Oh cool, this is the original of:
haha gay bad
I think it works as the ultimate insult because it can be said without malice and still be taken as the utmost offence from the enemies of gay.
Although clearly the funko pops message is derogatory.
It can also be taken with offence by someone who’s bi or ace and feels unseen.
deleted by creator
I see it as less “Gay bad”, and more of “Let’s call him gay, because he’s likely homophobic and the idea of him being gay will challenge his fragile masculinity.”
I’ve never seen the full version! Thanks!
And I loathe this person who always shows up in the comments. The only way to live fully moral is to completely decouple from society.
Spoiler For the Good place
Hell that was a major plot point of The Good Place, that you can try your absolute best to not do anything immoral, but then you’ve effectively never lived your life, you would have to become a hermit completely living alone to even begin to achieve that.
Yeah actually not sure I’ve ever seen the complete comic tbh
A true classic.
We should improve the electoral system.
Yet you voted for Kamala! Curious!
Seems like different scenarios. The person with the iPhone chose to buy it even though alternatives exist. Of course if the person didn’t know when they bought it, not much they can do.
But the guy saying the car should have seatbelts, unless he’s Henry Ford, didn’t make that decision.
It was Volvo, Ford didn’t either
You could still participate in society and buy cheaper, more ethical phones than Apple ones.
The point is that it doesn’t discredit the original criticism. The guy in the comic is trying to shift the focus from the systemic level to individual consumer habits, and to discredit anyone who doesn’t adhere to perfection. This is a common tactic the right uses, and no matter what level of ethical consumption you do they’ll either still say it anyway or switch to characterizing you as an extremist or some other tact, for instance, the various tactics used to attack vegans and veganism. There is good faith criticism to be made regarding ethical consumption, but there’s also bad faith criticism where it’s used to discredit legitimate criticism, which is what the comic is calling out.
I see it as being a progression of that argument from being right in the first one, debatable in the second and completely wrong in the third.
That’s not what the comic is saying at all. What do you think the message of the comic is? That feudalism is bad?
What do you think it’s saying? I’m assuming it’s that the guy is using a flawed argument in situations that make it increasingly obvious, with the third one being utterly ridiculous that he thinks it’s a gotcha.
That is what it’s saying, but that completely contradicts what you said before, that he’s “right” in the first case and “debatable” in the second. The point is he’s wrong in all three and the comic is demonstrating that by applying his logic to increasingly absurd situations.
He’s not totally wrong in the first one. You can buy phones that are more ethically produced than Apple ones. There is a choice to get something better, even if it’s not perfect. In the second one there is no choice to get a different one, but there is a choice not to buy one at all. In the third one there is no choice in any way.
You’re completely missing the point. Whether or not you buy a car that doesn’t have seatbelts, it’s still a good idea for cars to have seatbelts. The criticism of individual choice is irrelevant, it’s ad hominem.
It’s the same point but my interpretation makes more sense. You don’t need a 4 panel comic for a simple criticism of ad hominem.
That’s fair, but I don’t think that’s the common or intended interpretation.
I only buy second hand phones. Cheaper, more ethical and more ecological
👍😇
