For anybody looking for attribution, this comic no longer exists. It was called Pictures for Sad Children, and it’s essentially lost media now after the creator had some issues and took everything (including IA backups) offline.
deleted by creator
Holy damn I just couldn’t stop reading.
Omg yessss
Ahhh thanks for this!! For years I’ve specifically tried to find a comic about a cloud… Very simple but really affected me emotionally. Just a drawing of a cloud over and over with captions like “this is a cloud I drew” “I hope you like it” “I hope it makes your day better” or something.
99% sure this is the author. I thought I was going crazy since nothing ever gets deleted from the Internet, so I also appreciate the explanation.
About to dive into the archive someone else posted now to find i that cloud.
deleted by creator
What? That was one of my favourites :(
Always a struggle for me. I saw Canada’s demo CF-18 at an airshow a few years back and was having simultaneous thoughts of “so this is why we can’t afford clean water for our indigenous communities” and “HOLY SHIT IT SOUNDS SO COOL”.
Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.
You can’t afford clean water for indigenous people because they couldn’t buy one fewer aircraft.
You needed all 138.
Can’t afford clean water for indigenous people when you want to exterminate indigenous people.
You don’t need planes for that. You just need a systematic foot on their necks. You know, like we do for the rest of the poors.
We can’t afford another plane because we need another highway first.
Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.
idk about this one, idk much about canada, but water infrastructure is more complicated than just “here’s some money” and there’s also the inevitable governmental over spending problem that seems to encroach everything.
it’s also worth noting that we’re comparing two irrelevant things here, it’s like me comparing the worlds loudest yell to the sound of an f35 flying at altitude. Yeah they’re comparable to each other. In the sense that they both make noise.
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)
I was actually basing my complaint on the comparitive cost of the B-2 stealth bomber, and the (at the time) cost of repairing the ogalala aquifer, estimated to cost about the same as the 2 billion dollar aircraft.
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)
oh cool we’re just fucking, lying now. That’s the sound level of the f35 at altitude.
“F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off”
“F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db”
“F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph”
(https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you’re wondering)
btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that’s literally because it’s the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.
1000 feet is beneath the typical hard floor for domestic operations, and practically right on top of you. You’ve never seen one beneath 5000 feet unless you went to an air show, more likely than not they’re operating 12,000 feet or higher. I’m wondering if you actually know what “at altitude” means?
You also “ummmmm ACHTUALLY’d” your way right on past the point entirely. So congratulations on not only creating an idiotic straw man but also falling to grasp the concept of what we’re even talking about.
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet.
to be clear, i wasn’t the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.
i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. “operational altitude” for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that’s irrelevant here, we’re talking about the ground.
I see military spending as a necessary evil, it’s like paying your insurance policy against the evils in the world. There will always be someone with a stick willing to beat someone weaker than them. So you could theoretically spend that military money on something “more useful”, but if all your friends do that as well, you won’t be able to enjoy that nice world for very long.
Also, people usually highly overrate how much a country spends on defense and underrate how much is spent on social security. Where I live, in Belgium, with a similar military budget as Canada (in terms of % of GDP) they did a survey once and asked people to estimate how many euros out of €100 of tax money went to the military and other things. People on average thought it was €6.1 to the military and €17.4 to social security. In reality the proportions are just €1.3 to the military and €37.5 to social security.
So I guess what I’m saying is: it’s okay to enjoy the cool noises without guilt. You paid for it, it’s necessary, and at least they’re providing people with some entertainment now.
Canadians and Belgians can probably feel okay. As an American I’m disgusted by the waste. But that’s kind of our bag and there’s a long list of things that we waste money on.
America is a very unique case with these metrics, but its wortj noting most of our allies can also skimp on defense for the same reason. Whether thats worth it or not is a more political question
Huh. What a weird coincidence. Out of all the many communities in Canada, it just happens to be the indigenous ones that have to make do without clean water because of military spending. What are the odds?
I live sandwiched between military bases of all branches. I’ve lived with the sounds of warplanes and target practice most of my entire life.
These bases cut swathes through tribal lands, leaving whole areas uninhabitable due to live ordnance.
I knew some kids from the reservations and I’ll never forget how casually they’d say with every blast they’re reminded that they’re occupied.
