Why u mad?
Why u mad?
100 comments
-
-
People have a sense of tiny comfort. One of which is not to have to think about death even for the deserving. They will, at the same as being offended by this, will support the death penalty, feel justified in invading random nations, and help defund social services. But that's never felt as confronting death. That's all in making sure their small comforts stay stable.
-
While I think the shirt is funny and should be worn proudly, I can see how someone might be offended for non-racist reasons. Some people might simply find the depiction of death to be offensive.
That said, it's entirely possible the offended person was a raging racist.
Edit:
This edit is for those of you who are saying that people shouldn't be offended by violence since it's on TV. I think you're missing the fact that the point entirely.
The fact that a depiction of violence is making a valid point doesn't make it less offensive. In fact, that would detract from the message. Sometimes it is important to make a statement using depictions of violence to get a point across because the violence is offensive.
That said, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to find this shirt objectionable for non-racist reasons. For example, many people prefer not to expose their kids to depictions of violence. I think it's this person's right to wear the shirt to make their point but the consequence of wearing it is that some people may say that they find it offensive for both non-racist and racist reasons.
-
I think that walking on eggshells to avoid people's delicate sensibilities took us down a dark path that is hard to walk back.
Certainly, we should be sensitive to some things. And though I'm making up the following out of thin air... If I were told I offended a Furry for using the phrase "dirty rat," I would not be surprised.
-
Anyone who doesn't feel some level of Schadenfreude at that image, is with the MAGAs, at least subconsciously.
Even if the depiction of death bothers you, the proper response is "I don't like it, but I get it."
-
Some people might simply find the depiction of death to be offensive.
Gee I wonder what those people do with their day since they can't watch TV.
-
it's different when you're expecting it though. A random tee in the middle of the street is about as unexpected as you can get.
-
Plenty of shows out there that don't contain graphic violence. Also, plenty of ways to fill a day that don't include watching media.
-
-
I'm gonna go ahead assume they were a racist and admit it's entirely possible they're offended by the depiction of death/crime/vigilantism generally
-
Finding depiction of death being offensive when nearly all media mediums show death in one way or another such a soviet, TV shows, and music is ironic.
-
Entirely probable
-
-
"To whom?" That's the only offensive thing I see in this post.
-
FWIW, I support the message on display here. Intolerance for intolerance, karma, and all that.
Things at the workplace get prickly, and not always for the right reasons.
In the case of depictions of violence, it's deeper than the actions of the individual. Looking the other way only pulls management in, making them complicit. This opens the company up to a lawsuit, under some bullshit argument along the lines of "promoting a violent workplace" or some crap like that. Doesn't matter if it can be argued down in court, a lot of places would probably settle just to keep it out of the news.
Also, lets say none of that comes to pass. It also opens the door for right-wingers to go their way with this stuff. I'm talking way more hardcore than Punisher skulls.
-
You're right about the promotion of a violent workplace. As for the rest...
-
-
I need that shirt.
-
This brakes my brain for some reason. If a KKK member was lynched, I wouldn't feel a thing, but if someone was walking around in an office I or school with this shirt, I would feel weird about it. I can't put my finger on why.
-
We all agree that punching fascists in the face is objectively good, but if someone was walking through a school or church yelling that we should punch fascists then you would probably feel uncomfortable.
It's an aggressive t-shirt, even though it portrays a morally appropriate sentiment. I agree with the message, and personally don't think it's inappropriate, but I would not be confused why some people might not want to see it, and probably wouldn't wear it to my kid's preschool.
-
I think to healthy, liberal (in the original sense) sensibilities, the concept of lynching or imagery of violent death is still principally unpalatable. Fundamentally, violence should be considered undesirable.
Pragmatically, we may consider it acceptable or even necessary in some cases. In those cases, conscious judgement will overrule that fundamental conviction.
But that doesn't mean the gut reaction can't be one of distaste. Both sentiments can exist at once, and the weight each of them carries in your mind doesn't have to be absolute.
For me personally, every death – no matter how justified – evokes at least a faint sense of regret: "Shame they couldn't become a better person." It may be very faint in some cases, but I aim to preserve that ideal in myself: never to treat life without respect, never to treat deaths without compassion.
-
Maybe because extra-judicial "punishment" is unAmerican, no matter who it is.
IF we regain our country, I would get no pleasure from dragging Trump and his henchmen into the front lawn of the White House, and summarily, publicly executed.
