Bye Bye England and Friends

Yes, it is strange. Usually they make you vote as many times, as it needs, that EU get results what they want.

@Joukea Best comment in here. Well, I haven't read all 107 of them, but it does sound like.

Humon, honestly, why making comics about the current events all the time lately? They are blunt and too straightforward to be whimsical (comparing to what SatW was in the first years, which brought us all here in the first place). And at best they offer personal opinions.

@tulpoeid Agreed. Part of why I really disliked 'Trumping' America, is because the same characters represent their countries through all of time. Heck, Norway looked the same back when it was shedding landmass to create Denmark. The only time I can think of the countries dressing differently are Nazi Germany (only used for specific jokes, otherwise Germany is stable) and one comic where you showed Sweden and Denmark in different war outfits to represent all the fighting over the years.

Making America into Trump, and covering current events regularly, has made the comic lose it's timeless commentary, or at least it's more relaxed cultural approach. Furthermore, these comics tend to be one-sided. Before, everyone would wind up the butt of the joke, sometimes in the same comic. Now it's feeling less like these are countries as a whole, and more like this is a website for contemporary political cartoons. And while that's not a bad thing, it's not the thing that brought me here. There's plenty of places where people satirize modern political events, but the little history lessons, and the good-natured ribbing of other cultures was a lot more unique. And that seems to be disappearing.

@Sines yes I remember the comics being about interesting little facts about what happened in the past (even tho I only joined recently, I have been reading these comics for about five years) one of my favourites was learning how Iceland redirects the lava from their volcanos by using water.... That shit is full on! I still love the comics but more history would be great

@Sines I agree with you. Bring back history-based SatW and tone down the amount of current events based SatW. These characters are the personifications of their countries as a whole, not representations of how current events would have looked like if it were played out by individuals that represent the countries in that event. Well okay, SatW is a bit of that too. But there has simply been way to much of that as of late. Where is the nods to Sweden's and Denmark's wars? Where is the historical events converted into the daily life of these characters? Where is the complicated relationships between characters, based on the stances various countries have to each other?
Where is... where is the verry soul of these comics? That is really the question I'm asking here.
Whilst it is quite entertaining to learn of current events via a comedical media that's not what I signed up here for. I do realise that finding historical events that both fit the comic and don't contradict set characteristics mustn't be an easy task and that such events are finite. However I still feel like there most likely could be more digging around for such things to be done for these comics. I mean you can't have run out of stuff already Humon. Have you? Please don't tell me you have. And if so, could you give us some more slice-of-life and fun-fact based comics again please?

@ryttyr I think one other thing worth note on that subject. People are a lot more likely to laugh at their faults in general, than if you pick a specific incident. Portray the US as an obnoxious boor, and I don't mind, I'll laugh. Portray the US as Donald Trump being an obnoxious boor, and it feels like a more mean spirited personal attack, rather than poking fun at our foibles.

@Sines yeah. I suppose so. I think drawing America as Trump for his entire period is a bit much and also unfitting of these comics

@tulpoeid
Sometimes a newspaper's editorial cartoon on current events is funny, sometimes the fiction comic strips are funny. Both are good.
I am still happy to see comics on current events, news i might not get otherwise, and from a different perspective to that presented locally.

@tulpoeid I completely understand where you are coming from. The shift from timeless entertainment (and education) to current affairs commentary is obvious and not why we came here for. (We still may enjoy it, or not, or don't care, but it probably wasn't the main draw for most of us).

However, I think Humon as the artist is perfectly allowed to do however she sees fit, and if she wants to use her medium for political commentary it should be fine with us - as such, doesn't mean we have to like the direction specifically. Many people do so, some for better, some for worse. But as for the oft-heard (not by you, I am generalizing here) reasoning "your job is to entertain us, stop bringing your issues, be they political or social, into it" - well, that would stop almost all of us from stating our opinion, since almost nobody here probably is a career politician or editor of a newspaper.

@tulpoeid

People - you really, really, REALLY have to stop whining about this!

Humon is free to do as she pleases - it's her comic, her site and she gives it to you for free so exactly what right do you or anyone else have to complain about what she draws?!

It's completely outrageous to me that people like you actually think you have the right to tell Humon what she should or should not draw about!

If you don't like it you're free to leave anytime and I can promise you no one will miss you or your whining!

Go draw our own comics if you think you can do a better job of it why don't you!

@Nisse_Hult
Easy with the white knighting.

tulpoeid has every right to give his opinion on the direction of the comics and it's artist. He himself is a fan and he can raise whatever concern he has with the comic. Humon is an adult and can choose to ignore them or not. Saying stuff like "no one will miss your whining" is not helping your argument here. And it is not outrageous at all that people 'think' they have the right to criticize, they DO have the right to criticize. It is actually amazing that you think they don't.

Please, before you decide to come in to white knight a legitimate criticism, be a bit more mature about it. It really comes off that you are one of those that cries in outrage at hearing an 'opinion'.

@Jonas_Hrafnagil

Well actually it's "her" opinion - tulpoeid is a woman - and you're "white knighting" to her defense here I see.

Since that's obviously your buzzword for any man defending any woman.

I know you intended it as an insult against me, but I'm not effected by buzzword-nonsense like that.
But apparently you think it's an insult so I just thought I should point out that you just "white knighted" yourself into this discussion. ;-)

Regarding you "argument" it's a ridiculous one.

Tulpoeid should be free to criticize Humon for drawing what she damn well pleases in her own comic on her own site - but I shouldn't be allowed to criticize tulpoeid for criticizing Humon?

Or in other words - when people say what you agree with they are protected by freedom of speech, but when people say something you don't want to hear they should just stop "white knighting" and shut up.

Yeah - that's not actually democracy but fascism you're advocating for there buddy...

Also I of course never actually criticized tulpoeid for criticizing Humons choice of topic as you claim.
Instead I criticized her for thinking she has the right to tell Humon what to draw or not.

Because there is of course an absolute difference between offering YOUR opinion on something and prescribing actions for other.

"I didn't like that drawing" is fine while "You shouldn't draw that" is not

Tulpoeid also actually ended her comment with:

"And at best they offer personal opinions."

WTF!?! Well of course they do!
Every single comic Humon or any other cartoon artist has ever drawn offers their personal opinion on anything! That's how cartoons work - they are the expression of the personal opinion of the artist making them!
But tulpoeid obviously don't want Humon to offer her personal opinion - she wants her to suppress that personal opinion and thereby give up her freedom of speech to satisfy tulpoeid's wishes.

Which is not OK in any way at all, because that's simply undemocratic.

If you don't like Humons comics you're free to complain about them and I'm free to call that whining - because that's what it is.

But if you pass the line from whining to actually trying to tell Humon what she should or shouldn't draw comics about or tell her she should suppress her personal opinion to suit you tastes you're actually attacking the very idea of freedom of speech itself and thereby democracy.

And no amount of your ridiculous little "white knight" nonsense is going to stop me from point that out. OK?

@Nisse_Hult

Nice deflect.

[Well actually it's "her" opinion - tulpoeid is a woman - and you're "white knighting" to her defense here I see.

Since that's obviously your buzzword for any man defending any woman.]
I believe you helped me here. I was not paying any mind about gender since white knighting is not exclusive to any particular gender. So me doing this because tulp is female falls flat as I did not realize she was a female. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

[I know you intended it as an insult against me, but I'm not effected by buzzword-nonsense like that.
But apparently you think it's an insult so I just thought I should point out that you just "white knighted" yourself into this discussion. ;-)]
Not really, but at this point I don't care. If you see peoples intentions so clearly, please, don't let my skepticism hold you back.

[Regarding you "argument" it's a ridiculous one.

Tulpoeid should be free to criticize Humon for drawing what she damn well pleases in her own comic on her own site - but I shouldn't be allowed to criticize tulpoeid for criticizing Humon?

Or in other words - when people say what you agree with they are protected by freedom of speech, but when people say something you don't want to hear they should just stop "white knighting" and shut up.

