- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I need that shirt.
“To whom?” That’s the only offensive thing I see in this post.
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.
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…
Ordinary fruit?
The president of the Richmond NAACP, James “J.J.” Minor, stated in 2017 talking about something similar that “When you look at something like that, whether you consider it art or not art, lynching is not something that we’re in agreement with at all. We do not support any groups that support violence.”.
So who finds it offensive? I think the answer there can be the very people who were targeted by such violence. And that some people may not support any group using violent imagery, regardless of the target or intended message. The issue being that using the imagery of lynching, even against hate groups, can normalize or trivialize a horrific form of racial violence.
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.
In a truly tolerant society, only one thing should not be tolerated.
Intolerance.
Looks like the mods in here really don’t want y’all to know that the Uyghur “genocide” was a western hoax.
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
Do you have a reputable source? A US government agency’s info is as reputable as Israel’s info on Gaza. They’re the main ones crafting the bullshit.
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
The UN did not accuse China. Michelle Bachelet did. This is a common problem with these UN human rights abuse claims, where a single political appointee makes a claim, and the propagandists spread it as having full UN backing. They did the same thing to spread the sexual violence hoax for the Israeli Oct 7th propaganda. It’s not even the first time they’ve done this with the Uyghurs:
https://thegrayzone.com/2018/08/23/un-did-not-report-china-internment-camps-uighur-muslims/amp/
I tried to un-paywall the article you linked, and it brought up the UN report. It’s possible it was the wrong article.
Do you have an un-paywalled link? Or do I just trust it without reading it?
Why should you trust Chinese sources to tell you about a genocide in China? That’d be like trusting CNN to tell you billionaires are evil.
It’s not paywalled for me, but a lot of it is just repeating grayzone reporting.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/17/uyghur-tribunal-us-government-china/amp/
I’m not saying to trust China. I’m saying to trust the trusted third parties who have investigated it. Really were so far past the hoax at this point, you can even trust the state propagandists who’ve already admitted they didn’t have the evidence they claimed.
Right now, you’re trusting decade old claims from intelligence agencies, who aren’t even still pushing those narratives you’re clinging to, and who were exposed as radicalizing the Uyghurs to destabilize the region (as they’ve done countless other times this past century).
deleted by creator
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.
For sure.
I’ve read my Asmiov. “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
But we’re complex emotional beings and sometimes our amygdala lurches up from the warm fetid swamp it usually lazes around in and utters things we act on before slower, more complex neurological bureaucracy can veto. Actual nazis will do that to the most disciplined of us.
Maybe the thick yellow rubber ones if you need to mop up after a body
Gross yellow gloves are for household cleaning. Blue gloves are for disposing of bodies, it’s like the colour coded chopping blocks in kitchens
I’d suggest the black nitrile to be less conspicuous, and get the thick ones in case it snags on a dumpster or something.
The orange ones have grip added for when things get slick.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Go back to ml
Removed by mod
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.
Thats bold statement to make about the president of Richmond NAACP:
“When you look at something like that, whether you consider it art or not art, lynching is not something that we’re in agreement with at all. We do not support any groups that support violence.”
I mean, you said “funny”. Which goes directly to the point hes making, in so much that it has normalized or trivialized a horrific form of racial violence
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.
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 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.
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
Entirely probable
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.
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.
And when a car gets a flat tire, you don’t get new car, you fix the flat. We can all come up with a useless analogy to make a empty point.
The fact is, the basic principles and concepts that were outlined in the founding documents - ALL men are created equal, and we are are ALL endowed by our creator with the inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, et al, - are still relevant today, and are still the best principles and concepts upon which to base a government today.
We could fix a lot of our problems with a few easy steps, like getting all money out of political campaigns, but that would require all parties to negotiate with each other, AND the voters, in Good Faith, and that’s what’s been lacking in government. Very, very few of them, on either side, have earned the trust of the people, and many of them have earned unforgivable scorn. They need to start listening to the people.
So we may need to do some serious tuning up and upgrading, but the chassis and the body are still good, and the drivetrain can be brought up to speed, as long as the guys on the second shift don’t keep coming in and taking a sledgehammer to it every night, and destroying all our work.
Your two party system can never become a modern car.
The car has been broken down for awhile and you’re still pretending it drives while the right wing is banging it with hammers while it’s on its way to a compactor.
It wasn’t even made of steel the first time but tin - those words aren’t part of the constitution, they’re from the declaration of independence, and even then excludes women.
You can’t fix a car that’s been broken beyond repair, and you can’t even rebuild it while people are finishing off what semblances there are with a giant hammer.
Y’all have been needing a new car for awhile but still think it’s fine. Then enjoy your fantasy as it’s thrown into the furnace of reality.
We generally refer to the Founding Documents - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, with equal weight. They are the three founding Documents on display in DC.
