What's supposed to be very smart, the comic itself or the correction?

The comic itself has been thrown around really often in online discussions over the past few months in lieu of trying to logically justify a position and, instead, appeal to the romantic idea that "We can just both be right!". In most of its uses it's a false equivalency that assumes the positions in question are as simple as the scenario in the comic. It uses this one very oversimplified example to try to say that all positions on a topic can co-exist and be equally valid, and ignores the fact that if two positions are in direct opposition and one of them is definitely right then it logically follows that one of them has to be definitely wrong. It's very, very smart.

The correction is written in a smug tone and makes the mistake of focusing too much on the scenario while trying to explain where the comic goes wrong but overall it pins down the idea that the comic is a load of feel-good bollocks that really isn't saying anything of substance. Even through pedantically breaking down the scenario they've justified their position: It's rarely as simple as the comic claims and even the situation being depicted might have a single, objective truth. By bringing into question what the context of the situation is and what the original purpose of the symbol might have been, they highlight the fact that the scenario in question only works if it exists in a vacuum. They're just a bit of a twat about it.