Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

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

<< < (67/73) > >>

Is it cold in here?:

--- Quote from: Omega Entity on 06 Oct 2012, 18:31 ---DNR, perhaps a dive through previous WCDTs might yield the answers you're looking for, as far as how far discussions have gone in the past, and might give a bit of a sense of closure to said discussion if you read what's come before? As I've said, I'm pretty new here, so I wouldn't personally know where to begin. But some of the veterans of the site might be able to give you an approximate timeframe for which to begin your search.

--- End quote ---

http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22409.0.html for example.

Tova:
I don't really want to get deeply involved in this discussion, but there is a question I want to ask, regarding something I haven't seen addressed yet (maybe I missed it).

If you believe that the kind of slapstick depicted in the disputed comic normalizes domestic violence, or even violence of any kind: do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Because if there is none, then as far as I can tell, the rest of the discussion is just noise.

I am not asking purely to try and disprove the assertion (though I am disinclined to believe it, to be honest) - I am genuinely curious to know if there is any solid evidence out there. Cheers.

To anyone who is beyond sick of the discussion: my apologies.

Anticipating one possible response: yes, I do believe that the burden of proof is on whoever it is asserting that domestic violence is being normalised here.

Rainforce:

--- Quote from: Tova on 07 Oct 2012, 00:03 ---If you believe that the kind of slapstick depicted in the disputed comic normalizes domestic violence, or even violence of any kind: do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
--- End quote ---
As much as I disagree with DNR, this is not a very fair question, as it is based on how you interpret this comic/image/piece of art.
It's too much based on perspective as you could ever really "prove" anything here in that regard, unlless one of the characters is openly stating that it is is supposed to be ok/etc. .
...which, in turn, is the source of our discussion here, apparently. So I guess you more or less ask him to rationally explain why he/she is liking/dislking something they personally like/dislike and why that's right.
Or is that just me reading this wrong?

pwhodges:
I think Tova is asking about published research into any link between the depiction of violence and similar violence in real life - in other words, proof or not that a comic like this has a deleterious effect on society.  The problem with that is that, as you suggest, this type of research tends not to be definitive; for instance, much research has been published to suggest that violence on TV has little influence on the attitudes to violence of children who have watched it, but some recent research has come very strongly to the opposite conclusion.  However, either way, it seems reasonable to suppose that any such effect would be far more significant for exposure during the period of formation of a child's character than for exposure as a fully-formed adult - QC is, of course an adult cartoon rather than one for children.

Overkillengine:
So, has anyone ever tried horse burger before?




*Totally not a flippant attempt at a thread hijack away from a subject debated ad nauseum in the past to the point where insisting on bringing it up despite the disinterest in debating it yet again and getting nowhere constructive due to radically differing agendas and perceptions has become a forum faux paus.

**Might be sarcasm.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page