Yeah - that's not actually democracy but fascism you're advocating for there buddy..]
And this is why you fall flat on your face. Reading into things a bit too much aren't we?
I never advocated against criticism on criticism. I am criticizing your method of criticizing, or in other words, being kind enough to point out you are taking things way too far. More proof right here in front of us with you accusing me of advocating for fascism.

[Also I of course never actually criticized tulpoeid for criticizing Humons choice of topic as you claim. ]
Reading into things again are we? Let's see what I said.
"tulpoeid has every right to give his opinion on the direction of the comic and it's artist"
Is it this bit? Because that is what they were talking about. But let's continue to read what I said.
"He himself is a fan and he can raise whatever concern he has with the comic".
Hmm... where would this be relevant?
[Instead I criticized her for thinking she has the right to tell Humon what to draw or not.]
Aha!

[Because there is of course an absolute difference between offering YOUR opinion on something and prescribing actions for other]
I absolutely 100% agree here.

["I didn't like that drawing" is fine while "You shouldn't draw that" is not]
Both are fine as long as you can come up with a reason for it if asked. They were giving their feedback as a fan.

[Tulpoeid also actually ended her comment with:

"And at best they offer personal opinions."

WTF!?! Well of course they do! ]
I'll give you that, I did not really understand what they were trying to get across there :/

[Every single comic Humon or any other cartoon artist has ever drawn offers their personal opinion on anything! That's how cartoons work - they are the expression of the personal opinion of the artist making them!]
Agreed.

[But tulpoeid obviously don't want Humon to offer her personal opinion - she wants her to suppress that personal opinion and thereby give up her freedom of speech to satisfy tulpoeid's wishes.]
I think you are reading to much into things. What happened to: [Because there is of course an absolute difference between offering YOUR opinion on something and prescribing actions for other.]?
They are offering their feedback and they themselves are dissatisfied. Do you believe that if they were actually making the demand for Humon to only draw what they wished, that Humon would actually do it?

[Which is not OK in any way at all, because that's simply undemocratic.]
We are on the internet. No one is suppressing anybody here.

[If you don't like Humons comics you're free to complain about them and I'm free to call that whining - because that's what it is.]
Wouldn't that just mean you are whining in return?

[But if you pass the line from whining to actually trying to tell Humon what she should or shouldn't draw comics about or tell her she should suppress her personal opinion to suit you tastes you're actually attacking the very idea of freedom of speech itself and thereby democracy.]
Yet again I think you are reading too much into things here. You are bringing big words such as fascism and democracy into play here where they have no relevancy. No one is forcing Humon to do anything. Feedback is being offered here and it is a negative one.

[And no amount of your ridiculous little "white knight" nonsense is going to stop me from point that out. OK? ]
Ok. You da boss.

@Jonas_Hrafnagil

That wasn't a deflect - it was just pointing out that you hadn't managed to get tulpoeid's gender right.
Which becomes kind of funny since you tried to insult me for defending Humon by calling me a "white knight" - a term that has to do with gender whether you understand it or not:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/white-knight

The deflection is all yours now when you suddenly pretend the term you used against me as an insult isn't actually that at all - now when it suddenly hits back at you.

It's total intellectual dishonesty - you'll say or do anything without any respect at all for the intellectual honesty of the argument or for consistency in any way.
I don't actually think you've thought these things through at all - the only thing that's important to you is to get that "win" - even if you end up making completely incoherent arguments that leads you to very strange places - like defending the suppression of freedom of speech.

Here it doesn't go that far - it just makes you look silly for pretending the things you just said means something completely different a second later.

But moving on from that, your main reply now is based on a play which is very common all over the internet today:

First a person makes a statement attacking someone. Then, when they themselves get's attacked for that, they suddenly pretend that they things they originally said doesn't at all mean what they actually said and plays the victim.
You're doing precisely that here.

Now you're pretending I'm over reacting to both things tulpoeid said and now that you yourself said earlier.

In fact I'm doing neither - instead I'm showing that the consequences of what you both say goes much further then either of you understands or cares.

You still fail to understand (or pretend to don't understand to "win" the argument in your own mind - I don't know) the difference between expressing YOUR opinion and prescribing actions for others.

This is not only feedback (which is "I thought this about this") - this is pressure against Humon to suppress her own opinions to suit the taste of others and that's per definition against the idea of freedom of speech.

It doesn't matter one bit that tulpoeid doesn't have the power to actually stop Humon from expressing her opinion - she still thinks she has the right to ask Humon to do it - and you defend her right to do it by pretending she's not actually asking Humon to supress her opinions but mearly offers "feedback".
As if "you shouldn't express you opinion!" is ever just "feedback" and not in it self a completely undemocratic thing to say.

I'm instead defending Humons right to express any opinion she damn well pleases.

You might not see (or doesn't care) that your argument is actually undemocratic, but it still is. Asking anyone to suppress their right to freely express their opinion is per definition just that.

Except of course when you like I do here tell people like you to stop trying to suppress others freedom of speech.
It's never suppressing another persons freedom to tell them to respect democratic rules. Democratic rules doesn't give you or tulpoeid the right to tell others they should give up their rights so you don't have to see their opinions expressed.

Intolerance against intolerance is not a fault but a virtue.

@Nisse_Hult
I have another definition for it
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white%20knighting
"In forum parlance, it means rushing to the aid of another poster for whatever reason. An accusation typically reserved for when a poster is being hammered by another poster(s) and the accused leaps in to defend them, usually without thinking things through as to why the person is being attacked."

I am not pretending anything Nisse, I just think some of us have thicker skin. I am sorry that you do not.

[It's total intellectual dishonesty - you'll say or do anything without any respect at all for the intellectual honesty of the argument or for consistency in any way.]
Proof?

[I don't actually think you've thought these things through at all - the only thing that's important to you is to get that "win" - even if you end up making completely incoherent arguments that leads you to very strange places - like defending the suppression of freedom of speech.]
Proof? Because if anything, I have not come out on the attack against freedom of speech. If anything, I think it is complete bollocks that you are pretending to represent freedom of speech in this argument now. Sorry mate, try again.

[Here it doesn't go that far - it just makes you look silly for pretending the things you just said means something completely different a second later.]
I am only enjoying this now. Look up the definition I provided you with. Your own argument (accusation) falls flat on its face yet again.

[But moving on from that, your main reply now is based on a play which is very common all over the internet today:

First a person makes a statement attacking someone. Then, when they themselves get's attacked for that, they suddenly pretend that they things they originally said doesn't at all mean what they actually said and plays the victim.
You're doing precisely that here.]
You mean crybullying? Nah mate. If anything, I *might* (keyword being 'might') have come of strong for shock and value. But since you want to prolong the debate, I've actually gone softer on you. These are baseless accusations that have more to do with feelings rather than actually pointing at the real words. Try again.

[Now you're pretending I'm over reacting to both things tulpoeid said and now that you yourself said earlier.

In fact I'm doing neither - instead I'm showing that the consequences of what you both say goes much further then either of you understands or cares.]
You are not.
"It's completely outrageous to me that people like you actually think you have the right to tell Humon what she should or should not draw about! "
"what right do you or anyone else have to complain about what she draws?!"
"If you don't like it you're free to leave anytime and I can promise you no one will miss you or your whining!

Go draw our own comics if you think you can do a better job of it why don't you! "

Your own words, not mine.

[You still fail to understand (or pretend to don't understand to "win" the argument in your own mind - I don't know) the difference between expressing YOUR opinion and prescribing actions for others.]
Then do explain to me how I am prescribing you Nisse.

[This is not only feedback (which is "I thought this about this") - this is pressure against Humon to suppress her own opinions to suit the taste of others and that's per definition against the idea of freedom of speech.]
No it is not, completely disagree. You are reading for too much into intentions here. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech", "democracy" or "fascism" which you have previously brought into play here. I find the fact that you do think it has any relevancy here is insane. They are giving a negative feedback and the negative feedback is that they don't like that Humon is being political and showing her own opinion. It is a legitimate criticism, even though I like seeing Humon so political and expressing her own opinion.
Not everybody has the same taste though, you got to learn that.

