2886 Borderlands.

by

Patreon
Subscribestar
Comic Vote
Reddit
Wiki
Presents List
Shirts & such.
Ko-Fi.

I will start out my blog with a warning for anyone who simply wants to enjoy my comic and not think about the outside reality. I’m going to speak about it because I have been enraged for days. This is your chance to stop reading and ignore all of that unpleasantness. Rest assured I will be here on Friday with more fictional adventures of made up people. I hope to see you then.

Also, if you intend to comment on the page I suggest you dont look at the other comments. I assure you it won’t be pleasant.

Now, for those of you still here…
I remember 2018. For me it’s not some far away land that we collectively flew over, seeing the large patches of color, but no real detail. No, I was on the ground floor as people were being deplatformed all around. I believe that the freedom of speech in America is first for a reason. At that time I said as much and was punished for it. Maligned for it. I took a financial hit from it amounting to hundreds of dollars, and I would do it again. I never made those losses back. I could have had 7 much better years if I had simply kept my mouth shut. I had the right to remain silent, but not the inclination. Now the tables have turned and the other side is weeping for voices who were silenced. Very briefly I would note… They aren’t saying “It’s a private company, they can do what they want” anymore. The hypocrisy. The utter, unmitigated, blatant, malicious, hypocrisy. I am sickened by it. You set the rules on engagement then bleat when they are followed. When the shoe is on the other foot you bemoan the march. Even so, I will still sit here and defend your right to say whatever ridiculous bullshit you like because I actually believe in something. Putting aside all the nuance of things, and if I believe what happened was fair according to the rules agreed upon, I still defend anyone’s right to say whatever they please if they be a citizen of the United States. I think all humans should have that right, but clearly many governments don’t. If the people who are governed by them want fewer freedoms then that is their choice. I want maximum freedom at all times. That said, I can understand how other people might not want you in their group if you go around saying you hate a particular kind of person, or murder is cool, or gif is pronounced gif. That is something that was thrown into stark contrast in 2018. What you say creates ripples in the pond and those ripples can come back to you in ways you don’t like. Actions have consequences. I am certain that a cadre of unprincipled people will seek to punish me for typing out these words, but I’m doing it knowing full well I bring suffering on myself for choosing to metaphorically speak. If you stand for nothing you shouldn’t be surprised when you are trampled. To my last breath I will defend even speech that I detest in the strongest possible terms. No artist should support the curtailing of free expression. Hearing the concerns of the opposition is vital. On this I will never be swayed.

If people are too afraid to speak how will we ever achieve compromise?

For those of you who made it through that without seeking to harm me, I salute you. Especially if you disagree with what I believe. I will never accept your position, but it is still your right to maintain it. Should the day ever come when censorship wins you should know I will oppose it until someone silences me permanently. I will be glad to go. I have no interest in living in a place where I am not free to speak my mind. The grave would be preferable and I’m sure there are people who would gleefully usher me to it.

On that note I hope to see you on Friday. May you come safely to me then. Until that time, listen for yourself. Don’t let others tell you what was said.

48 Comments

Jackie- as a long time reader, I for one support you in this statement (at least for the most part). Unfortunately, I think there is a turning point beyond which tolerance must defend itself as a functional social contract by expelling and punishing the intolerant. I wonder when we crossed that point, but we’re certainly beyond it now.

Unrelated to the statement above, in the intervening years I’ve continued to enjoy Between Failures immensely, and it served as a significant inspiration in helping me improve my life and find satisfaction in those improvements. I hope to continue enjoying it for as long as you make it.

