Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Marigold's OOPS!

0 (0%)

The entire internet is mad at me!

1 (2.2%)

Only one thing to do: Cat GIFs? LOTS of Cat GIFs.

2 (4.4%)

Here, Marten! Open it and see! Tee hee!

1 (2.2%)

Oh, hey, Emily invited you too!

0 (0%)

Yeah, what'd you think it was, a love letter?

0 (0%)

OH MY GOD YOU ARE PRECIOUS (Sh-shut up! Shut it all the way up!)

10 (22.2%)

Party at Emily Azuma's parent's lake house! (And Cristi's handwriting!)

2 (4.4%)

You should invite all your friends, too! There's plenty of room!

0 (0%)

A thousand people would probably be too many. (How big is your parents' lake house?)

0 (0%)

Faye with the watiress outfit - "Hey, Buttass, what's up?"

2 (4.4%)

Emily the intern is throwing a party, wanna come?

0 (0%)

Dora: Am I invited? Marten: Oh yeah, def- (Tai: AAH! AAAAH!)

1 (2.2%)

Tai: One of my interns is throwing a party. Wanna come?

1 (2.2%)

Marigold walks by. (DAT A$$)

15 (33.3%)

Angus gets caught "peeking"

3 (6.7%)

GIBBS-SMACK!

5 (11.1%)

What was that? NOTHING!

2 (4.4%)

Total Members Voted: 43

[Dr. ROFLPWN]

ON THE MATTER OF "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE": the reason that bringing that up got such a rude response is manifold, eschatonic/DNR/muffin_of_chaos/anyone else new to the forums, and I will attempt to enlighten:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I hope I've been edifying here and pretty chill and I know it's a lot of words, but try to read it. If we really need a tl;dr, suffice to say this: we had this argument before, everyone who brought Faye's "violent nature" up was a jackass, Jeph has addressed it and is super tired of it, so is the rest of the forum.

[eschatonic]

Welcome, new person!

You had no way of knowing this, and it's not a rules thing, but that issue has become an Oh No Not That Again discussion. The points that come up every time, in case you were wondering, are It's Just A Cartoon, It's Just A Smack, But She Left A Bruise On Marten, But He Never Asked Her To Stop, But He Shouldn't Have To, I Smack My Friends And Vice Versa, and several others I don't have the energy to recall.

Thank you, this brings a little perspective to the hostility here I guess.

[Oenone]

Interesting -- I wonder if Faye's going to start being more sympathetic to Dora's insecurities now, since Faye's boyfriend is living with a girl who had a crush on him and all. It kinda made me think of this http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1637.

[St.Clair]

Dr. ROFLPWN:

While I appreciate the information, and sympathize with the author's position, it is my opinion that much of the supposed "comedy" of this work derives from the flaws of the characters, and how those flaws interact.  Naturally, some people - perhaps as a result of dealing with such flaws in themselves or other people they know in real life - are going to take them much more seriously.

tl;dr - it's funny 'cause they're fucked up, but some people don't find some flavors of fucked up funny.

[DNR]

Dr. ROFLPWN:

While I appreciate the information, and sympathize with the author's position, it is my opinion that much of the supposed "comedy" of this work derives from the flaws of the characters, and how those flaws interact.  Naturally, some people - perhaps as a result of dealing with such flaws in themselves or other people they know in real life - are going to take them much more seriously.

tl;dr - it's funny 'cause they're fucked up, but some people don't find some flavors of fucked up funny.

Perhaps. That's a better argument than most. The comic is based on idiosyncrasies; character faults, be it an inability to maintain relationships, trauma from witnessing a tragedy, being occasionally crippled by germaphobia, experiencing deep social anxiety, etc; and the ways in which the characters all able to deal with their issues--and be relatively close to others; still, with these problems. Therewith, Faye's violence may be considered part of the dark social comedy of Faye's insecurities. That's a tenable argument.

I still find it weird, however, that no-characters seem to vocally consider her actions as unfair, damaging, or hurtful--particularly against the guys, whom hitting is okay. Perhaps the characters know they won't get anywhere with her? Perhaps I'm missing the wood for the trees? Dunno.

[idontunderstand]

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

[DNR]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

[techkid]

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?

