The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

No, I admit that I decided the benefits of posting in the Rickshaw outweigh the risk of triggering a bitchfest outside the Rickshaw. The problem is not, and has never been, my posting. The problem is the bitchfests.

Cad: "Its actually our civil duty to insult EVERYONE."

So much ridiculous shit was said in that thread, I have no idea where to start so I thought I'd start with this gem. You know, the world actually runs better and benefits everyone when people insult each other LESS, right? I know, I know, this goes against the whole "But these people DESERVE it so we're doing GOOD" golden rule, but this beautifully illustrates how people who claim to have the best intentions regarding protecting rights and whatnot can explicitly be part of the problem.

Also, the "blackmail" reference, Jesus. FFS, if somebody says "Don't eat this shit sandwich or I'll kill you!" are you going to eat it anyway because FUCK HIM, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO AND HE CAN'T STOP YOU WITH HIS THREATS OF VIOLENCE?!?!?

How the fuck is it "appeasing" someone to not intentionally piss them off for the sake of pissing them off? You know, you're allowed to tell random strangers that you love fucking their mothers up the ass, but you generally don't. You know why? Apparently a lot of people here don't.

"Here's this thing that you never had any intention of doing and that in no way benefits or even affects you. If you don't do it NOW, THEY WIN!"

Unbefuckinglievable. I haven't even reach noon.

Tuco: "Here's my argument:
Anytime a freedom loving person encounters a group that says you can't draw a cartoon depicting our holy figure in any context, the appropriate response is to draw them in any context."

See: Shit sandwich.

Sebudai: "Not only is it okay to insult people, it's often necessary."

Ugh. Just... UGH.

IIRC, Sebudai, the ONE example I've seen you use to support that theory was a personal anecdote in which the insulting played ZERO beneficial role.

I have no idea how you were convinced that's it's "often necessary" to insult people, but I find that brand of "counter-productive behavior justified through religious zealotry" highly disturbing. Shame on you.

Khorum: "SJW's discovered that trying to guilt a company that was built to MONETIZE GUILT will--trigger warning--prolly result in some form of economic rape."

Yes, they "discovered" it years ago and have heavily exploited that scenario to their own benefit. See: When Sarkeesian got anti-SJW gamers to try to villainize her, only to reap tremendous profits.

CaughtCross: "So many lulz Anti-#GamerGate Harasser Arthur Chu Outed As Creepy Sex Fiend"

In before:
A) Ha ha they're eating their own!
B) They didn't blacklist him? Fucking hypocrites!

Cinge: "This is one of the reasons that society is going down. That people actually think 'sorry no one is allowed to insult someone, ever'."

That isn't what he said and you know it.

What do you think he meant by "OK"?

Is it legal?
- Yes.

Is it protected by the constitution?
- Yes.

Is it socially acceptable?
- Well.......

Is it productive?
- Never.

Since actively and intentionally antagonizing people has only ever and will only ever produce negative results, it stands to reason that a good rule of thumb for life in general is: "Don't be an asshole." One of the reasons why society is going down is because people think "Fuck you, I'm allowed to be an asshole and that alone is reason enough to be an asshole."

Unchained Acolyte: "Terrorist acts are also not okay. Coercion via religion (whether Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) isn't okay, either. Ignoring the freedoms of others = not okay."

Agreed. In fact, nobody on this entire board has ever suggested otherwise.



Unchained Acolyte:: "I'll add that sideways provocation probably isn't the most appropriate way to approach this issue, but we're so concerned about political correctness these days that many people are willing to just hand over their liberties without question."

What liberties is anyone suggesting we "hand over"? It hasn't been a part of this conversation, that's for sure. The only suggestion made was that we abstain from sideways provocation, not because of legal obligation, not because you've received threats, but because it's what any decent, socially responsible human being would do.

Now this would be a different story altogether if the extremists were insisting "Nobody is allowed to eat bacon! Nobody!" That actually WOULD involve a sacrifice on our part, and we absolutely would be appeasing them and giving in to their demands under threats of violence if we stopped eating bacon. But drawing Ol' Mo is something none of us has ever had any inclination to do for literally any other reason than pissing people off. That's not standing up for your rights, that's just being an asshole.

Iannis: "Here's the assumption to that. White people are the grown ups. The bearded brown ones are just children who aren't able to control themselves. They can't HELP it that they're intolerant! We can't expect better of them."

This was nobody's suggestion ever.



Iannis: "Freedom of speech is essential to liberty. And that's what this is. An attack on liberty. It's not "quit picking on muslims and being mean. so mean." I don't know if that freedom is the one pillar that you cannot do without, but I do know that once you start cowering before blasphemy you are no longer free in any way that matters."

Actually, it IS about "Quit being mean." No one ever suggested giving up our liberties, so you're the one under false impressions of what this is "all about".



DMK: "Absolutely insane we've gotten to the point where people actually say 'jeez you shouldn't have made them mad!' like its ok to be that mad about a drawing."

Those two statements are completely unrelated.
"Don't be an asshole." =/= "It's OK for them to react violently when offended."
"Don't be an asshole." =/= "They can't help it, they have no responsibility for their actions."
"Don't be an asshole." =/= "We need to appease the violent extremists and give in to their demands."
"Don't be an asshole." =/= "We need to change the law to stop people from being assholes."

It just turns out that not being an asshole tends to make the world a better place for everyone, regardless of how terrible and unjustifiable someone else's actions are (and they ARE terrible and unjustifiable).

Being an asshole doesn't need to be justified legally or in terms of our rights. We all have that right and always will. WE HAVE THE RIGHT to be unproductive, shitty members of society who make things worse for everyone. Doing so just to prove some misguided point is stupid.

Lithose: "If Islam didn't exist, and I decided to draw 'the greatest historical assholes' series and had Scipio Aemilianus, Atilla the Hun, Muhammad, Genghis Khan (ect ect) and drew Hitler's mustache on all of them to illustrate how centuries of butchery became as easy as a few men's ambition, you would NOT consider it an insult."

Actually, even if Islam DID exist it could be argued that that would not be considered an insult. See, there's an actual reason to include a drawing of Muhammad there. Context is everything. Heck, well before South Park's "Can't show Mohammed" episodes, they already had aired an episode that DID feature an illustrated Mohammed. He was part of super-powered team of religious icons, his inclusion contextually made sense and there was zero violent reaction from anybody. It wasn't a "fuck you" to Muslims, it was funny satire poking fun at religion in general and it got away with it.

The only suggestion Szlia is making is that intentionally antagonizing people with the sole purpose of pissing them off is not a good idea. How is this going over everyone's head?

AngryGerbil: "I see your argument, that it is not nice to insult people, but guess what else isn't nice? Killing people. There is no 'gray area' here. (I can't quote your post because i'm on my phone). There is no need to dance around trying to find the magical line between 'offensive' and 'insulting'. The line is between stones and words, not between some words and some other words!"

This ridiculous false equivalence never ceases to amaze me.
"It's not nice to insult people." =/= "It's OK to kill people."

Acting like a socially responsible human being DOES NOT mean you endorse the actions of those who do not. The longer people pretend this isn't the case, the more unnecessary conflict we ensure.

AngryGerbil: "And if nothing else man, I will appeal to the man. Remember this, the people you are bending over backwards to appease, would put lots and lots of clothes on Caroline Wozniacki. Never forget that!"

Again, false equivalence.

Not intentionally antagonizing someone just to piss them off =/= Bending over backwards to appease them.