No, that’s just what the political right tells you they are all about. Inspect their actual actions over the last several centuries and they tell a very different story.
Make no mistake, conservatives desire an oppressive government. They want the state to be able to tell you you can’t be gay or Muslim. They yearn for the boot on their neck, so long as it steps harder on their neighbors than it does on them personally.
Remember that for a capitalist, free market and lack of government intervention means:
Lower taxes (for the capitalists)
Less regulation (for the capitalists)
No government handouts (except for capitalists)
Etc.
They absolutely do say what they’re going to when they suggest improvements. Just remember - they only apply to the capitalist class. They’re not talking about you. Everything they say lines up when you remember, if they say “I’m going to improve X”, just add “for billionaires” at the end. If they say “I’m going to stop Y programs”, just add “but only for the poor”.
It all makes sense viewed as the class warfare that it is.
And it’s like trying to hold back the ocean with a toothpick, telling people they can’t be gay or Muslim or anything else. As with most right-wing oppression, it’s an aspiration that is abusive, unrealistic and asinine in every way.
Republicans ended slavery while democrats fought to preserve it in the south. While technically true I imagine you can drop your partisan blinders to acknowledge that 1) this is so simplistic to the point of turning an accurate statement inaccurate, 2) it ignores party realignment, and 3) instances like good ol boy Strom switching to the republicans during integration because he hated black people so much, which immediately complicates the implied narrative.
All of this is to say that you, me, and everybody reading this conversation know that “liberal” does not mean what you are saying. It is just an annoying thing conservatives say to get under the skin of liberals. It is not productive, highly reductionist, and in bad faith.
My political party examples are expressions of conservative and liberal politics. My final paragraph very clearly states conservative and liberal. I feel like you’re being intentionally difficult here but I’d like to be wrong.
Let me translate: “I made an utterly tasteless and shitty abortion/miscarriage-adjacent meme that got moderated and I CANNOT stop whining about it, but liberals are the sensitive snowflakes around here”
No, there is definitely a list of things you can make fun of on this site, capitalism, American healthcare/infrastructure/etc, bills/how expensive things are, killing the rich, etc. It doesn’t matter how tasteless or dark the meme is so long as you direct it at the right subject matter. This is effectively an echo-chamber.
So the punchline is “if you drink your kid may get FAS, here’s Tom depicting it”? That’s not so much offensive as just…not funny? Like it’s just a dumb, poorly executed joke.
But that description also fits many of the stuff i myself put here.
As a far left anarchist i have to disagree with censorship of “dumb and not funny”, though I also respect the will of a collective (lemmy community) to decide what topics they find acceptable in their space, subjective humor and intelligence isnt a good reasons for exclusion (borders discrimination).
Imagine the joke was funny, would it have been acceptable? Obviously in a community for recovering addicts or one exclusively for pictures flowers it would not, but others?
We must be intolerant of the intolerant and only the intolerant otherwise we risk becoming intolerant ourselves.
It’s not “censorship” as you mean it I imagine because we aren’t a state entity. Every forum engages in censorship to some degree, even if only to protect themselves legally. I think too many think we have some (misguided) mandate to protect free speech to the point where we should endure the feds banging at our doors.
Sure, an individual forum shouldn’t carry the responsible to protect all human rights on that forum. But as an anarchist i object to the authority of a centralized state so i cant see it their job either.
In my ideals humanity is a collective of people and all of us carry the responsibility to safeguard the wellbeing of all people, as a collective. People who have been at the rejected end of continued intolerance know how damaging it can be for ones health.
Currently i dont know any true safe online spaces for
the world most misguided or seriously ill people. So where can these people go? Social isolation is an echo chamber of their own mind.
Lemmy.ml doesnt need a nazi community but as - moral global human collective we should at least maintain lists of resources to help those struggling (with morality). A simple “we dont allow this here but here is a list of resources” ranging from social media to mental heath providers, or better social media monitored by non authoritative mental health providers.
The joke is in the image: of course the text description of it won’t land. But I can’t post it because it would get taken down
Whether its funny is beside the point. Why did it get taken down? I see people screenshotting unfunny tweets and posting it to meme communities and it gets 1k upvotes.
Let me ask you this: should I find a Tom and Jerry depiction of somebody dying of lung cancer in their final moments funny?
I just don’t see the comedy here. It’s overlaying a cartoon over tragedy. But because (I’m assuming) there is little sympathy for a mother who drinks and thus impacts their child, it’s suddenly acceptable and funny because it’s appropriately judgmental.
