Derail from Political Rant Funny Images II

[Metaphor]

At the very least, don't speak at all to a woman who is trying to explain why a cartoon like that one does nothing to help girls and women. We know the GOP seeks to control us.

Who said the cartoon was aimed at you, or women? Do you think A Modest Proposal was aimed at the Irish poor?

How do you know it has done nothing to help girls and women?

 

[Gospel]

I know one thing, if the image is meant to elicit contempt towards those represented by the elephant, it's preaching to the choir. We can scratch that off the list fa sho.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I know how some people get off on violent imagery against women and girls, but does an image of a uterus apparently having been ripped out of a tiny girl need to be posted here? It doesn't matter if it's a painting and not a photograph. You really have no reaction to that except to laugh?

Note the flag of Texas on the elephant's shirt. I think it's brilliant.

I saw every bit of it. I get that it's about how the GOP controls women. That imagery is not funny, though. I mean, just take a few minutes to look at it and think about how women might feel when they see such imagery, and also check your own feelings as you do.

I agree with you. But somehow we need to wake women up that they are going to lose rights due to blindly supporting the republican party. I'm continuously stunned by the statistic that a majority of white women voted for Trump over Hillary. Trump put three staunch anti abortion justices to the court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow. That's a lot of words put into my mouth.

Um, no. You are incorrect.

What part of stop telling people they should laugh at depictions of bloody violence against girls and women do you not understand?

There should be a word "satirical" in there somewhere. Depictions of violence against women is reprehensible. Laughing at it is worse. The imagery isn't making light of women and the issues they are dealing with regarding the anti-abortion legislation. It is presenting the right-wing normalization of said struggle. You don't have to like the cartoon or find any sense of stress relief humor in it.

Here's one thing I am not wrong about, and that's that any abusers, misogynists, or rapists who might be reading this exchange are cheering you.

Fuck them. And fuck Texas' legislature. And fuck the people that'll continue towards removing the woman's right to birth control.

 

[Angry Floof]

Lots of men commenting on what women should think or what one woman should think, but still not one answer to the question about the imagery of a little girl having her uterus ripped out, complete with blood dripping.

I'm not arguing with the intended message of the cartoon. I'm asking you human beings who laugh at it if you have any other reaction to such imagery than to laugh, and do you think such depraved imagery is necessary for girls and women to look at in order to send the message that Republicans are depraved?

Regardless of the intention of the cartoon, why is it necessary to show such bloody violence against little girls? You can't get the point across that Republicans want to control and punish women without this kind of imagery? And to boot, to find it funny?

Could at least one of you tell me that you have any reaction to imagery of bloody violence against little girls other than to laugh?

Do you think women need to see bloody imagery of little girls getting their uteruses ripped out? Do you think putting such imagery out into the world will change any woman's mind about Republicans?

Why does the political message elicit something but not the imagery of little girls getting their uteruses ripped out?

I don't know how to ask this any other ways.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lots of men commenting on what women should think or what one woman should think, but still not one answer to the question about the imagery of a little girl having her uterus ripped out, complete with blood dripping.

I'm not arguing with the intended message of the cartoon. I'm asking you human beings who laugh at it if you have any other reaction to such imagery than to laugh, and do you think such depraved imagery is necessary for girls and women to look at in order to send the message that Republicans are depraved?

Would the universe continue existing without it? Most certainly yes.

Other reactions? Anger, frustration with the fact that Texas seemingly has successfully hacked the law in order to impede a woman from acting on medical procedures they deem necessary for themselves.

Regardless of the intention of the cartoon, why is it necessary to show such bloody violence against little girls?

Because it invokes deeper emotional response, also see below.

You can't get the point across that Republicans want to control and punish women without this kind of imagery? And to boot, to find it funny?

Again, the joke (or angle) is the normalization via a children's book, putting a female in their place... as a small child. That their choices in the future are actually being made by others who feel she'll never be capable of making the right choice. The point of it being a little girl is to indicate that she isn't ever going to be in charge of her own body, so she better get used to it now.

I would ask this question, what part of the cartoon isn't accurate. Roe v Wade is going on life support in most states soon. Griswold is next. The outrage isn't the cartoon, it is the truth behind it.

