this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
689 points (94.8% liked)
Political Memes
1831 readers
1171 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The guy looks perpetually scared that MAGA is going to notice he isn't white.
I’m assuming he’s had his thyroid checked but maybe they should check again…
We have the watch? Is that supposed to be a Game of Thrones reference?
The appeal to the manosphere is real.
There's a book I've been meaning to read: Uncivil Agreement by Lilliana Mason.
I've heard it's about how most people should be voting in alignment with their policy beliefs, but when you look at it ... more people vote along with how they choose to be identified with even if it hurts them.
Well, shit. Thats just America... and the UK(among others) in a nutshell.
You’re using one flavor of bigotry to disparage another flavor of bigots?
missing chromosomes doesn't turn you evil
I think it's their physical appearance that is being referred to. Patel looks perpetually surprised and slightly off while Kirk looked like the witch doctor fucked up while shrinking his head.
That's ableism. These people don't look the way they do and don't act they way they do because of any genetic disorder. They also aren't going to fucking see this so the only people being insulted by this are people who are disabled, great job.
We're talking about actual fascists here and you guys are insulting with eugenics and appearance ffs.
This is the funniest thing I have read in a long while 😂🤣🤣
"Hrm. Why did only the face shrink? Was the cauldron too hot?"
Isn't the bigoted insult supposed to be extra chromosomes?
Too few or too many usually has the same general effects--ain't good for viability, and if you get past that often an Intellectual Disability. Though I will say that some of the coolest people I know have an Intellectual Disability.
Ableism. What a funny joke dude. Could you explain what specifically they're referring to about missing chromosomes that would make someone a fascist?
The ones useful for empathy and intelligence.
Eugenics, nice. Total own dude you really got me.
So can I ask: is it acceptable to edit this screenshot to not include the ableist part (just crop out the whole Avengers part honestly, it’s not funny anyway) and take out the handles of the posters, and repost? Or is that poor form?
Maybe post it wherever you're going to post it with the first line as the title? Wouldn't want anyone to seek out the original tweet and bring traffic to this guy's ableism, best to pretend it doesn't exist.
Edit: or do that thing that meme reposters do and just put the text over a white background with the original tweet (see below for an example)
Example
(pretend the crayon is a tweet)
Memes are a form of cultural transmission. They're like a type of public art, meant to be freely shared, edited, and otherwise played around with by whoever. It's how memes morph and evolve over time.
All this to say, you can probably go ahead and make the meme yours if you wish.
huh. are we going fast and sloppy or are we being artisans? because i would agree that it's acceptable to remove the ableism, but we'd want to keep the date, right? do we black box it or do we cut out the middle?
The US is trying to out-US itself all the time now.
He’s only the director of the FBI, he doesn’t need to be the brightest crayon in the box. Oh wait…
You can just post the guys face expression and get a good laugh.
Maybe it's my own crass unsophisticated Appalachian roots but I was kind of taught that when the bully is so willing to use ableist attacks to attack vulnerable minorities to advance their own agenda, then they open the door to those same attacks against themselves since they're the ones who actually believe them to be valid in the first place.
After all, any decent knows that it's not the insult you're using but rather whom the target is that matters most. And more to that, that you viewed it as an insult itself is kind of a problem in of itself — as though the word carries weight — is it not? Ultimately, no, nothing wrong with missing chromosomes. But they think that; which is why they being the subject of the attack hurts so much. We know psychopaths have thin skin and egos ready to burst.
We also are supposed to flatly say violence is wrong; but then every single one of you here with speak of tolerance of intolerance say violence is okay depending on context, so that too is another double-standard.
Like a black person using the N-word in, "what up my..." doesn't mean they're racist or demeaning like a slave plantation owner using it. Slinging insults to a fascist isn't the same as demeaning an actual kind person. Change my view.
1.) Your sole focus is on how hurtful the insult is to the target, fully ignoring the effect on the people being used as an insult. That's thoughtless at best.
2.) You don't get to DARVO people calling out the insult for "viewing it as an insult". It's blatantly obvious what your intent was. Stop trying to victim-blame.
3.) If there's really "nothing wrong with [insert characteristic used as an insult]", then why are you using it as an insult? And the target finding it insulting isn't a valid reason (see point 1).
4.)
Like a black person using the N-word in, “what up my…” doesn’t mean they’re racist or demeaning like a slave plantation owner using it. Slinging insults to a fascist isn’t the same as demeaning an actual kind person. Change my view.
Retaking a slur for your community isn't remotely the same as an outsider trying to justify using it as an insult, "but in a good way". There is no excuse for using a person's identity as an insult. Full stop.
DARVO is a serious tactic used by serious abusers to ruin the lives of their victims. I don't think this shitshow of a thread nor the efficacy of top-level's shitheaddery are serious enough to warrant such a serious word. I think when the word DARVO is used, everyone should sit down and think very carefully about the evidence being presented. It shouldn't be used as a small part of a larger rant. It should be one of those words that stops a conversation in its tracks, like a safeword.
Ever hear of the adage paraphrased in many forms, "Words only have power if you let them"?
The intent is to let these words have power against the psychopaths. After all, they're the ones who believe they're insults. That's dishing back what they dish out.
