuck the economy, we've got PEOPLE WHO SHIP THINGS I DON'T LIKE to deal with!

Apparently, your shipping preferences are political now. If you prefer slash to het or femslash, you're a tool of the patriarchy and a misogynist and probably also homophobic.

I recently read an article written by a woman who claims that anyone who writes and reads slash fanfiction is misogynist, furthering the patriarchy, and also probably homophobic. Her rationale for this? Well, the misogynist thing she gave a few weak-ass examples of fan writers erasing women from the equation. Which, okay, fine, might happen sometimes. But that is an awfully broad brush you're painting with there. In fact, I don't think it's a brush at all anymore, it's more of a paint roller. Okay, so a couple of nearly decade-old Harry Potter fanfics demonized Ginny to make room for Harry/Draco. Have you read all the fanfiction ever? If not, how are you able to make the judgment that every single slash fic is like this? I'm sure there are some that are. I've even seen some myself. But to go from “some slash fics are offensive” to “every single slash fic in the history of the universe is offensive” is a hell of a logical leap.

As for the whole “slash fic is homophobic” thing, there was no evidence for this other than “cuz I said so!” I do not doubt that it is the case with some stories, but again, how can you state that every single story is like that?

Oh man, I really wish I could give a link for this, the article and its comments section were like a buffet of WTF. Unfortunately Firefox crashed and purged my browsing history and I've been unable to find the article again. If I do I will update this post accordingly.

Aug. 28th, 2011

On Dominionism

The 2012 Presidential election will be the first major election I will be eligible to vote in. Technically I could have voted in the 2010 midterm elections, but I was too lazy to register to vote, so I didn't. But I will definitely be voting for president, even though I'm not super thrilled with any of the candidates so far. As it looks now, it's quite likely I will be supporting Obama even though I am not a Democrat.

Why am I mentioning all of this? What does any of this have to do with dominionism, whatever the hell that is?

Well, to be fair, I didn't know what dominionism was until recently, when I heard the term in use regarding Michelle Bachmann. “She's a dominionist.” As far as I knew, “dominion” meant “state” or “country,” so what was wrong with a candidate being supportive of their country? That's kind of an important quality in a president. It's not all that good for the president to just be all, “I don't give a fuck,” and chill in the Oval Office getting blowjobs from interns. But then an online friend of mine started explaining what Dominionism the movement is about, and let me tell you, that is some scary shit right there.

Basically, Dominionism is all about taking over the country, and eventually, the world. It sounds like a bad superhero movie. Supervillian politician gets elected and decides to take over the world, so Superman or whoever has to stop him. As stupid as it is to say, that's actually pretty close to the truth, only minus the superpowers. Dominionism is a faction of Christianity that believes that God wants Christians, and only Christians, to be in charge. OK, well that's what a lot of Christians believe, right? Maybe to some extent, but if the Dominionists had their way, America would make Saudi Arabia or Iran look like Disney World. Death penalty for EVERYTHING! Only Christians have rights! No free speech for anyone! It would be like an unholy amalgamation of North Korea and every other dictatorship ever, only Christian.

And that scares the shit out of me. That is not the America that my family left Lithuania to come to. That is not the America I was born in. I was born in the United States of America, not the Democratic People's Christian Republic of America, or the Holy Kingdom of America. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind after the Revolutionary War.

If you don't like that, I'd be happy to contribute towards a plane ticket to North Korea for you.

This website has many different articles on Dominionism that explain the whole concept about a million times better than I can, so if you're curious, check it out. This is some scary shit, right here.

And in other news, the power didn't go out. All the hurricane did was blow the leafs all over the damn place. It looks like fall came early only without the pretty colors. I also start university again tomorrow, so wish me luck!

Apr. 12th, 2011

THIS is the butthurt-du-jour?

