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.
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.
I’ve seen people online get offended at the bumper sticker “Fuck Cancer”.
That seems like a reach to me. This comic reads to me as the fantasy of a bigot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzdpxKqEUAw
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)
For me it’s anything that’s targeted towards a marginalised group, but I understand it gets murky. It probably needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is why you see so much borderline hate speech slip through the cracks on the internet/in real life.
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.