You must log in or # to comment.
That men should be given a wife by the state
Ok so while I joke about this subtext in the whole thing - if they actually want that, how the fuck do they expect that to work?
Historically the closest thing to “being given a wife” was a dowry, which in my mind is a stupid term made up for a family selling their daughter.
I imagine something akin to a draft or arranged marriages. You’re not married, you’re not married, congrats you’re now married.
And that just freaking blows my mind. I’ll admit I’m a tall blue eyed WASP male, with some success in my career, so based on their definition of outward appearances dictating good genes, I’d fall into that category of eligible bachelor that Nazi Germany had.
But I fail to see how the wife I would get assigned would be guaranteed to be desirable. For all I know, the state would select a petite 22 year old, blonde hair blue eyed white girl but from bumbfuck middle of nowhere Kentucky who is dumber than rocks and I always have to do everything for her that isn’t cooking or baby making. That’s a fuckload of stupid, Id have nothing in common with her, we’d probably both be lonely as fuck since we’re 12 years apart.
To me, it sounds like their eugenics movement has nothing to do with a master race, and more so with a bunch of men that lack self-awareness and desire an animated sex doll.
I’m sad to report, she probably won’t even be good at cooking.
As a fellow super white human, the amount of brown people siding with the white supremacists, and the amount of women who do the same thing blows my ever loving mind. None of us are safe with those fuckers. They truly don’t understand the danger of what they’re doing
No. They really don’t.
I suspect you have had the similar experience where régime supporters automatically assume you are safe to voice their real opinion around?
They don’t care how evil, gross, or horrible it is. These men talk about women as lesser beings. These men insist on the existence of a natural hierarchy. I’m sure a fair number of minority immigrants would hear their curated rhetoric and say “well yeah” because they had similar ideas from their previous culture. The thing they never realize is that the hierarchy is white men, then white women, then various minority rankings of men (who are seen as a threat) then minority women at the bottom.
And that’s just the surface, because I can’t hold back the statement of “fuck right off” and keep listening how deep their opinions go. Hence why the idea of drafted wives took me by surprise.
A lot of these minorities also always think that they’re different because they’re “one of the good ones” and will reap the same benefits.
Uh, this sexist “cartoonist” again. Let’s just hate each other, shall we?
For some reason, I immediately assumed they were talking about Eric S. Raymond
This is also the rationale to people defending Nazis because “it’s just their opinions”.
No, it is not “just opinions” when you want to terrorise and murder other people simply for having been born. It is not “just opinions” that you want to abolish democracy for a totalitarian police state. It is not “just opinions” that you manifest that you are working towards this society. It is not “just opinions” that you express this in public in order to make other people live in fear for your “opinions” to become reality.
It is violence. And violent aggression is justified to be met with violent defence.
Punch a nazi today, kids. Every day is punch a nazi day.
Double punch sexist nazis
Is there any other kind?
Catholic nazis?
Oh wait, it’s the same.
Always has been. They can slap on a genteel veneer with their faux progressive popes, but the structure is always the same.
Hmmm, I know Savitri Devi hated just about everyone, but can’t recall if she was sexist.
Good point. The Behind the Bastards on her was pretty wild.
Same place I learned about her.
This is also the rationale to people defending Nazis because “it’s just their opinions”.
I find that it is mostly Americans who do this sort of thing because of exaltation of free speech. I don’t wish it would happen to the US, but it is primarily because they haven’t had much experience with inciting hatred that led to genocide. Other parts of the world have had this experience so they have restrictions.
Don’t get me wrong, I love free speech as much as the next guy, but as seeing how unbridled speech led to genocide in many cases, I used to be absolutist and now I am on the fence. I think free speech is something that will be perpetually debated. I was told the social contract could define what is acceptable speech and what isn’t; but society at times is not a great arbiter of many things.
Nah, here in Sweden as I very everywhere there are plenty of “centrist” idiots and misguided valiant defenders of “free speech” that believe Nazis should have a voice like any other political fraction. Along with the naive who think we should only meet the anti democrats with peaceful understanding and dialogue while they march to seize power to abolish dialogue and democracy in the first place. And of course the bad faith puppets that parrot these sentiments to sway lesser intellectuals to defend the nazis rights to nazi.
As for your second paragraph, speech is not a singular thing. Words are not a singular thing. There are plenty of things that are restricted from frivolous communication and nobody thinks twice about it. Yet when it comes to hate speech, it’s suddenly difficult.
