Quantcast

«

»

Mar 04 2014

All gods sort of blur together, I guess

Sorry, gang. I thought this music video by Katy Perry was eminently forgettable pop, overproduced and not particularly interesting, but you get to see it anyway.

In case you had too much taste to bother, Katy Perry plays an ancient Egyptian pharoah — you know, pyramids, stilted poses, animal-headed gods, etc. — who disintegrates a series of suitors with magic and takes their treasure. Really, that’s it. Only one of the suitors (at about 1:10 in the video) is wearing a necklace with a squiggle in it that some Muslims claim resembles the name of Allah, so this video is a work of blasphemy. You’ll have to look very closely to even see it (also, it looks like the few frames where the emblem was visible have already been edited out).

disintegratingsuitor

I know! Why are Muslims upset? It’s all those followers of Anubis and Bastet and Osiris and so forth who ought to be up in arms! But it’s certain flaky weird Muslims who are posting a petition demanding that the video be taken down. Makes sense; the polytheistic religion of ancient Egypt, founded around 3100 BCE, and monotheistic Islam, founded around 600 CE, are so easily confused.

This is the reason for lodging the petition so that people from different walks of life, different religions and from different parts of the world, agree that the video promotes blasphemy, using the name of God in an irrelevant and distasteful manner would be considered inappropriate by any religion.

Isn’t it heartwarming that there are people who dedicate their time and effort to protecting the delicate sensibilities of invisible imaginary super-powerful beings?

Anyway, if you think Katy Perry needs some urging to resist the efforts of kooks to suppress her commercially lucrative work, there is a counter-petition. It seems superfluous to me, but OK.

The one question in my mind is why are fanatical Muslims stepping frame by frame through Katy Perry videos anyway?

65 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    richardelguru

    I blame that squiggly Arabic script: if they only set the name of Whatshisface (Peas be upon him) in a decent grotesque face there wouldn’t be any problem with this sort of thing.

  2. 2
    peterh

    Have these self-appointed victims of no crime whatever done a thorough examination of the works of Jackson Pollock? I’m fairly certain they would uncover multiple cases of Blasphemy™ that have been on public display for decades.

  3. 3
    Louis

    PZ,

    Only one of the suitors (at about 1:10 in the video) is wearing a necklace with a squiggle in it that some Muslims claim resembles the name of Allah, so this video is a work of blasphemy.

    I think it’s pretty clear that the “squiggle” (really, PZ?) is Arabic calligraphy and it does depict the name of Allah. In fact I’d say it’s beyond reasonable doubt (see here for comparison). And yes, to certain Muslims of certain sects and interpretations of Islam destroying this depiction is blasphemous. “Squiggle” does seem a little dismissive of the wrong thing to me though, don’t we all write in squiggles? Dismiss the claims of blasphemy and assorted religious dumbfuckery by all means, but dismiss a script? Why that’s SRS BSNS!

    Anyway, that obviously doesn’t detract from the point that the correct answer to “{GASP}! BLASPHEMY!”, as you note, is “So what? I’m not a member of {insert religion claiming blasphemous act here}.”. Blasphemy is, quite obviously, a victimless crime. There’s no god(s) there to be blasphemed against. This is beginning to piss me off. Can’t we get some good complaints? The “UMMMM YOU BLASPHEMED! I’M TELLING!” one is really dull and easily countered. I want proper theologians, with beards (even the women) in high backed chairs, “accidentally” conflating two concepts of materialism at a minimum or I am not going to stop taking the piss. For fuck’s sake religious people, you’re not all stupid, do better.

    Louis

  4. 4
    Anri

    PZ:

    The one question in my mind is why are fanatical Muslims stepping frame by frame through Katy Perry videos anyway?

    A self-answering question if ever there was one.

    “[Puritanism is] the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
    – H L Mencken

  5. 5
    Gregory in Seattle

    It seems such a lonely, sad existence, looking at the world with a beady eye trying to find offense at every little thing.

  6. 6
    robinjohnson

    Gotta love people who believe in an all-powerful deity that can be injured by music videos.

  7. 7
    gussnarp

    The one question in my mind is why are fanatical Muslims stepping frame by frame through Katy Perry videos anyway?”

    Same reason searches for gay porn are so high in Utah.

