While I think the shirt is funny and should be worn proudly, I can see how someone might be offended for non-racist reasons. Some people might simply find the depiction of death to be offensive.
That said, it’s entirely possible the offended person was a raging racist.
Edit:
This edit is for those of you who are saying that people shouldn’t be offended by violence since it’s on TV. I think you’re missing the fact that the point entirely.
The fact that a depiction of violence is making a valid point doesn’t make it less offensive. In fact, that would detract from the message. Sometimes it is important to make a statement using depictions of violence to get a point across because the violence is offensive.
That said, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to find this shirt objectionable for non-racist reasons. For example, many people prefer not to expose their kids to depictions of violence. I think it’s this person’s right to wear the shirt to make their point but the consequence of wearing it is that some people may say that they find it offensive for both non-racist and racist reasons.
I’m gonna go ahead assume they were a racist and admit it’s entirely possible they’re offended by the depiction of death/crime/vigilantism generally
Thats bold statement to make about the president of Richmond NAACP:
“When you look at something like that, whether you consider it art or not art, lynching is not something that we’re in agreement with at all. We do not support any groups that support violence.”
I mean, you said “funny”. Which goes directly to the point hes making, in so much that it has normalized or trivialized a horrific form of racial violence
To everyone here that feels Nazis deserve free speech and sympathy.
They do not.
Handling Nazi with kid gloves is how we got here.
Handling Nazis with im kid gloves is how the Holocaust happened.
History is literally repeating itself and anyone sympathetic with Nazis is complicit.
Edit: Most of us know someone who’s grandparents died fighting Nazis. Ignoring and empathizing with Nazi’s is spitting on their graves.
I don’t know bout y’all but the ONLY gloves you should use when handling Nazis is the kind with spikes protruding from the business end.
Maybe the thick yellow rubber ones if you need to mop up after a body
In a truly tolerant society, only one thing should not be tolerated.
Intolerance.
Looks like the mods in here really don’t want y’all to know that the Uyghur “genocide” was a western hoax.
Quibble all you want about whether it is a genocide or not, but the abuse of Uyghurs by the Chinese government is in no way a hoax. It is institutionalized oppression of the highest order.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-situation-in-xinjiang
Do you have a reputable source? A US government agency’s info is as reputable as Israel’s info on Gaza. They’re the main ones crafting the bullshit.
AP has been selling the genocide in Gaza for Israel, and is not credible. Your second link is backing up my version.
‘“The genocide is still happening but it is just much more covert now,” Turdush said.’
That is a direct quote from the article you say backs up your version, so I’m glad you agree with me that China is committing genocide.
Also, the AP is the most reliable news source on the planet.
Re-read that article then. No one is making claims of deaths. Even the west has softened it to “abuses.” What deaths is your article claiming?
And those “abuses” were putting them in detention while they were de-radicalized, and your article acknowledges that they’ve now been dismantled, because again they were largely successful.
The AP has a long history of manufacturing consent in coordination with western propagandists. They’re helping sell the Israeli genocide as we speak.
Are we considering the UN’s report definitive then? Or did you just cherry-pick a paywalled article based on the title?
China responsible for ‘serious human rights violations’ in Xinjiang province: UN human rights report
The UN did not accuse China. Michelle Bachelet did. This is a common problem with these UN human rights abuse claims, where a single political appointee makes a claim, and the propagandists spread it as having full UN backing. They did the same thing to spread the sexual violence hoax for the Israeli Oct 7th propaganda. It’s not even the first time they’ve done this with the Uyghurs:
https://thegrayzone.com/2018/08/23/un-did-not-report-china-internment-camps-uighur-muslims/amp/
I tried to un-paywall the article you linked, and it brought up the UN report. It’s possible it was the wrong article.
Do you have an un-paywalled link? Or do I just trust it without reading it?
Why should you trust Chinese sources to tell you about a genocide in China? That’d be like trusting CNN to tell you billionaires are evil.
It’s not paywalled for me, but a lot of it is just repeating grayzone reporting.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/17/uyghur-tribunal-us-government-china/amp/
I’m not saying to trust China. I’m saying to trust the trusted third parties who have investigated it. Really were so far past the hoax at this point, you can even trust the state propagandists who’ve already admitted they didn’t have the evidence they claimed.
Right now, you’re trusting decade old claims from intelligence agencies, who aren’t even still pushing those narratives you’re clinging to, and who were exposed as radicalizing the Uyghurs to destabilize the region (as they’ve done countless other times this past century).
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Go back to ml
Removed by mod
“To whom?” That’s the only offensive thing I see in this post.
People have a sense of tiny comfort. One of which is not to have to think about death even for the deserving. They will, at the same as being offended by this, will support the death penalty, feel justified in invading random nations, and help defund social services. But that’s never felt as confronting death. That’s all in making sure their small comforts stay stable.
FWIW, I support the message on display here. Intolerance for intolerance, karma, and all that.
Things at the workplace get prickly, and not always for the right reasons.
