Inkbunny

IB Gear Latest Popular Members Search
 
Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
New Roarey, Clothed
« older newer »
Sonic Redesign

Medium (920px wide max)
Wide - use max window width - scroll to see page ⇅
Fit all of image in window
set default image size: small | medium | wide
Download (new tab)
Gonna be doing an occasional series of personal vent art which is geared towards airing principles I have in a simple and clear way XP. Here's the first one! Only intellectual weakness and dishonesty produces the emotional need to see ones detractors vanish from the public discourse.

P. S. If this cartoon makes you angry, and you reply to me with insults and rage, you have just succeeded in admitting that your beliefs are exactly the sort to which this toon applies. You also have no justification for your censorious nonsense. You feel this is about you because you have allied yourself to an ideology which promotes intimidation, deplatforming and censorship. How does it feel to be a simpering intellectual coward?

If you like my work, consider supporting me here:

http://ko-fi.com/roareyraccoon

https://www.paypal.me/roareyraccoon

I am also on Minds and Gab.

https://www.minds.com/RoareyRaccoon
https://gab.com/RoareyRaccoon
Keywords
male 1,115,187, raccoon 34,095, roareyraccoon 296, censorship 237, roarey 96, principles 4
Details
Type: Picture/Pinup
Published: 5 years, 1 month ago
Rating: General
MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
1,255 views
90 favorites
115 comments
BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
115 Comments on this Submission
Leave a Comment...
Drakue
Drakue
5 years, 1 month ago
link
I mean, you're not wrong.
ChadBull
ChadBull
5 years, 1 month ago
link
If you have confidence in your worldview, then there should be no need to silence others.
Pokemonall4one
Pokemonall4one
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
Left wing extremists & social justice warriors in a nutshell; constantly shaming & dehumanizing others who don't conform to their ways & purging them from the internet.
Lyserdigi
Lyserdigi
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Also lot of the alt right...
actually.. lot of people on the poles of the whole spectrum.. up, down, left , right... where ever extreme opinions and worldviews emerge, parts of them are often so indefensible, that censoring opponents becomes often the norm..
Lunarshark
Lunarshark
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Is almost like...extremes are harmful. Not just the ones a person might not agree with politically. Pretty basic stuff, yeah.
Lyserdigi
Lyserdigi
5 years, 1 month ago
link
truly :3c
Pokemonall4one
Pokemonall4one
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Couldn't agree more.
IBp
IBp
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Alt-right doesn't have absurd amounts of power in the media, education system, etc.  So don't pay them any mind, and they'll lose power. Reason they're even getting ANY amount of traction is due to what a boogie man they're treated as.
You don't get demonized for being a communist revolutionary, left-wing extremist, etc.  In fact you can openly call for violence and media will make excuses for you.
You WILL get demonized, slandered, and never be able to work again if you're a right wing.
MooseJam
MooseJam
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Too right.
YIFFGOD
YIFFGOD
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Your really into politics, that’s cool. I myself never really understood the Left wing and Right wing and all that sh*t.

 You and RAGS would make a great couple.  LOL

https://youtu.be/DP3_mwMpjFg
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
I like political philosophy, not too keen on the day-to-day swamp that is political discourse. But yeah, this is a principle that isn't strictly political, it applies to any belief system or ideas.
KevinSnowpaw
KevinSnowpaw
5 years, 1 month ago
link
To be fair and a serten groups gonna think this is aimed at them and it does apply! But again to be fair i fint see this stance expressed here as left wing right wing or any other wing lol just in general this applys as a perfect litness test for bullshit.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Aye, this isn't a partisan principle, it applies universally XP.
MviluUatusun
MviluUatusun
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Hear, hear.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
If you happen to come across a good example of grace actually achieving a mutually positive outcome do let me know.

It seems a rare experience and even less likely to benefit anyone exposed to it any more.
KevinSnowpaw
KevinSnowpaw
5 years, 1 month ago
link
If nothing else it helps keep you from getting slathered in shit. If the only way to push an agenda is to get covered in sewage its not an agenda worth pushing not in todays political climate anyway.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Poeple have a hard time extending a courtesy they clearly have been denied by their opponent for decades.  Add onto that any effort of civility being tagged PC and its impossible to engage without contentious intent.