Well said, Rainforce.

Let's draw away from the comic and turn to NCIS for a minute. How many people watched the show and enjoyed it... and then turned on it IMMEDIATELY after Agent Gibbs smacks Agent DiNozzo (had to look up the spelling) upside the head for the first time in the series? Anyone?

Now, in a properly organised society, there wouldn't need to be any arguments about the portrayal of violence. There wouldn't be any violence. People would behave as they should. Real life isn't like that, though, and that is what Jeph is depicting in the comic (I suppose...). That we are not perfect, that we all have our faults, and that we still try to live with each other and have fun despite all that.

I grew up in a rough neighbourhood, and I learned at an early age about the physical and emotional scars that goes with domestic violence (not from personal experience, mind you, but it was pretty much all around me), but I still saw this in a light-hearted way. Most women, if they saw their boyfriend/husband/love interest staring at another lady's ass would want to, and maybe also do, the exact same thing. I also saw the humour in the skillet incident, enjoyed the Vespavenger mini-arc, and grinned when Momo beats up Pintsize, and every other point along the way (drama, dramatics, swords and all (I tried to find the comic where the college girl talks to Dora about her failed moves on Marten, but I used all my archive-fu skills on those three tidbits)).

To sum it up: nobody lives life like The Brady Bunch (not even their real-life selves, apparently). Keeping yourself in a politically correct bubble will not change the fact that the world is like that and worse sometimes. QC comics shows this in a light-hearted and humourous way, and we can either enjoy the occasionally bumpy ride, or unbuckle our seat belts and leave for smoother, wildly unrealistic PC pastures.

[pwhodges]

I would also add that there can be an element of play.  Faye and Angus can perhaps be considered as merely joshing around.  Do we stop kids from rough and tumble play because they are learning to accept violence?  I'd be unwilling to suggest that that is a necessary change in the way we bring up children - and well-adjusted adults still have a bit of child in them too.

[jwhouk]

I'd like to point out two things:

1. It IS a comic strip. Most of what's done here is for the lulz and to keep the characters - well, in character. Faye has had a history of punching since the double-digits in strip numbers, and it's how she responds to things. She HAS been called on it by Raven (too lazy to look up the exact strip, but it's the one where she compares her to "a kitty who scratches all the time").

2. IT'S MY BIRTHDAY. NO ARGUING on my birthday in MY THREAD.

[Carl-E]

YOUR thread? 

You just built it. 


We have to live here...

[jwhouk]

Hey, I live here, too!  

[jwhouk]

And The MOMENT OF THE WEEK was?

Marigold's OOPS!    0 (0%)
The entire internet is mad at me!    1 (3.4%)
Only one thing to do: Cat GIFs? LOTS of Cat GIFs.    2 (6.9%)
Here, Marten! Open it and see! Tee hee!    1 (3.4%)
Oh, hey, Emily invited you too!    0 (0%)
Yeah, what'd you think it was, a love letter?    0 (0%)
OH MY GOD YOU ARE PRECIOUS (Sh-shut up! Shut it all the way up!)    5 (17.2%)
Party at Emily Azuma's parent's lake house! (And Cristi's handwriting!)    1 (3.4%)
You should invite all your friends, too! There's plenty of room!    0 (0%)
A thousand people would probably be too many. (How big is your parents' lake house?)    0 (0%)
Faye with the watiress outfit - "Hey, Buttass, what's up?"    1 (3.4%)
Emily the intern is throwing a party, wanna come?    0 (0%)
Dora: Am I invited? Marten: Oh yeah, def- (Tai: AAH! AAAAH!)    1 (3.4%)
Tai: One of my interns is throwing a party. Wanna come?    1 (3.4%)
Marigold walks by. (DAT A$$)    10 (34.5%)
Angus gets caught "peeking"    2 (6.9%)
GIBBS-SMACK!    3 (10.3%)
What was that? NOTHING!    1 (3.4%)

Total Members Voted: 29

[Redball]

How many women, having just walked past a male roommate and his girlfriend, having heard a "Smack!" a second later, would have needed to ask, "What was that?" Marigold, perhaps having no idea a guy would watch her bottom, I can understand. Most women?