God, I haven’t really kept up with everything, so not 100% what this is about. I can’t listen to it all, for my own sanity. I heard Kimmel was canceled for saying something reprehensible; I don’t really find this to be a “free speech” problem as I did always maintain that private companies are not obliged to tolerate your opinion. He was an employee of ABC and he upset ABC, simple as; I’d fire my employees too if they started upsetting my patients. To me, it’s more troublesome on platforms; I actually support the platform/publisher dichotomy. You either have an open platform where everything short of actual law-breaking is permitted, or you have a curated experience where only certain things are allowed because that’s the point; you only want to hear from the left, the right, the up, the down, the vegetarians, the Chiefs fans, whatever, but then that rule has to be front and center and admitted to. If someone was banned from Twitter for being an ass, I don’t agree with that. But if people are getting in trouble with their jobs because they make the choice to be terrible humans and celebrate murder, well, that’s okay; you have the right to say it, and they have the right to fire you for it. And if someone’s been arrested or some nonsense for saying mean things, I will 100% stand against that, no matter how much of a twat that person may be. After all, I would prefer the stupid and dangerous people announce that they are stupid and/or dangerous, rather than find out the hard way, far too late. It’s why my interviews mostly involve me getting the candidate to talk, because they usually tell me if they are worth my time or need a few more years flipping burgers before they are ready for a real job.

So, the whole Kimmel thing was what he said being twisted into being portrayed as reprehensible by people who were looking for an excuse to cancel him. He did not celebrate the murder in any way. In fact, he immediately condemned it in a tweet right after it happened.

The exact quote that people are using as the excuse to cancel Kimmel was “The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” This is just a true statement. It does not say that the shooter was MAGA (though, it can be taken that way if you’re looking for attacks all the time), but says that MAGA was looking for anyone not them to pin the blame on. I remember a lot of attempting to paint the shooter as some sort of trans leftist before anyone knew anything about the shooter at all.

Anyway, after that statement was that clip of Trump being asked about Kirk’s death, and him not really caring and preferring to talk about the ballroom construction project on the White House. That was then followed up with some sort of joke about how little Trump seemed to care about Kirk’s death. Which is probably what Trump was actually angry about, and led to the FCC chairman’s threats.

Trying to paint this as an independent action by ABC is extremely disingenuous considering the threatened FCC actions. The government threatening to take action against a company unless they cancel someone that the government doesn’t like the speech of is a very blatant first amendment violation.

TL;DR: Kimmel victim, Orange Man bad.

“I remember a lot of attempting to paint the shooter as some sort of trans leftist before anyone knew anything about the shooter at all.”

…Couldn’t have anything to do with the whole trans shooter killing Christian kids the literal month before, could it? People notice patterns, and oh look, there’s a trans roommate who was in on it. But no, you’re right, we don’t know which side it was. lol

“The government threatening to take action against a company unless they cancel someone that the government doesn’t like the speech of is a very blatant first amendment violation.”

…I wonder if you cared about government influence so much when Biden’s admin was leaning on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube? Or when they brought erroneous charges against conservative influencers right before the 2024 election?

Literally every time there’s a big shooting in the news right leaning people try to blame it on trans leftists of some sort. Being right once isn’t an achievement.

The roommate wasn’t “in on it”.

ABC didn’t think Kimmel was profitable anymore, and then he said something neither funny nor well-informed, but gross. So they said “yeah, time to turn the lights off” regardless of the FCC action, which is itself bad.

I don’t remember there being a big to-do about the would-be assassin of SCOTUS justices being a trans-identifying man. I hear that was first known in 2022.

I feel like there’s a lot of nuance people skip over on this A vs B discussions. If Twitter wants to deplatform someone for their Speech, that is their choice. If a Public School fires teachers because they voiced an opinion in their free time, that’s a government employee being fired for their Speech. The 1st Amendment SPECIFICALLY talks about protecting Speech from GOVERNMENT oversight; that’s the big difference, legally speaking.

It’s why I also know many teachers who are being threatened, doxxed, or fired simply because they had THE GALL to say something as personal as, “I prefer to keep my Empathy for the children who were shot that day, rather than the man who created ProfessorWatchlist.com and harassed me via proxy.” I also know that those teachers with Union Contracts that were fired for their Speech from a Public Position will be suing for a large amount of reimbursement, which is just less money the schools have to support their students. All around, it’s an incredibly stupid thing for the Far Right to do, and the goal is Cruelty and Harm.