[It doesn't matter one bit that tulpoeid doesn't have the power to actually stop Humon from expressing her opinion - she still thinks she has the right to ask Humon to do it - and you defend her right to do it by pretending she's not actually asking Humon to supress her opinions but mearly offers "feedback".]
I'm not pretending anything. I know that they are giving feedback. They are not suppressing anybody here. They are giving negative feedback. It actually exists, negativity. Welcome to the real world Nisse.

[As if "you shouldn't express you opinion!" is ever just "feedback" and not in it self a completely undemocratic thing to say.]
I am really sorry, but I can't take you seriously every time you bring "democracy" "fascism" or "free speech" into play here. The site is not exactly built upon democracy or democratic values. It is built on providing entertainment, fun facts and an expression of opinion of the world in the form of art/comics. Wherever you got the notion that the site had suddenly turned into the real world, I don't know.

[I'm instead defending Humons right to express any opinion she damn well pleases]
She does have the right. I agree. But I strongly criticize your method or way of doing it.

[You might not see (or doesn't care) that your argument is actually undemocratic, but it still is. Asking anyone to suppress their right to freely express their opinion is per definition just that.]
I don't think you even understand the very notion of free speech or democracy at all here, you have displayed that here.
Let's just get a little tranlsate here: Democracy; a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Nothing that has been said or done here is in line with being democratic or undemocratic. Democracy is not relevant here.
About freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism and it does not protect you if somebody asks you to "suppress your ideas" (even though that is not what tulp was doing here). Freedom of speech only protects you from the government and it protects you from anybody forcibly trying to coerce you to their wishes.

[Except of course when you like I do here tell people like you to stop trying to suppress others freedom of speech.
It's never suppressing another persons freedom to tell them to respect democratic rules. Democratic rules doesn't give you or tulpoeid the right to tell others they should give up their rights so you don't have to see their opinions expressed.]
Show me where I stated that you were suppressing freedom of speech. If there is anything I have told you now, it is that I am criticizing your method of criticizing. "Democratic rules doesn't give you or tulpoeid the right to tell others they should give up their rights so you don't have to see their opinions expressed". Actually, democratic rules would give us the right to criticize and give us the right to use our free speech to say we are dissatisfied with the direction of things, right? Because neither me nor tulp are actively suppressing anybody here nor are we forcing anybody to give up their rights. This is why you continue to constantly fall flat on your face. You read so much into intentions here and you bring up far too big words for you to be able to back up.

[Intolerance against intolerance is not a fault but a virtue.]
I would follow that saying as well, especially in this case.

@Jonas_Hrafnagil

Your young and ignorant and I didn't even bother to read more then half your reply this time because it's just a waste of my time.

So I'll just give some highlights:

"You mean crybullying? Nah mate. If anything, I *might* (keyword being 'might') have come of strong for shock and value."

Again with the infantile buzzwords you here clearly shows this is just a game to you. You don't have any actually thought trough convictions on this matter - you're just trying to prove your "da Boss" to use your own words. Maybe you'll grow wiser as you grow older and realize what a little twat you where when you where this age or maybe you'll continue to be a twat with no deeper understanding of the world and just enjoy feeling like "da Boss" online then too. I don't know and I don't care, but you just proved this is just a game to you - just as I said before.

"No it is not, completely disagree. You are reading for too much into intentions here. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech", "democracy" or "fascism" which you have previously brought into play here. I find the fact that you do think it has any relevancy here is insane. They are giving a negative feedback and the negative feedback is that they don't like that Humon is being political and showing her own opinion. It is a legitimate criticism, even though I like seeing Humon so political and expressing her own opinion.
Not everybody has the same taste though, you got to learn that."

Your disagreement don't mean shit because this is not up for debate.
There can NEVER be any such thing as "legitimate criticism" against someone "showing her own opinion" as you write here - that's per definition undemocratic!
There is nothing more to add - you simply don't understand basic democratic principles.

"I am really sorry, but I can't take you seriously every time you bring "democracy" "fascism" or "free speech" into play here. The site is not exactly built upon democracy or democratic values. It is built on providing entertainment, fun facts and an expression of opinion of the world in the form of art/comics. Wherever you got the notion that the site had suddenly turned into the real world, I don't know."

So in your mind democratic rules don't apply everywhere.
Again - this is not up for debate. Democracy is a moral imperative that should be universally respected by everyone, everywhere, always.
The fact that you don't only lends credence to everything else I've said so far - you've either not thought this through at all or you're basically a fascist.

I'm the forgiving kind so I chose to think you're just young and ignorant and full of shit. Let's hope you grow wiser with age because people like you are the one's that elected Donald Trump in the US and thinks he's doing a terrific job right now attacking every democratic institution in the country.

And we really don't need more of those in the world.

PS. Before you complain about me calling your young and stupid you should read this:

https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx

Your brain isn't actually fully developed yet and on top of that you haven't had time to read up on the facts and experience the world as an older person has.

Ask any +40-year old around you and they tell you they're ambarrased about a lot of things they thought, said or did when they where your age. If they have matured that is. Not all people do as they grow older, but let's hope you do.

@Nisse_Hult
[Your young and ignorant and I didn't even bother to read more then half your reply this time because it's just a waste of my time.]
How mature of you to point out.

[Again with the infantile buzzwords you here clearly shows this is just a game to you. You don't have any actually thought trough convictions on this matter - you're just trying to prove your "da Boss" to use your own words. Maybe you'll grow wiser as you grow older and realize what a little twat you where when you where this age or maybe you'll continue to be a twat with no deeper understanding of the world and just enjoy feeling like "da Boss" online then too. I don't know and I don't care, but you just proved this is just a game to you - just as I said before.]
I am not the one going around calling someone a twat and pretending just because I am older, I know any better. I don't even know if you are younger and older, but from your approach, you are trying to sound older (and failing). If anything, you are the one that has come out on the ad hominem side of this. You have been focusing far more on my character than you have on this whole argument. You are just digging your own grave here Nisse.

[Your disagreement don't mean shit because this is not up for debate.]
Neither does your then.

[There can NEVER be any such thing as "legitimate criticism" against someone "showing her own opinion" as you write here - that's per definition undemocratic!
There is nothing more to add - you simply don't understand basic democratic principles.]
Nothing here is per definition undemocratic. You have gone and hijacked the meaning now and twisted it so that you think it means "whoever disagrees with me, I am on the democratic side and the other one is never". It seems to me that you yourself don't understand democratic principles. Try again.

[So in your mind democratic rules don't apply everywhere.]
In my mind, democratic would apply everywhere, but that is but a mere wish. The reality is that they actually don't apply everywhere, and I can admit that. If I walked into a barber shop and I heard someone criticizing their barber for accidentally cutting the wrong type of lock, should I start flinging at the person all I know about "democracy" and "democratic values" and how they are "oppressing" the barber? No, I would not.

[Again - this is not up for debate. Democracy is a moral imperative that should be universally respected by everyone, everywhere, always.
The fact that you don't only lends credence to everything else I've said so far - you've either not thought this through at all or you're basically a fascist.]
You are approaching Godwin's law mate.
No, nothing you have said has shown that you have more credence. You are just trying to take some kind of moral high ground where it does not apply to the argument. This is pretending that democracy had some kind of play here in criticism. And you went as far as to give the idea that I am a fascist. How mature of you. You are just digging your own grave.

[I'm the forgiving kind so I chose to think you're just young and ignorant and full of shit. Let's hope you grow wiser with age because people like you are the one's that elected Donald Trump in the US and thinks he's doing a terrific job right now attacking every democratic institution in the country.]
How forgiving. You "chose to think" that I am "young and ignorant and full of shit" shows how full of shit you yourself are ;P. But that sounds totally "forgiving".
And now you are bringing Donald Trump into this discussion. Relevancy? You are the one who is twisting everything here and taking this towards your own insanity. If anything, I can just say that it is because of people like you that Donald Trump got elected. With your extremism, you have pushed people right into his hands. Thanks a lot.

[PS. Before you complain about me calling your young and stupid you should read this:

https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx]
Nothing about this supports your argument that I am "young and ignorant and stupid". Your own ad hominems.

