I prefer Cthulhu's position.
No lives matter, and that's a fact.
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
436 points (91.9% liked)
Comic Strips
22318 readers
2042 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Must have taken a wrong turn, came here for comics.
I mean, it has been applied as a way to divide, like when Bernie proposed all sorts of policies to help the poor and mainstream media ran with "but what does Bernie do specifically for poor black people?"
That's not to say there aren't such specific concerns, but it wasn't like Hillary was doing any better in that regard. It was solely used as a way to make Bernie look less progressive. So instead we got Trump with the simple and straightforward "make america great again".
Fighting a war on multiple fronts is a great way to stretch your resources thin and muddy the strategy.
Bernie didn't lose by focusing on black people, he lost because the entire DNC apparatus worked against him.
That was my point, the DNC and their mainstream media buddies said that he didn't focus enough on issues facing specifically black people. That was one of many attacks they made against him.
Intersectionality being a subsection of feminism is like a library being subsection of a book. It doesn't make sense.
Intersectionality covers a much, much broader set of discrimination, and discrimination of women is just one side. Putting it under the umbrella of feminism is as random as putting it under, say, trans rights movement. Yes, there are specific issues on the intersection of gender, race, or age, or disability, but they are relevant not only for women. There are issues specific of black men, young trans people, etc.
When it's all framed under feminism, it's not clear where discriminated men and nonbinary people stand in all of this. Some people claim feminism is about everyone, and so there's already something that works. Others reasonably state feminism is about women pretty much by definition. Put it together, and you'll see how discriminated men and nonbinary folks are casually thrown out of a conversation and support net that has somehow put one specific issue in its center.
Who is saying it is only under feminism?
In close to all sources and conversations I had, intersectionality is seen as part of feminism or being "under the umbrella" of feminism. Here it was brought up in the context of feminism, so I decided to throw in my two cents.
However, if it's just about intersectionality of women and black dicrimination, then I completely see the message and can agree with it. Some issues need to be tackled specifically, and it doesn't automatically mean hostility or leaving out. We should be mindful of that in all contexts.
stupid comic for liberal types - please understand that you standing up as an autistic black feminist with one leg and a penchant for grapefruits does not result in significant change for society. yes, you exist, the world is full of wealthy evil, lets do something about that instead of talking about ourselves.
The one colonists hate the most:
indigenous lives matter.
It's always ironic to see non-native Americans talk about stopping illegal immigration, like hahaha it's not so funny now is it.
But we're all indigenous to Earth.
Tell them to give the land back and they lose their shit.
I don't understand what "give the land back" means. Would you mind explaining it?
There are a lot of poor, oppressed people who live on land their ancestors didn't own. In the US, all Black people and most native Americans don't live within 1000 km of where their ancestors lived 600 years ago. So when land is given back, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do natives become landlords? Is there ethnic cleansing? Or is it only land where people don't reside? Also, many native cultures didn't even have land ownership, so how do you give land back without forcing them into a western mould?
We could just abolish private property rights and accept that no individual or corporation can own land. That would be my preferred solution.
You would have to overthrow capitalism first. Which would be quite the task in the good old USA.
We need to do that anyways, Capitalism inevitably leads to fascism.
It means that it's up to the natives. It sucks for the descendants of settlers, but the alternative, that the descendants of the people it was stolen from keep being oppressed is worse. The natives get to say what happens on their land, and withholding stewardship until there is an alternative that the settlers agree to is perpetuating oppression. Land back means land back.
Yeah forget about sending those squatters back to Europe. We don't fucking want them.
Oof, but then we're stuck with them!
That's kind of why I like the casino model. Local tribes put here have been buying their land back bit by bit and the casino goers gladly shovel money at them.
I just wish we could rope corporate entities into it. Imagine if casino losses could be a corporate tax writeoff. C-suites would be stumbling onto the floor with the company cards. The overnight wealth distribution would be staggering.
Gambling is a hugely exploitative industry which predominantly negatively impacts the poorest and most vulnerable. Casinos are also a dying business model.
Most people want equality, justice, freedom and peace for all. I choose to believe that, at least.
It's a very difficult thing to just fight the entire state of the world, instead it's a much more achievable (and realistic) thing to fight for what affects your immediate group. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Except the entire state of the world is what's responsible for the problems of your immediate group. When you focus on your immediate group you're not only merely treating a symptom, but you're also suggesting your problems are somehow more important than another group's problems.
What's worse is that people of a specific group will literally say their problems are more important, and then proceed to create a stereotype of another group to blame all those problems on. The struggle then moves away from real problems and then becomes all about defeating some sort of perceived enemy. A process which only achieves dividing us further.