Which brings me to the other nuance: where do you draw the line? Hate Speech? Openly calling for violence? Threatening to murder someone with your Speech? Surely there must be a line somewhere; if so, then I think you’d agree that there’s more nuance to Free Speech when you compare “Nazis on Twitter calling for the extermination of my entire family” vs “A teacher joked about Charlie Kirk on their Facebook page.”

In any case, I hope you don’t get harassed for your opinion, Jackie; I’ve supported your comic off and on for a long time, and outside of the farthest extremes, I very much agree that people can’t LEARN from each other if they can’t communicate with each other. Here’s hoping you have a great week!

So it’s the side getting government employees fired because they don’t want people who celebrate the murder of innocent civilians teaching their children, that have a goal of “cruelty and harm,” not the side that gunned down a loving husband and father for trying to have a dialogue across the aisle, and then laughed about it. Okay.

What side exactly gunned down Kirk?

All we know for certain so far is that they were terminally online somehow (from the incoherent collection of memes etched onto the bullets)

If the shooter is placed on a “side”, it would be the side of “words and discussion are violence, and murder is an acceptable response to the perception of meanness”.

There is nothing wrong with trying to support people and you should absolutely support those who are in danger or at risk. But it is important to realize that tearing down and demonizing others will only lead to more harm. You ask where the line should be drawn but you should first ask where is it now. There is no need to speak ill of the dead, especially for someone who died a violent death. It stirs animosity and negative feelings and we as a society have already established that large corporations should remove people for creating negative feelings. Jimmy Kimmel is not the first person to be let go for it, and he won’t be the last. The argument about “cancel culture” has been going on for a long time now and isn’t worth bringing up here. But I would like to ask you to think about why you refer to the people on Twitter as Nazis. Is it because every individual who harasses those professors has Nazi iconography in their Twitter profile? Is it because an avowedly pro-fascist group is directing the harassment? Or is it because “Nazi” has become a fast and convenient slur to dismiss and degrade a particular group of people?
If you feel that a particular person has been wronged, I urge you to speak in that person’s defense. If you feel that freedom of speech is being threatened, I urge you to speak out as Jackie has. Because freedom of speech is worth defending. But please remember that both sides are bringing biases and bad behavior to this argument and your summary of the situation doesn’t acknowledge that fact.

“There is no need to speak ill of the dead, especially for someone who died a violent death.”

Is there not, though? Let’s skip past the traditional analogy and instead say…

John Wayne Gacy. That is a man who I think we can all agree, the world is better off without. Can we say that is itself still sad? Absolutely, even serial killers were once children who could’ve become anything other than what they did. But the man he did become, society was correct to purge.

Now let’s say, somehow, the execution of Gacy had become extremely politicized. Let’s imagine that the POTUS declared we should have Killer Clown Day. That expressing anything negative about Gacy makes you an enemy. Is there not, then, a *need* to speak ill of the dead? To acknowledge that while death is always tragic, that celebrating and supporting evil is sometimes worse than being callous about death?

Now, I’m not saying Kirk is Gacy. He may in fact have been far more dangerous, but as far as I’m aware he only had and spread bad ideas, which is not something that deserves death, and even if *he* did, we cannot have a society when one individual disagreeing with your ideas can silence them with a bullet. I am sorry for his wife and deeply sorry for his children.

But I will not say he was a good man when he wasn’t. I will not sit quietly while he is being made into a martyr without saying that his beliefs were not saintly.

You casually condemn a man you clearly have a barely surface level knowledge of. Someone told you what to think and you accepted it because, charitably, you have busy life. Although it’s just as likely you are intellectually lazy and easily manipulated. Wrapped in smug arrogance while being ignorant of his good work, you go about your life contributing little more than the thoughts of malignant people on matters you barely grasp.

Ironic that you’re doing exactly what you accuse me of. Fact is, I *had* never heard of him prior to all this but I did do research and… yeah dude had a lot of shitty ideas, and made a career off being obnoxious with them. And yes, I do think the radicalization he contributed in no small part to is more dangerous than a single serial killer. But violence doesn’t counter bad ideas and their spread, even if those bad ideas are causing violence. You still have to contest the idea itself, and you do that with education not with guns.

