I had someone steel this and change “butts” to “Christian” and weirdly enough, lengthen my skirt. Kept the flame boots, but no short skirts.
Sir please don’t edge the dog.
The dog has already edged.
💀 lmao thanks for the new reaction pic
~ edge all of the good boys ~
Too many people would change their minds based on what the sign says.
Does you reaction change if the sign read: “Black Lives Matter” or if it read “Back the Blue”?
Or one that says “Trans women are women” vs “trans women aren’t women”?
Or “pineapple on pizza is ok” vs “pinapple on pizza is the work of the devil”?
Honestly, the first thing that I thought about was what if the sign had a slur word. Sure freedom of speech means say what you wanna say, that doesn’t mean people aren’t gonna sock you in the face.
free speech ≠ hate speech
Everyone is allowed to have an opinion but if your opinion involves being a dick to certain people, keep it for yourselves.
In the comic above, no certain group is targeted so there’s no reason to be offended.
This comic is a dogwhistle for hate speech
Yeah it doesn’t really make sense. “Butts” isn’t offensive to anyone and no you don’t have the right to offend a group of people.
Sure I do. Here’s one:
All Republicans are either selfish, stupid, or evil.
so when are you allowed to be offensive and when are you not?
You always are, and people are always allowed to call you an asshole if they feel compelled to do so.
Small nitpick, but stupid / evil suggests it’s some static state of being, when it’s a choice. Selfish is a good descriptor though, as is ignorant, greedy, bigoted, hateful, fascist…
Pretty sure it was made by a left wing gay man whos existence was considered offensive to conservatives
if it was made by a left wing gay man then i guess they are both gay and dumb because they inadvertently made a comic that pushes narratives used to defend homophobia
No offense but based on what I’m hearing you need to study your history of censorship and left wing support of free speech in response to that censorship. And I mean government censorship, not reddit banning a right winger and them crying about it.
Hate speech is a cudgel used by reactionary’s.
The problem with free speech is probs that what people are really fighting over is who gets to control and define what “free” speech is. Only in an anarchist society would free speech really be as you described - say what you want, but be prepared to face the consequences of your words (and actions). Without the protection of government and socio/economic hierarchies, bigots wouldn’t feel quite as invincible while they spew hate and oppression.
We must not be tolerant to intolerance is the basis for me.
Tolerance is not a moral precept, it’s a peace treaty
Fantastic read on this. Reader view worked for me.
Thank you for that. Really informative and a fun read.
I think I’m still of the mind that “intent to incite violence” is the line. And even that can be crossed when the government needs to be overthrown.
But I could be convinced otherwise
Violence is extremely useful and will be the only tool you have left if you want to stop climate change or protect yourself+your social network from the effects of capitalism.
I think climate change is beyond the point of violence. The number of people, corporations, and equipment involved in the production and consumption of fossil fuels is beyond what non-military action could take on. Not to mention you have to get people to filter between useful petrochemical products (medical supplies) and problematic ones (god damned plastic bags, mylar balloons, fuckin solo cups) and not just arson us back to the stone-age.
Things are gonna suck for a long time before they get better.
You’re going to get violence anyway you want it to go down.
Ideally political leaders will get the cocks out of their asses and realize that their children and grand-children WILL suffer through the most unusual chapter in human history. For sure it wont be the what most people go through but there will be a noticeable reduction the the quality of life for everyone.
Political leaders, especially in the anglosphere, have no interests beyond self-enrichment.
Good things and bad things are different actually
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
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.
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.
Also, it’s never just “butts”
I’ve seen people online get offended at the bumper sticker “Fuck Cancer”.
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.
Abstract thinking is impossible for some people it seems
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.
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.
Defending free speech that says good things is different than defending free speech that is just being racist.
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.
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.
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.
Real life footage of this actually happening, and the result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DJGw3rIwI
Real life footage?
WowYeah it was the same day as that massive gold heist.
Stephen Fry on being offended.
Note, Mr Fry is a gay man and has championed gay rights. His very existence is offensive to backwards conservatives. This quote often gets shared without any context.
what year is this, 2015?
That’s hysterical!
Of course they had to lengthen the skirt 😂
What do you mean?
Well you wouldn’t wanna be raped now would you /s
Have always enjoyed your comics, funny story.
That is an awesome name for a comic, I love it.
deleted by creator
Not as offensive as that faux Batman shirt
You should send a cease and desist. That will rile them up.
Ten panels for that, damn
