The Buffy Keyboard!

[Peace-Phoenix]

I've lost many a stoned hour to this! Mind your elephant cock, be sure not to get buggered by a xylophone and check it out you zebra bastard zebra zebra fuckers.

http://www.rathergood.com/buffy/ (http://www.rathergood.com/buffy/)

[Samhain]

that is so silly, if you hit another key her mouth just opens, so you can have good times with your imagination there!

vaguely linked to this is this!
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185023
S

[fountains of nay]

I love rathergood.com. Pavarotti singing about elephants is well funny and the hedgehogs being crude :) and how could I forget the drum n bass morris dancers :D

XYLOPHONE BUGGERY!
Zebra fucking zebra bastard zebra cunt!

[Peace-Phoenix]

that is so silly, if you hit another key her mouth just opens, so you can have good times with your imagination there!

vaguely linked to this is this!
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185023
S
Try turning the sound up :D

[fountains of nay]

oh baby I'm thinking about your axewound
oh baby I'm thinking about your gash :D

[flowerchild17]

Haha - That's awesome. Simply awesome. I could amuse myself for days with that... Except for that evil "c" word...

[Peace-Phoenix]

Candelit dinner?

[Peace-Phoenix]

Oh you mean...











































CUNT!!!

[Samhain]

I hate that word i find it so demeaning to women, but it seemed fine on the keyboard- just funny
S

[flowerchild17]

SAL!!!! That word is THE WORST word in the English language - I can't stand it. There are much better words out there... You are so evil Sal!

[Peace-Phoenix]

I hate that word i find it so demeaning to women, but it seemed fine on the keyboard- just funny
S
I tend to use it only ever in reference to guys - usually mates. I think I've become desensitised to it....

[Samhain]

I tend to use it only ever in reference to guys - usually mates. I think I've become desensitised to it....
I'm pondering wether this is the place to go into my views about this with reagrds to the goddess.
probably not, lets just pop you over our kness and give your butt a good whooping!
S

[Peace-Phoenix]

Ooh kinky ;) Well this is filthiness after all....

[Samhain]

http://www.hipgallery.com/photopost2/data/500/spank.jpg
http://www.hipgallery.com/photopost2/data/500/spank-1.jpg

[fountains of nay]

I hate that word i find it so demeaning to women, but it seemed fine on the keyboard- just funny
S
HAHA I love that cunty bastard word. :D

[lithium]

HAHA I love that cunty bastard word. :DMe too:D I've managed to use it three weeks in a row in front of a group of apparently really easily shockable students...

CUNT

We should never be afraid or ashamed of words, it's like being afraid of thoughts... reclaim them I say:)

[fountains of nay]

I don't know why a word that's been in the English language for so long could be offensive... especially when it derives from "Cunny" :D I mean... what a silly word!

[lithium]

I don't know why a word that's been in the English language for so long could be offensive... especially when it derives from "Cunny" :D I mean... what a silly word!In common usage since at least the 13th century, the word is as old as the English language itself:) CUNT CUNT cunt cuntybollocks cunt:D

[fountains of nay]

Cuntoss!

[Cerebus]

I've always found Twat to be more offensive, it just sounds more aggressive to my ears for some reason, whereas cunt is comedy, pure Derek and Clive...!

[fountains of nay]

Twat's a good word too :)

[Samhain]

its not the word that offensive its the meaning people have put on it, if you call someone a cunt, you hardly mean they are a beautiful female sexual organ do you?

btw try keeping your finger on the keyboard button and see what happens
S

[lithium]

its not the word that offensive its the meaning people have put on it, if you call someone a cunt, you hardly mean they are a beautiful female sexual organ do you?That's true, but it's the intentions of the person saying it that aren't nice, you can't really blame the messenger. There are plenty of words like that, which have gained nasty reputations ... faggot, gay, nigger etc. All of which are useful and fun in some contexts:D I'm with Lenny Bruce, reclaim them don't fear them:)

