Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread

<< < (62/73) > >>

idontunderstand:
I guess she just didn't hit him very hard?

DNR:

--- Quote from: Dr. ROFLPWN on 05 Oct 2012, 22:47 ---
1.) Jeph has said, on these forums, that Faye's seemingly violent overreactions are clearly, obviously not okay in real life (with the exception of such as the OWLS Incident) and when you can parse that they are meant for comedy, they are in fact meant for comedy--Friday's strip being a prime example.
--- End quote ---

Claiming 'it's comedy' does not free something from intellectual debate. Moreover, part of the reason why people come to decry the comic, I imagine, is because we're expected to parse these incidences as comedy.


--- Quote from: Dr. ROFLPWN ---2.) Many, many, many posters have come through here bearing the effigy of Faye as Domestic Abuser and decrying her as violent, even psychopathic. Not one of these posters has done so in good faith. They have an agenda, and that agenda is tearing Faye down because they personally dislike her, or they feel she has sinned by not fucking Marten, or they are projecting an ex that they want to do violence of their own to onto her character, etc. This agenda was and is a stupid fucking agenda, and those who post under it are not welcome here. Jeph is not portraying a psychopath.
--- End quote ---

With respect, you cannot be serious. My argument is in no-way impacted by the fact that QC's story-arc hasn't included Marten and Faye fucking. And people who make arguments that depicting domestic violence, especially in comedy, is an ideologically loaded representation ... are doing so because... 'they are projecting an ex that they want to do violence of their own to onto her character'. Again, you cannot be serious.

I have no agenda. I was browsing webcomics--I haven't done it for a while. I came onto QC. I felt uncomfortable reading it--as it was showing domestic violence--and so I came here, to see what things users were saying about it, Perhaps there was back-story I'd missed, some hidden message I wasn't picking up on, etc. There is no agenda here. Arguing that people who disagree with you secretly have a nefarious plot that they won't admit ... that's just immature.


--- Quote from: Dr. ROFLPWN on 05 Oct 2012, 22:47 ---3.) Jeph has also stated that he gets really aggravated by reading the argument of how violent Faye is over and over again and it is one of the reasons he stays off the forums, is these circular arguments and revolving-door character hate sessions: Faye is violent and abusive, Dora is a frigid harpy, Tai is an obnoxious stereotype, etc., etc.
--- End quote ---

So? He doesn't come on here because his work is consistently criticized. You know that's not a good reason to not criticize something, right? Because, if you do, the artist won't hang out with you ... as said, so?

Jeph can write whatever he want. People can respond to it however they want.


--- Quote from: Dr. ROFLPWN on 05 Oct 2012, 22:47 ---4.) Jeph is not the only one who tires of revolving-door character hate sessions, or of constant overanalysis of material that, it can be reasonably assumed, is meant for comedy. That's why, I think, jwhouk fairly shouted IT'S A COMIC STRIP: this was not, to my eyes, the beginning of some story arc on Faye and Angus' troubled domestic situation, it is a one-off gag that is nearly as old as situational comedy itself..
--- End quote ---

Again, so? Being tired of hearing arguments does not make those arguments null or void. In turn, claiming; 'you're just over-analysing', 'it's just a comic / music video / book / video game / song / poem / film / documentary / blog / etc, (delete where appropriate)', and so on, is just attempting to dismiss arguments without engaging in them.  As for 'it is a one-off gag that is nearly as old as situational comedy' - so, as has been asked before, if wife-beating was age-old comic trope, you wouldn't mind Angus back-handing Faye? Because, you know, it's classic. Saying that something is old means nothing ... other than it is old. It is not a way to artistically justify anything.


--- Quote from: Dr. ROFLPWN on 05 Oct 2012, 22:47 ---FINALLY, I wouid like to caution people trying to play the equivalency game that while violence is never okay, and it is despicable for a woman to victimize a man, it is not the same situation as a man victimizing a woman--there are different power structures in play.
--- End quote ---

Firstly, as with a lot of your post, saying that people arguing that - men hitting women, WRONG; women hitting men, FUNNY - is a social double-standard, counts as playing 'the equivalency game' is pretty rude. This coming from someone who says people playing this game are jackasses.

Moreover, 'there are different power structures in play'. Go on? How is it different if a partner were to back-hand me (a guy) ... than if I were to backhand them (a girl)? What different power structures would inform your belief that a different morality should be applied  to either situation? Men and women are different - physically, biologically, socially, and so forth. However, everyone is different. As well, every conflict (in the broadest sense) has a different power structures at play. Therewith, every violent domestic incident is enacted by unique individuals, and no-one is saying; 'ah, it's exactly the same when a guy hits his wife for burning a steak - than when a woman hits her husband after he lost their child'. No-ones saying; 'it's all the same!'. People, like myself, are arguing violence is just despicable -- and there's a double standard well-ingrained in western society that demonizes domestically violent men, and laughs at domestically violent women..where-as we should be considering all domestic violence to be harrowing.

Pointing out an uneven appraisal of similarly vile actions is not arguing equivalency.

Rainforce:
So I was just reading the comic and lurking on the forums for other people's reactions (for fun and profit), and then SUDDENLY someone has an outbreak of "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT OK YOU KNOW" and everything goes downhill.
I don't want to be offensive here (I just am, probably), but:
Whoever thinks that something he/she read on a webcomic is applicable to real life has probably some serious Issues.
AS DO THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE ENDLESS PARAGRAPHS ABOUT ONE COMIC STRIP FEATURING A WRISTSLAP.
can we PLEASE not argue pointlessly and excessively about things that don't mat............no wait, that's actually all we do here.
can we please not argue pointlessly and excessively about topics we deem far too serious?

pwhodges:
Please keep it calm, folks.


--- Quote from: DNR on 06 Oct 2012, 03:01 ---I came onto QC. I felt uncomfortable reading it--as it was showing domestic violence--and so I came here, to see what things users were saying about it,
--- End quote ---

We all have different triggers.

At what point does a physical action become violence?  Any unsolicited touch? (In some circumstances, yes, certainly.) A gentle poke; a push; a slap across the cheek; a hand on the shoulder; a punch to the face?  It's not necessarily clear.  Context varies, and also our individual history will affect the choice.  Were you beaten as a child? - I was, I suppose, but in a formalised setting (caning at school) that didn't seem to me cruel either then or now (it was also ineffective!).  I did not beat my children, though, but I did sometimes give them a cuff, as much to catch their attention as to punish them.  So Faye's slapping Angus falls within the region I have grown (not uncritically, I should say) to accept.

But I was also brought up to disregard sex and gross physical attributes in dealing with people, and so I am distinctly uncomfortable with the emphasis on butts as a sexual feature which comes up fairly frequently in this comic, and which Angus displayed and was punished for.  Faye's slap barely hurt, I would say - it was the surprise, startling him out of his reverie that Angus reacted to.  The ogling matters more to me than the slap, in fact - but I do not try to impose this view on the rest of the forum (while also trying to maintain a fair and reasonable balance in what I do allow, or conversely frown on).

I suppose the variation in  reactions in this forum displays another slice of life.  A wide range of people come here and try to put their views over.  Sometimes they go over the top and find there's nothing here for them as they can't convert everyone to their specific point of view.  Very occasionally they become so disruptive that they get banned to protect the forum as a whole (I can count the number of times I had to do this over the past two years on the fingers of one hand).  But a lot of people find they can have their arguments respected even when not fully accepted - and this is, I think, a healthy situation.

As for Jeph - he reads here every week or two, but has not responded for a long time.  We try to limit unreasonable criticism of his work simply as a matter of courtesy - he pays for this place to exist for our use, and so we owe him that much by way of thanks.

Dr. ROFLPWN:
St. Clair: You're welcome, and yeah, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that we are going to dissect the awkward interactions and social neuroses that make for comedy around these parts. I merely come bearing a word of  warning against shitstorm bait.

DNR:
1.) I'm not the one "claiming it's comedy"--that's authorial fiat, what Jeph has said on the matter. I can try and find the post?

2.) With respect, I'm totally serious. The forum has had an ugly history of people doing exactly what I described, like a shitty reverse personality cult, and posts like eschatonic's are reminiscent of that. This is the core of why people got rude and dismissive: there's a history of this shit. I'm not saying you are part of that agenda, I'm giving you backstory.

As for "showing domestic violence", really? I think at most you could say it was problematic, but...oh well.

3.) Jeph owns these forums and writes the comic, and I think we should be polite to him. Especially when he's explained his position very plainly. It's a matter of courtesy to the dude whose work we're a fan of. I'm not trying to censor you, but I am pointing out that you're being impolite.

4.) Yes, I (and others) am trying to dismiss this argument, absolutely. Because the argument has been made before, literally at least fifty times now at this point. It is the essence of the proverbial dead horse. I am imploring you not to engage in proverbial equine necromancy as, again, a matter of etiquette.

5.) It is different any time a man strikes a woman from a woman striking a man, because the man has the institutionalized advantage. He has male privilege on his side, and the weight of centuries of institutionalized sexism. A man striking a woman is someone in power victimizing someone who is not. If you argue otherwise, you are wrong.

Hodges: Totally calm over here, hope that's reflected in this post. :) I'm gonna disengage after this, I think, I've basically said my piece.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page