#bookmark comic

“Conveniently, all of my views have the highest possible stakes, which automatically makes me a good person for opposing killing people, which is all my opponents ever want.”

Last time I checked, wanting illegal immigrants deported, minorities to not getting preferential treatment, and trans people not to be “indulged” in their “mental illness” was not the same as wanting anyone in any of those groups dead.

There’s also the part where being friends with someone is a very good way to influence their views of groups you’re in, even if you’re not trying.

> It's always felt like such a strange argument when people respond to prison abolition with "well what about the rapists >:(

Yes, that “strange” feeling is called “cognitive dissonance”. It’s what happens when the world doesn’t fit your view of it.

> There are already, and have always been, murderers and rapists and serial killers out in public who were never caught. 

“I don’t think people should have their dangerous dogs walking the streets off-leash.”

“Well, plenty of those dogs run around without leashes and bite people! I’m sorry to tell you this, but it’s true.”

“...How is that a rebuttal?”

> This usually comes from thinking that Incredibly Violent Dangerous People are the majority of prisoners; this is not the case

This is a strawman. Whether they’re the majority or not, a major part of the job of jail is containing people who are dangers to the public.

> Prison abolition doesn't start and end with "no more prisons."

That’s kind of the front-page, above-the-fold, banner headline here. That’s what you call yourself.

Also, none of that stuff reliably stops or prevents violent criminals. By your own argument two points ago, there have always been bad guys. 

Unless you’re arrogant enough to think that you’re the first people in history to solve crime.

Prison abolitionist basically says “Google it!”. Drink a shot.

OV>>If y'all have thought up solutions, why is it so few of you are willing to present those solutions? 

OP> you can also just. look them up yourself. from those knowledgeable people. if you didn't know you could look things up on the internet.

...How do you think being a jerk to people who don’t agree with you is constructive?

For people who seem to think they’ve gotten everything figured out on an extremely complex issue, they can’t even argue outside of hugboxes.

> this was a small reflection on a flawed argument that got unexpectedly popular,

Let me guess; the argument where someone complained about prison abolitionists acting much like you? 

> also, did I mention career criminals anywhere? no, I did not.

“I did not specifically mention something that my argument would have to logically include, therefore it’s irrelevant.”

Sounds like a you problem!

Incidentally, solarpoweredpunkpossum is a standard anti-capitalist leftist who reblogs a lot of posts that were presumably made from a cranium firmly inserted into someone’s small intenstine.

“I care about the draft as a human rights issue. But not about the actual humans who have died because of conscription. 

And certainly not about the gender of almost every conscript in human history, which was usually an explicit requirement for conscription.

Just as a, y’know, conceptual, moral issue.

Also, I want to completely de-gender the issue, but still claim it’s feminist, somehow.”

“If you oppose abortion, you should talk about it without saying why you oppose it, even though I have no actual idea what that argument would be.”

This really sounds like you’re just mad pro-life people call you mean things. 

There are very few, if any pro-life people who don’t think abortion is murder and oppose it on that basis.

I wasn’t even defending pro-lifers, I was legitimately asking.

Also, I like how someone who deliberately calls pro-lifers “anti-choicers” (which is itself a slur by her definition) complains about people using insulting language to him. 

And also “buzzwords”. Like “anti-choicer”, which is the exact same thing he’s kvetching about, just from the other side.

And now she’s begging for validation for her willful ignorance.

It’s almost like he’s just saying whatever comes to mind to rationalize his stupid opinion that the other side should only make arguments he likes.

And yes, the coward blocked me. And basically everyone else who disagreed.

NTS: Comic files. 

A, wearing paper crown, outside, walking near hedge in BG, sunny day: I wish “anti-choicers” would make arguments against abortion without calling it “**baby murder**!” B, behind: Like what?

Wide chibi shot of A and B, sun above their heads, in front of bush. A has stopped, and turned around with raised eyebrows.

Same wide shot, A alone, at night, crescent moon, arms crossed, propping up chin, looking down, still thinking hard, under streetlight (off panel behind him)

1111 22/ 33

Commentary: I am not making this up.

I like how he went “if this is your only argument, you don’t have a real argument!” without actually saying why the position is wrong at any point other than his own opinion.

The closest thing to an actual criticism was handwaving it away as a “buzzword”.

“People bring up the draft when arguing with feminists, but feminists don’t support it either.”

“So are you going to actually call it sexism at any point in this post? Or display even the slightest concern for men’s lives, specifically? Because they’re the ones who’ve been actually dying.”

“N...no...? I think it’s a lot more appropriate to talk about how it hurts women’s feelings.”

Radfem acts like she speaks for all feminists. Drink a shot.

Also, the time between the Selective Service Act 1917* and women getting the vote was a whole...three years.

Over a century ago.

Smug Idiot on Reddit: I used to think World War Z was unrealistic because people ignored a virus.

Me: You mean the book where the ignorant people were the ones that listened to the mainstream media and government, and Big Pharma made a gazillion bucks selling a placebo?

Me: The book where the internet “conspiracy theorists” who disagreed with the mainstream narrative were right?

Me: I don’t think that’s the comparison you want to make.

Idiot: I don’t understand what you mean.

Me: yeah, not a surprise.

He ended up saying he knows COVID and the book’s zombie virus aren’t similar, and asked me if I read the book. 

After I had just referenced several major plot points from the book.

I gotta admit, it’s fun to argue someone into abandoning their original point entirely.

In another thread, one troll claimed BLM was “clearly” “always about police reform”. As if the racial part didn’t exist. They were also the sort of person who dramatically goes “screw BLM the organization, but the movement itself is still valid!”

Even though the movement was started and heavily influenced by the organization.

And disavowing the org now doesn’t actually do anyone any good. It’s not going to evict Patrice Collins from her mansion. It’s not going to magically fix the lives ended and neighbourhoods destroyed.

Also Tankies: We are actually completely normal and not radical at all how dare you focus on our proposed actual actions shut up

Death2America, with their usual level of lolgic: If you call things “cringe”, you don’t actually have to prove them wrong!

Death2America: Plus, it gets me tumblr points from other tankies without having to do any of that irritating “thinking” or ‘talking to people who disagree with me’.*

For bonus points, D2A is an antifa supporter.

Plus, y’know, the username.