So the clothing company J. Crew has a new ad for a stripey shirt of some kind featuring the company president hanging out with her son, having some mother-son bonding time. It's actually a very adorable ad, which you can see here. What's wrong with it, you ask? Why, that woman has the audacity to paint her son's toenails fucking PINK! It's horrible, culture-war pundits are screaming, boys are going to think they're girls, and girls are going to think they're boys! Next thing you know, we'll have people trying to cut off random parts of their body, Caucasian people darkening their skin to claim to be African-American and vice-versa, then a really weird leap of logic claiming that if men blow-dry their hair, then the species will die out because no one will want to procreate. Or something. My brain doesn't quite parse stupid in such large amounts.

Uh... OK then. I... don't really see the connection between a little boy and his mother goofing around and painting their toenails, and the END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT. Also, the kid is FIVE. Not fifteen. FIVE. At five the only difference between male and female I was aware of was that boys had cooties. I highly doubt this kid thinks he's a girl, or is gay, or anything of the sort, simply because at the age that he is, the deepset understanding kids have of gender politics basically boils down to “COOTIES!” I'm not an expert on gender, but seriously? This is just dumb. A five-year-old just wants to be like his mom. I know my younger brother wanted to get his nails painted too, when he was three years old, because he wanted to be like our mother.

Guys, I'm sorry your moms locked you in the basement until you were 18 and didn't show you any kind of affection, much less bothered to take the time to hang out with you and do fun stuff like paint your toenails crazy colors. I'm sure it sucks, seeing a mother and child actually having fun together, but seriously? Don't be a hater just because your momma didn't love you.

Seriously, it's really obvious from the photo that both mother and son are having a lot of fun. How much of a depressing asshole do you have to be to take issue with that? Were you locked in the basement and not allowed to do anything other than your math homework? Do you not allow YOUR kids to leave the basement and do anything other than math homework?

Because that's depressing.

Culture and Media Institute Article- J.CREW Pushes Transgendered Child Propaganda

Fox News- J. Crew Plants the Seeds for Gender Identity

The Swash- J.Crew Ad Showing Boy with Pink Nail Polish Sparks Debate on Gender Identity

Apr. 6th, 2011

Paternal control?

So I found this two-part article on the Internet, and it's supposedly a “case study” in why fathers have failed to protect their daughters in our current society. While there's no doubt that some parents do fail to protect their children, this guy's logic is so far off-course it's practically on the moon. The study is called Living in Sodom, and it's apparently three parts, but I cannot seem to track down the first part. Instead, here's the first part and the second part.

This study draws heavily on the story of Lot, from the Bible. Now, I'm no Biblical scholar and I haven't regularly gone to church for anything other than weddings, funerals, and to keep my mom from disconnecting the Internet when I'm at home since I was thirteen years old. I haven't identified as Christian since I was fourteen. But even back when I was Christian, the story of Lot always bothered me. So, to keep some random people (who were really angels) from getting raped, he just goes, “Oh yeah, rape my daughters instead?” That, my friends, is one hell of a shitty father. And then, after God destroyed their city, his daughters (the same ones he was going to give to an angry mob) decided that they were going to sleep with him, to make sure that their family line would progress. Now, uh, I'm not exactly a geneticist, but I do know enough about biology that, uh, “keeping it in the family” isn't the best way to go about preserving your family line. But because I'm Really hoping that readers of my blog know why incest is a bad thing I'm not going to get too much into this, because, quite honestly, it squicks me right the fuck out.

The first part of this article is all about how in the 19th century, women were under the protection of their dads, their brothers, their husbands, and their sons, because it was believed that they wouldn't be able to protect themselves. There's a country that has laws like this today, in 2011. It's called Saudi Arabia. I'm not going to say much more on that particular subject, because I've never been there before, and I honestly don't know much more about their culture. But I will say this: the kind of people who have written this article, and who would take this article's advice to heart, aren't exactly the kind of people who would go “SAUDI ARABIA FUCK YEAH!” They're more the type who think that the heathens over there need to be converted.

