• VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As I explained in another reply, the illustration could have added fences and other barriers, but that would have sacrificed clarity for a degree of accuracy only necessary for pedants like yourself.

    And yes, it ABSOLUTELY is the fault of the system and those in charge of shaping it if it’s crooked and nothing is done to straighten it out or at the very least compensate for the disparity.

    I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or just genuinely obtuse, but I’m leaning more and more towards believing the former.

    • whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it would have added clarity because it would show that the kid on the right is prevented from going to the left side, which is a necessary assumption for the given metaphor to work.

      However, that would make it obvious what the real problem and the solution is. Which would be detrimental to the political message the comic is trying to push, because then instead of giving assistance (putting up boards to move the tree), the obvious solution would be removing something (the literal and metaphorical barrier). The author clearly intended to show that providing assistance is justice, not removing barriers.

      It’s a disingenuous comic, because equity and “justice”, while appearing differently in the comic, in practice would be exactly the same thing.

      Besides, anyone portraying their position as “justice” is a massive red flag.

    • SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Having barriers would be unequal, sure. But my brother, trees just grow last time I asked they said they dont really give a shit what a couple of hungry kids think of it.