There’s a documentary series, “How To by John Wilson,” that’s on HBO (at least in the US), and it’s basically a Nathan Fielder style absurdist look at the world, with a bunch of real world footage edited together, sometimes with a voiceover, for comedic effect.
But one of the episodes has him going out to figure out why people roll coal, and he interviews a guy who does it, who cannot string together any coherent thought behind it. It’s amazing television.
Oh here’s another:
They’re just not easily searchable (many of the most popular ones are just reposted on pinterest or reblogged on someone else’s tumblr).
Yeah, that’s a good one. I also like this one:
https://sarahcandersen.com/post/726092139029774336
But most of what I’m thinking of is more than 10 years old, from her first two books (I have them in this house somewhere). Lots more angsty youth in those early collections, including some stuff about insecurities and self image.
I just read it as an artist saying “hey I can draw in this style, would you like to see more by paying me money at my Patreon or paying for a commission or something like that?”
Sarah’s Scribbles is one of the better comics for drawing the author’s self as pretty cute in most comics but knowing how to draw herself as an ugly goblin when the comic is making a point about insecurity or embarrassment around physical appearance.
That comic is basically the gold standard for how to convey those ideas in an otherwise cute art style.
Most of the stuff in this thread
We probably need to talk about what one’s definition of “rich” is. I suspect the commenters in this thread are all over the place.
When I was growing up, my idea of rich was private schools and McMansions and overseas vacations and new BMWs for 16th birthdays, basically the kind of lifestyle accessible to only the top 5%.
But now, 20+ years later, I’ve been around 0.1%ers, desensitized to upper middle class stuff that the things I used to believe were signifiers of wealth barely register for me anymore. I’ve also been around descendants of former 0.1%ers who carry some cultural baggage from their families despite having “only” ordinary upper middle class income.
I read this thread and wonder where each commenter sits in how they evaluate richness.
Lion King is as much Hamlet as Frozen is The Snow Queen, which is to say, it really isn’t.
Lion King is loosely inspired by, but doesn’t actually follow the same story structure or present the same conflicts/tension or explore the same themes as Hamlet.
You’re digging in your heels on something you’re fundamentally wrong about. You’re still talking about the nuts and bolts of syntax and grammar and vocabulary, which is an element of literacy but a dimension that isn’t particular all that important past a “good enough” threshold, at which point other dimensions start to predominate in terms of the broader look at what constitutes advanced literacy.
Being able to identify text is just a stepping stone towards being able to identify author intent, subtext, humor, artistic value, references and homages, metaphors, etc.
So what you’re talking about is important for literacy, but it’s still pretty far down the ladder of what many people would consider “advanced” literacy, and kinda a demonstration of the opposite of what you intend to convey: the fake LLM comment was making a joke, and you showed that you lack the more advanced literacy of being able to evaluate the text and the context for the underlying subtext, which was to be funny. Your decision to engage with it at face value entirely misses the point, and is itself a demonstration of failing a test of higher level literacy.