Without men who will protect you from men?
Checkmate feminists.
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
Without men who will protect you from men?
Checkmate feminists.
According to Americans: Armed Bears
π§ββοΈπ«π»
I thought they protect the cans of frozen peaches.
Obviously the bears have a right to bear arms but it also protects their right to their own bare bear arms, which are plenty unless the man has a rifle.
In which case yes, that's why the good bears need AR-15s.
Trying to figure out if last frame is "epiphany/realization" or a more drawn out equivalent of "suddenly mad NPC"...
The thing that NOBODY seems to understand, or maybe not willing to admit is, you CANNOT group people together.
It's the whole reason racism logically makes no sense. At all.
"Oh, all those dirty (insert race here) are good for nothin! They're all assholes!"
And sure, regardless of what race you inserted there, there's going to be some assholes. There's also going to be some amazing people that you're unfairly judging.
And it's not just races. It's anything. Races, genders, religions, countries, social groups, book clubs, whatever.
If you think all people of one group think the same on everything, you're just factually wrong. And if you use that incorrect fact to judge that group, now you're just an asshole.
I've found that people th]?6ink judging people is bad, and wrong. I don't think so. I think some people are just terrible at judging people, and miss the point of judging people. You're supposed to judge them as an individual. Not as (insert group here).
I think we can safely shit on Nazis as a whole, though.
My critic to what the other guy said, is that you can judge a group of that group is specific enough to judge them on these characteristics.
Are all christians bad? Hell no. Active adult members of the Westboro Baptist Church? Hell yes. They are bad because their website is literally godhatesfags.com.
Now Nazis are fucking Nazis. 11 millions murders should be enough to judge them as a group and those who liked it.
Thereβs a difference between judging people on a category they donβt choose vs. a set of beliefs they choose to follow.
If I tried to claim all brown-eyed people are evil, Iβd be bigoted because eye color does not determine who you are as a person. But if I claimed that all members of the Puppy Kickers Club are evil because they literally believe in kicking puppies and require doing so frequently as a requirement for membership, then my claim is valid.
You see this exact issue occur across all kinds of topics.
People pick out the extreme opinions from the most abrasive personalities and hold them up as an exemplar for the group.
The reality is that you're probably just identifying a set of traits (obsessive, hypocritical, lacking self-awareness and easily offended/seeks offense) in a person and then incorrectly ascribing those traits to what you see as that person's group.
This guy ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2QGME8KHzY ) talks about it as a key realization that helped him deprogram himself from the anti-SJW mindset in the '10s.
Now that it's been pointed out to me it does seem to be that, if you look at people complaining about groups online, they're generally complaining about people that share these traits.
The worst thing is when somebody takes two things that your "group" did and uses them to accuse you/the group of hypocrisy. When you didn't do any of it. Like, who specifically are you talking about? And why are we talking about them?
No no, nuance be damned. Let's continue condemning entire groups based on their superficial shared membership before we understand them even a little!
/s (jic)
Canβt tell his expression at the end. Is he mad or is he ashamed or does he kinda like her?
Basically this.
I like to imagine he took a minute to glue on eyebrows for the last frame.
The superior template.
My guess is that he's farting