OTOH, if they went through proper trials, were found guilty of actual crimes that exist on the books, and were sentenced to death, I would support that 100%, and would be proud of my country for proving that the system set up by our Founding Fathers can still work.
-
Maybe because extra-judicial “punishment” is unAmerican, no matter who it is.
I don't know, lynchings are kind of quintessential american.
In the United States, where the word lynching likely originated, the practice is associated with vigilante justice on the frontier and mob attacks on African Americans accused of crimes. The latter became frequent in the South during the period after the Reconstruction era, especially during the nadir of American race relations.[7] Black people were the primary victims of lynching in the U.S. (about 72% of the total), which was often perpetrated to enforce white supremacy and intimidate ethnic minorities along with other acts of racial terrorism.[8]
-
When an apple has molded you don't cut off the moody part and hope the rest doesn't mold.
When you allow a corrupt government to set the rules, you'll never see anything in power held accountable. And when you let them make any other form of justice taboo, and let them convince you of it, then justice no longer exists.
-
-
Because hopefully children aren’t being exposed to that hate filled reality otherwise? A blissful ignorance, if you will. I feel like I understand what you’re saying, but this the best I could come up with for the “why. “
-
-
-
Fascists don't care whether or not you're a "fan of violence" when they decide you're someone who needs a lynching. If they weren't making a resurgence, these kinds of shirts/messages wouldn't be necessary. Alas...
-
-
Look, I'm gunna take the basic decency approach here. I fucking hate the KKK and they deserve no good will, doesn't mean I want to be subjected to violent images, period. Not wanting to see depictions of violence at work or school doesn't make anyone a bad person.
-
All speech should be protected, even if the shirt character was replaced with a bIm guy
-
While the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict speech, that doesn't mean your speech shouldn't have consequences.
-
No one should have to worry about being harmed physically or legally at least.
-
In my old retail days, I used to regularly kick out people with offensive T Shirts.
You can wear your "Fuck You" T-shirt all you want, but I'm not going to let you come into my shop and insult all my customers, and perhaps cause them to leave.
-
-
I agree. I have to specify "lying" does not fall under free speech tho.
Free speech was never about the literal "talking" but for things like free press/journalism and discussing.
Free speech doesn't mean people can just accuse others of rape and murder because they are bored.
People shouldn't be able to say "gay muslim immigrants want to kill us all and establish communism," and then act like 14 year olds being bullied into suicide is not their fault.
Especially when it's for money or political campaigning. It's not "free speech" to lie and incite violence for self-benefits.
-
That is understandable, but no one should be harmed for saying "group" are dumb, "group" are evil. Inciting violence against a person or group is wrong depending on how much influence the inciter has to cause real physical harm in the near future. Saying someone stole or SA'd with no proof or not good proof isnt part of free speech too.
-
-
Remember that child porn is technically speech.
-
-
-
Ordinary fruit?
-
Brilliant reference.
-
-
Who is he in trouble with? Racist Glenda, looking for something to do?
100 comments
To everyone here that feels Nazis deserve free speech and sympathy.
They do not.
Handling Nazi with kid gloves is how we got here.
Handling Nazis with im kid gloves is how the Holocaust happened.
History is literally repeating itself and anyone sympathetic with Nazis is complicit.
Edit: Most of us know someone who's grandparents died fighting Nazis. Ignoring and empathizing with Nazi's is spitting on their graves.
I don't know bout y'all but the ONLY gloves you should use when handling Nazis is the kind with spikes protruding from the business end.
OK but first make sure they're an actual Nazi and not one of that "someone who disagrees with me" kind of almost certainly not a Nazi.
Maybe the thick yellow rubber ones if you need to mop up after a body
In a truly tolerant society, only one thing should not be tolerated.
Intolerance.
China did what? From everything I've seen and read, de-radicalization is a pretty generous way of putting it but feel free to educate me.
Go back to ml
Looks like the mods in here really don’t want y’all to know that the Uyghur “genocide” was a western hoax.
https://law.stanford.edu/press/state-department-lawyers-concluded-insufficient-evidence-to-prove-genocide-in-china/
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202311/1301268.shtml
Quibble all you want about whether it is a genocide or not, but the abuse of Uyghurs by the Chinese government is in no way a hoax. It is institutionalized oppression of the highest order.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-situation-in-xinjiang
Are we considering the UN's report definitive then? Or did you just cherry-pick a paywalled article based on the title?
China responsible for ‘serious human rights violations’ in Xinjiang province: UN human rights report