I don't get it
Comic Strips
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!)
It's mocking people that engage in bad-faith ideological debates.
Avocado is an essential ingredient in making guacamole, but, by "banning" its mention in the discussion and consequently stymying the opponent, the first figure is assuming and posturing as if they won a legitimate debate.
Which is so obviously false as to be humorous.
I've had this exact scenario on reddit, many years ago. I can't remember the specifics but it was literally like this comic. "Without using the core part of this topic, you can't explain how this topic works"
IIRC it was climate change (back when that was the hot button political issue) and something like "oh yeah, well without using man made CO2 emissions, explain the rise in CO2 and temperature, you can't", where their point was that it was "volcanoes"
Never heard of anyone doing that ngl. Except possibly secularists with arguments about certain morality, eg, "without using the Bible, explain how homosexuality is immoral" although I think I've only come across that one twice
I feel like that's different, as the point is to make the moralist admit that they want Christian Religious Law.
I'm not talking about a debate over "should homosexuality/same-sex-marriage be illegal/banned", just morality in general. It's kind of hard to believe in and justify objective morality without some form of religion. From what I can tell, it's the Humanists who understand this
Without using plate tectonics, explain how fish fossils ended up on mountains. That’s right, it must be the Noah flood.
Never heard that one, that's quite mental. One thing I heard from a young earth creationist was that "global warming isn't accurate because it's using an assumption that the earth is 6-10,000 years old".... Although in that case, wouldn't it be much more urgent?
Like people that try to nullify an argument against cars by saying "well you have a car so you are a hypocrite"... we may all be forced to own a car but that does not preclude anyone from understanding what's negative about cars or cities designed for driving
Dip?
A creamy, fat rich, savory fruit paste traditionally served with Hispanic food. It serves to accent the seasoning of spicy dishes by balancing the heat to allow more of the complex flavors through. It's also popularly consumed on its own as a dip. While some of these things can be accomplished by sour cream or humus, both have their own distinctive qualities that prevent them from being a 1:1 comparison.
"That savory fruit in your description? Nothing more than a direct stand in for the very avocado I told you couldn't be used to form your description. You don't get to genie your way out of your obvious inability to describe your precious ideology without making an appeal to an avocado by any other name."
-Very smart Internet person
Truely I was a fool to challenge a redditor when pedantism is on the line.
I don't want to explain guac without avocados
Ok, now do it without mentioning food, food preparation, or eating.
The correct rebuttal to this is to drown them in guac.

And it's green
Thank you, Scotty.
Do you want to take this inside, guac boy?
Ideally yes, it's cold in these parts and I'm not fond of pants.
I'd go anywhere with someone who identifies as guac boy.
Please stop I'm gonna salivate to death
It's not a culinary fruit, it's a culinary vegetable. There's a botanical classification system, and a different culinary classification system. When describing food it is incorrect to use the botanical classifier.
Other than that, good description
Anyone downvoting this wanna say why? Because I'm correct.
It's a vegetable spread.
Fruit, I think.
What's it taste like 😏
Similar to imitation guacamole. Not identical, but similar.
Vegetable
Primarily tastes of the ingredients you used to make it.