  8. 8
    gussnarp

    The culture of blasphemy (that is, the culture that thinks that blasphemy is an actual offense) has got to stop. The very fact of the existence of blasphemy laws in say, Ireland, the complaints about blasphemy by Catholic leaders, all strengthens the hands of anyone who wants to use blasphemy as leverage, including those who might back it up with bombs. They all feed off each other and become more and more convinced of their right not to be blasphemed. What I don’t know is how we spread the idea, which should be obvious, that freedom of speech trumps religious insult.

  9. 9
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    Yeah, that is pretty clearly “Allah” in Arabic script. Dismissing an entire alphabet as “squiggles” in order to make a point is facile and a bit douchey.

    But not nearly as douchey as the arseholes bringing this petition. I fail to comprehend why the words “I am not part of your religion, I do not have to follow your rules” is so hard for some people to understand. In fact, I’m fairly certain this isn’t even a rule… if I’m wrong, I’d appreciate a correction from someone better informed. I suspect it’s just some puritantical old fanatics who find the concept of western pop music in general to be distasteful, and therefore object to the Grand High Douchebag’s name appearing in a pop video. In which case, you don’t even need something as complex as my previous statement. A simple “Fuck off” covers it nicely.

  10. 10
    ebotebo

    meh! The tiny dawg was cute, otherwise….fugg religion!

  11. 11
    ChasCPeterson

    Fools. This is but a manufactured controversy designed to distract attention from the real eldritch purpose of this squamous and foetid video: to inculcate children into the esoteric symbolism of…The Illuminati!!!!!

  12. 12
    methuseus

    I believe PZ referred to the squiggles because it is simply some lines. It’s not even attacking the foundations of the religion. It’s merely words being burned away. I can’t count how many papers I’ve burned. Why should one word be any worse to burn than another?

  13. 13
    corwyn

    Ironically, they should be more upset by it being edited out….

  14. 14
    jaytheostrich

    Why do the religious think that the word ‘God’ (or in this case ‘Allah’, same thing is a name? It is a title, people, and the Abrahamic one is not the only one ever described as ‘god’! So it’s not blasphemy anyways. It’s just special privilege for easily offended morons.

  15. 15
    Louis

    Gregory in Seattle:

    It seems such a lonely, sad existence, looking at the world with a beady eye trying to find offense at every little thing.

    gussnarp:

    What I don’t know is how we spread the idea, which should be obvious, that freedom of speech trumps religious insult.

    BUT BUT BUT TEH FEMINISMS! TEH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GORN MAD!!! WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF MY PEEPEE OR SOMETHING!!!!*

    [Falls over]

    [Passes out]

    Louis

    * I do this so the MRAs and assorted fuckers don’t have to. It is a far, far, better thing etc. Noblesse oblige and all that. No need for thanks.

  16. 16
    Louis

    [Stirring music]

    [GOD* enters]

    GOD: BEHOLD I AM GOD! CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE! FIRST CAUSE! LOVER OF COUNTLESS LADIES DOWN THE MILLENNIA! ALL ROUND MOVER!

    People: Ooooh how magnificent! Let’s do a worship.

    GOD: BEHOLD! I HAVE EDICTS, COMMANDMENTS, AND OXFORD COMMAS!

    People: Impressive! Let’s do a propitiate.

    GOD: BEHOLD! I HA…Oi…what’s that? That person’s doing blasphemy!

    People: Blasphemy? What’s that?

    GOD: Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. (Wikipedia)

    People: Coo! Sounds bad.

    GOD: Oh it is.

    People: What does this bad thing do, GOD?

    GOD: Well since I’m male, it makes my old cock sad.

    People: Erm…really?

    GOD: Oh yes. Look at it. It’s like a cooked noodle. Proper sad it is.

    People: That’s it? No storms, floods or cataclysms?

    GOD: Well…no.

    People: It’s like that gay thing again isn’t it? You know, those gay folk, not hurting anyone, just minding their own business, trying to love one another like other folks do and you get all bent out of shape.

    GOD: But that was sin!

    People: Oh yeah, and why was that?

    GOD: Because I bloody well said so. I AM GOD. Innit.

    People: Well if you, the almighty creator of the universe are put out by what consenting grown ups do with their Unmentionables, you’re a bit pathetic really.

    GOD: Okay, fair enough, but look, that woman did a disintegrate on my name in a music video. And that PZ GNhmjush put a special biscuit in a bin. LOOK! My penis has damn near fallen off it’s so sad.

    People: Dude! Seriously. Put it away, no one’s interested.

