Did you know that you can mix in a little truth when you’re spreading falsehoods in order to lend yourself some credibility? It’s a neat trick because some people, evidently, expect liars to only tell lies.
Alright, let me ask you both: isn’t expecting a message like “everything worm-man says is wrong” or “everything worm-man opposes is good, actually” a little too simplistic? Don’t we want a little nuance, even in our absurdist, 2-panel comic strips? I feel like I shouldn’t have to spell out that the worm-man is capable of mixing fact and fiction to muddy the waters, but here we are.
I hear you from the realism perspective, but this is (hopefully) satire. Either you go all in with satire, or you don’t - you can’t half-foot a message when your audience is relatively unknown
He actually says these things in real life, so it’s fair game for satire to use the type of things he says.
If satire pretended that he didn’t say any of the things that sound reasonable at first, it wouldn’t be satire. It would just be mudslinging.
“He had us in the first half” is like a goddamn mission statement with these people - pointing out real issues with the economy and then proposing the most batshit reasoning and “solutions.”
Did you know that you can mix in a little truth when you’re spreading falsehoods in order to lend yourself some credibility? It’s a neat trick because some people, evidently, expect liars to only tell lies.
I agree that this is being done. How does this make my crisicism go away?
Because you’re completely missing how fascists use elements of truth to drive you straight into right wing authoritarianism.
It doesnt, you were spot on. The messaging of this comic is ambiguous on whether it thinks big pharma is a conspiracy or not.
Alright, let me ask you both: isn’t expecting a message like “everything worm-man says is wrong” or “everything worm-man opposes is good, actually” a little too simplistic? Don’t we want a little nuance, even in our absurdist, 2-panel comic strips? I feel like I shouldn’t have to spell out that the worm-man is capable of mixing fact and fiction to muddy the waters, but here we are.
I hear you from the realism perspective, but this is (hopefully) satire. Either you go all in with satire, or you don’t - you can’t half-foot a message when your audience is relatively unknown
Nuance is dead.
He actually says these things in real life, so it’s fair game for satire to use the type of things he says.
If satire pretended that he didn’t say any of the things that sound reasonable at first, it wouldn’t be satire. It would just be mudslinging.
“He had us in the first half” is like a goddamn mission statement with these people - pointing out real issues with the economy and then proposing the most batshit reasoning and “solutions.”
thank you very much. :)