Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Defending Deplorables
« older newer »
Life Doesn't Suck

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)
Yais.

Please consider supporting me on patreon, if you like my cartoony shit!
https://www.patreon.com/roareyraccoon

Or you can donate via paypal XP.
https://www.paypal.me/roareyraccoon

Keywords
male 1,109,123, fox 231,875, m/m 46,764, fanart 46,473, raccoon 33,931, cartoon 20,789, miles tails prower 14,020, vent art 669, rant 187, roarey raccoon 31
Details
Type: Sketch
Published: 6 years, 9 months ago
Rating: General

MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
1,207 views
68 favorites
48 comments

BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
Kyyanno
6 years, 9 months ago
Well said :3
TheChoate
6 years, 9 months ago
And Tails is just there, being cute as fuck.
Stratus
6 years, 9 months ago
It seems to be quite possible to brew a shitstorm while also making adorable art.
Circeus
6 years, 9 months ago
Illusory superiority at its best!
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
Nothing illusory about it, haha.
Stratus
6 years, 9 months ago
You see the issue with things like this is how can they be confirmed? If such a bias exists it would not be possible to detect, because wouldn't anyone be susceptible to this? Id dare say for all intensive purposes that this is pseudoscience on the grounds that it can not be proven or disproved by any human since you cant have a control variable.
Gobby
6 years, 9 months ago
"Intents and purposes," darling. As for how you can confirm that something like this exists in a person, all you need is a questionnaire, a test of some sort, and two people.

Have one person be the "control" and other person be the subject. Show the subject the test and then show the subject the control taking the test. Ask the subject if they think they'll do better or worse than the control. Have the subject take the test and compare their results to the control. If they said they'd do better than the control and they didn't they test positive. Boom. Science.
BrokenPupper
6 years, 9 months ago
Have.... have you done this before?
Gobby
6 years, 9 months ago
BOW BEFORE THE LORD OF SCIENCE
Stratus
6 years, 9 months ago
If you ran this proposed test 1000 times and got a near 50% positive rate would that prove or disprove the theory? Because this still sounds like circumstantial conditions that boil simply down to chance.
Gobby
6 years, 9 months ago
Nobody is talking about theories. We're talking about proving the existence of the superiority illusion in an individual through experimentation, which was your initial complaint. What about my experiment leaves anything up to chance?
Stratus
6 years, 9 months ago
External bias (choice of dress and appearance)
Active mood, precious experience in said skill, sleep previous night. You'd need a pretty specific group of people for a fair test which would undermind the core philosophy of said test. Just using a random group of people for a test leaves everything up to chance because either they don't know the test subject and are guessing their performance (chance) or they know the subject matter and performance is based on who is More skilled, which would again be left to guessing. From my experience at least people who think they know more are either too ill informed to know better, or genuinely know more and are confident in that knowledge. Is there a correlation between ignorance and arrogance? I'd say yes. But to say that could also be due to my own ignorance on the subject. What I'm saying overall is its a self defeating concept because the people claiming its real can't really prove that they themselves aren't suffering from it which would invalidate it.

I'm starting to get wrapped up in circular logic here so if you can clear that up I'd appreciate it.
Gobby
6 years, 9 months ago
All of those things can be controlled for or otherwise noted as variables. That's the point of doing research in the first place.
" ...either they don't know the test subject and are guessing their performance (chance)
This is not chance. Flipping a coin is chance. Guessing is making a decision on imperfect or incomplete knowledge.

" ..From my experience at least people who think they know more are either too ill informed to know better...
This is you acknowledging that the bias is real, by the way.

" ...or genuinely know more and are confident in that knowledge.
which is the opposite of what research says. It even says so in the Wikipedia article.

