Actually it's 毒蛇 🤓 (毒 can refer to both "poison" + "venom")
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
715 points (99.9% liked)
Comic Strips
20323 readers
3390 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
Somehow over the years I’ve moved from seeing snakes as vicious, stealthy predators to being pretty dumb, and the constant victims of the animal kingdom. They don’t come out on top of very many fights.
Its due to heavy adaptation specifically around snakes, when the first true snakes evolved they were basically meta (causing at least 1 extinction of an entire group and probably more we don't know about) so whole ecosystems had to shift to basically not be fucked up by snakes.
Snake: Man, Windows SUCKS.
Lemming: You should switch to-- I'm dead, aren't I.
Snake: Man, Windows SUCKS.
Lemming: You should switch to-- I use Arch, don't I.
Guess neither were poisonous. Ba dum tiss
The snake wasn't lying when he said he wasn't poisonous, so the rat had no reason to correct him. The snake also didn't mean "venomous", since we learned that he was saying "poisonous" on purpose. So, the snake's assertion that he wasn't poisonous was true, while the rat's statement that the snake meant "venomous" was a lie.
So, if it works every time, then every time, he's eating critters who are incorrectly trying to correct someone and say that something true that they said was actually false.
If the rat was only stupid for correcting somebody just to feel the superiority of correcting them, then I think, "Eh, a snake's got to eat." But combining that with the rat's hypocrisy of correcting something true into something false, then I think, "This snake is a fucking hero."
First off, the rat's statement wasn't a lie, only a falsehood. For a lie the rat would have to intentionally attempted deception rather than just being wrong.
Second, the snake's statement about not being poisonous was directly connected to "don't be afraid" with an implied "because". While technically true, he was definitely attempting a deception. Maybe not by means of a lie, but not in any way less harmful. That would normally be grounds for chopping his hand off, so he's also abusing the fact that he doesn't have arms.
That said, the rat was fucking stupid because I the scenario would probably end the same way whether the snake was venomous or not.
username checks out.
How else could he intentionally describe himself incorrectly as poisonous and mean venomous though? The sentence structures are the same. He was meant to say "I'm not venomous!" if the intent was to lie. But the intent was of course to trigger the symantics Nazi.
We've both been eaten by the snake, by the way.
How else could he intentionally describe himself incorrectly as poisonous and mean venomous though?
Since the snake did not describe himself as poisonous, I don't understand the relevance. The grammar is just twisty enough that I could imagine that I'm misunderstanding it, or I could imagine that there's a typo.
Neither of us would be eaten by the snake, but only because the snake just ate that rat, and it's not hungry.
Very true good sir. We must thank that rat for our lives.
That snake can't be too healthy if its primary diet is Redditors.
You'll get your fill but it's a hard swallow
That's not a swallow, that's a lemming.
The rat-thing was, in fact, poisonous.
Poisonous is a general term that also covers venomous.
Being pedantic about it is on the same level as being pedantic about tomatoes tEchNIcAlLY being a fruit and bananas AcKShuALlY being berries.
Just because it's kinda interesting:
Tomatoes are technically a fruit, but they're legally, a vegetable. At least in the US.
It is a fair distinction when snakes can be both...
Rhabdophis subminiatus - Wikipedia https://share.google/vpoNe7hTEqTW3kjzK
And edible plants can be (botanical) fruits or vegetables.
You also just got eaten.
Also, the snake did not, in fact, mean "venomous".
This is a comic about liberals in the US
Well you see we signed a defense pact with Israel so we can't not support genocide and - oh wait we've lost another election...
I had an idea for a four panel comic, but not the artistic talent to make it.
Panel 1: two fox furries are walking and one points out fox gloves (the flower) noting that they’re venomous
Panel 2: the other says, don’t you mean poisonous? while touching the flowers
Panel 3: a single fox glove sinks its fangs into the one that touched it. Both are shocked
Panel 4: both are screaming as more fox gloves bite the offending arm
There’s a lot of casualties among the nerd rats.
Are there any actually poisonous snakes I wonder?
Not a biologist, not something I study, just a passing thought:
I would guess a large number of venomous animals are also poisonous, because you'd be ingesting their venom. Probably not always the case; you're not always eating the venom containing parts, and it my not be poisonous unless injected into the bloodstream/tissue. But that's what my intuition tells me. 🤷
Yes!