You’re right of course! But also there’s a big difference between real criticism and just saying something is “dogshit”. In fact you criticized Joe Rogan’s stuff properly, by drawing attention to the negative effects it has on people. We could go even further and pick out specific cases. (Though there’s no need to in this case, I agree with you.)
On the other hand, shitting on something with no reasoning just makes you a hater. I work with several comic artists professionally, and a common thing they ALL see is a nontrivial percentage of commenters who simply disparage everything. This is not because the content is inherently bad, but because all these trolls can do is destroy, not create.
Them saying Joe Rogan’s podcast is “toxic, diseased, and damaging to society” is not better critique than the other poster calling this comic dog shit. Both are just statements that provide no argument or reasoning behind the statements. Sure they could back it up with examples why it is so, but so could the other commenter, which would make either of those comments valid criticism, but without they are equally good (or bad) criticism.
I think it’s fine because we were operating on an implicit set of shared knowledge. Not every communication needs to be a research paper.
I have no understanding (implicit or explicit) of why the original commenter hated this comic, and clearly that’s the case for the vast majority of the voters here.
Providing 2-3 lines of explanatory context is hardly a research paper, but enough to illustrate reason behind a simple statement.
AFAIK, the author of this comic is somewhat of an asshat that exercises varying degree of censorship on a comic strip subreddit, based on their personal beliefs.
like i replied to the original comment that person is complaining about, she’s had some really dumb takes but is usually in the right ballpark. those dumb takes were also cases where she doubled down and yeah, that subreddit is basically a safespace for their superusers/content creators.
there is no substantive difference between my comment about rogan and that guys comment about this comic. only your opinion is coloring how you take it.
you and every single person upvoting you are just lemmings wearing a different team’s jersey than the idiot lemming above.
if anything, we need more haters at this point, because y’all dumb af.
now now. that’s just a stupid stance to take. you don’t have to make media to be critical of it.
or do you have to make a podcast to say joe rogan’s slop is toxic, diseased, and damaging to society?
“This is a dog shit comic” is not a critique, though, is the thing. It’s just jerking off in public.
You’re right of course! But also there’s a big difference between real criticism and just saying something is “dogshit”. In fact you criticized Joe Rogan’s stuff properly, by drawing attention to the negative effects it has on people. We could go even further and pick out specific cases. (Though there’s no need to in this case, I agree with you.)
On the other hand, shitting on something with no reasoning just makes you a hater. I work with several comic artists professionally, and a common thing they ALL see is a nontrivial percentage of commenters who simply disparage everything. This is not because the content is inherently bad, but because all these trolls can do is destroy, not create.
Them saying Joe Rogan’s podcast is “toxic, diseased, and damaging to society” is not better critique than the other poster calling this comic dog shit. Both are just statements that provide no argument or reasoning behind the statements. Sure they could back it up with examples why it is so, but so could the other commenter, which would make either of those comments valid criticism, but without they are equally good (or bad) criticism.
exactly.
I think it’s fine because we were operating on an implicit set of shared knowledge. Not every communication needs to be a research paper.
I have no understanding (implicit or explicit) of why the original commenter hated this comic, and clearly that’s the case for the vast majority of the voters here.
Providing 2-3 lines of explanatory context is hardly a research paper, but enough to illustrate reason behind a simple statement.
AFAIK, the author of this comic is somewhat of an asshat that exercises varying degree of censorship on a comic strip subreddit, based on their personal beliefs.
like i replied to the original comment that person is complaining about, she’s had some really dumb takes but is usually in the right ballpark. those dumb takes were also cases where she doubled down and yeah, that subreddit is basically a safespace for their superusers/content creators.
there is no substantive difference between my comment about rogan and that guys comment about this comic. only your opinion is coloring how you take it.
you and every single person upvoting you are just lemmings wearing a different team’s jersey than the idiot lemming above.
if anything, we need more haters at this point, because y’all dumb af.