Thing that need to be stop in webcomic

> 'making fun' of angry strawmen and calm and rational artist stand in
>females being smarter and stronger that their male peers

>My life sucks, here's a thousand comics explaining why my life sucks.

>things that need to stop in Sup Forums
>OP's childish butthurt

>let's stop the comic's pacing and interesting serious story reveals so we can spend the next year's worth of updates making shitty jokes

>we are self aware of how bad it is, isn't that funny?
No it fucking isn't

>we're self aware that being self aware isn't funny... isn't THAT funny?

>>females being smarter and stronger that their male peers

I don't see how this is a problem.

fuck that hits home hard

>Story adds lesbian love interest out of nowhere for the female lead
>Story immediately dies so the whole comic can be about the protagonist and her girlfriend being lesbians

>It stops and doesn't fini

Also
>Earns a fair amount of money from Patreon/donations

>has enough money to make more than an above minimum wage monthly
>doesn't produce more than a few pages a year but still complains hiw hard making comics is

Holy shit, Sup Forumsmblr really isn't just a meme

>> 'making fun' of angry strawmen and calm and rational artist stand in
It's not a strawman if someone really said what he said.

Fuck, I fucking disagree with you, there, 100%, if someone say something stupid, it should never be forbidden to make fun of them.

I mean, why do you care? It's just fictional work anyway.

No, him, but nothing related to Sup Forumsmblr
user there is a moron if he think there is never women being smarted than men.

Some people happens to be smarter than other and somethime there can be smart women and tupid men.

I mean, Have you been on the internet? Have you never met stupid men? Do you really think it would be impossible to have women tat would be smarter than the stupid men you met on the internet?

Is this a meme?

Nah, I am fine with that if the archival reading still flow right. Or if the jokes are really funny.

I think the issue is that a lot of webcomic with long convoluted plots started as Slice of Life comic then got an higher arc organically emerging out of it, and when the artist want to go back to SoL like he consider his comic still is, people groan that the over-arching plot is put on pause.

No one cared about your SoL comic, dude, it the lore we want to get.

have you read a lot of webcomics.
women are rarely should to be weak. even outta Tumblr stuff

What do you mean?

I don't think I have make reference to any memetic content.

>women are rarely should to be weak. even outta Tumblr stuff
This is not what OP complained about > thing that need to be stop in webcomic
>>females being smarter and stronger that their male peers
He don't want women to be smarter and/or stronger than men.

I mean when webcomic artist makes fun of that type of strip, like the pic related. not when used legitimately.
pic related

yeah he could have really worded that better op

>like the pic related. not when used legitimately.
I have been on Sup Forums for almost 10 years, and I can tell you that most of the time, people have been complaining about this whther or not the argument presented is legitime.

It goes "it made fun of my opinion in a strawman (it's actually not a strawman) therefore, it is wrong, there for this drawing is invalid" regarldess of whtehr or notthe artist was having a point.

No Once again, I fucking disagree, saying artist shouldn't do that is basically saying they are forbidden to use drawing to argue.

There is no reason to complain about that. it's only wrong if the argument used by the drawer is flawed and even then, the problem lie with the argument being wrong, not in the funny drawing.

I am a little over my head with that, but it's really feeding me up that people refuse to listen to an argument for the sole reason it's in drawing form.

Because ,when you bring fetishes in your non-fetish comics WITHOUT drawing any actual porn, it doesn't even counts as teasing;it's something/tg/ calls "magical realm"ing

>WITHOUT drawing any actual porn, it doesn't even counts as teasing;it's something/tg/ calls "magical realm"ing
Uh? an RPG where everyone participate and contribute to the story require some common courtesy rules to not impose your fetishe on other. You are all conctibuting to the story.

But in webcomic, it is the artist's story, he can do whatever he fucking want.

You can't really compare the two.

Also, see It's not forcibly a fetish.

They're.
The only problem is that men smarter than women.
It's just some men are stupid enough to be dumber than some women.

"magical realm" as in "there was no purpose for this fetish to be here but my dick itches so fucking hard ,so I'm going to tell just how much I'm into ____ fetish"

so even when there is no argument in said drawing?

Do you having of the English?

>It's just some men are stupid enough to be dumber than some women.
So that means there are women who are smarter than those men. Do you even into logic

(also, please, try to make sentence that actually make sense. I know I am guilty myself of many spelling mistakes but I at least try to write coherently not trying to shift the argument toward grammar discussion, but I am hurting my brain figuring out what you actually mean)

No, Magical realming is specific to RPG and it's trying to drive the story toward something (usually fetish) the rest of the group don't want. It doesn't apply when the creation of the story is one-sided.

Then the problem is that there is no argument. that's the issue to complain about. not the "I am with stupid" thing.

