• John@lemmy.ca
    2·
    5 months ago

    Space Avalanche. Sadly stopped after a few years, it was great, although I didn’t care much for this one.

  • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    1157·
    5 months ago

    I’m just going to come out and say it: this joke is old and the comic is gross.

    A woman is literally objectified here. That’s the punch line. He wants to use this woman like he used an object. In the movie he did not fuck the volley ball so the humor is supposed to be from the shock.

    Please don’t explain to me how she’s a prostitute. You can see in the comic she’s surprised/unhappy. Sex workers deserve respect. This comic feels like punching down.

    If you type me a book about how I’m wrong, I’m not going to respond. I can already see this has 500+ upvotes, my opinion is unpopular I know.

    • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      45·
      5 months ago

      While I agree with you that the actions of the man are horrible, I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation.

      I do not think that this woman is the butt of the joke in any way; the comic is not punching at her. In fact, I’d argue if anything she is the person we are meant to identify with and cringe with. Her perspective is the one we follow throughout the comic; her slow realisation is one we the audience follow.

      The butt of the joke is the man, and how he is unable to let go of his attachment to Wilson, the volleyball, after his time on the island.

      I do not think it is morally objectionable to laugh at this comic, and I do not think the comic itself is morally objectionable, and further I think it completely lacks nuance to condemn art (even webcomics) just because it features characters who are morally objectionable.

      • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        126·
        5 months ago

        I totally understand all of this about the joke. I understand Tom Hank’s character is meant to be the villain.

        The author drew this. He thought the world needed it. The objectification of woman is part of the punchline. This is why it’s punching down: The author used the objectification of woman (a real problem that woman experience in their life) to serve the punchline. It makes no real critique of the male character here, it simply presents him and his actions. Can you have bad characters in a non-problematic comic? Yes. Is this happening here? I’d argue no, because a misogynist can just as easily laugh at this comic for misogynist reasons.

        I’m just pointing out the comic is gross. If you found it funny I don’t think you’re a bad person. I just don’t think it deserves to be here without someone complaining (which I am doing).

        • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          10·
          5 months ago

          I don’t really agree that discrimination being a punchline of a joke is a bad thing; if anything I think it’s helpful to make bigots a laughing stock. It serves the practical purpose of suggesting that this kind of behaviour deserves ostracism, and can cause introspection in those that exhibit that kind of behaviour.

          James Acaster’s bit on Ricky Gervais is a classic example. The transphobia is the punchline, and forms an integral part of the routine.

          And I think I disagree that the male character isn’t criticised. Although it’s obviously not explicit (the comic writer doesn’t explicitly say it’s wrong), it is pretty obvious that the behaviour is not to be approved of. You yourself have said you understand that the intent is for him to be the villain of the piece.

          I also want to discuss the suggestion that we shouldn’t produce media that can be misinterpreted by bigots for their enjoyment. I think there is some truth to that; art criticising toxic masculinity has often been used as a rallying point for it (see Tyler Durden).

          But I also think that abandoning spoof and parody (and even just portrayal of real-life bigotry) removes a massive part of our toolkit as writers.

          Matt Baume has a great video on the American sitcom ‘All in the Family’. One of the characters starts out as a bigot, and indeed many bigoted Americans initially identify with him. But he is made the butt of jokes, and slowly his character changes opinion and is reformed over the course of the series. Baume thinks this may have had a positive impact on gay acceptance in the US.

          Anyway: to me the comic is fine. It makes a joke about the guy from castaway having a thing for a volleyball, and how that warps his future relationships.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            3·
            5 months ago

            James Acaster’s bit on Ricky Gervais is a classic example. The transphobia is the punchline, and forms an integral part of the routine.

            Holy crap, I liked what I saw of Ricky Gervais but this got me looking into that Trans sketch and it’s really bad taste. Plus he supposedly ends it saying he supports trans people but just finds it weird that there’s people who don’t want to do surgery. Which I mean, isn’t the worst of takes (kinda speaking out of his field though), but… punching down isn’t really the best way to show you’re “supportive” of something.

            • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              4·
              5 months ago

              Hey, thanks for keeping an open mind and looking into it yourself. It’s a really nice trait to see.

              For those that haven’t come across it, he does a ‘sketch’ where he says that if people can identify as transgender, he can identify as a chimp. Which is very 2007; very attack helicopter of him, and commits the cardinal sin of both punching down, and not being very funny.

              • Syrc@lemmy.world
                2·
                5 months ago

                So it’s not even a one-off thing, wtf. Now I really want to hear him having a serious conversation about it because I really don’t see how can a person repeatedly doing punching down jokes on a community say they’re supportive of it.

    • credit crazy@lemmy.world
      14·
      5 months ago

      Do you like get offended when a WW2 movie has Nazis in it. I’m not even saying your wrong I’m just wondering why you find disgusting acts being the butt of a joke a bad thing.

      • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        119·
        5 months ago

        No, because the movie is about WW2. Nazis are part of the setting.

        This is a “joke”, on my feed. There is no other content here. Tom Hanks was not cruel to women in the movie.

        Unless you are implying that by viewing Lemmy I should get used to casual objectification of women for basic and old jokes, then I suppose that’s a great point, Lemmy is very much like that.

        Edit: A better comparison is a racist joke. Even if the “butt” of the joke is “haha that guy is racist”, I don’t want the N word showing up on my feed, either.

        • kase@lemmy.world
          4·
          5 months ago

          Edit: A better comparison is a racist joke. Even if the “butt” of the joke is “haha that guy is racist”, I don’t want the N word showing up on my feed, either.

          I personally don’t think the comic was wrong, I agree with what chimbalumber wrote in their comment. That said, I do understand, and relate to, the desire to not see jokes involving sensitive subjects or explicit dark humor. (I dunno quite how to word that, but hopefully it makes sense.)

          I won’t argue what content should or shouldn’t be allowed in this specific community, I’m not super involved here. But I do remember one nice thing we had on reddit was separate subs for stuff like this. Maybe there’d be one comic strips sub where anything was allowed, one that was more, idk, family friendly? Etc. I dunno if we have that kind of thing here yet, or if this is the only (active) comic strip community. But it might be worth a try to look for/create one ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

    • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
      12·
      5 months ago

      He was on that island so long he started to think of the volleyball as a person, warping his perception of what a person should look like. Plenty of people hire prostitutes because they want to feel like they’re with someone they can’t be with anymore. This is no different.

      • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        310·
        5 months ago

        She looks like she wasn’t told this was part of their appointment. In fact, she looks unhappy about it. No context is explained to her and we don’t know if she would have agreed to meet him if he had asked before hand.

        In this comic, she is being used. If you think this is OK just because she is being paid for sex, this is one of the things I don’t like about this comic. Sex workers share their body with other people, safety and consent are extremely important. Sex workers deserve basic human respect, which is not shown here

        • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
          81·
          5 months ago

          No context is explained to her

          Not onscreen, anyway.

          and we don’t know if she would have agreed to meet him if he had asked before hand.

          So why assume the worst? Why make the rather serious accusation of the author violating consent based on a gut feeling?

    • Che Banana@lemmy.ml
      10·
      5 months ago

      Its ok to not get the joke or not think it’s funny.

      Look how the Jane Goodall Institute went after Gary Larson, but Jane, herself, loved it.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Far_Side

      Making fun and adding humor to our lives is the job of the cartoonist.

      Making opinionated comments lamenting cartoons is the job of rage baiting Tucker Carlson type pundits (see: the geen m&m).

      Its up to you to decide what category you’re in.