The most appalling rage comic ever?
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.
From Reddit.
Found via the always awesome ShitRedditSays.
Posted on October 24, 2011, in douchebaggery, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, precious bodily fluids, rapey, reddit, that's not funny!. Bookmark the permalink. 272 Comments.
One thing my ex-wife suffered from…
During the invasion of Iraq she frequently had the indecency to be Palestinian (i.e. rag-head, sand n&&&&r) during the Two
MinutesTerms of Hate.But Simon can totally understand how her coworkers felt justified to call her those things.
Okay, here’s two!
1. Queer relationships happen between two people who are capable of informed consent-adult humans. Bestiality relationships do not. (Side note: it’s kind of horribly insulting to compare humans to nonhuman animals in this way.) Therefore as long as we maintain the ethical standard of informed consent, the way to bestiality is not at all open.
2. If you want bestiality to be illegal, outlaw bestiality. And stand firm on that position. No reason to go against completely other things just because they might lead to the thing you don’t want. That’s like outlawing Tylenol because you’re opposed to heroin use-what you need to do is outlaw heroin! (Side note: and it’s usually a dirty lie from people who are bigoted against Tylenol but think they can’t sell that one to the public.)
@ Simon - That is a (really boring and obvious) trick question. It is not possible to have consensual sex with an animal.
Addendum since Simon is determined to be as stupid as possible in his pursuit of this whole “you must prove that homesexuality is OK” thing - it is not possible for a human to have consensual sex with a non-human animal. What non-human creatures do among themselves, sexually speaking, is none of our business.
Also, Simon, one thing you’re right about - you really shouldn’t use analogies, because you’re not very good at it.
Also: some of the “slippery slope” consequences are things that really don’t bother me. If someone wants to be in a relationship with an inanimate object, that’s kind of silly in my view, but I don’t see the harm, and maybe they really see something in that spatula that I don’t.
Polygamy is something I wish we could have, but I understand the legal situation is messier than with gay marriage-do insurers have to cover multiple spouses? can three or four people file taxes jointly? what happens if a healthcare decision has to be made for an incapacitated person and their spouses disagree?-so I’m sort of resigned to the fact that it probably won’t happen. Still, I hate to see it thrown out on grounds of knee-jerk ickiness.
Incest is the one I’m not sure about. I don’t know if it’s possible for a relationship between two people who grew up together to be free of troubling power dynamics, and to what degree “troubling power dynamics” should be a legislative issue. (If they didn’t grow up together, I have no problem with it; if people with genetic diseases can get married, then two people with similar genetics shouldn’t be banned.) But again, these are thoughts relating to the specific situation, not to general “ickiness.”
The general idea that “if we allow one abnormal thing, we’ll have to deal with all the abnormal things, and that’s icky!” is… well, it’s simple-minded, to say the least.
I wonder, Simon, if you really understand what consent means. What you’ve said here about consensual sex with non-human animals, as well as comments you’ve left elsewhere about consent just being some sort of comforting illusion, make me doubt it.
@CassandraSays:
Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other. Now you can argue that this applies to under-18-youths as well (ok, if they have sex with each other, but not with adults of a certain age), but honestly, I don’t think an animal can suffer from the manipulation by an adult as a young girl or boy could.
btw, this is the article by Peter Singer.
@Holly Pervocracy:
I don’t want it to be outlawed.
You are judging this way of arguing too harshly. I am just asking questions™, if somebody says “Marijuana should be banned because it’s addictive and dangerous for your health” then I can ask “Do you want alcohol to be banned, too?” and if he says “No” then I found an inconsistency in his reasoning, because his argument could be applied to alcohol as well but he doesn’t want to do this for some reason. There’s nothing bigoted in that. I just want to show that you (1) have the choice to either treat even the really icky things like incest equally in all respects (not just not punishable), or (2) most of your arguments like “what’s wrong with it?”, “it doesn’t harm anybody” are too simple.
Good luck in convincing others of your ideology, if you take option (1), because if you look at stories like this, where even I would say “Yes, it was just icky, but, oh God, don’t punish that… and especially leave this poor girl and her mother alone.”, you won’t have the majority of people not on your side.
