StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)

[George Floyd Sneed]

Also he's talking about intelligence, and can't even spell it. And says "because because" in his opening phrase.

Or “intelegence” and “lower funding of black school”

About what I’d expect from antifa

 

[Bec]

View attachment 2240052

DEBOONKED



(also link does not support what he says)

He's also wrong.

The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding

Abstract: Achievement disparities among racial and ethnic groups persist in the American education system. Asian and white students consistently perform better on standardized tests than Hispanic and black students. While many commentators blame the achievement gap on alleged disparities in...

www.heritage.org

 

[Lemmingwise]

He's also wrong.

The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding

Abstract: Achievement disparities among racial and ethnic groups persist in the American education system. Asian and white students consistently perform better on standardized tests than Hispanic and black students. While many commentators blame the achievement gap on alleged disparities in...

www.heritage.org

You could have just posted his own link, as that too proves him wrong.

Nice link though.

 

[Uber driver reviewer]

Saudi Arabia benefited more than any other country from the Iraq War, whatever the intent of it was. The main actually Jewish architects of the Iraq War were the deeply delusional Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other neocons, who were also open Zionists and, oddly, often former Trotskyites.

It's sadly ironic Israel got very little benefit and arguably huge problems out of this. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia benefited enormously. And we did this favor for them after 9/11, despite the fact that unlike Jews, Saudi Arabians quite literally did do 9/11.

As you know, 15 of the 19 were Saudi Arabians. Osama bin Laden, who funded it all, also Saudi Arabian.

Your thinking is too two-dimensional. Israel got more control of US policy and politicians.

Of course israel put themselves in a worse position. How would they play victim if they were in a position of clear strength?

Also, israel and Saudi Arabia are like secret kissing cousins. Their ties run deep.

The resulting instability as a result of Saddams fall has been DISASTROUS for Israel. now they have to deal with Iranians and their allies directly on their borders and a stronger enemy than it had before

And they make it the USA’s problem..,.

 

[soy_king]

And they make it the USA’s problem..,.

As if the US hasn't made Russia, Iran, or China every other country's problem....

 

[Ash Gassem]

Judge Not

So pious.

Hover text: Repent!

 

[Dante Alighieri]

He's getting lazy, putting the mogus in the eye.

 

[Lemmingwise]

He's getting lazy, putting the mogus in the eye.

Fuck now I don't know whether you're messing or not.

Makes me go a little hot under the collar.

 

[Ash Gassem]

Fuck now I don't know whether you're messing or not.

Makes me go a little hot under the collar.

Hoist with his own petard.

 

[Marissa Moira]

He's getting lazy, putting the mogus in the eye.

Now I can't unsee

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Judge Not

View attachment 2242783

So pious.

Hover text: Repent!

The punchline is not really correct regardless of how you interpret it:
The claim "X is bad" is subjective rather than objective, so it's not hypocritical.
The notion of "Something is bad" can still correct in your private morality system, having a subjective one doesn't remove the idea of evil.

I guess you can say it's a generalisation of people who'd usually spouse that argument and will be assholes when you disagree. So alright...
Also using the reverend is kinda pointless since the strip doesn't really use him in how you'd expect (ie, the fedora atheist asshole trying to argue why taking it in the ass is justifiable).

This post has been 100% on topic.

 

[ddlloo]

The punchline is not really correct regardless of how you interpret it:
The claim "X is bad" is subjective rather than objective, so it's not hypocritical.
The notion of "Something is bad" can still correct in your private morality system, having a subjective one doesn't remove the idea of evil.

I guess you can say it's a generalisation of people who'd usually spouse that argument and will be assholes when you disagree. So alright...
Also using the reverend is kinda pointless since the strip doesn't really use him in how you'd expect (ie, the fedora atheist asshole trying to argue why taking it in the ass is justifiable).

This post has been 100% on topic.

It's a reverend because theists typically believe in objective morality.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The punchline is not really correct regardless of how you interpret it:
The claim "X is bad" is subjective rather than objective, so it's not hypocritical.
The notion of "Something is bad" can still correct in your private morality system, having a subjective one doesn't remove the idea of evil.

I guess you can say it's a generalisation of people who'd usually spouse that argument and will be assholes when you disagree. So alright...
Also using the reverend is kinda pointless since the strip doesn't really use him in how you'd expect (ie, the fedora atheist asshole trying to argue why taking it in the ass is justifiable).

This post has been 100% on topic.

Not really. With the minimalist text of a stonetoss comic the way to convey that kind of subjective morality would be "I think you're a terrible person". Instead of the objective "you are a terrible person". In fact that's the only text edit antifa would have to do to dunk on stonetosd if the lgbtqist mindset were in fact, operating on subjective morality.

They kinda are, but not when it comes to for example, christians, so the priest outfit is well chosen.

Now I can't unsee

Conditioning is powerful.

I think it's like people on /pol/ who can't unsee >. key on the keyboard.

We'll all get to the point where we go:

8 <--- amogus!

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Not really. With the minimalist text of a stonetoss comic the way to convey that kind of subjective morality would be "I think you're a terrible person". Instead of the objective "you are a terrible person". In fact that's the only text edit antifa would have to do to dunk on stonetosd if the lgbtqist mindset were in fact, operating on subjective morality.

They kinda are, but not when it comes to for example, christians, so the priest outfit is well chosen.

I don't know if you can really argue "bad" is an objective statement. However the "what constitutes objective/subjective" debate is incredibly autistic as it is so I get your point.
Antifa edit would probably have the reverend say a block of text how trannies and gays deserve to burn in hell.

