this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
1051 points (98.6% liked)
Comic Strips
18542 readers
1314 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lol it was a .ml crosspost after all, I have broken the crosspost link to put in the proper comic link
"Lol"
My dude: he made the swap when it was pointed out. Did you want a long form apology in 10 pt font?
Ah this explains why i was confused thinking "these are the same picture"
Some light grovelling wouldn't go astray.
Not really, just that they could have omitted the "lol" to sound a bit less douchey.
As opposed to, say, highlighting a single word as a reply implying some form of wrongdoing? Or is that less douchey because it's like a double negative?
Well, it kind of is. It basically equates to saying "whatever" or "who cares" when I'm pretty sure the author of the comic would care. They could've just said "my bad, just fixed it" and that's it. But no, they made the conscious effort to communicate that, even though they fixed it, they don't really care about it. Which is, in my opinion, kind of a condescending/patronizing/childish/petty/douchey/whateveryouwanttocallit thing to do.
But hey, fuck me, right?
If it was a single word, in a vacuum - sure. But the literal following statement was "it was a cross post but I did the right thing and broke it to fix the problem" sorta applied some context to the prior word.
I read it as "ah shit, yeah, haha lemme get that" and it appears others did as well.
Context matters. So yeah - you can go on thinking you were slighted here over your "observation" with no context... or maybe take this as a "maybe process the whole statement before reacting" critique ... which is what it was intended to be.
I really don't see how "lol" would mean that in this context but ok. Even with the context to me I was more like "idc" or "this isn't important". I mean, if they wanted to say "whoops", they could've said "whoops".
Could I be the one that misinterpreted what they intended to say? Of course, I'm not a native speaker and (being the human that I am) I can make mistakes. However, the general response seems to be more aggressive than communicative, which is one of the reasons why I started to really dislike Reddit and the interactions on that platform.
Semantics. Regardless of how you (or anyone else) read the first word: the following statement provided the appropriate result and explanation. The case was opened and closed. A positive outcome was achieved (accreditation of the author.)
Returning to my original assertion: what was the purpose of your statement? Your statement lacked context. If people misunderstood you (I don't think they did) ... one word doesn't exactly leave things terribly clear does it? This isn't a they (op) thing.
Regarding your statement about language: When I am in an area where I don't speak the local language - I rely more heavily on context to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I believe that to be fairly standard. This wasn't, by my assessment, a situation where someone could be misinterpreted unless the remainder of their statement was disregarded. Could I be off base? Sure - but I genuinely doubt I am.
To point out (what I thought was) a needlessly condescending response.
It did not. I think it was quite clear how I interpreted the comment I replied to. I mean, you got it. Even if you disagreed.
Again, I was not lacking context. Having "context" doesn't mean that a sentence does not negate the fact that a sentence can still be ambiguous. I think this is perfectly exemplified in this thread.
My point stands. People are way too eager to be aggressive/mock other people when they get the chance instead of considering that the other person might A) just have a different opinion or B) they misunderstood something. When I first started using Lemmy this did not happen so it's a shame that it seems to be attracting the same crowd that made virtual interaction so unappealing in Reddit.
That's interesting that you're accusing everyone of acting that way because I thought that's how you were acting. Maybe you should take a step back and see that you're calling the kettle black.
Almost verbatim what I was planning on saying. Just 0 awareness apparently. This one may be a lost cause, though.
That may be true from your perspective but it was not my intention. If you make a small effort, you might see that you too can misunderstand someone else's words.
So let me get this straight:
It's perfectly acceptable for you to make an assessment of a word and it's meaning from a post not your own - but utterly incomprehensible that we might make a similar assessment of literally the same word from your post... in exactly the same way.
In what way are people misinterpreting you and being mean while, somehow, your actions which effectively are identical (inference not withstanding) - are justified and erm... kind?
It's rare I will bust out a "my dude" this frequently... but: my dude do you own a mirror?
Let's just nip the speculation in the bud here first: in a shock to maybe one person - he was not being "douchey."
I won't rehash what has already been said by others, nor what I have already responded to but I'd like to respond directly to this:
It's you. You're that crowd. You came into a thread with a non-constructive, do nothing, pedantic, petty, low effort, call-it-what-you-will shit comment... got called out on it: and are trying to blame literally everyone but yourself for your poor choice rather than gracefully taking your lumps and moving on. Ironically, OP made the far more high minded choice and did something that improved the post in general. Without complaint.
This isn't reddit. You are correct. You are getting down voted because we don't want reddit here either. Be the improvement you want to see or don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Lol that's a step edge you're on there.
I'm leaving it now, thanks.
Possible interpretation assuming positive intent: "Lol" in this case could mean "Oh shit, I didn't realize that, damn the internet sucks at attribution. It's funny that even I can get caught in it sometimes."
"Lol" doesn't have to be douchey if you don't want it to be.
(I acknowledge that I don't know @cm0002@lemmy.world and they could be a douche, but I choose to assume they're not until proven otherwise)
It was def a positive intent, a "fuck how did I miss that"
I dunno how or why they took it so...wrong I've never had that happen before lmao
Guy was going for a cheap shot and hoping to get a pat on the back for it I guess? The mental gymnastics he's going through explaining himself is borderline legendary.
Lmao