The parties, their surrogates, almost all news outlets, are the festering swamp of out rage and disingenuous indignation.

I can reach an individual, but the groups as a whole are too far to lost in animosity.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Dunno about grace but only the truth can point us down a path worth treading and one cannot even begin to approach finding out what is true while people are acting via dishonest means. What this toon refers to are tactical decisions to shield ideas that cannot stand up on their own merits, they are tactics that by their nature are fundamentally dishonest, deceptive and manipulative. No good comes of this.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Pointing out a singular fault in a plan seems like a condemnation of the whole these days.

A refusal to acknowledge the others sides concerns and push them out of the decision making process is less then respectful.

Asking the broken parts of a system without regulation built in to it be corrected is seen as un patriotic.

What good is free speech if it doesn't actually improve the process of with needed reform?
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Improvement and reform are subject to what individual people want. If you can't spread your beliefs in a way that convinces others of their validity and attractiveness without resorting to ruining the shit of anyone who has the audacity to question them, then your beliefs are bad for everyone. Doesn't matter how much people believe in a worldview, how deeply they hold to it, if the foundations are corrupt, coercive and manipulative, the whole thing isn't worth a bucket of beetle shit. Sunlight, open, honest confrontation is how the merits of ideas come to the fore, rather than ideas gaining ground based on how effectively their adherents can bully critics. That is free speech and it is a basic requirement for a civilisation capable of meeting the near infinite concerns and challenges of living. Without it, its just a question of which set of oppressive, conceited bastards get to be the "correct" and dominant people at any particular moment.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Speaking truthfully doesn't seem to gather much traction these days.

Theres always a conspiracy theory to explain away the honest facts, some past or current grievances to hold over the other side, and of course the elected leadership disregarding the wishes of their constituents and clinging to power through massive donations from corporate identities and gerrymandering local districts.

Money is speech here in the u.s.

The more money, the more platforms you can use, more spokespeople you can hire, more ads you can run.

While the current outrage machine is destructive to our unity, and disruptive to any exchange of ideas truthfully if full of b.s. it sadly is effective.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
It has always been a struggle to reach for the truth, always will be and must be. We don't know if we're right, we don't know what the real consequences of our decisions will be. Having to push tooth and nail through dissenting positions, that struggle isn't convenient but it does result in gradual, sustainable change. It may take a long time for the truth to have its day, for great ideas to be adopted, but it doesn't matter. The alternative of forcing ideas to be dominant via the dissolution and oppression of dissent bypasses the corrective and modifying power of open scrutiny. Effectively, the believers who squash other views grant for themselves the title of correct, despite being subject to the same flaws and foibles as all other human beings. They think they're right so why not make the process of dominance more expedient by bulldozing through all the natural cultural and social barriers that form the safeguard on which we all rely to prevent catastrophic errors in judgement for what is best? Folly, sheer foolishness.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Allowing a dissenting opinion based off a known lie to be held as sufficient to halt the implementation of a beneficial and lawful act seems a willful act of wickedness to me.

My frustration of allowing deceit within the garuntiy of free speech to infringe on the equitable treatment of others is more then justified.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
As frustrating as liberty can be when people want different things from you and have different ideas, the alternative is tyranny. You mentioned unity in your previous comment. Unity under what? Who decides what we all must unite around? Therein lies the rub. National socialism achieved considerable unity, didn't it XP. As soon as someone has the arrogance to believe that they are wise and knowledgeable enough to know what everyone else should believe and follow, they have the potential to be very dangerous indeed. This is why we need to prioritise the struggle inherent in liberty over tactical considerations which propagate ideas through force. The desire to impose one's will on society like that is a feature of a sociopath, an extremely stupidly naive one.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
The unity I speak of is how we govern ourselves, assuming anyone bothers to particapate, by forming consensus and achieving a majority for legislation that conforms to the constraints of our constitution.  Our past efforts effect our current dialogue, and while the rules dictating how we advance change can be altered, the threshold is extreme to the point that a wide scale threat against us all is needed to prompt amendments.

We can talk amongst ourselves all we want, throw shade and accusations, appeal to higher virtues, intiece to base needs or wants, but in the end it's only ever one on one exchanges.