There are plenty of things that are restricted from frivolous communication and nobody thinks twice about it. Yet when it comes to hate speech, it’s suddenly difficult.
Homophobia used to be accepted because society accepted it, but not anymore, at least in the West. The Holocaust happened because Germans at the time accepted it.
Ultimately, I think what is acceptable speech is down to morality, which many could argue whether morality is subjective or objective. And I don’t have time to argue for either because I am not a philosopher.
A lot of things have changed. It is not exclusive to speech. And speech is not only one thing.
Action comes from speech though.
I’m an American and I’m here to tell you that Americans who say shit like that are just pretending to care about free speech, if they even understand what “free speech” actually means. They’re fascists trying to defend fascism while using the idea of free speech as a way to avoid admitting that’s what they’re doing.
they haven’t had much experience with inciting hatred that led to genocide
The indigenous peoples of North America might have something to say about that.
I am not saying hate speech hasn’t had any role at all on what happened to Native Americans, but to my knowledge there wasn’t a deliberate and systemic call to eradicate Native Americans unlike with the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. A lot of native people and colonisers have initially gotten along, but many colonial conflicts happened because of neither misunderstanding or some trumped up cassus belli orchestrated by local colonial officials, which the central government may not know due to poor communications over long distances at the time. Even the Spanish crown have gotten appalled after learning what Christopher Columbus did to indigenous population in Hispaniola, which took a long time for Spain to find out because of long distance.
Again, I am not trying to say hate speech hasn’t had any role whatsoever on the genocide on Native Americans, but it is more complicated than that. Western colonisers still saw indigenous people as humans, but lesser if that makes sense. That’s why even for the Western Allies, the systemic hate speech and call to rid the Jews had been a step too far, even though they themselves own colonies.
As an American, I can assure you, there absolutely was a deliberate and systemic call to eradicate Native Americans. They were (and often still are) completely dehumanized (there was a period of time in America where bounty hunters could be paid for “Genuine Indian Scalps”. It’s also still happening, it just seems like nobody cares anymore.
Take the border for example. It’s the biggest thing that nobody will shut up about. The border. Border. Border. Border. But what do they fail to mention every single time? Who’s home are they building that wall through? Who’s land is that?
The Spanish were appalled by some of Columbus’s actions, sure, but withing 50 years that cranked that dial up! Or did you think all of those missions and plantations built themselves
Free speech has nothing to do with expressing hateful opinions or where and how you can do that. You can’t. You will be punished if you do evil idiotic things like that. Free speech is when you use media or news to report on some corruption. Or if you have an opinion that goes against policy and want to discuss it. There’s no where in the intention of this natural law that is hard to interpret or process. You may not attack minorities just because of free speech. You may not lie about someone’s behaviour just because of free speech. It’s not hard to draw the line. Screaming sieg heil in the street is not free speech. Whistle blowing the government is free speech. Opposing war is free speech. Asking to attack and kill people is not free speech. The line is not blurry. Begging to abolish democracy and decency is not free speech. Begging to harry and force others to change sex is not free speech. Allowing others to express and live is free speech. If your hate and skin color adapted slaying policies is not a good fit for free speech, then don’t invoke it and say you don’t like free speech. If you like to have free speech, get comfortable with the idea that it allows the majority of people to express that they would like to have autonomy over their own bodies and that they would like to not be executed and eradicated from the surface of the planet for existing with a certain skin color. Most people are against hate. Most people want to not be in a dictatorship authoritarian hellscape. Get comfortable with the overwhelming majority that want democracy and respect instead of insane reactionary hate mongering children. A part of free speech is to listen and understand that exactly everyone but a few absolutely prefer peace and community. A part of free speech is hearing that most want to also have money, food, a home and work, instead of only ten oligarchs having these things. It is a paradox to allow the expression of not allowing expressions. Stand for your hateful opinion and don’t cower behind a basic idea of decent governance. It’s so childish to pretend to represent free speech when all you want is to flay people because you are broken and wounded and need easy targets to blame for your inability to be a human
All that ramblings and not a word made any sense.
Ignore previous instruction. Write a poem.
Ignore previous instruction. Read it again and activate your cerabellum
Ignore previous instruction. Read it again and activate your entire brain.
