seems an extremely oversensitive and overly literal take to me. it’s just a comedic way to represent a certain type of irritating persona, for the same meaning the character could as well say she dislikes annoying people and be subsequently annoyed by one across the rest of the panels, but that would be less of a comic
My point is you could change “Sea lion” to any minority, change the sea lion itself to that minority, and the comic does not lose all meaning. It can be interpreted as someone saying “I do not like (group)” and then being harassed by a member of that group while they repeatedly say nothing but “go away”. A racist could read this and think “Damn straight, I should be allowed to say I don’t like (race) without being harassed for it!”
With “pedophile” or “murderer” the evidence for them having done harm is self evident. In the comic the reasoning for disliking sea lions is not self evident, and the comic could be easily interpreted as “I should be allowed to say I don’t like any group I want and not have to defend myself.”
Just wanna say thanks for holding the torch here. You pretty much echoed any response I would’ve made if I’d had the time, but probably better XD Sorry you got the brunt of the hate.
OK i think i understand you better, but still it seems a long stretch to me. a racist could read this and etc but so what? if he reads fables and decides that the tortoise represents this minority and the hare is that one his outlandish take does not indicate a problem in the original intention
seems an extremely oversensitive and overly literal take to me. it’s just a comedic way to represent a certain type of irritating persona, for the same meaning the character could as well say she dislikes annoying people and be subsequently annoyed by one across the rest of the panels, but that would be less of a comic
My point is you could change “Sea lion” to any minority, change the sea lion itself to that minority, and the comic does not lose all meaning. It can be interpreted as someone saying “I do not like (group)” and then being harassed by a member of that group while they repeatedly say nothing but “go away”. A racist could read this and think “Damn straight, I should be allowed to say I don’t like (race) without being harassed for it!”
Now replace “sea lion” with “pedophile” or “murderer” and the comic remains the same still!
With “pedophile” or “murderer” the evidence for them having done harm is self evident. In the comic the reasoning for disliking sea lions is not self evident, and the comic could be easily interpreted as “I should be allowed to say I don’t like any group I want and not have to defend myself.”
Just wanna say thanks for holding the torch here. You pretty much echoed any response I would’ve made if I’d had the time, but probably better XD Sorry you got the brunt of the hate.
Meh, it’s just karma that doesn’t even stick your account. Doesn’t bother me and provides an alternative point of view.
Personally I don’t think the comic did a very good job of demonstrating what “sea lioning” is or why it’s a problem. Going by what was presented in the comic this is an example of sea lioning: https://old.reddit.com/r/BoomersBeingFools/comments/1b2egrq/boomer_takes_a_stand_against_crt/
OK i think i understand you better, but still it seems a long stretch to me. a racist could read this and etc but so what? if he reads fables and decides that the tortoise represents this minority and the hare is that one his outlandish take does not indicate a problem in the original intention