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.
But Cassandra, growing up is haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard.
Simon, when have I ever told you that you can’t comment?
As far as I recall, I said that according to your comments it looks like you could be missing part of conversation or meanings. Yes, I make mistakes as well… I think I even said I do that.
If the issue is not with the language barrier, I honestly struggle to understand the whole “but what is wrong to call people sluts” conversation.
Geez, trash me for something that I have actually said, OK?
Actually, isn’t it simpler to just say “people love people.”?
A little oversimplified maybe, but if you demand simplicity at the expense of reality, can’t beat that. And now you just need Prom Royalty.
Appeal to nature fallacy is a fallacy.
Siomon wrote, “To make it clear, I never in my life understood the nasty sort of homophobia like in Jamaica (because even if you think homosexuality is a defect, why should one be so incredibly hateful? That’s just as totally absurd as the desire to lynch a color blind person.), but I can at least empathize a bit with people who think ‘Lesbian couple at the prom…? No, that goes to far!’.”
Simon, if you don’t think people with disabilities get flack for being who they are, you might want to Google “ableism” or “disability discrimination”.
Also, lynchings occurred in the same environment where a certain kind of person couldn’t go to the prom… or drink from the same water fountain… or attend the same schools. If you *don’t* feel afraid of a certain type of person, why you you need to draw lines around them anyway?
Also, crap, that was supposed to be “Simon”. Sorry.
Simon, what you are clling simple is, I think, disney movie-like. It’s ok to enjoy them as long as you remember they’re not reality.
It’s not ok at all to refuse lesbian at a prom because that hurt them, and it lead to other form of discrimination, including violence. That is an hateful thing to do (it is this kind of that lead queer teenagers much more often to suicide) and you don’t seem hateful, only in pain, scared and lost.
If you like simple ways to look at the world, let me offer you one: what hurt people, especially innocent people, is a bad thing.
Compare your discomfort (that you can learn to get rid of) with the pain you cause when you stop the lesbian couple to come at prom, or let them know you don’t want them to be here.
@Ray Percival:
That’s a very bad analogy. The sex of a human is very different from his ‘race’. For example, sex-separated toilets are not comparable to Jim Crow segregation.
Simon: We aren’t talking about people’s sex, we’re talking about sexual orientation. How did you get to gendered bathrooms from there? If we had “queers only” bathrooms, then what you’re saying might make sense.
No, Dracula, look at the original analogy. You are not excluded from prom because you are a lesbian but you can’t bring your girlfriend with you, you have to find a boy.
It’s about the sex, not the sexual orientation.
Simon: you can’t make the connection between barring two groups of people from the prom because they’re both “different”?
“No, Dracula, look at the original analogy. You are not excluded from prom because you are a lesbian but you can’t bring your girlfriend with you, you have to find a boy.
It’s about the sex, not the sexual orientation.”
Yeah, and that’s a form of discrimination that sucks donkey balls.
Sorry Simon, but no. Do not try to tell me that “You can come, you just have to pretend not to be you.” isn’t excluding people. If it were just about sex, then gay males wouldn’t excluded either.
@SImon: after a couple of your last comments, esp. about how you were raised, I was starting to feel some sympathy for you.
YOu just pissed all that away by coming in with this bullshit again.
And newsflash: after a certain age, you don’t get to blame your parents for you being a shitheel. If you’re an adult, you can make your own decisions and work out your own values if the ones you have aren’t making you happy (which clearly they aren’t).
And while comparing racial discrimination with any other discrimination is a very problematic analogy, both you and Ray P are doing it: Ray is saying they’re more similar than different; you’re saying they’re more different.
And again, you both are totally erasing any people of color who might ALSO be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, so stfu.
“No, Dracula, look at the original analogy. You are not excluded from prom because you are a lesbian but you can’t bring your girlfriend with you, you have to find a boy.
It’s about the sex, not the sexual orientation.”
Actually, that’s about gender. The lesbian girl can take a whomever she wants to prom as long as that person *looks* enough like a boy to pass initial inspection. SInce her date isn’t being elected Pope, it’s unlikely the prom authorities are going to check for primary sex characteristics.
I feel that should read “…isn’t excluding people [based on their sexual orientation.]” Much clearer that way.
Hide and Seek, since this still leaves out all the queers that can’t “pass”, I don’t see how this matters. It’s still discrimination, whether or not you cross-dress or genderfuck your fashion.
Simon: Would you be all right with asexuals being barred from attending a prom? After all, they’re another orientation that’s cluttering up the simplicity of the world. And if not, why? Because they’re not bumping uglies in a way that makes you uncomfortable?
You know what sounds simple to me? Not giving a crap about other people and their behavior if it is none of your business. If you can’t be a decent human being, Simon, at least learn to be an indifferent one. You don’t have to be comfortable around LGBTQIA people (Did I miss any?) but you need to learn that your discomfort is YOUR problem and not theirs. Their right to live their lives as they see fit, even in public and in front of your delicate eyes, absolutely a million times trumps your desire to not be made to feel uncomfortable. Get over yourself, your precious Victorian sensibilities aren’t anyone else’s concern but your own, up to the point that you open your mouth or start typing about how they should dictate how other people behave.
Molly Ren:
That’s what I’m saying, it’s still discrimination. But Simon said it wasn’t “sex” discrimination because the girl could always go to the prom with a boy. And I said it was “gender” discrimination, because the girl could go to the prom with anyone who looked like a boy, just like in places which do not condone interracial dating the students are allowed to date anyone who *looks* white.
My point was that it is an arbitrary standard.
@Kyrie:
Yes, I think that’s a good argument and also one that’s probably more effective to persuade people. I wouldn’t want to exclude someone exactly because of that reason, sexual orientation seems just to be a very important part of ones identity and if you look at the consequences of that exclusion, you are right that they can be very bad. But I just have to admit, that I think that there’s no right for equal treatment in those cases. There are thousands of examples where people who have peculiar and uncommon preferences just can’t demand that the majority does everything to adjust itself to them. Especially if it’s some kind of “ritual” like in the case of prom night.
@CassandraSays:
I found this blog entry from Fidelbogen “Do you, as a feminist, recognise the right to existence of people who are not feminists?” and his “oh, that’s so deeeep and reaches into many corners” talk one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. But now if you argue that just because somebody says “Couples at prom night have to be a boy and a girl and nothing else, that’s our rule” he denies your right to exist… well, pompous doofus? 😉
Hide and Seek: OH! That makes more sense. XD
You do see how complicated you’re making this, right?
Moewicus: Simon’s idea of “simple” is getting more complicated by the second…
Simon, you’re really not doing a good job of selling this idea that the world should accomodate your desire for “simplicity” by hiding the queers from you.
It would really be much simpler to just let everyone go to prom with whoever they want.