this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
831 points (98.5% liked)

Asklemmy

44143 readers
1028 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

They have a point, but ultimately it's still a biased rationalization. The idea that life is impermanent and you can't defer doing what you care about with it is true, but it does bug me when this is posted that it's also an imagined, hostile caricature from the perspective of a character who sees people (in particular people who have found themselves in debt slavery to his organized crime group) as just worthless losers. That's its focus, as a putdown from that perspective; portraying a man who works a low paying job, can't get women, commits the sins of gambling and drinking. Unstated but implied is that this is about a failure of achievement that is at its core financial, that positions himself above them both by being rich and doing fucked up things that are by his logic "meaningful".

The OP comic is kind of an interesting contrast to that, making a similar point, but about a woman with a successful career, where that success might not hold much meaning.