FishFace

The better version of this joke

I saw this in my unreads without context and was like “oh god who’ve I pissed off now” so it was a relief when I realised 😅

Still operating your repost bot swarm, eh?

Oof I think I’d rate chromatic aberration worse ya know

Also not sure what the connection is there. Sugar is bad for you if you’re diabetic, but doesn’t itself directly lead to ill health - the effect is via obesity.

Oh, it was too real :(

Generally, harassment is a course of conduct over a period of time, not a one-off. The bar for a one-off encounter being harassment of any kind is high, with good reason.

That reason, to me, is that any reasonable person should be robust enough that all but the most serious, malicious communication should be something they can shrug off without much ill effect if it’s a single isolated message. Getting a picture of a wanking cartoon character and a disparaging message isn’t going to be pleasant for most people, sure, but if that’s it?

The logic behind punishment for sexual harassment is not - or should not - be any different from the logic behind punishment for non-sexual harassment; it should be proportional to the harm caused, and it should take the same standard of a “person of reasonable firmness” or whatever the legalese is.

You know how this post is a link to an article?

Have you tried, I dunno… clicking it? And then scrolling down?

I understand that’s the point you wanted to make, and to an extent I agree with it. But it’s not really about the point I was trying to make…

That’s fair enough. I think though we are probably talking about slightly different things - while I also agree that anti-immigrant protesters have the right to protest, what I’m getting at is that I nevertheless would rather they weren’t protesting about something I don’t agree with. There are lots of things people have the right to do that I don’t want them to actually do. But with overseas protests, I only know that people have that right to protest; I don’t know whether I support them exercising it in that particular situation.

But government isn’t able to do every single thing in its remit, so effective protest also sets government priorities amongst multiple valid things it could be doing. That means that a protest for something that is a job of government could be encouraging the government to do something less important. It could be encouraging the government to adopt measures that are harmful to the country even though they achieve something.

I consider it part of the government’s job to secure the country’s borders and prevent illegal immigration… but I think it’s pretty far down the list of priorities compared to other stuff. So protests against immigration, aimed at getting the government to reduce it, are dumb in my opinion. Yet it seems to me that your rule gives it the thumbs up because it’s “pressuring the government to do its job” and “a valid from of active citizenship.”

I suspect you don’t really want to see more anti-immigrant protests, so I think it’s more complicated than that.

me_irl

No, I don’t believe this is a joke.

What a strange non-sequitur

So every protest broadly aligned with your views is justified, basically? That’s exactly the rule of thumb I’m trying to avoid.

At some point I realised I have no idea how to evaluate protests in other countries. We have protests, and some extremely important, some are dumb as fuckshit, and some are just an excuse to riot. I know this, because I know the issues… but in a foreign country when they protest against bad conditions at school I have no idea how bad their schools are. Are they worse than our schools, or better? Are the problems extremely widespread, or somewhat rare, but amplified by some part of the media to seem widespread? No idea.

Or fish lower bodies; let’s not be exclusionary in our treatment of mythology!

I think they do like it - they get loadsa money for it!

Oh god, worse than I could possible have imagined D:

(75 years i.e. 1951)