[Samhain]

That's true, but it's the intentions of the person saying it that aren't nice, you can't really blame the messenger. There are plenty of words like that, which have gained nasty reputations ... faggot, gay, nigger etc. All of which are useful and fun in some contexts:D I'm with Lenny Bruce, reclaim them don't fear them:)
faggot and nigger have never been anything but insults, if your not actually in a grouping that have had those words directed at you, you really shouldn't be putting a value judgement on them
S

[lithium]

faggot and nigger have never been anything but insults, if your not actually in a grouping that have had those words directed at you, you really shouldn't be putting a value judgement on them
SI respectfully disagree. It's just words, man. Just words.

Lenny Bruce said it better than I ever could:

Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? "Are there any niggers here tonight?" I know there's one nigger, because I see him back there working. Let's see, there's two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there's another kike— that's two kikes and three niggers. And there's a spic. Right? Hmm? There's another spic. Ooh, there's a wop; there's a polack; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there's three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there's one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kikes here, do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop.

Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" to every nigger he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" 'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.

[Samhain]

I think your white and straight yeah, correct me if I'm wrong.

gay people who want to reclaim faggott and bent, are entitled to do so, because they are the ones who have been kicked in the street and discrimanated against in all areas of their lives.

I haven't been through racist attacks on the other hand so if I tried to reclaim nigger it would just make me look ignorant
S

[lithium]

I think your white and straight yeah, correct me if I'm wrong.

gay people who want to reclaim faggott and bent, are entitled to do so, because they are the ones who have been kicked in the street and discrimanated against in all areas of their lives.

I haven't been through racist attacks on the other hand so if I tried to reclaim nigger it would just make me look ignorant
SMy skin colour and sexual orientation have absolutely nothing to do with this debate unless you are pre-judging me based on these factors:)

I don't think who I choose to have sex with or what colour I choose to be should in any way preclude me from engaging in whatever linguistic or intellectual activity I so desire:)

[Samhain]

Ok I will give you another example, I'll base it on mental health, because you once asked me a question about it.

up until recently the term 'mad' was seen as being an highly offensive lable for people with mental health problems.
now some people with mental health illness's are trying to reclaim the trem.
whilest I would support someone in doing that, I would never use the term myself, because most people I know with mental health problems would be highly offended by it.

and the other thing is, if you choose to use the words nigger and faggot openly, it will only be a matter of time before someone is offended, if you then lost your job, through a charge of harrassement, or if you are not working got charged with homophobic or racial abuse.
your defence of 'i didn't mean it offensively, they are just words, and I am only trying to raise awareness'
won't hold any water at all

S

[lithium]

What you are talking about again depends on the intent with which words are used. Of course you have to be careful about the context in which you are using words, even where the intention of their use not spiteful, but jokey or provocative. I think the benefit of using such obviously offensive words like that lies in using them way, way out of context. So far out of context that it makes no sense and they become completely ludicrous.

I would never try to stop someone from using such words in that way. I would try to stop someone using them in context with spiteful intent.

[Peace-Phoenix]

If someone referred to me as a Paki, regardless of their own ethnicity, and meant it in a friendly/joking way, I would laugh with them. If someone called me a Paki and meant it in a hateful/racist way, I would punch them. Words are just that, words. They have no power without the meanings we ascribe to them. And meaning is all about context. I have gay friends and if they are offended by any term, PC or non-PC, I will not use it around them. If they find it acceptable or amusing, no matter how non-PC, I'd be quite comfortable in using it in that context. You don't have to be from a particular group to use and redefine a once offensive term. You do have to know your audience....

[Samhain]

What you are talking about again depends on the intent with which words are used. Of course you have to be careful about the context in which you are using words, even where the intention of their use not spiteful, but jokey or provocative. I think the benefit of using such obviously offensive words like that lies in using them way, way out of context. So far out of context that it makes no sense and they become completely ludicrous.