I knew some kids from the reservations and I’ll never forget how casually they’d say with every blast they’re reminded that they’re occupied.
wouldnt this technically be more of a form of pseudo occupation, since they also get benefits from being a US citizen, and also protection, from these same planes as well.
It is a negotiated treaty from the 1800s, though it took until the 1970s to get clarity on a big part of their rights. But they’re still on reservations and their ancestral lands are partitioned up. They’ve acquired some of those lands back through various ways: legal battles and just plain buying it back.
Though mind you I’m relating something I remember as a teenager, from teenagers with politically active parents.
But more importantly my point was to highlight a lens into a different perspective. They knew they would have been just like the Kurdish villager in the comic had those planes been invented back then. I had never considered that viewpoint at the time.
yeah, which i why i consider the use of pseudo occupation, as opposed to like, settlement or something. There aspects of occupation, but up to the current modern day, there are natives in positions of power within the US government, and those with sovereign control over their own land as well.
Although to be fair, most people didn’t have very many rights until the 1970s lmao.
I think those ‘aspects of occupation’ are quite relevant. The treaties weren’t respected and Americans would just remove the people, bury tribal lands in fill material and build on top.
For example, emphasis mine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tse-whit-zen
This village site, which includes longhouse areas, ceremonial areas, places for fish and clam drying, was** occupied by the Klallam until the 1930s.[4] During the early 20th century, businesses owned by European Americans built a number of lumber mills on top of the village site** at the waterfront during the expansion of the lumber industry. Because the ground was covered with 15 to 30 feet (4.6 to 9.1 m) of fill, the village and cemetery site was preserved through this period.[3]
Notice that timeline: ‘occupied until 1930s’ and ‘Early 20th century.’ The people were removed and they buried everything until 2004 when they started excavating skeletons. This isn’t all ancient history and it hasn’t really been… amicable.
When we do it, it’s only a “pseudo-occupation”
When Nazi Germany occupied France, was it only a “pseudo-occupation” because the Panzers then “protected” the occupied territory from the British? What a ridiculous line of logic.
wait i’m sorry modern day native americans in the US are equivalent to french people living in france under the military control of nazi germany?
how casually they’d say with every blast they’re reminded that they’re occupied.
🙄
I mean, their parents were involved in the Fish Wars, so the whole treaty rights thing was especially salient to them and their family.
Seems like their ancestors should have fought harder but they didn’t and lost.
Hence the sad violin.
Just because shit has existed before doesn’t mean it gets to exist in the future.
They still exist now, as people.
yeah, and they still have rights
Can we like…respond to this anecdote by pushing for solidarity and reconciliation and equity and shit instead of just being like “yeah fuck you imperialism ftw”. I want to live in a better world than the past
RIP pictures for sad children
I’m really torn on this one. They were a great comic that reached a lot of people and then the creator went on all these rants about not really being depressed and it was all a show(and I swear they then retracted that but Wikipedia doesn’t seem to have that part listed). Then they burned their books and swore off creating and wanted everything removed. But then the book burning was even staged…
For someone who claimed it was all an act, it sure seemed like coming clean was a mental breakdown in itself to me. Like they had imposter syndrome, but then the irony was yeah, you are as dysfunctional as you “pretended” to be and just demonstrated it to everyone. There was no imposter.
That’s all to say I wish they’d kept creating and hadn’t left like that. Hadn’t basically said “this all sucks and shouldn’t exist”. But oddly, it is fitting. I’ll give them that. Viewed as a whole, it’s almost poetic.
ETA: I found a summary of the drama that included a mention of them retracting their claim of being depressed. I swear it was blog post called something like “I lied about lying about having depression”, a follow up to “I lied about having depression”. In the second post they claimed coming out as not depressed was in itself fake and I believe part of some art piece/experiment. The OP of the linked post adds a few details I’d missed. I don’t disagree with their posit that it was all an art project and Campbell isn’t a real person. I’ve certainly considered something similar in the past.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/a4t8s0/pictures_for_sad_children_a_summary_and_thoughts/
ETA2: Found an even better writeup with some more current details. There’s this gem tho:
Two days later, Veil posted again: “I’VE BEEN PRETENDING TO BE PRETENDING TO HAVE DEPRESSION FOR PROFIT AND I’M SORRY.” A day later: “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PRETEND TO DO OR SAY ANYTHING AND MY COMICS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABOUT DEPRESSION.”
https://www.inverse.com/input/culture/pictures-for-sad-children-webcomic-simone-veil-interview
This sort of thing is so… annoying.
