Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 2912 to 2916 (9-13 March 2015)
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: vidugavia on 10 Mar 2015, 11:26 ---
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 10:34 ---
--- Quote from: vidugavia on 10 Mar 2015, 10:29 ---But then there is no point in speaking about selfishness at all and even a worker-ant's death, when attacking a piece of bubble-gum, can be said to be "motivated by selfishness". It is full-filling it's preference for attacking.
Don't destroy language. We need it.
--- End quote ---
Not destroying language dude. Look up the philosophy of the selfless act. (To expand, if selflessness is, indeed, impossible then "selfish" is actually an impediment to clear communication. "Selfish" would be the thing destroying language.)
--- End quote ---
Nope.
First and foremost there is a difference between the descriptive philosophical concept of psychological egoism and the everyday normative concepts of selfishness. Using them as synonyms are just confusing.
Selfish in everyday language means being self-centred and only interested in your own well being. Psychological egoism says that all acts, even those made to benefit others, are rooted in fulfilling your own preferences. If psychological egoism is correct, in that there is no truly selfless acts, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no acts that are more or less self-centered.
Tai is selfish in a normative everyday sense. She uses Marten as a tool without regard for his feelings. Everyday normative language is used in order to describe how people should and shouldn't act. The descriptive discussion regarding the possibility of selfless acts is something different and something that should be kept separately in order to avoid confusion. Otherwise I could destroy more or less ANY discussion by de-constructing the concept "self".
I have a masters degree in philosophy and history. I know the discussion. For years I waved the flag of psychological egoism in more of less every normative discussion I was part of. Then I realised how fruitless it was.
I do not have a masters degree i English. Please bare with my language...
--- End quote ---
Everyday and normative are illusions. They assume words mean the same thing to most people, and that's not true. It's amazing that languge works at all, when you think about.
You claim that Tai is "selfish" and "not giving consideration to Marten." You mean to say the same thing twice, but one of those statements communicates something specific, by narrowing the potential ways to interpret the individual words. The other doesn't. It's merely pejorative, no different that calling a character "asshole." It communicates that the speaker doesn't like the character, but nothing more. Stating a character IS a thing (is selfish, is an asshole) communicates the speaker's opinion with the imperative that the audience should agree.
If you find it fruitless to discuss the philosophy of things, you really shouldn't make imperative statements about what language is, because that's pretty much nothing but philosophy. Even trying to define "normative" and "everyday" is a philosophic discussion. You can't have a meta-discussion without going down that rabbit hole.
Of course, my intent wasn't to be meta. Just to note the meaninglessness of the charge that Tai is acting selfishly. Marten asked her about her feelings, as she pointed out. She also implicitly acknowledged Marten's desire not to get involved. Marten "got involved" anyway, at which point it was time for the punchline. Tai's actions certainly kept the subject on herself, but that was the subject.
Philosophically speaking, it minds me of the parable about the blind men and the elephant. This little slice of interaction is insufficient to describe the whole of the thing, yet it is used to draw a certain conclusion, without regard to its context. Yesterday, Marten was the bad guy, today it's Tai. It seems an unfair assessment, in the least. We know, now, that Marten didn't think he should get involved. Using your definition of normative language, why wasn't what he did labeled as selfish by you? (If it was, I apologize for misunderstanding.) He could have considered Tai's feelings and just stated his position, rather than dramatically backing out to sound of infinite "nope."
Marten did what he did because the author thought it would be funny. Tai's "in for a penny" is meant to serve the same purpose.
aliensporebomb:
Whoa! Marten blows his top. Been a while since I've seen that and it's actually MORE anger than we saw when he and Dora split.
pwhodges:
Administrator Comment Bechdel Test conversation is now a separate thread.
The following are fragments that got caught up in the move:
--- Quote from: Tub on 10 Mar 2015, 07:47 ---Tai must be pretty desperate to seek relationship advice about Dora from someone who couldn't make a relationship with Dora work. Instead of doing what Marten would have done, she should do what she would do - it's her relationship, after all.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 09:36 ---
--- Quote from: rfrank dodelijk on 10 Mar 2015, 06:13 ---the behaviour displayed by the character tai is motivated by selfishness and a lack of any regard for marten's experiences with dora.
--- End quote ---
Describe a human behavior not motivated by selfishness.
Okay, trick challenge. No such behavior exists.
