this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
247 points (94.3% liked)

Comic Strips

20794 readers
2081 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

[two characters are arguing in a break room, coffee machine and all]

[teal, holding a coffee cup] Without mentioning avocado, explain to me what guacamole is

[purple, taken aback] Huh?!

[zoom on teal's very smug face, the coffee steaming in front of them] I knew it You can't Your guac ideology doesn't work Heh Pft Owned

[purple looks blasé and has no words]

https://thebad.website/comic/average_ideological_debate

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 9 points 4 hours ago (3 children)
[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 26 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Karjalan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

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"

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I feel like that's different, as the point is to make the moralist admit that they want Christian Religious Law.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 26 minutes ago

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

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 31 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Without using plate tectonics, explain how fish fossils ended up on mountains. That’s right, it must be the Noah flood.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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?

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] DioramaOfShit@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago
[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 100 points 8 hours ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Foxfire@pawb.social 30 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

"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

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

Truely I was a fool to challenge a redditor when pedantism is on the line.

[–] TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago

I don't want to explain guac without avocados

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, now do it without mentioning food, food preparation, or eating.

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The correct rebuttal to this is to drown them in guac.

[–] funksoulkitchen@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 1 points 2 hours ago

Thank you, Scotty.

[–] Klear@quokk.au 35 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Do you want to take this inside, guac boy?

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Ideally yes, it's cold in these parts and I'm not fond of pants.

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

I'd go anywhere with someone who identifies as guac boy.

[–] ultrahamster64@lemmy.world 17 points 7 hours ago

Please stop I'm gonna salivate to death

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 4 points 3 hours ago

Anyone downvoting this wanna say why? Because I'm correct.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 10 points 6 hours ago (2 children)
[–] brianary@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 hours ago

Fruit, I think.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Similar to imitation guacamole. Not identical, but similar.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 13 points 5 hours ago
[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Primarily tastes of the ingredients you used to make it.