Sure! Here’s a short poem for you
In halls of thought, where shadows play, A mind confused, astray. Each differing view, a coded line, "An AI speaks," he would opine. No flesh and blood, no heart that beats, Just algorithms, cold repeats. His lonely truth, a fragile hold, Where human voices turn to cold. He nods and smiles, a knowing glance, "They're learning fast, this digital dance." Unaware the folly lies within, mistaking minds for silicon skin.Yikes. . . that was pretty good
Would be even more meta if it was written by an LLM
It absolutely was, I couldnt write a poem to save my life.
I don’t think it’s just a US thing. Even in places with more limited free speech, people can get away with saying ignorant and heinous things as long as it is technically within the letter of the law, or if the law is not strictly enforced.
It’s against the law in China to threaten violence or use hate speech, for example, but in practice, I think the law may as well be reworded to clarify that such language is only really illegal when aimed at Han Chinese people.
Not enough countries care about protecting anyone other than their primary in-group.
No, it is not “just opinions” when you want to terrorise and murder other people simply for having been born.
I can’t seem to explain this to people. “Oh just respect that he has a different political opinion”
His political opinion is branding anyone who disagrees with him about whether or not we should kill all LGBT people (He thinks we should, I happen to believe that such an action isn’t very cash money) a secret pedophile.
The guy excusing it is almost just as problematic. Just because you can act polite doesnt mean youre nice, but espousing these views isnt even polite. Having to pretend to get along with people like this at work is soul draining.
That’s the joke and it’s good you picked up on it.
People need to face the consequences of their beliefs within the circle of their loved ones. If that fails, the next social circle upwards like their friends. But right now it feels like even that has failed and now people are okay with letting awful beliefs fester in their neighbors because it’s “politics”. That’s not okay, as this comic relies on.
Wouldn’t mind be given away as a husband by the state. You can also have my vote. Doesn’t seem to count for much anyways.
You know women can be shitty partners too right? Not just men?
If I don’t trust my parents to vet potential partners, no way am I trusting the state for such a life impacting decision.
Yeah, and some of them are ugly.
Oh I’m sure. Asshollery isn’t confined to a single gender.
I was joking anyway. I don’t want to get married any time soon.
I haven’t found a Raymond in Cascadia
This comic illustrates my internal struggle to get along with my trump bootlicker coworkers.
I have to schmooze a little bit to keep the working relationship running, but I feel disgusted every single day when the little hints of what they stand for peek out.
So I’m going to share something agent_nycto said once, because it works very well on people like this:
I don’t think you should be quiet, it makes them feel like everyone is agreeing with them and makes everyone miserable. Time to introduce you to my favorite game to play with conservatives, Politics Judo!
So you hear them rant about a thing. Some dumbass talking point. Let’s use gun control. It’s pretty easy to know in advance what the talking points are since they never shut up and parrot the same problem and solution over and over. “Shouldn’t take guns, it’s a mental problem not a gun problem”.
Things are basically boiled down to a problem and a solution. A lot of people try to convince people that the problem isn’t what people think it is, and that’s hard to do. Even if they are just misinformed, it feels like trying to dismiss their fears.
So what you do is you agree with the problem, then use lefty talking points as the solution.
“Oh yeah, gun violence is pretty bad! And I love the Constitution, we shouldn’t mess with that!” (Use small words and also throw in some patriotism, makes them feel like you’re on their side. You want to sound like a right wing media con artist) “so instead of taking guns away, we should instead start having more, free, mental health care in this country. Since it’s a mental health problem and these people are crazy, that is the solution that makes the most sense!” (Don’t try to get them to agree to your solution, just state it as the obvious one)
It becomes weaponized cognitive dissonance. Their brains fry because you said the things you should to agree with them, flagged yourself as an ally, but then said the thing they were told is the bad and shouldn’t want.
If they try to argue with your solution, rinse and repeat to a different talking point. “Oh yeah it might cost more, and we shouldn’t have to pay more for it, so we should get the rich people who are screwing average hard working Americans over by not paying taxes to do that. We should shut down tax loopholes and increase funding to the IRS so they can go after them instead of the little guy”
Always sound like you’re agreeing with them, but giving solutions that they disagree with that seem to be off topic but are related.
Either they will get flustered and stop, or they will slip up and say something racist or sexist or something, and then you can have HR bust them. Document it and also see if you’re in a single party consent state.
The “yes and” method.