--- Quote from: osaka on 10 Mar 2015, 00:37 ---Why not keep cliff's notes on the phone? A 200GB microSD has been announced not too long ago, surely that's enough to keep track of everything xD
--- End quote ---
Sir, there are still terabytes of calculations required before an actual flight is attempted.
--- End quote ---
Aziraphale:
--- Quote from: aliensporebomb on 10 Mar 2015, 12:57 ---Whoa! Marten blows his top. Been a while since I've seen that and it's actually MORE anger than we saw when he and Dora split.
--- End quote ---
He seems less angry than exasperated (with himself, no less).
plusorminus:
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---
Everyday and normative are illusions. They assume words mean the same thing to most people, and that's not true. It's amazing that languge works at all, when you think about.
You claim that Tai is "selfish" and "not giving consideration to Marten." You mean to say the same thing twice, but one of those statements communicates something specific, by narrowing the potential ways to interpret the individual words. The other doesn't. It's merely pejorative, no different that calling a character "asshole." It communicates that the speaker doesn't like the character, but nothing more. Stating a character IS a thing (is selfish, is an asshole) communicates the speaker's opinion with the imperative that the audience should agree.
If you find it fruitless to discuss the philosophy of things, you really shouldn't make imperative statements about what language is, because that's pretty much nothing but philosophy. Even trying to define "normative" and "everyday" is a philosophic discussion. You can't have a meta-discussion without going down that rabbit hole.
Of course, my intent wasn't to be meta. Just to note the meaninglessness of the charge that Tai is acting selfishly. Marten asked her about her feelings, as she pointed out. She also implicitly acknowledged Marten's desire not to get involved. Marten "got involved" anyway, at which point it was time for the punchline. Tai's actions certainly kept the subject on herself, but that was the subject.
Philosophically speaking, it minds me of the parable about the blind men and the elephant. This little slice of interaction is insufficient to describe the whole of the thing, yet it is used to draw a certain conclusion, without regard to its context. Yesterday, Marten was the bad guy, today it's Tai. It seems an unfair assessment, in the least. We know, now, that Marten didn't think he should get involved. Using your definition of normative language, why wasn't what he did labeled as selfish by you? (If it was, I apologize for misunderstanding.) He could have considered Tai's feelings and just stated his position, rather than dramatically backing out to sound of infinite "nope."
Marten did what he did because the author thought it would be funny. Tai's "in for a penny" is meant to serve the same purpose.
--- End quote ---
RF, I think that for some people, and I'm not speaking about the person you were answering above because I don't know him/her, but for myself, at least, any dislike of Tai goes beyond this instance or this punchline.
Tai is selfish. She pushes boundaries. Whether it's because of some issue she has or not, I won't speculate, but this is real. This is not stuff that anyone is pulling out of their ass. She openly lusted after Dora when she and Marten were together, making him uncomfortable. She was a complete creep the first time she met Hannelore and had to be told by Marten, twice, to knock it the fuck off. I seem to recall that when Clinton acted like a creep to Hanners, he got much less slack. Tai sort of does whatever Tai wants to do, and the options are to fuck off from her or deal with it.
I think that not enough attention is paid to the fact that Tai is Marten's boss. It doesn't matter that she's stoned off her ass most of the time or that neither of them want to stay there forever. It is what it is. She is someone that Marten has to answer to. When Marten was an "Office B----" we saw how docile he was in the presence of his supervisor. He's not Faye - subconsciously he is aware that there is a hierarchy and that Tai has direct control over whether he remains employed, hence him being concerned about knowing whether she had graduated or not, because if she were leaving, his library days might be numbered. Subconsciously, Marten is not going to want to antagonize Tai. Yes, she is his friend and yes, he cares about her well-being, but Marten is Marten - I knew even before clicking on the comic for today that he was going to backtrack and help. That's who and what he is, and Tai knows it, which is why she was passive-aggressive in Monday's strip. She knows she can get away with that with him and he'll eventually cave.
I don't like Tai. I acknowledge that her feelings for Dora are real, and likely deeper than Marten's feelings for Dora were. But I don't like Tai as a character and I really find that she grates. I will acknowledge that it might just be me. I hate passive aggressive people and I hate people who use their position to get things out of others. I don't have any doubt that Tai understands on some level that as the boss, she has greater sway over what Marten does and how he responds. Would she fire him for no cause? Probably not, but Marten subconsciously does not want to take that chance.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version