In the case of depictions of violence, it’s deeper than the actions of the individual. Looking the other way only pulls management in, making them complicit. This opens the company up to a lawsuit, under some bullshit argument along the lines of “promoting a violent workplace” or some crap like that. Doesn’t matter if it can be argued down in court, a lot of places would probably settle just to keep it out of the news.
Also, lets say none of that comes to pass. It also opens the door for right-wingers to go their way with this stuff. I’m talking way more hardcore than Punisher skulls.
I need that shirt.
Who is he in trouble with? Racist Glenda, looking for something to do?
Ordinary fruit?
Brilliant reference.
The president of the Richmond NAACP, James “J.J.” Minor, stated in 2017 talking about something similar that “When you look at something like that, whether you consider it art or not art, lynching is not something that we’re in agreement with at all. We do not support any groups that support violence.”.
So who finds it offensive? I think the answer there can be the very people who were targeted by such violence. And that some people may not support any group using violent imagery, regardless of the target or intended message. The issue being that using the imagery of lynching, even against hate groups, can normalize or trivialize a horrific form of racial violence.
What? A suicide/lynched corpse? What could possibly be offensive about that? Politics has made you insane.
Edit: People can and do change who they are when confronted by real empathetic people. Living people do. Dead people never change.
Ah yes, the change of “well, it effects me now, so its suddenly a real issue”
Fuck those people
It’s called human nature.
Yes, it’s human nature to be savage brutalistic tribal hunter gatherers. Thing is, we are part of a society now. Most people have no issues figuring out right from wrong. If you need a book or societal shame to figure that out, thats on you.
Tribal is the word of the day and it’s the one that matters in this context. Still very relative to modern human relations.
If living people can change and stop being bigots, why don’t you?
If you can explain to me how a man can be pregnant then maybe I’ll change my mind but it seems rather unscientific to me. And this is talking about biological sex not gender.
Maybe do better with your argumentation instead of just calling somebody a bigot because you disagree.
To be more clear the vast majority of people do not want to change their language for vanishingly small minority. FTM is an even smaller minority than MTF and that’s what’s required in order for a “pregnant man”.
deleted by creator
All speech should be protected, even if the shirt character was replaced with a bIm guy
While the government shouldn’t be allowed to restrict speech, that doesn’t mean your speech shouldn’t have consequences.
No one should have to worry about being harmed physically or legally at least.
Well I’m worried. I have a favorite hat I sewed an upside down American flag on. Too scared to wear it and get in a firefight with a MAGA goon. They will pick fights, been on the edge a few times. Wife’s a legal, brown immigrant. Can’t fuck around because of fear for her.
Too scared to plant an antifa flag in my yard. There will be a firefight if they come for me over that. Or if they come for my wife, for any reason.
Fuck me, even on this platform, I’m afraid to say too much. OTOH, some things I’ve said are basically a “dare ya” to the government.
Even having the means and skills to protect myself and my family, my speech has been stifled. And that’s America where I live, 2025.
While I agree with your previous comment, I think that this is part of the consequences of free speech. Someone might punch you. Maga are idiots, traitors for sure, but if we use American rules then yeah they have the right to be upset abou that. that being said, we are far past following American rules.nin my opinion.
It sucks we have to be manually approved by a person in order to post here. I’m almost a free speech absolutist, only doxing and threatening to physically harm someone or a group of people unjustifiably shouldnt be tolerated. Everything else is fair to use publicly.
Spreading hatred, let alone hatred based on made up reasons, should not be legal.
That’s a slippery slope- trump is doing that with people correctly pointing out that Charlie Kirk was a dickhead.
How is that example a slippery slope? Most of what Trump does is criminal.
He wants to criminalize spreading hate about Charlie Kirk.
You personally gonna define hatred? No way that can go wrong.
Spreading hatred - “Inciting violence for a person/group of people using baseless accusasions often for self-interests,
like fucking telling people to bully their classmates into suicide for being gay to get youtube podcast ad revenue and saying it’s ‘free speech’
as if you didn’t just do the equivalent of picking a random guy to report for murder because you got bored.”Inciting violence
Right. There. Proves my point. Trump is saying words spoken against him are “inciting violence”.
I agree. I have to specify “lying” does not fall under free speech tho.
Free speech was never about the literal “talking” but for things like free press/journalism and discussing.
Free speech doesn’t mean people can just accuse others of rape and murder because they are bored.
People shouldn’t be able to say “gay muslim immigrants want to kill us all and establish communism,” and then act like 14 year olds being bullied into suicide is not their fault.
Especially when it’s for money or political campaigning. It’s not “free speech” to lie and incite violence for self-benefits.
That is understandable, but no one should be harmed for saying “group” are dumb, “group” are evil. Inciting violence against a person or group is wrong depending on how much influence the inciter has to cause real physical harm in the near future. Saying someone stole or SA’d with no proof or not good proof isnt part of free speech too.
Remember that child porn is technically speech.