We already are controlled by central planning, have been scince the invention of coin.  When all platforms are under the influence of whoever has the most money, and you better believe all media platforms out there only care about making money, if they don't want factual statements made they won't get out.

By allowing lies and character attacks to be treated as free speech, methods you disagree with, it only hampers our ability to effect any change at all or even function on the most basic levels as a democratic.

You want people to stop using intimidation and character attacks on others.  But as long as its protect speech there is nothing acting as a deterrent.

Individual good will clearly isn't enough to address the issue.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
You have an alternative to free speech then, that would fix all the inherent problems with discourse? I know for a fact that you don't.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Acknowledging a problem, but being unwilling or afraid of exploring for a solution is distasteful to me.

People need to be held accountable in some way when they spread falsehoods.  Threats and intimidation is grounds for deplatforming, strictly for a liability point let alone actually creating a space intended to host discourse.

When something or someone is so disruptive they need to be taken aside, the issue exposed and resolved outside the public debate.

All things a properly run and impartial moderator should be doing.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
The way we hold liars accountable is by being honest about what they're saying and take on their lies openly. Like the point of this cartoon, if you just use underhanded tactics and try to stop your opponent from having a voice that people can hear, it means you don't have the balls to take them on in a transparent way. People who want to shut others up are themselves people to watch out for, because at best they're intellectual cowards with beliefs they can't legitimately defend.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Is it in our best intrest to address every single discontent or erroneous statment we come across?

Just because people have free speech and assembly doesn't mean people are required to host or accept others company and conversation.

At some point everyone gets sick of dealing with malcontents and liars and shuts them out and refuses to engage simply for being burnt out.

If we remain in a hostile environment to long we can be effected by the content and general mood lashing out ourselves snowballing a conversation beyond our intended direction.

Separation for a time to collect oneself and not be swayed by heated emotion that isn't even your our own is necessary from time to time.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Nobody forces people to host others. Rather, they threaten the hosts into not hosting. Anyone who does this is fucking scum.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
In addition, it comes down to who decides who gets to speak. It isn't a problem when an individual or institution decides not to host someone. The problem is with groups of people deciding their views are the only acceptable ones and anyone who wants to deviate will suffer the consequences. They give themselves carte blanch authority to be the arbitrators of acceptability. Nobody does this unless they're scared their idiotic beliefs will crumble and buckle under the pressure of being challenged. It is a simpering, dishonest, revolting practice perpetuated by intellectual cowards.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Well lawsuits have been filed against universities from both sides of the argument.

Conservative groups claiming discriminatory standards that prevent their speeches being held and groups allowed to gather on campus.

Versus liberal groups that sue to prevent the events on grounds ranging from public safety, and inducing hate speech.

Trump plans some sort of executive action over the whole affair, waiting to see how that's supposed to work out beyond funding being cut to schools that don't let conservatives host events and groups.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
What exactly are you arguing for? Do you think deplatforming is a good idea?
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
In certain circumstances I feel its appropriate.

If the paltform is being used to harrass, intimidate, conspire criminal activities, or defraud people them there is justifiable reason for removing access of an offending party.

If you allow such activities to happen on your platform you open yourself up to liabilities along with being party to criminal acts as a facilitator.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Depends on what is defined as harassment and intimidation. People are loving the loose application of hyperbolic labels. Hate speech, for example, is an idiotic concept. Too often are such loosely applied labels used to justify acts of censorship. So no, unless someone is genuinely guilty of fraud or directly, explicitly calls for someone to be harmed or killed, deplatforming shouldn't happen. It is now merely a tool for liars to use to prevent their opponents being able to talk.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
The definition can always be fluid I suppose, but at some point along that scale it actually counts.  Judicious  evaluation of offensives and accusations are required and need to be impartial and consistent to establish terms of service.  When that consistency isn't maintained then a case of bias is valid.

I agree that the ever increasing lexicon of hate speech definitions is being used to target opposition, but while that does happen legitimate threats and abuse do occur and should be dealt with appropriately.

