this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
587 points (91.7% liked)

Comic Strips

22548 readers
1520 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hark@lemmy.world 68 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, it has been applied as a way to divide, like when Bernie proposed all sorts of policies to help the poor and mainstream media ran with "but what does Bernie do specifically for poor black people?"

That's not to say there aren't such specific concerns, but it wasn't like Hillary was doing any better in that regard. It was solely used as a way to make Bernie look less progressive. So instead we got Trump with the simple and straightforward "make america great again".

Fighting a war on multiple fronts is a great way to stretch your resources thin and muddy the strategy.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Bernie didn't lose by focusing on black people, he lost because the entire DNC apparatus worked against him.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago

That was my point, the DNC and their mainstream media buddies said that he didn't focus enough on issues facing specifically black people. That was one of many attacks they made against him.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Neither of you are wrong.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

The one colonists hate the most:
indigenous lives matter.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Tell them to give the land back and they lose their shit.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I don't understand what "give the land back" means. Would you mind explaining it?

There are a lot of poor, oppressed people who live on land their ancestors didn't own. In the US, all Black people and most native Americans don't live within 1000 km of where their ancestors lived 600 years ago. So when land is given back, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do natives become landlords? Is there ethnic cleansing? Or is it only land where people don't reside? Also, many native cultures didn't even have land ownership, so how do you give land back without forcing them into a western mould?

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

We could just abolish private property rights and accept that no individual or corporation can own land. That would be my preferred solution.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (9 children)

How does that function in practice? Doesn't that just immediately turn into a stupid bullshit version of mad max?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It means that it's up to the natives. It sucks for the descendants of settlers, but the alternative, that the descendants of the people it was stolen from keep being oppressed is worse. The natives get to say what happens on their land, and withholding stewardship until there is an alternative that the settlers agree to is perpetuating oppression. Land back means land back.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's kind of why I like the casino model. Local tribes put here have been buying their land back bit by bit and the casino goers gladly shovel money at them.

I just wish we could rope corporate entities into it. Imagine if casino losses could be a corporate tax writeoff. C-suites would be stumbling onto the floor with the company cards. The overnight wealth distribution would be staggering.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gambling is a hugely exploitative industry which predominantly negatively impacts the poorest and most vulnerable. Casinos are also a dying business model.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MoffKalast@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's always ironic to see non-native Americans talk about stopping illegal immigration, like hahaha it's not so funny now is it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I prefer Cthulhu's position.

No lives matter, and that's a fact.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'm dumb, is the point the guy is wrong or that the white woman is wrong?

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 82 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The white woman is being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.

And the guy is wrong.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.

I'm still stupid, can you fix the multiple negatives so I can understand

And the guy is wrong.

ok. thank you.

[–] DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online 46 points 1 week ago (16 children)

I believe it's essentially the "Black Lives Matter" /"All Lives Matter" situation. Yes, we are striving for equality, but the movements are worded to highlight those who are most affected/disenfranchised by the status quo.

Woman gets it when she's talking about the movement that applies specifically to her disenfranchisement, but not when she's in the "out" group of a rights movement

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The man is trying to paper over the issues that divide men and women, the same way the white woman is papering over the issues that divide white and black women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tuxis@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I understand the comic is pointing out hypocrisy. But I also see it as illustrating how perspective can shift depending on where one stands, especially if one does not already have a clear understanding of what intersectionality is and can intellectualize it. Both the guy and the woman do not seem to be portrayed as evil people, just misguided.

The black woman still sees the same underlying point, and the white woman now feels "left out". And perhaps she is next. In pops the Muslim woman.

Though this is clearly not the intended result, one must recognize that this is an underlying point of attack, an exploitable weakness. Bitterness can be created to break groups that otherwise have common interests apart, and without the overall coalition there is no power to enact change.

Ultimately, Black feminism is part of a broader feminist goal that is part of a broader humanist goal. We are together, we are aligned.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

What matters is consistency.

"Why do you have a label that excludes me?" scales up and to a virtually universal group and down to a specialized category with only three members.

It doesn't really matter if you say that men are right to critique the label "feminism" or if you allow specialization all the way down to "Midwestern small city non-theater trans-male part-African part-Irish demisexual furry feminism". Just so long as you're fighting bigotry and applying your principles consistently.

(I much rather spend effort arguing that a man arguing against anti-masculine sexism is a cause worth supporting than bickering over whether or not his cause counts as "feminism", even though I would casually include him in the label.)

