Another Wingnut Freakout Debunked

So Starnes, Limbaugh, Fischer and the other “thought” leaders who freaked out about this will be retracting their hysterical overreaction and explaining that nothing they said was actually true, right? Right? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

22 comments on this post.
  1. Kevin:

    The phrase “I was wrong” is not in their vocabulary.

  2. John Pieret:

    The Southern Baptists certainly have “hostile content” in the sense Starnes, Limbaugh, Fischer, et al. were thinking of it. It and many, if not most, of its membership are hostile to the rights and freedoms the Constitution guarantees, which the military is sworn to protect. That the wingnuts are ignorant of computers and the associated terminology is hardly surprising, since it goes right along with their ignorance of most of reality.

  3. Trebuchet:

    Unfortunately, the incident but not the explanation will be added to the wingnut canon of how the evil Obama administration is out to get them.

  4. fifthdentist:

    What was the basis of blocking Southern Baptists? Hate group?*

    As someone indoctrinated early into the SOB church, I can testify that much of the denomination is crazy with racist jackasses. Also jackasses who are not racist.

  5. badgersdaughter:

    “…a rush to judgment that the United States Military has targeted the Southern Baptist Convention as a hostile religious group would be premature…”

    Not “inappropriate”. Though I knew what he meant. :)

  6. shallit:

    the SBC’s top ethicist Richard Land

    I spit out my coffee when I read that part, and I wasn’t even drinking coffee.

  7. theschwa:

    Pffft. All this shows is that Obama’s goons got to the SBC’s spokesman and forced him to recite the prepared propaganda, to cover Hussein Obama’s plot to destroy Christians!

  8. dmcclean:

    @fifthdentist, #4
    You’re missing the point. The purpose of the block was to protect people from viruses and malware that had infiltrated the Southern Baptist’s web page. It had nothing to do with “blocking Southern Baptists” for any reason.

  9. dugglebogey:

    They don’t even couch their statements by saying “if it’s true.” They don’t need it to be true. They want it to be true. To continue their business model, they NEED it to be true.

    Honesty is totally irrelevant to these people.

  10. thumper1990:

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAH! Oh, fuck me, that is hilarious! A simple IT term sent their victim complex into overdrive!

    The American Family Association called the incident an example of the military’s “hostility towards faith and religious freedom”

    PfffffBWAhahahaha! I’m not even American and I know that’s bollocks!

  11. raven:

    Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a Defense Department spokesman, said the military’s software filters detected malware at SBC.net and blocked the website.

    This is typical.

    Xians sites tend to be infested with malware and viruses.

    I noticed this a long time ago and generally avoid them on this basis.

    It turns out that this is correct. A recent study showed that you are more likely to run into malware on a xian site than a porn site. Not sure why this is but it could be due to the general cognitive malfunctioning of the religious.

  12. Taz:

    Clearly a test run.

  13. Synfandel:

    …we think that a rush to judgment that the United States Military has targeted the Southern Baptist Convention as a hostile religious group would be premature.

    Yes, we shouldn’t rush to judgment yet. We should rush to judgment later.

  14. abb3w:

    @11, raven:

    A recent study

    Specifically, it looks to have been Symantec’s “Internet Security Threat Report” for 2012, released about a year ago.

    @11, raven:

    Not sure why this is but it could be due to the general cognitive malfunctioning of the religious.

    I suspect it’s more because most porn sites are in the business of making money. If they get hacked, their credit card processor may tend to drop them (and certainly customers may); thus, they spend a bit more effort on security.

  15. raven:

    ..Religious websites contain more malware than porn sites

    By Dan Graziano | BGR News – Thu, May 3, 2012……
    ..
    People who browse religious websites are more likely to have their computers infected with a virus than those who visit pornographic websites, according to Symantec’s annual “Internet Security Threat Report.”

    The firm found that websites with religious or ideological themes had triple the average number of threats than those featuring adult content. “It is interesting to note that websites hosting adult/pornographic content are not in the top five, but ranked tenth,” Symantec said. “We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free; it’s not good for repeat business.” The report was based on information gathered from more than 200 countries through the Symantec Global Intelligence Network. Symantec blocked a total of 5.5 billion attacks last year, an 81% increase from 2010.

    Just a heads up.

  16. chilidog99:

    In other words, you’re more likely to catch the clap from the preachers wife then from a hooker.

  17. chilidog99:

    Then / than fail.

    Sigh.

  18. theschwa:

    @ chilidog 16 and 17:
    Not necessarily a fail. You can get 2 DIFFERENT strains of clap. 1st from the preacher’s wife, THEN from the hooker! Win/win!!

  19. ArtK:

    It turns out that this is correct. A recent study showed that you are more likely to run into malware on a xian site than a porn site. Not sure why this is but it could be due to the general cognitive malfunctioning of the religious.

    That’s because they’re using JeebusWare to protect their sites. A half-hour of fervent prayer every morning is required to get it started. The infections are happening because their faith is not really as strong as it should be. Isn’t that why bad things happen to people — a lack of faith?

  20. JJ831:

    Hilarious. As someone who has setup and administered many web filters, this is very standard. Shit, I was working for a company that had it’s OWN website compromised (it was hosted offsite, out of my hands) and my web filter blocked it. We didn’t know it had been compromised until we started to get blocked.

    Also, the “category” for the block is usually so general that it doesn’t really tell the end user why. I usually turn off showing why a site was blocked, as it usually adds confusion. Often times sites get blocked for multiple reasons, but only one is going to show (such as a pornography site being blocked due to detected malware). In my setups, usually malware is the reason for blocking (largely because we are only filtering for that and pornography).

    On top of that, false positives happen, and they happen all the time. So, when a user gets a false positive, they tell their friendly IT department, who once they clear the site, add to the whitelist.

  21. =8)-DX:

    “Though there have been several instances recently in which evangelical Christians have been marginalized by the broader culture of evangelical and other Christians.” FTFY

  22. blf:

    Definitely snicker(as in HA HA HAH!)-worthy.
    Another instance of an accidental block happened internally at the company I work for, where our e-mailing lists were suddenly effectively “blocked”. Not due to malware, as it turned out, but a router going berserk and causing too many delivery failures. And of course, Murphy’s / Sod’s Law applied, it was at a critical time when we were using one of the mailing-lists intensively.

Leave a comment

You must be