My point is that your point of why you don’t like the comic is dumb. Unless myself, and everyone else, is completely misunderstanding your grievance against it.
People should care about homelessness, and their argument is often “it’s 80% men” (your point) but that’s a short-sighted perspective on top of lacking compassion. And that’s the whole point of the comic. It shouldn’t have to come down to explaining to people that there’s more to homelessness than the statistics.
My point is that I find it disgusting how society doesn’t seem to give a shit about homeless men but they do care about homeless women and children. Homeless women and children seem to be the main focus for most people seeing as there are so many more resources only available to homeless women and children than there are to homeless men despite the fact that the VAST majority are adult men. Society has a sickening lack of sympathy for homeless men, to the point where you can’t get some people to care about the homelessness crisis in the slightest until you inform them that some homeless people are women and children. This comic is a demonstration of that phenomenon. The comic essentially says “actually, you should care about homelessness because they aren’t all just men”
I think you’re misinterpreting the comic, because I see it as outlining that issue, which is a good thing to point out. It’s not saying this is a good perspective to have.
I think I’m correctly interpreting the effective meaning of the comic. The effective meaning takes precedent over the intended meaning. Now that you know my view, do you think everyone’s response to my take is justified? It’s pretty demoralizing how readily everyone assumes the least charitable interpretation of my words when there is any level of ambiguity. Nobody ever asks me to clarify. It’s just a fucking dogpile right out the gate because this whole charade of “discourse” is a dopamine-seeking frenzy dressed up as intellectualism.
Well, based on that logic then the response is right in line, considering that the effective meaning of your comment happened to be the least charitable interpretation.
Either that or you’re wrong in your concept of “the effective meaning takes precedent over the intended meaning.” You can’t have it both ways.
My point is that your point of why you don’t like the comic is dumb. Unless myself, and everyone else, is completely misunderstanding your grievance against it.
People should care about homelessness, and their argument is often “it’s 80% men” (your point) but that’s a short-sighted perspective on top of lacking compassion. And that’s the whole point of the comic. It shouldn’t have to come down to explaining to people that there’s more to homelessness than the statistics.
My point is that I find it disgusting how society doesn’t seem to give a shit about homeless men but they do care about homeless women and children. Homeless women and children seem to be the main focus for most people seeing as there are so many more resources only available to homeless women and children than there are to homeless men despite the fact that the VAST majority are adult men. Society has a sickening lack of sympathy for homeless men, to the point where you can’t get some people to care about the homelessness crisis in the slightest until you inform them that some homeless people are women and children. This comic is a demonstration of that phenomenon. The comic essentially says “actually, you should care about homelessness because they aren’t all just men”
I think you’re misinterpreting the comic, because I see it as outlining that issue, which is a good thing to point out. It’s not saying this is a good perspective to have.
I think I’m correctly interpreting the effective meaning of the comic. The effective meaning takes precedent over the intended meaning. Now that you know my view, do you think everyone’s response to my take is justified? It’s pretty demoralizing how readily everyone assumes the least charitable interpretation of my words when there is any level of ambiguity. Nobody ever asks me to clarify. It’s just a fucking dogpile right out the gate because this whole charade of “discourse” is a dopamine-seeking frenzy dressed up as intellectualism.
Well, based on that logic then the response is right in line, considering that the effective meaning of your comment happened to be the least charitable interpretation.
Either that or you’re wrong in your concept of “the effective meaning takes precedent over the intended meaning.” You can’t have it both ways.