Here is an excerpt from the article:
The idea of an unprotected woman was virtually unknown 150 years ago. In nineteenth century Occidental culture, women simply did not travel alone because there was a cultural assumption that women needed protection. If women were traveling over land or sea, they were sure to have a male escort to see them safely to their destination.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not some raging feminazi who hates men just because they're male. But I am also a grown adult, and damn it, if I want to go to Chipotle by myself, I'm going to the damn Chipotle by myself. And if I'm going to take the AMTRAK home from university, well, I'm going to do that, because it would be a huge inconvenience for my family to have to come and get me, and again, I'm a grown adult. I can get from Point A to Point B by myself. Unless I have a lot of luggage. Then I MIGHT need someone to help me carry it. But other than that? I know how to travel.

The rest of the first part of the article is a bunch of stereotypes of non-Christian fathers, and even a few of Christian fathers who don't fulfill his expectations of what a dad should do for his daughter. Most of that is just stupid, or redundant, so I'm not going to touch on it in this post. But here's the very tail-end of the first part:

Most daughters do not understand the biblical vision because fathers have not known what it is, because when they should be studying and preparing to deliver the messages, they are out playing golf or engaged in some kind of entertainment. They just do not know what to say to their daughters, because they have nothing to say. They have nothing to say, because they have not filled their minds with scriptural thoughts regarding their daughters.
And, whatever they do have to say, they do not communicate it in enough detail and over a long enough time for her to understand it. How long is enough? Communication of the biblical vision to a daughter needs to be from birth and continue every day of her life thereafter.
A father should be calling her to a rich life as a helpmeet (Genesis 2:18), a keeper at home (Titus 2:4), a trainer of the next generation (Ephesians 6:4), a demonstration of unfading beauty (I Peter 3:4), and a domestic entrepreneur (Proverbs 31). My view is that every daughter needs to have these passages of scripture memorized, so that she is equipped to detect influences which would divert her from her creation-order calling.

You know what, dude? My dad hates golfing, he only goes because his friends like it. And I'm really glad my dad didn't fill his head with “scriptural thoughts” regarding me- did you forget the story you reportedly based this on? Yeah, if that's what you think parents should be basing their feelings toward their children on, then I hope to Longcat you don't have children. And if you do, someone needs to call Child Protective Services on your ass. Because that ain't right, and someone needs a visit from Chris Hansen. And my dad was the one who pretty much raised me, BTW- he didn't “never have anything to say to me.” He was the one who taught me to use a computer at a very young age. He was the one who taught me to read. And during the worst period of my life (which I'm not going to go into here, because that would end up being about 10k words), he was the only one who helped me through it. I care very much about my dad, and it's quite frankly, insulting to see the man who raised me considered a horrible person because he didn't treat me like I was three years old when I grew up.

And the second part starts out even worse than the last one:

Even though the feminist agenda cheerily shouts, “You can have it all,” and “You’ve come a long way, baby,” daughters have a natural bent toward hopelessness. Everywhere they turn, they are confronted with their inadequacy. Whether the role model is Barbie or Brittany or Hillary, daughters can easily fall prey to comparisons that would lead them astray—to desires that would undo them.

Uh, bro, if your daughters are naturally bent towards hopelessness, you need to get them to a psychiatrist, pronto. I'm not saying that to be facetious, either- I'm very serious. I've dealt with despair my entire life- it wasn't until I was seventeen years old that we learned the extent of my despair, and what was causing it. And you know who was the one who helped me get the help I needed? It was my dad. He was the one who got me to the psychiatrist when I needed to go. That's not exactly ignoring me, now is it?

