I present to you: the most appalling rage comic I’ve ever seen. And that’s even if the story it tells — one of a very bad romantic breakup — isn’t true. (Which I really, really hope is the case.) How bad is the comic? Even the denizens of r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu, Reddit’s home for horrible rage comics, found it a bit distasteful. (Though this evidently didn’t stop all that many of them from upvoting it.)
Just so you know, when the dude in the comic refers to ‘karma,” he’s saying that if he gets upvotes for this comic, he’ll put the videos in question online.
Yeah, it’s that kind of breakup. So here’s the comic. TRIGGER WARNING for really really assholish behavior and nonconsensual sexual exploitation.
Found via the always awesome ShitRedditSays.
@Holly Pervocracy:
Ok, nice explanation, very creative… maybe we then should also kill animals for food, but ok, I accept this explanation.
Well then, siblings, take siblings. What’s wrong with that, I mean, consensual sex. I don’t think there should be a law against it, sure. Ok, we have this genetic thing, but then we could also enforce other eugenics laws, and we don’t want that, so I would say there is no consistent reason to ban it. But to have some sympathy for people that don’t want to annoyed by this behavior? Is that bad?
@katz:
My dear katz, here we have another one of your tasteless comments, you just can’t stop it, can you? Though it’s not as bad as when you said that I masturbate while looking at my sister. Katz, I don’t get an erection just because a girl in a dress is standing next to me… do you?
Well, if you don’t want to be “annoyed” by how other people have sex that doesn’t involve you at all, maybe you should leave their bedroom.
If gay people are having sex in your bedroom, I understand your point completely and I agree that’s very rude of them.
Holly, don’t play dumb.
So our hypothetical siblings are having sex in public, in front of other people? Because otherwise I’m not sure how they’re “annoying” people. I know English is not your first language, but if you’re going to insist on arguing theoretical points in English you’re going to have to use it more clearly.
Also, once again your analogy sucks. So even if the language was more precise, the logic would still be a huge mess.
Unlike yourself?
I’m playing smart.
You’re trying to say something, Simon. FUCKING SAY IT.
Don’t dancy-dance around with tricksy little “well, what if the fish wants to have sex with the walrus’s aunt, what then?” hypotheticals. Real questions are ones where you’re interested in the answer, and I don’t think you’re asking real questions. You’re asking rhetorical questions intended to probe towards some sort of point.
Just say that goddamn point.
And if you’re embarrassed to, or think it won’t be well received, maybe that should tell you something.
It’s mean of you to be so much smarter than Simon, Holly, and even meaner not to let him weasel out of whatever point he’s actually trying to make. Tsk tsk, people on this site are so cruel.
(Also, anyone want to start guessing which OMG shocking but nothing to do with homosexuality kind of sex Simon will try to use as an analogy next? I’m thinking necrophilia.)
I have nothing of value to add to this discussion, but it is amusing to watch SImon’s posts gradually transition confused-emotionally-damaged-might-actually-want-to-learn-something troll to the blatantly homophobic and insulting type.
And yet even when he can directly insult people, he still can’t come out and attempt exactly what he’s weaseling around saying.
@CassandraSays:
No, my hypothetical siblings would demand nice and equal treatment, want to be seen as a normal couple, they don’t want to be excluded and so on. That’s what I meant. They want to kiss themselves in public like a normal couple would do, if people are shocked by that, because they know, they are closely related, they are just bigots!
So either you accept all that, or the argument “they are not harming anybody and so we should accept all that” is wrong and we have to look for another explanation.
While I’m not 100% sure how random strangers know they’re brother and sister, I’m okay with this. (I also don’t see what this has to do with gay people, unless they’re brother and brother, or sister and sister.)
If you’re really just asking questions, then the answer is yes, I’m comfortable with this.
If our siblings are adults I don’t really care either. As Holly said, though, this has nothing much to do with homosexuality, just like all of Simon’s other analogies.
He really sucks at this debating thing, doesn’t he?
