this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
745 points (99.1% liked)
Comic Strips
19114 readers
1501 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.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's a conundrum: what if most people wanted to organize the society in a certain way? They are doing what they want. Are they not allowed to do that? People who make complaints about not being able to do what they want rarely seem keen to grant others the same privilege.
Also, the guy in the comic is doing exactly what he wants - it's just that he probably wanted a job more than he wanted to not wear pants. The issue isn't not being able to do what one wants, the issue is that people don't want any inconvenience for doing so. The more you learn to tolerate inconvenience, the more free you are to do whatever you want. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't both resist a system and then demand to be able to enjoy the fruits of the system you are resisting.
How do you know he's wearing pants in the last panel?
He only "wants" a job because of the oppressive systemic forces that dictate the society he lives in necessitating him having one or else his access to material necessities be threatened.
The guy is not doing what he wants. He is being forced into doing what he is told to do (work a meaningless office job) because he was conditioned in childhood to do just that by his parents instead of doing what he wants.
The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else. Why should one individual's wants matter more than the wants of a collective? Isn't that just you trying to impose your wants on everyone else?
Your questions are valid but your first sentence is logically flawed, as written; It also presupposes that society was built as it is with intention, rather than shaped over time by an accumulation of processes, some of which included violent coercion.
It's not actually, it's exactly as simple as I made it. Enough people wanted to violently coerce. Not enough people wanted to resist.
The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.
A cow, for example, may want to avoid its trip to the abattoir, but conditions have been created in which the cow's wants are unattainable.
People are not animals. You have opted into being controlled. There's plenty of ways out but people generally want the benefits of living under certain control more than they want freedom.
You can't resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system. Like I said, the more you are willing to tolerate inconvenience, the freer you are. This includes acceptance of anything from having less luxury, to acceptance of premature death. Everyone is absolutely free to live in accordance to their tolerance - they have no choice in the matter.
Uh... Yeah we are.
I thought we were aliens
I'm not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.
Is there any point by your view, excepting death, at which you believe a person is no longer able to exercise their wants?
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn't going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that's probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth's gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn't possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it's on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can't make that choice for them either.
I'm just trying to rephrase "can't have your cake and eat it too" as I'm starting to suspect that idiom is either too... abstract or too worn out to really land for people anymore. Maybe both. If you want two mutually exclusive things, at least one of your wants will necessarily go unmet. If you don't want both mutually inclusive things, you're in for a bad time. Wanting what isn't the realm of possibility will lead to suffering. Not wanting the unpleasant but unavoidable part of something you really want will also lead to suffering.
So you agree, then, that your sentence "The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else." is logically flawed?
I really don't see how you draw that conclusion, except unless you consistently forget the wanting part where it suits you. A person really wants a pancake, they will support the system that gives them the pancake, even if the pancake is made from the flesh of newly born babies. They might be very unhappy about the babies but they want the pancake more than they don't want the dead babies.
We can of course point out the boiling frogs thing. Oppressive systems gradually increase discomfort, but they stay within the realm of human capability of adaptation. The pancakes didn't start off as babies, they started off as normal pancakes, then animals, then perhaps some human matter, then old people, then sick people, then just people, then babies. However here too you still operate within what people want. And most people don't want to be shaken out of the trance where they're constantly just comfortable enough to tolerate the (often abstract) negatives that enable their life. If they did, they would.
Ignoring the fact that society's builders, such as you describe them, constructed society a priori, you're falling prey to the fallacy of consent.
I commend you for trying but this dude seems just incapable of understanding fallacy.
Consent is also just a belief some people want to have. I'm not saying that it's a bad belief to have, I'm in full support of it but that does NOT give me some divine right to impose the belief of it on others. We're talking about wants, and that necessarily leads to a discussion on whose wants matter more. I am of the opinion that nobody's wants are inherently (as in, outside human constructed narratives, cultures, norms) more valuable than those of others. I happen to value human well-being and respecting consent logically follows from that. However, because of exactly that I cannot impose consent on those who don't believe in it. As such, I can only defend myself and others who agree with me against those who would try to impose their beliefs on me but I cannot go out and force them to obey me. This necessarily leads to the situation where I HAVE to accept certain results that may be undesirable in a realistic scenario. Including death in the hands of those that would oppress me. And that's on me to do for myself - but that is also freedom for me to live according to my ideals without imposing them on others, Meaning, I accept that I can't have the cake if I want to eat it. IT IS NOT EASY but it is what I have realistic power over.