Individual infractions need to be judged in their own circumstances and resolved.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Legitimate threats to others in our societies is virtually nonexistent unless its a communist, a Muslim or someone from an extremist group. This deplatforming culture has nothing whatsoever to do with actual threats of violence. It is entirely aimed at censoring anyone who isn't a far left ideologue. It is also a standard completely unevenly applied, so if you want to talk about how much you hate men or white people, you get along just fine, even if you talk about wishing they would die or how much you want to hurt them. It is already against the law to directly call for violence, but that law isn't applied to protected groups. Honesty from this process, integrity, consistency, they're all absent.
CuriousFerret
CuriousFerret
5 years, 1 month ago
link
I can't do much about the cultural of deplatforming , and even if the average individual or group of people deserving of being deplatformed is as you suggest, then there is in fact cases that the censorship is warranted.

As for the lack of applying the law against calls for violence equitably, it doesn't negate the need for the law, just that better judges, police, and prosecutors are needed to enforce it faithfully.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Censorship is never warranted. Prosecution is warranted after someone directly calls for violence, but that should be explicitly defined and followed, yes. Nobody should be silenced, however, and no institution should be intimidated into not inviting a speaker they wished to invite, or at least the institution should have the balls to tell said whingers to bugger off. It is never sensible to introduce mechanisms into society that are so easily abused, to make it normal to censor and silence.
BritishColumbiaKitten
BritishColumbiaKitten
4 years, 1 month ago
link
Can't we all just agree the democracy is woefully unsuited for long term planning, and that Roarey is full of shit when he pretends to be superior by unilaterally condemning everybody while not actually contributing anything of value. Honestly, just say what you are; right wing lite with a twist of self importance.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
4 years, 1 month ago
link
YIFFGOD
YIFFGOD
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Well........I’m kinda lost here, but in simple terms your saying, nothing good can come from forcing your ideas and beliefs onto others?......right? That’s Philosophical >RAPE<
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
It's saying that good ideas can spread on their own merits, they don't require bullying people into accepting them. Honest people will openly and frankly discuss and air their views. No trickery, no coersion, no threats or censorship.
KamonTheSkunk
KamonTheSkunk
5 years, 1 month ago
link
For example, I don't mind or care if someone's religious or not, but I can't stand seeing religious people promoting their beliefs onto others on the streets or at big social gatherings. You can believe in whatever the hell you want to believe in, but don't you be preaching your beliefs or trying to convert other people, especially me.

And I guess they technically aren't forcing anyone to listen to them, but if someone is interested in religion, they shouldn't need convincing from other people. It's their choice, not that of the ones preaching.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
I'm happy to have a proper religious discussion with people, particularly Christians, since I'm very fond of the bible. If they're not trying to prevent me from speaking then I'm good. It can be very pleasant to discuss scripture, history, tradition and folk wisdom with people. I've had many lovely, long conversations about religion with religious folks. But yeah, I don't like being preached at by someone chanting unthinking, repetitive slogans. It's devoid of passion, of substance, and a dreadful bore.
FriedWire115
FriedWire115
5 years, 1 month ago
link
*cough* third wave feminism *cough*
KevinSnowpaw
KevinSnowpaw
5 years, 1 month ago
link
SHHHHHHH they might here you....
Lyserdigi
Lyserdigi
5 years, 1 month ago
link
"THEY" !?!?!?!?
DID YOU ASSUME THEIR FUCKING PRONOUNS ?!?!?
KevinSnowpaw
KevinSnowpaw
5 years, 1 month ago
link
oh shit! I DID and even WORSE I used THEY/THEM pronouns instead of Neo Pronouns! They might be a Zir!
Lyserdigi
Lyserdigi
5 years, 1 month ago
link
x3 ....
some people these days... i swear...
the level of pure insanity some people have and are proud about is astonishing.
KevinSnowpaw
KevinSnowpaw
5 years, 1 month ago
link
flat earthers and anti vaxxers man.
MarquisVulpes
MarquisVulpes
5 years, 1 month ago
link
I just watched Behind the Curve this weekend. Those types are…something. This is how Western Civilization dies =(
KevinSnowpaw
KevinSnowpaw
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
not seen that but yeah...the flat earthers I can at least smile at because.. as STUPID as it is meny of them ARE trying to apply science not all of them but meny are trying to PROVE the world is flat... that is at least an admirable application of the scientific method and i HOPE they will continue to be able to do so and wind up coming around...