    GOD: BEHOLD! THE DIVINE CHOPPER HAS A SAD!

    People [to one another]: This god is crap. Let’s go over to the next valley where I hear those Greek gods are having an orgy.

    GOD: Noooo! Come back!

    [Exeunt Omnes]

    With apologies to, well, everyone.

    Louis

    *Who in no way resembles Russell Brand. That’s right out.

  17. 17
    Markita Lynda—threadrupt

    The one question in my mind is why are fanatical Muslims stepping frame by frame through Katy Perry videos anyway?

    As others are suggesting, I think it’s for the same reason that anti-abortionists obsess over the sex lives of single women: hateful, envious drooling.

    As also pointed out above, this was not made by a Muslim. Surely blasphemy can only properly be done by a member of the religion in question?

  18. 18
    Amphiox

    I find it curious how they’re up in arms over the disintegration of a shiny bauble, but not, say, over the disintegration of the human being that was wearing it….

  19. 19
    Gregory Greenwood

    Having carefully watched this pop video, some puritanical types are taking objection to an image of the Arabic word for Allah, that is only visible for a few frames, being ‘disintegrated’ by means of computer generated visuals? So, the barely visible digital manipulation of an image of this word is now considered ‘blasphemy’? Over just how many degrees of seperation does this blasphemy business hold for, anyway?

    Theists of all stripes seem to have great difficulty with the notion that other people are not required to live by their rules, and what is ‘sacred’ to them is just poorly written fan fiction to the rest of us.

    That said, I must admit that it tickles me that the supposedly all powerful creator deity of the universe (now new and improved with a resistance to iron chariots!), victor of the war in heaven (that must have dinged a few halos and discombobulated the odd cherub) and allegedly ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ can be so sorely damaged by a tacky pop video. Talk about a humiliating way to be wounded. Ol’ Allah will never get his former street cred back again now. The next time his priests and folowers threaten divine wrath, you just know some wit will be there to say “stay back – we have several somewhat tone deaf pop stars, and we are not afraid to use them!”

    And if Katy Perry can do that, just imagine the damage someone as annoying as Justin Beiber could do…

  20. 20
    pacal

    Watched the video. Now I have to wash my mind out with soap.

  21. 21
    PZ Myers

    Yeah, squiggles. I’d say something along the same lines if it were the word “Jesus” in Roman script on the necklace. These are nothing but scrawled lines that are supposed to represent the name of a god.

    Now, if we had a video of Allah himself being disintegrated by Katy Perry’s glare, I might be cheering, but I’d also understand that maybe the Muslims would have reason to be upset — their god is even more gone than before! But it would make more sense if we all started worshipping Katy Perry, Godslayer.

  22. 22
    PZ Myers

    #18, Amphiox:

    Now that is a really good point.

  23. 23
    robro

    “monotheistic Islam” — What’s that? It’s about as monotheistic as Christianity and Judaism, I guess. Better be good, or some angel will bore you to tears with a sermon or the jinn will get you.

  24. 24
    Reginald Selkirk

    01:33 – Was that a Twinkie pyramid?

  25. 25
    ivyshoots

    I have a gold necklace with a similar charm on it, the word “Allah” but smaller (about 3/4″). My husband bought it for me in Dubai, where the merchant told him it meant “peace.”

    I found out what it really said when a Muslim woman I worked with saw me wearing it, and showed me her own larger, diamond-studded version she had bought in Saudi Arabia.

    My point being, it doesn’t seem to be considered blasphemous to Muslims to wear such jewelry. I’m confused.

  26. 26
    twas brillig (stevem)

    re @OP:

    The one question in my mind is why are fanatical Muslims stepping frame by frame through Katy Perry videos anyway?

    Same reason fanatical Xians were playing records backwards listening for sounds of “Worship Satan”, etc. in rock albums (vinyl records BTW). “Persecution Complex”; the must prove that people disrespect their religion and must be punished for it, because they are so offended by the disrespect. They are not Protecting God, just protecting themselves from being persecuted by the Heathen Infidels.

  27. 27
    brianpansky

    what should actually be upsetting is her continued wearing of other cultures as costumes.

  28. 28
    Gregory Greenwood

    PZ @ 21;

    Katy Perry, Godslayer.

    Next album title, perhaps?

  29. 29
    woozy

    puritanical types are taking objection to an image of the Arabic word for Allah, that is only visible for a few frames, being ‘disintegrated’ by means of computer generated visuals?

