Image macros that make you laugh, cry, or both.

[Ancient History]

I want to burn this on general principles.

[Ancient History]

[Maxus]

I want to burn this on general principles.

I live in the South and want to burn that.

Gives me the willies just thinking about it.

[OgreBattle]

Camel had its throat slashed, throws the guy that cut its throat.

[Josh_Kablack]

I want to burn this on general principles.

You know, I'm on the verge of writing to my representatives and demanding that we follow in Lincoln's footsteps and declare war on Mississippi instead of in Mosul......after all, torching Johnny Reb's plantations is just part of my cultural heritage....

[hyzmarca]

I want to burn this on general principles.

I live in the South and want to burn that.

Gives me the willies just thinking about it.

I don't know, I think it's funny. The League of the South's website is one of the best humor sites I've found. The fact that they're completely serious just makes it funnier.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yeah, I went there out of morbid curiosity, and was equal parts horrified and amused. The thing that really stands out is how completely incoherent they are. The majority of a state's population is a valid mandate to override federal laws, but the majority of the nation's population is not a valid mandate to override state laws. They are all about living in the present and the future, except when they choose to celebrate the legacy of John Wilkes Booth for some reason. (Spoiler warning: the reason is racism.)

My personal favorite is that they reject the term 'racist' as 'an anti-white slur.' I can't even begin to wrap my head around how that's supposed to work.

[Shatner]

I want to burn this on general principles.

I live in the South and want to burn that.

Gives me the willies just thinking about it.

I don't know, I think it's funny. The League of the South's website is one of the best humor sites I've found. The fact that they're completely serious just makes it funnier.

That reminds me of the time a friend first showed me a Chick Tracts comic. I said it was alright but nothing all that impressive as satire went. Then he explained it was meant to be taken seriously.

???
...
!!!

That changes everything!

[Leress]

Yeah, I went there out of morbid curiosity, and was equal parts horrified and amused. The thing that really stands out is how completely incoherent they are.

This.Site.Is.Hilarious:
http://dixienet.org/rights/2013/core_be ... tement.php

Our strongest and most enduring earthly affections and allegiances are to those people and places closest to us - family, friends, neighbors, villages, towns, cities, counties, and States. Conversely, our weakest attachments are to far-off abstractions such as "the nation," "the environment," or the "global community."

---
Southerners are a people bound closely to the land. It is more than just a resource for production; it is who we are. It defines both our character and world view.

Um...Um...

The League of the South asserts that Southern society is radically different from the society impressed upon it by an alien occupier. American society today is egalitarian and Marxist and is devoid of any grace or charm. In contrast, we believe in a Southern society that

Because apparently egalitarianism is bad because it's about treating people equal.



There is some wrong and contradictory statements on that site it almost makes me wish there was a thread about Websites: That make me laugh, cry or both.

My personal favorite is that they reject the term 'racist' as 'an anti-white slur.' I can't even begin to wrap my head around how that's supposed to work.

Oh, you didn't know only white people are called racist since...only white people can be racist.

So sayeth the Shepard, so sayeth the flock.

[Meikle641]

I've heard people claim that only whites can be racist; anybody who isn't white and acts racist is, in fact, merely prejudiced. "Hurr durr, 'racism = privilege + power'".

Those sites are definitely lolcows.

[Prak]

As I understand it, people who say that whites cannot experience racism are doing so with a lot of implied specifications- what they generally mean is "native born whites in America cannot experience racism in America" because they classify racism as an institutionalized attitude rather than prejudice based on race. Personally I think they should just talk about "institutionalized racism" if that's what they are talking about, but they have a point. However a lot of them also are ignorant of the flavours of racism which exist abroad. In general, european-descent caucasians (EDCs) do not experience institutionalized racism, but there are some areas which are highly xenophobic and have institutionalized racism which affects EDCs as a part of "anyone not us."

[Longes]

Our strongest and most enduring earthly affections and allegiances are to those people and places closest to us - family, friends, neighbors, villages, towns, cities, counties, and States. Conversely, our weakest attachments are to far-off abstractions such as "the nation," "the environment," or the "global community."

---
Southerners are a people bound closely to the land. It is more than just a resource for production; it is who we are. It defines both our character and world view.

TIL: Southern Americans are the Tzimisce.

[schpeelah]

As I understand it, people who say that whites cannot experience racism are doing so with a lot of implied specifications- what they generally mean is "native born whites in America cannot experience racism in America" because they classify racism as an institutionalized attitude rather than prejudice based on race.

Most people I've met that don't think whites can experience racism, would call racism against whites reverse racism, with all that implies.

[tussock]

Does this help, angelfromanotherpin?

Telling those folk that they're racist, is telling them that when they talk down black people they are factually incorrect. Telling them they are really no better than black people at all.

The whole notion that racism can be a thing implies white people are not superior, which to them, is a slur, because they think the "white race" are rightly and obviously superior. Except the ones up north for some reason, tolerance or something.

I used to chat with one, in their world black people are like dangerous dogs that no one has on a leash. They work really hard to not understand anything different. Those cops down in Ferguson, when they say they're "not racist", that's what they mean, they just "know how it really is". White protests there get two cycle cops in tight shorts, Black protests get tanks, sniper rifles, tear gas, and walls of assault rifles.