An understanding of consent is important to the topic at hand, certainly, but your reply does not address the fallacy of consent, nor does it demonstrate a particularly strong grasp on the root concept of consent. Consent exists whether or not you believe in it. Much like the sun.
Can you point out where in nature does consent exist independent of human minds? And can humans want anything independent of biological, societal or cultural factors?
Sure. A rodent that runs from or struggles against the talons of a hawk is demonstrating non-consent to the idea of being predated or consumed. It does not consent to this arrangement, and thus it resists, however futile such resistance might prove to be.
As to your second question, I'm afraid I'll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.
The rat is neither consenting nor not consenting. It's following a biological drive to survive. "Consent" remains a human construction. The rat isn't arguing that it "should" not be consumed. And if we want the cycle of life to continue, some things must be consumed. Furthermore, if you want to say that the rat is displaying consent in nature, then you must also accept that it is being "oppressed" by the hawk. Meaning the rat is a "controlled population", meaning as per you own words "The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population." And if you want to say that he hawk isn't oppressing in the same way as a human oppresses another, then how is the notion of consent allowed for the rat? Consent requires agency.
noun: consent; plural noun: consents
noun: agency; plural noun: agencies
Simply restating a human-centric definition of consent doesn't address the lack of consistency in your position.
You have repeatedly failed to address your own inconsistencies, and have ignored direct questions such as:
"As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor."
When pressed too much on any of your inconsistencies, you latch onto something else and attempt to shift the discussion. Your statement, "The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else." remains logically flawed despite these contortions.
I fail to see how my position lacks consistency. If you can more clearly explain how I've been inconsistent, I'd be happy to address that. I disagree with your assertion that the rodent is being "oppressed" by the hawk, and you have not provided sufficient reasoning for why I "must accept" that position, upon which your "logical chain of meaning", such as it was, is based on you putting words into my mouth and then dictating what I believe. This is yet another fallacy (strawman fallacy).
I do have a question for you that's somewhat off topic. Have you ever been wrong about anything? I am and have been wrong a lot in my life, and I've found it's much easier to reconcile and manage my state of mind when I acknowledge that I am not infallible in my thought or belief.
The fact that you ask this from me specifically highlights the problem in your arguments. It is your view that necessitates the existence of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors. I don't think such a thing exists. I don't think it's possible to have a want independent of imposition. However when you say that "the notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population" as an argument against me positing that the guy in the comic is doing what he wants, implies that in your mind there is a "pure" want, independent of any imposition. You then refer to the rat as an example of consent, implying that a biological drive to survive is an example of a pure want. If you wish to make the case that a biological want is an example of a pure want, then I can say that the guy in the comic is following his biological drive to survive over any personal opinions on wearing pants - meaning a want is applicable to a controlled population.
How do you defend applying human idea of consent to a rat, but very conveniently for your own argument, refuse to apply oppressor to the hawk?
Well it sounds like you've read into my comments far beyond my meaning, then.
As to how I refuse to apply "oppressor" to the hawk... I can see why you would advance that idea, but the definition of oppression defies it, by my view:
verb: oppress
*edited to fix a copy/paste mistake (consent should have been oppress in the definition)
I'm not going to get into a discussion about justice with you before you explain what is an acceptable want and how it differs from a want in a controlled population.
I'm not interested in discussing the concept of justice with you. You argue in bad faith, as though you're playing a zero-sum sports game and are willing to cheat to "win".
What relevance does that have to the fact that your premise is logically flawed? You've latched on to some perceived "gotcha", which is wholly unbecoming of an intellectual such as yourself.
The difference between an acceptable want and a want in a controlled population is a red herring that you've latched onto and extrapolated on in your own mind. Not only that, but your fixation on that quote represents a clear misunderstanding of my ontological intent.
Answering this desperate question of yours has zero relevance to the fact that your statement "The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else." is logically flawed via the fallacy of consent. Unless, that is, you can prove otherwise?
Pity, I had so much fun with this discussion. For that I thank you. Lemme know if you want to return to it later.
Why wait for later? I've asked plenty of questions in just my previous comment that we can discuss. Once you've proven that you engage in good faith, logical discourse I'll be happy to talk to you for as long as you'd like about whatever topics.