    For the record, I don’t think that’s actually what the video is. The first release of the video had a suiter with a pendant with the image of the word Allah. The suiter, body clothing and pendant all, is obliterated by Kate Perry magic. After the objections, Perry released a second video in which the pendant was digitally removed (and then the suiter, body clothing and now pendant-less neck chain all, is obliterated).
    Actually, if the *pendant* and the pendant only were obliterated, I think that’d be specifically and intentionally meant to be anti-religious, as opposed to unintentional implications that I think the video actually represents.
    ======
    I have to admit I agree with Louis and Thumper that saying “a squiggle in it that some Muslims claim” is a little less than intellectual honesty. The muslim’s objections are not vague and tenuous or borderline mentally unstable. They are very precise . The word of God and obliterated and that, they argue, is disrespectful and blasphemous. An honest response isn’t “huh, what are you talking about; you must be weird seeing that in this dumb video; it’s just a squiggle”. An honest response (for us) would be “yes, but you are being hypersensitive beyond any reasonable and fair expectations so we don’t really care; you do not have any right to be protected from offending images and can not reasonably expect to be”. I find the response “what, that squiggle? You must be grasping at straws to think that that means ‘Allah’. Um, maybe you should see a doctor…” to be somewhat less satisfying.

  30. 30
    Louis

    PZ,

    Yeah, squiggles. I’d say something along the same lines if it were the word “Jesus” in Roman script on the necklace. These are nothing but scrawled lines that are supposed to represent the name of a god.

    Fair enough. You and I both know that I am (and others are, I imagine) inclined to believe you on this one. After all elevating any relatively meaningless squiggle to the status of GOD REPRESENTATIVE, whatever script that squiggle is in, is pretty daft.

    But but but you and I also know that things don’t happen in vacuums. Is it easy to see/mistake your dismissal of a squiggle as latent racism/prejudice towards Arabs/Arabic culture? Sure it is. Maybe the Euro perspective is dominating my thinking here, after all we seem to have a greater problem with racism pretending to be criticism of Islam than you USAian chaps and chappesses do.

    Meh, it’s one of those phraseology things that doesn’t perfectly travel I guess. I’d say the same thing you’re saying a different way because to my British ears it sounds worse/more compromised than it does to your American ones.

    Louis

  31. 31
    Louis

    Gregory Greenwood,

    And if Katy Perry can do that, just imagine the damage someone as annoying as Justin Beiber could do…

    Quoted for massive truth.

    On any scale of blasphemy Katy Perry, even though she is a Woman Without Permission who is clearly Having Opinions, must rate far towards the less offensive end than Justin Bieber.

    Or Jedward.

    {Shudder}

    Louis

  32. 32
    Jerry

    I want to get this clear… The omnipotent creator of the Universe, who can make planets stop on whim for favored worshipers, who can destroy life on Earth, has a sad when he gets talked about the wrong way. This being needs semi-literate old guys in funny clothes to collect money from paupers and live like kings in exchange for acting as his mouthpiece (notice I am not specifying any one religion here- seems to be true for all of them) because said omni-being no longer deigns to send out direct communications… but none of the mouthpieces agree on much. No burning bushes, no words of fire in the sky, no angels, no direct mail, not even an e-mail on a birthday. So we have to take the word of fallible humans that the almighty is peeved at a perceived slight. On the other hand, genocide, mass murder, bombings, and individual slaughter of worshipers and places of worship by members of the same religion or different allegedly One True religions or Acts of God (earthquakes, storms, floods, etc.) doesn’t rate a mention in “thou shalts” or a lifted finger by these same messengers (never mind personal hands-on sweat type work).
    Let me put this in slightly different terms: Theft and murder and mass destruction get a “meh” but don’t damage the corporate brand, or else the franchisees might take a hit to next quarters’ profits.

  33. 33
    woozy

    My point being, it doesn’t seem to be considered blasphemous to Muslims to wear such jewelry. I’m confused.

    I think there are three points. i) The pendant and the suiter wearing the pendant were destroyed in the video; it’s the destruction of the pendant, not the wearing of the pendant, that is offensive. ii) A religious symbol should be worn and displayed with respect; objectors would not consider a Kate Perry music video a properly respectful venue. Whereas the muslim woman showing you hers saw you wearing an Allah charm as as something to share, her next door neighbor might see *you* a non-believer wearing it as something disrepectful and shameful. and iii) extremists are never consistent nor logical.

