1003
A Life of Crime
(discuss.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
1003 points (100.0% liked)
Comic Strips
23923 readers
2122 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
-
😇 Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
-
🏘️ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
-
🧬 Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
-
📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
-
📋 Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
-
📬 Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
-
🏴☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
-
🍿 Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not ignoring that part of the statement I’m taking it in the context of the whole reply.
There is no assumption on my part, it's in the reply.
If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.
I agree they probably would have been better understood by merging the two together.
Yeah, between the lines took me a really long time to get reasonable at, these interactions help me get better at working through my understanding(or lack thereof)
Well, we’re both assuming the intent behind the words used. I’m assuming they did not contradict themselves, because their meaning was “my solution is different”. You are assuming that they contradicted themselves because their meaning was “my solution is better”
As i said in my previously replies , there was no assumption of contradiction.
The two statements in that reply add up to a different position that if you just take the first statement on it's own.
Not a contradiction, an addition/clarification.
But this is the most salient point:
Many people were pushing for a housing only being a suboptimal solution
No-one at any point was pushing for a housing-only solution (after that first reply of course, which for some reason has a lot of votes)
Any argument based on someone else having done so, will be flawed.
You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?
Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.
You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.
Their logical argument has the predicate(reasoning): Some people without the extra assistance will not fully benefit.
And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.
At no point did they say that housing without assistance could in anyway sufficiently solve homelessness, not in any way that would follow in a logical argument.
In any case, everyone is making assumptions here. It’s literally the basis of communication and it’s not a negative thing. You must assume certain things about what a person says in order to communicate. You must assume that they are saying things they believe unless there is a reason not to. You must assume that they are using words in the way that you understand, or otherwise you must come to a conclusion about the meaning of those words in order for communication to be effective. Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.
I didn't realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:
Should be
The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)
I'm not, and i quote:
Not really.
Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.
I'm counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1..*] solution.
Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.
I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.
I think what i've done here is read "assistance" as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.
My bad.
I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both "good" and "bad".