but the anti vaxxers....thats just hopeless idiocy.
ScubaCat
ScubaCat
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Yeah art is meant to be used for feelings, experiences and modern issues, its hollow and pointless if its just made to get people off
TheRevengeX11
TheRevengeX11
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Political cartoons are not a new form of art.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
He didn't say they were lol.
JaredTheBunnyBoy
JaredTheBunnyBoy
5 years, 1 month ago
link
*cough* Communism *cough* Islam *cough*
SerathDuo
SerathDuo
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Abso-squeaking-lutely!
HqeZZkQQ
HqeZZkQQ
5 years, 1 month ago
link
we live in a society
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
And the sun rises in the east.
furblag84
furblag84
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Thank god someone on here isn’t an npc. 14/88, brüter and Ave.
kaleemmcintyre
kaleemmcintyre
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Which means, looking at history, there have been a lot of garbage strewn around in order to make the thing called culture actually work.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
It's true, bullshit has reigned many times over XP. Unfortunate that elements of our present society utterly fail to see the value in the progress of liberty and individualism.
kaleemmcintyre
kaleemmcintyre
5 years, 1 month ago
link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig3o3ZBcA9k&feature...

I really do think that's because we've been quietly conditioned to accepted such ideologies which pit people/groups against one another, and it's not until someone points it out and we reanalyze our way of thinking that we find that such ideas are fundamentally flawed.
kaleemmcintyre
kaleemmcintyre
5 years, 1 month ago
link
MarquisVulpes
MarquisVulpes
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Well, that's like asking the question, is it worth it? De-humanizing people to the point they get hurt or even killed? Betraying colleagues, friends, community members, family, etc…? Pulling all the punches, stooping to all possible lows, and dealing with the devil himself if that's what it really takes?

Every single one of us already knows the answer…YES!!! Because power is everything these types dreamed it would be. Ask any totalitarian, and they'll tell you the same thing.
saintgreene
saintgreene
5 years, 1 month ago
link
No, some ideas have no place in civilized society and are not worthy of being debated.  We established this over 70 years ago, when we hanged the people who advocated such ideas.

Having millions of people die for the sake of slow learners is not an option.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Who decides which ideas have no place? To assume that if a terrible idea is voiced, that it will gain traction and spread like a virus, is naive. They spread when you try to destroy them, because you don't openly defeat them in plain sight, you push the adherents underground where you can no longer see what they're doing. You also fortify the beliefs of people you oppress. No, ideas don't just up and make people die, a determination to stomp on dissent easily leads to it though. Ideas die when they're defeated honestly and openly by better ideas, or if you slaughter enough people. I know which option I'm choosing.
saintgreene
saintgreene
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
" RoareyRaccoon wrote:
Ideas die when they're defeated honestly and openly by better ideas,


What a shame that didn't happen in time to prevent millions of people from being murdered.

I'm sure if we just waited a few more decades and let them expand the genocide further your "better idea" would have won out.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
Yeah, and how did those ideas take hold? They were openly and honestly challenged in those societies where they grew? Fuck no. Violence, intimidation, mass censorship, book burnings, fucking concentration camps for political dissidents. Think you could openly criticise these regimes?

The societies that could criticise them didn't adopt those ideas, but instead fought against and crushed them.
saintgreene
saintgreene
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
" RoareyRaccoon wrote:
They were openly and honestly challenged in those societies where they grew? Fuck no. Violence, intimidation, mass censorship, book burnings, fucking concentration camps for political dissidents. Think you could openly criticise these regimes?


Yes, they were.  Do you think they went from 0 to genocide in a day?  They grew throughout the 1920s.  Even attempted a violent overthrow of the government.  But conservatives and people like you wrung your hands and insisted that they weren't really bad and didn't really mean their antisemitism and allowed them to continue growing, then allied with them.  

And as a result they were able to take power and engage in violence, intimidation, mass censorship, book burnings, and fucking concentration camps.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
People like me would approve of playing nice with violent regimes? Haha, you colossal cunt. Those nations did not have the laws in place to prevent government takeovers and the spread of nazism and communism were done so via violence in the streets, militant groups who would beat the living shit out of people who opposed them. They spread through violence, not discourse.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
First they came for the Nazis.

And i said: "Fuck yeah! Finally!"

"RE-PLACE-THEM!"