Could at least one of you tell me that you have any reaction to imagery of bloody violence against little girls other than to laugh?

I don't think anyone will react to this cartoon with nothing but laughter.

Do you think women need to see bloody imagery of little girls getting their uteruses ripped out? Do you think putting such imagery out into the world will change any woman's mind about Republicans?

No, but the guy's it might make a bit of difference... the whole father/daughter aspect of things.

 

[Gospel]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

Edit: And yes it's extremely insensitive to women if you ask me. I wouldn't show it to my mothers, daughters, or sisters to elicit laughter. In fact, If I wanted to hurt my relationship with them I would do just that.

 

[Angry Floof]

Lots of men commenting on what women should think or what one woman should think, but still not one answer to the question about the imagery of a little girl having her uterus ripped out, complete with blood dripping.

I'm not arguing with the intended message of the cartoon. I'm asking you human beings who laugh at it if you have any other reaction to such imagery than to laugh, and do you think such depraved imagery is necessary for girls and women to look at in order to send the message that Republicans are depraved?

Would the universe continue existing without it? Most certainly yes.

Wow, that's deep, and also convenient. The universe is full of stuff that is more important than this image, yes. You're off the hook!

Other reactions? Anger, frustration with the fact that Texas seemingly has successfully hacked the law in order to impede a woman from acting on medical procedures they deem necessary for themselves.

No one has mentioned having those reactions to the cartoon, only laughter. Is this an after-the-fact justification? Anyone could have said this at any point before now.

Regardless of the intention of the cartoon, why is it necessary to show such bloody violence against little girls?

Because it invokes deeper emotional response, also see below.

Obviously it doesn't, or at least, any emotional reaction to bloody imagery of a little girl getting her uterus violently ripped out was clearly overwhelmed by the humor response.

The world is full of such imagery of violence against women and children and it's also full of men who don't respond to it at all except to treat it as entertainment. At least until a woman comes along and asks them if they have any human response to it. Then they start talking like you're talking right now.

You can't get the point across that Republicans want to control and punish women without this kind of imagery? And to boot, to find it funny?

Again, the joke (or angle) is the normalization via a children's book, putting a female in their place... as a small child.

No shit. I'm familiar with the humor of putting adult sarcasm onto a child's book, and usually it's funny, but using a certain meme format doesn't automatically make it funny.

What kinds of imagery on the meme of a child's book would you object to? Does the meme format excuse anything and everything?

That their choices in the future are actually being made by others who feel she'll never be capable of making the right choice. The point of it being a little girl is to indicate that she isn't ever going to be in charge of her own body, so she better get used to it now.

I would ask this question, what part of the cartoon isn't accurate. Roe v Wade is going on life support in most states soon. Griswold is next. The outrage isn't the cartoon, it is the truth behind it.

Could at least one of you tell me that you have any reaction to imagery of bloody violence against little girls other than to laugh?

I don't think anyone will react to this cartoon with nothing but laughter.

Well, I know I don't, but no one else here has said a peep about any reaction other than laughter until your attempt here a few days later.

Do you think women need to see bloody imagery of little girls getting their uteruses ripped out? Do you think putting such imagery out into the world will change any woman's mind about Republicans?

No, but the guy's it might make a bit of difference... the whole father/daughter aspect of things.

Is this a joke? Fathers routinely call women cunts and say they deserve to be raped for criticizing men. The men who do think about their own daughters before opening their mouths and running the misogynist programming are silent. Either that, or they use their frontal lobes to justify their inaction and lack of concern after the fact.

The people you think will be emotionally affected and change their minds because of this cartoon absolutely will not. They're fine with that imagery, too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obviously it doesn't, or at least, any emotional reaction to bloody imagery of a little girl getting her uterus violently ripped out was clearly overwhelmed by the humor response.

The world is full of such imagery of violence against women and children and it's also full of men who don't respond to it at all except to treat it as entertainment. At least until a woman comes along and asks them if they have any human response to it. Then they start talking like you're talking right now.

You can't get the point across that Republicans want to control and punish women without this kind of imagery? And to boot, to find it funny?

Again, the joke (or angle) is the normalization via a children's book, putting a female in their place... as a small child.

