Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
[two characters are arguing in a break room, coffee machine and all]
[teal, holding a coffee cup] Without mentioning avocado, explain to me what guacamole is
[purple, taken aback] Huh?!
[zoom on teal's very smug face, the coffee steaming in front of them] I knew it You can't Your guac ideology doesn't work Heh Pft Owned
[purple looks blasé and has no words]
A creamy, fat rich, savory fruit paste traditionally served with Hispanic food. It serves to accent the seasoning of spicy dishes by balancing the heat to allow more of the complex flavors through. It's also popularly consumed on its own as a dip. While some of these things can be accomplished by sour cream or humus, both have their own distinctive qualities that prevent them from being a 1:1 comparison.
Do you want to take this inside, guac boy?
Ideally yes, it's cold in these parts and I'm not fond of pants.
Is there chips and guacamole?
"That savory fruit in your description? Nothing more than a direct stand in for the very avocado I told you couldn't be used to form your description. You don't get to genie your way out of your obvious inability to describe your precious ideology without making an appeal to an avocado by any other name."
-Very smart Internet person
Truely I was a fool to challenge a redditor when pedantism is on the line.
I don't want to explain guac without avocados
Please stop I'm gonna salivate to death
It's so weird to me when I hear people describe avocados as fruit. Because they are clearly. But it just feels wrong to me and I don't know why.
Nutty flavor, fatty texture. If someone called them a legume it'd still feel wrong, but less wrong.
Yes! This is it this is the one I'm most comfortable with so far.
If you're at all from the US it may be due to use to us teaching that sweet things are fruit and not sweet things are vegetables.
That 90's era food pyramid really fucked up a generation.
Ok, so there's like 2...4...no more than like 10 or 12 exceptions to the rule.
No, see cuz you calling it a vegetable just sounds equally weird to me. They're both weird. I don't know why.
Do you suppose the fact that they're green and savory, instead of sweet has anything to do with it?
Ok, now do it without mentioning food, food preparation, or eating.
The correct rebuttal to this is to drown them in guac.
Green stuff people like to dip crunchy yellow triangles in.
It's not a culinary fruit, it's a culinary vegetable. There's a botanical classification system, and a different culinary classification system. When describing food it is incorrect to use the botanical classifier.
Other than that, good description
Anyone downvoting this wanna say why? Because I'm correct.
Hah exactly!
And it's green
Thank you, Scotty.
Guacamole is a mash made of fruit and spices, often used as dip for corn chips.
pushes glasses Fruits like grapes?! Dint you know that mashed grapes make a jelly
Owned!
Add in pectin and guac can be jelly, too. 😌
Damn I meant jam. Put how guac jelly would spread
I have to imagine it spreads worse than plain guac. The pectin would make it thicker. I think... 🤔
God damn it, now I need some pectin and a mason jar to do some science...
It's a vegetable spread.
Fruit, I think.
Eh, tomato, avocado.
You're both right.
Dude, where you getting your apples?
As a socialist, I get a "name a socialist country that...."
And I ask "define socialist country" and they lose this shit. Do they want to simply change what socialist country means as I drop answers or just gonna have some weird argument about my answers
one guacamole is 6.02214076×10^23^ guacas
source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lLlwvmu1ZeA&lc=UgzxUpp15TXNo4txA_14AaABAg
I don't get it
It's mocking people that engage in bad-faith ideological debates.
Avocado is an essential ingredient in making guacamole, but, by "banning" its mention in the discussion and consequently stymying the opponent, the first figure is assuming and posturing as if they won a legitimate debate.
Which is so obviously false as to be humorous.
I've had this exact scenario on reddit, many years ago. I can't remember the specifics but it was literally like this comic. "Without using the core part of this topic, you can't explain how this topic works"
IIRC it was climate change (back when that was the hot button political issue) and something like "oh yeah, well without using man made CO2 emissions, explain the rise in CO2 and temperature, you can't", where their point was that it was "volcanoes"
Never heard of anyone doing that ngl. Except possibly secularists with arguments about certain morality, eg, "without using the Bible, explain how homosexuality is immoral" although I think I've only come across that one twice
I feel like that's different, as the point is to make the moralist admit that they want Christian Religious Law.
Without using plate tectonics, explain how fish fossils ended up on mountains. That’s right, it must be the Noah flood.
Never heard that one, that's quite mental. One thing I heard from a young earth creationist was that "global warming isn't accurate because it's using an assumption that the earth is 6-10,000 years old".... Although in that case, wouldn't it be much more urgent?
Like people that try to nullify an argument against cars by saying "well you have a car so you are a hypocrite"... we may all be forced to own a car but that does not preclude anyone from understanding what's negative about cars or cities designed for driving
Seasoned drupe paste.