Telling them they're racist is telling them they're no better than those people they are absolutely terrified of at every moment of their lives. That just obviously isn't right, because they're not scared of white people at all, so racism is just a slur.


People be crazy.

[Prak]

As I understand it, people who say that whites cannot experience racism are doing so with a lot of implied specifications- what they generally mean is "native born whites in America cannot experience racism in America" because they classify racism as an institutionalized attitude rather than prejudice based on race.

Most people I've met that don't think whites can experience racism, would call racism against whites reverse racism, with all that implies.

On the tumblrs, which is where I frequently see the idea, they just make a difference between "a system of laws and attitudes which advantage the majority and disadvantage minorities," which is what they mean when they say racism, sexism, etc, and "discrimination based on [x]." Never mind that the latter is the dictionary definition of an ism.

I just chalk it up to evolution of language, and possibly some shibboleth, and move on.

[Chamomile]

By the tumblr definition, the bulk of the United States has no racism at all. The law as-written is perfectly equitable and it is in fact quite illegal to have separate laws apply to different kinds of people, and since the definition is "and" and not "or" we don't have to worry about the harder to quantify system of attitudes. Of course, by the actual sane person definition the picture is less rosy, because the fact that it is technically homicide to shoot someone for being black doesn't stop police officers from getting away with it. This is the problem with the oppression Olympics. In the race to always be the most oppressed, the claims of oppression soon grow to dwarf and thus trivialize actual tragedies born out of actual real discrimination.

[Prak]

By the tumblr definition, the bulk of the United States has no racism at all. The law as-written is perfectly equitable and it is in fact quite illegal to have separate laws apply to different kinds of people, and very few places have a fully functioning system of discriminatory attitudes. Of course, by the actual sane person definition the picture is less rosy, because the fact that it is technically homicide to shoot someone for being black doesn't stop police officers from getting away with it. This is the problem with the oppression Olympics. In the race to always be the most oppressed, the claims of oppression soon grow to dwarf and thus trivialize actual tragedies born out of actual real discrimination.

And yet it's perfectly legal to, say, pay one category of people less than another for the same work, or say that one category of people can marry and another cannot, or for one category of people to be able fire a rifle into the air while balls deep in a squealing hog and claim "SECOND AMENDMENT" while another gets killed or arrested for firing warning shots at their abusive spouses.

[Chamomile]

And yet it's perfectly legal to, say, pay one category of people less than another for the same work,

No, actually, it isn't. If you can prove that you're being paid less for no other reason than that you are a woman, you can sue for that. Trouble is, how are you supposed to prove that? Also: Sexism, not racism.

or say that one category of people can marry and another cannot,

This one is actually a legal difference and a pretty glaring gap in human rights at that, but again: Not racism.

or for one category of people to be able fire a rifle into the air while balls deep in a squealing hog and claim "SECOND AMENDMENT" while another gets killed or arrested for firing warning shots at their abusive spouses.

The details of this law varies state by state, but firing warning shots either is or is not legal depending on where you live. Legally speaking, it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of your skin. Nowhere in any law book does it say "white people are allowed to defend themselves, but black people are not."

The whole point here is that just because white people and black people technically live under the same laws doesn't mean that police, judges, and juries actually apply those laws fairly and equitably. That's why defining racism by laws is so wrongheaded. The laws themselves totally are equitable with regards to race, but to say this means there is no racism when the laws are simply not enforced whenever someone of the wrong color is the victim, or enforced on an unreasonably small standard of evidence when someone of the wrong color is the accused, is clearly and obviously wrong.

[Pixels]

And yet it's perfectly legal to, say, pay one category of people less than another for the same work,

No, actually, it isn't. If you can prove that you're being paid less for no other reason than that you are a woman, you can sue for that. Trouble is, how are you supposed to prove that? Also: Sexism, not racism.

Yes, actually, it is, with a few exceptions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment ... ted_States. Your example of discrimination based on sex is a protected category, but paying people who have annoying laughs less would be perfectly fine.

[Prak]

Also, I was talking about the use of [x]ism to mean "Institutionalized [X]ism," in general, not specifically racism. That's what spurred the conversation, but other [x]isms are used the same way. Also the attitude is just as important as the codified laws, because the attitude informs how laws are enforced.

And the warning shots thing was an actual case in Florida--a black woman, Marissa Alexander, fired a warning shot at her abusive husband. In the same state where caucasion George Zimmerman murdered a black teen and got off on Stand Your Ground laws, an abused woman was arrested and convicted to 20 years because apparently the same law does not apply to blacks, women, or black women. It may not be written into the law itself, but that's clearly how the law is enforced in Florida.

If you want, and give me a bit, I can come up with other cases where Castle Doctrine type laws only protect white men.

[Ancient History]

Okay, enough politicking in the image thread.

[hyzmarca]

[Maj]

Full Cookie

That's a great video.

[erik]

That first one I initially thought Cookie Monster was trash-talking the pharoh rather than sharing a revelation. I was like "What a strange put down."

I've been going here for stand-up gifs which lead me into youtube binges of various stand-up comics. I'm excited when I find a pretense for working in a gif to a thread. Like, someone, quick, get verbally destroyed. I gotta use this:

[Stahlseele]

@hyzmarca
@Maj