No shit. I'm familiar with the humor of putting adult sarcasm onto a child's book, and usually it's funny, but using a certain meme format doesn't automatically make it funny.

What kinds of imagery on the meme of a child's book would you object to? Does the meme format excuse anything and everything?

Holocaust and Rape would be extraordinarily hard to pull off.

In general, to me, everything is open for satire. Obviously, the more serious the subject, the harder it becomes.

That their choices in the future are actually being made by others who feel she'll never be capable of making the right choice. The point of it being a little girl is to indicate that she isn't ever going to be in charge of her own body, so she better get used to it now.

I would ask this question, what part of the cartoon isn't accurate. Roe v Wade is going on life support in most states soon. Griswold is next. The outrage isn't the cartoon, it is the truth behind it.

Could at least one of you tell me that you have any reaction to imagery of bloody violence against little girls other than to laugh?

I don't think anyone will react to this cartoon with nothing but laughter.

Well, I know I don't, but no one else here has said a peep about any reaction other than laughter until your attempt here a few days later.

I stand by my statement. And I think you agree, unless you think IIDB is stuffed to the gills with assholes. I have provided the explanation you requested as to the imagery. You don't need to find it humorous at any level, or even like it. You can find it way too hyperbolic and visual disturbing. But you aren't exactly entitled to telling people how they feel about the image, without posts saying "OMFG... that girl with her uterus being ripped about by the elephant is fucking funny!" You are reaching at that point.

Do you think women need to see bloody imagery of little girls getting their uteruses ripped out? Do you think putting such imagery out into the world will change any woman's mind about Republicans?

No, but the guy's it might make a bit of difference... the whole father/daughter aspect of things.

Is this a joke? Fathers routinely call women cunts and say they deserve to be raped for criticizing men.

I said Fathers and their daughters. Kind of like how some uber-right wingers become suddenly accepting of homosexuality when their own son or daughter is gay. Personalizing things can make a difference when it is close to home. It might make no difference at all.

The cartoon however, is not aimed at mocking women or girls. The reason it is a girl has been provided an explanation. You don't need to agree with it. But you shouldn't judge the reaction of others without much input from them. Nazis do that sort of thing. <--- had to insert that

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

Fuck that! The GOP has been trying to rid the right to abortion, sex education, birth control for decades. SCOTUS was stuffed with justices that were nearly unanimous approval almost singularly on the Roe v Wade angle. Harriet Miers was immediately questioned by the GOP due to her potential Roe v Wade position. Women very likely will find it hard to access birth control, forget just abortion. It will start with the abortion pill and work back to "the pill". The GOP is in near lockstep on this egregious and outrageous invasion to women's privacy.

 

[TomC]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

Edit: And yes it's extremely insensitive to women if you ask me. I wouldn't show it to my mothers, daughters, or sisters to elicit laughter. In fact, If I wanted to hurt my relationship with them I would do just that.

I don't understand this attitude.
I think it's a brilliant piece of viciously pointed satire. Genius.

People's sense of humor is a bizarre and irrational thing. There's the laugh out loud sort, like when that cat swatted a bear and the bear ran away. Then there's the OMG groan sort, like this political cartoon. The laugh instead of cry type.

But I gotta say. This image has outraged people across the political spectrum. Like I said, that's a work of genius.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

Edit: And yes it's extremely insensitive to women if you ask me. I wouldn't show it to my mothers, daughters, or sisters to elicit laughter. In fact, If I wanted to hurt my relationship with them I would do just that.

I don't understand this attitude.
I think it's a brilliant piece of viciously pointed satire. Genius.

People's sense of humor is a bizarre and irrational thing. There's the laugh out loud sort, like when that cat swatted a bear and the bear ran away. Then there's the OMG groan sort, like this political cartoon. The laugh instead of cry type.

But I gotta say. This image has outraged people across the political spectrum. Like I said, that's a work of genius.
Tom

I'm not thinking about myself but rather about my mother, sister, and aunt. What's with your attitude that I can't consider what their feelings would be about the piece if I showed it to them to get a laugh out of them? You find the piece hilarious. good for you.

