/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2889183
Because he can? You fucking faggot? Stop wasting taking up thread you god damn retard. Delete this fucking shit.

>>2889184
>Stop wasting taking up thread you god damn retard.
Hi Zack. Sorry /co/ hates your web comic.

Spot the OP

>>2889183
for the same reason as charlie borwater. young crowd points.

>asks comic artist for more poc and gay characters, because 2 isn't enough
>has avatar of a comic with zero racial variation and zero gay characters
Why

>>2889194
Down syndrome
Autism
Assburgers
Mental retardation
Some combination of all of these
Take your pick

>>2889188

Do they hate it now? I remember when paranatural first started I loved it. But then the story just kind of went nowhere and I dropped it.

>>2889183
I like how in 2017 everything is now a racial/sexual identity. Possibly because no one has a real personality anymore.

>>2889183

Damn, if I had fans like this I would tell them to go suck a cock. And they'll probably thank me for it, the bunch of queers.

>>2889203
those likes and dislikes are so.......uninspiring.

>>2889256
Being "in touch" with mental retardation is not a possitive goal.

>>2889203
>disgusting shaved head\
>weird tattoos
>problem glasses

>dislikes: job interviews

>>2889281
Art can mean different stuff to different people, I think that the artist should draw what they like.

Idk if webcomics fit the mold to that though

>>2889184
Calm down Tyrone. Anybody that bases a story off of cultural diversity is a hack.

I am writing a war story where everybody is a cute loli because its not important to the narrative.

>>2889521
What if I just want to draw my comic, and do whatever I want with it, but I also just happen to post it on the web?

If I had fans like these I would be glad I have fans.

And try to get the most money out of them by giving them the cliches they want and faking to hate what they hate.

See where I am going?

>>2889203
>dislikes job interviews
Could've fooled me.

>>2889525
It doesn't work as well as you think it does.

>>2889194
i thought that was a portrait of him

>>2889525
>he thinks marketing to SJWs is profitable

Don't get fooled by the vocal SJWs on twitter. Remember how Trump only had a 1% chance to win?

If I recall correctly less than <25% of women identify as feminists (that was a few years ago - it's likely much less by now since feminism back then had a more positive reputation) and only about 1,2 to 2,5% of people are gay.

It's a much smaller audience then you would believe after watching mainstream media. People think half the world is gay when it's a tiny minority.

If it were a big audience we would already have gay purple haired protagonists in movies, books and series everywhere.

>>2889780

Or you could have boring people like this as your fans.

I mean, take your pick.

>>2889183
It took me a while to figure out what "poc" meant. Isn't that dehumanizing people more than the common label?

>>2889183
what a cuck

>>2889783
yeah, autistic snowflakes with a fetish for homosexual lolis with diapers and purple hair sure is a much more interesting audience, I give you that.

>>2889788
I always thought that was a stupid term. It's like calling someone a "colored".

>>2889788
>>2889798
>>2889783
Kind of odd that there is a group of people who we constantly have to give new names to because over time the commonly used name becomes a derogatory term.

How does that happen?

>>2889803
Because some loud mouthed asshole in charge of an organization deems it so so news outlets follow suit.

If you see a black person, just call them black. The only people skittish about saying black are white people.

>>2889805
what about niggers or negros?

>>2889806
If you're really feeling up to the challenge, sure. Maybe you can feign enough ignorance to fool people into thinking you had no idea those terms had no history to them and that English isn't your first language.

>>2889805
>Because some loud mouthed asshole in charge of an organization deems it so

If that organization were to say that "white person" is a derogatory term and now no longer to be used, would people believe them?

If they would, you are right.

If not, there must be more to it.

>>2889780
You're right, but I meant that if I only had those as fans it would be profitable to do so.
But yeah, it's outdated to do that because in a couple of years extremist feminism is going to go out of fashion.

>>2889810
>If that organization were to say that "white person" is a derogatory term and now no longer to be used, would people believe them?
We won't know because it can't happen in that very specific circumstance because too much history has determined it's next to impossible at this point unless you travel hundreds of years into the future to see how drastically the world has shifted.

It's happened enough times with many other terms to believe, yes, it is true. Terms that are now considered offensive:

>Blacks (As opposed to black people)
>Colored
>Negro
>(Mentally) Retarded
>Indian (For Native Americans, not India)
>Midget

>>2889183
This is why I'll be unpopular forever. You want poc or gay people in my comic? You make you're own comic about all the dick sucking and vag eating you want. I'm starting to get really irritated by people needing something to identify with.

>>2889809
>mfw when english isn`t my native language
>mfw i can speak better english than negro`s ebonics
>mfw unlike most niggers and sjw, i very well know it`s word history
>mfw i always say " opsies didn`t mean to offend you negrito"
feels good man

>>2889825
We might cannot know for 100% certain but if you had to take a bet, what would you bet on?

When people say we can't know something for certain it almost always sounds like an excuse. I don't know for absolutely certainty that my neighbors do not own a time machine, but I can reasonably assume that they do not.

>>2889803
I don't get why we need to specify that others are different. Doesn't that create more prejudice?

