Those silly, harmless bus signs were the subject of the Sunday Sacrilege this week. But now New Zealanders have rejected the bus ads — and we’ve got a poll to see if that is fair. And we all know that polls are the perfect way to resolve ethical issues.
Was NZ Bus right to reject ads from an atheist group?
Yes, the ads are in bad taste and would distress people
23.3%No, this is unfair and discriminatory
67.0%The extra publicity is good for the atheist campaign anyway
9.7%
At least they don’t ask if the ads would distress god. And wouldn’t that be the real point–does anyone worry about what believers in fairies think about questioning their belief?
So it would seem that the meaninglessness of god is revealed in this whole bit of nonsense. Which meaninglessness will predictably go unnoticed by almost all believers.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Well i put my vote in, it seems its going in the right direction however. It strikes me as funny however, when I see religious ads getting no criticism.
The third option confuses me. Does that mean that we should be paying NZ Bus to reject the ads?
Can’t it be unfair and discriminatory AND give them extra publicity?
The next time we see a religious ad on a public conveyance can we send a message to the company about how distressed we are? Will they pull the ad? Ha! It’s all so one-sided.
Notice how they’re giving two right answers and only one wrong one again. Falsehood seems more accurate when truth is split.
I call shenanigans. There are two right answers, but only one wrong answer.
I suggest we agree on only one. I voted “no” simply because it was simpler and to the point.
I always thought New Zealand was a pretty tolerant country, this just makes us seem backwards to the rest of the world.
Bron Lett #8,
You don’t seem backwards. You’re just upside-down, is all. :)
This really shows how scared the church here (in New Zealand) is! Are some religious people worried that others might see these ads and leave the church? Maybe they know deep down that religious people are a little easily swayed?
A popular transit website has some interesting comments parroting about people believing in nothing etc etc.
http://www.aucklandtrains.co.nz/2010/02/23/bus-athiest-ads-rejected/comment-page-1/#comment-5452
Come now, polls aren’t only the perfect way to solve ethical issues — they can solve scientific ones too!
“Do you believe people and dinosaurs lived at the same time?” “Is the theory of evolution true?” “Do vaccines cause autism?” “Do you believe in gravity?”
Think of the money going to waste on studying these things, when they could all be solved online.
‘Yes, the ads are in bad taste and would distress people ‘
Distress people? They would be people who are distressed by
1)opinions and/or
2)the truth
Next time one of those psychotic drivers they employ leaves ‘Have You Been Bathed in the Blood of the Lamb’ leaflets on the seats I’ll complain about my distress. In the meantime, if some stickers could be produced, I’d be happy to plaster them all over Wellington buses and bus shelters.
Also, I’m pretty fucking staggered that NZ Bus suddenly give a bugger about complaints from customers. Who’d have guessed? Time to look for the fundie behind all this.
I was surprised to see NZ Bus declining mediation! I figured they would put up token resistance at best.
NZ Bus has NEVER cared about customer complaints before… so why now?
I think this will end up smoking out some religious nutters in the administration of NZ Bus.
I’ll bet money on it. We will see that someone on NZ Bus admin has his finger in this pie.
seriously, otherwise, why would they even give a shit?
there is no law here that says “advertisements on buses must be non-controversial”.
oh and PZ:
But now New Zealanders have rejected the bus ads
please correct that to say specifically:
NZ BUS has rejected the ads.
because NZers had already shown clearly in the poll, before you even announced it, that they think this is discriminatory on the part of NZ Bus!
thanks
Buffybot | February 24, 2010 12:37 AM:
Let me guess. If some shepherds decide to take their flock across the road while that guy is driving, you’re going to need new clothes, right?
Let me guess. If some shepherds decide to take their flock across the road while that guy is driving, you’re going to need new clothes, right?
I live with her.
trust me, I wouldn’t want to be on the same bus when that happens.
could be dangerous!
There is a bit of cultural background to this. In Auckland the majority of bus drivers employed by NZ Bus (which is only one local company) are Polynesian Islanders. They are as a group very religous by New Zealand standards. A lot of their island cultural tradition now revolves around the missionary introduced churches and as immigrants they keep this up.
Most kiwis are pretty unconcerned about religion. It is impolite to ask people about their beliefs or where/if they go to church and people who are too fervent are generally considered a bit odd.
This extends to actual ministers of religion, the local televangelist “Bishop” Brian Tamaki being widely derided as a self appointed sham artist. For an example, my Nana (then in her 80’s) once introduced me to her local Anglican Vicar with the caveat “he’s a bit odd, he keeps preaching at me, one of those jesus nutters you know but a nice chap all the same…” She was a long time member of the local parish, what we call a “social” anglican.