I’m not even saying *everything* he believed was bad, people aren’t that simple, but neither that nor his death will stop me from challenging his regressive bullshit. Maybe you’re the one that doesn’t know his work? “Charitably”, I’d say you’re ignorant of them rather than assuming you agree with him that women should be subservient wives, lgbt people are abominations, and black people can only be hired for DEI because it’s impossible that they’d be a better candidate than a white person otherwise. I can cite him on those ideas by the way, but sure, “surface level knowledge.” As if proudly being a bigot was an invitation to dig deeper…

If your research left you with lies and slander then you may as well have done none at all. Either you or the research are lacking.

“the goal is Cruelty and Harm”
Any time you say this, go ahead and review your priors. I wouldn’t even say the assassin’s motivation was “cruelty and harm” as he understood it. You need to better understand the position of the person you accuse of being motivated by cruelty and harm.

“Where do you draw the line? Hate speech” – legally there is no such thing – “calls for violence or murder” – yeah, if it’s specific and actionable. That’s when it becomes threats, which are not protected. On the other hand, I’ve seen far more hyperbolic reference to “nazis on twitter calling for extermination” than I’ve seen evidence.

This post has really opened my eyes man. You and people like you will ride the center no matter how far to the right it goes, and you’ll sit there being smug about it while civil rights are gutted.

So far to the right that only the right is demonized and being far left is considered perfectly normal and is endorsed by the media, the government, the NGOs, and every major corporation. Uh-huh, yup, it’s the people mad about mean jokes that are “gutting civil rights” and not the people who literally murder their political opponents in public. ALso, Jackie’s entire point was about how he will support civil rights no matter what, and that makes you mad?

Jackie, Heaven forbid; I need my weekly dose of glorious Karen curves and sass.

To the anonymous coward:

So… the group of people mad about the lawful deportation of their new would-be permanent underclass of underpaid/trafficked labor is also claiming to be the champions of civil rights? The same group whose leaders call for violence, call for re-education camps, label all who disagree as extremists and deplatform/cancel them, tell their drones to kill those they can’t silence, etc.? Bro, you guys have pulled the rug so far out from under everyone and to the left that the far right edge is now under the liberal/centrists, yet you still call it far right.

“Civil rights are gutted” – like, uh, the right to engage in debate over political disagreements to try to understand and be understood? The civil right to not be murdered? What are we talking about here?

“She loved us. In that she loved to point out our mistakes. Correct pronunciation is just one more way to be better than others.”