But the thing that freaks me out the most about this part of the study is the fact that he claims the reasons that Lot's daughters slept with their father was because:

Lot’s eldest daughter grew panicked by lack of hope. She saw no human means for the fulfillment of her longings as a woman.
This is then followed by this paragraph:

Second, Lot’s daughter was filled with fear. She was afraid for the future of her heritage, and she acted upon those fears. This is the same fear that grips the hearts of every daughter in every age. She fears that somehow she will be left out of marriage and family. Every young woman I have ever known at some point comes to struggle with this boogeyman. It goes like this: “No one will ever love me”; “there are zero men around that I could want to marry”; “I am not attractive enough to attract a good man”; “the pool of men that I would be interested in is too small....”

Yes, I may never be able to bear children. I run the risk of passing on some less-than-desirable genetics. There are times that I think that no one will ever want to be with me. But I can safely say that I've never seen... that as an solution. All I can ask is, what the hell kind of teenagers do you know if you think this is commonplace? Because, uh, I think you might be required by law to report that to CPS if they're under the age of eighteen, and if they are eighteen or older? Then you should probably still call the cops, because that's not normal.

And then there's this rather amusing paragraph later on:

These two girls were virgins in body, but they were already debauched in mind. They had long since grown accustomed to obscenity and unrestrained luridness, so, up in the cave on the mountainside, they seized the thinnest tissue of excuses and the story ends in a foul orgy of drunkenness and incest. Lot had nothing but heartbreak and grief to show for the years in Sodom. The Lord said, “For whoever would save his life will lose it,” (Matt 16:25a {RSV}). So Lot, trying to get the best out of both worlds, lost all and has become for all time the picture of the Christian who is saved, “but only as through fire,” (1:Cor 3:15b {RSV}). He has nothing but wasted years to look back on and eternity ahead.

Ha. This guy obviously rarely, if ever, actually interacts with those of us from the Internet Generation. He's obviously never strayed into certain parts of the Internet. If he had, he'd know that this “debauched in the mind” thing is pretty commonplace among teenagers and young adults. And that's kind of sad, but really scary at the same time, because he seems to think he's qualified to counsel people on very serious issues in their lives, while at the same time spouting off this kind of stuff.

Holy shit. Fundies scare me on a good day, but this is seriously one of the most terrifying things I've ever read. Please tell me that this dude doesn't work with teenagers. Or adults. Or anyone other than the nice men in white coats.

Mar. 28th, 2011


Because Judgment Day is coming!

Apparently, May 21, 2011 is Judgment Day, at least according to the guy whose website is linked to up above. On this day, according to him, it will be exactly 7000 years since the flood that brought us the story of Noah's Ark, that destroyed the entire world (which apparently missed the Chinese, if records are anything to go by). Also, May 21 concludes the 23 year "tribulation" period, a full 23 years of torment and horror unleashed on humanity by God as punishment for their sins. Apparently, on this day, god intends to shut the door on humanity forever, anyone born after that time is screwed, as is the majority of humanity.

And on October 21, 2011, the world will end. Everything will go kaput. No one survives, and if you aren't Christian, according to this guy, you're gonna die and then suffer for all eternity. Sounds scary, right? You'd think it might be a good idea to go convert, huh? I don't know about you, but suffering for all eternity sounds like it would kinda suck.

But I'm not too worried. According to his Wikipedia page, this guy has predicted the end of the world already, in 1994. Considering that the world has still been here for the past 17 years, it's safe to say that his prediction didn't come true.

In my expert opinion, we don't have anything to worry about. People have been predicting TEH END!1!!!!1!!ELEVENTY! for hundreds of years, and so far, the end hasn't come yet. The last major freakout in most of our lifetimes was Y2K, the year 2000 prediction. I remember being a Kaboomlet and watching the television, listening to everyone going on and on about how all the electronic devices were not going to work and planes were going to crash, banks weren't going to be able to give people their money, televisions, VCRs, and DVD players were going to no longer work, and computers weren't going to turn on. I remember my dad had to take his work computer to a "Y2K testing center" where they did all this stuff to it to make it supposedly better able to withstand the year change. Obviously nothing happened, since we're all still here. Some people did have to set the date on their electronic equipment back several years, just so it would work, but other than that, there wasn't too much of a problem. But you had people building Y2K bunkers and stocking up on things they thought they would need.

