Xmas movie season

[BikerDude]

This is the tradition in our house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWv8WALqY1w

[Reverend Al]

I missed that one when it was first released.  I finally saw it for the first time about 15-20 years ago, but by then a good friend had told me so many times about how good it was that I didn't laugh once.  He had the best intentions, but had built it up so much that by that point it couldn't possibly have met my expectations.  I saw it again a few years later, and having gotten that first viewing out of the way I was able to evaluate it for what it really was, and now it's one of my favorite movies.

[BikerDude]

And then of course there is "Bad Santa".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpybGF13A7c

[Reverend Al]

And then of course there is "Bad Santa".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpybGF13A7c

I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between Bad Santa and Badder Santa (the unrated version), but I dig it either way.  I'm not fond of all of the bullshit associated with Christmas these days, so the movie's irreverence is greatly appreciated.

[BikerDude]

And then of course there is "Bad Santa".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpybGF13A7c

I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between Bad Santa and Badder Santa (the unrated version), but I dig it either way.  I'm not fond of all of the bullshit associated with Christmas these days, so the movie's irreverence is greatly appreciated.

Oh don't get me started. The fictional war on Christmas.
Like if you say happy holidays you are anti Christmas and not just being a good man and thorough.


Bad Santa, I watched both and didn't really catch any difference.
I found this rundown. Not sure if it's accurate or not.

0:05?Alternate take of Willie leaving the department store in Milwaukee. This is 30 seconds of alternate footage that provides a dirtier exchange with the security guard.
0:12?Florida robbery and strip club. This is 4 minutes of new footage of Willie robbing a home and taking a stripper home. There's stripper nudity and hilariously offensive language.
0:25?Despite prerelease notification from Buena Vista, there is no extension to the "Fuck me Santa" scene in the car.
0:28?Extended Big & Tall dressing room scene. This is perhaps 5-10 extra seconds of grunting and thrusting as seen from John Ritter's perspective.
0:31?Extended arcade scene with Willie and underage girl. We get about 7 seconds worth of extra thrusts behind the girl playing pinball.
0:39?Extended food court scene. This amounts to about 45 seconds of extra berating and language.
0:42?Extended checkers scene. About 10 seconds more of Willie shouting at the kid after losing at checkers.
0:44?Extended Jacuzzi scene. About 5 seconds more of Willie and Sue going at it in the hot tub.
0:49?Parking lot encounter with security guard. About 10 seconds of new footage with Willie confronting a security guard outside the mall.
1:06?Extended granny death-scare scene. A tiny, 2-second extension of the granny scare.
1:11?Extended murder of Gin. A bug-eyed extension of the car death.
1:15?Extended final robbery. About 10 seconds more of preparing for the final robbery.
1:22?Extended final shootout at the mall. About a minute more of gunshots and explosions.

[Reverend Al]

Oh don't get me started. The fictional war on Christmas.
Like if you say happy holidays you are anti Christmas and not just being a good man and thorough...

No shit.  I've seen "Happy Holidays" used in place of "Merry Christmas" here and there since I was a child and nobody cared.  That is, until it was pointed out that saying "Merry Christmas" might be offensive to people not of the Christian faith, and suddenly the Christians lost their fucking minds and started a crusade.  But then, being open-minded and tolerant isn't exactly in line with the Christian ethos.  "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," my ass.

And surely you've heard about the controversy created by Starbucks.  For those who haven't, Starbucks traditionally uses "Christmas themed" cups for the holidays, but this year they decided to use a simple, two-toned red cup instead with no "symbols of the season" like reindeer or ornaments, and Christians are losing their fucking minds over it.  For a group of people who claim their faith brings them peace, they sure get pissed off a lot.

[Masked Dude]

And surely you've heard about the controversy created by Starbucks.  For those who haven't, Starbucks traditionally uses "Christmas themed" cups for the holidays, but this year they decided to use a simple, two-toned red cup instead with no "symbols of the season" like reindeer or ornaments, and Christians are losing their fucking minds over it.  For a group of people who claim their faith brings them peace, they sure get pissed off a lot.

What I don't get is that they're pissed, but since when are snowflakes, snowmen, and shit like that Christian symbols??

[Reverend Al]

What I don't get is that they're pissed, but since when are snowflakes, snowmen, and shit like that Christian symbols??

The only sense I can make of it is that, apparently, they perceive any anti-Christmas sentiments (whether expressed or by omission, as in this case) as being anti-Christian.  Here in the U.S. there appears to be something of a backlash against religion in general right now, so maybe they're just overly sensitized from having to be on the defensive about their beliefs for the first time in...well, ever, really.  But I haven't run with the "devoutly Christian" crowd since the late-70s, so I really don't know.

