I got quite a few heated responses objecting to my last blog post ("These video games have been brought to you by Satan") and my criticism of a conservative Christian investment house, the Timothy Plan, which offered up a "morals based" rating system for video games.
Gotta love the First Amendment.
Rather than engage in a comment war, I thought I'd address some of the more flammable responses here (which admittedly might be like serving a Molotov cocktail to a fire-breathing dragon).
Poster Guillermo calls me a bigot, and says "I suggest you return to the purpose of this website which is a polite discussion of technology."
My mission with this blog is to write about "where technology, culture, and politics collide, occasionally at high speed." I can think of no other topic that fits that mission more perfectly than this one or one that's caused such a fender bender for some folks.
Guillermo adds:
Your objections to [the Timothy Plan's] particular criteria reveal you to be just another debauched, anti-religious bigot who seeks to corrupt young people and destroy the moral foundation of this country.
Damn. You've discovered my secret plan for world domination. I hate it when that happens. But let's take these insults one by one.
Debauched? Yep. I'm a journalist. It's part of the job description. Score one for Guillermo.
Anti-religious? No. I'm not opposed to all religions just those that preach intolerance and hatred. Even then, I think people should be free to believe whatever they want as long as a) I don't have to hear about it, and b) they don't try to teach it to my kids.
Corrupting the nation's youth? You give me too much credit, Guillermo. The nation's youth don't give a damn what I say. For the record, I have a son who's obsessed with gaming, and there's no way in heaven or hell he's getting Grand Theft Auto not while he's living in my house.
I don't need a morally righteous investment group to tell me that. If you do, terrific just follow the links conveniently provided here to get to their report.
Other commenters in this thread have called me a biased, intolerant, amoral, left-wing kook. Yes, it's been wacky fun here at Culture Crash.
Biased? Sure, though I prefer "opinionated." Pretty much everything you read is biased in one way or another. In my experience, most people who get exercised about my "bias" aren't really objecting to the fact I have opinions, they're objecting because they don't agree with them.
Intolerant? I admit I am increasingly intolerant of folks who try to foist 2000-year-old belief systems upon the government, legal system, schools, scientific researchers, and blogs they don't like (to name just a few examples). We've just had eight years of that. Stick a fork in me, I am done.
Amoral? Just because my morals aren't your morals doesn't make me amoral. I'm not the one equating "non married lifestyles" with prostitution, murder, and drug abuse, for example. The Timothy Plan doesn't invest in companies like Microsoft and Electronic Arts and dozens of others in part because those companies offer benefits to same-sex couples. Its investment Hall of Shame [pdf] records 561 "violations" by companies that embrace "alternative lifestyles" -- more than abortion, porn, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and "anti-family entertainment" combined.
I don't see that as particularly moral. Sorry if you don't agree with that. And if all of this makes me a kook, I say, welcome to the nut house.
OK, have at it. What do you think? Post your thoughts below or email me directly: dan (at) dantynan (dot) com. I'll be wearing my asbestos boxers, just in case.
When not fending off angry mobs, Dan Tynan tends his blogs, Culture Crash and Tynan on Tech.