Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 2912 to 2916 (9-13 March 2015)
vidugavia:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
No. It is not amazing. Languages works because there exists rather large practical agreements within them regarding what words mean. "Illusions" are just as real as everything else that exist. Illusions exist as illusions. Everyday language use and its collective agreements and definitions are something that exists and can be studied. Just like illusions can be studied.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---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.
--- End quote ---
No. Being selfish is in everyday language, and in many more well defined ethical schools, generally to be self-centred and only interested in your own well being. There is always potential ways to interpret words in different ways, regardless of how many words you use. That doesn't change that language works because there exists common understandings of words.
There exists no "mere perjoratives". All perjoratives contain nuances that signal why and/or in what way we should dislike them/their acts. There are differences between calling a person selfish, an asshole, a cunt, a son of a whore, a looney or a traitor. Differences that are constantly defined in the living language. Trying to reduce that to "do not like" is language-destruction.
Stating that Tais behavior in the discussed situation is motivated by selfishness or stating that Tai is selfish in a certain act communicates that her actions are bad in a specific way, that she should change her behavior and that similar behavior should be avoided by others.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---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.
--- End quote ---
I don't find it fruitless to discuss the philosophy of things, but I do find conversation-destructing deconstructionism rather impotent and boring. Dragging psychological egoism into a discussion regarding if an action is ethical doesn't help that discussion at all. The question regarding if Tai, or anyone else, can do truly altruistic acts or not doesn't help us an iota
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---Of course, my intent wasn't to be meta.
--- End quote ---
Then don't bring meta-ethics to the battlefield.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---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.
--- End quote ---
Then say that. That is a valid ethical re-evaluation of the situation that doesn't drag things down into a meta discussion.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---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.
--- End quote ---
Is anyone but you speaking about bad guys? Both me and "rfrank dodelijk" are talking of what we view as bad behavior in a specific situation. We can NEVER speak about anything more than a slice of the elephant. We have no choice but making our judgements of the elephant from the small patches we can touch.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---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."
--- End quote ---
His actions might be selfish, but that is not what our discussion is about. This is about you labeling all human behavior selfish.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 12:09 ---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 ---
Booring meta again. Make up your mind regarding what you are discussing. Otherwise I might start to make a freudian analysis regarding why you are writing what you are writing.
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: plusorminus on 10 Mar 2015, 13:41 ---..snip.. Length.
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.
--- End quote ---
Angus basically stalked Faye, and was generally creepy as all hell about worming his way into her life up to the point the Marten invited him into the social circle--which really wasn't on Angus.
I'd respond to vidugavia's post, but it'd just be repeating what I already said in different words.
I point this out, not because I dislike Angus, but because it is "real." it's a thing that definitely happened. I am pretty much the only person I've seen comment on this.
You don't like Tai. Your analysis is colored by that dislike. Given all of the things that character in QC have done, there's really nothing special about Tai's excesses. You can point to her enthusiasm about Dora being inappropriate, but--given Marten's knowledge that Faye wasn't exactly comfortable with sexy time talk, his repeated innuendos were of the same caliber. That they all ended in punches and "I was joking" doesn't change anything. For those who don't dislike Marten, however, they get a pass. Just like Angus being creepy (or Dale), Faye's abusiveness, Dora's issues in general, and so on.
You dislike Tai. You see a thing Tai did and you evaluate that thing to support that dislike. I see the same things and it's just a character doing her thing. You say Tai IS selfish, as if it carries the same weight as "Tai IS a woman." But one of those is a fact and the other is just your interpretation. I don't mean to say that a thing being your interpretation is therefore unworthy of discussion. I'm just disagreeing with it. Tai has ribbed Marten about his reaction to her lust for Dora, but then again, Marten has ribbed her back. He did not punch her in response, so it would seem that Tai is still in the wrong. Punches make everything okay, it seems. Tai dramatically moped about Dora being single, but pursing her being an uncool thing to do so soon after a break up, but she didn't push the issue. She moped later when it seemed that Dora was ready to join the dating pool and missed her chance to Jim. When Marten questioned her about this dramatic mope, he joined in. Tai admitted, unprompted, that her interest in Dora could have been uncool and Marten pointed out (correctly, I might add) that while it was uncomfortable for him, he had no right to tell Tai she could not pursue Dora. Tai then offered a non-weasel-word apology which Marten accepted.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Everyone has one. I suppose everyone's entitled to share unless the rules state otherwise. My perspective is that labeling Tai as selfish doesn't communicate anything. My perspective on Tai's "selfish behavior" is above.
