Yeah, comics are a visual medium, and the message is usually so ingrained in the art that if you try to just edit the speech bubbles to change the meaning without changing the rest of the visuals, you have to spend 5 paragraphs explaining the actual moral that you're going for, because the artwork conveys the opposite. There are funny Stonetoss edits, but they almost always edit the art too.
I fucking hate that guy's artstyle. Even the art itself reeks of smugness.
I think this is as clear as they can be. They underlined the funny part of the dialogue.
Full context. This woman was with her very Hispanic sounding fiance (for when the inevitable "muh white supremacists" card gets pulled) and some other people, they got into an argument with some BLM people, guns were drawn, and everyone backed off.
He looks like he's checking out the ass of the guy in front of him, while the guy in front of him looks like he's getting ready to grope the woman announcing the healthcare bill.
You know this shitty comic was created by an insanely privilaged individual who never had to interact in any way with a government agency. Free healthcare only means you'll have a single shitty choice rather than multiple somewhat-less-shitty choices that you can choose from and bring to court at the worst cases (and will only increase the differences in quality of healthcare rich people will get).
Words are violence, therefore shooting someone over words is an appropriate use of self-defensive force. Black folx process grief differently than soulless white subhumans, and sometimes healthy black grief involves setting off firearms in self-defence.
Nah, that's horseshit. It might be technically true in some limited sense, but actual extent is important here. How many people don't have any form of ID? It can't be much (as the cartoon aptly demonstrates, you need ID for all sorts of mundane transactions). And there's no racial or political basis for lack of ID being a factor, unless you invoke the "disparate impact" principle, which is in and of itself utter horseshit. World-wide, the standard is having ID to vote. This idea that it's somehow an attack on democracy to require people to actually identify themselves to vote is just lunacy. The meme of "but there's almost no voter fraud" is likewise horseshit, because precisely due to these policies, it's all but impossible to demonstrate.
I don't get the second cartoon, Hitler kneeling before some black doctor?
This was made during the time a few months ago where nurses were being praised as superheroes by Reddit. Hitler kneeling and showing his coat for the black doctor to hold before he operates, I guess is supposed to be how much of a 'superhero' he is.
I think what you're saying is, antifastonetoss really knows their audience well.
Even if we take that for granted, is it always a bad thing? Why should people who won't put in more than the bare minimum effort to be able to vote get to play a role in dictating how everyone else in the country lives their lives? Sure, there are ways to do it that are designed to rig the system, but as long as reasonable accommodations are made to give everyone a fair opportunity, it's better for everyone that the people who care the least about voting and are willing to put the least effort into doing it don't. That everyone seems to be in agreement that these people are going to largely be Democrats says a lot about that party. There's nothing noble or good about herding a bunch of people into the voting booth who are going to vote for whoever their favorite pop star told them to because they don't really give a shit.
If we have to have background checks and all this paperwork and all these regulations on our "shall not be infringed" right to bear arms then an ID to vote isn't controversial at all.