Why Can’t You Be Normal, Like Hambo?

Creationist bloggers like the ones we follow are having an increasingly difficult time finding stuff to blog about. Despite their claims to the contrary, the observable evidence is all against them. Further, after decades of futile litigation, the courts are all against them too. They can’t get their “science” taught in government schools, and universities are free to reject them when they apply for faculty positions.

So other than endlessly complaining, what do they blog about? They seem to be scrambling around and scraping bottom when it comes to finding stuff. A good example of this is a recent post by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Are Wedding Pictures a “Microaggression”?

The subject is wildly off-topic for us, but it’s all can find today, so maybe you’ll have some fun with it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Did you know wedding pictures could be a “microaggression”? Well, apparently, they can be, at least according to two academics!

Hambo links to a website we’ve never seen before. It isn’t the website of a university or a news organization and they don’t describe themselves anywhere, so we have no idea what they are. Anyway, this is what Hambo is blogging about: 2 professors warn using wedding pictures as Zoom background is a “microaggression”. He says:

As employees are increasingly working from home during COVID-19, online meeting apps, such as Zoom, are being used more frequently than before. Well, these two academics (one from Michigan State University and one from the University of Colorado, Denver) are worried that the use of these online meeting platforms is “a ripe setting for unconscious bias.”

There aren’t enough problems in the world to worry about, so they need to worry about that. But what’s the problem? Hambo explains:

Because someone, they say, might put their wedding photo — of a man and a woman — as their virtual background and “unintentionally reinforce the idea that marriage is most fitting between opposite sexes.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s what they’re worried about? Hambo continues:

What if someone put up a “wedding” photo of a gay “ceremony”? Would that be ok? Wouldn’t that be a “microagression” against those who reject gay “marriage”?

Your Curmudgeon doesn’t care what kind of relationship people are in — as long as they’re all consenting adults. But Hambo thinks this stuff is important. Let’s read on:

And what would they call it if an employee had a Bible or a picture with a Scripture verse on it in their background? No doubt a macroaggression!

Macro, not micro? Hambo is feeling particularly persecuted today. After that profound remark he tells us:

In reality, what such people want to do is make the abnormal normal. [Gasp!] They would like to impose their anti-Christian worldview on everyone else and deny Christians the free exercise of their religion.

Hambo, on the other hand, is the most tolerant person around. He has no desire to impose his worldview on anyone. Here’s more:

It’s another sad example of the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in the nation and entire Western world.

And now we come to the end:

There’s one verse from Scripture that immediately comes to mind after reading this ridiculous article:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:22)

Take heed, dear reader. Remove all photos from where they might be seen during your next internet conference, and replace them with something more normal — like Hambo does. He usually has Noah’s ark in the background of his photos, and there’s nothing more normal than that!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Why Can’t You Be Normal, Like Hambo?

  1. Ken Phelps

    What the Hamster doesn’t understand, is that to a normal person he sounds exactly as crazy as the zany fringes of the woke. From the standpoint of detachment from reality and blind adherence to ideology, Hambo *is* those two professors.

  2. Whenever I read something written by or about Ol’Hambo I must think of Romans 1:22 as well.

  3. I had to dig down three levels to find what was actually said, at https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2020/theres-an-unconscious-bias-in-virtual-meetings-heres-how-you-can-avoid-it/ . I’m afraid I really do disapprove of it as much as Ham does, and see it as part of a tendency that should be forcefully resisted

  4. Ken Phelps

    Paul, I read it too, and agree with you completely. It represents a warped view of humanity that is every bit as self-absorbed and grievance based as the fundagelical conservative turds floating around at the other end of the intellectual septic tank.

  5. Poor persecuted Hambo and the persecuted creationist drooler..Its an outrage..

  6. Dave Luckett

    Ken Phelps, Paul Braterman: I third the motion. Anybody who can get even the slightest bit upset at the sight of a wedding photo is studying social outrage as an art form. “Microaggression”, yet! Having invented a beast as mythical as Genesis chapters 1-11, these people find them wandering about everywhere. One is reminded of the operations of Matthew Hopkins, witchfinder general.

    I must admit I never thought I’d side with Ham on anything. The side of Ham, indeed. The fact that he would eagerly function as an inquisitor himself is in this case irrelevant. Ham is a loony tune on the far fringes of religious la-la land; the activists writing this nonsense are accounted mainstream academics in serious Universities. I’m sorry, and I know I’m siding with all kinds of objectionable people here, Ham being only one of them, but honestly, the Academy needs to generate its own antibodies to this kind of malarkey, or the word “scholar” is going to become a simple synonym for “propagandist”.