RE-PLACE-THEM!"
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Here's what you need to understand. When nazis are afraid of being nazis in public, hate crimes go down. When they walk proudly in the sunlight, hate crimes go up. The statistics prove that. Every march of theirs is a stake-out. They probe a community's defenses. Seeing how much they can get away with before they get their well-deserved foot up the ass. And debating them won't work. You can have the most knowledgeable, intelligent, quick-thinking individual demolish their biggest names in a debate, and their movement will be just as powerful. You made the mistake of thinking they care about truth. They don't. They want what all bullies want: To hurt those that are lower on the food-chain.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Everything you wrote there is entirely wrong XP.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
That's not a refutation unless you elaborate.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
That's not a refutation unless you elaborate.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
You don't deserve a refutation, because you have come here to insult me. I've already walked all over you as it is, demolishing your petulant whining further isn't necessary.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
If you want one that badly, though, you're not describing Nazis, for which there are virtually none in the west anymore. You're describing muslim jihadis and communists. Should they be censored, so they can't talk anywhere? I hate both groups, but I want them to have the same rights I have, I want them to be able to speak openly, so they can be ridiculed openly.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
No. I'm describing nazis. That's what nazis do. There are plenty of them in existance. Identity Europa, most of the cromagnons who came in support of the Unite the right rally etc. I can give give you a more complete list if you want.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
There are virtually none. With no power. They are a bogeyman for people like you to justify lording it over society and public discourse, thinking it is your basic anointed right that you are correct and your judgements on who ought to be able to speak are morally beyond question. Insult to injury, you're not mature enough to recognise your own evil.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
You know what's funny about this? You think that people like you are the reason nazis don't gain power, that your attitude, people on your side, are the bastion of protection, the vanguard defending society from fascists. In truth it is the public towards whom you feel superior. All those people you assume will permit nazi ideology if nazis are allowed to speak, they are the ones who think it's ridiculous and abhorrent. But if you keep stomping on people, you make them sympathetic figures, so the only influence today that the far right has, which is tiny BTW, is down to the way people like you behave. Violence fortifies people's beliefs, it doesn't make them stop and think "maybe I was wrong after all", it makes them burn with resentment and redoubled determination. You calling me a brat is a joke, learn your place. You're a naive child.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
And no, i don't give a shit about changing their beliefs. I want them to feel like the excrement that they are. When they're ashamed of being fascist in public, far less people get hurt. That is simply the truth of the matter.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Can't help but notice you've had to avoid confronting your own shortcomings. If you make people unable to speak in public they will go underground, as your links demonstrate. They prove MY point, not yours. You don't grant that the public itself will do the job of rubbishing far right ideas. The reason the Nazis gained power in Germany back in the day was because they initially represented law and order by fighting violent communists who were terrorising the public. To maintain and increase power and influence they violently oppressed dissenters. Ideas like this are maintained via violence, fear and censorship. Taking the example of the UK, during the period national socialism was rising, in Britain you could openly talk about it and about communism. Neither ideology was successful in taking over the country. You don't understand a single fucking thing about how the real world works. Gonna need a few more days to post more bullshit for me to rip to pieces? Good luck.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
If you look at how the splc defines hate groups, note that they also include black supremacists in that second link, whom are never seen as a threat by folks like you. But look at the actual numbers of supporters instead of their percentage increase. A group with 2 members that grows to 4 would be 100% growth, but it only means 4 people. The numbers of extremists of nazi and white supremacist ideology are still pathetically small, with no power whatsoever. The genuinely powerful far right, not so much in the USA at present but in Europe, are Islamic. Your pathetic ideological camp is pro-Islam. You view white racist fascist men as the real threat and it's pathetic. You just need an enemy to justify your dogshit censorious attitude, which you can't defend and don't even attempt to.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Something else hilarious, the hate groups in the USA, which is majority white, show there are almost double the number of hate groups composed of minorities compared to whites. So the majority of the population has half the number of hate groups that minorities have. That's an argument that white supremacy and nazis are a serious threat? Nope! It's evidence that minorities are more likely, twice as likely in fact, to be extremists. Does that mean I think minorities are dangerous? No, because the composition of hate groups is still a tiny number of people proportionally. You make mountains out of mole hills and it's laughable.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Them going underground IS A GOOD THING! Good for everyone who isn't them! Get that through through your thick fucking skull already!
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
