I had someone steel this and change “butts” to “Christian” and weirdly enough, lengthen my skirt. Kept the flame boots, but no short skirts.
Let’s replace the word with “N*****” and see if you still feel clever
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?
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.
Also, it’s never just “butts”
I’ve seen people online get offended at the bumper sticker “Fuck Cancer”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saying good things and saying bad things are different actually
Um, what?
What it says on the tin.
Care to elaborate on how it relates to my comment?
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.
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.
If you include the context it isnt insufficient. It is also a short comic.
but that’s not the message of the comic
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
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.
what year is this, 2015?
