this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
487 points (97.5% liked)
Comic Strips
21210 readers
3425 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
That was not at all the point the comic was making, so whoosh? 💨
Your general point is very accurate, but applying that to this comic would allow the correct interpretation that the author was satirising people who think everything was better in the past. (Without this understanding, we'd be forced to think that the author meant that things were better in the past in spite of disease, hard labour, deprivation, and... bear attacks)
The person you replied to is saying that the last panel is a partial exception to the pictured couple being dumbasses
The point the comic is trying to make is that things were not better in the past, right?
That's a pretty broad take that is obviously full of holes.
Pretty sure no whoosh happened here and the person you're replying to was just pointing at one of those holes.
Sort of: I thought it was mocking the superficiality of a golden age fallacy that romanticizes the past & advocates restoring it while devaluing & squandering all the hardships we solved with our unprecedented standard of living.
While the unsustainability of expending more resources than the planet can regenerate is a problem, that's not necessarily the meaning of "losing our connection with nature". We could start living sustainably while remaining as disconnected.
Then they stated themselves poorly with
The panel satirizes the time traveler's comment, so the panel's point is to undermine that comment. Either we have to assume they expressed themselves ineptly & meant something else, or they know how to express themselves & misinterpreted the panel. Not sound either way.
Excluding that statement entirely would have made more sense, but we aren't mind readers.
Thanks for a well thought, well written answer!
I guess I missed the point of the comic a bit...
I think you're right, they either expressed themselves wrong or misinterpreted the panel.
So, for this I guess there was whoosh! My bad.
I should've thought some more before replying to you.
I saw someone defending ecology under a post that could be seen as ridiculing it so my brain went all white knight towards what seemed to me like a pedant dick... But turns out I was the dick.