>>2889877
If I were to set you up for a date, would you like to know whether it's with a woman or a men? Would that require words to specify a difference between people?

Would you like to know whether your possible date believes in an ideology that would demand the mutilation of the clitoris or foreskin? Whether he or she comes from a culture that believes in equality or not?

>>2889874
Because you're basically "Hey! I know this one word that has hundreds of years worth of history and oppression attached to it is offensive, but do you think we can accomplish the same thing with this other term in a couple of years using only social media and news reports?".

The only way to get "White people" to be offensive is if there is such a massive uprising that thousands of white people are slaughtered, lynched, abused, oppressed, or what have you. Basically, there are no civil rights activists for just white people rights, so you won't really be finding people in charge of some organization on their behalf. That's why it's impossible.

>>2889887
>The only way to get "White people" to be offensive is if there is such a massive uprising that thousands of white people are slaughtered, lynched, abused, oppressed,

There are recent african countries in which white people have been slaughtered by the thousands and there are historic examples of whites being slaughtered. Central and east europe had multiple invasions from other continents, you know that, right? Just like you know that slavery it still existing and often times legal outside of america and europe?

But more importantly you have not answered my question. If you had to take a bet, what would it be?

>>2889907
Yes, but in this instance, we're talking and have been strictly speaking about American history. All the terms I've listed are words used throughout this country's history, not Japan or Africa's. I have no idea what term France used to be midgets and I don't care, because that isn't relevant to this conversation. There were also many whites oppressed in this country, such as the Irish, but because people in charge of civil rights organizations deemed them as white people as other issues arose, the image started to slowly change and now Irish are just white people and no longer as oppressed as they were in let's say, 1890.

So no, I wouldn't take that bet because in that instance, it's stupid. I would take the bet for every other race or any other group of people. But not thinking that "white people" can be turned into an offensive term in America. People have already tried with "cracker" and everyone still laughs at how inoffensive it is. Even the white people who try to claim it's on the same level as nigger get laughed at by other white people. I have enough history to back up that's a shit bet and that you're willfully playing ignorant to actual circumstances to try to make some claim of, "Well if it can't happen to white people, then it can't happen in general. Case closed".

>>2889915
Can you proof that the more recent terms only became derogatory once a right activist said so and that there is nothing else about it?

>>2889923
All the terms you hear now all stem from 70s movements and onward, so you won't really find an example from 2005, for example. All the terms of "minorities", "people of color", and "African American" can all be traced back to being used and pushed by civil rights activists and enforced by mainstream media and organizations, with each term flopping in and out like trends. African American fell out briefly in the 80s, came back in the 90s. Person of Color fell out by 70's, came back in late 90's.

Are there exact examples I can show you? No. Because none of these were the result of one single instance. They were terms that grew over time thanks to organizations and the news pushing for it. If you want "confirmation", just do some basic history research.

>>2889932
I'm not talking about them pushing new words I know that they did that but the old words being used derogatory.

Can you prove that were wrong when they said that we need a new word because the old one has become a slur? If not why do you make that claim?

>>2889947
"Prove" my opinion that I think trying to come up with a different way every decade to say "black" is stupid to the point where it actually becomes more offensive by using terms like "African-American" or "People of Color" to group everyone who isn't white?

No, I can't "prove" my opinion. I literally have no idea what you are even trying to accomplish with this argument. Seems like you're trying to run me into a brick wall but you're just repeating yourself over and over again until it looks like you're the one who has nothing to say while my opinion has stayed consistent with my very first post:
>>2889805

>>2889960
>How does that happen?
"Because some loud mouthed asshole in charge of an organization deems it so so news outlets follow suit."

You have not just said that coming up with new words is stupid, you answered my question on how it happens that the terms for that group became slurs by stating it's because someone in an orginasation says so.

I'm asking you if you can back up that claim (it's not an opinion like I love strawberries, it's a claim).

You shouldn't get offended at me for asking whether or not your claims are founded it reality.

>>2889969
Sorry you took a hyperbolic vent as a means for an actual crafted theory. It was an exaggerated but I've already explained many times in depth of how it comes to be true. Civil rights protesters push for it, it gains traction, people in charge of things like ACLU will catch on to it, and that becomes the new standards over time because people generally think a group like ACLU will know better than them when it comes to progressiveness. I think once it gets to a point where people are too skittish to say the word black is when it becomes ridiculous. That doesn't mean I agree with it on the same levels of nigger or negro.

If you want very loose examples of how something that was once harmless can suddenly become harmful, just look at how the phrase "Allahu Akbar" used to just mean ?Oh My God? and now is a way for Americans to stereotype Arabs after 9/11. Or how "Derp" used to be a funny word and got pushed into it being considered offensive among the handicapped community. These aren't perfect comparisons, but it seems like you're looking for some kind of answer that isn't there and that you literally won't be satisfied with any response I give you, no matter how many history-in-a-nutshell examples I throw at you.

This is going to be the last post I give you because it's obvious now you took an exaggerated complaint to an insane degree of seriousness and feel like it's just a waste of time trying to "validate" myself just saying "Because it's fucking stupid".