" What I'm saying overall is its a self defeating concept because the people claiming its real can't really prove that they themselves aren't suffering from it which would invalidate it.
This is a tu quoque fallacy. Smokers can know that smoking is bad for you, the insane can know that they're insane, and if you're laboring under the delusion that your abilities are better than your peers you can still know that the cognitive bias of superiority exists.
Stratus
6 years, 9 months ago
Suppose that all makes sense then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Stratus
6 years, 9 months ago
For the sake of discussion as my own personal knowledge on sociology is quite limited, how would the external variables be delt with anyways? Just a large enough sample size that they can be disregarded?
Circeus
6 years, 9 months ago
The point (as made by roarey) is that the lower someone's skill is, the higher the risk that they are overestimating it.
Stratus
6 years, 9 months ago
I'm not really looking at points so much as I am that the phenomena you showed doesent really sound like somthing that can be accurately proven due to its reliance on chance.
SomeStickyGoo
6 years, 9 months ago
Hehe yea tails face is simple and so cute looking!
Also I can agree but my communication skills are fucked so it doesn't matter really.  
BrokenPupper
6 years, 9 months ago
They can improve though.
mairusu
6 years, 9 months ago
*nods*
I like expressions they have
TheAtomicDog
6 years, 9 months ago
"Tone policing"?
Is this then the latest mutation of "political correctness"? I don't really follow all these pseudo-academic semantics.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
It essentially refers to criticising speech based on how someone says something rather than what they say. You could have worded it nicer!
TheAtomicDog
6 years, 9 months ago
So, instead of saying "JESUS, YOU GOT FAT!", one might go with "You know, all those donuts aren't your friend."
That kind of phraseology?
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
Yeah, a call for tact, basically. It's a shaming tactic to get people to modify their phrasing to be more palatable to the person calling for it or to undermine you in an alternative way because they can't refute your argument.
TheAtomicDog
6 years, 9 months ago
A call for tact is a "shaming tactic"? Really? Do you realize how much this rationale reads like textbook SJW-speak?
All the years I've said things and people told me to say it nicer, of course I rose to the challenge and did just that. It wasn't difficult. It's not censorship. it's common practice over in The Land of The Grown-Ups. Tact is a "shaming tactic" to get you to act and speak like an adult with an advanced education and as if you were raised in polite society? And this staple of civilization is now viewed as an attack on your position, to "undermine" it?
Mr. Stowes, if you cannot both express and defend any position with tact, civility and an informed, mature vocabulary, then what strength could such a position actually have?
Or perhaps, does the prospect of actually thinking about others fail to sufficiently entertain..?
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
Mr Stowes? Aaanyway, no, there is a difference between ones personal interactions aligning with basic manners and general voicing of opinions in vent art or rants on the internet. It is a tactic to get around having to address a point whilst still getting to attack their position. One has the option of not responding, ignoring an opinion on the internet. Why would someone voluntarily respond to a general opinion aimed at nobody specific on the grounds of enforcing politeness if not to manipulate the person they're responding to? What does it mean to think of others when stating ones own unvarnished views? To assume the fragility of ones audience, to assume they cannot handle reading how you feel? No, I don't think so buddy, that's utter shite. I assume adults will have the competence to be able to understand that people get angry sometimes and express that anger. Your base assumption is that you're correct in the meaning of what decency is, that offensive behaviour is a universal, when it isn't. If you can look at my content and decide I'm a child because I use harsh language, you're the one with a problem grasping basic psychology.
TheAtomicDog
6 years, 9 months ago
"Mr. Stowes"
Oh, fuck me! Well, that's what I get for trying to sneak in a journal post between running errands. Live and learn.
First off, it is society's failure that actual politeness has been sacrificed in the name of PC and all those who scream "I"M VICTIMIZED AND TRIGGERED BY ANYTHING THAT CHALLENGES ME!!!!" There is nothing at all polite about letting sociopathic crybabies set the tone by shouting down everyone else. They should've been sent home years ago.
"It is a tactic to get around having to address a point whilst still getting to attack their position"
No, it isn't. It's a demand to sit up and act and speak like an adult when discussing adult-level concerns. Delivery is important. The position cannot be recieved with respect if it is presented in an uncouth, vulgar and uncaring way. At least, not outside Trumpland.
"What does it mean to think of others when stating ones own unvarnished views?"
And why should unvarnished views be considered? If you do not wish to take the time to polish and fine-tune your argument so that indeed in cannot be assailed, why should anyone else listen to you? This isn't a belching contest. And if a person's "unvarnished views" are just talking points that have been spoon-fed and regurgitated on cue, even less has been lost.
"To assume the fragility of ones audience, to assume they cannot handle reading how you feel?"
To refer of someone's else's fragility, while defending a position based upon your own allergy to challenge, is delightful sanctimony.
"...that offensive behaviour is a universal, when it isn't."
Do you mean the definition of offensive behavior isn't universal, or perhaps constant? Because I assure you, offensive behavior as a general concept and practice is entirely universal AND a constant. But this issue is about civil discourse and politeness in an Anglo-Euro-American environment. Freedom of speech is not anarchy of same. There are rules, expectant upon one's age. And in political discourse, if all you can be is some ruffian with course opinions, then expect to be treated as such.
"If you can look at my content and decide I'm a child because I use harsh language, you're the one with a problem grasping basic psychology."
