I had someone steel this and change “butts” to “Christian” and weirdly enough, lengthen my skirt. Kept the flame boots, but no short skirts.
I had someone steel this and change “butts” to “Christian” and weirdly enough, lengthen my skirt. Kept the flame boots, but no short skirts.
Let’s replace the word with “N*****” and see if you still feel clever
Let’s replace some of the words in your comment to “I am a pooopoo head and I eat poopoo”, and see how do you feel then. Bet pretty stupid, huh?
Excellent rebuttal.
The point still stands, in the minutiae you’re addressing. People post absolute garbage opinions on a regular basis, and are free to do so, as long as their platform allows it. This doesn’t go into the consequences of pissing off a lot of people, but you’re still free to do it.
The point does not stand. I don’t think any set of rules that sees “N***** N***** N*****” as acceptable speech should be respected, nor any person who thinks that way.
I agree with the spirit, but I disagree with what the point of the comic is - it’s not trying to make a point about respect per se, just about freedom of speech. Even if you wouldn’t be a part of a community that allows hate speech, if you encounter it “in the street” so to speak - there’s just nothing you can do.
I know it’s saying that, and I think that’s bullshit.
bullshit how?
I think it’s a defeatist attitude that allows hatred to fester.
So you’d rather control what people can say irl? Freedom has its consequences and some people are just dicks
I don’t think that’s tge only option
Not a single person said it was “acceptable speech”.
The mentioned “platform” implies it is acceptable by allowing it
I disagree. Something being allowed doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.
I mean there are loads of bigoted comments all over Twitter and Facebook, and I wouldn’t call any of those “acceptable” despite technically being allowed.
Why would you allow unacceptable content? That’s an implicit endorsement.
Lmao what? Saying that people should be allowed to speak their minds isn’t the same as agreeing with everything everyone has to say.
Honestly, you assuming that it’s an “endorsement” speaks much more to your own issues than anything else. Maybe learn that life isn’t so binary - that things can be a little more nuanced.
I think you might have things backwards. The way I see it, I’m the one trying to add shades of grey to a world you are describing as black and white. Either they agree, or they don’t, that’s why you say. I say no, it’s more complicated than that. And yet, you say this is somehow reducing to a binary. Maybe I’m taking crazy pills. You tell me.
You can’t see the difference between “butts” and the n word?
The point is, this argument doesn’t hold up.
Because it’s a short comic, it doesn’t have the time to go into the nuances. One word has a long history of being used to dehumanize an “other” group and the other just a word for a body part. If body parts offend you as much as racial slurs, you may have your own issues.
Still missing the point
If this logic can be used to defend race hate, then maybe the logic isn’t sound
Also, if the issue is too nuanced for you to convey in a short comic, maybe don’t make a short comic about it
If the only argument against something is that it’s offensive and they can’t rationalize it at all, the argument can be thrown out. That’s all the comic is about.
That’s just rationalisation. To me, this comic highlights the absurd logic of bigots and free speech absolutists. “Offensive to everyone” is an impossible standard to meet; bigots are obviously never going to be offended by bigotry, so even hate speech doesn’t meet that threshold.
Also, it’s never just “butts”, and it’s never just a single person, so it’s a bit of a misrepresentation.
Bigots can’t rationalize their bigotry. At least not in a way that can’t be torn apart. They always end up using circular logic, which is what the comic is address.
I’m “offended” at racism because it creates an unsafe culture for everyone involved. I can cit research about the effects of generational racism leading to higher crime for instance.
They’re offended at the sight of black people being able to use the same water fountain as them. They can’t tell me why, which is why their argument ends at their “offense” and is the scenario the comic is about.
I’ve seen people online get offended at the bumper sticker “Fuck Cancer”.
That seems like a reach to me. This comic reads to me as the fantasy of a bigot.
The argument isn’t about racial slurs.
I’m gonna need you to engage in just a little more abstract thinking for me. I’m not talking about racism either.
Let’s try another thing instead: “Got hates fags”
How about: “Jews did 9/11”
It’s pretty easy to say “free speech! I can say whatever I like!! I’m not responsible for your hurt feelings!” without any nuance, but speech is a bit more complicated than that.
The cartoon isn’t about free speech absolutism. It’s just about offensive stuff. All the things you said are hate speech.
It contains the single most popular defence of free speech absolutism
It’s from a website called TheDevilsPanties bro. I get where you’re coming from but it’s clearly about book bannings/conservatives getting upset with content in movies/books/signs/etc. The comic doesn’t explicitly say it’s excluding hate speech but it shouldn’t have to.
Abstract thinking is impossible for some people it seems
hey, its freedom to offend, right ?
Hate speech and offensive speech are very different lol
where do u draw the line?
(genuine question , not advocating hate speech)
Hate speech is a call to attack some people.
It may sometimes sound like “just offensive”, since it often uses offensive code words to coordinate an attack.
Saying good things and saying bad things are different actually
but that’s not the message of the comic
I think you’re missing the point. You have to take it in the context it was written in.
Um, what?
What it says on the tin.
Care to elaborate on how it relates to my comment?
Defending free speech that says good things is different than defending free speech that is just being racist. The implication of hypocrisy that you’re suggesting with your comment doesn’t really work unless you view all speech as equivalent, which it self evidently isn’t.
That’s kinda the point I’m making, though. This argument is not nuanced enough, because the only standard it sets is that for something to be truly offensive, it must “offend everyone”. This is an absurd and impossible standard.
I didn’t say anything about hypocrisy. I just said that the argument presented is insufficient.
If you include the context it isnt insufficient. It is also a short comic.
Short comics are notoriously not great at depicting nuanced concepts.
Real life footage of this actually happening, and the result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DJGw3rIwI
Real life footage?
Wow
Yeah it was the same day as that massive gold heist.