this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
12 points (100.0% liked)

Web Comics

1081 readers
1 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 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.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 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.

[–] Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 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.

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't see the difference between "butts" and the n word?

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The point is, this argument doesn't hold up.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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".

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

That seems like a reach to me. This comic reads to me as the fantasy of a bigot.

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The argument isn't about racial slurs.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 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.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Saying good things and saying bad things are different actually

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Care to elaborate on how it relates to my comment?

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you include the context it isnt insufficient. It is also a short comic.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

but that's not the message of the comic