|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 25, 2009 0:17:16 GMT -5
Makes perfect sense, Snoodles. I agree wholeheartedly with you & Antichrist.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 25, 2009 1:07:25 GMT -5
A company rep deliberately baited a user and insulted his faith. It would be fucking awesome if a move like that led to more paying customers. Fixed that for ya. ...because a company that shows that kind of disrespect for users and customers is precisely the sort that should be rewarded. If I had a complaint about unprofessional behavior by the reps, I could look forward to unresponsiveness, or worse, from management. Hurray! ...because calling a fictional character, you know, FICTIONAL is somehow disrespectful. It's not the company's fault that the religitard is just *so* offended by the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 25, 2009 2:25:12 GMT -5
...because a company that shows that kind of disrespect for users and customers is precisely the sort that should be rewarded. If I had a complaint about unprofessional behavior by the reps, I could look forward to unresponsiveness, or worse, from management. Hurray! ...because calling a fictional character, you know, FICTIONAL is somehow disrespectful. It's not the company's fault that the religitard is just *so* offended by the truth. Jesus is legendary and not necessarily fictional, though the accounts of his life may have been spiced up in certain places with imaginative borrowings from the myth of Horus. To claim he was merely a "fictional character" is inaccurate, and it was meant to be insulting. So, too, were references to Christianity's foundational story not merely as a myth, but as a fairy tale - i.e., a story usually told to amuse or educate children. The employee didn't slight this user by accident; he did it on purpose, and since he was being paid to provide a certain service - presumably one that offers accurate answers and doesn't include ( or condone) baiting and insults - then his behavior fell far short of that standard. But apparently, his boss isn't as concerned with accuracy as with infamy, and so it's totally okay by him if his employees go off half-cocked and start baiting customers who don't share his worldview. It is, as I said before, disheartening when the net result is that a company should profit by deliberately inflaming someone from a religious minority.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 25, 2009 2:32:45 GMT -5
Nutcase, PLEASE tell me you aren't referring to Zeitgeist with that Horus remark.
And whether or not the employee did it on purpose is, quite frankly, arguable. To you, the definition of myth & fairy tale are noticably different, but most people actually think it's the same damn thing. The employee may very well have been concerned with accuracy. But it's not really the point.
I see what you're saying, but only as far as the president's remarks go. As for the original comment, it was nothing to cry over. Especially not when you're being a religious troll, and not even to an internet forum.
Edit: Oh, on the subject of myths & legents, no, that does NOT mean the figures within existed. It means they "can't be verified," and to tell the honest truth, that in & of itself is just a way of saying, "We don't want to offend anyone's culture." I could honestly use similar arguments to say you can't disprove Superman, or Frankenstein, or Cthulu, or Sephiroth.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 25, 2009 2:38:09 GMT -5
...because calling a fictional character, you know, FICTIONAL is somehow disrespectful. It's not the company's fault that the religitard is just *so* offended by the truth. Jesus is legendary and not necessarily fictional, though the accounts of his life may have been spiced up in certain places with imaginative borrowings from the myth of Horus. To claim he was merely a "fictional character" is inaccurate, and it was meant to be insulting. So, too, were references to Christianity's foundational story not merely as a myth, but as a fairy tale - i.e., a story usually told to amuse or educate children. The employee didn't slight this user by accident; he did it on purpose, and since he was being paid to provide a certain service - presumably one that offers accurate answers and doesn't include ( or condone) baiting and insults - then his behavior fell far short of that standard. But apparently, his boss isn't as concerned with accuracy as with infamy, and so it's totally okay by him if his employees go off half-cocked and start baiting customers who don't share his worldview. It is, as I said before, disheartening when the net result is that a company should profit by deliberately inflaming someone from a religious minority. Sorry, but legends by their very nature fall into the category of FICTION.
|
|
|
Post by brendanjd on May 25, 2009 7:07:04 GMT -5
Fuck the idea of a company hvaing to be nice to people simply because they hold some sort of faith. Fuck that with a rusty iron stick.
