this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
490 points (90.0% liked)
Comic Strips
12782 readers
4075 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Purple hair doesn't kill people.
And comic strips aren't meant to be taken literally as situations with nuance and reversibility. It's an artist sharing a message of their own, you can take it or leave it, to "both sides" it makes me deeply puzzled.
If it were any other period in history I would be astonished that anyone could take the actions of an artistic device as literal interpretations of events, real or hypothetical... but then I remind myself that millions of men have just explained to women why bears are more dangerous when presented with the question which was feared more, so I am now convinced that nobody can see outside their own bubble-universes anymore.
Regarding your last point: With the various engagement-increasing algorithms driving what information you actually see, it can be a challenge to see outside your own bubble. It takes active effort to not just see your own perspective reflected back at you and that's by design.
A lot of people won't engage with content they disagree with and engagement drives ad revenue so it behooves companies that only care about revenue to not challenge a user's beliefs unless it's something extreme enough for the user to engage out of rage and disgust (which is how chuds like Andrew Tate get promoted). It's hard to see the otherside's genuine viewpoint when it's constantly filtered through the lens of your own side (or what the algorithm thinks your side is).
Neither does the act of putting a gun in a holster, does it? It's not like she's screaming at a guy brandishing a gun around, was she? Now that would be something worthy of screaming about.
Lol look up accidental deaths from guns in the US. Having a gun in any situation ups the chance someone will be shot or die. We hear about it on the news all the time. People left their gun in a bathroom, people didn't use their holster right and shot themselves/someone else, a child got their parent's gun and harmed themselves or someone else. I've literally watched people drop their gun out of the shitty holsters they buy.
So yes. Yes it does actually.
And which of those situations are improved by you screaming at a person walking around with a holstered gun? Does it make them more likely to conceal carry or not bring a gun at all? I would say in most situations, people who already open carry will be more encouraged to do so by your actions.
I consider actions like these as being more damaging to the anti-gun movement than anything.
Ok, being that I am on the spectrum myself I really hope this doesn't come across offensive: are you autistic?
Because that's the only way I can fathom you taking this literally. It's a comic. I can assure you the artist never did this in real life. They are using art as an expression to point out that this dude's entire bearing - the way he carries himself, the fact that he chooses to aggressively display his firearm, the clothing that he wears - is accomplishing the exact same thing that the woman in the comic is doing. It is intended to obnoxious, as it is pointing out that he is obnoxious for portraying himself that way.
Metaphor, allegory, art, my friend. It's not literal.
When judging the action presented in the comics, who really cares whether it happened or not. I'm not judging the author for something he did, but something that a lot of people in this thread seems to be cheering for, which is to scream at people for doing something they disagree with and think as pathetic. You know, the type of behaviour that the American Conservative like to do to people they don't like. Those kinds of behaviour are just horrible, imo, regardless of how good your intention for doing it is.
As for whether I'm autistic, I don't know. I've never tried getting a diagnosis.
Art is catharsis. People who are "cheering" for it are doing so because it resonates with them, because seeing a jackass get ridiculed and made uncomfortable is a reversal of the usual state of things, not because they think it's actually a good idea. The juxtaposition of a woman loudly narrating the exact thing that the guy is already wordlessly broadcasting is not to paint the action as anyone's goal but to give those of us who feel terrorized by someone trying to show off how "badass" they are a bit of a laugh. It's not a vote or endorsement for that kind of behavior; it's more like an expression of schadenfreude or an acknowledgement of intrusive thoughts.
With your reasoning there isn't a problem either with bringing a nuclear bomb into a bar. What? I'm not setting it off! I'm just sitting here enjoying my drink with my nuke right next to me. I'm not bothering anyone, so why is the entire town running in fear? Pussies! That's what I say. It's not like I'm going to use this...