It’s just shows imho how ridiculous it is, that you feel the constant need to cuddle with the mainstream and “common sense” (which is the reason for existence of this site) who are in reality not on your side.
You think I am bigoted and try to hide it, no, I am honestly confused, really.
“Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other. ”
No, they cannot. Singer is wrong.
Whenever people start babbling about zoophilia I always think of a particular little trail of internet crumbs I followed one day that led me to the discovery that there are some zoophiles who want to fuck sharks. Which is just about the best case of the Darwin Awards I’ve ever heard of. Please, creepy perverts who want to fuck animals, go ahead and put the moves on a Great White. I’ll bring the popcorn.
oh damn, we need a preview feature
one quotation mark forgotten and that’s the result…
And again:
@CassandraSays:
Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other. Now you can argue that this applies to under-18-youths as well (ok, if they have sex with each other, but not with adults of a certain age), but honestly, I don’t think an animal can suffer from the manipulation by an adult as a young girl or boy could.
btw, this is the article by Peter Singer.
@Holly Pervocracy:
I don’t want it to be outlawed.
You are judging this way of arguing too harshly. I am just asking questions™, if somebody says “Marijuana should be banned because it’s addictive and dangerous for your health” then I can ask “Do you want alcohol to be banned, too?” and if he says “No” then I found an inconsistency in his reasoning, because his argument could be applied to alcohol as well but he doesn’t want to do this for some reason. There’s nothing bigoted in that. I just want to show that you (1) have the choice to either treat even the really icky things like incest equally in all respects (not just not punishable), or (2) most of your arguments like “what’s wrong with it?”, “it doesn’t harm anybody” are too simple.
Good luck in convincing others of your ideology, if you take option (1), because if you look at stories like this, where even I would say “Yes, it was just icky, but, oh God, don’t punish that… and especially leave this poor girl and her mother alone.”, you won’t have the majority of people not on your side. It’s just shows imho how ridiculous it is, that you feel the constant need to cuddle with the mainstream and “common sense” (which is the reason for existence of this site) who are in reality not on your side.
You think I am bigoted and try to hide it, no, I am honestly confused, really.
Also, it amuses me that Simon is so fixated on the issue of whether or not animals can consent to sex with people. Again, it’s quite clear that he doesn’t understand how consent works, or why it is that most societies legally bar adults from having sex with children.
Actually, any time he writes anything about sex I shudder, if we’re being honest.
Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other.
No. No they cannot. A boy dog and a girl dog can communicate with each other as equals, more or less. A person and a dog cannot communicate; the dog doesn’t know that the human intends to have sex, can’t communicate clearly with a human, and doesn’t understand what sex means to a human.
if somebody says “Marijuana should be banned because it’s addictive and dangerous for your health” then I can ask “Do you want alcohol to be banned, too?” and if he says “No” then I found an inconsistency in his reasoning, because his argument could be applied to alcohol as well but he doesn’t want to do this for some reason.
No, they’re different substances. They’re not exactly the same amount addictive and dangerous. I know you’re SIMPLE, but for fuck’s sake, believing one thing doesn’t mean you have to believe all the other things, or however this is supposed to work.
Also, can we stop with the analogies? Arguing about whether it’s okay if a fish fucks a walrus, or whatever, has really little bearing on whether it’s okay if two consenting adult humans fuck.
It is.
End of story.
Every time Simon posts, this is what I hear in my head: “Shut the fuck up, Donny, you’re out of your element.”
Is ‘animals cannot give consent, therefore it is morally wrong to have sex with them’ really such a difficult argument to comprehend? Really?
Is ‘if a person does not or cannot give consent, it is legally and morally wrong to have sex with them?’
@Holly Pervocracy:
Ok, nice explanation, very creative… maybe we then should also kill animals for food, but ok, I accept this explanation.
Well then, siblings, take siblings. What’s wrong with that, I mean, consensual sex. I don’t think there should be a law against it, sure. Ok, we have this genetic thing, but then we could also enforce other eugenics laws, and we don’t want that, so I would say there is no consistent reason to ban it. But to have some sympathy for people that don’t want to annoyed by this behavior? Is that bad?
@katz:
My dear katz, here we have another one of your tasteless comments, you just can’t stop it, can you? Though it’s not as bad as when you said that I masturbate while looking at my sister. Katz, I don’t get an erection just because a girl in a dress is standing next to me… do you?
