• SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Bruh, let me repeat your original bloody comment

    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.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.