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.
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
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.
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…
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