Author’s Note: Hello lads and ladettes. At the time of writing, this is my first post in a few weeks; I had some IRL business that distracted me from this blog/I was hung up having a mental battle with an astral projection of a meta-physical representation of StoneToss’ limpdick white supremacy that took the form of a giant spider only instead of spinning webs it just bitched about how Africans sold other Africans as slaves. Read more about this on my new News Page!

Comic Name: Color Blind
Description: Fun fact: If white people don’t exist, neither does affirmative action.
Mouseover: They (sic) jury is still out on Italians though 😛
Image Name: color-spectrum-comic.png
Originally Published: 1/9/2018
What The Comic Is: A car is stopped at a red light. The driver comments that ‘white people’ don’t technically exist, and that race (as a social construct) is more of a “spectrum”. His companion, wearing a vibrant rainbow sweater, uses his garment to refute the driver’s argument. Citing that one can observe where one color stops and begins, the companion argues that color clearly exists. The driver shrugs the argument off. The light turns green, though the driver seems to still only see red. 

What StoneToss Actually Thinks: That race, as defined by colors of skin, exists. 

Why It’s Fucking Stupid: With the comic’s description in mind, StoneToss is trying to play mental gymnastics and ‘twist’ the meaning of ‘race is a social construct’ around. He asserts that if race is just a social construct and that “white people don’t exist” (no one fucking says this), then black people don’t exist either (no one fucking says this) and therefore Affirmative Action has no need to exist. Just because race is a social construct it doesn’t mean ‘white people do not exist’ insofar as to say their skin is a lighter pigment than those with darker skin, StoneToss. You absolute fucking dish rag. 

So what does “race is a spectrum” mean, anyways? Well, it means that people really don’t fall into neat categories of “White, Black, Asian”. Bi-racial people, for example, don’t really tend to fit well in such simple categorizations. What about the people living in western Asia, or eastern Europe? Are they white, or are they Asian? Are Native American people “brown”? 

But here’s where we get to the real crux of the comic. It’s not just a simple “haha libtardz owned” comic, as one might take at face value. Instead it has a much deeper and more sinister undertone that is in line with StoneToss and his idiotic neo-Nazi views. The man in the rainbow shirt isn’t really wearing a rainbow shirt, but rather his shirt is a gradient of colors. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Well, there’s been several prominent organizations in human history who have attempted to render where one race firmly ends and another begins. Some of these organizations were doing this at a government level. One of these organizations doing this at a government level was the Nazi party. In Nazi Germany. 

What the Nazis did was attempt to determine exactly what made someone pure German, or (conversely) what made someone ‘adequately Jewish’ enough to consider a Jew. They did this with family trees (parents, grandparents) to determine how many direct Jewish relatives, and how recent they were, would be required in order to constitute someone as being definable as Jewish. Countries like the USA used similar (and even earlier) models for the determination of status as African American or Native American. So it’s like the guy’s gradient sweater; even if race might be a little “spectrumy”, there’s still clear points where you can solidly determine someone as being one thing or the other (according to StoneToss and his dipshit racist logic, at least). It isn’t color of the skin that StoneToss is concerned about, but rather direct relation to others classified as one race or another. 

The other half of the comic, as mentioned before, is striking out at Affirmative Action. StoneToss tries to posit that race must exist if Affirmative Action does, and if you do not recognize the existence of race then you therefore forfeit the legitimacy of Affirmative Action. Except, whether race is a real or abstract concept is beside the point; the reality is that those of darker skin colors (recognized casually as brown or black) face very real, very non-abstract oppression that has been systemic and deeply ingrained in the country of the USA. Ergo, policies such as Affirmative Action attempt to help out communities and people affected by historic racism and oppression. StoneToss is smart enough to understand this, to be sure, but he isn’t smart enough to make a good comic about it. 

Comic Name: Book Worms 
Description: Anyone remember when heterosexual sex education was controversial?
Mouseover: hominem unius libri timeo
Image Name: childrens-books-comic.png
Originally Published: 1/11/2018

What The Comic Is: A concerned parent holds up a book titled “Sally Has Two Daddies”, rhetorically demanding to know why the script is included in the class studies. The teacher, taken aback, exclaims that the parent is correct in their concern. She produces a second book, this one titled “Bug Chasing With Bobby“, explaining that the first book was last year’s curriculum.

What StoneToss Actually Thinks: That schools are indoctrinating children to homosexuality and also teaching them that STDs aren’t so bad.

Why It’s Fucking Stupid: Oh, StoneToss. You absolute stupid wad of shit. You make me cum. So anyways, just to clear up what “bug chasing” is: Bug Chasing, or Gift Giving, was originally the slang for men who had unprotected gay anal sex with the intention of giving (or sometimes receiving) HIV/AIDS. It has spread out as a term and now generally implies anyone who tries to pass around an STI (either with or without partner’s consent), not solely gay men and HIV/AIDs. It is less often used as the term for a very niche fetish in which the fetishee derives sexual pleasure from giving and/or receiving different STIs.
Anyways, the main meat of the comic is that StoneToss is insinuating that schools are teaching children to be gay by exposing them to the horrible, terrible reality of… KIDS THAT HAVE GAY PARENTS OMFG11111. He then goes on to complain about an imaginary issue that doesn’t exist that suggests that schools are normalizing sex and STIs in order to avoid being offensive to homosexuals, or even worse: UNMARRIED WOMEN WHO HAVE SEX OMGFGFGFGFGFG111!11!!. The books are meant to represent the ‘slippery slope’ of education; first we teach the kids that some people have two dads, then we teach them to get AIDs. Dun dun dun.

The description is especially funny because it’s StoneToss and his stupid ‘back in my day…’ coping whine, where he recalls the days where heterosexual sex ed (or ‘base’ sex ed, i.e., penis in vagina stuff) was what was controversial. Yeah, StoneToss, it’s too bad sex ed has developed and come a long way (in some parts of the USA, at least) from what it used to be. That’s so weird and strange. It’s funny, did you know that once in the past people didn’t have cars and they had to walk or ride horses everywhere? Now we advanced as a society and have cars? Quite odd. 

There’s nothing more to say. Schools do not teach children that AIDs is not a dangerous disease. No one who is gay (and considered to be a stable individual) is going around and talking about how STIs are no big deal. As for the comic’s mouseover, it’s a Latin phrase that roughly translates to “I fear the man of a single book“. Attributed to 13th century Saint Thomas Aquinas, the original meaning of the quote (in context to how Aquinas used it) was to refer to fear of a man who had mastery over a single topic of knowledge; it’s kind of like the Bruce Lee quote, “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times“. Anyways, Aquinas wrote the quote like 800 fucking years ago so in modern language it’s branched off and been used in different contexts.
 
One modern interpretation is a reversal of the quote’s original meaning. Instead of fearing the man of “one book” for their mastery of a subject, it mocks the man for their limited experience and knowledge (as if the man has only studied a single book, or perhaps believes their single book to contain all summed knowledge). This seems to be the context StoneToss is using the phrase in, as in to mock schools or liberal teachers for their supposed narrow world views. Edward Everett, Secretary of State to the USA in the 1850’s, remarked about the Latinese quote, saying, “[Fear] not only to the man of one book, but also to the man of one idea, in whom the sense of proportion is lacking, and who sees only that for which he looks“. Gee. Sounds an awful lot like a certain tosser of stones, doesn’t it?

Being smug while wrong and StoneToss; name a better duo. I’ll wait.