[Is it cold in here?]

Welcome, new person!

You had no way of knowing this, and it's not a rules thing, but that issue has become an Oh No Not That Again discussion. The points that come up every time, in case you were wondering, are It's Just A Cartoon, It's Just A Smack, But She Left A Bruise On Marten, But He Never Asked Her To Stop, But He Shouldn't Have To, I Smack My Friends And Vice Versa, and several others I don't have the energy to recall.

Thank you, this brings a little perspective to the hostility here I guess.

Further, I believe you are posting in good faith, based on what I've seen so far.

[DNR]

[potentially inflammatory statement removed by moderator]

The phrase 'he who fights monsters..' springs to me, in response to several comments made. For example, using all caps to e-cry that; 'OMG. IT'S JUST A COMIC. WHY ARE YOU TALKING IT SO SERIOUSLY'. As I've said in a previous post, books, films, comics, portraits, prose stories - forms of fiction, and creative non-fiction, etc - have artists whom color their creations with ideologies--standards, norms, etc. They create worlds and inject it with character who hold certain views. In the same way art may be critiqued for it's literal presentation--e.g, in comics, slapdash coloring work--it can be critiqued for the aforementioned society layered into it. That's how criticism works--and, further, there's no 'entry-qualification' for criticism. It can be the entire Godfather trilogy, or a single frame of The Simpsons--the former, perhaps, considered for it's mixing of the American dream (unprecedented access to power and fortune) and the mobster-ism of the 'old country; the latter, it's mise-en-scene. On that note, you're doing QC a disservice, it's a hugely popular web-comic--arguably more eagerly read nowadays, by a lot of people, and for a greater period, than plenty of classic-literature. How many books have thousands of pages read by thousands of readers every, single, day? If any justification were needed for its critique--its popularity and long-life are obvious claims.

On this topic, there are two juxtaposition counter-arguments going on presently, that: you shouldn't criticize because it's just a comic, and, it's shouldn't be criticized because it is a social mirror to life--it has couples arguing, hitting each-other, etc, because that happens with real-couples. As is obvious, there arguments cannot co-exist. Keeping with the sentiment of the latter, (that QC is being somewhat 'real'), there seems to be a consistent argument being made I'd prefer QC to be stale, PC, and conservative. This is somewhat of a straw-man argument. Authors can do what they want--I  only wish to comment on the way in which do so. I don't want, nor expect, QC to be a stuffy melo-drama with Victorian sensibilities--I just want to comment on it's representation of interrelationship violence, on a board (which I thought) encouraged discussion about the comics.

This brings me to the matter of the author. It's been said that Jeph provides this forum for us. Therewith, we should be polite. I'm uncomfortable with this logic, somewhat. It reminds me of what users of CAD forum users say whenever Buckley has acted dickishly. Yes, Jeph provides the forum. Thus, he has the right to ban users, closed topics, whatever. But 'you should be nicer, this is X's domain, not yours' isn't the best retort when people present views which differ to your own--because, really, have I not been reasonably postie. As well, surely Jeph is as much indebted to his readers, as his readers are to him--that's a different augment, though.

[Is it cold in here?]

Criticism is entirely within the rules here. I wouldn't moderate on any other basis.

[Madmartigan]

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?

The sad fact of the matter of people decrying something in a strip where they don't even know if it has an incredibly harmless slap like a wrist flick or full blown slap.  I took it as a "I know where your eyes are, mister" wrist flick. 

But on the whole "this comic makes me uncomfortable" and I just "skimmed it a bit"....Ugh.  If something unsettles you, why bother with it then?  I imagine you abhor contact sports then as well?  Maybe not.  I'm just making blind assumptions like you are with Faye that this is some depiction of domestic violence.  Moreover, the overreaction to something so benign on the whole I find completely flabbergasting.  With the long winded rants, you'd think Faye had subjected Angus to a week of harsh verbal abuse followed by smacking him absentmindedly with a mace because he forgot to put the toilet seat down.  That's what I don't get.

It's like you're trying to force some quasi-utopian world you've built up for yourself where you expect everyone to fall into your abstractions of the rules of perfect human interaction and those who stray as domestic monsters.  At least in relation to this strip.