An art exhibition of a fake person having a breakdown who has imposter syndrome that itself proves the depression isn’t art to me. It doesn’t make me consider the world, or my place in it. It doesn’t evoke nihilism or humility or philosophy. It’s just… annoying. Marketing depression. Dishonestly.
I say this as someone with treatment resistant chronic major depressive disease. As someone who was first hospitalized for suicide in middle school.
Compare this garbage with hyperbole and a half and their honesty and their struggles and their openness and it’s…
Burning a copy of a book you sold to someone when they dare to email you asking for it? Fuck that.
Thank you for your comment. I thought of Hyperbole when I was writing mine. I have the same feeling about how they handled their struggles in a much healthier and constructive way. I’ve sent people their post on depression before to help explain my own feelings. I’m glad to know it resonated with others as well.
Campbell left a really bad taste in my mouth. It’s one of the few times I’ve been successfully able to completely sever the art and artist. I love the work, but kinda deplore Campbell. I don’t really want to give them any credit because they don’t even want it themselves.
It’s ironic, the pinnacle of human engineering in our war machines. But these technologies wouldn’t exist if they weren’t created for the war machines in the first place. Sad.
There’s definitely an interdependancy there, but don’t discount the incredible complexity of some cool civilan tech: James Webb Space Telescope, Mars rovers, ISS, the old Space Shuttle. Even mundane things like ocean-based oil rigs are chock full of amazing engineering.
GPS is literally from the concept of nuking the USSR. Thank your ass the cold war happened the next time you get lost, it’s the only reason you aren’t lost now.
I really like airplanes, especially the historic ones. The speed and sound is amazing. The engineering and skill in building and operating those aircraft is top-tier.
However, the airshows often extoll the fear and damage the aircraft can do to their targets, especially the modern ones. Really not interested in the bodycount or terror these aircraft inspire, but plenty of people enjoy the flex.
i always find these kind of statements and comics weird, because like.
If the plane is your own, this would also signal the sound of protection and defense, which is an objectively good thing, if we’re classifying dying due to a plane as a bad thing.
There are two sides to the coin and i guess this is either shitposting memes, or people never think about the fact that like, you can also just have a military.
Most people don’t like living near even civilian airports. Active duty flights would’ve usually happened nearer to the front, and modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway.
Much more common for people to hear are shows of force, like the States do for holidays, airshows, and large sports games.
The comic is making fun of the fact that an airshow idolizes machines of war. Not all airshows focus on military craft, but most of them do, often being held at military airbases.
As cool as they are, it’s good to remember that those machines are instruments of death, and often used against people of no immediate threat. Regardless of the necessity, I don’t think that’s something to cheer for.
modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway
Eh, no?
Aircraft carriers are ridiculously complicated and expensive, hence even the us only having around a dozen or so? Russia famously has none. Great Brittain has like 2 or so, France like 1?
Its been a while, I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the number of aircraft carriers in the world would be in the very low dozens because they’re damn near unaffordably expensive.
The beyond vast majority of modern flights still happen from airports
Also, none have been lost in battle since WW2.
They’re basically mobile island outposts at this point.
I had meant flights of U.S. planes, but you’re right, they usually use and establish local airfields, and probably only use carriers where that’s too slow or impossible.
tbf that’s mostly because they’re really fucking loud, all of the time. Military air fields are probably quieter for longer periods of time lol. Although still rather loud im sure.
Active duty flights would’ve usually happened nearer to the front, and modern flights often happen from aircraft carriers anyway.
to be clear, this wouldn’t matter, we’re talking about airshows, most people living near the front lines are going to be gone anyway. And even if we were to grant this point, it still wouldn’t diminish my statement. national pride is a weird thing.
