I am an artist (an animator, to be precise), so I don't need to be told about creative freedom. The thing is, when you put out any kind of artistic work, you are implicitly inviting criticism.

Trying to say that racism/transphobia/homophobia/whatever is only in-person discrimination (or whatever argument you're making)…

"Okay, you're offended. Can you connect that with any right you have to shut me up?"

But they have every right to complain about it. That's how free speech works. You say X. I disagree with X and say so loudly. Maybe a lot of other people agree with me and we ALL say you're an asshole for saying X!

That's not a bug;…

While I'm not dismissing the concerns people had, I didn't have a problem with the original comic. If it had just been the comic and that had been the end of it (even with the complaints), we wouldn't still be talking about it. It's only an issue because he kept pushing.

Same with his transphobic comments, honestly.

No, I'm establishing our premises, while you're being deliberately obtuse.

We've now established that words CAN shape thought; the disagreement is actually over the degree to which it does so (and presumably the amount of exposure required).

But hey, feel free to keep attributing to me things I didn't actually say.…

But...you're basically saying the same thing I am.

If the culture judges you to be a bigot (and assigns negative social consequences to that), chances are you will eventually learn not to express your bigotry in public.

That is a natural consequence of exactly the kind of thing you're talking about.

Also, I find the use…

Even if those mean things are racist or homophobic (or, in this case, transphobic)?

"My thoughts and attitudes are absolutely not shaped by your words unless I choose to allow it. "

That is, frankly, bullshit, and flies in the face of everything we know about how human brains work.

I'm not saying that you automatically believe or accept everything you hear. However, let's say you grow up in a society…

"The only way your comparison makes sense is if we equate them, as you did."

Nope.

Look, I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with you. It's pointless and, frankly, I have no interest in it.

But if it'll make you feel better, I'll offer a different example:

"In the past, racism was widely accepted and homophobia…

My point is that "self-censorship", as it's being used here, is meaningless. People censor themselves all the time. Have you ever thought something and NOT said it for whatever reason? Maybe you thought it would unnecessarily hurt someone's feelings. Maybe you were afraid of the consequences (like, say, getting…

Words can shape thoughts and attitudes. That's sort of the point of communication.

Those thoughts and attitudes can be extremely harmful. As I've already pointed out, LGBT people are disproportionately likely to be the victims of discrimination and violent crime. Did the people who hold those views just arrive at them…

Uh...nowhere did I say that saying mean things on the internet is anything like slavery.

I simply pointed out that social attitudes change, and trying to look BACKWARDS for our social cues is fundamentally misguided. Anything beyond that is 100% on you.

...seriously? That's kind of bizarre.

Right, but there are also some people that you are never going to persuade. The best we can hope for is to minimize their impact on the culture at large.

For instance, I don't -especially- care whether some TV celebrity is transphobic or not. When they make transphobic statements, though, they influence the culture and…

Well, true, though by actions, I mean "not repeating his past mistakes", mostly.

Their efforts to make PAX more inclusive aren't a bad idea, either, though we'll see how those pan out.

When you say "demanding others be censored", what exactly are you talking about?

I don't recall seeing anyone calling for government censorship of Penny Arcade.

And then some trans people responded to his derision, and he doubled down on it, and things escalated. This resulted in an "apology" wherein he basically compared trans people to Otherkin.

So yes, thanks, I'm thoroughly familiar with the whole thing.

Right...and we then have the right to criticize them for it. That's how this whole free speech thing works.

Short of calling for actual government action (which, incidentally, I wouldn't support!), people are within their rights to criticize people for being assholes.

So what's the distinction between that and "self-censorship"? I'm really not seeing it. It is literally a case of not saying something because you know it will offend certain people. That's like...the textbook definition of self-censorship!

And when Mike, for instance, says a bunch of ugly shit about trans people,…

He got where he got by being a good (well, originally just okay; now, he's quite good) artist.

Being an asshole to marginalized minorities wasn't exactly part of his claim to fame. That does not gain him anything (except the admiration of knuckle-dragging throwback morons).

Like...say he started suddenly spewing a…

Are there people who sometimes use the pretense of being offended in order to silence discussion? Sure.

Does that mean every instance of someone calling something offensive is a cynical ploy, and the person making the offensive statement is some virtuous crusader for free speech?

No. That's stupid.

The problem with Fry's…