I also gather from the rants you have not read the strip through in its entirety, which again, would discredit some of the argument as context is also key, both to the characters and the overarching type of story Jeph is depicting.  I shudder to think what your opinion of pintsize is.

As others have stated, Jeph is basing this strip of the premise of everything learning how to be nice to each other.  Each character has grown/is growing.  And they've done that through interactions with all the characters.  Marten helped Faye begin to confront her problems.  Faye in turn put Dora on the path of addressing her problems through therapy. 

What I find incredibly annoying and self-ignorant, are those who ignore that overarching story arcs of the story, how these characters have come together for better and worse in favor of one minuscule little aside where a character got a jostle for staring at some booty.  It's just absurd and bespeaks of laziness, agenda seeking flaws in something you didn't really like in the first place, or, dare I say it....Trolling and attention whore seeking.

[pwhodges]

It's been said that Jeph provides this forum for us. Therewith, we should be polite. I'm uncomfortable with this logic, somewhat. It reminds me of what users of CAD forum users say whenever Buckley has acted dickishly.

Although obviously Jeph can moderate, he's only done so once in the last two years. It's me and the other mods who run this place. We do not object to criticism of Jeph's work here; however, we do object when people come here to insult him. But then we do not want anyone to trade insults here, so yes, please be polite.

[Is it cold in here?]

It's just absurd and bespeaks of laziness, agenda seeking flaws in something you didn't really like in the first place, or, dare I say it....Trolling and attention whore seeking.

If it gets that bad you won't have to say or do anything: there are moderators for that.

In the meantime it's prudent to assume good faith.

Oh, good reminder about how the characters are portrayed as improving, with each other's help. You didn't say it, but there's an implication there that artistically they have to start out screwed up so that there's room to show them improving. I agree.

(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)

[DNR]

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.

It's late. If you like, I'll respond to your other points another time--otherwise, thanks for being polite to me.

5.) That's a fair point, but I feel it's flawed.

Firstly, consider this--yes, men perhaps are empowered, but are they empowered enough to survive being victims? Male privilege and centuries of institutionalized sexism is a double-edged sword--it's produced an ideal of masculinity as being strong, the leader, the fighter, the warrior, the most intelligent, the most able, etc. One thing it doesn't have an ideal--is the injured male. Male privileged overwhelming privileges men who ascribe to tradition roles of masculinity, and being the victim of violence isn't one of those. Centuries of institutionalized sexism emboldens and allows men to be the best athletes, most heroic soldiers, most acclaimed writers, most intelligent academics and scientists, and most brilliant politicians--however, it spares no sympathy for men hurt; when they should be strong; it has no sympathy for men who fail to be the what privilege allows certain men to be. For one, it has no space for male victims of domestic violence. Yes, it's arguably strengthening the idea of women as 'perpetual victims', 'inherently weak', 'in need of protection', and other sexist ideas--but society pities women who face violence, and attempts to 'save' them. The same does not happen the other way around.

Second, I can't help but feel that...well, you're propitiating the same sexist system of un-even power that we both despise. You're (seemingly) saying that there simply aren't any relationships where-in women are in control, that there are no truly empowered women (--who might be capable of victimizing someone else from a position of power). You're (seemingly) saying that all women are some surf-class. I mean, on the micro scale, do you really think there are no relationships where-in women wield the balance of power?

It's been said that Jeph provides this forum for us. Therewith, we should be polite. I'm uncomfortable with this logic, somewhat. It reminds me of what users of CAD forum users say whenever Buckley has acted dickishly.

Although obviously Jeph can moderate, he's only done so once in the last two years. It's me and the other mods who run this place. We do not object to criticism of Jeph's work here; however, we do object when people come here to insult him. But then we do not want anyone to trade insults here, so yes, please be polite.

With respect though, as I asked, have I not been polite? Have I been hugely rude? Have I insulted Jeph? Perhaps I should look through the comments more, but it appeared my 'geez, you guys are like bronies' jokes has been removed--where as, 'What I find incredibly annoying and self-ignorant ... just absurd and bespeaks of laziness, agenda seeking flaws in something you didn't really like in the first place, or, dare I say it....Trolling and attention whore seeking', has been left up. It's been implied that I'm impolite, trolling, an attention whore; that everyone whom has voiced similar sentiments to me, in the past, has been a jackass; this all seems a lot more callus--and personally insulting than--what I'm saying. I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm trying to discuss my feelings about a strip.