I would never try to stop someone from using such words in that way. I would try to stop someone using them in context with spiteful intent.
well I would be very careful about when you use the words as well, because the words we have been discussing, some people would take offense, no matter how you used them, people have ended up in court for a lot less.
and if a person choose to use the word nigger and didn't mean any offense, I wouldn't blame a black person if they took offense at JUST the word.

most of the work places in this country where people are working for someone else, i.e its not your own business or rum by family, would boot people who work there out the door if they used that word and I can't say I blame them
S

[lithium]

I would be very careful; the fear of offending people who didn't "get" the irony would worry me far more than any concerns over legal action or loss of job etc. At the same time I feel passionately about the right to free speech, the importance of our freedom to use and define words however we wish. It's very important not to suppress or outlaw words, because that just gives those who wish to cause harm with them more of an ability to do so:)

[Samhain]

well I think we've reached the end of this arguement- would you agree?
shall we agree to differ?
S

[lithium]

Yes, it's an interesting debate:)

One thing I would add is that the ability to cause offence plays a very important role in society and should be protected. Stopping people from causing offence is a form of censoring of ideas. Reference Jerry Springer The Opera for instance.

[Samhain]

Yes, it's an interesting debate:)

One thing I would add is that the ability to cause offence plays a very important role in society and should be protected. Stopping people from causing offence is a form of censoring of ideas. Reference Jerry Springer The Opera for instance.
what the fucking fucking fuck????
S

[Samhain]

what the fucking fucking fuck????
S
that was a line from the opera in case anyone was wondering
S

[Peace-Phoenix]

that was a line from the opera in case anyone was wondering
S
I know :p And I agree Jon, people shouldn't be protected from offence. But at the same time those enlightened of us should seek to struggle against prejudice. Also, we should know what kind of a response our actions are likely to provoke. I would support the right of Jyllands Posten to publish derogatory cartoons of Muhammad. At the same time, I would see that this was incredibly stupid for them to actually do it given the obvious reaction and also, since these cartoons border on racism given the context of xenophobia in which they were published, I would declare them an ideological enemy....

[Samhain]

I know :p And I agree Jon, people shouldn't be protected from offence. But at the same time those enlightened of us should seek to struggle against prejudice. Also, we should know what kind of a response our actions are likely to provoke. I would support the right of Jyllands Posten to publish derogatory cartoons of Muhammad. At the same time, I would see that this was incredibly stupid for them to actually do it given the obvious reaction and also, since these cartoons border on racism given the context of xenophobia in which they were published, I would declare them an ideological enemy....
yes and also, something like Jerry springer was taking the mickey out of religion, and while many people will be offended by that, many more will be fine as religion has been a major source of repression for people.

as groups of people black people and gay people haven't repressed anyone (note I am talking about the groups as a whole not the people as individuals) so free speech with offensive language here is different, and people on the whole won't support free speech when it concerns groups of people that have a history of being the repressed ones- if that make sense
S

[Peace-Phoenix]

Interesting point there. It becomes very hard to denounce Israeli oppression and occupation without being accused of being an anti-semite....

[lithium]

I would see that this was incredibly stupid for them to actually do it given the obvious reaction and also, since these cartoons border on racism given the context of xenophobia in which they were published, I would declare them an ideological enemy....The Mohammed cartoon issue is an interesting one. Even given what happened afterwards I would say they did exactly the right thing. They published a response saying that they apologise for any offence caused, but that they were perfectly within their rights to publish the kind of material that so many would find offensive. Blasphemy laws are an incredibly dangerous threat to freedom of thought. It was sober, mature, and part of a wider debate with very serious cultural implications. They'd be in the wrong if they had deliberately sought just to cause offence and stir up trouble. But in this cause it couldn't be clearer that that is not were they were aiming for.

samhain - I agree the contexts are very different. But as a general principle, we should always retain the right to cause offence. There's a big difference between intending harm and spite, and using words to further ideas and to evolve the language itself...

