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.
Simon said:
I would just like to point out that aspiring to be “not as bad as David K. Meller” is setting the bar really really low. Aim higher!
I honestly don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who couldn’t wipe the floor with Meller in terms of basic human decency. One of my exes is a diagnosed sociopath (yeah, I know…I was a teenager and fell for his sob stories), and even he’s nicer than Meller.
@Molly Ren:
Okay, Molly, I personally wouldn’t want to exclude lesbians, and I even don’t think it’s really right to do it, these are people you know for a long time and it would send to them a hostile message that they aren’t accepted. Yet, I, also personally would always try to have this tact to accept it if people are uncomfortable with it, they know it that way, why should I be the one to make such a change, if it doesn’t really hurt me that much.
Prom is even a bad example, because as you said it’s excessive to think it’s a “ritual”. Another example, in Switzerland there are these funny marksmen festivals, and they have a king of marksmen, the winner of the competition, now imagine if he were gay and didn’t take his queen but his boyfriend as another king on his side (instead of just some women he knew). Honestly, not to do this is imho a kind of tact, that I value… now judge me for that! I’m honest to you, that in some special places I don’t see this kind of preference for heterosexuality as bad. That doesn’t mean same-sex couples can’t hold hands in public.
I don’t think Simon ever answered my comment that none of the behavior of others is any of his goddamned business. Did I miss it?
Is there something about these Switzerland marksmen things that I’m not getting? I really don’t see why that would be such a big deal if the ‘King of Marksmen’ took a guy as his ‘queen’. Just call it a ‘consort’ or something if you didn’t want to use a gendered title for him. I mean, really, why not? Would the women get jealous that they didn’t get a chance to be queen? Do they not get their own markswomen competition so they have to rely on a guy choosing them to get any recognition in these festivals?
“imagine if he were gay and didn’t take his queen but his boyfriend as another king on his side (instead of just some women he knew). Honestly, not to do this is imho a kind of tact, that I value… now judge me for that! ”
So what if he did? Seriously, so what? Some people will be scandalized? Why should Shooting King care?
Or they could just decide that King and Queen are totally separate categories and that the two people thus named don’t have to be an actual couple. See? Simple.
@CassandraSays:
Cassandra, didn’t you notice that I argued mostly from the view point of other persons? I didn’t say, that I can’t accept you, that you make MY life uncomfortable…
And the Courtney Stodden thing… Be friends again and you explain it to me? 😉
Google it, Simon.
Simon, as you can clearly see, the arguments you’ve been making here have offended a whole lot of people, including pretty much everyone who isn’t straight. You might want to take a step back and think about how you’re expressing yourself.
This is up a bit, but it’s a thing that annoys me:
If DKM doesn’t believe what he says, then he’s just a liar. He’s not a “winner” and we’re not “losers” because we took him at his word. That’s not how the game is played. Misrepresenting yourself is easy and obnoxious; it’s not brilliant at all. And believing that someone is who they say they are isn’t being a “loser,” it’s speaking in good faith.
@hellkell:
I googled it, but I still don’t get the joke.
@CassandraSays:
I’m sorry. I really tried to be as careful as possible.
@Amnesia:
I think this is a nice example what this kind of abstraction does to your mind and what weird results will follow. You can deride homophobes like nwoslave, as hateful, irrational, old fashioned, and you’ll have the majority of people on your side. But suddenly when you speak about boys in dresses you will hear from the same people things like “Oooh, noooo, that goes too far!” and you are the one who is laughed at. And then you even throw your former allies together with nwoslave… I couldn’t live with that!
” But suddenly when you speak about boys in dresses you will hear from the same people things like “Oooh, noooo, that goes too far!” and you are the one who is laughed at. ”
Hmm? Most of the people I consider either friends or allies would be totally fine with boys in dresses. In fact, I know a number of men who’ve worn dresses to perform on stage! It’s really not that big a deal.
“I’m honest to you, that in some special places I don’t see this kind of preference for heterosexuality as bad.”
Then we are “honest to you”: that’s homophobia, dude.
Heterosexuality doesn’t need to be given a preferred status. Ever.