The sad fact of the matter of people decrying something in a strip where they don't even know if it has an incredibly harmless slap like a wrist flick or full blown slap.  I took it as a "I know where your eyes are, mister" wrist flick. 

.

I'm not decrying it. I'm criticizing it; not damning it.

Second, the response to your point is laden within your own argument. We don't know if it was an incredibly harmless slap or full blown slap. You believe it was the former, I believe the latter. Therewith, we are both free to form opinions on the strip--based on what we see. I see it as a full blown slap due to their being an all-caps 'SMACK!' coming off the contact. As well, he appears to be pulling his head away, his eye is closed; his eyebrows furrowed. Further, his 'Ow' has an exclamation mark, and in bold; alike the later 'Nothing', implying it's said pretty loudly. This is my visual-reading of the strip. It is me forming opting for a side--just like you see it was a 'wrist flick', no doubt through visually reading the strip a different way. Both of our opinions here are valid.

But on the whole "this comic makes me uncomfortable" and I just "skimmed it a bit"....Ugh.  If something unsettles you, why bother with it then?  I imagine you abhor contact sports then as well?  Maybe not.  I'm just making blind assumptions like you are with Faye that this is some depiction of domestic violence.

.

Why is it a blind assumption?

To make further note of my QC reading, years ago; I used to read the comic regularly. I've read from strip 1 onward. I believe I stopped roughly when Marten broke up with Dora--mostly due to professional commitments meaning I had less free time. When I had more free time, I began reading again; although, usually once a week, or so. Again, I stopped--professional commitments. I stopped roughly when they went into space to see Hannelore's father--I remember thinking. 'Wait, I must be missing something. They're in space now'. By that point, I was only half reading it, and I suddenly realized I'd drifted away from the story-arc. Therewith, I'm making blind assumptions about Faye? Surely...insecurity regarding abandonment--from her father, boyfriends, etc; flippant-ness often verging on rudeness; a heart of gold, strong commitment to her friends, hidden behind of occasional coldness. Surely that's Faye 101. As her bio says, she's 'endearingly combative'.

Yes. It made me feel uncomfortable. I'm not allowed to be something? Have you never read anything which made you feel; 'hey, wait? that's...kinda weird', and then talked to your friends about it, or on a community dedicated to discussing whatever it was?

Lastly, I'm fine with combat sports. I teach a Eskrima on weekends.

The overreaction to something so benign on the whole I find completely flabbergasting.

As you said, ' I took it as a "I know where your eyes are, mister" wrist flick. The reading of it as something benign is something you're doing--an individual visual-reading--which I'm doing, as well, and coming out with a different interruption.

With the long winded rants, you'd think Faye had subjected Angus to a week of harsh verbal abuse followed by smacking him absentmindedly with a mace because he forgot to put the toilet seat down.  That's what I don't get.

'Rants' you're not really countering. These post takes around a minute or so of my time. Now, you doing what other posters have done--something which I've already argued against--exaggerating. I see the comic as this: Faye hitting Angus hard, and I find that weird. 

It's like you're trying to force some quasi-utopian world you've built up for yourself where you expect everyone to fall into your abstractions of the rules of perfect human interaction and those who stray as domestic monsters.  At least in relation to this strip.

Again, you're doing what other posters have done--something I've, again, argued against. Using a straw man augment. I'm not trying to force a utopian world view--if that is what you're taking from my arguments, I really don't know what to say. I don't want 'everyone to fall into [my] abstractions of the rules of perfect human interaction and those who stray as domestic monsters'. Again, that's exaggerating, using a straw-man argument, and being silly. All I want is this: a discussion about the fact we're a comic where-in a girlfriend hits her boyfriend ... we're reading a comic which has that dynamic, which has characters that do that ... and yet don't seem to talk about -- (no-one, for some time, seems to have brought up Faye's 'issues'; for lake of a better word, which I think are still a major part of the comic).