On the subject itself. The idea of objective/subjective morality is pointless and both sides in it are almost always huge hypocrites. As technology and social times change morality changes in it (so it can't be objective). However there is a shared kernel of values that are virtually untouched from the dawn of human civilization (so it's not completely subjective).

 

[Lemmingwise]

Antifa edit would probably have the reverend say a block of text how trannies and gays deserve to burn in hell

One of them is trying, without much success, to make comics with little text.

Btw also a lot of "interesting" discussions on wordiness

I don't know if you can really argue "bad" is an objective statement

Sure you can. Stealing is bad. People who steal are bad.

I agree that circumstances change and this results in different moral ideas (morality of wearing clothes of multiple fabrics for example, or at what point the soul enters a human fetus), but I don't think this really supports the moral relativist view, which usually seems to be a method to be able to disband any morality that is deemed inconvenient to whatever someone is trying to do at that point.

 

[AnOminous]

Also, israel and Saudi Arabia are like secret kissing cousins. Their ties run deep.

I'll agree with this part at least. They're not friends, though. They maintain a certain detente but it is out of self-interest.

It's a reverend because theists typically believe in objective morality.

It's about the hypocrisy of explicitly rejecting deontological ethics while at the same time proclaiming one has an objective moral high ground. Actually overtly stating this in words would wreck any humor value it might have. This is actually an example of why StoneToss is a good cartoonist, however crude his style may be.

In three panels and less than ten words, he captured one of the more flagrant philosophical failings of SJWism. After all, if one rejects deontological ethics, it is almost necessary to adopt some form of utilitarianism in which nothing has any ultimate, objective meaning. Utility is determined by arbitrary choices of what is worthwhile, whether it is something as abstract as "pleasure" or "preference."

By comparison, the belief of the reverend is that acts are good or bad because of their adherence to a rule, whether or not that takes the form of religious law or some form of Kantian categorical imperative. There's a lot to unpack here, and it's largely because the use of the clergyman invokes a whole set of philosophical differences between the two positions.

But the ultimate point, which the comic hits you directly in the face with, is you don't get to reject objective morality and then preach about how others are bad people for disagreeing with you. By definition, this kind of postmodern bullshit means you don't have a leg to stand on making such claims. Nazism is just as valid as whatever bullshit you believe.

The ultimate problem with the degenerate form of utilitarianism employed by SJWs in their arguments is it offers no logical way of choosing "good" to maximize and "bad" to minimize. Ultimately, even if you decide actions should be judged by their results, you need to distinguish between good and bad results. Otherwise you end up in Crazy Town with conclusions like to increase pleasure, kill all the unhappy people, and similar nonsense. These are fun philosophical problems on paper but try them out in reality and you end up with Stalin.

And without some objective way of looking at it, this might actually look good to a confused person.

I think this is actually a really good one. It captured in less than ten words what I've probably spent thousands over the years trying to describe.

I think ST has something of a cult deprogrammer's mentality. He likes dropping depth charges that might not convince anyone at first, but will gnaw at their minds over the next months and years.

 

[Weird Ages]

One of them is trying, without much success, to make comics with little text.

View attachment 2243518
View attachment 2243520

Btw also a lot of "interesting" discussions on wordiness

View attachment 2243561
View attachment 2243562
View attachment 2243563


Sure you can. Stealing is bad. People who steal are bad.

I agree that circumstances change and this results in different moral ideas (morality of wearing clothes of multiple fabrics for example, or at what point the soul enters a human fetus), but I don't think this really supports the moral relativist view, which usually seems to be a method to be able to disband any morality that is deemed inconvenient to whatever someone is trying to do at that point.

Do these retards really not realize that the problem with wordy comics isn't that they're harder to understand? They're basically explaining their own joke as they're telling it, if anything that makes it easeir to understand, and also not funny.
Especially when 90% of antifastonetoss never fucking get the original comic's joke and they need it explained to them.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Do these retards really not realize that the problem with wordy comics isn't that they're harder to understand? They're basically explaining their own joke as they're telling it, if anything that makes it easeir to understand, and also not funny.
Especially when 90% of antifastonetoss never fucking get the original comic's joke and they need it explained to them.

That part is my favorite

"I would suggest that the point isn't to bend over backwards to make the point shorter, it should be to make clear that political arguments need space"

In other words, add a disclaimer explaining why the comic is a wall of runes.



I was wondering what they'd do with this one.

 

[Clorox Cowboy]

View attachment 2246654

I was wondering what they'd do with this one.

This argument always shows a lack of familiarity with the theological response to homosexuality. God doesn't hate gays, and most religious leaders do encourage tolerance towards them, including Pope Francis who has recently made statements reminding people that gays are created by God as well and hating them is not ok. Claiming that it is nothing but bigotry or homophobia shows that one has never bothered to actually read into the arguments presented.

Marriage is considered a sacramental practice between a man and a women with procreation as a focus. It is a sacred religious institution. Homosexuals can never create life or form a perfect union and are seen as boiling down and stripping away all the sanctity of the act for only the pleasure.

Homosexuality is basically seen as on par with casual sex outside of marriage, the church acknowledges same-sex attraction as being a naturally occurring thing, but those people are seen as being called to chastity and single life.


Most religions with hesitancies towards gays such as Judaism follow the same line of thought. It's not the person it's the acts.
Of course it's much easier to just strip away any and all nuance or opposing worldviews and claim the opponent is bigoted because you don't subscribe to the same theology as them.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

View attachment 2246654

I was wondering what they'd do with this one.

Too many words and too much projection in the last panel. You can’t even see the word “accomplish” since it blocks the purple part of the character’s hair.