this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
455 points (88.9% liked)
Comic Strips
23588 readers
1544 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
-
π Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
-
ποΈ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
-
𧬠Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
-
π½οΈ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
-
π Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
β Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
β Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
-
π¬ Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 π) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 π) will be removed.
-
π΄ββ οΈ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
SΓ, por favor [Spanish/EspaΓ±ol]
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
-
πΏ Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
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
What a random mischaracterization, feels like I've been mistaken for somebody. Theres really nothing to even respond to, here.
Criticism of a person's behavior when that's the subject at hand is not an ad homeniem, it's the argument. You've got a long demonstrated history of misapplying logival fallacies and taking these sorts of commentaries where a man is portrayed negatively incredibly personally and then poorly defending your claims.
Like elsewhere in this thread, where you've refused to back up your claims that the author is a "well documented" misandrist. If it's well documented, it should not be a burden for you to provide evidence, and yet you refuse repeatedly.
Criticism of the criticism of a person's behavior, via attacking the person and not the argument, is Ad Hominem, and also Whataboutism.
I'm directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn't invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it.
Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don't like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren't deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn't trust this influencer's opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they're a terrible parent!), they're calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn't trust this influencer's opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn't ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.
Sources?! You need fucking Data? You need a scientific study to discern the precise level of sexism of Pizzacake? Did you ask for sources when Kanye West was in the news for chanting "Heil Hitler"? If not does that mean you need a news article about it from the New York Times or some shit? Did you ask for sources on altright comic artist StoneToss?
I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years.
Nope, you've repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.
The only thing that approaches having "demonstrated" her "well-documented" misandry is the single incredibly begrudging example you provided - one that multiple other people have also referenced, and which is at very worst a bad take.
You've refused to show anyone this well documented pattern of misandry, but you're quick to claim you have. And that kind of openly deceptive behavior is exactly why it's so important to ask for sources.
My top level comment alone has 18 upvotes. And I have linked for you sealioning assholes.
First:
What an absolutely spectacular example of Argumentum ad populum! Unfortunately no, just because you got upvotes does not establish your claim that it's well documented. "Many people believing" something does not make that something true (#EdgyAthiestHumor). But well done on finally finding a real logical fallacy!
Second:
"You claim this is well-documented but refuse to show us that documentation"
*"Well you're sealioning!"
No. Sealioning is a bit like DARVO: while they are useful concepts in sociology, you cannot simply throw the terms out like Pokemon and expect them to do all the work for you.
Yes, I know you begrudgingly provided a single link, I talked about that. Your single link didn't at all establish your claims, as multiple people have explained. Asking for actual proof of your claims is not bombarding you with requests, it's a single request that you have utterly failed to address.
You gotta realize this is just not a great look for you.
The argument was "sizeable number of people think this way."
No, buddy, the argument was "Well documented misandrist". That you're trying to present it like it's always been "Lots of people think that she is [xxxxx]" is a textbook example of shifting the goalposts, another informal logical fallacy. You're on a role finding these!
I said
You said
Skill issue on your part.
Oh my god lmfao. You're actually claiming that 18 people is "a very large number of people"? In that case I apologize, I had no idea you were trying to prove something so... lame.
I mean sure, you have demonstrated that 18 accounts agree with you. No argument there. That's not generally what a "very large number of people" is used to mean, but sure fair play.
Of course if we're going by that, I've already demonstrated a mindbogglingly stupendously large number of people think you're an incel - x2 the number that think pizzacake is a misandrist. By the rules of one-number-bigger-than-other-number I think I win...
Polls work by gathering opinions from a relatively small subset to draw conclusions on larger numbers of people.
Yeah you know what that's a really good point. And by this extrapolation, the overwhelming opinion of all of humanity is that you're... ah. Hmm.
Maybe this wasn't the best route for you to take.
Look. Although I can happily keep this up all day (I confess that this kind of internet bickering is my platonic ideal of relaxation), on basically every issue except women's representation in society we agree. While I'm more than happy to continue this, maybe we should just... stop this latest go-around? It's disheartening that with all the bullshit in the world you're so entrenched in this deeply toxic perspective, but you're not looking to see an alternative perspective and I'm clearly not trying to change your mind. This isn't productive, it's just yelling.