You can't fight what you can't see. History is replete with movements that grew despite facing oppression and suppression from every quarter. You don't need to treat people like shit to defeat an idea, doing so doesn't work in any case, since treating people like shit doesn't change their minds or hearts, it makes them ever steadfast in their own convictions. The more people suffer and strive for any cause, the more they have to lose by admitting they are wrong. I'm not the one with a thick skull, I know how this works. You rely on sidestepping, on not addressing, the vast majority of all the points I make, only to come to me with a bullshit one liner and a claim I'm stupid. Weak. Every argument you make for censorship against those you disagree with is an argument for them to do the same to you. Your misguided weapons depend on the wielder, not the universality of a solidly applied principle. All it takes for you to fall victim to your own hubris is your enemy gaining use of the very tools you sanction to use against them.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Are you even paying attention? Did i not just say i'm not interested in changing their minds? Here's an idea: If someone breaks into your home, maybe you should just debate them. The fact that you called the police on them clearly means that you have no confidence in your ideas. I have no interest in debating scum who want to make the most vulnerable of us be made or kept as second-class citizens, enslaved or dead. And fuck you for suggeting otherwise, collaborator.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Your desire for changing their minds is irrelevant. Who cares if you want to or not? It is a question of the reality we are faced with. The reality is if you want to increase extremism, to make the overall problem worse, to make society worse for everyone in it, then start trying to crush people for their opinions. It doesn't make life improve, it makes the problem worse. And when extremists go underground they can't be easily observed, which means dealing with them gets harder. Your personal feelings towards people you want censored have nothing to do with anything about the practical reality of social issues. You make it all about you and your petty judgements. And again you have nothing to say in your defence beyond the same bullshit assertions that I've already refuted.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
Lol, sure you're not a troll? That poster is utter crap. Why? Because it assumes the ones refusing to be "tolerant of intolerance" are themselves moral exemplars uniquely positioned to pass such judgements. At the same time as advocating violence towards people for their opinions. There is NOTHING to suggest, nothing AT ALL, that you and people who think like you are qualified to be in charge of dictating what is and isn't acceptable to think and believe in. You are as bad as those you hate. Your ideas and beliefs do not make good societies. They make tyrannical societies.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
Furthermore, once the practice of censoring the "bad" people is in place, people like you start to increase the membership of "bad". The definitions and labels get looser, people who don't belong to such definitions find themselves trapped by them and silenced. It isn't people like Richard Spencer who end up as the exclusive recipients of censorship. Hell, he got promoted and given a platform by all the mainstream media. No, it is centrists, mild conservatives, classical liberals, people who aren't commie fuck bags. They are the ones who get deplatformed, labelled as nazis and bigots when they are nothing like that. And it's all excused by scum like you.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
It is a perfectly simple concept, only your hatred and prejudice clouds it. Liberty for all means liberty for you and me. We are completely opposed, we can't stand eachother, but we have our liberty to speak. Laws and politics follow culture, so a culture which decides freedom of speech is pointless will soon have that reflected in law. Like the UK for example, it doesn't legally or culturally reflect a respect for free expression. Brits don't have liberty. You advocate tearing it down because you assume it will only fight and hurt those you hate. In truth it fucks everybody, it depends entirely on who is in power in a particular place at a particular time. The only safeguard against such tyranny is to have a universally applied principle, one which upholds the ability to speak for us all, and not just in the law. This is as basic as basic gets, a philosophical no-brainer. Only the arrogance of self righteousness, the feeling one is anointed with righteous judgement, can cloud something so clear. You are an ideologue, a dogmatic adherent of tyrannical horseshit, drunk on the stench of your own moral flatulence. The only person here collaborating with tyranny is you, and it is right because you believe your ideology is the only source of valid moral opinions.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Yes, they are, actually. You know why? Because they oppose nazis. That is enough to make them good people. Certainly better than you, collaborator. Harrassed any liberal neighbours lately?
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Meaningless psychobabble. You might as well be a Branch Davidian.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Nope. I didn't even use any terms used by psychiatrists.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
I guess you're not equipped to handle metaphors. I was alluding to you talking nonsense. Even if I was literally calling you psychotic, do you think psychotic people use psychiatric terminology? Haha, you're more diluted than homeopathic medicine.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
No one is owed a platform, shitfuck.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Including you, so maybe because of your moronic opinions you shouldn't be able to talk anywhere? Or would that be wrong?
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
I have plenty of places i can talk. Deplatforming is not censorship, brat.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Edited 5 years, 1 month ago by Owner
Do you, or do you not, think that someone, anyone, has the right to decide that you do not deserve to speak anywhere? Deplatforming happens when a venue or institution invites a speaker, gets harassed by frightened freaks like yourself, caves and withdraws the invite. Then you retards come back with "you don't deserve to have a platform". Like the responsibility for not being able to speak lies with the potential speaker and not the sad cunts who screamed, threatened and caused whatever other shite to prevent the speech from taking place. You're all infants who never take any responsibility for anything you do and you think your opinions are unassailable while at the same time rejoicing every time those beliefs are saved from challenge. Get a life, you even got mad at this cartoon, this non-specific cartoon, because it describes what you are. A shit licking dullard.
Makroth
Makroth
5 years, 1 month ago
link
If you encourage violence against a disadvantaged group of people, you do not deserve a platform. And people can revoke your platform for whatever reason they see fit. You have a multitude of other avenues to spew your oral diahreea into. Start a blog. A discord server. A website. Open your window and shout it to the world. I'm oppresing you right now by not creating a website for you. Nobody ows you their platform, you spoiled brat.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Fool, it isn't a question of encouraging violence, it is a question of how one defines it. Explicit calls for murder are already illegal, though the law is not enforced against certain groups, like Muslims and communists for example. These tools of censorship are used to silence people who are accused of calling for violence, accused of being nazis. They don't and seldom ever are, people who fit the labels they are given. It is a shitshow of lies and you support it.
MaverickSkye
MaverickSkye
5 years, 1 month ago
link
It's been some time but I'm noticing a pattern in these comments that are extremely unproductive. What you said, I believe is absolutely a truth and I fully agree with you. Getting rid of one's platform is just plain cowardly, and honestly does not have a place in a modern society. Discussions, truth, and logic are the truest ways to advance.