 

[Gospel]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

Fuck that! The GOP has been trying to rid the right to abortion, sex education, birth control for decades. SCOTUS was stuffed with justices that were nearly unanimous approval almost singularly on the Roe v Wade angle. Harriet Miers was immediately questioned by the GOP due to her potential Roe v Wade position. Women very likely will find it hard to access birth control, forget just abortion. It will start with the abortion pill and work back to "the pill". The GOP is in near lockstep on this egregious and outrageous invasion to women's privacy.

I somehow doubt that my not finding a picture funny because the women in my life don't will be a major setback in the war against idiocy. I doubt the same will happen for you finding the image useful.

 

[TomC]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

Edit: And yes it's extremely insensitive to women if you ask me. I wouldn't show it to my mothers, daughters, or sisters to elicit laughter. In fact, If I wanted to hurt my relationship with them I would do just that.

I don't understand this attitude.
I think it's a brilliant piece of viciously pointed satire. Genius.

People's sense of humor is a bizarre and irrational thing. There's the laugh out loud sort, like when that cat swatted a bear and the bear ran away. Then there's the OMG groan sort, like this political cartoon. The laugh instead of cry type.

But I gotta say. This image has outraged people across the political spectrum. Like I said, that's a work of genius.
Tom

I'm not thinking about myself but rather about my mother, sister, and aunt. What's with your attitude that I can't consider what their feelings would be about the piece if I showed it to them to get a laugh out of them? You find the piece hilarious. good for you.

"Hilarious" is your description. Mine was "OMG groan". Those aren't the same kind of humor. Different people respond differently to satirical humor.

Full Disclosure:
I'm the kind of really out gay guy who enjoys telling raunchy fag jokes. Especially to Woke SJWs. Because I enjoy the controposing.
One the one hand, Tom just told an offensive joke about gay men. On the other hand, Tom is a member of a politically correct protected persons group. Saying things about homosexuality that he doesn't like is homophobic. Because I'm gay.

I would never do that when I don't know the audience. But when I do know the audience, I thoroughly enjoy multi-layered satire.
Tom

ETA ~You know what I'm talking about. Black folks throw around the N word, in a way that wipepo are forbidden to do. Oftentimes, one must know the racial identity of an internet poster to know whether a string of marks on your screen is a crime or just some coarse smack talking.~

 

[Gospel]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

Edit: And yes it's extremely insensitive to women if you ask me. I wouldn't show it to my mothers, daughters, or sisters to elicit laughter. In fact, If I wanted to hurt my relationship with them I would do just that.

I don't understand this attitude.
I think it's a brilliant piece of viciously pointed satire. Genius.

People's sense of humor is a bizarre and irrational thing. There's the laugh out loud sort, like when that cat swatted a bear and the bear ran away. Then there's the OMG groan sort, like this political cartoon. The laugh instead of cry type.

But I gotta say. This image has outraged people across the political spectrum. Like I said, that's a work of genius.
Tom

I'm not thinking about myself but rather about my mother, sister, and aunt. What's with your attitude that I can't consider what their feelings would be about the piece if I showed it to them to get a laugh out of them? You find the piece hilarious. good for you.

"Hilarious" is your description. Mine was "OMG groan". Those aren't the same kind of humor. Different people respond differently to satirical humor.

Full Disclosure:
I'm the kind of really out gay guy who enjoys telling raunchy fag jokes. Especially to Woke SJWs. Because I enjoy the controposing.
One the one hand, Tom just told an offensive joke about gay men. On the other hand, Tom is a member of a politically correct protected persons group. Saying things about homosexuality that he doesn't like is homophobic. Because I'm gay.

I would never do that when I don't know the audience. But when I do know the audience, I thoroughly enjoy multi-layered satire.
Tom

ETA ~You know what I'm talking about. Black folks throw around the N word, in a way that wipepo are forbidden to do. Oftentimes, one must know the racial identity of an internet poster to know whether a string of marks on your screen is a crime or just some coarse smack talking.~

Zoinks! Ok. replace hilarious with "OMG groan" and read my statement again. Other than the word hilarious, nothing I said solicited the response given. I think we're all grown-ups here and are aware of the use of satire in comedy. I'm confident that every member of this forum Past present and future would have a fundamental understanding of dark humor. I'm not debating that shit though sir. I'm saying I did not find the image funny because the women in my life would not find that image funny.

