fbpx

Is It Funny or Offensive?

Bruce Jenner’s Cat

Tell the world how you feel! .
No Thank You
VOTE NOW! Is this Funny or Offensive?
  • Funny
  • Offensive
Posted in:

Bruce Jenner’s Cat

IMG_1234

funny or offensive?

 

<---Next Post

Viva Jeb!

Prev Post-->

Ain't Jemima

43 thoughts on “Bruce Jenner’s Cat”

  1. I love it good play on situation. Personally let the “man” be what it wants, let’s just hope he is better at womanhood than he was at football.

  6. Pingback: Bruce Jenner’s Cat | Megyn Kelly

  8. Seriously, I saw this yesterday and totally cracked up!! I found it hilariously funny. No disrespect to Caitlyn Jenner whatsoever, I am completely supportive of her journey. I bet she laughed at it also. Shame on FB!

    1. My initial reaction is to take offence but when I stop to think about it I can’t put a finger on why. It is however very inappropriate to call Caitlyn “Bruce”. That’s the only issue I can find with the meme. The joke doesn’t seem to be all that bad but using the wrong name is rude/inconsiderate.

      I think for me a major part of the problem is that despite what media would suggest transgender people are absolutely not accepted by society. I’d say more than half have no issues with gays but 9/10 are grossed out by trans people. This is my personal experience and is not based on solid research.

    3. I think it’s offensive to call Bruce a woman. It’s offensive to women. Real women.

  11. Hilarious. The “Piss Christ”, which depicts a crucifix in urine is allowed. The Virgin Mary in cow dung, which depicts the Virgin Mary in feces, is allowed. Bill Maher calls Sarah Palan a “c***”, and that is allowed. Liberals are constantly calling black and women conservative the most vile names, and that is allowed. Jerry Seinfeld was right. Liberals, chill out.

  12. Several of my friends shared this on Facebook. Every single one has been removed. Hilarious or offensive, what happened to the 1st amendment? Apparently there is no freedom of speech on Facebook.

    2. I posted it a couple of weeks ago, but can’t find it anywhere on my wall today. Facebook is so stupid.

    3. Facebook keeps doing really horrifying stuff…I don’t know how so many people still use it.

    4. Facebook isn’t the government. Free speech means you won’t be persecuted by the government for what you say. Facebook doesn’t have to give you a place to say things, and can take down anything. I don’t agree with taking down things because they are considered offensive, but I don’t run Facebook.

    3. When it’s in good humor it really isn’t a problem. Shows like Family Guy and South Park couldn’t exist if we couldn’t have a laugh at each others expense every now and then.

    4. I’m transgender. With the exception of calling Caitlyn “Bruce” I can’t find a problem with this picture.

  14. Face book removed this from posts but lets anyone who wants use foul language, selfies of teens and anyone who wants to post, near naked what I call obscene, this was just plain funny, if a person cannot laugh at their own decisions or at them selves they are sad human beings.

    2. Not at all… or, at least, only in the minds of those who are similarly deluded. The only substantive difference is that this is an animal, rather than a human. The principal of delusion is the same, just as if I was delusional enough to think that I’m really a T-Rex.

    3. You do not understand what you are talking about. Transgenderism is a biological thing. There is tons of science backing it.

    4. I was just reading today that hormone levels match the birth gender whether one considers oneself of the opposite sex or not.

    5. No, YOU don’t understand what you’re talking about. Transgenderism is a mental illness. The afflicted still have the same dna and genes no matter how much pop psychology endorsement there is and regardless of the number of surgeries.

    6. By definition you are incorrect. An illness, in order to be considered an illness must do some sort of harm. A transgender individual is perfectly capable of being a healthy and productive member of society, which is why even if one is to accept the premise that transgenderism is “unnatural” (whatever that even means), then one still cannot prove that it is an illness, because it does not cause harm (apart from that harm which is brought about by the rest of society).

      As an example, your psychological need to wear clothes in public (as I assume you have) may easily be labeled as an illness by one who is not afflicted with such, but that person would be equally incorrect, because your desire to be clothed does not significantly decrease your quality of life (or anyone else’s). Furthermore, the practice of wearing clothes is hardly “natural” as anyone can see.

      The bottom line is that it doesn’t really matter whether something is “natural” or whether it is “normal”; all that really matters in the end is the effect it has, and transgenderism has no inherent negative effects on anyone. Once that truth is accepted, formalities such as using a person’s preferred pronouns simply follow with respect and a desire treat your fellow human beings as they wish to be treated.

    7. Oh my gosh. Being pedantic to a ridiculous degree does NOT support your argument. They ARE mentally ill. This DOES do them great harm – mentally, emotionally, and potentially physically, depending on how far they take it and if they have themselves mutilated.

      You’re completely uninformed on the effects of transgenderism, believing only the pablum fed to you by popular culture.

    8. Tons of science: look down, boobs or penis? One or the other your ok, got both? Your a wierdo

    9. On the contrary, I would argue that it is the same thing (at least philosophically, if not medically). If, hypothetically, that dog did identify as a cat, then that would be his business, and he would have just as much right to be called “Whiskers” as Caitlyn Jenner does to be called “Caitlyn”. Of course the entire hypothetical is predicated on the idea that the dog is self-aware… so it’s a bit moot, but philosophically interesting.

    10. Incorrect. Transgenderism is a real and natural thing. Transspeciesism is not.

    12. By definition you are incorrect. An illness, in order to be considered an illness must do some sort of harm. A transgender individual is perfectly capable of being a healthy and productive member of society, which is why even if one is to accept the premise that transgenderism is “unnatural” (whatever that even means), then one still cannot prove that it is an illness, because it does not cause harm (apart from that harm which is brought about by the rest of society).

      As an example, your psychological need to wear clothes in public (as I assume you have) may easily be labeled as an illness by one who is not afflicted with such, but that person would be equally incorrect, because your desire to be clothed does not significantly decrease your quality of life (or anyone else’s). Furthermore, the practice of wearing clothes is hardly “natural” as anyone can see.

      The bottom line is that it doesn’t really matter whether something is “natural” or whether it is “normal”; all that really matters in the end is the effect it has, and transgenderism has no inherent negative effects on anyone. Once that truth is accepted, formalities such as using a person’s preferred pronouns simply follow with respect and a desire treat your fellow human beings as they wish to be treated.

    13. How do you know? You don’t know what that dog is thinking… maybe it does identify as a cat… and if so, that’s it’s business. Double standard much? 😉

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: