Is it just me or is this context kinda some horseshit? To me ‘snitches get stitches’ means ‘don’t rat out the people you were doing the thing with because that makes you a traitor’. This comes off as ‘don’t speak up when you’ve been abused’. I get it’s a joke I’m just saying it kinda rubbed me the wrong way and could be framed better and still be funny.
Well it kind of sounded like you just wrote down the whole joke and that’s it, so a holy shit teaction is understandable. I do get what you mean, I also find the bullying context a bit triggering, and I agree the phrase it was built around could have been used in different context. But the bullying context IS quite a classic and it shows the absurdity of the point very well, so I’m willing to allow the iffy aspect.
To me ‘snitches get stitches’ means ‘don’t rat out the people you were doing the thing with because that makes you a traitor’.
Least people who do shitty things… don’t tend to make that distinction. It’s often used as a threat to bystanders and even victims. IE I took your lunch money, if you go to the teacher about it, we will beat you up.
If you are talking friends who participate, the implied violence would be unnecessary really. You roll on your friends when doing something against the rules, your friends will never include you in their activities again.
Thing is, the whole threatening the victim has always been a part of the phrase. Don’t tattle, don’t snitch, it’s part of the built in bullshit of school, and even teachers and staff sometimes buy into it, indirectly penalizing students that report abuse from other students. Even more common is nothing at all being done to prevent retaliation, so the cycle of it continues.
This is a joke, obviously. They’re turning the idea around, it’s just that the fact there’s an idea to turn around in the first place is so horrible that the joke kinda falls flat unless you have a dark sense of humor.
Sub the kid for an injured mob guy and the parents for his mob guy friends and the question for ‘can you tell me what happened?’ And boom I think you got an alternate version of the joke that sidesteps the iffy framing
You’re the second person to use the lack of specificity in the joke as a means of mollifying what I’m calling iffy. I concede entirely that the joke doesn’t limit us to only interpreting it one way. I’m simply commenting on the text that is actually present.
your whole second point
Yes that’s exactly what I’m doing. Because that’s how opinions and discussion works. This isn’t challenging my position, this is challenging the fact that I have a position at all. Akin to saying ‘it’s just a joke, let it go.’
I firmly believe there is a massive difference between confessing/divulging info about your co-conspirators, and accusing your abuser to authority. One is snitching, the other is how the concept justice is supposed to work.
Is it just me or is this context kinda some horseshit? To me ‘snitches get stitches’ means ‘don’t rat out the people you were doing the thing with because that makes you a traitor’. This comes off as ‘don’t speak up when you’ve been abused’. I get it’s a joke I’m just saying it kinda rubbed me the wrong way and could be framed better and still be funny.
holy shit, did you write your dissertation on over-elaborating internet funnies?
Holy shit, it’s an open forum where we can talk about whatever the fuck we want. Why not just block me instead of being obnoxious?
Well it kind of sounded like you just wrote down the whole joke and that’s it, so a holy shit teaction is understandable. I do get what you mean, I also find the bullying context a bit triggering, and I agree the phrase it was built around could have been used in different context. But the bullying context IS quite a classic and it shows the absurdity of the point very well, so I’m willing to allow the iffy aspect.
Holy shit, why are people holy shitting?
Least people who do shitty things… don’t tend to make that distinction. It’s often used as a threat to bystanders and even victims. IE I took your lunch money, if you go to the teacher about it, we will beat you up.
If you are talking friends who participate, the implied violence would be unnecessary really. You roll on your friends when doing something against the rules, your friends will never include you in their activities again.
Thing is, the whole threatening the victim has always been a part of the phrase. Don’t tattle, don’t snitch, it’s part of the built in bullshit of school, and even teachers and staff sometimes buy into it, indirectly penalizing students that report abuse from other students. Even more common is nothing at all being done to prevent retaliation, so the cycle of it continues.
This is a joke, obviously. They’re turning the idea around, it’s just that the fact there’s an idea to turn around in the first place is so horrible that the joke kinda falls flat unless you have a dark sense of humor.
Sub the kid for an injured mob guy and the parents for his mob guy friends and the question for ‘can you tell me what happened?’ And boom I think you got an alternate version of the joke that sidesteps the iffy framing
I don’t think the framing is iffy at all. There is no distinction in the phrase limiting it to only conspirators. Snitching is snitching.
You are latching onto the bullying aspect and adding emotional context to a simple comic with a straightforward pun.
You’re the second person to use the lack of specificity in the joke as a means of mollifying what I’m calling iffy. I concede entirely that the joke doesn’t limit us to only interpreting it one way. I’m simply commenting on the text that is actually present.
Yes that’s exactly what I’m doing. Because that’s how opinions and discussion works. This isn’t challenging my position, this is challenging the fact that I have a position at all. Akin to saying ‘it’s just a joke, let it go.’
I firmly believe there is a massive difference between confessing/divulging info about your co-conspirators, and accusing your abuser to authority. One is snitching, the other is how the concept justice is supposed to work.
Imho the joke is that “snitches get stitches”
absolutely doesn’t imply that “non snitches don’t get snitches”
What? That’s exactly what the text is implying?
The last panel is literally the doctor saying ‘I cannot give your son stitches because they did not snitch’