Jawa Report calls for "ass kicking" of Jennings defenders
December 16, 2009 8:18 am ET by MMFA Staff
From a December 15 post by The Jawa Report's Rusty, headlined "Media Matters Now Defending Kiddie Porn:
Look, we're no prudes around here. We like hot lesbian teacher posts as much as any one. But I've read some of the stuff being recommended by Kevin Jennings and it's the kind of reading that would make a sailor blush. No, more than that. The sailor would first blush, then take you out back and kick your ass. Then he'd kick it again just for safe measure.
Any one defending Jennings after actually bothering to read what his organization recommends deserves that same ass kicking.
Previously:
With such shocking displays of homophobia demonstrated by the right as of late, can violence ever be that far behind?
If it wasn't so sad that line might be funny for what it reveals about the author.
The sailor would first blush, then take you out back and kick your ass. Then he'd kick it again just for safe measure
And the reason for that was the latent homosexual tendancies that that sailor had, that he was in denial about.
"Media Matters Now Defending Kiddie Porn:"
Could someone point me to the link where MMFA was defending kiddie porn? I must have missed that.
He tried to claim that exposing kids to explicit sexual information was equivalent to showing them pornography. Of course it's not. Pornography is "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
He also tried to claim that it was not only pornography, but it was child pornography! It was ridiculous, and was almost certainly simply an attempt to derail the thread. One has to wonder what the purpose was of the misleading comments that the Jawa Report made.
RightON made several offensive and untrue comments, including these....
"I know you think showing explicit sexual material to underage minors is no big thing..." followed by "Sorry, showing pornography to a child is kind of icky sounding to me." As though the two things are equivalent.
"I have no idea what your obsession is with type of thing, but I cannot be the only one here who notices it. Or why you insist on slicing up these meanings of child porn or any of it. Get help."
He suggested that NGE "condone(d) showing pornography to children."
He said that "Explicit sexual material would be pornography to children, explicit being the operative word."
Every time his Mr. Hyde persona disappears and he says something reasonable, I've applauded. Regrettably, those times have always been rare, whatever name he's using.
My point (not to suggest I need to correct anything you said) was that it hasn't been MMFA that has defended kiddie porn. It's been posters who have been accused of that, falsely as it turns out.
So not only is the accusation false, but it's really off base too!
What I know is that I don't go after any poster whatsoever. My efforts are strictly related to the content of the posts, and if and when RightON or Weaselly are reasonable, I'll feel free to acknowledge that without any cynicism whatsoever. What I also know is that he goes after me, but I don't care. I find it fun to make them sweat and fret. They pretend that my attention to their posts doesn't bug them at all. I know it troubles them a lot, and that's all I need to know.
Maybe I'm sort of a prude, but if I really enjoyed "lesbian teacher posts" that much, it wouldn't be something I'd want to share with children--or anyone, for that matter.
I wouldn't want to burst Jawa's bubble and spoil their, er, enjoyment, but those "hot posts" probably were not written by real teachers or real lesbians. And if they were, why isn't Jawa concerned about what they are teaching our children?
What I find interesting is that all these people who are upset about the information at these conferences are getting their info from religious right-wing anti-gay sources, and are taking a discriminatory stance from the beginning. This was information that was not designed to please the religious right. It was for a targeted audience, and now that targeted audience is under attack.
Not everybody is going to agree with the information or how it is presented, but the religious right fail to mention that the people in attendance were there voluntarily. Nobody forced them to attend. The reporter who attended and has been attacking the conference had gone with an anti-gay agenda, and was searching for fuel for his fire. If the material presented was so offensive, where are the hundreds of other people in attendance coming forward?
-------------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Let's see, if they're referring to the Star Wars characters (is there another Jawa reference?), the Jawas were small, secretive characters who made their living by scavenging (and sometimes stealing) things that some people made, then reselling the stuff to other people.
1) Jawas didn't link to any of the "stuff being recommended by Kevin Jennings" or to a demonstration that Jennings (or even "his organization") did indeed recommend it.
2) They seem hilariously unaware of the homoerotic subtext of choosing a sailor as their imaginary asskicker.