  34. 34
    Rey Fox

    All these nontroversies blur together too. At this point, I feel like “Dears, Mommy has a headache, go argue somewhere else.”

  35. 35
    ChasCPeterson

    hello.
    Illuminati.

  36. 36
    opposablethumbs

    Jedward.

    Louis, wash your keyboard out with soap right now.

  37. 37
    methuseus

    I had never heard of Jedward until today. I looked up who it is and almost cried in horror.

  38. 38
    Louis

    I’m sorry, I has a shame.

    Louis

  39. 39
    chigau (違う)

    Be careful, Chas.
    They’re probably watching you.

  40. 40
    chigau (違う)

    ditto on the Jedward thing.
    eeww

  41. 41
    Crimson Clupeidae

    Louis, as always, brings the chuckles. Well done, again.

    Gregory Greenwood:

    [W]hat is ‘sacred’ to them is just poorly written fan fiction to the rest of us.

    That has to be the most succinct and accurate description of blasphemy I’ve ever read. :)

  42. 42
    Louis

    Wylann,

    Shhhhh! Don’t keep saying complimentary things or people will think you’re my sockpuppet. Instead of, you know, us both being PZ’s sockpuppets because we all agree with everything he says all the time across the whole interwebs. Or something. This conspiracy lark is very hard work.

    Louis

    P.S. Or in other words: d’awww, shucks, you’re making me blush.

  43. 43
    Rich Woods

    @Gregpry Greenwood #19:

    So, the barely visible digital manipulation of an image of this word is now considered ‘blasphemy’? Over just how many degrees of seperation does this blasphemy business hold for, anyway?

    All of them. Each and every pixel is now cursed for eternity, as is every copy and every copier.

    I don’t know what sort of curse a pixel would deserve. Maybe you get a poltergeist in your computer. That’s as likely an explanation as any other theowaffle.

  44. 44
    Forbidden Snowflake

    Louis

    what consenting grown ups do with their Unmentionables

    Wait, I thought Unmentionables were underwear and Naughty Bits were genitals. I think my Prudish to English dictionary is broken (((

  45. 45
    grumpyoldfart

    The Muslims don’t give a fuck about the symbol in the video. That’s just the trigger that enables them to strut around like little cock-sparrows.

  46. 46
    David Marjanović

    Louis is… inspired. :-]

    The one question in my mind is why are fanatical Muslims stepping frame by frame through Katy Perry videos anyway?

    Fanatical or not, Muslims are very used to seeing it, you know. Its everywhere, often in highly stylized versions. That green thing on the flag of Iran, that thing Kaveh Mousavi has on his logo, is one of those. No wonder they recognize it when it’s spelled out almost legibly.

    Same reason searches for gay porn are so high in Utah.

    …well, or that.

    where the merchant told him it meant “peace.”

    …That’s of course one of the 99 Names of God, so, technically, he wasn’t even lying… not quite…

    The Illuminati!!!!!

    Not bad… not bad at all.

  47. 47
    dancaban

    The jerk-off who started this lives in my home city of Bradford. Shazad Iqbal can rot in hell for watching a Katy Perry video frame by frame.

  48. 48
    LykeX

    And yes, to certain Muslims of certain sects and interpretations of Islam destroying this depiction is blasphemous.

    They do realize that it wasn’t really destroyed… right?

    This is but a manufactured controversy designed to distract attention from the real eldritch purpose of this squamous and foetid video: to inculcate children into the esoteric symbolism of…The Illuminati!!!!!

    As soon as I first saw the Eye of Horus over one eye, I knew they were going to go mad over this. Covering one eye only is a big tell for the Illuminati nuts. That’s why Lady Gaga, Beyoncé, Britney Spears, and half a dozen other artists have been lumped in with the conspiracy.

    Personally, I think that if the Illuminati are this busy making music videos, I’m not too worried about them.

  49. 49
    kreativekaos

    Excuse my musical critique, but……. what a piece of crap, even for Katy Perry.
    Yuk.

  50. 50
    LykeX

    @kreativekaos
    Very true. Some of her stuff at least had easy-listening pop merit. This is just crap.

    Personally, I find the stereotypical “I’m going to hold my hand at an angle from my wrist; that’s, like, totally Egyptian” bit really annoying. Is that honestly the best they could come up with?

