I can only think that you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said, so I’m going to try and explain it again. Afterwards, I’ll explain why I think you must have misunderstood and offer a final reflection.

The meme format, at least in the form criticised by your initial response, works by presenting one boring and one funny situation. It presents them with pairs of archetypical, gendered characters, rather than individual (though still gendered) ones.

This lays the meme format open to the criticism that it is stereotyping woman as boring. But it doesn’t work against the comic for two reasons:

1. the woman in the comic is not presented as boring. She imagines that the dream is about sex, but that’s not boring. Maybe if there were a negative stereotype that women are horny all the time and that’s a bad thing, this would be concerning, but that’s not the case. If you disagree on this, it would be worth saying what you think the comic is saying about women, and why. You said that it’s “only there to highlight how wacky the man’s dream is” without justification.
2. the two perspectives in the comic are not presented as typical. With just one woman and one man, it doesn’t present a false unity among multiple men and multiple women, with the perspectives contrasted by gender. Instead the contrast is between two individuals. And the characters aren’t the stock representations of gender that the “trad girl”, “doomer girl” and “chad” figures are. If you disagree on this, it would be worth saying why you think the comic is saying something about women rather than about the specific female character.

Those differences, hopefully, also explain why I don’t agree that it’s the “same joke” in the comic as in the meme format: the joke in the criticised meme is, “lol, woman are boring aren’t they? not like men who are interesting.” The joke in the comic is, “lol, this person wanted the dream to be about sex (hehe), but really it was complete nonsense (hehe) and now she’s got mental whiplash from the unexpected turn”.

And I think you must have misunderstood, because none of this can reasonably be called “reading things into the comic.” I’m explaining the joke in the comic for you, because you haven’t understood it correctly. You said “No mention of the dream being funny is made at all” which sounds to me like you think something in my explanation of the joke required that the joke was explicitly mentioned. That’s a very peculiar interpretation of how jokes work, but you’re not really explaining your thought process at all so I have no way of knowing whether I’ve misunderstood you. Presumably I must have, because your assertion that her dream is “only there to highlight how wacky the man’s dream is” is not referred to in the comic either.

Finally - and it probably is final, because my experience with this kind of conversation is that you are probably not really invested in it to the point where you’re willing to read a reply of this length, so there’s little point continuing - your first reply was a single image, with no comment from you. People reading had to infer that you were criticising the comic from OP. I asked you about it, and you replied with a scant 6 words. From there, you only made one, brief attempt to explain yourself and refused to elaborate further.

People come at discussions from different places. You offered a criticism but were never on the same page as me, and never put the effort in to get us on the same page, even though I tried, and you instead resorted quickly to unpleasant accusations. Let’s try and be better than that.

Du hast etwas falsch verstanden.

They think it’s part of a pattern of characterising male behaviour as interesting and female behaviour as boring, which they think contributes to, or is used to push, the idea that men are interesting and women are boring.

Their original response is a reference to this meme format (you can see a more-crude-than-usual representation of the “chad”, “trad girl” and “doomer girl” archetypes that typically appear in that format).

Regardless of the merits of that (I’m getting into that in another thread) it seems that they’re not really willing to stand by their own position and will accuse multiple people (specifically, me and you) of acting in bad faith rather than consider that they might not be doing a good job of backing themselves up…

Nope, I honestly believe that there is absolutely nothing problematic about the comic, and that the criticism of the “girls with a time machine” format doesn’t apply. My previous replies are honest accounts how I feel about it.

No mention of the dream being funny is made at all.

That’s true, but I don’t understand why you’d say it. Certainly, I didn’t claim and don’t claim that it’s “mentioned”, I just claim that it is. Maybe you would wrongly accuse fewer people of bad faith if you explained things a bit more…

The joke in the comic is that one person expects one funny thing (sex is funny) but the reality is another funny thing (chicken sharks are funny). So it refers to two funny things, and also does a bait and switch, which is a third funny thing.

Imagine the comic without the third panel and you’ll see it loses a significant amount of punch

Delete the punchline and it loses punch, you say!

The bad aspect the meme format tends to fall into doesn’t happen here, because the woman’s idea isn’t boring, and by being about two individualised characters rather than generic wojaks or whatever it can’t really be interpreted as being about genders in general unless you’re being particularly uncharitable.

I don’t think sex dreams are boring, so I don’t think this is the same joke.

Isn’t this a criticism of a meme format? I don’t understand how it relates to the comic :(

My instinct when I think about some country like Bangladesh is that those who side with Russia aren’t signing up to something like, “Russia has the right to its war because Ukraine is really Russia/Russia has the right to invade whomever it wants” or that kind of thing, but more thinks “We’re broadly for Russia and against the West, so Russia winning and the West losing is good for us.”

That then leads me to think: how much of my country’s siding with Ukraine is the same but flipped: “Russia is our enemy from the cold war, if not before, so Russia losing is good for us.”

But I think it would be difficult to sustain a pro-Russian perspective if you got much of the reporting that we do about daily civilian deaths from the bombardment of Ukrainian cities. That then makes me wonder how much those countries’ media makes of Ukrainian attacks on Russia. I can imagine that if you didn’t really follow the war closely, so you don’t remember that Ukraine started off only just about able to repel a massive invasion, you could think that Ukraine’s attacks are unjustified or even atrocities.

My fantasy is to taste-test crisps.

Those teachers wore ties in my school… They were clip-on for exactly this reason.

It’s two further examples of lines from national anthems that are not sung today.

(and I’m not sure from your comment if you knew, but both the Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit, and Deutschland Deutschland über alles are lines from the same song - the Deutschlandlied)

Where’s the post body tho

Deutschland Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt

May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush!
God save the King!

etc etc

Language is important, but “if we define a commonly used word in this extremely narrow way, then…” is a losing proposition for that reason

I think I’ll eschew any essay that attempts to define such a vague and old word as “tool” to make a point, as it seems likely it will all be pointless semantic bollocks rather than anything useful. I think I got over this kind of essay in first year of university.

Yes, revoking corporate charters was effective back when corporations couldn’t just reincorporate. No, that wasn’t “the problem” as you said.

Hopefully we’re all on the same page now.

Yeah I did google it and you know, none of the sources said that the practice was abandoned because “it was effective” 🤔

They do talk about how the law around incorporation was changed, making it ineffective. Because the company officers could just recreate the company.

Which is what I said… but sure, be snarky about it if you like!

lmao how is that effective? “oh no, we’d better write the charter out again boo hoo”