The Declaration of Independence is the statement that made us a Nation, and is every bit as important and relevant as the Constitution. In fact, until the Constitution was ratified in 1789, this was the sole document that defined America in the 13 years between.
So the opening line, declaring all men to be created equal, is huge. Further, it refers to these things as God-given rights, which means they cannot be taken away by any human, including a president, or even a long.
And “Men” is a metaphor. You say it excludes women, but in fact, it doesn’t even really include men. It means people in general, ALL people.
Further, it doesn’t even include the racial element that contemporary society likes to ascribe to hypocrisy. When they were talking about All Men Being Created Equal, they didn’t mean racially, or even economically. They meant equal as far as class distinctions. Specifically, they were rejecting as a society, the notion of an Aristocracy, in which some people are literally considered to be better quality humans in every way, simply because of their family influence. That superiority gives them great advantages in education, business, government, courts, military, etc.
Not only were they rejecting the Aristocracy, they were literally founding a new nation with that as one of its founding elements. At that time, a totally new nation hadn’t been created in human memory, and now that this enormous uncharted landmass had been discovered, here was the first actual nation, that wasn’t just a colony of predatory European nations. ALL of those nations recognized the concept of Aristocracy, and none of them liked the idea of a NEW nation where the Aristocracy wasn’t respected.
Of course, France broke with the rest, and supported the Continental Army, but that was more a matter of sticking it to England. The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend, and all that. Considering that our revolution inspired their revolution a few years later, with a much nastier outcome, perhaps it wasn’t the French Monarchy’s best poke at the British. Worked out good for us, though.
And “Men” is a metaphor. You say it excludes women, but in fact, it doesn’t even really include men. It means people in general, ALL people.
so “Men” in the Lord of the Rings sense
Well, yeah, but bigger than that. It has been a customary social expectation for literally centuries, to refer to all collective humanity as “men.” Tolkien was merely using it the same common, traditional way, same as the Founding Fathers, and pretty much everyone else in history, until the last few decades.
Damn, you’re more full of kool-aid then the kool-aid man. There’s no reaching you.
Documents signed by rich white guys that at first excluded non-whites, the poor, and women, of which all this can be proven by history via the founders having slaves as just one example of their hypocrisy, is the best you got? Okay lol.
Hell, it’s those documents that ensured Trump won, because presidents aren’t elected by popular video the but by the “electoral college” because the founders were such fucking snobs that they couldn’t trust voters to actually fully pick someone.
They were just some some rich dudes who didn’t want to pay taxes and strung along a bunch of poor idiots with them. Same then as now, and always has been.
Condemning 18th century people because they didn’t live their lives by 21st century cultural norms is a silly argument. Plenty of our philosophical and political concepts come from ideas as old as the Greeks. We don’t reject valid ideas because the society that produced them didn’t live by our modern values. Of course they didn’t, they were a different society.
We can’t agree with each other in how we should behave NOW, but we should condemn people from the past because they refused to live by proper modern standards, too?
You think you are so much more enlightened than the past? Guess what? So did they. Every generation, no matter how far back you go, thinks they were the most modern, most enlightened generation in history. And yet a few generations down the road, and they all start to look old- fashioned.
When the Founding Fathers wrote those documents, NOBODY had created a nation based on the concepts and standards that became the American government. Every other government in the world favored the wealthy and well-connected. America would be the first nation where the lowliest citizen still held the exact same rights as the wealthiest.
We haven’t always lived up to that promise, but that promise still remains, and it is still a worthy promise to defend. I hear people celebrating the death of America, without any consideration about what would replace it. Nobody has suggested a better system, and destroying the current system, with nothing to replace it, is ALWAYS a bad idea.
I mean, show me the unprivileged, non-aristocratic, non-colonials who signed a single founding document. They wanted their own aristocracy off the backs of their fellow man and to tell the king to shove it.
Not a thing was “discovered”, only ravaged and stolen. Describing the 100% predatory and selfish inception of the country as the “first real nation” reaches incredible levels of American mythology. I don’t like the Catholic church, but there’s a reason the way the founders are revered is considered legitimate blasphemy.
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.
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. “
The moderate whites are upset
The moderate whites are upset
This white guy wants to buy that shirt and wear it proudly to protests.
Shut it you nihilistic extremist
Sarcasm I hope?
How stupid would someone have to be to say that in all seriousness?
I could very well ask you the same thing, child.
deleted by creator
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…
Youre missing the point. Its not about the display of violence, its about trivialising a form a horrific racial violence.
So awareness of an issue must always be first person? Holding up a mirror to fascists is trivializing their violence?
Is that what youre doing it…
So you’re saying, might as well give them a good reason?
Like, I honestly don’t understand what point you’re making here. If these fascists are going to lynch you even without a reason, how much more likely do you think they’ll do it if you give them one?
