Spoofs
A couple of new spoof sites of note. First Anti Christian Voice which amusingly mirrors the original right down to the dodgy HTML and evil frames. The second by someone who noticed Beyer had neglected to register an obvious domain name for Mediawatch UK, and took full advantage of it. The author of the latter suggests a “Mediawatch UK” Google bomb, which sounds like a fine idea.
UPDATE: Thanks to Nick for (almost) suggesting that it would also be fun if lots of Christian Voice links led directly to the spoof.
Irresistible!! The interminable use of swearwords is just so – witty and clever.
Whoops. I appear to have linked up the words Mediawatch UK and Christian Voice to the spoof sites. There’ll be hell to pay when google finds out.
Oh dear. What a pity. Never mind.
Re: Christopher Shell’s comment:
Oh, please. Interminable? A quick perusal through antichristianvoice.org shows only TWO words that could conceivably be construed as a swearword: “for Christ’s sake” and “f*%!’#g” [sic]. mediawatch.org.uk does contain more – mainly on http://www.mediawatch.org.uk/alphabet.php – although the audio version on the splash page is censored. Hardly every single word now, is it?
That’s the problem with these types. They are so obsessed with the evil of profanity that it’s all they see. If you can’t see past a cunt, then you have to have your world free of them else it’ll ruin your enjoyment. That’s what MediaWatch UK and Christian Voice are really, cuntspotters clubs
Hi Chris C and Tom-
Not true! Click on ‘The Bible in Miniature’ and you’ll see what I mean. (And Tom – can’t you see youre proving my point with every swearword that passes your lips?)
Yes, that is rude, crude and lewd… but it’s not actually part of the site. It’s also not that funny. I’ve seen far better Bible pastiches in the past (Spike Milligan’s New Testament being one of note), which didn’t employ as many swearwords, sure, but would still be frowned upon by Stephen Green et al.
Oh, and don’t just assume that, because someone uses a swearword, that they have automatically become the bastion of all the evils in the world. Tom does make an interesting point – that counting swearwords doesn’t help mediawatch-uk or Christian Voice’s cause one little bit. All it does is highlight their inane pettiness over a non-entity, something that has been going on for years and will go on for years to come.
Well! – I have often mused that the one way these antiChristian characters could prove their point is by failing to swear at all, and so coufounding all our stereotypes. So far they have meekly followed the stereotypes, tending to prove that swearing is an addiction which they can’t avoid. I guess everyone knows what physical incontinence is; what they are demonstrating is technically known as verbal incontinence.
Ah, but I am Atheist, and extremely proud of the fact. This is despite a Church of England upbringing – indeed, I feel it’s because of my CofE upbringing that I’m firmly in the Atheist box.
I also very rarely swear – and when I do, it is not for comedic purposes (usually); it is to prove a point. The reason I rarely swear is because it may be easier to call someone a rude name, but it isn’t always clever – or, at least, not always as clever as trying to outwit them.
Despite this, I am not against swearing. If people want to swear, they should be allowed to. If they want to do it on TV, past the watershed, then so be it. Adults are old enough to handle swearing, and aren’t likely to be influenced by it (“Why, that person said the c-word! I must say that a thousand times tomorrow!”). If you do not like it, then I’m afraid you must lump it, for it happens in everyday life, so there’s no reason why it can’t happen on TV, especially if a warning is given beforehand.
Furthermore, there is no reason why one group should try and impose restrictions on another. Not rules, but restrictions. Atheists do not ask Christians to stop going to Church or to stop reading the Bible, after all. Well, most of them don’t. We don’t talk to the ones that do.
Logical errors:
(1) One must lump anything that happens in everyday life: Therefore one must ‘lump’ muggings, drug abuse, etc.. Surely that’s the lazy option? :o)
(2) You dont often swear, and can control your swearing habits: But are you typical of swearers. Why is it so easy to categorise ppl into swearers and nonswearers? Because the swearers can’t help it.