[Your brain isn't actually fully developed yet and on top of that you haven't had time to read up on the facts and experience the world as an older person has.]
Wow, agist much? My brain has not fully developed enough, but that only says a lot more about yours, since you are falling so flat on your face in front of an "ignorant, stupid, young child".

[Ask any +40-year old around you and they tell you they're ambarrased about a lot of things they thought, said or did when they where your age. If they have matured that is. Not all people do as they grow older, but let's hope you do. ]
Jesus Christ man. I have never seen anybody take things to such an insane side in an argument :P. I am sorry that you suffer from inferiority complex. I am assuming here, like you have been doing this entire time now.
But I know enough 40+ who would both say they regret some things they did in the past and things they did not regret.

You have no sort of relevancy at all, do you Nisse? Thank you for handing me this argument *Bows*

@Jonas_Hrafnagil

You just prove once again that you don't even understand the issue:

"In my mind, democratic would apply everywhere, but that is but a mere wish. The reality is that they actually don't apply everywhere, and I can admit that. If I walked into a barber shop and I heard someone criticizing their barber for accidentally cutting the wrong type of lock, should I start flinging at the person all I know about "democracy" and "democratic values" and how they are "oppressing" the barber? No, I would not."

This example has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion we're having and I can only hope you one day realize that.

Also, the notion that you believe democratic rules don't apply everywhere is chilling - you're apparently prime for a Trump-style candidate.

Let's hope Iceland doesn't have one.

@Nisse_Hult
"This example has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion we're having and I can only hope you one day realize that."
It applies as you are twisting the meaning of democracy. It applies because that was basically your own argument. Plus "has absolutely Nothing to do with the discussion": Look who is fucking talking here. Take long look in the mirror ;)

[Also, the notion that you believe democratic rules don't apply everywhere is chilling - you're apparently prime for a Trump-style candidate.]
Baseless accusation that you can not back up. Try again.

[Let's hope Iceland doesn't have one.]
Yes, let's hope. But like you can even understand what politics are or mean. You like flinging around accusations more than you like actually pointing out reality

@Jonas_Hrafnagil

"[Also, the notion that you believe democratic rules don't apply everywhere is chilling - you're apparently prime for a Trump-style candidate.]

Baseless accusation that you can not back up. Try again."

That's right after I quoted you as saying about democratic rules:

"The reality is that they actually don't apply everywhere, and I can admit that."

You JUST said democratic rules don't apply everywhere but the next second you claim me commenting on that fact is an "Baseless accusation"!

Yes - you really are prime Trump-material.
You will lie with a straight face about the very thing you JUST said yourself and I quoted back to you in the very same comment. That's Trump-level lying right there.

@Nisse_Hult
["[Also, the notion that you believe democratic rules don't apply everywhere is chilling - you're apparently prime for a Trump-style candidate.]

Baseless accusation that you can not back up. Try again."

That's right after I quoted you as saying about democratic rules:

"The reality is that they actually don't apply everywhere, and I can admit that."]
You brought in Trump, said I was for a Trump-style candidate. That is a baseless accusation that you tied into your democratic argument.
Try again. You keep stumbling.

[You JUST said democratic rules don't apply everywhere but the next second you claim me commenting on that fact is an "Baseless accusation"!]
How is me being for a Trump-style candidate a fact? Again, baseless accusation.
Come on, bring an actual challenge, it is really cringy to see you beating yourself up like this with your baseless accusations.

[Yes - you really are prime Trump-material. ]
No, I am not. You just came up with a baseless accusation. You can shove it up your rear end as you can't back it up.

[You will lie with a straight face about the very thing you JUST said yourself and I quoted back to you in the very same comment. That's Trump-level lying right there. ]
No, you just turned it into one with your own "facts" and "logic". My fault that someone is making a baseless accusation? No. You began by involving Trump into this, then calling me a Trump supporter and then saying that I am like Trump, without any sort of backing. Sorry, try again.

You can do better than that, right? Or is this really all you have?

@Jonas_Hrafnagil

I was OBVIOUSLY talking about the fact that you said that democratic rules don't apply everywhere.
In any reasonable persons mind that statement from you is the chocking one that's worth discussing.

But it just once again prove you don't even have a basic respect for democratic values when you think that it's completely fine that people hear that you don't believe democratic rules apply everywhere - but you think it's an insult when I say "you're apparently prime for a Trump-style candidate".

Well guess what - this only proves that you are prime for a Trump-style candidate!

Normal voters don't support candidates that attack the very foundations of democracy and they don't cheer such a president on.
Trump-voters do, because they - just like you - don't understand that respect for democratic rules and values must be absolute in every single instance.
They - just like you and tulpoeid - think it's no problem if others democratic rights - like freedom of speech - are suppressed.
And they - like you - don't have a problem with people knowing it, because they think there is nothing wrong with being undemocratic.

So yes - you clearly have the potential to vote for an undemocratic candidate like Trump - because you don't understand that democratic values must be absolute.

You can't prove that much more clearly then you already have here - short of actually admitting it. But apparently that's where you draw the line.
You'll admit to believing that democratic values are not absolute - but you won't admit you could ever support a politician that actually practices what you preach.
That you consider an insult.

But whether you ever do vote for an undemocratic politician or not is any way completely beside the point.
Which instead is that you don't believe that democratic rules apply everywhere - so obliviously you have no problem with seeing Humons freedom of speech questioned here. In fact you don't even see the pressure that tulpoeid puts on it - because you don't really think democratic rules apply online anyway, as you said earlier.

You're operating from a world view that's clearly undemocratic, where shutting people up that says things you don't like to hear is just fine if you can do it - because democratic rules don't really matter anyway.

That's the real take-away from this discussion.

You probably don't realize it yet, but you're a result of the 4chan-isation of the world: naive young boys like you learn fascist ideals from a bunch of middle aged bitter men who failed at life and spend their time on line hating everything and everyone and carving out hollow little "victories" by harassing decent people.
At this point it doesn't matter if you've actually visited 4chan or not - you can get this "education" anywhere. That's why you speak in buzzwords and think a discussion is about who's "da Boss" instead of actually understanding the issue.
You don't care if you advocate for fascism - just as long as you can get that hollow little "victory" in your mind and feel like "da Boss" for a short time.
You've adopted the values of middle aged social misfits who's only consolation prize in life is trying to feel big by being fascist assholes online. And you're only 20! It's all just very sad.

As I said - let's hope you grow wiser as you grow older, but at this point it's a waste of time to debate anything else with you since you're world view is so fundamentally different from the democratic majority's.

@Nisse_Hult
[I was OBVIOUSLY talking about the fact that you said that democratic rules don't apply everywhere.
In any reasonable persons mind that statement from you is the chocking one that's worth discussing.]
Because they don't. You are approaching the realm of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity'. The only thing you have is that I wish that democratic rules would always apply, but I admit that with reality by my side that they obviously don't. So I have given you my intent, a character description of mine. But you have willfully twisted it into saying I am against democracy.
Who is being a child now? ;)

[But it just once again prove you don't even have a basic respect for democratic values when you think that it's completely fine that people hear that you don't believe democratic rules apply everywhere - but you think it's an insult when I say "you're apparently prime for a Trump-style candidate".]
It's not an insult, it is just factually incorrect. A baseless accusation that is detached from reality.

[Well guess what - this only proves that you are prime for a Trump-style candidate!]
No it does not. If I considered it an insult, how does that prove I am for a Trump-style candidate?

[Normal voters don't support candidates that attack the very foundations of democracy and they don't cheer such a president on.
Trump-voters do, because they - just like you - don't understand that respect for democratic rules and values must be absolute in every single instance.]
Anything that has "absolute in every single instance" sounds like autocracy to me. Everything can be twisted in order to fit a narrative or an agenda and it can go from being something that was democratic in the beginning, to something undemocratic, but is still masqueraded as democracy.