Unless you’re trying to volunteer to be lynched first in the hopes of saving others by giving them a chance to escape or whatever, I really can’t see good reason for why wearing a shirt like this would be “necessary”.
EDIT: whoa, six downvotes and not a single counterargument – you guys sure you’ve got the moral high ground when it comes to lynching?
Who is he in trouble with? Racist Glenda, looking for something to do?
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.
What? A suicide/lynched corpse? What could possibly be offensive about that? Politics has made you insane.
Edit: People can and do change who they are when confronted by real empathetic people. Living people do. Dead people never change.
Ah yes, the change of “well, it effects me now, so its suddenly a real issue”
Fuck those people
It’s called human nature.
Yes, it’s human nature to be savage brutalistic tribal hunter gatherers. Thing is, we are part of a society now. Most people have no issues figuring out right from wrong. If you need a book or societal shame to figure that out, thats on you.
Tribal is the word of the day and it’s the one that matters in this context. Still very relative to modern human relations.
If living people can change and stop being bigots, why don’t you?
If you can explain to me how a man can be pregnant then maybe I’ll change my mind but it seems rather unscientific to me. And this is talking about biological sex not gender.
Maybe do better with your argumentation instead of just calling somebody a bigot because you disagree.
To be more clear the vast majority of people do not want to change their language for vanishingly small minority. FTM is an even smaller minority than MTF and that’s what’s required in order for a “pregnant man”.
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.
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.
No one should have to worry about being harmed physically or legally at least.
Nazi’s should be very afraid. They should live every moment in uncontrollable fear that they will get the pain they deserve
Nazis should always be in fear of being hurt. Nazis should be hurt. Are you one of the Nazis or just a simping moderate?
If it’s ok to punch nazis then it can open the door to punch other groups with different opinions.
Those who advocate for hate and the extermination of others should be concerned about their teachings being applied to themselves at any given moment. That’s why those who incite genocide are declared responsible for it, not the individuals carrying out parts of it, and that’s why they get hung.
Hanged*
Sorry, that one just gets me every time, and it seems like everyone always gets it wrong.
Advocating for violence against a group is wrong, but it shouldn’t be combatted with violence to silence them. The only reason they feel free to talk about genociding people is because they know they can censor and ban people who talk about doing it to them instead. In a nearly no censorship playing field everyone can be hit with the same type of hatred with no special censorship control for a few groups. If the hateful group convincess most people to be violent against a group it will only prove humanity isn’t worth saving.
Well I’m worried. I have a favorite hat I sewed an upside down American flag on. Too scared to wear it and get in a firefight with a MAGA goon. They will pick fights, been on the edge a few times. Wife’s a legal, brown immigrant. Can’t fuck around because of fear for her.
Too scared to plant an antifa flag in my yard. There will be a firefight if they come for me over that. Or if they come for my wife, for any reason.
Fuck me, even on this platform, I’m afraid to say too much. OTOH, some things I’ve said are basically a “dare ya” to the government.
Even having the means and skills to protect myself and my family, my speech has been stifled. And that’s America where I live, 2025.
While I agree with your previous comment, I think that this is part of the consequences of free speech. Someone might punch you. Maga are idiots, traitors for sure, but if we use American rules then yeah they have the right to be upset abou that. that being said, we are far past following American rules.nin my opinion.
It sucks we have to be manually approved by a person in order to post here. I’m almost a free speech absolutist, only doxing and threatening to physically harm someone or a group of people unjustifiably shouldnt be tolerated. Everything else is fair to use publicly.
AFAIK you don’t have to be manually approved to post here - because of how federation works, if you use an instance that is being federated with that doesn’t require approval, you’ll be able to post this - and if I’m not mistaken, because this is the big part, you can always host your own private instance that will automatically be federated with and post whatever you want, unless (and until) other instances (or communities) take offense and decide to block you from their own (privately hosted) services.
That is good news, im new here and have to learn a lot about how these instances work to make my own.
Spreading hatred, let alone hatred based on made up reasons, should not be legal.
That’s a slippery slope- trump is doing that with people correctly pointing out that Charlie Kirk was a dickhead.
A just society cannot tolerate intolerance
Yep.
How is that example a slippery slope? Most of what Trump does is criminal.
He wants to criminalize spreading hate about Charlie Kirk.
You personally gonna define hatred? No way that can go wrong.
Spreading hatred - “Inciting violence for a person/group of people using baseless accusasions often for self-interests,
like fucking telling people to bully their classmates into suicide for being gay to get youtube podcast ad revenue and saying it’s ‘free speech’
as if you didn’t just do the equivalent of picking a random guy to report for murder because you got bored.”Inciting violence
Right. There. Proves my point. Trump is saying words spoken against him are “inciting violence”.
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.
Removed by mod