>>2889862
>This is why I'll be unpopular forever
that would be because you can't draw a story worth a fuck

>>2889183
Because? People? Want? Something? They? Can? Identify? More? With? Idk why you're so triggered by people wanting a little more diversity. Get over yourself. Not everything has to be white and straight. We all know you have a fetish for gay black men anyways.

>>2889183
>poc
how is this term not fucking racist?!
>there are white people, and there's everyone else!

>>2889998
Less than 1,6% of the population is gay and if I recall correctly that number even includes bisexuals.

Most of the requests do not come from people who want to identify with something but idiots wo want to virtue signal for the behalf of others.

>>2889998
Why are people who want to be represented reading a story that has 90% straight white people. It's like me getting mad because there's not enough Italians in "Blackish".

>>2890007
>It's like me getting mad because there's not enough Italians in "Blackish".

I never seen it like this, kind of funny.

>>2889862
>I'm starting to get really irritated by people needing something to identify with.

Humans need to identify with something/someone. That's how we are.

>>2890007
Haha..... you make a good point. You're right, anon. Thank you.

>>2889883
this, looks are important. But going on a date and potentially fucking the person is one thing, just normal interaction is a completely different thing. Idc if your a butch bull dyke if I don't have to fuck you.

>>2889183
Next time, put this thread somewhere else. Now I'm going to have to see it for the next 2 weeks.

>>2889524
then you're clearly a xenophobic transphonic Islamaphobic racist bigot who's record needs to be corrected

>>2889990
>just look at how the phrase "Allahu Akbar" used to just mean ?Oh My God? and now is a way for Americans to stereotype Arabs after 9/11.

And after the berlin truck incident and after the france priest stabbing and after the orlando nightclub shooting and after the suicide bombings in paris and after....

Yeah it just kind of happened that it became a stereotype. I really wish we as a society can leave stereotypes behind us.

>>2890012
I understand things like race and gender but those imaginary sexualities? Like unless the game/comic/movie has romantic/sexual shit relevant to the story then why the fuck do you care if your not playing as an transpansexual if theres no sex/love interest in the narrative? does your operated fake dick fall out and you see it while shooting at Nazi's or fighting a battalion of alien invaders? they push the diversity bullshit on EVERYTHING

>>2890035
Have you ever watched any of the videos of the Twin Towers falling and seeing all the comments being "Those poor people" and switch over to videos of the Syria bombing with people making fun of people screaming allahu akbar by slurring up the words?

It's pretty disgusting. And I shitpost on 4chan during my free time.

>>2890035
And I wish Islam would stop being violent and barbaric, but we can't all get what we want.

This bitch should draw her own niggers

Nothing wrong with pandering to crazy people.

But keep in mind that nobody likes a flip flopper. Get ready to keep the same opinion for the rest of your life.

>>2890041
Call me a hypocrite but I was kind of excluding all the extra genders and sexualities. Lel

You can just say "sure" without actually doing it, really gets rid of tne headache

>>2890466
But if you do that too many times people will catch on, distrust you, and stop reading and supporting your comic.

>people of color kids
wow they sound so legitimate and truly caring about diversity

>>2889183
>poc

Without a context I wouldn't had known what she was talking about.


Then I would had told her that white is the most colorful there is. On the other hand black is the absence of color.

>>2889907
>There are recent african countries in which white people have been slaughtered by the thousands

Cited sources? No, I'm actually curious.

>>2889907
>There are recent african countries in which white people have been slaughtered by the thousands and there are historic examples of whites being slaughtered.

Like literal Europeans? not familiar with this one, however there is rather nasty history of albinos being hunted for body parts in Tanzania and some parts of Southern Africa for some superstitious shit.

>>2889783
>anon isn't a sexually fluid gender queer trans lesbian with a half shaved head, dyed eyebrows, gaping holes in their ears, a vaguely dissatisfied, vacant expression and no personality to speak of whatsoever

There are places like dating profiles where the entire thing is people talking about their unique snowflake designation. They only have time for a quick "i love dr who and sherlock" at the end. No mention of likes or dislikes, what they do, where they want to visit etc. these people are so vapid and colourless that they just drift through the world absorbing content and never thinking for themselves, like fucking jellyfish.
They can call themselves whatever kind of abominable plexigender fluidman they want, or dye their hair the brightest, but it's still a watery blob with no brains.
And you think someone who can think is the one who's boring.

>>2890794
Different anon but read up on Rhodesia and the current situation in South Africa. Zuma's putting a law through at the moment so they can seize any land owned by white people without any compensation, literally trying to start another race war.

>>2890836
Ah just like Zimbabwe. I remember before graduating, a bunch of us were discussing the whole thing about land grabbing and some kids said it's good because it's their land even if they screw it up.

>>2889783

It's actually the "special snowflakes" who are the uninteresting ones. Yeah, they are different in comparison to normal people, but they're very similar if you compare them with others within their group. Nearly all of them speak, look, think, and talk the same way because of how they force themselves to be completely contrarian. The main difference between them is that they have different names and ages.

Notice how you can easily determine the favorite music genre and fashion attire of goths and hipsters? Those people are no different. Once you've met one, you've essentially met everyone.