So it is immature to be entertained by someone posting wholly meaningless images thinking they have owned someone? Or is it immature not to be able to parse a comment poking fun at the logic of a stupid comic and dogpiling with no intention to even understand the joke of the comment?

To be perfectly honest, I was expecting people to misunderstand my first comment. I deliberately constructed it in a way that would be confusing to the reader and y’all fucking ate it up like confused doggos. Despite me explaining everything you all went on the train because it feels good to join in on a collective punching. To me this is more proof that imitating Reddit with its lack of anonymity and voting mechanisms, does nothing to overcome the dynamics that many here try to avoid. The sharpness people wish to see in discussions is completely lost and the greatest common denominator dominates posts, simplistic denominators such as “Nazis bad”, “catcalling bad”, “killing people bad” and “cost of living high”. It’s no surprise that there is no explication here, no effortposting, even less than on Reddit. Perhaps because the people at Reddit realise that in order to keep people on the site a minimum of informational quality is needed and adjusting algorithms accordingly.

It got removed, it was one of those unfunny moralistic webtoons with a very simple setup and punchline. Basically repeating a no shit sherlock sort of deal, like saying the earth is round among physicists.

Because it is stupid fucking stalinist fancamming.

How stupid do you have to be to not understand that the average groyper or antisemitic stalinist goes “hoooly shit based”, when they hear the term Nazi collaborator. You are underestimating how well received the Nazis are outside of most of Europe and North America. Seriously

Missed the point award. Never mind, I am talking to someone who would rather waste time on tabloid anti-Epsteinism than on actually comprehending anything.

No one calls someone a collaborator positively.

This is the first definition. It’s used positively, neutrally, negatively, etc. “A person who works with others towards a common goal.”

The second definition fits yours, but it’s the second definition.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collaborator

I don’t know why, but this is great entertainment to me.

hahahaha you’re a Stalinist. Gee, that is embarrassing. But not at all surprising seeing how this dude got all giddy when there were small to medium sized businesses in the Soviet Union. Man loved the social market economy and hated socialism

Using joblessness as a dull insult is classism. A pretty ignorant way to be classist as well, not at all sophisticated.

Straight to the classism aha

Having a clue vs not having one is an arbitrary distinction as long as you are talking about the interpretation of natural language.

My point was about ambiguity. I said nothing about the artist’s intent.

disliking Hitler is an uncertain foundation for discussion and social context.

You not been on instagram the last year? Or to Bulgaria?

Dropping this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias Lemmy apparently ain’t committing to earnest engagement over dogpiling lmao

I shouldn’t be anything, least of which lectured on a simple set up and punchline based on a popular quote that is probably misattributed anyway. Everyone understood it.

I never said that I agreed or disagreed. How you read any disagreement or agreement into my statement is beyond me and whether or not I agree is not at all a relevant point that needs to be brought up. The author’s position is “pretty clear” because the comic is posted in liberal spaces where virtually everyone dislikes Hitler. Social context makes it obvious, but it’s not at all strictly obvious from the logic of the joke and hinges mostly on how “you look great” is interpreted. I point that out and people lose their shit because they interpret messages anywhich way they feel is comfortable and when they’re not able to categorise a statement, potentially because it is rather neutral but contains structured statements in regards to the content of the post, it just makes it seem hostile to them when it’s not in its content.

based on the premise that because she was a Nazi collaborator her opinions, and those influenced by them, can and should be ignored

Mao said that I should shit when I need to. Should I now hold my shit in because Mao made crazed mistakes or was emblematic of a movement that was not exactly comfortable to those in the states and most of europe? What a stupid fucking line of reasoning.

If that is too nuanced for you to be able to determine a stance then there’s no hope for you.

Regard the reply to your first paragraph. I made it even more “nuanced”, bullshit appeal anyway.

What exactly is your point, here? Are you suggesting a comic about gay women and jewelry is by a Nazi? What are you getting at?

None, You suggest I ought to positively have one, but I can just say whatever I want. I never said that it was by a Nazi, I was if anything hinting at its ambiguity.

And btw, ‘collaborator’ in this context is usually a negative connotation unless she’s talking about a Nazi fashion project.

That woman wasn’t just a collaborator. She was deep in the shit. Also what do you mean by negative, the comic is just stating a plain fact. You make it negative, a Nazi would make it positive.

Media literacy award goes to you.

Edit: I mean this in a mocking way, don’t take this as a concession, don’t upvote it when agreeing in serious

If you think that anyone who is “more” than just a conservative is stupid or at the very least badly read, then boy do I have news for you. You are underestimating how many ultra strategical 4-D chess players exist within the reactionary political scene. You are one Matrix room away from meeting them. I know this because I’ve made such acquaintances (unfortunately). You are underestimating the mental calculus needed for re-implementing systems of forced labour and expansionist militarism. I personally doubt that 99.5% percent of people could take on someone like Stephen Miller on the level of rhetoric and planning.

I think this is more of a reading comprehension problem rather than a failure on the artist’s part, no offense

It’s not. If I was a Nazi, I could post this comic with glee.