(3) If people want to swear they should be allowed to. Underlying principle: People should be allowed to do things merely because they ‘want’ to. But what if someone ‘wanted’ to rob a bank or philander with a virtuous lady? What have ‘wants’ got to do with what is best? ‘Wants are concerned with nothing but our appetites, i.e. the lower part of our nature. So ‘wants’ are the last thing that one should establish principles of behaviour on the basis of.
(Ulp – a preposition to end a sentence – slapped wrist.)
(4) What points are ‘proved’ by swearing? Swearing is mere rhetoric, and as such is the opposite of proper argument. It is proper argument that ‘proves’ points. Swearing merely emphasises points.
(5) ‘It happens in everyday life so theres no reason why it cant happen on tv.’ Great! Murder and date rape happen in everyday life so there is no reason why they cannot happen on tv.
(6) ‘There is no reason why one group should try and impose restrictions’. Even if the ‘group’ in question is involved in child abuse, for example?
These are six underlying principles and presuppositions of your ‘case’ which I reckon don’t work. As far as I can see, the main problem is that (as indicated by the examples above) libertarianism is self-refuting.
Logical errors:
(1) One must lump anything that happens in everyday life: Therefore one must ‘lump’ muggings, drug abuse, etc.. Surely that’s the lazy option? :o)
(2) You dont often swear, and can control your swearing habits: But are you typical of swearers. Why is it so easy to categorise ppl into swearers and nonswearers? Because the swearers can’t help it.
(3) If people want to swear they should be allowed to. Underlying principle: People should be allowed to do things merely because they ‘want’ to. But what if someone ‘wanted’ to rob a bank or philander with a virtuous lady? What have ‘wants’ got to do with what is best? ‘Wants are concerned with nothing but our appetites, i.e. the lower part of our nature. So ‘wants’ are the last thing that one should establish principles of behaviour on the basis of.
(Ulp – a preposition to end a sentence – slapped wrist.)
(4) What points are ‘proved’ by swearing? Swearing is mere rhetoric, and as such is the opposite of proper argument. It is proper argument that ‘proves’ points. Swearing merely emphasises points.
(5) ‘It happens in everyday life so theres no reason why it cant happen on tv.’ Great! Murder and date rape happen in everyday life so there is no reason why they cannot happen on tv.
(6) ‘There is no reason why one group should try and impose restrictions’. Even if the ‘group’ in question is involved in child abuse, for example?
These are six underlying principles and presuppositions of your ‘case’ which I reckon don’t work. As far as I can see, the main problem is that (as indicated by the examples above) libertarianism is self-refuting.
(1, 3, 5 and 6) Yes, I was being a bit lazy, and of course there are exceptions to the rules. I’d be a hypocrite to say anything else. But my main point, my real point is that they are just words. They are scratches of ink against paper, pixels on the screen or words in the air. They’re not daggers or guns. If you are hurt by the occasional four-letter word then I can only suggest that you find something better to get hurt by, and take action on that instead.
(2) How am I typical of swearers? Define a “swearer”.
(4) You can prove how angry you are, how much you hurt in side, how much of an idiot you are… any one of many things. It can add emphasis too, which could be found quite… useful. Especially when you wake up at 3am in the morning and stub your toe on the bedside cabinet on your way to the bathroom.
I admire your viewpoint, even if it differs from my own – but I do feel that you’re lumping people into groups a bit too easily. But that’s probably just my libertarian side speaking, eh? 🙂
Surely the overriding principle has to be that actions which harm others are bad, whereas actions which do not harm others are not.
Nobody has ever been harmed by swearing, ergo it is not inherently bad.
Remeber “Sticks and stones may break my bone but names will never hurt me.”?
To lump swearing in with child abuse is like lumping litter-droppers in with the NAzis. Even if you don’t agree with swearing, you cannot possibly like it to kiddy fiddling, unless you have no sense of perspective and are genuinely mentally deficient.
Hi Tom.
We all know there is a saying ‘Sticks and stones…’. But the point is not whether the saying exists, but whether the saying is true.
There are plenty of examples of words that can hurt. A son or daughter saying ‘I hate you, dad.’ and so on. Consequently ‘sticks ansd stones…’ is an untrue saying.