A lot of the world's problems, both socially and economically, come from the same handful of sources that are continuing to thrive, unchecked, while we fight amongst ourselves. Remove those sources and you will have solved the lion's share of the problems your group shares, as well as the problems other groups have.
I don't disagree you, the world at large has broken systems, either by design or neglect.
Now, although I also agree with that fighting only personal causes is treating a symptom and not the root cause, you're hand waving the very real problem of motivation. People are tribal by nature, and will want to protect themselves and those around them.
As for removing that "handful of sources" at the top? Which sources are those, and how do you fix them?
Reading between the lines here, you're essentially saying "see these deeply entrenched systems that have been perpetuated for hundreds/thousands of years? Just remove them." - It's not that simple by design.
Again, my point was that I do not fault people for putting their efforts into personal causes, not that this was the best way to solve the world's problems at large.
The issue is turning around and attacking others trying to fight for what they fight for.
Intersectionality requires supporting each other.
Say it louder for the people in the back
The issue that:
Most people
Are not you, and that a large percentage of the ruling classes do not want:
equality, justice, freedom and peace
Otherwise inequality, injustice, slavery, and war wouldn't exist. So we, the just indigenous liberators for peace have to fight against them lest we live by their oppressions.
I'm dumb, is the point the guy is wrong or that the white woman is wrong?
I wouldn't see it as being right or wrong. Both white folks in the comic would benefit from a broadening of perspective is all.
The white guy doesn't understand why a unique space is needed for women and gets an explanation.
The white lady doesn't understand why a unique space is needed for black women and gets an explanation.
Anyone with a cursory understanding of history, particularly modern colonial history, where Europeans and their descendants actively dabbled in propoganda/a worldview that white = human and nonwhite = non/subhuman (culminating in Nazism) would understand this but our education system often avoids these difficult topics. Women were not able to hold credit up until the 70s and so their financial security depending entirely on their husband, depriving them of agency.
Unfortunately we can't just flip a switch and make this history and its legacy disappear. I don't blame the people portrayed in this comic. I blame inadequate education.
The point is that people generally have trouble seeing others' struggles they themselves don't face.
That is why I keep slipping hotdogs in people's apparel. I don't want to be the bad guy. I want to be liked. But I am undeniably good at what I do, and if I can bring the world together through sheer force of terror then so be it.
Everyone will be faced with constant uncertainty whenever they reach into a pocket or a purse or a buttcrack. No one will be able to trust a friend, or a wife, or a child any longer. Why can't I get hot water in my shower? I blocked the pipe with a hotdog. Why is the icecream machine at McDonald's broke? I replaced the cream with hotdogs. Why are there chunks of graphene and other detritus on the roof? I replaced the control rods of reactor no4 with hotdogs.
I am in your walls.
I understand the comic is pointing out hypocrisy. But I also see it as illustrating how perspective can shift depending on where one stands, especially if one does not already have a clear understanding of what intersectionality is and can intellectualize it. Both the guy and the woman do not seem to be portrayed as evil people, just misguided.
The black woman still sees the same underlying point, and the white woman now feels "left out". And perhaps she is next. In pops the Muslim woman.
Though this is clearly not the intended result, one must recognize that this is an underlying point of attack, an exploitable weakness. Bitterness can be created to break groups that otherwise have common interests apart, and without the overall coalition there is no power to enact change.
Ultimately, Black feminism is part of a broader feminist goal that is part of a broader humanist goal. We are together, we are aligned.
Yeah I think your last paragraph is vital to this discussion. Black feminism takes nothing from feminism as a whole, while adding quite a bit.
What matters is consistency.
"Why do you have a label that excludes me?" scales up and to a virtually universal group and down to a specialized category with only three members.
It doesn't really matter if you say that men are right to critique the label "feminism" or if you allow specialization all the way down to "Midwestern small city non-theater trans-male part-African part-Irish demisexual furry feminism". Just so long as you're fighting bigotry and applying your principles consistently.
(I much rather spend effort arguing that a man arguing against anti-masculine sexism is a cause worth supporting than bickering over whether or not his cause counts as "feminism", even though I would casually include him in the label.)
The white woman is being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
And the guy is wrong.
being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
I'm still stupid, can you fix the multiple negatives so I can understand
And the guy is wrong.
ok. thank you.
I believe it's essentially the "Black Lives Matter" /"All Lives Matter" situation. Yes, we are striving for equality, but the movements are worded to highlight those who are most affected/disenfranchised by the status quo.
Woman gets it when she's talking about the movement that applies specifically to her disenfranchisement, but not when she's in the "out" group of a rights movement
load more comments
(14 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›