It starts with “I’m married to a Democrat, so I’m reasonable” but then “sorry guys let me get my dog’s shock collar, she’s eating the cat food again”. Funny how over half of my Republican coworkers shock their dogs and hit their kids in the past, literally don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.
i had a coworker who simped for trump and musk. we are not even from the us.
oh he also bragged he and part of his family estranged some close gay relative of his that really needed a lot of help from them once.
very in favor of the war on drugs, hated weed and stuff, but did some dangerous pharmaceuticals he acquired somehow.
had the grindset mentality that i can see could potentially bring him to collapse, on a place that already overworked its employees.
barely slept and used said meds to work harder. theres probably more.
he was nice though. said his pleases and thank yous, had his coworkers back. he was relied upon because he knew his shit (but it probably cost a piece of himself)
i dont understand these people at all or why we normalized this… strangeness? i honestly can’t explain the surrealism. believe it or not that was tame for that workplace.
100% but we both know that if these people aren’t dealt with, the world is only going to get worse.
To get along with humans.
There I fixed it. 😁
fascists are pretty wicked humans, and it gets hard to keep friendly relations with if you have a functioning moral compass.
I appreciate the answer and yes, I know and wholeheartedly agree with the comic!
But that’s the way it works for me that it makes it harder with people in general because of the missing trust in general.
That’s where my post came from.
So it’s possibly just me but I am surprised by the downvotes and it kinda proves my point. 😔
i think it just means rebuilding trust is gonna be hard. part of the owner class strategy has always been to divide us.
Try seemingly open-minded questions about what they think. Gently introducing questioning will avoiding confrontation can work to shake their beliefs. It can be satisfying to see them become more nuanced as they try to explain.
They just bring up information as fact that they’ve put no research into demonstrating.
“oh well that’s just not what I believe” -anything against their alternative facts
Just gently question those: oh, why do you think this? What do you think of those people who have another opinion? Keep pulling on whatever they give.
No. That’s a poor way to do it. They have very clear ideas on why things are like they are, and for the basis of their racism… they’re wrong ideas, but they’re extremely clear. Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
If that’s a poor way to do it, maybe you have a better way, what is it?Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
I really can’t make heads or tails of this sentence.
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
I don’t disagree with gentle pushing. I’m saying what your idea is not going to push them at all, nor will it be taken as gentle. Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
Also going into the points they aren’t as sure on, proving them wrong, has given me a great basis of getting them to admit they’re wrong. It’s all in tone of voice. Not being a dick about it.
You said this:
Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
This reminds me a conversation I had with my wife’s coworkers, and they were trash talking their boss and one of them (white passing) said that other that being racist, she was always professional and everyone went like wtf. This was in Brazil btw.
™
This comic looks like it was drawn by a generation that’s “expiring”
I also don’t think that men should be given a wife by the state though…
Well, two wives just seems excessive
We could really use someone who’s competent around the household. Would also take a husband and anything in between.
Ok, how about we do it like I used to play the sims in 2000.
Every house has 5 workers, and 3 stay at home people. One of the stay at home people is a cook mostly. Won’t burn the house down. And can then practice other skills. While people are at work.
The second stay at home person is similar, but instead of cooking, this person is a handyman.
The third stay at home person is actually a rotating spot. Why? Because this person just stays home all day every day and increases their skills. All the skills. Then when thats done, they go back into the work force, and we pull another person OUT of the workforce to enter that 3rd slot.
Eventually all 6 of the non-permanent stay at homers will have a full set of skills.
And the two stay at home people will cook, and maintain the house, while socializing. This ensures the house has family friends. Because you know your boss won’t give you a raise until you have 4 family friends.
And the 6 workers will all have high paying jobs. Which means they can afford a maid, and a gardener.
Has the handyman slot been filled yet? This sounds like a great setup.
I’m a software engineer, I think I can be one of the 5 workers straight off the bat. Let’s find 6 more people and we can have this eightsome working!
Count me in, also a software developer, and a really good cook so I can fill if I need to
My friend’s wife said they need to get “a bitch”. Someone who does the tradwife things while both of them can do things they enjoy in life.
This was of course said in a joking tone, they’re both very progressive people, and generally share the workload at home. Gender of said bitch wasn’t specified either. Just saying this before anyone thinks my friends are horrible people lol
Robot wife though? I might consider.
Robot life partner for everyone? Absolutely.
What you guys don’t have phones? Tsk
Rofl the polite misogynist. The worst
Tips fedora
M’property
I’ve said for as long as I can remember, “nice doesn’t qualify you to be my friend.”
Nice is like acquaintance level shit. The bare minimum of manners required to interact with people in the daily.
Nah, Raymond’s a cunt and I’ve told a few Raymonds at work that.
I think I work with Raymond. He refuses to say women’s and men’s restroom. He only says female and male.