[BikerDude]

If anyone is offended by someone saying Merry Christmas to them then IMO they should suck it. I do think it's more common for people to object to having their kids taught in School that it is the Birthday of the Son of God or some other such thing. It's fine to celebrate Christmas in public schools but if that drags in some religious teaching then I think any parent has the right to object if they want to be bothered.

But the "overly sensitized" reaction has nothing to do with any backlash IMO.
I mean Cmon. What backlash really?
I've come to regard it as either a pathology or a strategy.
In my experience there is no way to disagree with Christians without it being "offensive". And if you don't agree and express it then they perceive it as persecution.
It's so common that there has come to be a term for it.
"Christian Persecution Complex" in the parlance of our times.

It's like the thing with the christian refusing to grant marriage licences.
To the christian mind, freedom of religion equates to her right to refuse others to not agree. And anything that stands in her way of imposing her beliefs on others is "Persecution".

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/05/the_raging_hypocrisy_at_the_center_of_the_christian_rights_persecution_complex/


For instance...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V_znygZHj4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybH66U72xd0

[BikerDude]

It's interesting how little things change.
Contrast this quote from the imfamous "cornerstone speech" of the confederacy with recent quotes.

Cornerstone speech about the formation of the confederacy.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail.

Now this in response to the supreme court decision on gay marriage.

?The time has come to prepare ourselves for persecution. Our identity has put us at odds with the culture, which is now going to do everything in its power to punish us. Our commitment to living authentically is going to cost us ? perhaps everything ? because we refuse to compromise what we believe to be the truth. The dominant voices in our culture hate us, and will stop at nothing to eliminate us. Our jobs, our families, even our lives are now in jeopardy because of who we are.?

Disagreement means persecution and it ultimately becomes a battle cry.

And
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Confederacys-Christian-Nation-John-Fea-04-27-2011

But as Northern propagandists extolled the Christian virtues of their national Union and the spiritual superiority of their society over a sinful South in need of God's repentance, the religious and political leaders of the Confederacy were building what they perceived to be their own Christian civilization.

Indeed, the "Christian nation" theme was even more prominent in the South than it was in the North. Southerners were convinced that the Confederate States of America was a Christian nation. They viewed the Confederacy as a refuge for the godly amid the "infidelity" of the Union to which they once belonged. One hundred fifty years ago this month, Southerners prepared to engage in a war that would prove God was on their side. This mentality is clear in the Confederacy's decision to adopt the Latin phrase Deo Vindice ("With God as our defender") as its national motto.


Southerners looking for evidence that the Confederacy was a Christian nation needed to look no further than their Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention God, the preamble of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America made a direct appeal to "Almighty God":

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent and federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God?do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Where once it was blacks, today it's gays.
Fucking Nazi's. Nothing changes.

[jgiffin]

"Christian Persecution Complex" in the parlance of our times.

Well, can you blame them for partaking of the same "grievance culture" the left has been abusing as a substitute for rational discourse? I mean, both are nonsensical and worthy of derision, but the fact there is no right to not be offended is universal like that.

[BikerDude]

"Christian Persecution Complex" in the parlance of our times.

Well, can you blame them for partaking of the same "grievance culture" the left has been abusing as a substitute for rational discourse? I mean, both are nonsensical and worthy of derision, but the fact there is no right to not be offended is universal like that.

Like who?
I don't know what is meant by "the left".
I guess you mean blacks or gays?
How does that compare?
83% of the population is Christian.
I don't think persecution of minorities or gays is a delusion.
There is a bit of historical evidence around.

[jgiffin]

"Christian Persecution Complex" in the parlance of our times.

Well, can you blame them for partaking of the same "grievance culture" the left has been abusing as a substitute for rational discourse? I mean, both are nonsensical and worthy of derision, but the fact there is no right to not be offended is universal like that.

Like who?
I don't know what is meant by "the left".
I guess you mean blacks or gays?
How does that compare?
83% of the population is Christian.
I don't think persecution of minorities or gays is a delusion.
There is a bit of historical evidence around.

I had the Mizzou college campus phenomenon in mind. But only because it's emblematic of the butt-hurt PC nonsense the left has been trying to guilt trip upon society for far too long. And past-tense historical persecution is no basis for contemporary misbehavior.

Christ-thumpers are spoiled little ignorant dipwads when they cry because their coffee cup doesn't have a snowman, reindeer, star, or some other demonstrably un-christmas design on it during Festivus. First-world problems, indeed.

But, to take this example, social justice warriors with more dirt in their bellybuttons than grey matter between their ears present their credentials for membership in the "Brick Tamland Society" when shouting factually (as well as grammatically) incorrect slogans written by the professional grievance industry.