this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
848 points (87.9% liked)
Comic Strips
16657 readers
2013 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
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does your intimate knowledge of the civil rights era include how people use issues in euphemism to lie about what actually motivates them? You know, the whole reason I even brought up that example.
Okay, realize for a moment that the fig leaf strategy is specifically meant to capture people like you. I know it doesn't seem that way; that's the point of them hiding their intent. I'm not critiquing their points, I'm asking why they're spending so much energy on this. I've seen lots of comics I don't like. I scroll past them.
Here's a question: Gamergate. Was Anita Sarkeesian really that bad a journalist? Or did people hyper-fixate on her shortcomings for months longer than necessary as a way of damaging the reputations of her and feminism broadly?
You and I both know now, today, that gamergate was bullshit. But did people—maybe you're very special, but I don't mean you, I mean people—know back then that "ethics in games journalism" is not really what those people were upset about? Because I don't know if you remember, but gamergate was pretty popular for a while.
I think they're attacking a woman they don't like. That's in the subtext of my other comment.
Uh, they spent the small amount of energy it takes to leave a few comments on the internet because the same painfully unfunny comic strip keeps coming up in their feed and they don't understand where the popularity comes from? That's why I'm here at least. Lemmy is still relatively small, I don't get that many posts to interact with. If it's so much energy to spend, then I'm fundamentally asking the same question as you. Why are these people spending so much of their energy defending her?
I don't see why it has to be anything more than that and I really don't appreciate the condescension, to suggest that I've fallen for some rhetorical manipulation that you think you're somehow immune from. Yes, I was also here on the internet when those things were happening. It's not that I don't understand it, it's that this is not that. There are legitimate reasons to dislike this person and their comics.
Do you really think that being annoying like this; suggesting that any and all criticism towards any woman on the internet simply must be based on her gender; is going to dispel negative attention from actual sexists? Do you really think that you aren't gonna get a lot of false positives, from people simply expressing their legitimate criticisms on a platform specifically made for the purpose, and push those people away from whatever your message is by presuming to know what they are thinking and aggressively using that to condescend to them and dismiss anything they have to say?
Also yes, it was very obvious even to the least politically engaged person that gamergate was about sexism. Yes, even as it was happening. That's like the whole reason people took part in it. They knew what they were doing just as well as the people calling them on it and were pretty open about their sexism. They weren't career politicians trying to pander to a racist base without sparking major backlash, so they could quietly pass laws to prevent integration; they were gamers having their little boys club on the internet, being flagrantly sexist and bad faith. What even is this line of reasoning??
If you like this person as an artist and identify with the comic you can just say that and engage normally, if you don't then why would you go out of your way to defend them and suggest that their gender has anything to do with it? You don't have to keep explaining the same point, I know what you're saying and I disagree.
I haven't said that. In fact, I specifically said "I wasn't critiquing their points."
I have to think you're being deliberately obtuse. This is actually why I'm being condescending: I don't think you're an ally. You are, in your own way, doing the rhetorical ducking and weaving that I'm pointing out.
For example, did I say that gamergate participants were career politicians? Do you think I think they had the ability to pass laws?
Uh. Sexism is bad, I think. I believe I've been told that.
If you disagree that sexism is happening, then okay. This still answers your question. What more is there for me to do here? Would you like me to give this answer a 4th time?