It's a political statement. Guys are talking this way. Sure it's a caricature, but that doesn't make the statement less meaningful. Toxic masculinity is just that...it's toxic AF, and while I may not think she has the funniest comic ever, it's a good way to showcase the absurdity of our current times.
I love seeing these comics. You can always count on like 20 white males showing up asking how this is funny, that it's a strawman, that pizzacake is terrible, blah blah blah.
The simple thing is, they are comics that give a flavor of the times. Males ARE acting this way. Is it a caricature of a scenario, sure, but that's what a fucking comic is. Does it have to be "funny" in order to be a comic? No, there are political comics everywhere. Why does pizzacake only get this sort of ire? Is it because she's calling out white males on the absurdity of their actions, and they don't like it?
My advice? Chill TF out bros. It's a comic. If you don't like it, maybe you should talk to your buddies when they start acting like Andrew Taint's mouthpiece. Toxic masculinity is a real issue. Sorry that it takes a fucking pizzacake comic to discuss it...
I biased against meth, but also afraid of it as well. Doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to try it and assess whether it's really as bad as they say. I also won't try out any poison, random pills I find, or anything I have to inject.
Yes, they're all crisis actors. The Gaza War isn't real. The news is just making things up to try and make conservatives give up their guns. /s
Wtf kind of question is that, "Is that the same boy who was dead last week?". Wtf is wrong with you? Or do you just lose what little semblance of humanity you have when you sit behind a keyboard?
That's not what I said. I said that from a strategy standpoint, the support was visibly not there, hence why Democrats have run a primarily centrist/left-leaning platform for decades. It looks much more progressive now thanks to the efforts of people like Bernie and AOC, but it just wasn't there for the last 50 or so years...and I say that as a progressive. I would love to see a progressive candidate, but the reality and the data essentially stated that platforming a progressive and running a progressive campaign is statistically a losing strategy. You can get your underwear in twist and get as snippy as you want, but your 2-bit hottake doesn't amount shit compared to the literal decades of experience that these campaign managers have.
There's historical precedent that supports my argument, from voter sentiment and what brings in large campaign donors, to how to try and game the electoral college. So downvote me all you want, ad hominem attack me all you want. Just because you dont like my argument doesn't mean it's wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Lastly, Obama was absolutely a centrist. He was barely left of dead center. The most progressive thing about him was that he was black. He expanded our military see drone strikes. He passed ACA which further supported private healthcare, he did nothing for marijuana rescheduling. Hell, there were more deportations under Obama than Trump. There was nothing progressive about that man.
The last 4 Democratic Presidents have ALL been just barely left of center - Biden, Obama, Clinton, and Carter. The last true progressive we tried to run back was in '72 against Nixon and we lost so incredibly badly that people backed FAR away from trying to run a progressive candidate...go look at the results, they're pretty insane.
He was barely center-left. None of his actual policies were progressive. He had a more progressive tone in his campaign, but none of his actual campaign promises could be construed as "progressive". The ACA built on private insurance, not Medicare for all; his military policy built a strong global military posture; hell...he even spoke plenty about "working across the aisle".
The only progressive thing about Obama was the fact that he was a black candidate. He was able to speak like a progressive, but still nab a massive amount of independent, and his policies reflected that.
Edit to your edit: the last overtly "Progressive" candidate was George McGovern in '72, but he lost to Nixon in a landslide. You act as if merely having a "progressive" candidate is the secret sauce to winning the election. I'm desperately trying to tell you that it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
Yeah mate....back in 1932. I'm sure nothing's really changed since then. And if you think we've had a "progressive" candidate since then... I'd LOVE to hear this hot take.
If we run a full progressive candidate we will also for sure lose. But at least we'll all feel warm and fuzzy inside that we picked a wonderful candidate. It's a knife edge, if we want to only pander to our base, we will for sure lose support of many centrists.
27% of the US voting base is Democrat. 43% is centrist.
Do you lean hard to progressive politics and abandon independents or do you try and capture centrists and hope that your voting base understands that the opponent is a literal fascist?
Lol okay. You make it sound like running a campaign is so easy. Maybe you should run the next one.
If you go with a full progressive or overtly leftist campaign you will also lose. You will gain votes from the "purity politics" left from people like you but you will lose the support of so much of the centrist/independent block.
43% of the US population identifies as independent. 27% identifies as Democrat. We don't have a large enough voting base to win by ourselves without independent/centrist votes. If you abandon them as well, we also lose. Conservatives can always count on their base to vote for whoever.... apparently we've learned that we can't do that with progressives. It's apparently our way or we sink the whole fucking boat with everyone in it. We apparently only vote for the PERFECT candidate, or we just won't vote at all...or vote 3rd party.
They did try to win. They just didn't try to win the way YOU wanted them to. Strategically speaking, going for centrists was the right move, even if you were a progressive candidate. They assumed that they already had the left in the bag, and we're trying to target independent and centrist votes. Nobody would have thought that the left would just....let Trump win because of some bullshit purity politics. But hey, now that the left has let a fascist into power, we won't have to worry about voting anymore. Super smart power move progressives. A+. You played yourselves.
I have been directing my "rage" at the article by saying it's ragebait. I'm annoyed with you because your missing the fact that it's manufactured rage bait and your feeding into it by spreading it.
I live in a big city. And guess what? We aren't cool with drugs here, and so we don't have fucking zombie streets here.
Yeeaaaaahhh, you probably do. It's just not on one of the streets you drive by or you're just not aware of it. Not every city has a place like the Tenderloin in San Fran, but it's prevalent in literally every city. Hell, if you check out the American Addiction Center website, San Francisco is actually ranked as one of the cities with the lowest drug use in the nation.
You're missing the entire point. The article is just ragebait. I have no issues with people talking about the problem with the drug epidemic or the problem with homelessness in an attempt to bring to an issue to light. Your article is not intended to do that, and I really hope you realize that.
It's a political statement. Guys are talking this way. Sure it's a caricature, but that doesn't make the statement less meaningful. Toxic masculinity is just that...it's toxic AF, and while I may not think she has the funniest comic ever, it's a good way to showcase the absurdity of our current times.