• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    That was not at all the point the comic was making, so whoosh? 💨

    @JUNlPER
    this is always one that gets me. so many people are unable to realize that you can present characters doing something bad without endorsing it. not sure when this kind of baby brained thing started but its so silly to see so often

    @ducktales2020
    more than anything they conflate Presenting Something with Agreeing With Something, but don’t apply it to good guy/bad guy narratives. when everyone’s bad they short circuit

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Your general point is very accurate, but applying that to this comic would allow the correct interpretation that the author was satirising people who think everything was better in the past. (Without this understanding, we’d be forced to think that the author meant that things were better in the past in spite of disease, hard labour, deprivation, and… bear attacks)

      The person you replied to is saying that the last panel is a partial exception to the pictured couple being dumbasses

    • MacAnus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The point the comic is trying to make is that things were not better in the past, right?

      That’s a pretty broad take that is obviously full of holes.

      Pretty sure no whoosh happened here and the person you’re replying to was just pointing at one of those holes.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The point the comic

        Sort of: I thought it was mocking the superficiality of a golden age fallacy that romanticizes the past & advocates restoring it while devaluing & squandering all the hardships we solved with our unprecedented standard of living.

        While the unsustainability of expending more resources than the planet can regenerate is a problem, that’s not necessarily the meaning of “losing our connection with nature”. We could start living sustainably while remaining as disconnected.

        Pretty sure no whoosh happened here

        Then they stated themselves poorly with

        The last panel has a point though.

        The panel satirizes the time traveler’s comment, so the panel’s point is to undermine that comment. Either we have to assume they expressed themselves ineptly & meant something else, or they know how to express themselves & misinterpreted the panel. Not sound either way.

        Excluding that statement entirely would have made more sense, but we aren’t mind readers.

        • MacAnus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Thanks for a well thought, well written answer!

          I guess I missed the point of the comic a bit…

          I think you’re right, they either expressed themselves wrong or misinterpreted the panel.

          So, for this I guess there was whoosh! My bad.

          I should’ve thought some more before replying to you.
          I saw someone defending ecology under a post that could be seen as ridiculing it so my brain went all white knight towards what seemed to me like a pedant dick… But turns out I was the dick.