Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

« older newer »

UnstableSable's Gallery (522)

NPC Emotions

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)

1 of 5 next end

show original thumbnails

by UnstableSable

Gallery

+10

Bile Fascination

« prev 159 in pool next »

+10

Comics

« prev 271 in pool next »

Show 1 More Pool...

+10

Digital

« prev 515 in pool next »

Utterly lacking joy of their own, they seek to destroy it in others.

Keywords

male 1,184,875, tongue out 20,007, saliva 13,168, angry 8,386, sad 5,318, smirk 3,968, smug 3,475, anger 1,796, spit 1,610, licking lips 1,180, depression 1,070, depressed 539, npc 194, spitting 174, miserable 28

Details

Type: Comic

Published: 3 years, 10 months ago

Rating: General

MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]

Stats

60 views

5 favorites

15 comments

BBCode Tags Show [?]

15 Comments on this Submission

Leave a Comment...

moyomongoose

3 years, 10 months ago

link

They actually do have a saying that goes, "When all else fails, resort to violence".

alistair

3 years, 10 months ago

link

Evil Is Real, and It Is Manifest.

tierkind

3 years, 10 months ago

link

Yes, we saw it on January 6. in Washington...

UnstableSable

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ tierkind

Why yes, a single instance of right-wingers reacting in a mildly violent manner to four years of sustained leftist violence openly endorsed by the leftist media and politicians sure gave the hypocritical left a lot of fuel for their smugness and continuing to present the narrative that they're always the more virtuous side.

Bachri

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ UnstableSable

That gets a thumbs up in my book.

moyomongoose

3 years, 10 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 10 months ago by Owner

@ UnstableSable

That minoring on the major (ie, four years of riots), and majoring on the minor (ie, one capital building seige), reminds me of a drunk half passed out in an alley. Then a kid comes walking by eating a dip of vanilla ice cream.
The drunk tells the kid, "Hey, kid...You shouldn't be eating that vanilla ice cream. Did you know the vanilla extract they used in making that ice cream has traces of alcohol in it?"

tierkind

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ UnstableSable

Is there a difference between leftist violence and right-wing violence?
If you were a christian, you would know the answer:
Matthew 5, 21-27
https://www.esv.org/Matthew+5/

UnstableSable

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ tierkind

Oh look at that, the devil quoting scripture~ You probably think this is some massive "own" to find a single choice passage in the Bible denouncing murder to say that's why the side that's committed literally all the political murders in the past century and some change has the moral high ground. Way to trip on your own argument.

The answer is that right-wing violence is vastly less intense and less widespread by several orders of magnitude. In fact, leftists don't even get attacked by fellow leftists (Nazis and the KKK) often enough to be able to keep it in the news 24/7, which is why they keep making hoaxes of that happening as well as hoaxes about conservatives attacking them.

And because it is by its nature retaliatory in response to years of sustained leftist violence. Jesus also says this:
https://biblehub.com/luke/22-36.htm
Jesus says to be armed - implicitly, be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself when others attack you. Black Lives Matter and Antifa (and before them, Occupy Wall Street) have been attacking people regularly this whole time, openly endorsed by big politicians and the journalist industrial complex, and the first time literally any right-wingers push back a little at the correct target you lose your shit and run around in a blind panic.

tierkind

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ UnstableSable

"	SirNathan wrote:
	And because it is by its nature retaliatory in response to years of sustained leftist violence. Jesus also says this: https://biblehub.com/luke/22-36.htm Jesus says to be armed - implicitly, be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself when others attack you.

Really?
https://biblehub.com/matthew/26-52.htm

UnstableSable

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ tierkind

"Those who live by the sword" are those whose first response, rather than last, is to lash out with violence; it doesn't refer to everyone willing to commit violence regardless of context. Jesus was clearly telling Peter that fighting the priest's servants in that time and place was incorrect because Jesus needed to be taken in by the authorities and killed unjustly that His mission on earth of dying and rising from the dead could be accomplished. Jesus didn't tell Roman soldiers who were interested in becoming His disciples to defect from the army and never fight.