That being said, hoo boy do people seem to love taking a non-partisan philosophy and just attacking people with it. Reminds me of the same bible thumpers that most people claim to hate.

The philosophy is good on its own and carries its own weight. But I find it silly when people see something like this and the first thing they do is start using it to attack others, I'm just not okay with that, it seems as though there's no real end goal to it except to just be nasty. Which fuels victim complexes and honestly sets the argument backwards in the end.

Just something I noticed and felt the need to point out.
AskertheSkunk
AskertheSkunk
5 years, 1 month ago
link
"Oh, no! Evil leftisits have established goverment censorship!"

Not it isn't. Just lefties use free speech to critiсizing stupid stereotypes in mass media.

Alt-right isn't about free speach it's about killing everyone who not white hetero man. Centrist don't care about people he just afraid of "radicals".
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
Did someone ring the bell for recess, there's a lot of lefty kids showing up all of a sudden. Who can't argue against the principle in the cartoon, know it applies to their horseshit, so start bleating clichéd red herrings and deflections like the world's most pathetic sheep.
AskertheSkunk
AskertheSkunk
5 years, 1 month ago
link
You just called me stupid schoolboy. Sorry, but this is not a adequate argument.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
5 years, 1 month ago
link
You haven't given an argument at all, or addressed what the image is about, so you don't get an argument from me. You behave like a child.
fouf
fouf
4 years, 11 months ago
link
So hypocritical, resorting to ad hominem.
RoareyRaccoon
RoareyRaccoon
4 years, 11 months ago
link
Ad hominem is focusing on the personal flaws of an opponent rather than the argument. Learn what terms mean.
smblion
smblion
4 years, 6 months ago
link
i just landed here, ig ota lite if you need
UnstableSable
UnstableSable
3 years, 2 months ago
link
Never stops being relevant, does it?
alphamule
alphamule
4 months, 3 weeks ago
link
LOL, we need gatekeepers for the gatekeepers.  The recent Fur Affinity implosion comes to mind.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top ↑
Log in or create an account to comment.
 

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.