How much more would it hurt if they said ‘I ******* hate you, dad’ – presumably it would hurt even more.
But in that case, why deny that swearwords can hurt?
Yes – some ills are worse than others. Yet they are all bad. People dont just choose the worst one to address, and ignore the rest. For all you know I may be taking action on much worse things as well. Tho’ to be honest, there aint a lot that could be worse than abortion.
Chris – words are not just sounds or penmarks. They are that – but they are more besides. Because they have an intimate connection with the realities to which they refer.
Yes I think I am lumping ppl into groups a bit too easily. Tho’ it does make sense to talk in terms of patterns and averages.
Dr Shell, In one of your previous comments you refer to the people behind MediaWatch UK and Christian Voice as “antiChristian characters.”
Surely it is foolish to make such assumptions?
Do I? I think you must have misread my comment. They are mostly Christians, arent they?
Well in my case I actually am a commited Christian. I also made the MediaWatch UK spoof.
Personally I don’t see swearing as a big problem, the apostle Paul used some pretty crude language in this time. What I DO see as a problem is when people, regardless of their religion, use it as an excuse to bully, intimidate and be intolerant of others.
That is truly unchristlike.
Well, if you are using Paul as a guide, do you think he was never ‘bullying’?
Bullying can sometimes be a matter of interpretation. Sometimes it only takes ppl to have strong views & express them strongly for them to be accused of being bullies, even when they have no personal animosity towards any individual person, merely animosity against issues and principles.
By no means am I using Paul as a guide, he was highly sexist apart from anything else, I was simply using him as an example of a fairly high profile Christian who used naughty language.
Bullying is as much about perception as anything else, and certainly in the Maggie’s Centers case most people would perceive that they were bullied. Just as the Birmingham rep was bullied over Behtzi and the BBC was bullied over JSTO.
What else can you call the publication of private contact details OTHER than bullying.
Mary Whitehouse’s homophobic prosecution of the Gay Times was bullying of the worst sort – using the establishment to abuse a minority.
Jesus preached love and tolerance, it truly is a pity that MediaWatch, Christian Voice and their ilk have chosen to overlook that fact.
Paul didnt use much naughty language. One instance of ‘merde’ as I recall. It will assume a disproportionate significance if we are the types of guys whose eyes home in on that kinda thing….
I agree totally that the Maggie’s thing was bullying. Private contact details – maybe. This tactic should in my view be resorted to when all else has failed. CV claimed that the normal channels do not work. I agree with them. People listen to your complaints, fail to answer any of your logical points, and then continue as before.
Mary Whitehouse was as much fighting against the establishment (e.g., the BBC of Hugh Carleton Green). My objection to the Gay Times thing is that people utterly disregard proper history in order to impose their own ideologies. This could have an adverse effect on people who had never learnt the real history in the first place.
Dr Shell wrote:
” thing is that people utterly disregard proper history in order to impose their own ideologies.”
Yes they do don’t they Dr. Shell. Christians included. Or should I say, especially ?
I was amused by the posts earlier in this thread. The argument couldn’t be properly refuted,at one stage so lessons in grammer and logic were given…
Swearing ?
Hmmm… Just an arrangement of letters on the page, or modulations of air. Indeed those modulations of air can sometimes be rendered totally inoffensive (even to christians) , for example by quickly saying “tree” after using one of the words discussed in this thread… or saying “Nor” before quickly saying another so called “swear” word…
Nowadays there are much more offensive things to say… Racist words for example…
‘Nowadays’?? So the one thing that determines what is good or bad is fashion?
Come now! Fashion is ephemeral and changes year by year. How can you possibly see it as the most ultimate thing of all?
Arrangements of letters and expulsions of air from the mouth do not exhaust what words are. They are only certain dimensions of what words are. Words also refer to prior realities.
Nothing to do with fashion at all.
It’s just the realisation that racism and sexism is wrong, is a recent event.
People are far more offended by racist and sexist remarks deliberately intended to debase individuals or groups, because clearly that is WRONG, and far worse than any swearing.