Simon, your soft bigotry is way worse than DKM or NWO. I much prefer their in-your-face hate to your mealy-mouthed “Whoops, I tried, sorry.” If you’re going to be offensive, own it.
In all seriousness, Simon, you should take a trip to San Francisco, this place would blow your mind. The Halloween party in the Castro would be a good place to start. The first time I ever went there were a group of men in fluffly and lacey pink lingerie on the balcony of a motel singing “These Boots Are Made For Walking”, and everyone in the crowd was cheering them. The crowd isn’t all gay either, lots of straight people go.
Okay, I will make a list
1. I know Simon is not a Usian, but in the US, there is a body of law about expression and free speech of school students. It is not actually the case that the school always has the right to deny the student the right to expressive conduct or speech. These things you are arguing that people could not have are not actually necessarily things they do not have a right to under the US legal system, which is the legal system under which most of the people on this forum live.
2. I am perfectly fine with elimination sex classifications on restrooms.
3. You do realize that many people on this forum are feminists, right? Feminists do oppose and complain about sex and gender based categories on a pretty regular basis, and in many cases have spent years fighting to eliminate them.
Us feminist want rid of those sex based discriminations. I am perfectly fine with gender neutral grooming standards, in fact, I strongly advocate for them. There are US Supreme Court cases on gendered workplace grooming rules, it is certainly not the case that no one ever argues and advocates around these issues. It is also worth noting as well that natural black hair is often treated as unprofessional and many black people face discrimination around their hair. I knew a nice young man with a small afro who faced a great deal of negative reaction to his hair that white men with similar hair lengths did not receive.
4. Heteros are not better than queer people. Showing legal preference and giving extra rights to heteros is hateful and discriminatory. Tradition is not a good grounds for denying people equality.
You know, back in ancient Roman times, men having sex with men was considered manly. Even though they may have had a wife, they used to like, fornicate with other men while out to war as a sort of male bonding thing. It’s kind of interesting when you think about it.
I’m sure our modern military has a certain level of homosocial – even fake-homoerotic – horseplay that you have to participate in for the sake of unit bonding.
Simon: 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.
Bullshit.
You can marry anyone you like, so long as they are the same race as you.
You can go to any school you like, so long as it’s just for Blacks.
You can sleep with anyone you like, so long as they are the opposite gender.
You can’ come to the prom without a date.
All of those are the same as the nonsense you spouted.
It’s about the sex, and showing up in public with your beloved.
Back to rage comics if I may…
I have to admit I don’t get the humor OR the level of outrage. Sure it’s disgusting, but what makes it super-specially-ultra-disgusting?
Is rage comics a particularly well-defined subculture? What do I, the noob, need to understand before reading this comic to appreciate the reaction it’s drawing?
I may be just too old. I remember the ’70s-’80s genre of black humor that worked basically like this: 1) I say/do something straight-up disgusting. 2) You laugh if you’re hip; I pwn you if you’re square. Is there any echo of that here?
Simon, dude, what difference does it make. At our equivalent of prom, a couple of the girls didn’t have a date so they brought a friend of the same sex instead. They were all straight (as far as I can remember). No one batted an eyelash. Yeesh! Ye Americans take prom way too seriously. It’s supposed to be a fun night for young people. Why should social politics come into it at all?
Rome and Greece were a lot more complicated in how they saw sexuality. There were things men could do with other men, and things they couldn’t (being the, “passive” partner was unmanning, it’s why Martial keeps telling his opponents he’s going to fuck them, in the ass or the mouth).
But it wasn’t seen as unmanly to like to be the active partner with other men.
Basically, in Rome, being at the top of a heap meant you could hit, or have sex with, anyone below you in that heap.
Raoul, Rage comics are usually based on crap we deal with in day-to-day life, made humorous in web comic form. That’s what makes them good. This one is not good. It doesn’t make sense and I really don’t think anyone can relate to the main guy here unless they are of the MRA type =P
I pointed this out before, but it’s bad story-telling as well. First we see the guy only cares about having sex, then we are told that he is so deep in love that he would humiliate the girl for breaking up with him, a break-up that he foresaw in his sex-pursuing antics.