  51. 51
    David Marjanović

    They do realize that it wasn’t really destroyed… right?

    The symbolic act is what counts.

  52. 52
    LykeX

    In that case, just run the video in reverse. Problem solved.

  53. 53
    cuervocuero

    LykeX at 49.

    Doesn’t matter if it’s ‘real’. It’s a thought crime involving magical writing(or speaking of the words). We see the written word in the video, so the new medium also becomes imbued with the sacred power of the Name and destroying the visual is the same as destroying the actual pendant before witnesses present. Maybe worse because the willful act of destruction will be viewed by millions…although I suspect there’s some recursive argument to be made that it’s a Schroedinger’s Word that is both preserved and destroyed inside the video so long as the video exists.

    But in any case, Blasphemy is pretty much a crime accusing people of misuse of authorized supernatural power, isn’t it? Because everyone knows the power of incantations and talismans are the province of all, believers or not, since the power inhabits the words and objects (like..crackers), not the people.

    Once people imbue words or symbols with a concept of actual divine magical power for blessing, cursing, etc, their thought leaders have them by the short and curlies. An excellent way to shut down critique and argument about said diety, all that magical energy exploding around in big pink and blue clouds. Will no one think of the children in the fall out!!

    I wonder if believers resent atheists for having no reticence in using the power of Grey(matter)Skull to become such powerful sorcerors and warlocks by creating…WORDS!11!! that cast avacadavera curses capable of even injuring a diety du siecle. Believers usually have to pay an expert(don’t try this at home!) large sums to sling curses with no boomerang effect.

  54. 54
    woozy

    Doesn’t matter if it’s ‘real’. It’s a thought crime involving magical writing(or speaking of the words).

    It’s simpler than that. It’s “I heard that this is insulting and so it obviously is and any response is just a bit of lying.”

    The youtube video I saw had the cleaned up version (no pendant at all) and folks were still claiming how anti-islam it was without really knowing why they were complaining; merely repeating.

  55. 55
    exi5tentialist

    This has been a fantastic episode for the video producers. A double-whammy of publicity! First, the controversy about the symbol (inadvertent or not, whatever) then another controversy about the symbol’s removal!!! Publicity on this scale cannot be bought! May this storm rage on and on! Thank you, PZ. And thank you, Bradford petition guy. Love, – KatyPerryVEVO (not)

  56. 56
    moonbat52

    I think the frame by frame examination is something they learned from Christian right twitter pals who found the erect penis in The Little Mermaid, exhortations for teenagers to have sex in Alladin, and SEX in the sky in The Lion King.

  57. 57
    cuervocuero

    woozy at 54

    Sure they’re complaining. There’s no take back in a thought crime. It’s homeopathic. A thought was thunk and can’t be unthinked. The rest of the video is just a vibratory reminder that it’s the thought that counts, a quantum spooky at a distance signpost of a thought that was. That’s why it’s important to stop thoughts before events or annihilate completely after. It’s the only way to be certain.

  58. 58
    Louis

    Forbidden Snowflake, #44,

    You are of course correct. I made an Innuendo Fail. I shall accept the standard punishment and I promise I won’t enjoy it at all. Even though I have been a Very Very Bad Boy and Deserve To Be Beaten And Told I Am Naughty. By a lady wearing the correct punishment uniform….

    I’ve said too much.

    Louis

  59. 59
    PZ Myers

    You don’t get the lady in the correct punishment uniform.

    You get…me. In the same uniform.

    You may start screaming now.

  60. 60
    Louis

    I…I…I’m strangely aroused. It must be the beard.

    I am reminded of the Stephen Fry anecdote where he tells of how he avoided repeated physical bullying at boarding school. When he was set upon by other youths he yelled “Stop! Stop! I’m becoming dangerously erect!”.

    It worked.

    Louis

  61. 61
    seranvali

    Blasphemy? bah! What I object to is the poor taste!

  62. 62
    davidgentile

    I hope Brian Dalton films the sequel to Ms. Perry’s video.

  63. 63
    chigau (違う)

    Mr. Deity
    bless his heart

  64. 64
    knowknot

    #3 Louis

    (…)I want proper theologians, with beards (even the women)…

    Check your Pratchett. The Dwarves don’t have theologians.
    |
    #16 Louis redux
    Please add: “I desire… macaroni pictures.”

  65. 65
    knowknot

    “It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.”
    - Stephen Fry

Comments have been disabled.