You know whoever chose the main article image was giddy af when they found it for this article.
Why is there something odd about a dude in an elegant dress, red is totally his color, with a giant thing in his mouth that he is blowing on standing next to a handsome shirtless man?
Eh, I find it pretty distasteful towards Aboriginal people by insinuating such an important cultural instrument is a shallow blowjob joke.
I can get that but I feel like it’d have the same effect with like a trumpet.
Sure but as far as I’m aware, a trumpet isn’t an important spiritual and cultural object whereas a didgeridoo is.
Kinda like how a baseball cap isn’t the same as a war bonnet despite both being worn on your head.
by insinuating such an important cultural instrument is a shallow blowjob joke.
Your original implies the instrument itself is the joke but I’m saying anything he’s tooting on in this instance would’ve been hilarious.
Idk this just feels like one of those things you gotta laugh about because the main topic is so fucked.
I don’t really see why you have to laugh at all.
I’d rather see outrage and anger instead of humour being the take from this.
You can find humor and be outraged. This is the tenth rapey priest story posted this hour alone. If you cried over each case you’d die of dehydration by lunchtime.
Humors a pretty common response to awful situations. It’s a useful coping tool as the world continues to go to shit around us.
You got me wondering about whether anyone might be disturbed by a racy joke about CDJs (those decks where DJs turn knobs to play electronic music).
Yeah but now I wonder if he’s had equal experience giving/receiving BJs 🤔🤮🤢
Lol!!! I thought the same thing xD
“that’s not a didgeridoo, mate.”
There was an Australian commission investigating the catholic church quite a few years ago, and it gave rise to prosecutions for crimes going back decades.
The courts were full of this stuff for months, with countless hours of testimony on the most heinous shit, most of it done to children because of course they’re the easiest to abuse, and that’s just the stuff that could be prosecuted. A huge amount of the investigations wouldn’t have enough evidence or even resources to convict so it would have to be dropped. The cases usually had a whole raft of complainants detailing a systematic pattern of abuse from some specific clergyman or other.
These people knew, for decades, that they could get away with just about anything and they would be shielded by the church. Why would the church act like this? Presumably because this localised investigation into crimes committed in a wealthy western country pales in comparison to the scale of crimes they commit globally, and the leadership doesn’t want any kind of precedent of justice to exist.
Don’t worry, he didn’t have a gender ideology so this wasn’t dangerous at all.
Also he wasn’t a drag queen, so it’s OK.
Christianity, the “ugliest danger”.
I am shocks
Aussie Pedo-Priest is all you need for a very dark horror-comedy.