[They - just like you and tulpoeid - think it's no problem if others democratic rights - like freedom of speech - are suppressed.
And they - like you - don't have a problem with people knowing it, because they think there is nothing wrong with being undemocratic.]
And another baseless accusation you can't back and refuse to back. If there is anybody suppressing freedom of speech with their own opinion and feedback, it is you yourself according to your own definition.

[So yes - you clearly have the potential to vote for an undemocratic candidate like Trump - because you don't understand that democratic values must be absolute.]
So do you. Anybody has the 'potential', Nisse. I believe in democratic values. But for someone who studies sociology, Political Science and anthropology, I know that feeling is not shared everywhere and I acknowledge this. Sorry if I am not willing to go on a murderous crusade against anybody who does not conform. (You will get some assumption and baseless accusation back ;))

[You can't prove that much more clearly then you already have here - short of actually admitting it. But apparently that's where you draw the line.
You'll admit to believing that democratic values are not absolute - but you won't admit you could ever support a politician that actually practices what you preach.
That you consider an insult.]
There are other candidates and people that I can always support. Every single politician will practice at least one thing that you yourself preach for, but that does not mean that you will cast your support behind them. You will cast your support behind the one you think is best fit. I don't have to admit anything here as it is irrelevant to the discussion that you have so twisted and derailed.
For your own knowledge, I supported Bernie Sanders.
Your argument goes more and more down the toilet.

[But whether you ever do vote for an undemocratic politician or not is any way completely beside the point. ]
Oh really? Seemed like you have built your entire argument on this. Do go on.

[Which instead is that you don't believe that democratic rules apply everywhere - so obliviously you have no problem with seeing Humons freedom of speech questioned here. In fact you don't even see the pressure that tulpoeid puts on it - because you don't really think democratic rules apply online anyway, as you said earlier.]
Their freedom of speech is not being questioned here. That is a fallacy. Their choice of topic is being questioned. You are now building your whole argument on Humon not being able to handle criticism. I can't believe that you have such low expectations of Humon. How dare you?!!!!

[You're operating from a world view that's clearly undemocratic, where shutting people up that says things you don't like to hear is just fine if you can do it - because democratic rules don't really matter anyway.]
Actually... you are the one who has been operating from a world view that is undemocratic. I have not shut you up, I have just criticized and trashed your way of criticizing others. You are completely free of criticizing others. But if you are going to be an asshole while at it, expect fair criticism.
"where shutting people up that says things you don't like to hear is just fine if you can do it " this is you right here.
I'm apparently a fascist, a Trumpist, that I am against democracy, that I am against freedom of speech and apparently just an ignorant child who knows nothing of the world! This is your own argument, you have been continuously been digging your own grave here. The level of filled ad hominems is your own doing and you think you really have some moral high ground?
Try again.

[You probably don't realize it yet, but you're a result of the 4chan-isation of the world: naive young boys like you learn fascist ideals from a bunch of middle aged bitter men who failed at life and spend their time on line hating everything and everyone and carving out hollow little "victories" by harassing decent people.]
Every single person I know and I take away from is someone who has seen both success and failure, but has ended successfully and none of them even know what 4chan is.
I am apparently harassing someone and to add to that, someone who is decent! Well, I guess 'disagreeing' is a way of harassing nowadays. But oh well.

[At this point it doesn't matter if you've actually visited 4chan or not - you can get this "education" anywhere.]
Oh really? Where can I do so? Point me to a direction, because I have never been to 4chan or any place similar. You seem to be an expert on that field, which must mean they have any relevancy to this whole debate

[That's why you speak in buzzwords and think a discussion is about who's "da Boss" instead of actually understanding the issue.]
So "You da Boss" has become a buzzword? A quote that is taken out of a video game called "Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness"? If that is the case, then http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/behold-the-field-in-which-i-grow-my-fucks.jpg
I guess this would be considered like one of those 4chanish things they do there? But in any case, not my problem that to one person, "You da Boss" is an insult to them.
But hey, what would a mere 20 year old guy know about any issue?

[You don't care if you advocate for fascism - just as long as you can get that hollow little "victory" in your mind and feel like "da Boss" for a short time.]
I don't care for what you call fascism. You clearly are in no position to define what fascism even is. Considering how you are willing to fling it around so easily, you actually diminish the seriousness behind it and influence people to just no longer care. But hey, I am totally not trying to help you in the long run to actually construct a better argument and *I* am the one, nobody else, who is trying to gain a little 'victory' out of this ;)

[You've adopted the values of middle aged social misfits who's only consolation prize in life is trying to feel big by being fascist assholes online. And you're only 20! It's all just very sad.]
More baseless accusations. Even Trump is better than you at it xD.
So you have so far assumed that I love middle aged fascist and that they are my inspiration.

[As I said - let's hope you grow wiser as you grow older, but at this point it's a waste of time to debate anything else with you since you're world view is so fundamentally different from the democratic majority's.]
You don't understand the core principle of democracy nor do you understand people. You might understand more if you perhaps undergo anthropology and Political Science, that democracy takes many forms and no democratic nation is exactly the same. One thing you said was
"democratic rights - like freedom of speech" which is not exactly true. Free speech can and has been and even is suppressed in it's many ways and forms in democratic countries. I think you meant "Human Right, like freedom speech".


Feel the Bern!

@Jonas_Hrafnagil

"But hey, what would a mere 20 year old guy know about any issue? "

Apparently nothing in your case - which you continue to show of with such delight.

You add nothing of substance here so there is no need for me to add anything else - your own words have already condemned you.

But by all means - do keep on digging if you feel this is not enough.

@Nisse_Hult

[Apparently nothing in your case - which you continue to show of with such delight.]
Ahhh, the butthurt is so apparent in your post <3

[You add nothing of substance here so there is no need for me to add anything else - your own words have already condemned you.]
Look who is talking. The guy who has not known what he has been talking about from the very start and derailed the point by going into Trump and fascism.
If there is anybody who has condemned themselves with their words, it would be you Nisse ;)

[But by all means - do keep on digging if you feel this is not enough. ]
I will always reply to your worthless ad hominems, baseless accusations and your alternative reality, as long as you keep on distorting reality. Your choice on whether you wish to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. All I have done here is reply to your baseless accusations and your derailment. But go on, if you feel you need to derail this any further to try and smear people that point out your behavior and your lies, go on. I look forward to see what you can come up with next.

@Jonas_Hrafnagil I've been reading these cartoons for years. I still like them a lot, but i used to love them. Anyways i just had to create an account to thank you for this debate with @Nisse_Hult . I agree with everything you said and really enjoyed reading it all. thank you

@Handsome
No problem

@Jonas_Hrafnagil Catching up on the back-catalogue and saw this, so it's a bit of a necro-post, but what the heck.

You have an immense amount of patience and goodwill. I can only imagine how frustrating repeatedly dealing with that condescending nonsense. Especially all that "you young folks just don't understand!" silliness coming from someone acting a great deal less mature.

Just wanted to chime in with appreciation for your willingness to engage with people stubbornly insulting others without good reason, and the measured way you did it too. There's not exactly a shortage of them out there, and it's refreshing to find this one already taken care of by someone capable enough.

Don't let the abrasiveness of some people grind down that good character of yours, or your willingness to push back. The world needs all the good people it can get these days brother.

@BandagesAndTheWound

Thank you for that. I really appreciate hearing that. To be able to point that out as well also shows that there are indeed more people who are willing to be quite cool about things and to engage and push back ;)

@Nisse_Hult
actually they have every right to speak their mind and say that they don't enjoy specific content. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The comment above said they don't like all the political comics.

They didn't tell Humon that she has to stop drawing things they don't like. At best, they just voiced their displeasure with the way things have been.

It's called feedback, sometimes it's negative, sometimes it's positive. But if she didn't want the feedback, there wouldn't be a comment section.

@callumcree3

Tulpoeid clearly went beyond expressing her personal opinion on the comic - if she had done just that, that would have been fine.
It's when she attacks Humon's work by saying about her comics that "at best they offer personal opinions" she crosses the line.

