They also claim the word “woke” indicates a clear political orientation when it could go either way.
The word could be used unironically, ironically, as a reclamation or reappropriation, derisively, self-critically.
The comics shown don’t express an unambiguous political attitude or sentiment anyone can objectively pin down.
People really seem to be projecting & acting on wild takes.
You seem to be media illiterate and I don’t know if I have it in me to do a whole course. But here I am typing on my phone.
The comic is being derided because it’s showing the NYC subway as a dangerous place where fights just happen. This coincides with the common right wing belief that cities are dangerous, which has racist roots (see: white flight).
In order for the joke to work, you need to accept that premise. Imagine if the comic was instead someone in the first frame holding a $100 ticket to a zoo, and then a $3 ticket to the subway, where the subway is full of elephants. That wouldn’t make any sense because there’s no idea that wild animals are on the train. It would simply be absurd.
Even if the author didn’t intend to reference that fear of urban areas, it’s there. Death of the author. Authorial intent does not supersede the text. It can provide clues, but it can’t take something out.
The joke doesn’t work without the racist context imported.
The authors usage of woke could be any of those things, but given their comics seem to mostly be making fun of left wing positions, I don’t think it’s plausible that it’s some deep irony. It’s much more likely that they’re a simple right wing troll.
Also like why are you going to bat so hard for this?
“Please learn better media literacy skills.” is neither an argument nor a valid one. Cheap.
We have criticisms that the comic is propaganda that misrepresents the safety of subways (as if that were a real point).
They also claim the word “woke” indicates a clear political orientation when it could go either way. The word could be used unironically, ironically, as a reclamation or reappropriation, derisively, self-critically. The comics shown don’t express an unambiguous political attitude or sentiment anyone can objectively pin down.
People really seem to be projecting & acting on wild takes.
You seem to be media illiterate and I don’t know if I have it in me to do a whole course. But here I am typing on my phone.
The comic is being derided because it’s showing the NYC subway as a dangerous place where fights just happen. This coincides with the common right wing belief that cities are dangerous, which has racist roots (see: white flight).
In order for the joke to work, you need to accept that premise. Imagine if the comic was instead someone in the first frame holding a $100 ticket to a zoo, and then a $3 ticket to the subway, where the subway is full of elephants. That wouldn’t make any sense because there’s no idea that wild animals are on the train. It would simply be absurd.
Even if the author didn’t intend to reference that fear of urban areas, it’s there. Death of the author. Authorial intent does not supersede the text. It can provide clues, but it can’t take something out.
The joke doesn’t work without the racist context imported.
The authors usage of woke could be any of those things, but given their comics seem to mostly be making fun of left wing positions, I don’t think it’s plausible that it’s some deep irony. It’s much more likely that they’re a simple right wing troll.
Also like why are you going to bat so hard for this?