No it’s ok, I don’t think I suck at this debating thing, because I have you now there, where I want you, it’s surely a defensible opinion you both have, but you are now at the point where you would loose your mainstream support massively… you have admitted that from your arguments follows this conclusion: “It’s nothing less than bigotry to have sympathy with people who are disgusted by an incest couple kissing in public.”
Yuengling all over the keyboard, right there.
We aren’t actually talking about incest, though. I do differ from the mainstream on incest, and that doesn’t bother me, but this isn’t about incest. It’s about gay people.
BEING GAY IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING INCESTUOUS. There. I put it in big letters so maybe you can understand that some things are different from other things.
I may differ from the “mainstream” on gay people too (although it’s coming around), but that’s just because there are a lot of bigots in the mainstream.
You have nothing at all, Simon, other than some serious psychological and emotional problems. Please get help before you hurt someone.
Well, the incest taboo comes from a different anthropological place than the homosexuality taboo, I’d say, but beyond that, I don’t think you have anybody where you want them. You keep saying you don’t want these things to be illegal, so why is anybody’s opinion on what the proper/moral response to them should be, or who we should have sympathy for a big issue for you? Society changes. Norms change. My “sympathy” for people who don’t agree with my position on things can be high or low, and I really don’t see what your particular point even is.
@Holly Pervocracy:
It’s not the same, you are right. But the arguments to attack what I said about homosexuality as bigotry can be applied to incest as well. That’s the similarity.
Actually, not really. The incest taboo is based around concerns about potential genetic abnormalities in offspring and potential exploitation of power relationships between family members. Neither of those things are concerns that apply to gay couples.
Simon, you seem to be arguing that if you’re biased against one thing you have to be biased against everything or you’re a hypocrite. (And therefore, we should be bigoted against gay people, or at least have “sympathy” for people who are, as if that was somehow different from being bigoted yourself.)
…what can I say? That’s so wrong it’s really not worth much more argument.
Simon: In the whole thread I never said that homosexuals shouldn’t be a couple.
No, you just said they can’t be a couple in public.
That is worse. Justice delayed is worse than justice denied, because when one delays it (e.g., “all reasonable speed”) one knows they deserve justice, but one keeps if from them anyhow, because it pleases you to maintain they status quo; even when you know it hurts people.
It’s not the same, absolutely not. Yet if we look closely at zoophilia and take your way of arguing, it’s not something bad. At least not always, there can be consensual interspecies sex.
What
The
Fuck?
Did you just say that an animal can consent to sex with a person?
I mean, ok, it’s possible for a donkey to cover a mare (thought it’s more likely for a stallion to cover a jenny), but unless you can tell me that a dog/cow/pony/box turtle came on to you… there is no fucking consent unless you are Dr. Fuckin’ Doolittle.
And you ain’t.
And here is the answer: B: There is no justification for the whole concept of “deviancy” of consensual acts. So long as both parties are actually able to give informed consent.
I’ve no idea, I didn’t come up with this word, it was Cassandra. I have no definition for it.</i?
What
The
Fuck?
If you don't have a definition for it then it can't be answered. Really, if you don't have a definition for it how can you know what is meant when someone says "yes" to your question?
And with this “cunning” stratagem fully revealed, Simon has shown that from the very start of this conversation, he has not even been trying to debate honestly. I’m so very shocked.
Can we please stop talking about beastiality =P
Also, thinking back, this little detour into theoretical discussions of incest is kind of funny given the stuff he was saying about his sister earlier. Think maybe all this is because he’s mad at us for pointing out that his obsession with women maybe being attracted to her is a little weird?
You do realise that people die from sexing animals? That’s one of the reasons why it’s a bad thing.
Simon: I don’t want it to be outlawed.
So… you have less of a problem with bestiality than you do with homosexuality (unless you are saying people who like to fuck their dogs can’t be non-sexually affectionate with them in public).
Got it.
Homosexuals… icky, and to be suppressed.
Animal fuckers… perfectly ok in polite society.
You are judging this way of arguing too harshly. I am just asking questions
We are not.
If you don’t believe what you are arguing, and merely doing for the sake of argument… join a debate club.
If you do believe it (and I think you do, the tenor and tone of your, “just questions” have a consistency to them), then own your fucking words.