If you wish to behave in an uncouth manner (not remotely an exclusive childlike attitude), but then present a petulant response when someone tells you to act like you were raised right, going so far as to allege that a call for tact is an attack upon your very opinion, and not upon its presentation, then questions will naturally arise.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
Dude, your faux sophistication and gentleman roleplay is obnoxious. You don't get to tell people how to express themselves on the internet and I'm not going to listen to anyone who does. Anyone who doesn't like the way I say things can block me. Save your pretentious essays for someone who gives a shit.
TheAtomicDog
6 years, 9 months ago
So here we have someone who boasts not to care if people are offended by how he says things, getting offended by how someone says things. And then he stomps off in a huff, behaving like the child he insists he isn't.
"All too easy." -- Anakin Skywalker
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
Its to demonstrate a point, that you don't like it when someone takes issue with you how choose to talk. And yes, you cover everything you say in polite language bit the insults and patronising tripe are just as present and visible as they would be if you'd used colourful expletives. That's what makes you pretentious. The thing with me is I'm as well versed in language as you are, I speak plainly by choice, because plain speech is designed for all to understand. I know insults when I see them and I take it as an affront when someone doesn't have the balls to just get to the point.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
Incidentally, I have never boasted not to care how people talk to me, or not to care if people are offended by how I talk to them. My art and rants don't talk to anybody, they single nobody out. How people talk to me makes a big difference in how I treat them, however. Pompous snobs are to me as witnessing a cat take a steaming shit on my shoes. For all your supposed intelligence you fail to grasp a simple concept, that a general point expressed, however vulgar, is not a personal attack. Taking a general point as a personal attack and excusing oneself to speak in whatever insulting tone one wishes to the author of it is the sort of abusive crap I don't get involved with. If you insult me personally I will take it personally. If I am not extended the same basic courtesy I extend to others, which is to let people express any view they damn well please without any worry from me, then politeness is out the window.
TheAtomicDog
6 years, 9 months ago
"My art and rants don't talk to anybody, they single nobody out."
Wrong on both counts. All your submissions on this site talk to all your watchers, sometimes "linkers" if I may, and at times anyone brousing IB's front page. Nobody submits online art in a vacuum. Everything any of us ever submitted to any of these sites is automatically worldwide. And this submission right here singles out a very specific group of people: anyone who asks for tact. It singles them out, and attacks them as villainous.
"How people talk to me makes a big difference in how I treat them, however."
You and everybody else. And so you will be confronted by folks who will ask for tact should they be offended by what they consider an offensive presentation. That's not new at all; it's called society and polite company.
"Pompous snobs are to me as witnessing a cat take a steaming shit on my shoes."
And vulgar slobs are to me like someone who farts in an elevator and then laughs about it.
"For all your supposed intelligence you fail to grasp a simple concept, that a general point expressed, however vulgar, is not a personal attack."
It is a hallmark of all civilizations that vulgar declamations are offensive to those raised right. Your own definition or intention is not the point. You are now addressing a larger audience than just yourself or those who agree with you, and some considerations for propriety is natural and indeed built into the social construct. Your actual argument is secondary to the impression its presentation will make:
"All this refugee immigration has got me worried. Why are we doing this? How is this going to affect us long term?"
"FUKKIN IMMIGRANTS RUIN EVERYTHING!"
See the difference?
*All the personal attack stuff*
It is your allegation that a call for tact is a personal attack upon yourself and your opinion that started this match. A "shaming tactic" you called it. An absurd suggestion. I then challenged you rise to the call for tact and actually strive to make points without being vulgar, and you got your back up. And YOU are the one who's been cursing a blue streak at ME. You chose to defend course dialogue and declare a call for polite dialogue a personal attack, and I chose to rebuff such nonsense. Freedom does not mean protection; it means exposure. If your views cannot withstand exposure and examination, you're in trouble.
"If I am not extended the same basic courtesy I extend to others..."
Said the man who resents tact. You really are going to have to get better at this, you know.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
For the sake of my own sanity I'm not going to continue this shit. You'll never have to deal with the responses to your words that I get regularly and nobody gives a shit about anything you say, save me when you talk to me. You've done nothing but prove my point, that instead of talking to me about the points I make in cartoons or rants, you pull me up on my tone and construct an elitist little pedestal for yourself that I'm supposed to conform to or I'm 'uncouth'. I don't make brazen, idiotic statements in all caps in my work, so evidently the only thing you can do is strawman me and talk about how I use the english language. Fuck off ya stuck up twat. Get an audience, produce some work worth a fuck and then come talk to me about communicating. If all you can do is photograph dilapidated buildings and type like a victorian caricature of a cunt, you've got a long way to go mate.
TheAtomicDog
6 years, 9 months ago
I checked you gallery to make sure and yes, here it is: https://inkbunny.net/submissionview.php?id=1323130
You're one of those Trumpettes. All about being badassed and  punching back and how PC is dead and Fuck Your Feelings (tm). And yet, look just how easily you got triggered. How easily I whipped you into a frothing rage. Well, follow your leader and all that.
"For the sake of my own sanity I'm not going to continue this shit."
You do that. Your friends are waiting:
 https://i.stack.imgur.com/orvwj.gif
IBp
IBp
6 years, 9 months ago
" MrSOCKS wrote:
haha u mad?!?!? xDDDD GOT'EM!!!