Well, if you don’t want to be “annoyed” by how other people have sex that doesn’t involve you at all, maybe you should leave their bedroom.
If gay people are having sex in your bedroom, I understand your point completely and I agree that’s very rude of them.
Holly, don’t play dumb.
So our hypothetical siblings are having sex in public, in front of other people? Because otherwise I’m not sure how they’re “annoying” people. I know English is not your first language, but if you’re going to insist on arguing theoretical points in English you’re going to have to use it more clearly.
Also, once again your analogy sucks. So even if the language was more precise, the logic would still be a huge mess.
Unlike yourself?
I’m playing smart.
You’re trying to say something, Simon. FUCKING SAY IT.
Don’t dancy-dance around with tricksy little “well, what if the fish wants to have sex with the walrus’s aunt, what then?” hypotheticals. Real questions are ones where you’re interested in the answer, and I don’t think you’re asking real questions. You’re asking rhetorical questions intended to probe towards some sort of point.
Just say that goddamn point.
And if you’re embarrassed to, or think it won’t be well received, maybe that should tell you something.
It’s mean of you to be so much smarter than Simon, Holly, and even meaner not to let him weasel out of whatever point he’s actually trying to make. Tsk tsk, people on this site are so cruel.
(Also, anyone want to start guessing which OMG shocking but nothing to do with homosexuality kind of sex Simon will try to use as an analogy next? I’m thinking necrophilia.)
I have nothing of value to add to this discussion, but it is amusing to watch SImon’s posts gradually transition confused-emotionally-damaged-might-actually-want-to-learn-something troll to the blatantly homophobic and insulting type.
And yet even when he can directly insult people, he still can’t come out and attempt exactly what he’s weaseling around saying.
@CassandraSays:
No, my hypothetical siblings would demand nice and equal treatment, want to be seen as a normal couple, they don’t want to be excluded and so on. That’s what I meant. They want to kiss themselves in public like a normal couple would do, if people are shocked by that, because they know, they are closely related, they are just bigots!
So either you accept all that, or the argument “they are not harming anybody and so we should accept all that” is wrong and we have to look for another explanation.
While I’m not 100% sure how random strangers know they’re brother and sister, I’m okay with this. (I also don’t see what this has to do with gay people, unless they’re brother and brother, or sister and sister.)
If you’re really just asking questions, then the answer is yes, I’m comfortable with this.
If our siblings are adults I don’t really care either. As Holly said, though, this has nothing much to do with homosexuality, just like all of Simon’s other analogies.
He really sucks at this debating thing, doesn’t he?
No it’s ok, I don’t think I suck at this debating thing, because I have you now there, where I want you, it’s surely a defensible opinion you both have, but you are now at the point where you would loose your mainstream support massively… you have admitted that from your arguments follows this conclusion: “It’s nothing less than bigotry to have sympathy with people who are disgusted by an incest couple kissing in public.”
Yuengling all over the keyboard, right there.
We aren’t actually talking about incest, though. I do differ from the mainstream on incest, and that doesn’t bother me, but this isn’t about incest. It’s about gay people.
BEING GAY IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING INCESTUOUS. There. I put it in big letters so maybe you can understand that some things are different from other things.
I may differ from the “mainstream” on gay people too (although it’s coming around), but that’s just because there are a lot of bigots in the mainstream.
You have nothing at all, Simon, other than some serious psychological and emotional problems. Please get help before you hurt someone.
Well, the incest taboo comes from a different anthropological place than the homosexuality taboo, I’d say, but beyond that, I don’t think you have anybody where you want them. You keep saying you don’t want these things to be illegal, so why is anybody’s opinion on what the proper/moral response to them should be, or who we should have sympathy for a big issue for you? Society changes. Norms change. My “sympathy” for people who don’t agree with my position on things can be high or low, and I really don’t see what your particular point even is.
@Holly Pervocracy:
It’s not the same, you are right. But the arguments to attack what I said about homosexuality as bigotry can be applied to incest as well. That’s the similarity.