But these aren't the only predictions for the end of the world that have failed to come true. Writing up all of them would take forever, so here's some interesting links that discuss them.

Top Ten Failed Apocalyptic Predictions: from Listverse, this article gives a short overview of some of the failed apocalypses from history, going from the 5th century CE up to Y2K.

Forty-Four End-of-the-World Prophecies- That Failed: from the James Randi Educational Foundation, which is an expert on pseudoscience, a short overview of many failed apocalypses. It doesn't go into much detail but is still useful if you want a quick understanding.

Armageddon Online: LOOOOTS of failed prophecies here, from 30 CE to 1998. It is a Christian website, however, and has a bias towards "THE RAPTURE IS COMING!"

....and I seriously need to stop using all caps for post titles.

Mar. 2nd, 2011

Constitutionally Allowed Douchebaggery

So according to the Supreme Court, the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to protest funerals and be general all-around dickheads, because the Constitution says so. That's fine. As a libertarian I believe that everyone is allowed to have freedom of speech. But that said, everyone is allowed freedom of speech. So that's why it shouldn't be a problem if I go get a big truck with a lot of speakers on it, get a recording of "Keep it Gay" from The Producers on endless loop, park my big speaker truck across from their church, and blast my music during their church services as a form of protest. See? I can be a right asshole too, while exercising my First Amendment rights. Yeah, you can be a complete asshole, but don't be surprised when someone else is a complete asshole right back at you.

Also, I swear there's going to be some more, longer, in-depth posts soon, but I'm on spring vacation right now, and can't be arsed to do anything more intellectually taxing than looking at LOLcats. :P

Jan. 22nd, 2011

Horrible People Week Continues!

The week of horrid people continues with the opposite of the misandrists I blogged about a few days ago. I kind of want to lock them up with the bint and her husband featured today and see who survives. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE- WHO WILL WIN THE 'EVIL BITCH' AWARD FOR JANUARY 2011?

The content quoted from the other blog is incredibly reprehensible, and I'm not censoring myself either. Usually, I try to be relatively under control when I post, so that I don't end up sounding like the crazy bag lady that lives behind the Chipotle and yells at people passing by. Instead of being Big Sis Kaboom, today I'm Bat-Outta-Hell-PMSing Kaboom.

I have known of Steven and Zsuzsanna Anderson for quite some time- ever since Mr. Anderson got himself pwned by Border Patrol and went on national television to complain about their "abuses." As anyone with a brain knows, antagonizing Border Patrol is a good way to get yourself a one-way ticket to Pain City.

But if I blogged about every dipshit that thought that doing something stupid was a good idea, I'd never have time to do anything other than blog, and although I wouldn't mind doing that, I kind of need to go to class sometimes, so that I can get a decent job. Writing the kinds of things that I do don't pay all that well, unfortunately.

Anyway, Steven Anderson looks like your stereotypical IRL uke twink, the kind you'd find in a gangbang video on certain parts of the Internet, being held down and forced open for the enjoyment of creepy basement dwellers everywhere. Of course, he'd rather kill himself than let that happen, given the fact that he thinks all gay people should be killed. And the President. And anyone who doesn't belong to his particular faction of crazy-ass Christianity. He hates women. He thinks everyone is a potential creepy rapist. It's a pity, really, such a cute face shouldn't be spitting such vitriol (protip: click on just about any of the links on that webpage and you'll be treated to about an hour of lunacy. NSFW. NSFH- NOT SAFE FOR HUMANS!). I would say this guy needs a cactus enema, pronto, but he's already got a fucking cactus forest up his ass, so adding more cacti wouldn't end very well. The sad part is, that most of his sermons sound like they could have been copypasta'd from Encyclopedia Dramatica, but he honestly believes this shit. The funniest sermon I ever heard from him? He hates kilts because they are effeminate. When I told that story to The Douglas, he nearly lost his shit laughing, and told me that he "quadruple-dog-dared" Anderson to fly to Glasgow, walk into a pub, and say that to the patrons. Then, he and I would sit back and watch him run away from angry Glaswegians. I would provide links to the exact sermons where he goes on some of these tangents, but I don't feel like listening through several hours of lunacy again just trying to find the exact sermons where he really goes off the deep end (that's a tall order- this guy jumped off the deep end with a power shovel and started digging to make it deeper a long time ago).

