Cyanide & Happiness
About
Hello fellow Cyanide and Happiness fans!
Cyanide & Happiness (C&H) is a webcomic created by Rob DenBleyker, Kris Wilson, Dave McElfatrick and Matt Melvin. The comic has been running since 2005 and is published on the website explosm.net along with animated shorts in the same style. Matt Melvin left C&H in 2014, and several other people have contributed to the comic and to the animated shorts
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide_%26_Happiness
Hope you enjoy and feel free to contribute to the community with art, media, cool stuff about the authors, tattoos, toys and anything else, as long it’s Cyanide & Happiness related!
History
@MrSebSin@sh.itjust.works started this community and wrote:
About this community and how I post the comics… Many moons ago, I would ask my Dad to save the newspaper for me everyday so I could read my favorite comic strips. Of course these days you can read your favorite comics online instead of a newspaper, but I love the nostalgia of reading the daily comics. Anyway, one of my favorite current comics is Cyanide and Happiness and I will be posting the daily release from their website (https://explosm.net/) and a an extra or two randoms.
Related Communities
Subscribe to all the daily comic communities!
- !BelloBearOfficial@lemmy.world - Bello Bear
- !BloomCounty@sopuli.xyz - Bloom County
- !CalvinAndHobbes@lemmy.world - Calvin and Hobbes
- !CyanideAndHappiness@lemm.ee - Cyanide and Happiness
- !Garfield@lemmy.world - Garfield
- !Moomin@sopuli.xyz - Moomin Valley
- !Oglaf@midwest.social - Oglaf (Very NSFW!)
- !Peanuts@midwest.social - Peanuts
- !pbf@discuss.online - The Perry Bible Fellowship
- !SMBC@midwest.social - SMBC
- !TheFarSide@sh.itjust.works - The Far Side
- !XKCD@lemmy.world - XKCD
Fine Print
All comics posted are freely available online. In no way is the poster claiming ownership, copyright or anything else. This is a not for profit community, we just want to enjoy our comics, thank you.
view the rest of the comments
Ya know, if I was introduced to someone who then responded “Hello, person” while reaching out to shake my hand, I’d question whether or not they were also a person. Substituting “person” where others would use “dude” is bizarre and comes across mechanical.
Me:
You're right, fortunately I provided a bunch of options for any number of contexts and even left room for more.
Wow that was you? Thanks Mr language man
Unfortunately, you think I’m right and that it is weird, but continue to include it as an option in your list. If someone told me what I was doing was weird, and I agreed with them, I wouldn’t keep it as an option and point out “yeah, but I know other less weird ones”. Just use the less weird ones.
That's what you took from that? I provided a big list for various contexts and that's what you focus on? Anyway:
"A dude cut in front of me in line" did you happen to note what you pictured when you thought of a dude cutting in front of you? Assuming you don't have aphantasia.
"A person cut in front of me in line" both acceptable sentences in English.
A dude called me, a person called me. I met a dude the other day, I met a person the other day. I'd rather be in the forest with a bear than a person, I'd rather be in the forest with a bear than a dude.
Let's do plurals: 3 people walked into a bar, 3 dudes walked into a bar (they said 'ouch').
If you think "person" is weird ommit it. It's a distinction without difference as it's lack doesn't change my point in any way, shape, or form. This is what's called pettifogging, when even if you're right it doesn't change a thing.
You’re changing the terms of how the conversation started. OP explicitly framed this conversation as direct engagement with another person (vocative noun), not about referring to them as an object within the sentence (general noun).
Read the rest of the thread please. You're rehashing old lines that have been discussed already.
Someone else makes the argument that's it's the context that makes it gender neutral. I pointed out that he/him were, in the context of instruction manuals, used as a catch all term, and asked if they believed he/him are gender neutral.
The 1 and 2 are pointing out 1 everyone agreed dude was gendered barring this one, apparently magical, context. And 2 he/him was used in manuals as the default.
My argument is that the context isn't magical, and we're just repeating history.
I added more context, my nazi quoting old man still heads his letter "Dear Sirs" do you believ Sir is gender neutral? He knows he might be addressing a woman... Doesn't give a shit. He's using 'dear sirs' to directly address someone: addressed to manager of bank, headed dear sirs. Is that the magical context that makes you believe sirs is gender neutral? I think it might be. Do you now believe sirs is gender neutral, or are we perhaps just repeating history?