Yeah, sadly the pendulum never seems to stop swinging. Each little increment makes so much sense until you realize it has crossed your own personal line.
Originally the internet was a Wild West where you could find everything of every extreme but could also struggle to find things you wanted. As large corporations started buying up vast swathes, it became easier to find things you wanted, but the extreme stuff began disappearing because none of the corporations wanted anything to do with it. And that was fine. Who needs internet memes like goatse and tubgirl? But as the extremes disappeared, areas that were less extreme became the new extremes. And so the corporations started removing or cordoning off that stuff too at the behest of the social collective. We don’t need racist diatribes on Youtube. We don’t need porn to turn up when we search for beloved cartoons from our childhood while on a nostalgia kick. And that was fine too. With the craziest stuff removed from the accessible platforms, you could set rules and guidelines to maintain a sense of courtesy and decorum. Racial slurs and swear words could be removed from casual discourse just like we do in person. No problem there. And as people grew more comfortable, ostracized groups were able to find the courage to come forward and speak. And some people were rude or biased against them, but they were politely informed that they were making people feel uncomfortable. If they refused to stop being hurtful, they would be banned. And everyone could talk freely about what they liked without fear of reprisal or bullying on massive platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
And it all made perfect sense. Even typing it out, it sounds reasonable if you don’t stop to ask where all those silenced people went. But the pendulum never stopped moving in that direction. More and more rules were implemented to ensure tolerance and progress in areas of public discourse. It sounds ridiculous to complain about that. But if you stop and think about it, why would you have to “enforce” tolerance and progress? You can’t force tolerance, you can only guide people towards it with education and discourse. If you enforce it by excluding and silencing people, you aren’t really fostering tolerance. You are designating groups of people as intolerable. I won’t say it is wrong to ban people who are vulgar from public areas. Some people revel in making other people unhappy and you should keep them from being able to spoil public gatherings. Some degree of exclusion is necessary to keep things running smoothly as as society and as long as you realize that you are on a slippery slope, you can remain wary of going to far or too fast. But it happened gradually and the first to be silenced were the truly vile. I don’t miss them. It’s the same with progress. Can you “enforce” progress? If your vision of a better world is truly better for everyone, why the need to silence and exclude? Anyone reading this can insert their political policy of choice and say that I am on the other side of the aisle and am only against it because of my wrong opinions, but if the choice is so obviously right, why is there an entire other side against it?
Right now as I type this, the pendulum is swinging from left to right, with people migrating back towards more conservative values. But I remember when it was swinging from right to left. I remember asking why hypocritical conservative politicians preaching religious morals should guide the nation while they themselves were caught embezzling and philandering. I remember asking why the law says love is only valid if it is between a man and a woman. I remember voting for change and asking why we can’t direct more of our wealth to helping those in need. And now I am asking why the figures who normally condemn gun violence are making snide comments about the murder of an activist who had opinions they disagree with. I am asking why the promised change looks a lot like the old systems. I am asking a lot of questions about the world I see today and it seems like a lot of other people are too. And sadly in another decade we will probably find that we are uncomfortable again with how far the pendulum has gone in the opposite direction under the pressure of social momentum.
And until everyone agrees on everything and all problems are answered perfectly, all we can do is keep questioning and discussing. And that requires people who are willing to stand up and defend unpopular speech. Even when it comes at personal cost. I thank you for speaking your mind Jackie and I am sorry to hear that it cost you to do so.

A lot of the snide comments are from people who are sick of all the mass shootings of schools and other places that keep showing up regularly (some showing up in the news, some not, and one happened on the day of Kirk’s death) where a lot of people either don’t care or consider it an acceptable loss for the second amendment.

And Kirk was one of those people. So the snide comment is using a quote from Kirk himself where he says “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” The Snopes article I’m looking at says he “made this statement during an April 5, 2023, TPUSA Faith event that took place on the Salt Lake City campus of Awaken Church.”

And now suddenly a lot of people who don’t care about all of the mass shootings suddenly say they care very much about Kirk being shot and well, it grates on people.

The people who don’t want people to be shot also don’t want Kirk to be shot. The people who want the right to self-defense are mad that Kirk died to assault (which is not self-defense).

It’s like saying “we’ll unfortunately have some traffic accidents and people who drive their vehicles into crowds if we keep allowing cars”. And yet, we allow cars, we allow drinking, and we criminalize murder.

The comic is so tightly knit to the blog content today. 2018 deplatforming started with Twitter deciding they didn’t want hate speech and calls to violence guiding discourse on their platform. Soon thereafter came the Twitter deplatforming of the other side vs those that were deplatformed before the buyout. Twitter tanked hard and whole new platforms were created for people who didn’t like what Twitter had become, like blue sky and truth social. The middle road platforms still exist, I guess this is why we need something like ground news.

I support free speech with natural consequences. I also believe so-called platforms cannot be allowed to own speech and thus can’t violate free speech by not allowing certain content. The power of the press and the freedom of the press is unjustly curtailed by forcing companies to run specific stories or anyone else’s words. If someone loses favor with a large swath of the press and platforms as a consequence of the things they say, that’s fine. There are many platforms available and if they are rich enough they can create their own, or buy one out, which we’ve seen happen. As always the speech of the less wealthy is a lot harder to gain a wide audience for.