But Mr. Anderson here (oh lawd I'm turning into a female Agent Smith) has an equally bonkers wife. Her name is Zsuzsanna, and is one of the most vile people I have ever come in contact with on the Internet, and that is saying A LOT. Right now she's tied for Biggest Bitch on the Internet with the psychopath who posted the Assange murder fantasy (still not linking to that, BTW). HER shit is going to be a lot easier to link to, although it's no less rage-inducing than her husband's.

She doesn't believe women should vote, even though she is a naturalized United States citizen. Uh, lady, I hate to break it to you, but the whole point of becoming a naturalized citizen is so you can vote. It's why my Bobute became a naturalized citizen when she was in her seventies. She wouldn't have bothered if she couldn't have voted. She also believes that if you are in an abusive marriage, the only way to end it is for her god to kill your abusive husband. I get that she believes that her holy book says that divorce is never acceptable, but if her husband ever attacked her, she would feel quite differently. Or maybe she'd just put antifreeze in his pudding, to give "god" a helping hand in offing the husband. She believes that there are people who her god hates, and who deserve to die- included there are homosexuals, and people who "adjust her god's word." Right. I'm not exactly sure how you'd even adjust god's word- he's god. His words are probably gonna be pretty damn hard to adjust. She would disown her children if one of them turned out to be gay, just like she would disown them if they were a murderer.

Lady, I hate to have to tell you this, but I will say this: I'm nineteen years old. I have a fucking personality disorder. And I would make a better mother than you. At least I wouldn't fucking kick my kid out if they grew up to be a different religion/sexual orientation from me.

So this woman is up for the Worst Person On The Internet Award.

Jan. 18th, 2011

Just Because You're A Feminist Doesn't Mean You're Not A Bitch

Putting this post behind a cut because there's a lot of stupid here, some of which might be upsetting to some people.
Wretched people ahead... )

Dec. 22nd, 2010

Crazy Bastards Execute Santa

Today, I was originally going to blog about Julian Assange. But then I found this, and decided it was more relevant to the time at hand (well, that, and I don't have enough toilet roll for the inevitable shitstorm that will ensue when I discuss Assange- it's already happened on several other websites I frequent). Basically, in Texas, there is a church group called Repent Amarillo, the same people who tried to burn a Koran earlier this year and had it stolen by the "Dude, you have no Koran" guy.

This time, they've decided to execute Santa Claus. By firing squad. And put it up on YouTube. I have the video, but I highly recommend that you do not watch it if you are at work or have children around you, as it's really rather disturbing. And I will say this- it takes quite a bit to disturb me.

So, yeah. They claim Santa is guilty of lying to children, BEING  a lie, distorting the "true meaning of Christmas," and a bunch of other BS charges. And then, they shoot a pinata. As a metaphor.

I'm sorry, but normal people do not have such rage towards a fictional character. Most people think of Santa Claus as the manifestation of the goodwill of the season, not some insidious demon conspiracy take the focus away from Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this guy did have a relatively decent point, in that during the holidays some concern should be shared with those less fortunate, but it got buried in the pile of WTF that is the rest of this video.

I would also like to point out that the only people this video is likely to convince is the members of Repent Amarillo. The rest of us are going to be looking for the phone number to the nearest loony bin to get these people locked up before they move on to shooting humans and not pinata.