The comic is making fun of the fact that an airshow idolizes machines of war.
i mean sure, but im pretty sure humanity has always idolized the military and it’s armies, as well as it’s ability to project force. It’s the stable of basically every great empire. Humanity seems to have an inherent connection with the ability of projecting force. It would be evolutionary advantageous, so that’s probably why.
As cool as they are, it’s good to remember that those machines are instruments of death, and often used against people of no immediate threat. Regardless of the necessity, I don’t think that’s something to cheer for.
i mean sure, but morbidity is the calling card for a lot of things, the dahmer netflix series for example. Should we be treating that the same? Like to be clear, i don’t disagree, but every time you pick up an angle grinder do you really need to think about how many people have been horrifically inujred by it and pray to the grinder gods for you safety? Or should you just be conscious of how you use the tool, and be careful with it.
and often used against people of no immediate threat.
also idk about this statement, maybe for the case of like the russian artillery units for example. I doubt that f-16s have been primarily used on like, someones dog. More than people of actual consequence. It’s also really vaguely defined, which doesn’t help.
So to be fair, I’ve read the original comic, and it probably was just focusing on the negative aspects of airshows.
What a lot of people get from this (including me) is the absurdity of military shows. Air shows are less ridiculous because planes are capable of some incredible things, but it’s still unsettling. Like gun shows or parades of duty.
We have advanced many of our societies to such a point that we might be able to do away with weapon worship entirely, so I think it’s sensible to be uncomfortable with venerating the trappings of dictators and despots.
I kind of agree that militaries are still necessary, but there’s a big difference between an unfortunate but necessary thing and a celebrated thing.
The difference between an F-15 and an angle grider is that the F-15 is intended to hurt people. Pulling an angle grinder out of your coat isn’t as intimidating as pulling out a knife, even if the angle grinder could do more damage. Yet both angle grinders and most knives are tools used to create. An F-15 can only destroy. It can’t carry passengers, can’t fight fires, can’t deliver supplies, can’t advance science, at best it can do acrobatics while being incredibly expensive. It’s nothing more than a weapon.
To be entirely fair, even without military aircraft the U.S. would meddle in international affairs. The air force doesn’t specifically enable these killings or infrastructure damage. It is however a popular and representative method of international war, and I don’t think that’s something to celebrate.
What a lot of people get from this (including me) is the absurdity of military shows. Air shows are less ridiculous because planes are capable of some incredible things, but it’s still unsettling. Like gun shows or parades of duty.
if we’re talking about absurdity, you should really think about philosophy here, we’re talking about this, over the internet, using funny keyboards. This entire fucking interaction is absurdist. The very concept of a technologically influenced military is absurdist. Literally everything is absurdist.
Would you say the same thing about the moon landing? Was that absurdist? What about the pioneer and voyager satellites? Are those absurdist?
There are so many things in day to day life, and outside of it that could be considered absurdist.
We have advanced many of our societies to such a point that we might be able to do away with weapon worship entirely, so I think it’s sensible to be uncomfortable with venerating the trappings of dictators and despots.
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Call me when people stop randomly getting into fights with each other and maybe i’ll give you that point lol.
I kind of agree that militaries are still necessary, but there’s a big difference between an unfortunate but necessary thing and a celebrated thing.
yeah but why not celebrate it? In the case of the US the military is primarily volunteer based. Drafts are extremely unpopular. Should you not respect and celebrate the people that have served in the military? Does celebrating the military not directly bolster these people as well?
In the specific case here, the US military is the reason this country even exists. It’s obviously going to be a pride point of the country when it’s the entire reason we exist. As evidenced in many other countries.
I would argue that a celebrated military is better than a required and mandated military (think finland)
The difference between an F-15 and an angle grider is that the F-15 is intended to hurt people.
says who? It’s a plane, it’s the instruments on the plane that are intended to hurt people. Should we be ok with other planes like recon and spy planes? Is the U2 a martyr of service? Is the SR-71 the pinnacle of peaceful military technology? This is on it’s face a relatively silly statement.
I could very easily argue that an angle grinder was designed to injure people by proxy. It’s literally designed to remove material, or to cut material, i see no mechanism in which this can’t be applied directly to a human, and thus, it’s designed to hurt people. And it’s not just going to hurt a little bit, it’s going to really fuck your shit up. you could argue that it’s not an intended behavior, but i would disagree with you on principle of it being a tool designed to remove material, being successful at removing human material from human.
