Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2631-2635 (Feb 03 - 07 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Detachable Felix:
--- Quote from: Gareth on 04 Feb 2014, 02:59 ---They couldn't even make a rhino with like, ten horns, or no ears, or a rhino elephant hybrid?
Nope. Just a rhino face.
--- End quote ---
Don't forget there were also the Hath (not sure of the spelling), which were basically people with fish-heads.
But then again, what would Doctor Who be without cheesy humanoid aliens in really cheap outfits. That's what made the older series so brilliant - they succeeded despite the low budget. Or rather, because of it.
Not a fan of the current script-writing, but Moffat's early monsters were fucking brilliant. Real mind-fuck monsters. The soulless gaze of the gas mask zombies and the weeping angels come to mind here. ("Blink is pretty much my favourite episode of all time").
(And I'm not even going to bother commenting on the other current topic of discussion here. There are plenty of other forums on the internets to discuss boobs if you really feel the need to.)
Mlle Germain:
--- Quote from: NilsO on 04 Feb 2014, 03:31 ---As for amazing racks: Of the main characters, only Faye and Marigold qualifies (and Marigold wins). How does this influence past/present/potential partners? Are they attracted to big boobs, or is this of secondary importance?
--- End quote ---
A bit in line with Gareth's post:
:roll: I'm just wondering very much why we should have a discussion on how profoundly or not the female characters' boob size have influenced the relationships they're in at all (and based on today's strip in particular). Are we next going to discuss how Marten's romantic life or lack of a relationship is influenced by his dick size?!
RE: past comics
These prove for me what I thought about the new comic format: It's liable to have less content per comic. The characters are now often drawn way more close-up (bigger) than before and the font has doubled in size, so Jeph has more or less halved the content by making the single panels larger. Which is or course fine if Jeph likes it better, but I still hope that comics like during the party with more panels with smaller people in them will be more common than these two or three-panel comics with large close-ups and hardly any dialogue. Just my personal opinion.
Loki:
I agree with Mlle Germain on all accounts.
Mr_Rose:
--- Quote from: NilsO on 04 Feb 2014, 05:10 ---
--- Quote from: Schmorgluck on 04 Feb 2014, 04:46 ---
--- Quote from: NilsO on 04 Feb 2014, 04:01 ---Well, if they want to get angry, it is their privilege.
--- End quote ---
You might want to be more careful with your choice of words.
--- End quote ---
I did not catch that, but it might be because English is not my native language. Sorry if it was used in a wrong context.
--- End quote ---
Oh no, it's perfectly correct, if slightly archaic, English. It is, however, bad American; where "privilege" is stigmatised you naturally get push-back when you tell people they have it. Modern usage would suggest "it is their right" instead.
Barmymoo:
--- Quote from: NilsO on 04 Feb 2014, 05:10 ---
--- Quote from: Schmorgluck on 04 Feb 2014, 04:46 ---
--- Quote from: NilsO on 04 Feb 2014, 04:01 ---Well, if they want to get angry, it is their privilege.
--- End quote ---
You might want to be more careful with your choice of words.
--- End quote ---
I did not catch that, but it might be because English is not my native language. Sorry if it was used in a wrong context.
--- End quote ---
Nothing wrong with your word use - it is correct in this context. However, it also has a specific meaning when talking about oppression of minorities or systematic favouring of a particular group (people talk about "white privilege" or "male privilege" etc and it's a shorthand for the advantages that come with being part of those groups). I don't think that should mean it can't be used in its more general sense of a right you are glad to be in possession of. An alternative word that doesn't have the same nuance of meaning on the internet is "prerogative", with almost an identical meaning.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version