• Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    beuty

    That is just dumb

    Uh…

    That’s also not what this is implying. Go make a board game about jumping to conclusions. I hear red staplers are on sale at Walmart.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Then tell me what it implies when all adults in the comic wants to cut the tree down, and only the kid appreciate the beauty of the tree as it is?

      • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Kids are often used as an allegory for the innocent/naive/uncorrupted/enlightened

        The kid sees the tree for what it is, not what it could be manipulated into as the other character do.

          • Maeve@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            Go find your inner child. He/she/they are crying out for love, protection.

          • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Many of our words are the same, but you asked a question and I provided an interpreted answer.

            Edit: To say it specifically

            The fourth character was drawn as a character representing an enlightened perspective. Rather than having multiple panels or having text to describe this, the character was drawn as a child as a shorthand since children come with that association in most cultures.

            This is opposed to the other characters drawn in different walks of life’s who have their own unenlightened motives which we assume by default within the context of the forth panel.

              • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                The issue is that you called it dumb because you interpret it as “only children” are enlightened enough to see the tree as a tree.

                But I don’t believe that is the intent of the comic, instead, they simply drew a child as a shorthand representation for the concept of enlightenment.

                I believe any person can be so enlightened to see something as it is, and not what it could be made into if they wanted to.

                Therefore, I don’t think the comic is dumb as you stated. I think the comic is attempting to motivate people to see things as they are and be enlightened.

                Also there was a little humor in the misspelling of a common word when calling something dumb, in the way of “kettle calling the pot black”

                • stoy@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I can see how me using the word dumb in that context could cause a disagreement, especially as I misspelled beauty, I could have used shallow instead.

                • Maeve@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Something about looking and not seeing. Or those who have eyes to see…I wonder if this is our mythical third eye, the ability to imagine, extrapolate eg child/inner child, in this instance.

      • Alice@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The child is someone who doesn’t have a financial stake in what the tree is used for. It’s narrative shorthand for innocence, but it doesn’t mean “only children think this way”.

        Otherwise it wouldn’t be encouraging the readers, presumably adults, to think that way, because it would be impossible.