We're not talking about a sign at a clothing store though
We aren't, they are. This is the threshold for what this advocacy group considers offensive and what they would like to see removed from the public eye. It's a perfectly legitimate argument. If they find the word "badass" offensive then clearly gang rape, murder, and dismemberment would also been deemed offensive.
Sure. What about the mention of such things in the bible makes you think that the bible is endorsing those behaviors, or that those who regularly read said book think they are "ok"? I mean, our legal code mentions all of those things too, but I don't find that fact offensive either, nor would I ever consider an argument of the form that "you obey the law, and the law mentions things like rape and murder, so how can you possibly be offended by <insert something else here>"?
That just seems like a wildly illogical argument to make.
it's clear who the "people" you were referring to were
Yeah, it's people with holy books.
And it's dishonest to state now that well, you didn't say right or left, so you meant everyone.
I didn't mean everyone, I meant specifically who I said. You imagining the comment was somehow a targeted criticism at the right says a lot about your own biases and projections.
In a political climate where one "side" is so broadly associated with religion (fairly or not), it's not unfair to assume that one is making that sort of political association. At the very least, you ought to consider the fact that many people will make this exact assumption when reading what you write. And while I suppose it's possible that you are just blithely unaware of how most people will interpret this in a political context, I (and I assume TirithRR) have seen enough examples of this kind of language to know that when most people use it, they are very clearly and very directly making the exact political association you claim you didn't mean to make.
Conservatives "cling to their guns and religion", right? It's not even thinly veiled code going on here. I've long since lost track of the number of times this sort of assumed association has been used just on this forum. That's not even starting on broader media.
Let me know when you want to debate anything I've said or expressed, otherwise I don't see a point here.
The point is that you're using terminology that is broadly used, often in a dismissive and/or derogatory way, to refer to conservatives. You may not have intended that connection, but it's commonly enough used that it's not unreasonable for someone else to assume that was your intent. Most people who use that sort of language do exactly intend it to be an attack on conservatives by dismissing their political positions as mere religious fanaticism.
As a bit of an aside, I'm always fascinated how the assumption is that there is no possible non-religious moral/ethical reason one might make an association between violent images in media and violent actions in life. It's almost like the concept of secular humanism only exists when it's convenient, and is hidden from view or ignored when it is not. This is not so much a comment on your posts, but a question as to why the only targets for the whole "violent video games and entertainment causes violence" thing (in this forum at least, but I've seen it elsewhere) are religious. Specifically, Christian religious sources. As though they are the only ones who might think this. I'd assume that secular humanists would be *more* likely to ascribe to this, since it's a tangible source of input that one might naturally assume would influence behavior (as opposed to say evil spirits, or the work of the devil, or whatever).
Yet. No mention of secularists leading the charge to do away with violent images in our society as a means of curbing the rates of violent acts by teens and young adults. Odd, don't you think? Again, not that I don't think there are secular groups who believe this, and even support this, but that what we see in our social media (well, and in all forms of media) focuses on religious groups who believe this. Which, in turn, suggests this is more about influencing the public to oppose the group
and not the idea