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Yeah I think your last paragraph is vital to this discussion. Black feminism takes nothing from feminism as a whole, while adding quite a bit.

[–] morphballganon@mtgzone.com 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The point is that people generally have trouble seeing others' struggles they themselves don't face.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I wouldn't see it as being right or wrong. Both white folks in the comic would benefit from a broadening of perspective is all.

The white guy doesn't understand why a unique space is needed for women and gets an explanation.

The white lady doesn't understand why a unique space is needed for black women and gets an explanation.

Anyone with a cursory understanding of history, particularly modern colonial history, where Europeans and their descendants actively dabbled in propoganda/a worldview that white = human and nonwhite = non/subhuman (culminating in Nazism) would understand this but our education system often avoids these difficult topics. Women were not able to hold credit up until the 70s and so their financial security depending entirely on their husband, depriving them of agency.

Unfortunately we can't just flip a switch and make this history and its legacy disappear. I don't blame the people portrayed in this comic. I blame inadequate education.

[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Most people want equality, justice, freedom and peace for all. I choose to believe that, at least.

It's a very difficult thing to just fight the entire state of the world, instead it's a much more achievable (and realistic) thing to fight for what affects your immediate group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The issue is turning around and attacking others trying to fight for what they fight for.

Intersectionality requires supporting each other.

[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Say it louder for the people in the back

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Except the entire state of the world is what's responsible for the problems of your immediate group. When you focus on your immediate group you're not only merely treating a symptom, but you're also suggesting your problems are somehow more important than another group's problems.

What's worse is that people of a specific group will literally say their problems are more important, and then proceed to create a stereotype of another group to blame all those problems on. The struggle then moves away from real problems and then becomes all about defeating some sort of perceived enemy. A process which only achieves dividing us further.

A lot of the world's problems, both socially and economically, come from the same handful of sources that are continuing to thrive, unchecked, while we fight amongst ourselves. Remove those sources and you will have solved the lion's share of the problems your group shares, as well as the problems other groups have.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 7 points 1 week ago

The issue that:

Most people

Are not you, and that a large percentage of the ruling classes do not want:

equality, justice, freedom and peace

Otherwise inequality, injustice, slavery, and war wouldn't exist. So we, the just indigenous liberators for peace have to fight against them lest we live by their oppressions.

[–] mad_djinn@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (14 children)

stupid comic for liberal types - please understand that you standing up as an autistic black feminist with one leg and a penchant for grapefruits does not result in significant change for society. yes, you exist, the world is full of wealthy evil, lets do something about that instead of talking about ourselves.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Intersectionality being a subsection of feminism is like a library being subsection of a book. It doesn't make sense.

Intersectionality covers a much, much broader set of discrimination, and discrimination of women is just one side. Putting it under the umbrella of feminism is as random as putting it under, say, trans rights movement. Yes, there are specific issues on the intersection of gender, race, or age, or disability, but they are relevant not only for women. There are issues specific of black men, young trans people, etc.

When it's all framed under feminism, it's not clear where discriminated men and nonbinary people stand in all of this. Some people claim feminism is about everyone, and so there's already something that works. Others reasonably state feminism is about women pretty much by definition. Put it together, and you'll see how discriminated men and nonbinary folks are casually thrown out of a conversation and support net that has somehow put one specific issue in its center.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Who is saying it is only under feminism?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sp00kyB00k@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I do understand that sometimes in groups not all their members' issues are addressed equally. But everytime a group split, it does get smaller and will be less able to have an impact. Lately, all the groups are pointing fingers to each other without noticing that the it is not 'us' vs 'them'. If you see who is in power, who isn't making the changes for us humans and where the money is flowing, that is where you need to look.

And it so happens to be that a LOT of information about those people is in the EPSTEIN files.

Treat each other like humans and bring back accountability for the everyone.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Intersectionality is not 'splitting', that's a very doomer binary way to view it. The only 'splitting' here is the white woman turning on her ally and doing the same thing the man was doing in the first panel.

One big movement can be made up of many small movements, intersectionality is recognising how all these small groups operate together and influence each other. For example a gay black persons experiences are different from a black hetero persons and a gay white persons, yet they can also relate to aspects of each other. So when you fight for your allies, you learn their unique issues and visa versa.

Intersectionality is viewing discrimination as a Venn diagram, but it's the same fight.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›