this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
650 points (83.9% liked)
Comic Strips
20646 readers
2439 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.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- 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
Sure, ratio matters - which is why both you and the comic acknowledge it. But both you and the comic acknowledge it, even though you evidently think the comic did not acknowledge it enough. You are doing exactly the same thing the comic is doing, but you're criticizing the comic for being able to be misinterpreted, while you yourself rely on the same semantic structure to make your own point.
How are you simultaneously acknowledging that the ratio or amount implied matters and then generally disregard the core of that statement? Some and most are not remotely similar outside of being a quantity.
Topically - For what it's worth we're actually discussing the crux of my issue with the comic and why it's reception is mixed. If, in the final panel, the author omitted the statement suggesting this [nearly always] happens... Does the comic change at all? Yes. It focuses on the event and the fact that the guy is being a twat. It invites the same discussion /without/ inserting a generalization of [most/a large %] men behave this way which... Shockingly isn't recieved particularly well by people that agree that the behavior is deplorable ... Yet are being included in the generalization. I'd expand on this further but I trust you can do so easily enough.
Because I'm not doing that - that there is a ratio implied is what's important here. The values being referenced do not change that the structures those values appear within are identical.
Your entire complaint with the comic hinges on them not having been clear enough about the ratio for your liking, not that it itself is somehow invalid. You're mad that it can be interpreted poorly, but you're not engaging with the ideas surrounding the comic that lead to the mixed reception, you're fixated on the form of the comic itself.
A form you also use.
The core issue lies with making an apparent generalization about an [implied] majority of a sex's behavior. That's making a sweeping generalization and painting a lot of people in a pretty negative light. Dropping frame 4s comment (as I've mentioned earlier) does not detract from the story in the least... But does suddenly stop maligning the majority of a group.
If I'm "mad" about anything it's that people can use this comic and others like it to quietly [whistle] and subtly take shots at [groups of] people ... Then dogpile on anyone who speak up about it. You, yourself, responded to the second highest commentor and had what you describe as a decent conversation with them. Not two comments into the thread where they point out the same issue do they get lept on immediately. Its not subtle behaviour. This thread is rife with it.
Alright, but you're literally doing the exact same thing right here. You're using a generalization about a group to make conclusions about the behavior of that group.
In reference to members of a group engaging in negative behavior, you characterize those people who engage in that behavior negatively. I'm a person, and I resent the implication that I might also unfairly dogpile someone discussing this topic based off the actions of this group.
(edit: clarity)
What group am I making generalizations about? What conclusions? Genuinely asking - I'm quite certain I am not.
Hmm, If this is what you are referring to perhaps we need to clarify something. Generally selecting a group to make a statement about is not inherently wrong... Its what you do with it that can be.
Example:
"children's minds have not fully developed" vs "children all reek of bo"
Both of these statements select [most/all] children generically as a group. One is based in fact... And one contains opinion. Presenting that opinion in a way that might hurt somone isn't a crime... Although it can be presented in bad faith. The major issue is really where somone presents a counter opinion and they are rebuked for it. As before, I imagine you can see some parallels here.