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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      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]
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      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?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              81 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  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”.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              The cartoon isn’t about free speech absolutism. It’s just about offensive stuff. All the things you said are hate speech.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -11 year ago

                  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.

          • darcy
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            where do u draw the line?

            (genuine question , not advocating hate speech)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              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.