I'm not saying that you are forbidden to find it a work of genius. I'm simply saying that I don't find it as such and offered my reasons. Nothing to really debate here. Do you.

 

[Angry Floof]

Obviously it doesn't, or at least, any emotional reaction to bloody imagery of a little girl getting her uterus violently ripped out was clearly overwhelmed by the humor response.

The world is full of such imagery of violence against women and children and it's also full of men who don't respond to it at all except to treat it as entertainment. At least until a woman comes along and asks them if they have any human response to it. Then they start talking like you're talking right now.

You can't get the point across that Republicans want to control and punish women without this kind of imagery? And to boot, to find it funny?

Again, the joke (or angle) is the normalization via a children's book, putting a female in their place... as a small child.

No shit. I'm familiar with the humor of putting adult sarcasm onto a child's book, and usually it's funny, but using a certain meme format doesn't automatically make it funny.

What kinds of imagery on the meme of a child's book would you object to? Does the meme format excuse anything and everything?

Holocaust and Rape would be extraordinarily hard to pull off.

In general, to me, everything is open for satire. Obviously, the more serious the subject, the harder it becomes.

You're just saying that you're insensitive to anything less egregious than the Holocaust or rape. Anyway, why do you feel that an image of a little girl having her uterus ripped out with dripping blood is less egregious than rape?

Is it the concept of Holocaust or rape that you have issue with or do those things actually elicit an emotional response from you without regard to ideology?

That their choices in the future are actually being made by others who feel she'll never be capable of making the right choice. The point of it being a little girl is to indicate that she isn't ever going to be in charge of her own body, so she better get used to it now.

I would ask this question, what part of the cartoon isn't accurate. Roe v Wade is going on life support in most states soon. Griswold is next. The outrage isn't the cartoon, it is the truth behind it.

Could at least one of you tell me that you have any reaction to imagery of bloody violence against little girls other than to laugh?

I don't think anyone will react to this cartoon with nothing but laughter.

Well, I know I don't, but no one else here has said a peep about any reaction other than laughter until your attempt here a few days later.

I stand by my statement. And I think you agree, unless you think IIDB is stuffed to the gills with assholes.

No, I don't think that. I think IIDB is stuffed to the gills with people who don't really think too much about the fact that men abuse women and girls more routinely than you brush your teeth or about images of that abuse and violence. I think the world is stuffed to the gills with messages and imagery of that violence against girls and women, and that girls and women see those messages and images.

And now I'm wondering why no one has commented or asked questions about how women and girls respond to such imagery. No need to answer that, though. This long after the fact is going to be justification, not expression of something genuine having nothing to do with ideology.

I have provided the explanation you requested as to the imagery. You don't need to find it humorous at any level, or even like it. You can find it way too hyperbolic and visual disturbing. But you aren't exactly entitled to telling people how they feel about the image, without posts saying "OMFG... that girl with her uterus being ripped about by the elephant is fucking funny!" You are reaching at that point.

No, I'm not. I'm asking about any other emotions elicited by an image of a little girl having her uterus ripped out besides laughter.

No, Republicans don't care that women and girls see such imagery. All the Handmaid's Tale protests do nothing but reinforce the imagery of women as chattel, and Republicans like that imagery. They like imagery of themselves as strong masters over women. Your explanation is bullshit.

It's well known by now that liberals underestimate the callousness and lack of conscience among Republicans because we tend to believe they experience their humanness like we do, with empathy playing a role in developing their world view.

This is not news. Yet we keep shoveling out imagery of women as weak, beaten, helpless, brutalized, and owned, to the point where we are just as insensitive to images of little girls having their wombs ripped out as Republicans. Or at least it looks that way from where I'm sitting.

The cartoon won't change the mind of any Republican, male or female, on the off chance that they would ever see it to begin with.

That cartoon was made for liberals, and it's liberals who laugh at it.

But back to my question, which initially was to one person, but since so many others are interested, does anyone here other than me have any reaction to that image of a little girl having her uterus ripped out besides laughter?

Do you think women need to see bloody imagery of little girls getting their uteruses ripped out? Do you think putting such imagery out into the world will change any woman's mind about Republicans?