Edit: I think you should reframe this as “people find this joke tasteless.“ I find being tasteless different from being offensive. I don’t get offended by 9/11 jokes. But I’ve definitely heard a couple that I found tasteless. Though some people rightfully find it offensive as well - would you share this meme with someone who suffered a miscarriage or has experienced/been around FAS in some capacity? Would you knowingly share it with a NICU nurse?
It’s starting to sound echoy in here. You can joke about kids being shot up in American schools but you can’t joke about abortion, fat people, etc., because then it seems too mean spirited.
Jokes about school shootings are jokes about America and its priorities. The punchline is America and its ruthless protection of firearms, not dead kids.
Jokes about obesity are jokes about a person and their weight. They’re the subject and the punchline and there is no meaningful observation other than “I find them repulsive.”
I think the big issue is that joking about school shootings is satirical to bring up how common it is in hopes to change it, while joking about fat people is just to be mean. No one is going to change because you made fun of them, in fact it might make the problem worse as state of mind is a factor in being unhealthy.
You could probably make the same argument about abortion jokes being satirical, but I don’t think abortion jokes are made in order to enact social change. It’s usually just to be offensive. Satire is usually used to point out how ridiculous something is, the hope is that we as a society will see it and do something about it.
You can be offensive and funny at the same time. But it’s an extremely fine line, and difficult to pull off. Watch Jimmy Carr if you want to see it done properly.
By definition, something offensive must be something that can cause someone to take offense. Saying “haha, people get offended when I say offensive things” is rather redundant.
The portion of the left which is insecure and obnoxious, that is. Trust me, we’re annoyed by them, too. They make the rest of us look like whiny, judgmental assholes.
The left when you say anything vaguely offensive:
The right, when called out by a meme and feeling sensitive about it ^
No, I’m a liberal but this site is sensitive af. I made a meme about a drinking pregnant woman and it got taken down
So… right wing
What?
The left want to abolish capitalism. Liberalism invented capitalism.
Well, the political right is all about reducing government involvement in the economy, which is basically liberalism
No, that’s just what the political right tells you they are all about. Inspect their actual actions over the last several centuries and they tell a very different story.
Make no mistake, conservatives desire an oppressive government. They want the state to be able to tell you you can’t be gay or Muslim. They yearn for the boot on their neck, so long as it steps harder on their neighbors than it does on them personally.
Remember that for a capitalist, free market and lack of government intervention means:
Etc.
They absolutely do say what they’re going to when they suggest improvements. Just remember - they only apply to the capitalist class. They’re not talking about you. Everything they say lines up when you remember, if they say “I’m going to improve X”, just add “for billionaires” at the end. If they say “I’m going to stop Y programs”, just add “but only for the poor”.
It all makes sense viewed as the class warfare that it is.
And it’s like trying to hold back the ocean with a toothpick, telling people they can’t be gay or Muslim or anything else. As with most right-wing oppression, it’s an aspiration that is abusive, unrealistic and asinine in every way.
Republicans ended slavery while democrats fought to preserve it in the south. While technically true I imagine you can drop your partisan blinders to acknowledge that 1) this is so simplistic to the point of turning an accurate statement inaccurate, 2) it ignores party realignment, and 3) instances like good ol boy Strom switching to the republicans during integration because he hated black people so much, which immediately complicates the implied narrative.
All of this is to say that you, me, and everybody reading this conversation know that “liberal” does not mean what you are saying. It is just an annoying thing conservatives say to get under the skin of liberals. It is not productive, highly reductionist, and in bad faith.
Not talking about parties, here
My political party examples are expressions of conservative and liberal politics. My final paragraph very clearly states conservative and liberal. I feel like you’re being intentionally difficult here but I’d like to be wrong.
deleted by creator
Yes, right-wing, if you compare them to a fucking tankie.
Only if you think the line between left and right is somewhere around Lenin
deleted by creator
Let me translate: “I made an utterly tasteless and shitty abortion/miscarriage-adjacent meme that got moderated and I CANNOT stop whining about it, but liberals are the sensitive snowflakes around here”
Suuuuuuure, everybody is sensitive but you, pal.
No, there is definitely a list of things you can make fun of on this site, capitalism, American healthcare/infrastructure/etc, bills/how expensive things are, killing the rich, etc. It doesn’t matter how tasteless or dark the meme is so long as you direct it at the right subject matter. This is effectively an echo-chamber.
Yes, punching up is good and punching down is bad. Welcome to basic human interactions.
Since I’m getting downvoted right now I can punch up: fuck you dann! Am I doing it right? lmao
Seems odd, what was the context?
The caption said: my wife out-drinking everyone at the table; our unborn son:
Then it has a picture of Tom the cat with eyes bulging that I edited to be in a womb. Guess darker memes aren’t allowed here?