[Samhain]

i'm just wondering how far do we go with free speech, its not just words is it?
I may wish to exercise my right to free speech by tourturing you and making a set of photos, with the theme of pain, but you may well have something to say about that.

now offense is not physical pain, however it is causing pain to others so how is that more acceptable?
S

[lithium]

now offense is not physical pain, however it is causing pain to others so how is that more acceptable?
SIt's a very difficult (but fascinating) issue. I think there is a very clear distinction between causing physical harm and the offence caused by words or ideas. There is also a difference between bullying, name-calling (obviously bad) and taking offence even though offence wasn't intended, wasn't personally directed or the speech in question had wider cultural importance.

To an extent it's the offended person's problem if they take offence even though spite wasn't intended. You can't forbid people from freely expressing ideas just on the off chance someone might misunderstand what's being said and get upset.

[Peace-Phoenix]

Jyllands Posten though, had a long track record of anti-immigrant reporting. Obviously I doubt they expected quite the reaction they got, but I think they definitely intended them as an attack on a victimised minority in their home country. Again context. I support the right for them to publish, and if it had been a paper in Saudi then I would have wholeheartedly encouraged them in their battle against their religious oppressors. Instead, however, it was a paper in a Christian country aimed at a attacking a minority with a clear degree of prejudice. When they were sent a derogatory article about Jesus a few months before, it was refused on the grounds it may offend Christians. And many of the papers that re-published the cartoons (certainly the BNP website) intended them precisely to further the troubles and attacks. It is a credit to British restraint that although we could have published, not even the Sun did....

[lithium]

JI think they definitely intended them as an attack on a victimised minority in their home country. From looking at the cartoons and the context in which they were published, I think that's an unsupportable assertion. Provocative, yes. Satirical, yes. But an attack? In the sense of a 'hate speech', or something outside the bounds of normal cultural expression? Absolutely not.

The paper may well have an anti-immigration stance (though I think you overstate the case), they may well choose to publish all sorts of things with which I disagree, or that I would find offensive. They may have a biased and inconsistent editorial policy. But they can say whatever the hell they want. To paraphrase Voltaire, I may hate what you say but I defend absolutely your right to say it. It's of key importance in a democracy that we not only tolerate but encourage people to challenge and offend our sensibilities!

[Peace-Phoenix]

I wouldn't say hate speech, but I think the sort of anti-immigrant moral panic that is whipped up by the tabloid presses - certainly here, and I'm assuming Jyllands Posten is no better than the Sun (correct me if I'm wrong) - is a form of legitimised racism. People have said to me, it's ok, you were born here, but we don't want any more of them lot coming in, that's why I'm voting BNP. I don't see how that is anything less than a form of racism, and even if Jyllands Posten did not mean to stir up those sorts of feelings, many right wing papers (and again the BNP) across Europe did re-publish them precisely for that reason. You've got to look at who is doing the criticising. If it is, for example, Liberty, arguing against the incitement to religious hatred Bill, then one might assume that is legitimate criticism of a religion. When right wing reactionaries take up such causes, however, I would be very hesitant before putting my hand up to agree. Again, I say I would defend their right to print these things. But that does not mean I should divorce myself from my own ideological sensibilities. So even though they have a right to, I would still find myself arguing against them....

[Peace-Phoenix]

I never knew the Buffy Keyboard could spark debates quite as wide ranging as this!

Zebra bastard zebra zebra zebra fuckers....

[lithium]

I wouldn't say hate speech, but I think the sort of anti-immigrant moral panic that is whipped up by the tabloid presses - certainly here, and I'm assuming Jyllands Posten is no better than the Sun (correct me if I'm wrong)

As far as I'm aware the Jyllands Posten is a conservative broadsheet, closer to the Telegraph than the Sun. I'm not so hot on my knowledge of the Danish press, but that's what I gather. The context in which the cartoons were published was a debate about the extent to which people self-censor when discussing Islam for fear of violent reprisals. The original article was about an author who had written a children's book on Islam but couldn't find an artist prepared to do the illustrations. That context indicates to me a far more mature and serious and less inflammatory purpose than the one you suggested. The cartoons themselves were hardly inflammatory - they were rather subtly satirical.