No, but the guy's it might make a bit of difference... the whole father/daughter aspect of things.

Is this a joke? Fathers routinely call women cunts and say they deserve to be raped for criticizing men.

I said Fathers and their daughters. Kind of like how some uber-right wingers become suddenly accepting of homosexuality when their own son or daughter is gay. Personalizing things can make a difference when it is close to home. It might make no difference at all.

What? That image is not personalized.

But you're right that no Republican will change their mind about laws that control and punish women unless one of their daughters literally has her uterus ripped out in compliance with those laws.

The cartoon won't do shit in that direction, though, even if they do see it. They'll just conclude that it's just liberturds yet again overreacting and misrepresenting them, and if the trauma in the image were pointed out to them, they'd just say how dare liberals show such depraved and not-at-all-relevant-to-Republican-policy imagery, etc.

The cartoon however, is not aimed at mocking women or girls. The reason it is a girl has been provided an explanation.

No one said it's aimed at mocking women or girls. At least I didn't. I asked if the imagery elicited anything other than laughter.

Your explanation is after-the-fact bullshit as I noted earlier. It's not a matter of me agreeing with it. It's a matter of it being utter bullshit. No Republican is going to change their mind about misogynistic laws based on that image no matter how depraved it is even if they by chance should see it from within their bubble.

They're not going to relate to it. But I can tell you what demographic will relate to images of girls and women being brutalized.

You don't need to agree with it. But you shouldn't judge the reaction of others without much input from them. Nazis do that sort of thing. <--- had to insert that

Of course you did.

 

[Elixir]

This is a split from the “humor” forum. I agree w/Floof that the image is way more disgusting than funny. It’s also disgustingly accurate.
Fuck Texas. It would be fine with me to depict someone ripping the genitals off some male Texan, but it would lack the accuracy of the image under discussion because the Texans perpetrating this perverse madness don’t have any balls to rip off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

It's a self-selected group. If they don't agree with the GOP position why are they Republican in the first place?

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

It's a self-selected group. If they don't agree with the GOP position why are they Republican in the first place?

Do you agree with every position of a particular political party?

 

[Toni]

Isn't that amazing? That there is no instance of world-wide, culture-wide, history-wide violence toward males that it would garner more than a laugh from you? But also amazing that even so, an image of a boy in that situation elicits no empathy, either. It's easy to disregard imagery of violence against even tiny, innocent males, as tiny and innocent as the little girl in the image.

Also note how easy it is to simply dismiss me or insinuate that I'm humorless (as if you don't know by now that that isn't true).

Why not just come out and say, "Ha ha! I am impervious to your pleas for empathy and mercy, and I will suffer no real consequences for not making any effort to understand your perspective! Society offers me no such impetus for cultivating a deeper sense of empathy in myself and how dare you suggest it should!" As if it's something to be proud of.

Don't laugh at or dismiss or defend messages and imagery of women and girls being violated. That's all.

You can easily train yourself to do this even in lieu of the kind of empathy required to understand my objections here in this thread about this particular image.

You can certainly do that if you give a flying shit about how society allows for violence against girls and women as if that violence is unrelated to men of privilege not only turning a blind eye, and not only actively defending horrific imagery (that I suppose we should just "lighten up" about?), but actively resisting the simple idea of calling out such messages and refusing to allow your thick blanket of protection from having to get involved or change a single thought pattern in your head.

Even if you think I'm wrong, please acknowledge my humanity and the humanity of all the women and girls represented by the bleeding, violated little girl in the image.

And just to be clear, I personally do not need acknowledgment of my humanity and of violence against women from you personally or anyone else here. I will call out every instance of this because it's the right thing to do, regardless of my personal emotions. You could so easily contribute to a world that is less violent toward women and girls, but you're like, "meh." Actually worse than meh when you keep defending something that could so easily challenge your perspective. Isn't that was inquiry and freethought are about? Not just taking the easy way of "society allows me to be unempathetic, therefore I will not bother to do better."

"Lighten up" when women or others not like you tell you their perspective and how you contribute to it does not make you a bastion of free speech. And it's not personal.

Some seem to get it when the topic is circumcision. Or child support.