Oh, I must have missed the part in this anti electric vehicle comic that argues for significant increase in public infrastructure? Or is the author going to release another comic about how trains have brakes and hit animals/people too?
It’s almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.
Or you can Google the artist and see that he is an activist that actively supports policies for expanding bicycle infrastructure. As well as making other comics criticizing the defunding of public transit.
Like, I don’t know, to me this is an obvious reading of the comic.
Does it matter? Why do I need to know the lore behind this dude’s political views to dislike this comic? It’s misleading bullshit regardless of whether or not I agree with the point they failed to make.
Oh, I must have missed the part in this anti electric vehicle comic that argues for significant increase in public infrastructure? Or is the author going to release another comic about how trains have brakes and hit animals/people too?
It’s almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.
You literally talked about the author here. And you said that the comic was intentionally vague.
Well, I’m saying it wasn’t, and it is you that are forcing in your own, wrong, interpretation into it.
Ever heard of the death of the author? The meaning of piece of work is not determined by the author’s intention, but rather by the reader’s interpretation.
Sure, maybe the author left it unintentionally vague, but all I see when I look at this is misleading anti EV rhetoric, not someone arguing for bicycle lanes and public transit. Any anti EV interpretation is correct, because that’s all this comic is about.
My problem with the author isn’t their political views, it’s their misleading content.
You know the solution to the other problems, such as massively investing in public transit, also significantly help reducing emissions, right?
Oh, I must have missed the part in this anti electric vehicle comic that argues for significant increase in public infrastructure? Or is the author going to release another comic about how trains have brakes and hit animals/people too?
It’s almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.
Or you can Google the artist and see that he is an activist that actively supports policies for expanding bicycle infrastructure. As well as making other comics criticizing the defunding of public transit.
Like, I don’t know, to me this is an obvious reading of the comic.
Right…
Fine, here, have some of the other comics of the artist
https://twitter.com/GregVann/status/1085788036573540354
Does it matter? Why do I need to know the lore behind this dude’s political views to dislike this comic? It’s misleading bullshit regardless of whether or not I agree with the point they failed to make.
Bruh, let me repeat your original bloody comment
You literally talked about the author here. And you said that the comic was intentionally vague.
Well, I’m saying it wasn’t, and it is you that are forcing in your own, wrong, interpretation into it.
Ever heard of the death of the author? The meaning of piece of work is not determined by the author’s intention, but rather by the reader’s interpretation.
Sure, maybe the author left it unintentionally vague, but all I see when I look at this is misleading anti EV rhetoric, not someone arguing for bicycle lanes and public transit. Any anti EV interpretation is correct, because that’s all this comic is about.
My problem with the author isn’t their political views, it’s their misleading content.
The comic criticize both EV’s and gas cars, bc y’know car bad and while it doesn’t pose a solution it’s pretty clear it’s against cars in general.