I emailed him and asked him about that once. He says that he intentionally draws characters that can’t be identified, because he wants his cartoons to be inclusive. I guess they could be either male or female if you accept that his characters just have no hair.
You’re making an illogical jump. I’m not saying that to be mean, I mean literally the logic does not work backwards that way.
It is inclusive to allow the reader their own perspective and leave it up to personal interpretation. That does not equal the logic of “drawing genders means it is not inclusive.”
It’s a false equivalency that nobody brought up until you decided to stir up some emotions by applying broken logic :)
I emailed him and asked him about that once. He says that he intentionally draws characters that can’t be identified, because he wants his cartoons to be inclusive. I guess they could be either male or female if you accept that his characters just have no hair.
Yeah the big person in the window could be a woman or a man and this comic still works.
deleted by creator
You’re making an illogical jump. I’m not saying that to be mean, I mean literally the logic does not work backwards that way.
It is inclusive to allow the reader their own perspective and leave it up to personal interpretation. That does not equal the logic of “drawing genders means it is not inclusive.”
It’s a false equivalency that nobody brought up until you decided to stir up some emotions by applying broken logic :)
Just to add to this, the name for this logical error is “affirming the consequent”.
Did you assume all of their genders and sexualities? That’s kinda fucked up dude
deleted by creator