I know customer service. The idea of the customer always being right is horseshit. The concept of a company and it's employees not being able to speak their minds as not to offend customers is horseshit. The man called it like he saw it, it was not racist, sexist, or in anyway offending. The president saw the humor value in a humerous situtation.
Saying "Oh no! He can't do that cause he's the president of a company that serves the pubic" is nothing more than saying "You can't say that" which is bullshit to the utmost.
I'm not exactly sure who said it but I think this quote sums it up perfectly "If you don;t like people making fun of your religious beliefs, stop having such stupid religious beliefs."
|
|
Zabimaru
Full Member
Always amused and bemused
Posts: 241
|
Post by Zabimaru on May 25, 2009 7:15:24 GMT -5
I'd say that I don't think that the original reply was meant to be baiting or offensive. The service "we'll answer any question" is very obviously meant mostly as a publicity stunt. Sure, you can get real answers to "real" questions, but if you ask something that is silly to ask such a service, you can expect a silly answer in return.
That's how it's supposed to be. I'm sure they help some people who genuinely need to know something, but it would seem that a main point of a service like that is humor.
As I mentioned earlier, non-believers are in the majority here. In general we don't care about religion either way and don't want mock religion just for the hell of it. But even so, there was still an 80% or so chance that the person sending the message was non-religious, and with a (in the context) silly question like that it was very probable that they wanted a humorous answer. So I'd say that the original reply was probably meant as a joke to satisfy their customer, not baiting.
As for the interview with the president, yes he was being an ass and insulting, but he was also saying what he believed. To me that is worthy of more respect than giving some fake apology to placate people.
And the thing is, I'm sure that the priest would have gotten his nice little apology in a typical form letter if he would have just contacted the company. But he didn't - he forced them to a public confrontation by contacting a newspaper (I read the article again, and it does seem like it was the priest who contacted the paper). And it's in that situation I respect that they stood their ground. They were figuratively trapped in a corner by him and they were expected to give comforting lies about what they think, but didn't.
The president could have been less of an ass about it, but I think it's still admirable that he spoke his mind.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 25, 2009 11:15:15 GMT -5
Nutcase, PLEASE tell me you aren't referring to Zeitgeist with that Horus remark. And whether or not the employee did it on purpose is, quite frankly, arguable. To you, the definition of myth & fairy tale are noticably different, but most people actually think it's the same damn thing. The employee may very well have been concerned with accuracy. But it's not really the point. I see what you're saying, but only as far as the president's remarks go. As for the original comment, it was nothing to cry over. Especially not when you're being a religious troll, and not even to an internet forum. Edit: Oh, on the subject of myths & legents, no, that does NOT mean the figures within existed. It means they "can't be verified," and to tell the honest truth, that in & of itself is just a way of saying, "We don't want to offend anyone's culture." I could honestly use similar arguments to say you can't disprove Superman, or Frankenstein, or Cthulu, or Sephiroth. 1) God no. 2) We don't refer to the Norse, Greek, or Egyptian pantheons as a fairytales. Most people call them 'myths,' and not out of some misguided sense of political correctness, either. Here's the definition of myth: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people. (A lot of people once accepted those myths as history.) Here's the definition of fairytale: a story about fairies; told to amuse children, or an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse.The original quote was written to inflame: Jesus is a character in the made up stories of Christianity. The fairytale says that he lived 2000 years ago and could walk on water and stuff.The use of the terms character, made up, and fairytale were designed to show, beyond a shadow of the doubt, that not only did the employee think the stories weren't true, but that he had no respect at all for the sensibilities of anyone who did. In fact, he was plenty prepared to insult the intelligence of those who thought differently. I know it's in vogue to eschew religious tolerance because 'it's all bullshit anyway,' but I don't agree with the practice. It's irritating, and it shouldn't garner any sort of reward. It's one thing to question the stupidity of fundamentalism, because the fundies' need to dominate the discourse and make the rules is a positive danger to anyone with an ounce of common sense, but it's quite another to deliberately piss in the cornflakes of religious minorities just for the hell of it - and another, still, to profit by such behavior. There's a happy medium between treating religious belief as being either beyond criticism or beneath contempt. This ain't it.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 25, 2009 11:25:00 GMT -5