The support for the bus campaign has been big here and it’s clear that the public sympathy is with it. I think when this plays out it will be more about an employer being overly concerned not to offend its work force in a rather fraught recession climate.
Check out the other headlines in the sidebar.
Sounds like bizarro world down there
I think when this plays out it will be more about an employer being overly concerned not to offend its work force in a rather fraught recession climate.
that’s a compelling argument, no doubt.
so why didn’t NZ Bus make it?
blockquote FAIL at #20
I think I’ve figured out what causes that particular type of blockquote failure. (I’m not the first; I recall someone else explaining this but I had forgotten the exact explanation.)
The blog requires a full line of whitespace between your opening text and the blockquote tag. So you have to press [Enter] twice before you start the blockquote.
This will trigger the bug:
And this will trigger the bug:
This will work correctly:
I hope this is correct.
Think bigger. I’m thinking 2%-49%-49%.
I heard a different reason being given on the news over hear. It had to do with NZ bus being concerned about vandalism of it’s fleet if these ads went up.
I think it’s a bit of a shame but given the recent behaviour of believers towards billboards it’s probably not unwarranted.
#20:
Obviously this would be less of a problem if all schoolkids were armed with grenades.
sgbm
The bug is defeated by putting <br> between lines in blockquotes.
I can see the arrest reports now. Churchgoers claiming they were doing Dog’s work.
Unfortunately the sort of legislation we have here in Europe to ensure equal treatment does not apply in NZ, it being culturally assumed not be necessary. Then something like this comes along and blatant hypocrisy in allowing religious advertising galore but not atheist ads is laid bare and not much apart from public ridicule can be done about it.
If vandalism is one of the concerns it says a lot about morality and tolerance differences between atheists and believers that is 180° from what the believers try and pretend. Have hordes of atheists been defacing religious bus ads? No, because we believer in tolerance and live and let live in reality not just as platitudes.
Here in the UK when the Alpha course put up poster ads inviting comment the atheist community did not mindlessly vandalise them, we took the opportunity for constructive criticism that was witty, funny and well intentioned.
It had to do with NZ bus being concerned about vandalism of its fleet if these ads went up.
Perhaps then the god-botherers could be prosecuted for vandalism.
Concerning blockquoting, I always put an empty line before and after each blockquote. Let’s see…
Directly in the same line:
test
Same, but with a space in front of the first tag:
test
In the next line:
test
In the next line, with <br> after the first quoted line:
test
No, all of that stuff still works, except that the <br> tag bizarrely adds a third line (which it doesn’t when there’s an entire empty line above the blockquote). It really does seem to depend on the browser that was used to submit the comment, hard though it is to imagine. In this case that’s IE8. In about 2 hours I’ll try again with Opera 10.10 on Mac OS 10.3.9.
I completely have no idea how HTML works. I should probably learn that.
The bus thing is ridiculous. Just fuck whoever caused that. Atheists have just as much right to put up ads as anyone else.
Now everything is thoroughly Pharyngulated, let’s make sure “yes’ comes in in third place.
uh oh. I´ve started making a point of checking the banner (Ads by google). A moment ago we were being sponsored by
Selah, christian poetry, conversation and something else I can´t remember because now the banner´s gone.
but then of course, a godless ad on a bus…
don´t these atheists know there are children around who could read that kind of perverse stuff
Current numbers for the collective to review:
Was NZ Bus right to reject ads from an atheist group?
Yes, the ads are in bad taste and would distress people
151 votes, 4.2%
No, this is unfair and discriminatory
3281 votes, 91.9%
The extra publicity is good for the atheist campaign anyway
137 votes, 3.8%
Total 3569 votes
I’ve been noticing a lot of magical-creation websites from New Zealand. Maybe they are trying to be like Idiot America.
We’re just all aspiring to be like our great export – Ray Comfort.
That’s interesting. I didn’t know the subhuman Ray Comfort came from New Zealand. Now I know where to deport him to when I become dictator of the United States.
The bus ad that was rejected – There’s probably no god – is way too mild. I never heard anyone say there’s probably no leprechauns or there’s probably no Easter Bunny. The magic god fairy idea is no less ridiculous.
The wrong answer – Yes, the ads are in bad taste and would distress people – that’s really nutty. The idiots who would be distressed by the truth need to be distressed. Actually, they need to have some common sense pounded into them somehow.
Where I live, hopelessly god-soaked FloriDUH, these ads are very necessary but I’ll probably never live to see them. Nobody loves censorship more than Christian assholes.
a.human.ape did you used to post here under a different name?