Actually, not really. The incest taboo is based around concerns about potential genetic abnormalities in offspring and potential exploitation of power relationships between family members. Neither of those things are concerns that apply to gay couples.
Simon, you seem to be arguing that if you’re biased against one thing you have to be biased against everything or you’re a hypocrite. (And therefore, we should be bigoted against gay people, or at least have “sympathy” for people who are, as if that was somehow different from being bigoted yourself.)
…what can I say? That’s so wrong it’s really not worth much more argument.
Simon: In the whole thread I never said that homosexuals shouldn’t be a couple.
No, you just said they can’t be a couple in public.
That is worse. Justice delayed is worse than justice denied, because when one delays it (e.g., “all reasonable speed”) one knows they deserve justice, but one keeps if from them anyhow, because it pleases you to maintain they status quo; even when you know it hurts people.
It’s not the same, absolutely not. Yet if we look closely at zoophilia and take your way of arguing, it’s not something bad. At least not always, there can be consensual interspecies sex.
What
The
Fuck?
Did you just say that an animal can consent to sex with a person?
I mean, ok, it’s possible for a donkey to cover a mare (thought it’s more likely for a stallion to cover a jenny), but unless you can tell me that a dog/cow/pony/box turtle came on to you… there is no fucking consent unless you are Dr. Fuckin’ Doolittle.
And you ain’t.
And here is the answer: B: There is no justification for the whole concept of “deviancy” of consensual acts. So long as both parties are actually able to give informed consent.
I’ve no idea, I didn’t come up with this word, it was Cassandra. I have no definition for it.</i?
What
The
Fuck?
If you don't have a definition for it then it can't be answered. Really, if you don't have a definition for it how can you know what is meant when someone says "yes" to your question?
And with this “cunning” stratagem fully revealed, Simon has shown that from the very start of this conversation, he has not even been trying to debate honestly. I’m so very shocked.
Can we please stop talking about beastiality =P
Also, thinking back, this little detour into theoretical discussions of incest is kind of funny given the stuff he was saying about his sister earlier. Think maybe all this is because he’s mad at us for pointing out that his obsession with women maybe being attracted to her is a little weird?
You do realise that people die from sexing animals? That’s one of the reasons why it’s a bad thing.
Simon: I don’t want it to be outlawed.
So… you have less of a problem with bestiality than you do with homosexuality (unless you are saying people who like to fuck their dogs can’t be non-sexually affectionate with them in public).
Got it.
Homosexuals… icky, and to be suppressed.
Animal fuckers… perfectly ok in polite society.
You are judging this way of arguing too harshly. I am just asking questions
We are not.
If you don’t believe what you are arguing, and merely doing for the sake of argument… join a debate club.
If you do believe it (and I think you do, the tenor and tone of your, “just questions” have a consistency to them), then own your fucking words.
Simon: Incest, at the consent level, is not at all different from any other sexuality.
If the couple involved is adult, and the relationship started when the were old enough to understand what they were doing, I don’t have a moral problem with it.
If it squicks me, that’s my problem.
Same for homosexual couples, interracial couples, huge age differences, etc.
What consenting adults do, isn’t my business.
Oh shit, vets and pet store workers are screwed! ;D
Truly morals and decency are lost in this modern world. Incest and bestiality! And then when you have a problem with it people call you a “bigot”!
I mean, I saw this litter of puppies one time, all rolling around in public and licking each others’ faces, bunch of fucking fuzzy perverts. And yet when I wade in and start punting them away from each other suddenly I’m the asshole? Damn liberal animal cops!
;D
” At some point, that’s just logical, it might be so strong that it can be difficult to control. That’s the most simple, obvious reasoning possible.”
Well tinkle me pink! Why didn’t you say! Rape away lad. No one’s stopping you. Except maybe the law…
Whoops! Wrong post lol!
Yeeeeah Simon’s mind goes to incest and bestiality suspiciously fast. Also, Simon was the one who didn’t want to share a cab with a girl for fear of getting an erection, wasn’t he?
Bagelsan: “But you screw one goat…”
Katz: No, that was Samuel. They’re similarly creepy, though.
Dammit, I was sure I recognized the self-flagellating tone and fear of sex! OK, Simon, I apologize for the erection comment. The comments about your sister still stand, though.
@Dracula:
Quotes please!
