Satanic ritual abuse wank
I dithered about whether to put this in unfunnybusiness or here, but in the end Satanic Ritual Abuse is not real, and what the person who said it was said was so funny it belonged here.

People who blatantly deny the existence of ritual abuse after being offered solid resources to the contrary demonstrate that they don’t need evidence about its existence. Instead, when they continue to deny its existence in a seemingly obsessive manner, they are more likely trolling for new victims in hopes that responding survivors will – while more emotional – slip-up and provide vulnerable, personal information.

There you go. If you deny the existance of ritual abuse, it's because you're looking for new victims to ritually abuse.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	sandglass 2009-12-15 11:18 pm UTC (link)
	She even replaced the dog with a cat this week. How does that even? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2009-12-16 03:33 am UTC (link)

It's a joke. It's a parody. In the original book, as quoted, the mother knows there's something wrong with her little girl because the little girl bit a dog this week, which must mean SATAN! In the parody version, updated for our times, as you'd see it written by the same type of people who got so freaked out over OMG SATAN IN MY DAYCARE only now it's about OMG LIBERALS IN MY GOVERNMENT because liberals are their Satan now, the mother knows there's something wrong with her little girl because the little girl replaced their dog with a cat this week, which must mean LIBERALS!

I should probably explain here that big strong dogs are stereotypically the pet of choice for strident teabagging conservatives, while cats are thought of as foofy liberal pets who are not patriotic enough to be Real Americans. I'm making an exception, of course, for those little teacup doggies, which are stereotypically the pet of choice for extremely annoying and incredibly vapid heiresses who are famous for no real reason, who would probably be Libertarians if they gave it any thought at all (the heiresses, not the dogs - I'm assuming the dogs are Independents).

Would anyone else like any jokes explained, while I'm here? I don't think this post has sucked enough funny out of the world yet, I think we should go for more.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sandglass 2009-12-16 03:46 am UTC (link)
	Sorry, I misread, I thought it was a real book. There's some kind of rule for that, no matter how ridiculous your religious satire is, someone on the Internet will think its real. Sorry. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2009-12-16 03:55 am UTC (link)

It's very hard to tell sometimes, that's true. I think I've heard an actual name for that rule, come to think of it, but I can't remember it offhand. I hope it includes the word "Colbert" in there somewhere, though.

Also, it's worth it to note that there is, in fact, a real book, published recently, called Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! but I don't think it accuses anyone of ritual sexual abuse. That's probably for the sequel.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	eljuno 2009-12-16 06:20 pm UTC (link)
	Is it Poe's Law? http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	puipui 2009-12-16 06:43 pm UTC (link)
	That's the one! Thank you! (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -