Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT - 6-10 September 2010 (1746-1750)
jwhouk:
And here I thought it was your fascination with Gene Wilder.
Yay! Faye's still gainfully employed!
Lost Coastlines:
--- Quote from: Tergon on 09 Sep 2010, 21:51 ---If I were to do something racially insensitive - for example, dropping an N-Bomb in casual conversation - I'd be called racist, even if I did not mean anything racially hurtful by saying it. And rightly so. It's not the intention behind the behaviour, it's the behaviour itself that defines what I've done. And far more importantly, it's the consequences. No matter how open-minded I was trying to be, if I'm being a racist prick, I deservingly get labelled as such.
So now let's assume I have a relationship with someone. I don't go out of my way to make them miserable. I don't shout at them or physically harm them in any way. But, even if I'm totally ignorant to what I'm doing, I manage to get them to open their heart before I take a big steaming dump in there. I do this over and over until the person I'm with feels like utter trash, at which point I break up with them. At no point have I intentionally or maliciously tried to hurt them. But, because of how I've acted, this will shatter their sense of self-worth and cause them to question every relationship they have later in life, acting like a damaged person.
--- End quote ---
I'm not really sure I agree with either of those assertions. If someone said or did something racially insensitive without hurtful intent, I'd give them a chance to explain or apologize before I assumed they are a racist. Perhaps it was a foot-in-mouth moment, perhaps it was racial ignorance (which I do not consider the same as racism, but labeling a racially ignorant person as a racist without further conversation is a good way to turn them into one). So I don't really agree that the racist label would necessarily be justified in that situation.
As for the relationship scenario, in that case some blame would have to be placed on the "victim" as well. Just as you were theoretically blind to their attempts to move the relationship forward emotionally and to the pain you caused them by not obliging, they were blind to the fact that that is not what you wanted and/or you weren't getting their message. Both parties failed to communicate effectively. They are just as responsible for that damage as you are, if not more. You didn't act abusively. Obliviously, but not abusively. This comparison is silly, but it is late. I'm trying to enter a friend's house. Instead of knocking or opening the door, I just walk towards it and expect them to open it for me. They know I'm arriving around that time, but I have not alerted them to my arrival. Thus, the door remains closed and I run into it. I keep doing this and eventually I break my nose. Maybe it's a little their fault, they knew I was coming over and could have looked for me. But for the most part I did it to myself. Regardless, my nose is still broken.
--- Quote ---The intentions may be different to a "real" abusive relationship. The actions may be different to a "real" abusive relationship. But the consequences, unfortunately, are not. Especially if, like in Dora's case, this happens to you time after time after time. It'd absolutely destroy you as a person.
--- End quote ---
My point several posts ago is that Dora was not absolutely destroyed as a person. She's got some issues, but if we're judging the consequences of the past relationships, she does not seem to have suffered anything at the level of emotional abuse.
Edit: The reasons I don't like the word "abuse" being used so loosely are more than personal annoyance and cheapening. Say a girl was in a relationship with a guy who cheated on her. After breaking up, she decides to refer to that relationship as abusive. This affects how people treat her, particularly future boyfriends. Perhaps it's not her intent to manipulate others, but that is what she is doing. She could have received sympathy and attention by just telling the truth. Future boyfriends would understand the importance of openness, loyalty and trust for her, assuming they aren't dolts. But by using the word "abusive," she's exaggerating the gravity and manipulating them. There are also people that are quick to accuse others of abuse when they are unhappy with how someone is treating them. If the accused party's confidence/state of mind/etc. is not the greatest, the accusation may likely change how they interact with the accuser even if the accused party did nothing wrong. Granted, some people do this to manipulate others on purpose. But others many not realize the effect such an accusation could have. For many people, "abuse" is a loaded word and IMHO, serious consideration should be put into using it.
Tergon:
--- Quote from: Lost Coastlines on 09 Sep 2010, 23:50 ---
I'm not really sure I agree with either of those assertions. If someone said or did something racially insensitive without hurtful intent, I'd give them a chance to explain or apologize before I assumed they are a racist. Perhaps it was a foot-in-mouth moment, perhaps it was racial ignorance (which I do not consider the same as racism, but labeling a racially ignorant person as a racist without further conversation is a good way to turn them into one). So I don't really agree that the racist label would necessarily be justified in that situation.
As for the relationship scenario, in that case some blame would have to be placed on the "victim" as well. Just as you were theoretically blind to their attempts to move the relationship forward emotionally and to the pain you caused them by not obliging, they were blind to the fact that that is not what you wanted and/or you weren't getting their message. Both parties failed to communicate effectively. They are just as responsible for that damage as you are, if not more. You didn't act abusively. Obliviously, but not abusively. This comparison is silly, but it is late. I'm trying to enter a friend's house. Instead of knocking or opening the door, I just walk towards it and expect them to open it for me. They know I'm arriving around that time, but I have not alerted them to my arrival. Thus, the door remains closed and I run into it. I keep doing this and eventually I break my nose. Maybe it's a little their fault, they knew I was coming over and could have looked for me. But for the most part I did it to myself. Regardless, my nose is still broken.
--- End quote ---
Hmm... I guess I do see your point on that score, yes. It's easy for me to say that Dora's the victim here because I like her character and all I have is a bunch of faceless bastards to represent her boyfriends, most of whom were apparently Alpha-Goths and at least one of whom is into Urinophillia. So I'm not really being fair on that score. She's done it to herself without properly considering that she can deal with it better. I could argue about how it's still abuse if the victim doesn't do anything to help themselves, but you're right, she's not being an innocent little flower here.
--- Quote from: Lost Coastlines on 09 Sep 2010, 23:50 ---My point several posts ago is that Dora was not absolutely destroyed as a person. She's got some issues, but if we're judging the consequences of the past relationships, she does not seem to have suffered anything at the level of emotional abuse.
--- End quote ---
She still functions in a lot of ways, but she's also got some pretty severe problems. She breaks into a screaming session at her two best friends, one of whom she loves, because the two are sitting around talking at night? That's not a healthy person by any standard. She's been damaged to the extent that she can't function properly. Maybe not so much that it destroyed her life - that was a little bit of an overstatement - but I still think my sentiment remains valid. It's crippled one aspect of her ability to interact with others, as a direct result of what happened to her in past relationships.
Again, I'm sure you've seen so much worse... this is a figurative bump on the knee compared to the mental (and physical) beatings some people take from properly abusive relaionships. But it clearly wasn't any standard of a healthy relationship either. So... I dont' know. How do we look at this?
Lost Coastlines:
--- Quote from: Tergon on 10 Sep 2010, 00:14 ---So... I dont' know. How do we look at this?
--- End quote ---
I actually think just saying "she dated a bunch of cheating bastards" sums it up pretty well. Or "she was in several bad relationships." That, in combination with being abandoned by her friends for Sven, explains her insecurity issues, I think. I have some opinions on the latest outburst, but they're kind of irrelevant to the current conversation.
Is it cold in here?:
What Sven said is ambiguous and could cover anything from simply being inconsiderate up to being abusive in the strictest sense of the word. We just don't know.
But whatever happened was almost certainly bad enough for Faye to assault Dora's exes with dairy products.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version