She's saying that Humon comics are less worthy now in her eyes then before since they now shows personal opinions tulpoeid happens to disagree with.
But every cartoon artist in history has always expressed personal opinions in their work - that's what comics are - the cartoon artist's personal take on the topic they draw.
And tulpoeid says she was just fine with that before - when Humons work didn't express opinions she disagreed with.
But now all of a sudden it's a problem for tulpoeid and many others on here - because they don't like to see comics that challenges their own personal opinions.
So now people start pressuring Humon to stop having or at least stop expressing her personal opinion - just so they don't have to see content that they disagree with.

And that is completely unacceptable from a basic democratic standpoint of course.

Humon get's to draw what ever she damn well pleases and if you don't like it you have the right to say so or leave if it's so intolerable to you to have your own opinions challenged in a comic.
But no one ever has the right to outright say or even imply that Humon shouldn't express her personal opinion or that her personal opinion has less value then the personal opinions her work challenges. That's attacking Humons right to freedom of speech and that's not acceptable at all.

That's the issue here.

@tulpoeid Really though. I came to Satw for the cute little country personifications acting out stereotypes, not to be reminded of the world. The change was too abrupt to not be noticed.

People seem to have forgotten there's a difference between Nationalism and Patriotism: Patriotism is love of one's country, Nationalism is thinking all countries are inferior to yours. And you know what happens when a bunch of powerful nations each think they are superior to all others? World Wars happen, genocides happen, ethnic cleansing happen. Loving you're country is one thing, but nationalism is an evil thing.

@Hyporia Wow, you're FULL ON brainwashed. How's it feel being on Soros' leash?

@v0ider Who the fuck is Soro?

@Hyporia
He's talking about George Soros. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
Or, as I like to think of him, the left's version of the Koch Brothers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

@Hyporia

He's the American right-wings favorite bogeyman they scare their children with.

When America saw it's largest demonstrations ever in it's history right after Trump's inauguration the right-wing wingnuts claimed the demonstrators where paid by Soros.

Because no one could of course object to Trump without getting paid.
No, it must be a giant conspiracy bankrolled by an evil mastermind of course...

@Nisse_Hult that evil master mind is obama, the man who used a wire tapp to spy on trump. THE SECRET MUSLUM OBAMA IS TRYING TO TEAR THIS COUNTRY APART!

@Baconcheesewheel

I really hope that comment was meant as a joke - but with the incredibly overblown rhetoric of the American right wing one can't be sure today.

If it was meant as satire of a right-wing wingnut I give it 9 out of 10 - almost the full score. You even misspelled "tapp" just like Trump did in his tweet - that was a nice touch! Only a little too few exclamations points at the end to get the full 10 out of 10 I think.

If you're not joking but actually meant this it's just sad - so I hope that's not the case?

@Nisse_Hult it was a joke, just like our president!

@Baconcheesewheel

I'm glad to hear it!

And you sir, are awarded 9 points from the Swedish jury for that contribution.

But next time you might want to add an ;-) just to avoid accidentally being taken seriously. It's sad that it's come to that, but today you really can't tell any longer

@Hyporia

That's not true at all. Nationalism is an ideology, the idea that the world's political and legal borders should reflect the world's socio-cultural divisions and is best embodied in the principle of the nation-state and of people's right to self-determination. A nation-state isn't a meaningless word that repeats the same idea twice, the words mean different things.

A nation is a society which population mostly shares a common culture, common language, common values and a common identity, that wants to live together and have solidarity with one another. A State is a government with established political and legal institutions that apply on a given territory. A nation-state is thus an ideal that each nation should have its own State, so that it can rule itself how it sees fit and according to its own values and norms, and not have to be subjected to another people's ideas and norms.

Nationalism as a policy is an attempt by the government to favor a convergence and a stronger national identity in the people who live in its territory and under its rules. It doesn't mean that you think you are superior to every other nation, nor that you want to bend them to your will (that is imperialism, which can grow out of nationalism, but also from internationalist ideologies like communism for instance). Nationalism is really useful to helping democracies function in a modern country, because it reduces tensions and brings the people together, reducing political polarization and preventing demographic wars for dominance by different cultural communities in the same country.

Multinational countries have a bad tendency to blow up without an authoritarian government to impose its rules (see USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Congo, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc...). Federal arrangements, with every nation having an autonomous State inside a Federation can help prevent such collapse or explosion.

@simval I will admit that calling Nationalism an evil thing might have been a little far. But in its extremes it is a really bad thing.

@Hyporia
Few things remain good when taken to the extreme.

@Hyporia
Nationalism is essentially nativism - native people keeping their native culture and native language within their native land, in the form of a nation-state.
Nationalism is NOT about spreading your native culture to other lands not native to you.

@simval

The US and Canada are both Multinational/Multicultural/Multiethnic/Whatever, and it's worked out pretty well. The key with the US is that the different peoples have 1) a common language, which helps them 2) constantly be in contact with each other, preventing xenophobia and 3) lots of intermarriage, blending the nations 4) an identity of immigration rather than "this has always been our homeland" and 5) a loyalty to the combined union rather than to any particular nation or state.

@CorruptUser

Canada was not diverse until the 1970s, except for the division between French and Anglo-Canadians. Before WWII, between 60 and 90% of immigrants came from the anglosphere (US and UK). The US is more diverse, but between 1925 and 1965, immigration was strictly controlled to create a stable ethnocultural identity for the country, so that only 5% of American born in the 40s and 50s were children of immigrants (versus 25% today).

It is very plausible that the weakness of the Federal government and of social programs in the US is a direct result of this diversity. And the increasing dysfunction of the American political system may be a result of the increased diversity since the 1960s' immigration reform that has opened the doors to immigration from everywhere in the world. It is a curious "coincidence" that the years of most effective bipartisan governance in the US are also the most homogeneous period in American history in terms of ethnocultural makeup of the country.

@Hyporia That's right. Nationalism has caused a lot of horrible problems in the world; it divides people along arbitrary lines, it makes us hate and want to murder our neighbors, and a big part of it is deciding who doesn't belong.

In Yugoslavia, one existing nation split into three because the three groups present hated sharing a country with people who spoke different languages and practiced different faiths. As a result, as soon as all three of those groups had their own armies, they started genociding each-other in a mad frenzy. It might just be because of the unique history my own country (my country has hundreds of different ethnic and cultural groups sharing a single country together, has birthright citizenship, and was almost torn apart in a violent and bloody civil war when one group tried to go independent in order to deny the humanity of another group), but personally I do not agree with self-determinism. Having your own language or culture isn't enough to give you the right to your own country.

Nationalism denies our shared humanity.

'@PaxRomana' "one existing nation split into three because the three groups present hated sharing a country with people who spoke different languages and practiced different faiths"

Oh wait, wasn't Yugoslavia a federated republic in which communists packed together several smaller nations and which held together because members were given relatively broad autonomy?

"Milošević succeeded in reducing the autonomy of Vojvodina and of Kosovo and Metohija, but both entities retained a vote in the Yugoslav Presidency Council. The very instrument that reduced Serbian influence before was now used to increase it: in the eight-member Council, Serbia could now count on four votes at a minimum: Serbia proper, then-loyal Montenegro, Vojvodina, and Kosovo.
...
The Serbian delegation, led by Milošević, insisted on a policy of "one person, one vote", which would empower the plurality population, the Serbs. In turn, the Slovenes, supported by Croats, sought to reform Yugoslavia by devolving even more power to republics, but were voted down. As a result, the Slovenian and Croatian delegations left the Congress and the all-Yugoslav Communist party was dissolved.

The constitutional crisis that inevitably followed resulted in a rise of nationalism in all republics: Slovenia and Croatia voiced demands for looser ties within the Federation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia#Breakup

Turns out it did, and it all went down the drain thanks to a power grab and attempt by one member of federation to achieve dominance over the rest. Say, does shared humanity always involve authoritarian centralized government?

'@Hyporia' remind me, how WW I started?

@comrade_Comrade WWI started after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which was used as a pretext by the European Powers to go to war with one another.

'@Hyporia' no, not really. Conflict between Austria and Serbia turned into World War when Russia and Germany mobilized for war in favor of their allies. If anything, "Russia before Serbia" or "Germany before Austria" alone could prevent further cascading and dragging France, Great Britain, Italy and Turkey into the conflict.