>Perfectly good fetish comic tries adding some shitty drama that goes on for far too long

okay, now this, this is problematic.

ok oh about when these are taking out of context,

THIS

Chalo, you know what exactly people really read your comic for

Nani

Once again, it's about the argument itself. The "I am with stupid" setting should only be taken as the artist's opinion, which it is. If you think it's presented out of context, then you complain about that, not the "I am with stupid" part.

>porn/fetish comic that suddenly tries to be something more deeper than just that

The part in every slice-of-life webcomic where the artist gets bored and decides to throw in something crazy like time travel, aliens, or time-travelling aliens

is it ok to use that strawman drawing thing with it a real thing they say and believe in.
so If I want to subvert I wouldn't go for making the person with the 'right idea' as a pretentious and the other normal. instead, I make them both just say stupid shit.

Have you been triggered, snowflake?

>is it ok to use that strawman drawing
It's not a strawman if what was said was really said.
>. instead, I make them both just say stupid shit.
I mean, you can present it in whatever ways you want as long as you consider you carried your point, but ignoring the argument a comic bring just because it use the "I am with stupid" setting is the equivalent of plugging your ears and going "lalala not listening".

>It's not a strawman if what was said was really said
ok then it still needs a name
>but ignoring the argument a comic bring just because it use the "I am with stupid" setting is the equivalent of plugging your ears and going "lalala not listening".
I'll be honest with ya I need to work on this
I ain't no good with word user

Generally the straw man shit is knocking down shit people haven't said or argued or misrepresenting what they believe or said. Most webcomics actually do this to a painful degree. The reason people complain about it so much is it happens so much.

t. Not who you were arguing with

>Generally the straw man shit is knocking down shit people haven't said or argued or misrepresenting what they believe or said. Most webcomics actually do this to a painful degree. The reason people complain about it so much is it happens so much.
Well, no. that's the problem. You have the strawam argument defintion right, but in the 10 years, I have been there, almost no one who complain about it actually use it correctly. Most of the comic I have seen here being complained about as being strawman fallacy simply rely on the "I am with stupid" setting, despite the fact that 95% of the time the comic bring counter-point to argument that were actually expressed, thus making them not a strawman fallacy.

What has been done to a painful degree is people complaining about the strawman fallacy when there was none.

Almost all the time I see it they misrepresent the idea and belief as well. People are usually accurate and generally the fallacy is justly cited.

They misrepresent what's being argued almost all the time. People like fun of strawmen in webcomics and it's justified.

And that's the thing as well, forgot to mention.

You could plausibly say that someone, somewhere might have said that. Or argued that.

But they don't use it to address the argument or arguments most commonly addressed at them. It's the one they can counter. Not the ones necessarily being brought to fore or most common.

I hate to bring politics into this but I see certain types fall to this more than others, especially feminists and the like.

>Almost all the time I see it they misrepresent the idea and belief as well.
>They misrepresent what's being argued almost all the time.
99% of the time, what is being said is almost word for word expressed. So, no.

I don't know, I think the issue is that people associate their opinion with the opinion of someone else, the one being made fun of and somehow, think they are the target, when they are not in the first place.

We must simply not be seeing the same webcomics then.

I'll be blunt though, I'm not a fan of them in the first place. So maybe I'm biased.

>You could plausibly say that someone, somewhere might have said that. Or argued that.
Yes. Usually, directly to the author, in the comment section.
>But they don't use it to address the argument or arguments most commonly addressed at them. It's the one they can counter.
That's beside the point, though. If someone say something stupid, he should bear the consequence of it. The mistake is to think he represent you.

I mean, honestly, this should actually be encouraged. Once the stupid argument are out, only remain the vlaid ones.

By calling out "strawan" or "I am with stupid" as if it invalidated the point of the author, you give ground to those bad argument, act as if the author's answer didn't count and this keep going with argument that are actually invalid. Making it all the stupid arguments still part of the conversation because "it's a strawman or whatever so the rebuttal doesn't count" making it impossible to move forward.

If an argument is stupid, it's rebuttal should always been accepted, no matter what.
>We must simply not be seeing the same webcomics then.
I think you simply odn't read the comment sections.

Correct.

I don't read the comments; typically because I don't read the comics in the first place. Like I said. Usually I only get exposed to them here or there and what I've seen makes me want to not patronize them.

Blunt but I am biased as fuck.

isnt opm one that doesn't do that?

>webcomic has reruns despite the original comics being in the archive
>these reruns are archived in turn

>have an idea for a webcomic that would be mostly normal fantasy but include one extreme niche fetish scene
>want to use that scene as a basis for an in-series discussion about fetishes/fetishists and romantic relationships
>so attached to the idea of that scene/discussion but know the fetishists wouldn't want to bother with all the plot and the average reader would be horrified and grossed out