Lel.

Anyway; wanted to bring up the fact that Roars has frequently said this is a result of his mental illness is why this stresses him out; but you can attribute it to his political thoughts if you want to continue to seem like a complete shitlord. You've done that quite beautifully so far.

RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
I've decided to unblock you so you can respond to this. Anyway, I started out saying people use calls for tact as a way of undermining someone's position without having to address their actual ideas. By boasting of how much you've wound me up and tried to undermine me by saying my language is childish, the only thing you've done is perfectly prove my point. Beneath the veneer of your supposedly superior language is the blatant (your word) fact of your hostility. There's nothing reasonable in your approach, its fucking with people in a different style, only when you do it its directed at an individual person with the goal of upsetting them as much as possible. I'm confrontational in style, honest and direct, but I don't single out individual people as targets, I don't name names or go on peoples galleries or social media to make them feel like shit. So I guess I should thank you, for displaying another form of bait I'll not rise to again. For all your supposed intelligence, education and erudition you're no different than any other garden variety troll. Proof that an expanded vocabulary cannot insulate one from talking utter shit, or change the reality of ones bitterness and spite. Personally, I don't think that's something to be proud of, but you do you.

You're perfectly happy to consume the porn I draw, only to speak to me with contempt and open disrespect. All I need to say to that is fuck yourself, lol.
FoxxyFluff
6 years, 9 months ago
All I can say cute art as usual Roarey.
furryfoot84
6 years, 9 months ago
I don't talk to nobody. So if I think they have problems with communication, I just say "fuck it"
Sangie
6 years, 9 months ago
Policing means to provide an organized civil force to protect and punish other civilians. When has anyone suggested that such a police force be brought up to police... tone?? Citation needed!

Now what we do need is for police to stop murdering innocent black civilians. That would be cool.
mgcopter
6 years, 9 months ago
Uh.. You draw sexy cartoon animals and I love your cutesy style.  But by talking about policing the tone, you're doing exactly that..  I don't like it.

There will always be idiots on the internet, they strive to get these kinds of reactions from us and I never expected it from you.  This type of passive aggressive subversion came across as very hypocritical to me.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
If I grant that I am policing tone in this image, then I must grant that to oppose something is to commit it. To point out that people will attack you based on your tone and that's an act of desperation is not policing other peoples' tone. It's drawing attention to a shitty behaviour. If you can't point to something bad without, by the very act of that criticism, being guilty of it, then the very concept of critique is dead. Following your own logic, you're also policing my tone and being hypocritical. It's a meaningless point.
mgcopter
6 years, 9 months ago
Yes!  Opposing something sometimes does require you to commit it.  Opposing gang members sometimes kill each other with guns.  Police officer opposing gang members will sometimes kill them with guns.  That doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with the methods used.  If I'm a hypocrite for saying you're behaving hypocritically, so be it.  I don't see it that way. I definitely don't relish saying these things to you, either, but  I can dislike that kind of behavior all I want.