@Hyporia "oh come all ye young rebels, and list while I sing...for the love of one's country is a terrible thing..."

Behan wasn't completely wrong; nationalism and patriotism alike have claimed their fair share of lives.

@Eckerman I sing that song to my babies as a lullaby. My 2 yr old asks for it by name. Maybe when they're old enough, they'll realize there's a point to the words. (I can hope).

You forgot to draw the flames on the EU plane. The UK is doing the right thing.

@Morro1000 No it's not. Leaving the EU means refusing to work with other European Nations and severing bridges that link them together. What the world needs more of is cooperation, not divisions.

@PaxRomana Well, what did that cooperation bring ? An assembly that costs us a very lot for nearly nothing because everyone has the veto. Cooperation is a good thing but EU tries to fuction like a big country as if there was ONE solid government. It's not the case because the whole assembly just take personally advantage of funds. I guess Morro is right, EU is on fire. UK has no reason to stay there and if we want EU to have a reformist reaction (other than "haaaaaaaaaa what a shame !!!"), I sincerely think France has to take the same path.

@Ynk Yes, EU needs to reform, and it won't do it willingly

@Morro1000 You're brilliant

This would be a lot more accurate if the plane was on fire.

@Nerdburton, EU is alot more importen than most can imagine, no offense, always get disepointed when i come across these comment.

@Nerdburton
Except it isn't.
You might want to explain why you think it is. Please do enlighten us. And please, let it not be reasoning of the level of "lastnightinsweden", your president is enough of an embarassment for that flag.

@Narf

The EU is single-handedly bringing the world economy down with its mess. The Euro is killing countries like Greece, Italy and Spain for the benefit of Germany. The EU's technocratic elite keeps trying to amass more and more power to bypass the democratic will of the people. The EU completely bungled the migrant crisis and now wants to force migrants upon countries that do not want them. The EU's imperialist expansionist policy notably in Ukraine (where it cultivated a coup to remove a government judged not EU-friendly enough) is creating needless frictions with Russia and leading to conflicts.

The EU is an absolute monster, if it can't be deeply reformed to remove the technocrats' hold on power, it should just die. Of course, the eurocrats have waged a propaganda war to equate in the minds of people Europe and the EU, to convince them that the EU is the only rampart against a new world war, and it's absolute BS. Nevertheless, many of the young who have been raised in this indoctrination campaign believe these lies, they believe that without the EU, they won't be able to visit other European countries, the European economies will collapse and war will occur again in Europe. All of these are baseless claims to hide the face that the EU is killing democracy and creating a new imperial, expansionist power in the world, representing the greatest single threat to world stability.

@Narf I'm not going to pretend the U.S. is any better but let me know when the EU will no longer have countries on the verge of bankruptcy and I'll retract my statement.

@Nerdburton
The countries' finances are mostly in their own hands, so why bring the EU into this? Some of their countries are doing well or very well, some don't. Individual circumstances and policies. The EU's influence on that is limited unless a country asks them to intervene.

@Nerdburton

I wouldn't say on fire but it has been having problems for some time and hasn't been that successful let at resolving them. It may pull through and Britain's exit may help it, or at least the centralists who want a unitary state, but in that case I would expect a number of other people jumping ship before then. ;)

Steve

Brexit, Trump, the migrant crisis...

I'm getting tired of all the politics. I usually go to this site to "switch off", but nope...
Could you lay it off? Or at least stop making it so blatantly obvious what your personal views are?

@Keichwoud she's been doing quite a lot of random Sister America things on car safety and whatnot lately, but country relationships are basically by definition to some degree or other political.
It looks like she's trying to do not too much on politics, but the fact that she started a country relationship comic in the first place makes it hard to avoid and also suggest it interests her, so she will write about it and sometimes have strong opinions.

@Keichwoud I hate it when artists have opinions, and then express them when they express themselves.

@Aaron why must people exercise their personal freedoms. *sigh*

@Keichwoud I agree I'm fine with being anti brexit but the joke (rather ignorant and one sided joke that it is) got old a while back there is plenty of other things going on in the world.

@Keichwoud

Well, I'm getting tired of people whining about what Humon chooses to draw.

It's her comic, it's her site - if you don't like it you're free to leave any minute.

It's frankly completely ridiculous that you believe you have any right at all to tell her what she should or shouldn't draw!
How do people like you even get to the point where you think you have the right to tell anyone else what they should do?!

What you and people like you are doing is just advocating for censorship - you expect others to not express their opinions simply because you disagree with those opinions - that's the definition of censorship!

Don't you realize how completely undemocratic you're wish to silence those who express views you don't agree with actually is?!

'@Nisse'_Hult That is not what censorship is. Censorship would be shutting down the website to prevent other people from reading it. Instead, here Keichwoud merely politely asks that the subject be changed -- that is not even remotely similar to "silencing those who express views you don't agree with." The author does not have to comply, and you don't have to agree, but a polite request is neither silencing nor undemocratic.

@Trineff

Censorship comes in more forms then you pretend - it's not only a question of "shutting down" websites.

Any pressure asserted on people to NOT express their opinion is a form of censorship and this is always how the governmental censorship you think of starts - by people like Keichwoud putting pressure on others to not express their views because they personally don't agree with them.

The US has had a lot of this from religious groups trying to suppress opinions and views they don't agree with - censorship doesn't have to come from a governmental body at all.

But any governmental censorship can't be enforced without a widespread popular belief that some ideas and opinions should not be allowed to be expressed and Keichwoud is enforcing that belief right here.

And he's absolutely not simply "politely" asking as you claim. We all know what "politely" looks like and this ain't it.

No, he clearly shows he doesn't value Humons freedom of speech at all but is simply interested in suppressing opinions that are unpleasant for him to see expressed.

He doesn't have the legal authority to shut down her site and he doesn't seem to want to either. He seems happy to come here and enjoy free comics - he "only" want he to censor herself so he doesn't have to see opinions expressed he doesn't agree with.

And that's not only extremely rude - it's also pressuring Humon to give up he freedom of speech to satisfy his personal wants and that's completely undemocratic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

'@Nisse'_Hult He just expressed an opinion that he preferred it when she laid off of current politics because he comes to SatW to switch off. That is not even sort of censorship, I don't know why you are even trying to pretend that it is. Expressing a mild difference of opinion in a public forum while abiding by the rules of the community is not censorship. She can continue to make such comics, he can leave, etc etc. No one is forcing a view on anyone, no one is stopping anyone from expressing themselves. Freedom of speech just means that you can say what you want, not that other people can't have opinions on what you say.

@Trineff

Once again - this is not just "Expressing a mild difference of opinion" like you pretend - he's clearly admonishing Humon to stop expressing her opinion. And that is per definition what censorship is.
I provided a link to Wikipedia already - go read up on it.

His freedom of speech gives him the right to say what he himself likes or dislikes - but it does NOT give him the right to pressure others to give up their rights to express their opinions.

There is no need for any force to be involved - just the very notion that he believes he has the right to tell others they shouldn't exercise their freedom of speech is per definition undemocratic.
As I said he doesn't have the power to actually suppress Humons freedom of speech so instead he tries to pressure her into self-censoring herself. Here's Wikipedias page on self-censoring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

You and him and people like you obviously haven't thought this through at all.
You clearly don't understand the basic difference here between expressing YOUR opinion on something and prescribing actions for OTHERS.

'@Nisse'_Hult Yeah, still not censorship by any reasonable standard. Are you censoring him for saying he doesn't have the right to say that? I would say that you are not, but it does fit your definition.

I know both what censorship and self-censorship are, and this really doesn't fit without a very very large stretch. His opinion is that he would like to go back to the old style of comics that don't reference specific current events, that is all.

The author retains total power on this message board. She can ban him, or anyone else, if she doesn't want to hear it. He can leave if he doesn't like the direction the comic is taking. No one is forcing anything, this is just audience feedback.

@Trineff

Actually pressing a writer or cartoonist to give up their freedom of speech by not expressing their opinions is the very definition of censorship - as anyone can clearly see in the Wikipedia-links I offered.