By contrast, the intent is to equip those vulnerable groups targeted by said attacks with the awareness to nullify their power against them; or if anything, to take pride. For example, I'm short; I've been called short and variations thereof. Idgaf. I guess you'd call that retaking the slur back?). But you know who I bet really hates being called short? Putin. In a way, every vulnerable group should take back the slur. I proudly wear bleeding heart hippie tree hugger woke sjw white knight with a badge of honor, after all.
Therein lies the difference. I'll be the first to call out assholes who use such slurs in effort to attack truly vulnerable people, however.
Did you just call short and variations a slur?
I’ll be the first to call out assholes who use such slurs in effort to attack truly vulnerable people, however.
Evidently not. Your response to being told that the insults are still hurtful to the disparaged group is, "If it upsets you, that's your fault." And your anecdotal "evidence" of how you feel about being insulted in one way is not applicable to every insult ever. You're behaving no different than the people you claim to oppose, just using the presumed righteousness of hurting them to justify hurting others.
Please indicate in this thread where either I or you directly used such discussed words as a slur against the very people the slur was wrought from — as in being the target or object of the sentence.
One chance.
Let's say you call someone a mouth-breather as an insult. My nose being fucked up is already not my fault, but as an extra fun cherry-on-top, it got that way from serial childhood abuse. I do not appreciate you using that attribute as an insult. I like it when moderators remove such posts.
Saying stuff like "words only have power of you let them" is false and blames the victim. When you insult a group of people, you are signaling to the entire social group that they are lesser. It does not matter if the victim (intentional or otherwise) considers themselves lesser because the larger social group determines how they will be treated. "It is okay to insult this person," is what you're saying.
To go back to your N-word analogy, do you think it's okay for me to call black conservatives the N-word because I know it will upset them? After all, I don't hate black people, but they certainly seem to. Or do you think that speaking that way promotes the use of a slur as an insult?
To Blame has a very specific dictionary definition. Blaming the victim... For what?
To Blame (Verb): assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
How am I "blaming" you If I were to use mouth-breather against a red hat loser or nazi — how is that blaming someone else for literally having a physiological issue that pertains to mouth-breathing? Did I ever state that it was your fault for having to breathe through the mouth? If I did, then that would be victim-blaming. Moreover, does that mean we cannot speak on any uncomfortable topic that may exert an undue trigger for any bystander reading? E.g., Maybe I raise the topic of cancer to talk about, but then someone says, "Hey, you're victim-blaming me because you brought up cancer and that makes me uncomfortable because my mom just died from that and I don't want to see those words online!"? Does that mean we can never discuss any topic or use any word that may be an emotional trigger for someone in an edge-case circumstance?
To your question on the N-word, no, probably not. I thought about this a bit and I perceive certain words that at least in modern terms have etymological origins or modern use to be strictly FOR slurs. That is, I don't use the homophobic f-word slur, or N-Word in any context because I think they ARE inherently loaded terms. But being short? Breathing through the mouth? Missing a chromosome? I defend these vulnerable group every single day against asshole bigots of the right. The slur only works against bigots because they perceive it as a slur in the first place. I don't. You don't. That's what matters.
Now instead of the f-word, what I might say to a machismo red-hatted straight guy to poke at their own macho-man complex, "Wow, buddy, that sounds pretty gay!"
Notice that I don't believe the underlying term in this case is a slur because that's a perfectly normal state of being, but I know they do, and that it would strike at their ego.
That said, I am very sorry for you experienced that. Anyone who mocks you directly for that is 100% a piece of shit.
Edit: Additional question: is it then wrong to say that either Biden or Trump is old and senile? Suffering from dementia because other people may have dementia or because they know someone who has dementia?
Anyone who mocks you directly for that is 100% a piece of shit.
Anyone who uses their disability to mock anyone is a piece of shit.
There, I fixed it for you.
I understand you currently believe this — but that's kind of the heart and point of contention in our discussion now, is it not? You're just reiterating what has already been stated as the opposing side. I am aware.
Thoughts on the rest of my comment, or are you going just for low-hanging fruit?
Your inability value the damage done outside of a "targeted" insult is exactly what I'm talking about. You can victim blame as much as you want, and add as many qualifiers about what "really" counts as harmful from your singular viewpoint. It all just shows how little you care about those you claim you would defend.
So you couldn't find an example. Okay. Then provided the vast deflection of my myriad points, I will simply reiterate that which was deflected, “Words only have power if you let them."
By your logic, even when "taking back" a slur from a community, are they not trampling and speaking over those others who are less comfortable with its meaning — aka, "victim-blaming" as you say...? Let's find some consistency here at the very least, shall we?
Demanding evidence that you have or haven't broken your own standards doesn't refute my point that those standards are insufficient, which I have been quite consistent on.
I will simply reiterate that which was deflected, “Words only have power if you let them."
It wasn't "deflected". It was outright rejected and called out for the victim blaming that it is.
Then I suppose we're at an impasse because I "outright reject" the unsubstantiated accusation claim that this is victim-blaming — both by definition of the verb, "to blame," and given my unchallenged aforementioned argument that the target is what matters, and now finally by the admission that one is choosing to blindly reject without merit the notion that, "Words only have power if you let them."
I offered you the opportunity to change my view; you failed to make a compelling case.
Have a great day.
Funny how it's on everyone else to convince you not to be hurtful. That it's "my" failure that you couldn't be swayed to be considerate of others, which was absolutely not my intent. Your stance was clear from the very beginning. I'm just hear to point it out.