@Pecunium:
Homosexuals shouldn’t be suppressed by the law. Homosexuality should of course never, never, never, never be punishable! It’s absolutely no crime and nothing is wrong with it.
And this is very different when I said that because in our culture monogamous heterosexuality is the most common thing, homosexuality is less common, polyamorous relationships are less common, incest is something most people find really weird and only a few do it, and so on, that there are arrangements where people who are in a group which is less common have to adapt themselves.
” people who are in a group which is less common have to adapt themselves.”
Notice that he never explained why minorities “have to adapt themselves”, we’re just supposed to agree that of course this is the case.
You want me to quote the entire conversation up to this point? Scroll up and read it yourself, it’s right there.
I don’t want to oppress homosexuals by law! I just want them to go hide in their caves like Morlocks, so that the sight of them doesn’t offend nice simple people.
Simon: Homosexuals shouldn’t be suppressed by the law. Homosexuality should of course never, never, never, never be punishable! It’s absolutely no crime and nothing is wrong with it.
Except that they ought not go to proms.
Or kiss in public.
Or get married.
Or be treated as non-deviants.
But people who fuck animals… they can go out in public, be seen with their pets, be affectionate to their pets, take them to shows with people who aren’t “deviants”.
You think this is fair, and fitting, and just, and reasonable, and not the least bit bigoted.
Just like Jim Crow, which, in our culture was the norm, and blacks were not allowed to do things like drink, piss, or eat, in the same place as whites.
Simon’s obsession with incest is making me case a side eye at his earlier sister obsession.
Okay, low blow, but he’s being seriously assholish and creepy right now.
I can’t even keep these threads separate anymore. Simon’s bigotry just seeps into all of them.
Off topic (unless you’re Simon), and maybe not everyone’s kind of humour, but did anyone see the episode of “Rake” called “R vs Chandler”? Where he had to defend a couple charged with having sex with their dog. His strategy was to wear down the jury by going through the couple’s home video of the act frame by frame, for hours, till they were desensitised. And asking the animal expert “at what point would you say Rover became distressed? Here, where he’s wagging his tail ….” and so on, frame by frame.
Again, disconnected from the discussion, but I think this is something that has it’s place here… especially in the kind of discussions we usually find ourselves into.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/feministe-blog/~3/JFyXlJewiJc/
Way upthread, but about that “shooting king”-thing, here in deep catholic westphalia, Germany, we had a gay Schützenkönig this year.
His whole club and many more rallied for him to be able to bring his partner to the national thingy (sorry, not my sphere, so no exacting lingo), and then, against their own (very conservative by definition, as all these clubs are) members’ will, the head conservative desided that the king’s partner would not be allowed to walk beside him, like a queen would have, but had to walk behind him (like a queen in real live most probably had to, through most of history). But at least he was allowed to take part. That that is worth a celebration just goes to tell you how backwards those Schützenvereine are… So, even in that part Simon is not exactly right, little as it matters.
@Tahia: COOL!
Also, LGBT homecoming kings and queens in the US (homecoming is HUGE football ritual schtick)
http://www.registerstar.com/articles/2010/06/10/news/doc4c105eba35282075803995.txt
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/09/gay-students-crowned-prom-king-and-queen-at-school-that-blocked-gay-prom-queen-just-two-year-ago
http://www.afterellen.com/node/4126
http://www.queerty.com/columbia-colleges-first-homecoming-king-queen-are-both-gay-dudes-20110411/
@Simon,
Sadly, you are still wrong. Luckily, someone drew you a picture to help you.
redlocker:
It strikes me that ostentatious apologies, complete with theatrically beating yourself up over your lapses, is a form of tone trolling. Especially if you misidentify those lapses.
Simon:
What are your counterarguments, other than attributing it to Pinker and saying “it’s ridiculous”?
Simon:
The rebuttal is “as long as we’re talking about consenting adults, everything should be allowed.” Presumably you’ve read that before, so why is it not a “good” rebuttal?
Simon!
Katz hasn’t gone on and on about how women give him these horrible urges.
Simon!!
So what about the belief that those two girls committing absolutely no crime and doing nothing wrong shouldn’t be allowed to attend prom is deserving of sympathy?