Jackie, first let me say how much I appreciate how relatively apolitical and how consistent you always strive to be; your focus is always on your story and your characters, and I’ve never noticed any alteration to any of the cast simply to serve the political times, unlike far too many webcomics I’ve read over the years. Even on the occasion when we disagree, I’ve never seen it as more than that, a simple disagreement. And I personally have never seen such a bad take from you that I’d ever be willing to give up Between Failures——and believe me, I’ve given up a few webcomics that I felt turned particularly toxic or hostile towards me and mine, or who abandoned good writing for virtue points (LICD, QC for instance).

I remember when I messaged you after Carl got kicked from Patreon, still wanting to support you, but not Patreon itself; I really respected that you listened and gave us the option to use SubscribeStar instead. On an unrelated note, you’re too hard on yourself about updating; we joined there just to have a way to support you, not for a reward beyond Between Failures’ continuation.

—Begin Rant—

While I agree, a turning point has been reached (honestly, how prophetic is the name Charlie picked?), and while I love poetic justice, wielding cancel culture against its creators leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. I’m reminded of anytime I was forced to pick up a Covenant weapon in Halo; it works great on them, but it was designed to kill me and mine. But… much as I hate to say it, it’s necessary, right now. Why? Because rather than this heinous event waking everyone up on both sides, and making them see the rhetoric has gone too far, Twitter and TikTok are abounds with calls for the rest of the family, and other political enemies to be killed, as well. A man is dead, a wife widowed, and there are two little ones who will have to grow up without a father; this should be reprehensible, and yet we’ve seen attempts to justify it, lies about the shooter’s origins, and far worse.

This will lead to more hatred, and eventually more violence and death; and barring Heavenly intervention, death is permanent. One side cannot constantly be expected to be the battered wife, who just needs to shut up, forgive, and keep the home stable, while the other does whatever it wants to her with impunity, without repercussions. So, if losing your job ’cause you were a horrific asshole online and someone showed your boss is what it takes to get through to some folks, so be it; it shouldn’t come to that, but we warned you when you forged cancel culture.

Be glad that lost jobs are all that’s occurring. After all, if the current “logic” (I am loathe to use that word in this case, but) being presented is, “You offend me, thus I’m justified in killing you, or calling on others to do so for me,” then just like cancel culture, that blade also cuts both ways. Do we really need to get to that point? I’d prefer if we could all agree that mutually assured destruction is supposed to be avoided, not provoked, nor wished for, but I’ve also been criticized as an idealist.

—End Rant—

With all that said, Jackie, thank you again for what you do, and for providing a place to escape clown world, if even only for a few moments three days a week. Please keep it up, and never let anyone convince you that you’re not needed in times like these; escapism and common ground are needed now, more than ever, be it in hobbies or Faith.

I return now to my ever-growing, unpainted pile of shame, for the Emperor.

In true third party fashion, I’m going to split the difference here in a way that will probably annoy both sides.

Do I think Kimmel deserved to be taken off the air? No. Both in principle and because based on his ratings I doubt that more than 2-5% of country saw it anyways. Plus, watching his transition from blackface using leer-er at bikini girls on trampolines to self-righteous liberal scold was more entertaining than anything he’s ever done on purpose.

That being said, I’m not exactly awash in sympathy. The left has spent twenty-five years trying their hardest to get people fired, disinvited, un-personed, et al for everything from ten year old jokes on Twitter to Halloween costumes to memes to unpopular opinions. Like I said a couple weeks back, all these little would be Robespierres never think it’ll be their turn under the guillotine…until it is. And then somehow we’re supposed to feel bad when the fate they decreed for other falls on them?

Nah. Besides, Kimmel’s a rich white guy with rich friends. He’ll be fine.

My concerns for free speech started when Mahmoud Khalil was jailed earlier this year. Though the US has been up to that kind of shady shit for a long while now.

MK is not a citizen, who used his “free speech” to actively oppose the policy of the US government, and so the US Government decided he wasn’t a good candidate for citizenship on account of being opposed to the direction of the US. Since he’s not on a citizenship track, his visa to be in the US was revoked. That means that the penalty for opposing the US is that the US asked him to leave its house. He can go somewhere else and oppose the US with words.