I could give you numerous verses, with or without context, from Jesus, from the Apostles, from the Old Testament, or from the early doctors of the Church saying that violence is sometimes necessary and even required. To which you'd stop your ears, continue calling me a hypocrite, and bring up another verse you don't believe in yourself to try to prove your point.

And again, you're trying to say that justified violence out of conservatives is categorically wrong, but unjustified mass violence out of the left isn't wrong.

tierkind

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ UnstableSable

"	SirNathan wrote:
	To which you'd stop your ears, continue calling me a hypocrite, and bring up another verse you don't believe in yourself to try to prove your point.

I have not called you anything. But maybe I used to read the Sermon on the Mount too often.

"	And again, you're trying to say that justified violence out of conservatives is categorically wrong, but unjustified mass violence out of the left isn't wrong.

Why the differentiation in justified/unjustified? It sounds like "I am always right and they are always wrong."
And "mass violence": I don't know the situation in the US, but reading the Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution in my country shows 925 cases of violence from the far right, 297 from the far left (year 2019).
Back to my question: according to the words of the criminal code (again: my country) there is no difference. Self-defense is allowed if it is proportionate.

UnstableSable

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ tierkind

If you're not even from the US why are you so fixated on the "far right January Sixth attack" in the US as literally your only actual case?

In what way is it at all relevant to the actual substance of my comic - pointing out the hollow, self-serving smugness of spiteful leftists?

What country do you even live in, and how do they define the difference between the "far right" and "far left"? In the United States, the country you were talking about in the first place with your smug "What about January 6th" comment, has had a continued history of well over a century of ALL violent extremists being political leftists with at best ARGUABLY this one recent incident in January as an exception.

And yes, proportionate self-defense is allowed. That's been part of my point the entire time, not that you care.

tierkind

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ UnstableSable

"	SirNathan wrote:
	In the United States, the country you were talking about in the first place with your smug "What about January 6th" comment, has had a continued history of well over a century of ALL violent extremists being political leftists with at best ARGUABLY this one recent incident in January as an exception.

Yes, the list is long:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_S...
But exception? What about Oklahoma City? Or in the last years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shoo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings

UnstableSable

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ tierkind

A better answer:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/how_th...

The leftist-controlled journalism industry has a vested interest in painting conservatives in a negative light while downplaying the widespread left-wing terror attacks, and thus:
- Calls people who commit terror acts and aren't openly affiliated with either a leftist organization (Black Lives Mater, Antifa, Black Panthers, the KKK) or with a Muslim terrorist organization (Al Qaeda, ISIS) a "right wing extremist"
- Also calls people who ARE affiliated with those groups "lone wolves" even when they openly state their motives and intentions
- Calls pagans and Marxists "right wing" if they are lone wolves who commit an act of terrorism, such as the Oklahoma City Bomber
- Conveniently redefines all anarchists as "right wing" no matter what their policies and views are because "they oppose government"

Foreign enemies of the United States whose attacks aren't founded on American internal politics don't count either way; they're not part of the American Right or the American Left if they're not even American.

Boogaloo Killing? You mean the killing done by a leftist is...supposed to count as someone right wing?

Of course we all know you've not been arguing in good faith, moving the goalposts. Let's look at a few:

"	Yes, we saw it on January 6. in Washington...

At hominem tu quoque; "you do it too", you find some random comic about the left's constant appeals to emotions, especially negative ones like anger, and bring up an unrelated event to accuse conservatives of doing the same. Even if they did behave the same way, that'd be irrelevant to the substance of this comic and I see little reason why you'd want to bring it up.

"	I have not called you anything.

This is at best horrendously misleading and disingenuous. The whataboutism in your first comment and continued insistence on pointing at out of context Bible quotes has shown you very seriously mean to imply that I'm a hypocrite; you can't get away with straight-faced saying "I have not called you anything" just because your comment didn't say the words "You are a hypocrite because..." first.

"	But maybe I used to read the Sermon on the Mount too often.

Appeal to authority. Saying that because you've read the Bible that means you are correct in how you interpret it and I or others should believe you over me because you've read the text in question.

So yeah, your first comment was an ad-hominem and a non-sequitur, and you've shown yourself time and again not to be arguing in good faith.

tierkind

3 years, 10 months ago

link

@ UnstableSable

What is/do you mean with "good faith"?

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.