I've legitimately been interested to read what some of the posters have said in response to me--e.g, those that have talked about their reading of it as...dark bit of a real-life, cathartic--that they enjoy the strip because it's characters are fucked up. That's an interesting discussing. But implying, completely without justification, that I'm some art-Nazi...who wants to impose a world view onto art...that's just pointless.

(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)

I'm genuinely curious. What, to you, would constituent original insight into this discussion? Because, by the sounds of a lot uses here, not talking about it at all...seems the only advised and engaged (if not original) way of dealing with this.


I'm not going to reply to the rest of your message' not now at least, as I feel I've hopefully answered the fair points raised in it (e.g how long I've read QC), and I'll ignore what I feel to be the jerkish points--e.g the implication that I'm just an attention whore.

[Omega Entity]

(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)

I'm genuinely curious. What, to you, would constituent original insight into this discussion? Because, by the sounds of a lot uses here, not talking about it at all...seems the only advised and engaged (if not original) way of dealing with this.

But it's already been stated, repeatedly, that this topic has been brought up over and over again, ad-nauseum in the past, and I assume that nothing here has any new points that haven't been heard by everyone else in the past, if I read the subtext of IICIH's post correctly, while taking into account that this has come up before. Just because you (or I, for that matter) weren't around for said discussions, doesn't not mean they didn't happen, and frankly, I can't blame people for not wanting (or frankly, needing) to rehash it for the umpteenth time.

It was requested, politely, that the matter be dropped, and you are still (politely) insisting that it needs to be rehashed. One thing I've found with this forum, is that it's take it or leave it - if people don't like how things are run, or at the very least can't tolerate it, then they are more than welcome to move on to other places; no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to keep them here. For those that understand and can, at the very least, respect how thing are run (note that respecting how things are run, and agreeing with it, are two entirely separate matters), are more than welcome to stay. At least, that's how it looks, from my observations.

[DNR]

(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)

I'm genuinely curious. What, to you, would constituent original insight into this discussion? Because, by the sounds of a lot uses here, not talking about it at all...seems the only advised and engaged (if not original) way of dealing with this.

But it's already been stated, repeatedly, that this topic has been brought up over and over again, ad-nauseum in the past, and I assume that nothing here has any new points that haven't been heard by everyone else in the past, if I read the subtext of IICIH's post correctly, while taking into account that this has come up before. Just because you (or I, for that matter) weren't around for said discussions, doesn't not mean they didn't happen, and frankly, I can't blame people for not wanting (or frankly, needing) to rehash it for the umpteenth time.

It was requested, politely, that the matter be dropped, and you are still (politely) insisting that it needs to be rehashed. One thing I've found with this forum, is that it's take it or leave it - if people don't like how things are run, or at the very least can't tolerate it, then they are more than welcome to move on to other places; no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to keep them here. For those that understand and can, at the very least, respect how thing are run (note that respecting how things are run, and agreeing with it, are two entirely separate matters), are more than welcome to stay. At least, that's how it looks, from my observations.

Perhaps. Thanks for the measure response to what I said. It may be a case of perceptive. As you said, I simply haven't been around for the amount of times this has reported happened. It's perhaps akin to running an atheism-based website which, on a monthly basis, has a creationist pop-up on the forum. (note: I'm not saying anything with that example, only that it'd get annoying for the webmasters to constantly deal with the same exact problem). The reason I haven't dropped it is simple, and partly the same as the admin. I feel like there hasn't been any real discussion. Don't get me wrong, there has been some--e.g with DR. Thingy--but it's mostly been: 'this again, jeez', 'you just want politic correctness!', 'stop analyzing stuff' etc. Perhaps those posts come from this topic being done to death, however--where-in, before, discussion was had...but no real impasse was met. I'll take your advise, and assume I'm beating a horse which this forum has decided to put to sleep--in other words, let it go.

[pwhodges]

With respect though, as I asked, have I not been polite? Have I been hugely rude? Have I insulted Jeph?

I have not suggested that you have not been polite (I didn't see the remark deleted by another moderator, so I can't comment on that).  I was answering your remark that you were uncomfortable with the logic that we should be polite because it's Jeph's forum.

However, I would remind you that there can come a point at which reiterating the same point at greater and greater length does become rude in itself.