I don't like the idea of you becoming another one of those artists who got so full of themselves that they feel like everything they say is gold, but this is how that starts.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
Opposing something only becomes the the thing it opposes when it does exactly the same thing. Criticism of an act is not the act itself, the act is the act. I'm not policing a persons tone by saying policing someone's tone is a copout, you actually need to show how it is and not use an example that has nothing to do with this issue, like shooting people. I didn't say you had to like what I say or draw, just that your analysis is wrong. People can accuse me of being the very sort of person I rail against but an accusation is not a fact unless it is backed up by evidence and in this case you've presented none.

BTW, I don't think everything I say is gold, that's an attitude people project on to me to denounce my character rather than argue with reason or logic. I'm not having a go at you, but all the same your claims have no substantive basis. Your liking or not liking my expressed views is fine either way, but I'll also point out that your opinion of my attitude won't change the way I decide to express myself. You can like or dislike my content at your leisure but I don't see any compulsion in this to modify my content in response. The only control you can have over my content is if you buy it.
mgcopter
6 years, 9 months ago
No substantive basis?  Scroll up!  The only evidence I'm using is the drawing you made above.  The way it comes across to me is using ad hominem as a defense against ad hominem.  

BTW   I always enjoyed your art and your rants are often spot on or at least entertaining. I didn't mean to insinuate you thought everything you said was gold, but a few of my other favorite artists in the past started using their page as a soapbox, banning and blocking anyone who dared to disagree, fostering a community of sycophants which inevitably leads to a bloated ego.  


 None of your other views bother me, hell, I usually agree with them or at least understand your reasons for them.  I don't have any issue with your attitude and I'm not one of those people who claim your attitude is shitty.  I don't have any commentary whatsoever on that, since this is the only time I've ever had a back-and-forth with you.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 9 months ago
No evidence. Show me HOW my image is policing tone. Don't just point at the picture. Ad hominem:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

There is no opponent I'm arguing with in the image, it's a general observation. The point of the observation is to say that to speak with knowledge and an informed opinion is to require experience. Everybody who has advised me, without me asking, does not regularly speak their minds to an audience, they lack the experience, the qualifications, to substantiate their claims and don't support them with evidence. It is taken as granted that they know better than I do, hence their advising/admonishing me. It is a widely used tactic to undermine someone online by focusing on how they word something instead of the point they're actually making, so I drew an observational cartoon about it. That's all. I'm not policing anybody because I'm not arguing with any person in the cartoon, I'm not having an exchange or debate. I'm not telling people to change how they use language or telling any individual how to communicate. Therefore this cartoon is not tone policing, it's criticising it.

If you see me going down the road of creating a community of sycophants and an echo chamber, feel free to let me know I'm doing that, but I request that also see evidence of it.
mgcopter
6 years, 9 months ago
" RoareyRaccoon wrote:

There is no opponent I'm arguing with in the image, it's a general observation. The point of the observation is to say that to speak with knowledge and an informed opinion is to require experience. Everybody who has advised me, without me asking, does not regularly speak their minds to an audience, they lack the experience, the qualifications, to substantiate their claims and don't support them with evidence. It is taken as granted that they know better than I do, hence their advising/admonishing me. It is a widely used tactic to undermine someone online by focusing on how they word something instead of the point they're actually making, so I drew an observational cartoon about it. That's all. I'm not policing anybody because I'm not arguing with any person in the cartoon, I'm not having an exchange or debate. I'm not telling people to change how they use language or telling any individual how to communicate. Therefore this cartoon is not tone policing, it's criticising it.


Well, that's fair.  I wasn't around to see that kind of stuff happening, my only exposure to this particular bit of nastiness is the image above.  Maybe I've been in the fanddm too long and I'm used to artists railing against individuals who hurt their feelings, because that was the first impression I got.

Whatever discussin I'm having is usually over at the point where they start trying to tell me I'm being too aggressive, so now that I understand what you were trying to say, I actually agree with it xD

 Perhaps you should look outside the fandom if you're seeking mature debate...?   You'll very rarely find it with furries, we're a sensitive bunch.
Masakados
6 years, 9 months ago
>be 6 year old
>playing this new playstation game i got
>its fun as fuck
>scream when i defeat the boss
>mom tells me to lower my voice because neighbors might be sleeping

WOOOOW ARE YOU TONE POLICING ME MOM? FUCK YOU IM A STRONKG KID WHO DON'T NEED NO PARENTS
LeatherJester
6 years, 7 months ago
ToP keK
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.