<mythbusters>Well there’s your problem.</mythbusters>
Trying again as announced above (but an hour later):
test
test
test
test
The opposite, dude – under IE everything works, as you can plainly see! It also works, exacly the same way, under Opera 10.10 for Mac OS 10.3.9. So perhaps it’s Firefox that makes trouble?
Firefox 3.5.8
Line 1
[blockquote]quote line 1
quote line 2[/blockquote]:
Line 1
—–
Line 1
[blockquote]quote line 1
quote line 2[/blockquote]
Line 1
Interesting. Without a CR after Line 1 and before the blockquote tag, the CR within the blockquote causes the bug.
I probably should have been more explicit:
The test that fails is
Line 1[CR]
[blockquote]…
The test that does it right is
Line 1[CR]
[CR]
[blockquote] …
I could have sworn that the cause of blockquote failure was not using Preview, and that the solution to the problem is to use Preview.
Strangely, Preview is also very handy for eliminating spelling errors. It can also serve as a last opportunity to decide that “This post makes me look like an ass. Better not hit Submit.”
Hmmm. Preview tells me this post makes me look smug and patronizing. Fortunately, those qualities are in keeping with all internet traditions, so I will now hit Submit.
Same test as above in IE8:
Line1
—–
Line 1
It doesn’t appear to be the browser.
If you have a line break in the blockquote, you need to have a line break before the blockquote as well.
OT but maybe some of you New Zealanders could help me identify a NZ band.
About 5 to 7 years ago — I know, I know — I saw a NZ band on some TV show in the USA, loved them, wrote their name on a scrap of paper, and promptly lost the scrap. I’ll describe them as best as I can.
Two men. One physically larger with dark curly hair. The other one smaller, slighter and fairer. Both played guitars. Mostly acoustic but the physically smaller of the two also had a Jimmy Hendrix-style electric guitar. The music was mostly story-telling folk kind of stuff. But not done as ballads. Often humorous. Sometimes instrumental.
I remember one song in particular wherein each musician had the role of a character who were having a conversation. In this song they talked but didn’t sing. One was a guy who has bumped into a girl. The girl remembers the guy; guy doesn’t remember the girl and is trying to fake it. Very badly. He obviously doesn’t remember a thing. As the song goes on, the girl keeps coming out with ever more detail. They dated, they hung out together, they made out, they had sex, more than once, she knows all sorts of details about him, she got pregnant, she has a baby, she named the baby after him. The guy is getting ever more panicked.
Finally the girl calls him by his name. Wrong name! She has the wrong guy! Turns out they don’t know each other at all. End of song.
If you have any ideas of what this band might have been called, throw me a bone. I’d love to buy some of their music.
Thanks.
Flight of the Conchords?
Were they in that movie with that guy?
You mean the one where they met at the place with the thing that time? You could be right. :-)
Moggie: Thanks. I’ll look.
No, not that one.
#48: Flight of the Conchords for sure. There is a video of the song (live) called Jenny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlYkIJVguCU
Being http-blind, I don’t know how to make that link more touchy-feely. Flight of the Conchords have had 2 seasons on HBO, available on DVD – recommended, although not so much for young kids.
Moggie and KPitt ~
You are right. Looks like they went on to considerable success. Well, I knew I was out of touch with popular culture. Just didn’t know how far. Pretty far, it seems.
Thank you! I appreciate the help.
Some good news though.
The 2006 New Zealand census had 34.7 % of people stating they had no religion, up from 29,6 % in 2001.
Samcatte also has a point on the drivers. Much the same is true in Wellington. New Zealand is also plagued by a body of humourless worthies, the Advertising Standards Board, whose mission it is to censor any add that might offend even one cretetious dickhead.
#55. More. NZ used to have its own Mary Whitehouse (UK) called Patricia Bartlett, who founded the Society for Promotion of Community Standards that survives her. Growing up there in the 1970s and 1980s, my recollection is that most people didn’t take her very seriously, which can be a danger in itself as the dedicated few can over-achieve. Eventually there was a backlash and I think the crusade just died out in the 90’s, almost literally.
What was the topic of this thread again?
Kiwi here (well, American/Kiwi). I saw this when the article came out and despaired. My husband suggested that I write a letter to the bus company whenever I see a religious ad on one. I’m going to write a letter – keep it – and send a copy ever single time I see the need.
I’m with #14Buffybot up there. I bet there’s a fundie behind all this. It’s been in the news for a while and I didn’t really hear of any protesting until now.
That said, we are less religious here than the US. That has been really great in general. Glad the poll is going overwhelmingly in the right direction.