[Omega Entity]

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.

[WAYF]

I'm gonna try to do this in one sentence:

If Angus had really had a problem with it, Faye would have said "Nothing" in response to Marigold, but Angus would have said "Why did you hit me?"

[Vurogj]

Angus may or may not have a problem with it. He has a long history of putting his foot in his mouth with Faye, and he's tried really hard over the length of their knowing each other to get better at not doing it. He might well want to say "Why did you hit me?", but be good enough to not say it in front of Marigold. In panel 4, Faye is looking at Angus because he did a wrong thing. Angus is avoiding eye contact with... who? Faye because he's in the wrong, or Marigold because he's not comfortable lying to her when says "nothing"?

[Is it cold in here?]

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.

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]

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?

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.

[WAYF]

Is that a burger made with horse? Or is it something else which is not at all horse related?
I ask because hamburgers are generally, as I understand it, made out of beef.

I can't say I've ever had a horse burger before, but last night I tried tapioca for the first time. It goes deliciously with nutmeg and ice cream.

[Pilchard123]

No, but we used to tease a girl in my IT class at school about the number of burgers you could get out of a horse. As for tapioca, it does indeed taste good with nutmeg, though I've never tried it with ice cream.

[Tova]

If hamburgers are made out of beef, then maybe horse burgers are made out of duck or something.

[Mr_Rose]

But hamburgers and beefburgers are both made of cow…

[Carl-E]

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.

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

Good grief, there's barely anyone in that thread that's posting in here anymore! 

My, how things have changed...

[pwhodges]

Good grief, there's barely anyone in that thread that's posting in here anymore!

Of course, this means that saying that the subject has been done to death is a bit pointless.  It has been raised more recently, but not discussed at any great length.

[Is it cold in here?]

A horse burger is someone who burgs horses, of course. Trying a horse burger means putting one on trial.

[Carl-E]

A horse burger is someone who burgs horses, of course. Trying a horse burger means putting one on trial.

I read your "horse burger" as something completely different. 



Bugger. 

[Is it cold in here?]

The mental picture of a horse picking its nose is a vivid one.

[Pilchard123]

It wasn't a horse picking its nose, I think. Not with the rest of that post.

[pwhodges]

While you're horsing around, I'll consider when to get that packet of horse meat that I got in France out of the freezer.

[Welu]

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

Whoa, the discussion style in that thread makes me really appreciate the current mods.

[jwhouk]

And The MOMENT OF THE WEEK was?

Marigold's OOPS!    0 (0%)
The entire internet is mad at me!    1 (2.7%)
Only one thing to do: Cat GIFs? LOTS of Cat GIFs.    2 (5.4%)
Here, Marten! Open it and see! Tee hee!    1 (2.7%)
Oh, hey, Emily invited you too!    0 (0%)
Yeah, what'd you think it was, a love letter?    0 (0%)
OH MY GOD YOU ARE PRECIOUS (Sh-shut up! Shut it all the way up!)    8 (21.6%)
Party at Emily Azuma's parent's lake house! (And Cristi's handwriting!)    2 (5.4%)
You should invite all your friends, too! There's plenty of room!    0 (0%)
A thousand people would probably be too many. (How big is your parents' lake house?)    0 (0%)
Faye with the watiress outfit - "Hey, Buttass, what's up?"    2 (5.4%)
Emily the intern is throwing a party, wanna come?    0 (0%)
Dora: Am I invited? Marten: Oh yeah, def- (Tai: AAH! AAAAH!)    1 (2.7%)
Tai: One of my interns is throwing a party. Wanna come?    1 (2.7%)
Marigold walks by. (DAT A$$)    12 (32.4%)
Angus gets caught "peeking"    2 (5.4%)
GIBBS-SMACK!    3 (8.1%)
What was that? NOTHING!    2 (5.4%)

Total Members Voted: 37

[Method of Madness]

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

Whoa, the discussion style in that thread makes me really appreciate the current mods.

Always nice to be appreciated

[Tova]

Whoa, the discussion style in that thread makes me really appreciate the current mods.

Agreed. I wasn't going to read it, but after seeing your post, I decided to take a look. I barely got to the end of the first page. Ugh.