Dumbest Protest Signs

[Cerim Treascair]

I hate Sinfest because Tatsuya Ishida has an ego the size of fucking New York and insists that anyone that dislikes his work doesn't understand his genius.

And his art hasn't changed on Sinfest since it started.  Even Calvin and Hobbes noticeably improved over the years.

[Damen]

I used to read Sinfest all the time and often I would laugh myself sick. And after a while I took a long ass break from webcomics because they were keeping me up all night. When I came back and took another look at Sinfest, I found it had veered off into SJW territory and it was ham-handed feminazi/man-hating. And seriously, has Monique done anything but mope around for the last year?

Maybe I'm just a woman-hating misogynist for not laughing or wanting to read it anymore, but I can't bring myself to keep looking at something that feels like it's just existing to browbeat the reader.

[TheL]

I hate Sinfest because Tatsuya Ishida has an ego the size of fucking New York and insists that anyone that dislikes his work doesn't understand his genius.

And his art hasn't changed on Sinfest since it started.  Even Calvin and Hobbes noticeably improved over the years.

In defense of the art style, it has improved a bit.  And the way it looks now is pretty cute.  A lot of comic artists play with a style until they find what they like, then stick with it.

[Askold]

I hate Sinfest because Tatsuya Ishida has an ego the size of fucking New York and insists that anyone that dislikes his work doesn't understand his genius.

And his art hasn't changed on Sinfest since it started.  Even Calvin and Hobbes noticeably improved over the years.

In defense of the art style, it has improved a bit.  And the way it looks now is pretty cute.  A lot of comic artists play with a style until they find what they like, then stick with it.

Yeah, even his regular style has gotten a bit better than the first strips and when he changes styles, such as during the "reality zone" strips, you can see that he can draw really well when he wants to. It's just that the comic has developed a certain style over the years so most of the strips are more simplistic than what he is capable of doing.

[Knight of Liberty]

Well I was on Deviant Art and found a group dedicated to old school propaganda posters. I was hoping to find those funny fake ones done for thinks like Star Wars and whatever. Well there were a few of those, but the majority of it was real stuff, both good, bad, and somewhere in between. I'm gonna post the worst I found here for your view dis-pleasure. Link: http://propagandacenter.deviantart.com/

I actually had a chance to look through that gallery; there's actually a lot of good stuff in there (poasterchild, in particular, has made plenty of good pro-leftist propaganda).  Anyway, what's so bad about the anti-Anonymous cartoon?  I actually do feel that Anonymous do more harm than good and are generally a bunch of man-children that need a good, swift kick to their hindquarters from reality before they really hurt somebody.  I don't agree that they're the most dangerous terrorists out there, but they are terrorists by any sensible definition of the word.  Even if you don't agree with the cartoon's message, this is pretty tame stuff compared to some of the things I've seen on this thread (and, sadly, cannot unsee).

[Sigmaleph]

What exactly has Anonymous done that qualifies as terrorism?

[ironbite]

Everything actually.

Ironbite-cept they're not a group like Al Qada so....

[Knight of Liberty]

What exactly has Anonymous done that qualifies as terrorism?

Politically-motivated DDoS attacks count as cyberterrorism by any meaningful definition of the word (I have no time for you if you're one of those maniacs who think DDoS should be recognized as a legitimate form of protest).  Generaly, though, I've decided that Anonymous are completely untrustworthy; in particular, their show of solidarity with Chris Dorner was reprehensible and snuffed out whatever sympathy I may have had for them.  The trouble with the whole Anonymous structure is that it makes deflection of accountability all too easy, as anyone who does something regrettable can be dismissed as a rogue operative, while successes always represent the real group.  This has the effect of making the whole of Anonymous untrustworthy, thus undermining any good they may have hoped to achieve, to say nothin of how their attacks give authoritarians factory the justification for even more surveillance that they were looking for.

[Sigmaleph]

What exactly has Anonymous done that qualifies as terrorism?

Politically-motivated DDoS attacks count as cyberterrorism by any meaningful definition of the word (I have no time for you if you're one of those maniacs who think DDoS should be recognized as a legitimate form of protest).

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle?

Most meaningful definitions of terrorism include the use of terror to coerce people. DDoS attacks do not in general qualify (they are much closer to vandalism). That doesn't mean I approve of them as a form of protest; I don't. But political strategies are not divided into 'legitimate' and 'terrorism'.

[Undecided]

What exactly has Anonymous done that qualifies as fascism?

Politically-motivated DDoS attacks count as cyberfascism by any meaningful definition of the word (I have no time for you if you're one of those maniacs who think DDoS should be recognized as a legitimate form of protest).

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle?

Most meaningful definitions of fascism include some sort of form of totalitarian nationalism. DDoS attacks do not in general qualify (they are much closer to vandalism). That doesn't mean I approve of them as a form of protest; I don't. But political strategies are not divided into 'legitimate' and 'fascism'.

"Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."—George Orwell

[PosthumanHeresy]

Anonymous gets shit done. I feel a little suspicious of any anti-anonymous person, because it feels like they're trying to undermine any success.

[guizonde]

Anonymous gets shit done. I feel a little suspicious of any anti-anonymous person, because it feels like they're trying to undermine any success.

i'm not for or against anonymous. to quote dan abnett, i feel they're a like a club. unwieldy to aim, but deadly. they are unpredictable, and for every good act they do, they do another that is either morally reprehensible, or just plain petty. this kind of force could save the world, yet their basic structure prevents them from seeing the big picture. you could say i wish they'd get some real direction. they're a hate-machine come vigilante group with no finality. that's why they're dangerous, their lack of a long-term goal could be their undoing.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I'd say they do have a long-term goal: freedom. I think of them like I do Punisher or Batman: vigilantes and criminals, but the good guys all the same.

[Lithp]

Anonymous are a bunch of shitheads on computers. As such, they will save kitties, protest unconstitutional bills, & then hack the FBI. They cannot be idealized one way or the other, not really.

[PosthumanHeresy]

So, three good things? How's that make them look bad?