xkbx

100%

The issue is never the spirit of the law, it’s the application. We do NOT want governments to be deciding which “facts” are government-approved.

For one thing, factual information exists in multitudes. What kind of facts do we want recognized as legally true? “A person can’t pull their bottom lip over their head and swallow themselves” is just as true as “the sky is blue.” How many facts do we want recognized as legally true? Do we pick them one by one, or do we want to give rubber-stamp approval to groups of facts, like say everything you’d find in a typical academic text book? What do we do if we find out one of those facts was wrong or inaccurate? How easily can we alter a legally recognized fact if we discover it to be false or erroneous? If we make it easy, what’s to stop someone from using that to changing the definition to suit their agenda? What happens when facts evolve? Can we differentiate between a politician that hadn’t received all the information and one that chose to ignore it? If discoveries come about that bring a previously declared fact into question, are they illegal for politicians to discuss them? If we “just” ban politicians from making false statements, what’s to stop politicians from simply altering their lingo to never make claims in their statements? Wouldn’t then things be just like before, where they lie but do so with clever wording that omits any technical wrong-doing on their part? What do we do when there’s two conflicting sources on what’s true and what isn’t? Do we vote on it? Can truth be democratically sourced?

I’m not saying we should let politicians lie. I’m just saying, if we build an eject button that springs politicians out of their seats and into a pit of boiling magma, you’re just removing more control from the people by focusing it to one person: the button pusher.

Darling, you can’t learn how to go viral. You either are trending or you aren’t

Flips wired keyboard over neck like a scarf

Bilbo Baggins was literally the energy in the meme

Edit: I mean literally in the non-literal sense, which is literally acceptable

Just like a beehive with mace, it’s unbearable

Transmetropolitan (comic book) by Warren Ellis is everything you asked for, except the Punk element. Spider Jerusalem is a journalist that embodies everything about the aspect, though. He’s exceedingly anti-authoritarian, exists to antagonize societal and cultural norms, loud, in-your-face, and pretty much is everything punk except for the mohawk and circle pitting for 3-chord rebellious anthems.

I am surrounded by weakness. I read them diagonally

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀

⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿⠀

⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼⠀

⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼⠀

⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀

⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉⠀

⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄⠀⠀

It says with chill, but I see Calgary weather was not chill that day

Eegads, what a strong, sensual woman

I think that’s the problem too; harm will change depending on the person. What hurts one person won’t necessarily hurt another. People think that LGBTQ+ identities are harmful to children, even though everyone in that community knows that denying themselves is the most harmful thing they’ve ever experienced. The problem, I’d argue, lies more with education and protection. If we don’t reinforce education and rights, we will see them erode.

Then there’s also more complex questions, like self-harm. We tend to frame the question around that as “what’s more important, the person’s physical health, or their agency?” In reality, I would say that the question should be rephrased as “what does the person need? How could we better support them?” This way we can both address the person’s physical health and respect their autonomy.

I do appreciate the message and intent behind the comic, but I find vague words like “good” and sayings like “do no harm” to be too vague. IMO, we need to focus on communally building resources and support that can be adapted and tailored to individual needs. To avoid the aforementioned vagueness, I would define that as things like training healthcare and education workers to always seek to understand the individual they’re treating/teaching, to get to the root of what they need. It’s been my opinion that we only ever serve the good of either that which serves the mean (in a statistical sense,) or the few in power. By letting go of our social expectations and focusing on what we experience in the moment, on the state of being, we would drastically reduce suffering.

Shit sorry that was a long ass rant for a cute comic my bad

Lego those war crimes

Tell me Girl is ok

Tell me right now

Okay burp Marta, just take this serum, it’ll tran-hiccuptransform your sex

Oh gee, thanks aunty Ronnie - AHHH OH GEEZ RONNIE IT’S TRANSFORMING ME INTO A MUSHROOM I THOUGHT THIS WAS GONNA CHANGE MY GENDER

Gender is a social c-burp construct, Marta, I don’t respect it