No, it isn’t. What is not even a letter of the alphabet.

Dr. Mantis Toeboggan

Removed by mod

Sand is what is left over after you dewitchify a sandwich.

Yeah, I feel like a lot of people think of gaslighting as if it were intentional, but when I have encountered gaslighting, it has usually come from people who have a different view of events and are unwilling to accept that their viewpoint isn’t the absolute truth of the situation.

They will argue from the viewpoint of “the way I remember things is the way things happened”.

Then when you say that they are gaslighting you, they will say that they are not.

In their mind, they’re just telling the truth of events as they remember them, no malice intended.

It’s supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

Mine do, just not as quickly.

Its my Mr. Bizarroland

Jeep afficionado

In specific context, I am not arguing against or for banning comics.

I personally am for banning people that are bigoted, and especially when their bigotry is hidden away from their art so that I might find myself enjoying art from an artist that I would personally find detestable.

What I am arguing against is the specific use of the phrase “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” as a hammer to bludgeon somebody else into accepting a specific viewpoint as the superior one.

I’ve said it before in other ways and I will say it again that if you give me the choice between being your bitch and being an asshole, I will pick asshole every single time because I value my right to choose above what you claim is an absolute truth.

It’s quite comical to me that people cannot see that these are two separate conversations, and the separation of the conversation happened long before I waded into it.

I think also it’s a consequence of the terrible, up to and including complete lack of sex education that most men receive.

But also my first girlfriend didn’t even know where it was either and thought it was a myth also, so it’s probably the absence of effective sex education that is the cornerstone of the myth of the clitoris.

A, you’ve missed the point completely. B, you’re moving the goalposts. And C, you’re forgetting the possible charitable view of things in that a person who is not aware of the original artist’s bigotry finding something that they posted funny and sharing it with other people.

I agree with the quote, but I take umbrage with it being used in this context.

There’s nothing to be gained by forcing people to act in ways that they do not wish to act, or to think in ways that they do not wish to think.

The way you’re using that quote is basically saying, “Agree with me, and think the way I tell you to think, or you’re a bad person”.

That is evil, and people of good conscience should not agree with you. It is better to allow you to think that they are a bad person rather than to allow you to have control over their morality.

Freedom of Speech only means that the government cannot censor you.

It has nothing to do with what businesses, individuals, groups, or anyone else does.

When the United States runs a social media, then they can argue that all they want there.

You make a good point, like copyright rules were supposed to protect the small people, the artists that actually make the work, but an entire cottage industry has grown up around the idea of copyright to fund businesses to make absurd amounts of money and to punish people for enjoying the art in a way that does not produce the most profit for the copyright owner.

For instance, I would argue that nintendo fan art and derivatives of things like Mario have done more to enshrine Nintendo as one of the premier game companies in the world than most of their games have themselves, and yet Nintendo is ridiculously litigious over its IP, either suing or threatening to sue dozens if not hundreds of people over making derivative fan art over their love of the IP.

It’s actually why I’m boycotting Nintendo, not because they’ve done anything to me, but they’ve done things to their superfans that are in my mind so egregious that they are not deserving of money from me.

I think it’s quite possible to separate the art from the artist as long as the artist does not do something that is so transgressive that it tanks everything they’ve ever done.

Rockstars that use their fame and wealth to seduce and sleep with underaged people?

You kinda can’t separate that.

It’s pretty much sex stuff.

Like, if you’re famous and you use your fame to force or coerce people to do things with you sexually that they would not have done otherwise, then you can’t separate the art from the artist.

But like, tragic poets that do a murder suicide. It’s also an abhorrent thing to do. It’s taking someone else’s life against their will and then taking your own so that you don’t face any consequences from that action. And yet, you can still enjoy the poetry they wrote, at least if enough time has passed.

I mean, there’s also the knowledge that many of the great ancient philosophers probably owned slaves in ancient Greece.

It was just a normal thing back then.

But we don’t say “fuck Aristotle that slave-owning bitch!” We still study his work and quote them to each other like it’s just a normal thing.

(I don’t know if Aristotle owned slaves. I’m just saying that chances are, amongst the ancient Greek philosophers, there were quite a few slave owners, and nobody makes a big deal of that)

So yeah, depending on what they did, you can separate the art from the artist, but if it were something that would get you lynched for non-racist reasons in the Old West, or that would cause people to cheer when the person that murdered you for your actions didn’t receive any punishment, then maybe not.

It wouldn’t cost much to phrase that in a nicer way

I work in tech, and one of the things that we learn early on is to not use tech jargon around people who are not also in the tech field because it can alienate them and make them feel stupid.

So while you may have a fully fluent and valid mental construct of parogens and all of the assorted lore attached to that, talking about them as if it were common knowledge to people who have not been exposed to the same information is at best off-putting.

For extra not give a fuck, just send this image in an email and walk out

My first exposure to VTubers was the tool bear, who would tell you things about cheap tools.

I was always curious because why did this guy need to use a digital bear skin to talk about tools? And then he quit using the V-Tuber skin and he’s just a regular guy, so it doesn’t make any sense to me.