Clearly, they were FemiCucks. The brave hero barely escaped with his life.
johnmarleysays
It’s missing the part where the “Debater” follows them, obsessively insulting and threatening them every step of the way.
blfsays
The mildly deranged penguin points out the “field” of green stuff they are wading through is actually mushy peas in disguise. The bearded one trapped therein has probably been struggling for so long now — milliseconds, at least — they can no longer distinguish flying saucers from used motor oil (as one example), so everything seems wrong.
Jeremy Shaffersays
Marcus Ranum at 2:
At least they respected his free speech.
Wrong! They let him have his say, told him he won, and walked away. That’s not respecting free speech!
To respect free speech, they must tell him he was absolutely right, or at least hint that they thought he was. They must heap praise upon his intelligence and note the lack of emotion in his emotional spill. Granted, it wasn’t a complete infringement since they did admit he won, but it was clearly a fake admission and they failed to adopt his reasoning. /s
vaiytsays
That third panel is really the crux of debating with bigots. It’s an argument that cannot be polite by definition, because it starts with the assumption that the interlocutor is subhuman.
It was before my beard turned gray.
At least they respected his free speech.
Clearly, they were FemiCucks. The brave hero barely escaped with his life.
It’s missing the part where the “Debater” follows them, obsessively insulting and threatening them every step of the way.
The mildly deranged penguin points out the “field” of green stuff they are wading through is actually mushy peas in disguise. The bearded one trapped therein has probably been struggling for so long now — milliseconds, at least — they can no longer distinguish flying saucers from used motor oil (as one example), so everything seems wrong.
Marcus Ranum at 2:
Wrong! They let him have his say, told him he won, and walked away. That’s not respecting free speech!
To respect free speech, they must tell him he was absolutely right, or at least hint that they thought he was. They must heap praise upon his intelligence and note the lack of emotion in his emotional spill. Granted, it wasn’t a complete infringement since they did admit he won, but it was clearly a fake admission and they failed to adopt his reasoning. /s
That third panel is really the crux of debating with bigots. It’s an argument that cannot be polite by definition, because it starts with the assumption that the interlocutor is subhuman.