What is the meaning of this comic strip ?
-
The meaning? It seems fairly self evident, a critique of internet arguments, not far from that cliche of 'touching grass'
-
Yet another engagement title from you I see.
-
The meaning? It seems fairly self evident, a critique of internet arguments, not far from that cliche of 'touching grass'
This is clearly a statement about depression and how we act out when unhappy, anyone could see this!
-
I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
-
Yet another engagement title from you I see.
they have to put something
-
This is clearly a statement about depression and how we act out when unhappy, anyone could see this!
That's exactly how I read it too
-
I feel like you must have said something dumb online, and gotten absolutely dogpiled for it, to draw this comic.
-
I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
Not overthinking. Just covering the whole topic! Those are some good points/examples.
-
I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
911 was actually probably an inside job!
I think its far crazier to think that the Bush administration wouldn’t murder his people to get justification to attack an innocent sovereign nation that attempted to sell their oil not in dollar but in euroes..
-
I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
I think arguing in the forums of my favorite band in high school (about topics completely unrelated to music) have made my written communication as an adult pretty good
-
I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
Interesting! Do you think you would have gotten out with filter bubbles and Echo Chambers as they are these days?
-
I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
The key is to know why you're communicating and under what implicit rules and beliefs. Some people want to learn something, to spread a message, to impart info, to vent, to feel important, to have fun, to perform for an audience, to feel understood...your job first of all is to figure out what your interlocutor's aim is and if it is different from yours, to bear that in mind before get so invested that you can't let it go.
-
Sounds like many of the people on my blocklist.
-
Talking is shared thinking.
-
I don't know about the "no real life effects". As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-"truthers". It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-"manosphere" before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens' roles historically, claiming they were "privileged" in ways they objectively weren't turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there's usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is "totally destroying the opponent" is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
good internet argument there.
-
It means internet arguing is stupid and pointless and will do the exact opposite of making you feel satisfied or accomplished.
Nobody has ever had their opinions and beliefs changed from arguing on the internet, or if they have, they will never talk about it, so there's no results you can track from it, no outcome, no closure. Arguing on the internet means getting heated for no reason and with no payoff.
Most of the people who say the stupidest shit are just children anyway, but for some reason we've made it socially acceptable to argue with, and take the opinions of literal CHILDREN as seriously as if it's people writing policy.
-
He looks like a guy in a reptile suit in panel 2.