When right wing reactionaries take up such causes, however, I would be very hesitant before putting my hand up to agree. Again, I say I would defend their right to print these things. But that does not mean I should divorce myself from my own ideological sensibilities. So even though they have a right to, I would still find myself arguing against them....Yes, agreeing with what's said and defending someone's right to say it are two totally separate things. For instance I think it's very important parties like the BNP are allowed to publish the crap they come out with rather than being driven underground:)

[lithium]

I never knew the Buffy Keyboard could spark debates quite as wide ranging as this!

Zebra bastard zebra zebra zebra fuckers....I know, and in the filthiness forum too! Well it's always important to be able to have an intelligent conversation after you've done the dirty I feel:eek:

Cunt;)

[Peace-Phoenix]

I remember the debate that surrounded the initial publication, and I agree it was a legitimate debate, one which stirred up little controversy at the time. The issue exploded when other newspapers re-printed the cartoons, and then every cheap rag was getting in on the act. I think those were deliberate attempts to exacerbate the problem, not an engagement in rational-critical debate over the issue. I also wouldn't say some of the cartoons were subtle satire. Satire yes, subtle no. Funny still in a way though. The cartoons were basically saying:

"You're all terrorists!"

To which the inevitable response was:

"No we're not, how dare you say that! We'll blow you up for suggesting it!"

As I said before, if that sort of thing had come out in Saudi, I'd have supported it as a struggle from within to change a religion with some very repressive elements. However it didn't. Instead it probably served only to make more people fall into bed with the radicals because it wasn't an internal criticism, but instead a Western one, with all the Crusader undertones....

[Peace-Phoenix]

Rectuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum!

[lithium]

The issue exploded when other newspapers re-printed the cartoons, and then every cheap rag was getting in on the act. I think those were deliberate attempts to exacerbate the problem, not an engagement in rational-critical debate over the issue. I also wouldn't say some of the cartoons were subtle satire. Satire yes, subtle no. Funny still in a way though. The cartoons were basically saying:

"You're all terrorists!"

To which the inevitable response was:

"No we're not, how dare you say that! We'll blow you up for suggesting it!"You could interpret other papers reprinting the cartoons as solidarity over the issue of free speech, which I think are the terms in which many would've couched it. I think the issue of free speech is so important and the threat to it from religionists so grave that I find it hard to agree that caving in to the unreasonable demands of a few Islamic organisations would have been a good idea.

Most of the cartoons were pretty crap. I think the one you're referring to is the bomb/turban picture. I thought that was incredibly subtle and its meaning can't be simply summed up as "you're all terrorists". That would be to misread its satirical intent through gross oversimplification.

One good comment on the protests I heard was this line, can't remember who said it ... Armando Iannucci perhaps?:

What do we want?
NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
When do we want it?
NOW!

[Peace-Phoenix]

Yes, I admit, it was gross oversimplification to fit the parametres of the joke :p But more seriously, one could (not necessarily should) interpret a cartoon of Muhammad (the founder of a faith) with a bomb in his turban as implying that followers of his faith (and remember much of Islamic law is based upon the supposed life of Muhammad) are also terrorists. Though I would agree there are other interpretations possible, I still can't see how that was subtle?


Agreed on free speech, I'd always opposed a law banning the incitement to religious hatred....

[lithium]

I suppose by subtle I meant clever, crafty or cunning rather than 'gentle'. Subtle in the way all good satire is subtle: it makes its point in an ingenious and rather oblique way:)

[Peace-Phoenix]

I'll accept that you could see them that way. I thought they were a bit facile to be honest....