Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Re: Atheist Billboard in North Carolina Defaced - by Syko Shadow

Magx, in your Last Blog you made a very good point about how divisive the "Under God" graffiti on the secular billboard is, but you didn't bring up another issue in the story of the stupid motherfuckers defacing a billboard to get their jollies off insulting free speech:

Whenever someone like me from the ghetto does any form of graffiti, it's considered vandalism, labeling all graffiti artists as delinquents and thugs. Even if it's really good-looking art, like a mural or some real gangsta shit, it's looked down upon by mainstream America. However, when some dipshits with a box of Crayola scribble "Under God" on a secular billboard (NOTE: not atheist, simply secular. There is nothing atheistic in that billboard), the same people who previously got up-in-arms about ghetto graffiti are suddenly rallying behind this theistic outpouring of stupidity, despite the fact that the billboard incident is in fact an act of vandalism. I guess it's more than acceptable to be a fucking "delinquent" when you're trying to disparage minority groups, such as atheists. Or maybe it's just people in the ghetto who aren't allowed to pull shit like this. It wouldn't surprise me if such a double standard existed, especially if it is done so "under God."


  1. You make a good point. I wonder how many of the hundreds (thousands?) of people commenting on the article in favour of the vandalisation (yes, as you said, it's vandalising) would be in support of ofther forms of expression involving graffiti. Would it depend on what the content was? Where it was posted (drawn? written?) Both? Or, is it likely that this was a special case to which they granted special acceptance? If I had to guess, I'd guess special acceptance.

    Lastly, I though that this:

    "NOTE: not atheist, simply secular. There is nothing atheistic in that billboard."

    Was a really great point, and a rather important one. In fact, I wish I had thought of it, as I would have included it in my comments on the article. Well, I imagine th ecomments are still rolling in there, so you can add it now if you desire. If not, I may do so.

    Great point.

  2. They wouldn't be in favor of any real graffiti, or at least any graffiti from the ghetto, that's for damn sure. Like I said, they're probably only supporting it because it's a childish cheap shot at non-theists, and America is remiss to go one day without picking on us amoral godless heathens.

    If you want to go back to fucking Yahoo, and make a comment regarding that fact that the billboard isn't atheistic, feel free to (but give me credit :P) I personally find YouTube comments more logical and level-headed than the drifting internet pond scum that collects in a mucus-y pile around Yahoo! Anything, so you couldn't pay me to try and debate with those fucking asshats in any regard. This whole thing with that article and the people commenting on it, which is nothing more than an exercise in theistic hate-mongering, is proof of that.


Tell magx01 and the rest of The Thoughtful Gamers what's on your mind!