You're a Mean One, Grinch Alert

[paft.livejournal.com]

Robert Jeffress:

Well, you know every year people bemoan the War on Christmas and I thought, “Let’s do something positive about it,” so we created this website, Grinchalert.com, it allows people to go on our website and, uh, if they’ve encountered a business that shuns Christmas they can talk about it and put that business on the naughty list but if they find a business that celebrates Christmas, they can put that business on the nice list. It’s just a fun way to say to businesses and organizations, “You don’t have to bow to political correctness. It’s okay to say, “Merry Christmas…”

John Roberts: What if businesses who are on the naughty list lose customers?... Would it be a good idea to affect people’s business at this season, which can be make or break for some people, and in this economic climate?

Jeffress: John, let me make it clear, we have never even hinted at a boycott…

"Never even hinted at a boycott?" Really? Here’s what Jeffress said on Fox:

Jeffress: One great example in the Dallas area, there was a bank that took down a Christmas tree because they said it would offend customers. Well, there was another bank that got put on our nice list, the Providence Bank, because they put up a nativity scene. The CEO told me yesterday that there were customers changing from the bank that removed the Christmas tree, and they’re flocking to his bank.

Gretchen Carlson: You are not calling for a boycott of any of these businesses….

Jeffress: Oh, not at all, not in any way! You know, there’s a Mexican restaurant you mentioned that was saying Happy Holidays, but our family still goes there every week…

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

So it’s all about reassuring businesses. Honest! It’s all about making them feel nice and safe. He’s not advocating a boycott.

But he’s delighted to share as an example that little story of a bank losing customers because they took down a Christmas tree.

See, here's what mystifies me about this... Jeffress likes the idea of forcing other people and businesses to utter "Merry Christmas" and post signs saying "Merry Christmas" who are uncomfortable doing it. Do the people at "Grinch Alert" really imagine that businesses and retailers intimidated into towing Grinch Alert's line are acting in the spirit of the season?

And here's one more video, especially for the Reverend Mr. Jeffress:

Thanx to Juliebogen

Crossposted at Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

jc: First, it's not often that any boycott is successful in achieving its ends.

When the boycotters are a powerful majority trying to bully a minority into compliance, yes, it has a good chance of succeeding.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Christians are not as monolithically hive minded as you seem to believe, and this site/boycott/whatever isn't a matter of defending some tenet of the faith.

If you need an example of a Christian who is not going to participate with the site, I'll raise my hand, if you need to see it. And this Christian wouldn't have even heard about it had you not brought it up.

But if the results of this are as apocalyptic as you're making it out to be, go ahead and gather data on the end result and I'll look it over.

Now, do you have anything to talk about regarding the remainder of my points?

[paft.livejournal.com]

"Apocalyptic?"

Where have I invoked an apocalypse?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Hyperbole. Used here for irony because if this is indeed all about one man being less than honest, the net result of which will, on the outside of all probabilities would be that I'll hear a different holiday greeting at some stores during one particular season, well call me irresponsible, but it's a pretty small problem in the world full of much more considerable and actually impactful issues.

[paft.livejournal.com]

jc: Hyperbole

Which you have ascribed to me.

hc: Used here for irony...

Used here because ascribing it to me makes it easier to paint my arguments as irrational, and therefore easier than actually addressing what I've said.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I was referring to my own use of hyperbole in using the term 'apocalyptic' for the sake of irony.

Oy.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yes. I know. And you were framing my argument in hyperbolic terms that I have not used.

For the reasons I've already posted.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

No, I was framing my impression that your post is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Last time I checked, I am still in full command of my own opinions whether you agree with them or not.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And it's easier to claim I'm making "a mountain out of a molehill" by invoking terms like "Apocalypse" -- which I never used.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

You can't make a point with hyperbole without using words the other person never used. It's part of the point of hyperbole. It's deliberate overstatement.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yes, you deliberately overstated my premise in order make your claim that I was "making a mountain out of a molehill" seem valid.

You don't see why that's dishonest?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Forgive me for giving you the credit that you might have had bigger issues than "he's dishonest" and "why would they want this?" on your mind. Especially when you're characterizing all of this as "force" and which even most libertarians would read into as an expectation of a political/police/legal remedy.

In the future I'll know that when you use terms like force and bullying, that I need to take it with a big grain of salt.

[paft.livejournal.com]

How about in the future you deal with precisely what I actually said rather than hyperbolizing it out of recognition?

"Force" and "bullying" and "dishonest" is exactly what I meant. How does my objecting to you applying the term "apocalyptic" to them indicate that you need to take them with "a big grain of salt?"