You just don't agree with that definition because you in this case agree with Keichwoud's wish that Humon should suppress her opinions.

Your standard isn't objective or reasonable at all, but predicated on this precise situation. There can be no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that you would advocate for a completely different standard in a different situation - just as long as the end results suits you personal taste.

No, I or anyone else telling people like Keichwoud or you to respect Humons right to free speech isn't censoring anyone. Because it can never be censoring or undemocratic to tell people to respect peoples democratic rights.
Democracy has the right to defend itself against people attacking it and attacks on democracy warrants no democratic protection.

Intolerance against intolerance is not a fault but a virtue.

'@Nisse'_Hult I read the links. It talks of brutal suppression of governments and political bodies on the right of people to express their minds. Somehow, mild requests to change topic got left out of that article.

You have put up ridiculous hysteria as your reasoning. "Any pressure asserted on people to NOT express their opinion is a form of censorship and this is always how the governmental censorship you think of starts - by people like Keichwoud putting pressure on others to not express their views because they personally don't agree with them." I guess Humon should expect government censors any day now? Someone asked her to go back to her other comics, and now governmental censorship starts?

And then the personal attacks: "There can be no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that you would advocate for a completely different standard in a different situation - just as long as the end results suits you personal taste."? You don't know me and I don't know you, so this is just speculation about what you think I would do. As it happens, I believe strongly in the freedom of speech-- including the speech saying "I don't like how this comic is going."

You still have avoided the entire point that Humon owns this board, and as it is her property she can ban him if she doesn't like what he says. That is her right. If she is troubled by what he says, she has the final word on everything that happens on this site. You have no answer for this, so we can move on.

But hey, no hard feelings: as a courtesy to the losing side, I will let you have the last word. Tell us one more time about how a mild request from an internet poster to move on to different material is identical to government thugs kicking your door in for speaking your mind. Maybe this time it will stick.

@Trineff

No, you clearly didn't read the links - or you read them as an old Swedish saying goes "as the Devil reads the Bible". That is - not in an objective way, but only with the intention of finding support for your own skewed world view.

As I told you in my very first reply to you - censorship comes in more forms then you pretend it does, and the Wikipedia-links I offered clearly shows that.
You just want to ignore that part of reality since it doesn't fit into your argument that censorship can only ever be something committed by states.

Already the second sentence on the Wikipedia page for censorship reads:

"Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship."

The Wikipedia entry for self-censorship, which I also linked to, states:

"Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of speech from all forms of censorship. Article 19 explicitly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.""

Now when Keichwoud in his original post said:
"Could you lay it off? Or at least stop making it so blatantly obvious what your personal views are?"

he's clearly seeking to interfere with Humons right to hold and express her opinion through the media of her choosing - something that is expressedly forbidden in article 19.

So no, you haven't read the links - or you're lying to yourself and other about what they say.

"You have put up ridiculous hysteria as your reasoning."

I guess you think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pretty hysterical then?

"You don't know me and I don't know you, so this is just speculation about what you think I would do. As it happens, I believe strongly in the freedom of speech-- including the speech saying "I don't like how this comic is going.""

I see that you argue for a standpoint that lacks all moral and legal merit. It's not based on facts - as I have shown - so it must be based on your opinion that Humon's freedom of speech is less important then other people's wish to not have their opinions challenged by Humons work. This is the very opposite of freedom of speech so you obviously don't believe that much in freedom of speech at all.
Or you're an hypocrite that makes up any rational to support your current standpoint instead of basing it on an actual moral or legal ground - there is no other way to interpret your argument here.
And either way it makes it obvious that you would come to a completely different conclusion in another case, where you shared the opinion being expressed by the person in question.
So you see I don't have to know you - as I can draw an informed conclusion about you from your argument here.

And once again - the problem is of course not that Keichwoud had an personal opinion which you keep pretending was the only thing he said. The problem is that he want on from there to try an interfere with Humons right to express her opinion.

"You still have avoided the entire point that Humon owns this board, and as it is her property she can ban him if she doesn't like what he says. That is her right. If she is troubled by what he says, she has the final word on everything that happens on this site. You have no answer for this, so we can move on."

That's not a relevant point in any way.
Keichwoud is still crossing the line from offering his own personal opinion to trying to interfere with Humons right's wherever he did this.
The fact that she could chose to punish him for it doesn't make what he did less wrong.
And the fact that she has chosen not to seems to indicate she's a lot more tolerant then him or you - or me. Or that she just doesn't read the comments - I don't know.
Either way Keichwoud was still out of line and so are you for defending that kind of behavior.

"But hey, no hard feelings: as a courtesy to the losing side, I will let you have the last word. Tell us one more time about how a mild request from an internet poster to move on to different material is identical to government thugs kicking your door in for speaking your mind. Maybe this time it will stick."

It's a sure sign some one doesn't have an convincing argument when they feel the need to tell you they're "winning".
A person who actually knows the strength of their own argument feels no such need.

And no - nothing I say here will ever stick with you, because you don't want to accept any other version then the one you've already decided on.
You want to continue to believe that you "believe strongly in the freedom of speech" - but that you just happen to believe that in this special instance Humons right to it is less important then Keichwoud's wish to not have his opinions challenged, since she expresses opinions you don't share.
You have to ignore all moral and legal pretences to get to that point, and you won't ever let anything I say or show you sink in or stick - because that could lead you to question your own motives here, and you'd never allow that to happen to yourself.

But I'm not talking to you to convince you of anything.
I'm talking to you to show others that you're arguing against moral and legal definitions, that Keichwoud is morally and legally wrong when tries to interfere with Humons right to freedom of speech and you're wrong for defending him.

@Keichwoud
Yeah. I voted for the stay option, but despite them aligning to my point of view all these comics about Brexit are just bumming me out super hard. Can't we have some more light hearted historical ones?

@Keichwoud I can't help but enjoy comments like these. It's pretty much saying: "Oooohh nooo, how dare another human being have an opinion?! And expressing that opinion? Unheard of!!" It's her comic strip, go find something else if you don't like it.

@Edelstein9 I did find somewhere else. Or rather, I stopped coming. It's apparently been about three months since I was last here.
And it you think I'm like those "Anti"fa sheep, you are deadly wrong. The reason I protest these comics is because I usually go to this site to have a good time, not to take part in the kind of political debates you find on Facebook.

Its raining men. Hallelujah!

@SolisLuna1999
Yeah, and since it's England, there's a slight chance of it being cloudy with a chance of Kate Winslet, too!

@DarkMage7280 Oh my. XD

@SolisLuna1999 Yeah, I'm obsessed. Sorry about that.

@SolisLuna1999 Sadly, only one of them's worth catching. But one can't always be picky.

@Lysana Pffft. XD

@SolisLuna1999 And they're the ones with sexy accents, too! (づ￣ ³￣)づ

Boiling frog metaphor

@Finn123 Maybe we need to collect all of these in one thread
https://www.minds.com/archive/thumbnail/693846944581165071/xlarge

The plane crashed thirty minutes later.

@v0ider no, it seams the planes wing fell off and they will crash soon, but they have a 40-60 chance of getting to the destination with no more causualtys. Also, WHY THE FUCK DID ENGLAND NOT GRAB A PARACUTE LIKE WHY, WHY!!!!!!

@Baconcheesewheel Scotland's kilt is the parachute.

@v0ider gives the ground a nice view

@Baconcheesewheel https://i.imgur.com/B6dLkJx.gif

I kind of expected to see a historical strip about when Denmark sold the Danish West Indies to America though.

Today is 100 years ago the sale was fulfilled, after all.

Oh well, maybe next week then.

@EricTheRedAndWhite

I had to look that up. I didn't know the Virgin Islands had such a colorful history. Or that the Danes had any interest in the Caribbean. I would have thought the climate distasteful to them.

@Dan The Danes also had a colony in India

@Carolus_Rex
King Cnut ruled a huge empire in his own right.

@Dan
Rum > Aquavit

@EricTheRedAndWhite Man, I love you. Got my cool factoid after all, thanks!