This hinges on him not being a US citizen in the first place. Yes, I’m more uncomfortable with the administration wanting to go back and readjudicate naturalization if the naturalized citizen speaks out; denaturalization isn’t a new concept, though, and it doesn’t seem to be expanding in use.

There is nothing that says the First Amendment only applies to citizens.

The U.S. Constitution, as a document, generally doesn’t distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. It is the root of legal authority in the U.S.: If the government wants to do something, it must eventually be able to point to something in the Constitution that allows it. (Usually it’s the part that says Congress can make laws for one thing or another, and then it points at the created law.)

I would also posit that if you’re allowing/accepting what happened to MK, then you aren’t truly a Free Speech Absolutist.

You told me not to read the comments–always good advice–and yet I did not listen. Serves me right.

I really like how that first panel with Victoria is drawn. And other aspects of this stip, but I can’t seem to articulate it very well.

I imagine some of of the other aspects are the very clever wordplay and a good indication that these two are siblings, and fairly close, since their responses are really in sync.

The whole reason why we are in this position now is because we allowed the intolerant to have a voice.

Sorry but bad people have no place for discussion in my life.

We should have been harder on them.

So they all deserve the wall? That’s why you’ll never take our guns.

Any time I see or hear someone say “you’ll never take our guns” I sincerely hope they end up in a gun accident.

Not a fatal one. I won’t wish for someone’s death- and besides, that won’t teach them. Maybe blow a finger off or something. Make it harder for them to type stupid replies to amazing webcomics.

I’ve been reading this comic for years. Been commenting on it about as long.

I’m also a three-time Trump voter. Twice when it mattered, once when it didn’t, because some senile wreckage of a human being and his various handlers concocted excuse after excuse to steal an election and were never prosecuted.

It’s amazing how well we get along when we know as little as possible about each other. Because chances are I just gave at least a half-dozen people here twitching fits that they wouldn’t have otherwise had I not said anything.

Congratulations. You’re all my cases in point.

Thank you for your emotional and difficult intellectual honesty. It is something I love about reading and supporting (via Patreon) your work, specifically. While this respect isn’t based on your opinions, rather, how you are fearless in expressing them even at a cost, I also happen to agree with the opinions, so thanks x 2 for being loud about them.

Free Speech is kind of a tricky topic, because words have Power. I was raised by a very accepting family, I was not made to hate people or to spread hate. And yet… words poisoned me. I learned to hate myself for what I was, and what I felt, hate myself for something I would never hate another for. Because the people around me were free to speak whatever vile things they wanted, I got used to their hatred and turned it on myself for wanting what they would hate me for. It drove me to the very edge of life. I don’t think that it’s right to accept that, I don’t think that sounds like freedom.

I also feel like venue is important. Lots of people take the line that “We must protect this thing so that we can have discussions,” but rarely are these things really discussed, they are one-sided. And like, being naked or drunk/disorderly aren’t illegal per say, you can do that at home/some beaches/etc. but you still can’t be naked and drunk in the streets/school/etc. Not to mention things like consent. Shouting an opinion with a closed mind and closed ears is not going to lead to compromise anyways. I don’t really have a solution, but I feel like allowing such damage to be wrought unchecked isn’t the best way. And complaints the one side are restricted more than the other often feel like complaining that guns/cocaine/cigarettes are restricted but cookies aren’t. Harm/hate shouldn’t be a political party.

Sticks and and stones may break my bones, but words can convince me I will always be broken, and that’s so much worse.

I absolutely agree with your take, Jackie. And I think, honestly, healthy people can recognize opinions they don’t share and realize that they don’t need to share them, or need others to share their own. So many people are so insecure in their own beliefs and positions that they feel the need to shore up their numbers by any means necessary, and these are the sorts of people being enabled.

To anyone else who keeps to their beliefs without harming others: be proud. You are stronger than most.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.