Pulling an angle grinder out of your coat isn’t as intimidating as pulling out a knife
is a knife designed explicitly to kill? Why do we have them in the kitchen then? Why do we use them outside of killing people, seems to me like you’re implying that a primary function of a knife is to hurt people. I would argue both of these things are incredibly common, a kitchen knife even more so. If we’re operating in this realm of definition. A knife would be less threatening than an angle grinder, because it’s expected that someone may have a knife, but it’s really unexpected for someone to have an angle grinder.
Also if we’re being pedantically correct here, it’s not designed to kill people, it’s designed to down other planes. Not people. It’d be a little weird to launch an f16 or an f15 specifically to target one single person.
Could you argue that the military stems from the innate human need to kill other people over conflict? Sure. Could you also argue that the only reason we have this technology we have now is because of the military and this need to kill people over conflict? Also yes. There is an extremely high link between military effectiveness, and technological advantage. This can be seen throughout human history, as well as into the industrial revolution.
GPS likely wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the USSR and the US during the cold war.
An F-15 can only destroy.
are you willing to argue that the f-15 streak eagle was designed with the explicit purpose of killing people? It’s an f15. I would also like to point out that there are training variants of the f-15 as well. Obviously not intended for real combat. There’s also really weird shit like the ASM-135 ASAT which was designed to be carried on an f-15 as an anti satellite measure. Pretty sure that’s not supposed to kill people.
This is an odd philosophical question. Because at the root here is basically the question of what came first. The knife, or killing people with a knife. The gun, or killing people with the gun. Theoretically there is a world in which you could invent from scratch, a tool used to kill people. However philosophically, you’re going to run into problems with related innovations and inventions. Is a sword entirely isolated from a spear? A spear is basically just a stick. At what point do we consider a weapon “intended to kill” and at what point is it just “a weapon, but with the ability to kill”
You would have a better time making the argument for something like a military service rifle, compared to like, a basketball. But i’m not sure that would make sense philosophically. Because you’re basically predicating the entire human race on the ability to kill other people, and if we’re doing that, then who cares.
can’t advance science, at best it can do acrobatics while being incredibly expensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD
ok.
It’s nothing more than a weapon.
no, it’s a plane, the weapons go on the plane, the Japanese may have used their planes as weapons during world war 2, but that is contrary to popular belief, not the standard mechanism for operation of a fighter jet.
I can’t remember the exact title, but I think it’s by Robert Blake. But the line is something like “a terrorist to me is a freedom fighter to you”.
Definitely two sides to most things.
yeah that’s pretty much the case. I guess my main point was that it will probably even out to some degree.
Agreed. Well we all can hope. Either that or…I don’t want to think too much about that.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
I found the song. It’s “Marching” by Robert Blake. But yeah. That’s what he’s saying in the song.
They’re having military practice nearby me today and my partner and I were just talking about how we both flinch when we hear military planes (small and fast) fly overhead even though neither of us has lived in a war zone.
Kurdish villagers… interesting choice. The people that Saddam Hussein dropped chemical weapons on. Those warplanes helped free them from Hussein’s oppression. That lasted until ISIS took over. Then those waprlanes helped the Kurds in fighting off ISIS.
I think the comic is trying to make a point but completely failing at it because the writer doesn’t know anything about history… even recent history.
Uh… the most recent history involves Turkey using US-sold jets to bomb Kurds in northern Syria.
Yeah Trump fucked them over, because he’s a dishonourable coward. Good thing he’ll never be President again, right?
Hey now.
It’s just old fashioned artillery they drop on the volunteer civilian aid workers in Kurdish Syria.
Maybe I’ll live to get to say Rojava one day instead.
The allied forces planes (all made by america by the way, the lancaster is a british knock-off of the B17) were killing the members of the Axis forces, like the ukrainians and the Italians and the Germans that became nazis
What on earth are you on about?
The 40s ones are based because it was fascists getting bombed
I hate modern air shows. It testifies to such a lach of attention to what exists in the world.