So the punchline is “if you drink your kid may get FAS, here’s Tom depicting it”? That’s not so much offensive as just…not funny? Like it’s just a dumb, poorly executed joke.
It isnt funny, it is also dumb
But that description also fits many of the stuff i myself put here.
As a far left anarchist i have to disagree with censorship of “dumb and not funny”, though I also respect the will of a collective (lemmy community) to decide what topics they find acceptable in their space, subjective humor and intelligence isnt a good reasons for exclusion (borders discrimination).
Imagine the joke was funny, would it have been acceptable? Obviously in a community for recovering addicts or one exclusively for pictures flowers it would not, but others?
We must be intolerant of the intolerant and only the intolerant otherwise we risk becoming intolerant ourselves.
It’s not “censorship” as you mean it I imagine because we aren’t a state entity. Every forum engages in censorship to some degree, even if only to protect themselves legally. I think too many think we have some (misguided) mandate to protect free speech to the point where we should endure the feds banging at our doors.
Sure, an individual forum shouldn’t carry the responsible to protect all human rights on that forum. But as an anarchist i object to the authority of a centralized state so i cant see it their job either.
In my ideals humanity is a collective of people and all of us carry the responsibility to safeguard the wellbeing of all people, as a collective. People who have been at the rejected end of continued intolerance know how damaging it can be for ones health.
Currently i dont know any true safe online spaces for the world most misguided or seriously ill people. So where can these people go? Social isolation is an echo chamber of their own mind.
Lemmy.ml doesnt need a nazi community but as - moral global human collective we should at least maintain lists of resources to help those struggling (with morality). A simple “we dont allow this here but here is a list of resources” ranging from social media to mental heath providers, or better social media monitored by non authoritative mental health providers.
https://kbin.social/m/memes@lemmy.ml/t/560127/-/comment/3106085
Thats a lemmy.ml link that can only be opened from within being logged in in kbin.
Trying to decipher the url code bought me here but i doubt its what you meant. https://lemmy.ml/comment/3106085
Let me ask you this: should I find a Tom and Jerry depiction of somebody dying of lung cancer in their final moments funny?
I just don’t see the comedy here. It’s overlaying a cartoon over tragedy. But because (I’m assuming) there is little sympathy for a mother who drinks and thus impacts their child, it’s suddenly acceptable and funny because it’s appropriately judgmental.
Edit: I think you should reframe this as “people find this joke tasteless.“ I find being tasteless different from being offensive. I don’t get offended by 9/11 jokes. But I’ve definitely heard a couple that I found tasteless. Though some people rightfully find it offensive as well - would you share this meme with someone who suffered a miscarriage or has experienced/been around FAS in some capacity? Would you knowingly share it with a NICU nurse?
That should get taken down too. They’re lame and low effort.
You don’t get it. Only what they find funny is funny and only what they think is biggoted is actually biggoted.
Any other world view other than theirs is extremely inferior to the point of being an insult to exist.
Are you guys making your own echo chamber in the middle of an echo chamber? Seems rather echonomical ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s starting to sound echoy in here. You can joke about kids being shot up in American schools but you can’t joke about abortion, fat people, etc., because then it seems too mean spirited.
Jokes about school shootings are jokes about America and its priorities. The punchline is America and its ruthless protection of firearms, not dead kids.
Jokes about obesity are jokes about a person and their weight. They’re the subject and the punchline and there is no meaningful observation other than “I find them repulsive.”
I think the big issue is that joking about school shootings is satirical to bring up how common it is in hopes to change it, while joking about fat people is just to be mean. No one is going to change because you made fun of them, in fact it might make the problem worse as state of mind is a factor in being unhealthy.
You could probably make the same argument about abortion jokes being satirical, but I don’t think abortion jokes are made in order to enact social change. It’s usually just to be offensive. Satire is usually used to point out how ridiculous something is, the hope is that we as a society will see it and do something about it.
You can be offensive and funny at the same time. But it’s an extremely fine line, and difficult to pull off. Watch Jimmy Carr if you want to see it done properly.
deleted by creator
By definition, something offensive must be something that can cause someone to take offense. Saying “haha, people get offended when I say offensive things” is rather redundant.
deleted by creator
The right when you acknowledge reality and easily verifiable facts.
The right when you say anything that’s
(Not an exhaustive list)
Oh, yeah, they also get pretty offended when you ask them to wear a mask or get vaccinated.
deleted by creator
The portion of the left which is insecure and obnoxious, that is. Trust me, we’re annoyed by them, too. They make the rest of us look like whiny, judgmental assholes.
deleted by creator