42
Offensive
(lemmy.sdf.org)
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
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.
I know it's saying that, and I think that's bullshit.
Not a single person said it was “acceptable speech”.
The mentioned "platform" implies it is acceptable by allowing it
I disagree. Something being allowed doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.
I mean there are loads of bigoted comments all over Twitter and Facebook, and I wouldn’t call any of those “acceptable” despite technically being allowed.
Why would you allow unacceptable content? That's an implicit endorsement.
Lmao what? Saying that people should be allowed to speak their minds isn’t the same as agreeing with everything everyone has to say.
Honestly, you assuming that it’s an “endorsement” speaks much more to your own issues than anything else. Maybe learn that life isn’t so binary - that things can be a little more nuanced.
I think you might have things backwards. The way I see it, I'm the one trying to add shades of grey to a world you are describing as black and white. Either they agree, or they don't, that's why you say. I say no, it's more complicated than that. And yet, you say this is somehow reducing to a binary. Maybe I'm taking crazy pills. You tell me.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m actually saying the opposite. Whether anyone agrees with anyone else is entirely irrelevant to my point.
I’m saying that people are allowed to say whatever they want, and that them being allowed to do so doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is actually acceptable.
For example, someone can go on Twitter and have a full blown racist rant. They’re allowed to do that. But that doesn’t mean that what they did is acceptable.
You’re saying that if something is allowed, it must be acceptable. That it being allowed in the first place somehow implies an endorsement of the behavior. That’s pretty much the definition of black and white thinking.
If it were unacceptable behaviour, it wouldn't be allowed.
Yes it would be. That’s how free speech works. If you think blatantly racist rants are generally accepted, you’re delusional.
Then why are they allowed?
Because things aren’t so black and white. Something not being acceptable doesn’t always mean it should straight up be outlawed. That’s not how the world works. People do socially unacceptable shit all the time and aren’t violating any laws by doing them.
You're conflating law and morality.
That’s literally what you’re doing by saying that anything unacceptable shouldn’t be allowed. Just because something is acceptable, that doesn’t mean it isn’t allowed. Because laws and morality aren’t always a perfect 1:1.
I never mentioned laws. You did. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion. Precisely because laws and morality are not the same thing. We're talking about rules of conduct on a platform.
And I’m saying that something being allowed doesn’t make it accepted. Unless… you think racist rants on Twitter are acceptable? After all, they’re allowed.
So either you think racist rants are acceptable, or you acknowledge that something being allowed doesn’t magically make everyone okay with it.
Thid is a weird strategy for you to take. Maybe you thought i forgot what I said. No, of course i don't think they're acceptable.
Twitter seems to think they are, though.
Lmao. Never said it did. When i said acceptable, did you really think i meant to everyone?
Well, yeah. This is what happens when you use such broad vague statements like, “if it’s allowed then it’s acceptable”. Anyone could interpret that as meaning “acceptable” to the general public.
But okay, fine. So something being allowed means that it’s acceptable to the ones making the rules? Alright, let’s analyze that a bit then.
I’m going back to laws because you seem to have missed the point of why I brought them up in the first place. If Twitter’s rules determine what’s allowed on their site, then laws determine what’s allowed irl. And by your logic, they then must determine what’s acceptable.
Now, you’re allowed to talk racist shit in public. Does that mean that every lawmaker alive rn finds that acceptable?
You’re allowed to smoke weed in quite a few states now. Is every lawmaker guaranteed to be on board because it’s allowed now?
You can smoke cigarettes outdoors and in smoking areas. That’s perfectly allowed. You think every individual lawmaker finds smoking acceptable?
Things aren’t so binary. Even those that make the rules, whether that be for an individual website or an entire country, aren’t necessarily going to find what’s allowed to be acceptable to them.
But something being unacceptable doesn’t mean something should be disallowed.
Oh come off it. Don't pretend. It's not vague at all. Allowed by whom? Accepted by whom? Why would they be separate questions with different answers? Why would you make that assumption? Why would a rule determining whether something is allowed be measuring its acceptance against anything other than their own standards?
Don't move the goalposts. Not every lawmaker alive, no, but the legal system would certainly seem to find that acceptable, yeah.
I already pointed out this fallacy. Moving on.
Irrelevant statement as I already said
Would you, then, allow actions in your home you deem to be unacceptable? Of course not. If you find something to be unacceptable, you would not allow it.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Real life footage of this actually happening, and the result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DJGw3rIwI
Real life footage?
Wow
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.
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.
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