Speaking of which, you never answered my question about whether you've ever been wrong about anything! I'm still waiting to hear from you on that one! The most intelligent people I've met in my life always seem to be the most capable of admitting that they don't know nearly as much as they wish that they did.
I literally cannot continue this conversation before we understand each other on the nature of wanting. Or like, I can... but we'd just keep going over the same things, reducing us both to just practicing intellectual wankery. And I have a feeling you have more self-respect than that, if you think that my argumentation is "unbecoming of an intellectual".
And in any case we've been at this for 4 (very delighful) hours but this body really wants a different activity for now.
Sure, let's discuss the nature of want, then, if that's your chosen distraction.
And no, I don't have any self respect. I will wank all day long. Self respect is for people who take themselves far too seriously. I only mention your intellectual status due to the fact that you seem to take yourself very seriously.
Can someone decode what the hell this person is even trying to say.
We live in a society and you can't have it all your way.
Social norms are necessary when people come together.
Someones interest in not wearing pants needs to be weighted against other peoples interest not wanting to see their hairy balls halfway falling out of their slip. Imagine if that coworker whose "jokes" are just short of sexual harassment now gets to run around naked and rub his balls on your desk and you are not allowed to tell him to fuck off, because that would violate his "no-pants"-rights.
Yea fuck that authoritarian mentality.
The only thing that needs to be weighted is when someone's actions directly affect others around them, not against the whims of others who need to learn how to cope with people existing differently than they would. Not wearing pants does nothing to no one. Your desire to not see nudity is your problem and your problem alone, and it is not a valid excuse to dictate the actions of others when those actions are harmless.
Some social "norms" are ass-backwards, based in toxic, archaic ideology only meant to oppress, and need to be dismantled to improve and create a free-er society.
That's a nice hyperbolic hypothetical that exaggerates the issue, making it seem more than it actually is. No one is saying people should be able to go around "rubbing their balls all over" your personal property. That's still harassment. Inappropriate and sexual "jokes" directed at another individual is still harassment. You would be completely within your right to tell them to quit fucking with you, because they are directly affecting you by doing so.
Being able to just exist while not wearing pants because it is how someone would be most comfortable, regardless of how others around them feel about nudity themselves, is not harassment, and they should be well within their right to do so, others around them need to learn to cope.
You are right that in your space you are free to be pantsless and as such I wouldn't impose my presence and sensibilities upon you. In fact I would defend your right to be pantsless in your space. However if you decided to come to my space, I would insist on pants - failure to comply would be you imposing your wants on me without consent, putting your wants above mine. If you think that I should be okay with you being pantsless, why? Who are you to tell me how to live my life? Why aren't you accepting people living differently from you? Me not wanting pantslessness in my presence only impacts you if you force yourself into it.
What about pants in public? Are they required?
Extrapolate a bit why don't you? If a group of people create a space with certain rules, it is a "public" space for people who agree to follow the rules.
I am curious to know if you think that there is more to the requirement to wear pants than historic reasons.
... I mean this isn't really a conversation about pants but I truly don't care about nudity. I'm from a culture that isn't anywhere near as neurotic about it as certain others. I still prefer some kind of covering on the privates though simply because I don't want ball sweat, urine traces, fecal matter or vaginal discharge on my things.
Hairy balls, hairy arms, it's the same skin. Rubbing the balls is offensive as a cultural construct. No-pants rights don't grant the right to be offensive. People are allowed to open their mouth but licking the desk is still unacceptable. Touching somebody who doesn't want to be touched is offensive, even while wearing gloves or using a stick.
However people not wearing pants would make society reevaluate the social constructs about nakedness. People are trained to be ashamed about parts of themselves. It's like being colored in a racist society, but for everybody.
What about non-hairy balls 👀
"Be a good sheep and fall in line, stop daring to live in a free-er world, accept your place as a peasant and be content with what you have."
I've spoken with some folks who might arrrrrgue with that.
Yes.
So I have I.
Some people really do just need to burn down the pancake factory and then get upset that they can't get the pancakes from that factory anymore. There's a certain country doing exactly this right now. Some people just need to learn by experience.
There are ways to resist short of burning shit down. The idea that this is a dichotomy is exactly the "yet you participate in society, interesting" meme.