  7. White males defending their privilege results in unlikely alliances indeed. They suddenly criticize conclusions the same way as creacrappers criticize evolution theory. Then for instances Scottish grievances towards the English immediately are forgotten. No need to ask what women, LBGTQ’s and ethnic minorities think and feel about the topic. ‘Cuz white males embody rationality and nobody’s going to take away that nice feeling! Last of all a pesky thing called evidence.
    Well, that’s Homo Sapiens for ya. It’s not like those minorities (and me, also a white male) are any better. It is one important reason I maintain that the climate crisis is unavoidable: the human incapability to self reflect.

  8. https://youtu.be/p1S_CU3ecNU But there is evidence! Peer reviewed. Lots of it. Soft tissue is the norm, like Mark predicted.

  9. Eddie Janssen

    I find this difficult.
    We have a 90+% group and a number of 2-% groups. We have a long history of (strong) oppression by the 90+ group against the other groups, actual violence, legal violence and theological violence. We still have a large part of the 90+ group who would love to restore this past.
    And we still have more than occasional violence against the 2- groups by members of the 90+ groups. And here I am only talking about the liberal western Enlightment countries.
    As a society we may praise ourselves for removing the legal oppression but we are still in a situation were the (former) oppressor defines what constitutes oppression. The “woke” problem is that now the oppressed are demanding that they have the right to define what oppression is and what is not.

    I don’t think wedding pictures are a conscious act of oppression or wether they are an act of oppression at all but I am not gay and I am not in a situation were a picture of my gay wedding might get me in trouble with my superiors because they might think ultraconservative customers might be offended and cancel orders or what not.
    A 90+ wedding picture might emit for individuals of the 2-% groups the same radiation as christian ornaments do in gouvernment buildings for other groups.

  10. No, Eddie.

    I belong to a group that has been traditionally persecuted by Christians. But I would not dream of regarding it as a micro-regression if someone has on their desk at work, or in the background of their Zoom image, a picture of their church wedding. On the other hand, I really do feel myself the victim of aggression (drop the micro) when faced with such censorious demands as those now being made by MSU

  11. Dave Luckett

    Offensive wedding photos are entirely possible. There are places where children can be married, and they’re not only Iran or Saudi Arabia. I find those photos offensive, because I find the practice offensive. Me, an aged white het-cis male. Short of that, though, no. And before you ask, the happy couple being of the same sex does not bother me in the slightest. I would offer my felicitations, if the subject came up.

    Eddie, I repeat, anyone who is offended by a wedding photo – short of child-brides or worse – is merely manufacturing outrage for political purposes. Such a person is a bad actor by definition, and I give not a fig for their history of oppression nor their membership of any group whatsoever.

    The same for “Christian ornaments”. If you’re offended by a Nativity scene, you’re a far worse bigot than anyone who put it there. Some Christians have the same reaction to the Easter Bunny. They’re bigots, too. The difference is, everyone knows they are, and most people don’t mind saying so. But when some rainbow warrior gets all incensed at the sight of a het couple in wedding clothes, we have to soothe him/her/select pronoun of choice by removing the offending object and issuing a grovelling apology. Be damned to that.

  12. If displaying a wedding photo is an act of aggression, it certainly is micro-, or more accurately, nano-.

    With all that is happening in the US with regard to race relations, we have acts of aggression orders of magnitude larger to deal with. One wishes all of our problems could be as small as “The Great Wedding Photo Microaggression Controversy.”

  13. Michael Fugate

    This is not about you. It is about others.
    As this op-ed discusses wearing masks.
    “ A mask provides only minimal protection for the person wearing one. It provides maximum protection for everyone else in your vicinity. In that sense, not wearing a mask is not a statement of personal courage, but rather a statement of personal indifference to the health and fate of everyone else.”

  14. Michael Fugate

    Forgot the piece
    Joseph J Ellis “Would Mr. Inalienable Rights wear a mask? You bet.
    LA Times May 31.

  15. Hey Hammie, is my photo here, taken at the BMW Performance Driving School, micro- or macro- aggression against folks with a V8 Ford (which Chuck Berry claimed nothing could outrun)?

  16. @abeastwood:

    If evolution is true, why are there still V8 Fords?

  17. @retiredsciguy: Because, as Chuck Berry said, nothing outruns a V8 Ford, so their predators can’t catch ’em. Although his V8 Ford did have a hard time catching a Cadillac doing one hundred and ten, and I once had a BMW M240 a somewhat above that on a straight bit of track at the Performance Driving School before I had to brake hard and downshift to make a sweeping left curve. Oh and in case anyone worries, I never go anywhere near that fast on the New Jersey Turnpike.