But of course deliberate debasement, and condemnation is one of the tools of the self righteous isn’t it ? Which is probably why you can’t understand why racist remarks are much worse than simple swearing.
They’re both wrong. It’s not a matter of either/or – it’s both/and.
Maybe the other types of swearing debase Christ (who is good) and sex (which is also good – in the right contexts). There’s no good reason to debase any good things, whether black races, or sex, or Christ.
I don’t see that swearing, unless directed someone as an insult, is particularly wrong.
Who was it that declared certain words were “wrong” to say, and which words were in fact “wrong” ?
I seldom swear myself, especially at home. This does not mean I believe that swearing should be censored on the television late at night, and replaced by beeps. I would simply hate that much, much more. Perhaps modern technology ought to offer us two sound tracks, one with all the swearing edited out. I know which one I’d choose…
Why is it that Christians want to control other people’s sexuality all the time ?
Why is it that they speak of the “context of the sexual act” as if sex is otherwise something utterly vulgar, filthy, horrible and disgusting when it is simply a natural act ?
It seems an obsession with these people.
Changes in sexual matters have been among teh greatest changes of the last 40 years. Those who have forced the changes have thereby forced these issues onto the agenda. Christians are merely responding to this, and pointing out that it is these changes which have given birth to such a catastrophic set of stats (on divorce, abortion, and STDs). Which is true, whether we admit it or not.
No – It was not “forced on the agenda” as you put it. The culture has changed, and in my opinion for the better in most respects. It’s changed all over the free world, not just here. Stds and teenage pregnancies may be the worst here, but we’ve had the censorship, and media restriction as well. So it can’t be just that.
In anycase there’s always been these sort of problems. But in the “old days” they were simply swept under the carpet, and not talked about. They were still there. Nowadays people are simply more honest and open about such matters.
You’re avoiding the issue. Of course, all these things have always existed. They would have always existed even if there had been only one instance of them. Yet they have risen by over 1000%. How do you account for that?
One can massage the STD figures, but not the divorce figures.
Not actually correct. You’re inferring that this started in the 60s, but in fact in 1970 the average number of sexual partners of the young was the same as their parents – 2 or 3, and the average age of brides actually dropped below 23, showing that the nation as a whole was as socially conservative, if not more so, as pre-1960s. There’s a very intersting piece on the myth of the 1960s permissive culture written by Dominic Sandbrook in this week’s New Statesman.
Foir me the breakdown in social cohesion really came during the 1980s, when soi disant christian margaret thatcher did her level best to destroy society. Your ridiculous attempts to blame television for this are an understandable lashing out by an unempowered angry section of society. A bit like the poor blaming the Jews for their problems during the 1930s, but only a bit.
The downturn started in the 1960s. But its growth was exponential – therefore at first one saw only a little growth. Likewise with abortion: first year 25,000, next 48,000 and so on.
It was the 1960s that saw the relevant changes: the pill, the divorce law, the abortion law. Name 3 or 4 comparable ‘liberalising’ legislative changes that happened in the 1980s.
Not that I was the greatest fan of the somewhat selfish 1980s either.
There wasn’t any increased change in sexual permissiveness in the nation as a whole in the 60s. There has been readily available contraception for hundreds of years, although it wasn’t incredibly efficient before the invention of rubber condoms, it was better than nothing.
By the end of the 60s, only 9 in 100 women had taken the pill. At all. ever. That figure includes those who found it disagreed with them and stopped after a week (a surprisingly high proportion compared to modern pills).
I’m saying that it wasn’t liberalising legislation that made tore at the fabric of society as much as the wholesale destruction of communities with the pit closures, the restrictions on workers rights to unionise that lead inexorably to ever longer working hours and thus less time with families and the economic policies that led to people not being able to afford to live where they were brought up, near their families and knowing people, which acts as the most effective brake on antisocial behaviour and provides free childcare when necessary so kids still get raised properly by caring adults. That’s what I’m talking about
It’s a good point. Though I think you wil find a massiave rise in divorces from about 1972 onwards.