this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
293 points (91.5% liked)

Web Comics

1066 readers
4 users here now

founded 3 years ago
 

I had someone steel this and change “butts” to “Christian” and weirdly enough, lengthen my skirt. Kept the flame boots, but no short skirts.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] navitux 43 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

💀 lmao thanks for the new reaction pic

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

~ edge all of the good boys ~

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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"?

[–] SneakyWeasel 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

This comic is a dogwhistle for hate speech

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We must not be tolerant to intolerance is the basis for me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you for that. Really informative and a fun read.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] BroBot9000 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s hysterical!

Of course they had to lengthen the skirt 😂

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (24 children)

Let's replace the word with "N*****" and see if you still feel clever

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not a single person said it was “acceptable speech”.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The mentioned "platform" implies it is acceptable by allowing it

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would you allow unacceptable content? That's an implicit endorsement.

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Either they agree or they don’t

That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m actually saying the opposite. Whether anyone agrees with anyone else is entirely irrelevant to my point.

I’m saying that people are allowed to say whatever they want, and that them being allowed to do so doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is actually acceptable.

For example, someone can go on Twitter and have a full blown racist rant. They’re allowed to do that. But that doesn’t mean that what they did is acceptable.

You’re saying that if something is allowed, it must be acceptable. That it being allowed in the first place somehow implies an endorsement of the behavior. That’s pretty much the definition of black and white thinking.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it were unacceptable behaviour, it wouldn't be allowed.

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes it would be. That’s how free speech works. If you think blatantly racist rants are generally accepted, you’re delusional.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then why are they allowed?

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because things aren’t so black and white. Something not being acceptable doesn’t always mean it should straight up be outlawed. That’s not how the world works. People do socially unacceptable shit all the time and aren’t violating any laws by doing them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're conflating law and morality.

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s literally what you’re doing by saying that anything unacceptable shouldn’t be allowed. Just because something is acceptable, that doesn’t mean it isn’t allowed. Because laws and morality aren’t always a perfect 1:1.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I never mentioned laws. You did. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion. Precisely because laws and morality are not the same thing. We're talking about rules of conduct on a platform.

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And I’m saying that something being allowed doesn’t make it accepted. Unless… you think racist rants on Twitter are acceptable? After all, they’re allowed.

So either you think racist rants are acceptable, or you acknowledge that something being allowed doesn’t magically make everyone okay with it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you think racist rants on Twitter are acceptable?

Thid is a weird strategy for you to take. Maybe you thought i forgot what I said. No, of course i don't think they're acceptable.

Twitter seems to think they are, though.

something being allowed doesn’t magically make everyone okay with it.

Lmao. Never said it did. When i said acceptable, did you really think i meant to everyone?

[–] CaptainEffort 1 points 1 year ago

did you really think I meant to everyone?

Well, yeah. This is what happens when you use such broad vague statements like, “if it’s allowed then it’s acceptable”. Anyone could interpret that as meaning “acceptable” to the general public.

But okay, fine. So something being allowed means that it’s acceptable to the ones making the rules? Alright, let’s analyze that a bit then.

I’m going back to laws because you seem to have missed the point of why I brought them up in the first place. If Twitter’s rules determine what’s allowed on their site, then laws determine what’s allowed irl. And by your logic, they then must determine what’s acceptable.

Now, you’re allowed to talk racist shit in public. Does that mean that every lawmaker alive rn finds that acceptable?

You’re allowed to smoke weed in quite a few states now. Is every lawmaker guaranteed to be on board because it’s allowed now?

You can smoke cigarettes outdoors and in smoking areas. That’s perfectly allowed. You think every individual lawmaker finds smoking acceptable?

Things aren’t so binary. Even those that make the rules, whether that be for an individual website or an entire country, aren’t necessarily going to find what’s allowed to be acceptable to them.

But something being unacceptable doesn’t mean something should be disallowed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Real life footage of this actually happening, and the result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DJGw3rIwI

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] Rootiest 4 points 1 year ago

That is an awesome name for a comic, I love it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Have always enjoyed your comics, funny story.

[–] eskimofry 1 points 1 year ago

You should send a cease and desist. That will rile them up.

[–] Lammy 1 points 1 year ago

Not as offensive as that faux Batman shirt

load more comments
view more: next ›