Um...if you're going to start having a discussion on what beliefs are "wrong" and "right", I don't think it's worth carrying on this topic any further, because I know from experience it can only go one way, and that way is south.

I appreciate OneFiercePuppy's insight on this, appreciate those who could stay calm on the matter, still consider it wrong to celebrate the death of a human being who hasn't done anything besides express his opinion (regardless of how "correct" that opinion is), and am hereby bowing out of this discussion.

I don't know if it is a cultural thing, but I found that strip, and some other one I saw earlier, hilariously funny, in a sad way. I also somehow have hard time believing they'd be "dangerous", or then people really are dumber than I could have ever thought, if they form opinions based on silly drivel like that.

The feeling I got from those strips was that this man (Jack Chick) was some sad lunatic which was hallucinating all kinds of things and made comic strips out of them, and that's all there was to it. I can't say I could get angry by those comic strips, more like sad that someone would live in such a twisted fantasy world.

I also have to admit that frankly I didn't always quite get the point of all those strips. Like in that particular strip, what exactly was the message? Was it watching the porn movies which caused him to have herpes? Or did he get it from that neighbour of his, did they have gay sex or what (while watching a porn movie together)? What was that gossip or secret that the neighbor was referring to? Huh? What? When?

EDIT: Ok only now I noticed the comic strip continued on another page... but rest of the story didn't make it much clearer. The husband and wife found Jesus, whoope-doo, I didn't know Jesus was lost.

Yeah, if we have to ARGUE whether racism is wrong, we're already done. But for a minute I forgot I was on the gog forums.

I'm not arguing that racism isn't wrong. What I do know, however, is that there's all sorts of beliefs that I find wrong that you won't, or vice versa, or that others will find wrong and both of us will/won't.
Then we'll get into an argument where we're all trying to show why our beliefs are the best ones and why everybody else is a horrible person for disagreeing with us.
This is how it always goes. We'll all share the sentiments of what you just said, except "racism" will be swapped out for something else, and I honestly don't feel like going down that road, turning this into yet another #GamersGate thread or similar political thread.

Before arguing that, people should first argue what racism means. Nowadays I see it being thrown all the time.

For instance: http://www.verkkouutiset.fi/kotimaa/biaudet%20rasismi-55756

Since that is in Finnish, basically it is about a discussion in the Finnish parliament about the crime statistics of different groups of people (by the origin of country), how much certain type of crimes are committed by different groups of people. So of course some PM was quite happily using the racism card due to the discussion.

It is a bit like saying that Finnish men tend to drink booze and are quite often drunk. Is that racism in itself, something that is wrong to say?

EDIT: Related to that, lately there has been one Finnish writer (Jari Tervo) who has profiled himself as some kind of premier Finnish fighter against racism. The funny thing is that a month or two ago he caused quite a stir by suggesting that Finnish people in general are "more autistic" than other nations (and by his own words, that's why he thinks Finns are more "xenophopic" and racist than other nations (which I don't find true at all, especially when comparing to many Asian countries like Japan or Thailand)). His claims were shot down by e.g. an autism association:

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/viihde/art-2000001258734.html

Anyway even if his belief was true, I find it very interesting that someone, who claims to be so much against racism, is so trigger-happy to make (racist?) remarks of e.g. Finns being "autistic". Pot, kettle, black. And so it goes.

It doesn't actually inform me in any way, but I choose to believe that the depictions in Scandinavia and the World are accurate. So as long as it doesn't actually affect anything, I assume that Finnish folk are drunk, taciturn, and knife-wielding. Hopefully that's not too racist... ^_^

[url= I kid, I kid. Everyone knows Finns are taciturn for real. ][/url]

We were speaking of racism specifically. You were arguing that it does not matter because it is just an opinion distinct from actions, I'm answering that's it's not the case, that this opinion determines a lot of things.

The question of "to which opinions this applies or not" is a wholly different one.

I will however dare to assume that your opinion on Chick's stances will be the same as your opinion on racism.

To be honest, for the sake of my argument, I was using it as the blurriest, most consensual sense. I usually prefer more specific and accurate categories (essentialism, culturalism, etc), but they don't fit very well in small sentences and short to-the-point exemples.


One of my favorite childhood authors was writing in the 50s and 60s exotic adventure novels that were nicely antiracist and anticolonialist for that time. I loved that aspect of his stories and heroes. I've recently read his autobiography, and he also talks about his ww2-era experiences, and the horrors or racisms and antisemitism.

And then he starts ranting on a whole page about germans, who are all nazis, and will always be awful racists, because it's in their genes.

So, hm.

Well. that's the question: is it racist?

I don't think Humon is being racist in their comics, and overall they seem like quite a nice person. Playing to stereotypes and perhaps some self-depreciation, on the other hand in good humor, on the other hand...

See the problem with right wing humor is that it punches down, instead of up, and tends to swing hard instead of being a cheeky jab.

Besides, how could you turn down a colorful series of comics about the nature of animals in their mating habits?

You want to see a racist post?

HERE IS A RACIST POST:

If you are genuinely curious, I'll write up an interpretation of what is going on. If not, I'll leave it be.

Welcome to many religions. Fundamentalist Christianity is just fairly vocal in the west.

I've seen this guy's comics. He was mentally ill. Hopefully he finds peace in the afterlife, where he finally discovered that he was wrong about everything.

Pretty sure once you escape the Abrahamic 3, the quality of afterlife increases dramatically.

Let's see, if your a Protestant, you have two choices. If you're a good boy, you get the boring ending of getting to worship the guy who gave you free will in the first place for all eternity, so sucks to be you. (Actually, I don't think this afterlife is well described in their sacred text.) If you're a bad boy, you get fried. This probably loses effectiveness.

If you happen to be a Catholic, there is a third option/cop-out, purgatory. Whereupon you sit in a waiting room for a while and then you go to boring good.

I have no idea how Islam's afterlife works. I don't really care to find out.

And for Judaism, it gets a bit vague. You have good waiting room, and bad waiting room. But rather than being let into Paradise/Bad Place after waiting it out, they're all waiting for Godot/a savior.

Norse mythology has Valhalla, which is like Heaven, but with beer, strippers, and brawls plus the bonus of no eternal worship.

Except that everyone forgets how the world ends in Norse myth. Ragnarok comes, the gods fight the giants and die. The heroic warriors who have been feasting in Valhalla fight the svartalf armies and die. Leaderless and lost, the few who survive that final fight wander the white wastes for eternity.

There is no happy ending for those who go to Valhalla, either. We just, understandably, tend to focus on the busty war angels and the tables groaning under the weight of food and mead and beer.

Well, as I learned from Qi series N, there's actually two other afterlives.