Fuck the idea of a company hvaing to be nice to people simply because they hold some sort of faith. Fuck that with a rusty iron stick. Yeah – fuck the idea that people shouldn’t be insulted merely for holding different views from the majority. Fuck that with a rusty iron stick. We must insult them, or they’ll never learn how right we are when compared to them. This isn’t some shade of gray we’re talking about, where a sales clerk puts his foot down on customer shenanigans. There’s a huge difference between ‘the customer is always right’ and ‘it’s our corporate policy not to go around insulting people for the laughs.’ I didn’t say “he can’t say that.” I said he shouldn’t be rewarded for handling customer complaints in such a disrespectful manner. If he’s willing to allow such behavior in this instance, just what else will he allow in situations where he doesn’t immediately side with the customer? No thanks. If I were there, I’d not patronize that company for fear that any complaint I had would be handled in a hostile, demeaning manner.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 25, 2009 19:45:52 GMT -5
It was a stupid complaint. The customer got his panties in a twist over the TRUTH about Christianity.
So, WHY should the employee be punished for doing his goddamn job?
Need I remind you all that ANY nod at Jesus being mythical, even the slightest implication that the Bible just might not be DA TROOF, these people get all upset and start BAWWWWWing about "persecution" and how they have some "right" to "not be offended" just because they believe in a magickal god-man.
The customer is a dick, and the employee should get a fucking promotion.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 25, 2009 20:28:23 GMT -5
Let's examine this:
Is Jesus a character in a story?
Yeah.
Is there any reason to believe he was real?
Nope.
Are the stories of the Bible frequently told to amuse children, are they frequently implausible, & are they frequently used as an excuse of some sort?
Yes. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this describes both mythology & fairytales to a T.
Was the story made up?
Well, you yourself seem to think a lot of it was fabricated.
Now, you also said the company wasn't concerned about accuracy: Do the stories say that Jesus can walk on water & stuff? Did he supposedly live 2000 years ago?
Yes. And I wouldn't expect an essay from a text service.
I'm not seeing an issue, here.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 25, 2009 21:40:18 GMT -5
This isn’t some shade of gray we’re talking about, where a sales clerk puts his foot down on customer shenanigans. There’s a huge difference between ‘the customer is always right’ and ‘it’s our corporate policy not to go around insulting people for the laughs.’ It's not like the priest was asking a serious question. He knew perfectly well who (bible) Jesus was and he was essentially just interested in how they would respond. So that means he's either trolling or one of those fundie twats who needs everybody to agree with their beliefs. Either way he had it coming.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 25, 2009 22:22:01 GMT -5
Even in Sweden, we can pretty much assume that everyone knows who Jesus is.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 25, 2009 22:49:47 GMT -5
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.The priest's motives were, as Antichrist said, less than pure in asking that question, but that doesn't excuse the behavior of the company president. It would also be disheartening to see the company profiting by it.
I've already pointed out that there's a substantial difference, usually, between a myth and a fairytale. You can split hairs all you like, but this is the way of it: fairytales are made up, deliberately, and they're not meant to be believed. Myths and legends, on the other hand, often have an element of truth to them; and, where Christianity is concerned, we're talking about a legend on which people - both good and bad, but mostly good - base their lives and ease their deaths.
It's not wrong to attack religion or religious people who hold rotten beliefs; faith isn't inviolate. It is wrong, IMO, to take anything other than a 'live and let live' attitude towards people of different faiths (or none) who aren't having a negative impact on others. It's not praiseworthy behavior, even if the majority of the population in Sweden happens to agree with the company's president.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on May 26, 2009 8:25:18 GMT -5
Before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, was this actually written in english, or has this been translated? Even if it is accurate the word fairytale might have a somewhat different meaning in Sweden than what we usually ascribe to it in North America.
Either way, ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
|
|