plusorminus:
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 14:25 ---{snipped}
Everyone has one. I suppose everyone's entitled to share unless the rules state otherwise. My perspective is that labeling Tai as selfish doesn't communicate anything. My perspective on Tai's "selfish behavior" is above.
--- End quote ---
Maybe I'm just not understanding your point. What is supposed to be "communicated"? I don't come to this board to do anything except contribute my opinion, should I have one, about what is happening or has happened in the strip. Your statement that my post doesn't "communicate" anything does imply that you find my point of view useless, which is your prerogative, but that's kind of a shitty stance to take.
Yes, Angus was creepy. Not your problem that you don't know this, but I've stated that on the record several times. I sort of side-eyed Faye warming to him, but hey, it happens, I guess. I didn't have to like it, and I didn't, but it was what it was. Other people's creepiness doesn't preclude others from being creepy as well. Hannelore, who I like quite a bit, was quelle creepy in her intro. I don't see her as selfish because she has not exhibited traits that indicate, to me, a penchant for selfishness. Tai has. I don't know that my dislike of her colors that. I adore Dora and have no issues in calling her out on her self-sabotaging, strident behavior. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's not really your place to tell me or anyone else that pointing out something that twigs as a personality trait "doesn't communicate anything."
Endellion:
--- Quote from: MrNumbers on 10 Mar 2015, 11:48 ---
--- Quote from: Endellion on 10 Mar 2015, 11:29 ---
--- Quote from: osaka on 10 Mar 2015, 10:39 ---
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 09:36 ---
--- 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 ---
That is the actual best setup for a highly distasteful pun on the Dora Bianchi International Airport.
--- End quote ---
The airport has been officialy closed until the depressed Tai-phoon has blown over. :claireface:
--- End quote ---
Question: Are you even aware of your 'blown over' double entendre?
--- End quote ---
Absolutely :-D
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: plusorminus on 10 Mar 2015, 14:34 ---
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 10 Mar 2015, 14:25 ---{snipped}
Everyone has one. I suppose everyone's entitled to share unless the rules state otherwise. My perspective is that labeling Tai as selfish doesn't communicate anything. My perspective on Tai's "selfish behavior" is above.
--- End quote ---
Maybe I'm just not understanding your point. What is supposed to be "communicated"? I don't come to this board to do anything except contribute my opinion, should I have one, about what is happening or has happened in the strip. Your statement that my post doesn't "communicate" anything does imply that you find my point of view useless, which is your prerogative, but that's kind of a shitty stance to take.
Yes, Angus was creepy. Not your problem that you don't know this, but I've stated that on the record several times. I sort of side-eyed Faye warming to him, but hey, it happens, I guess. I didn't have to like it, and I didn't, but it was what it was. Other people's creepiness doesn't preclude others from being creepy as well. Hannelore, who I like quite a bit, was quelle creepy in her intro. I don't see her as selfish because she has not exhibited traits that indicate, to me, a penchant for selfishness. Tai has. I don't know that my dislike of her colors that. I adore Dora and have no issues in calling her out on her self-sabotaging, strident behavior. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's not really your place to tell me or anyone else that pointing out something that twigs as a personality trait "doesn't communicate anything."
--- End quote ---
Did you really just tell a black man where his place was?
For serious? (But he didn't know you were black! Yeah, I know. But A: still happened. B: it's a crappy thing to say no matter who you say it to, unless there is actually a place and someone doesn't own it. Like say a moderator's position.)
Le sigh.
Look, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. Yes, I said that "selfish" doesn't communicate anything, and I explained that rather clearly. "Tai is selfish" is no different than "Tai is an asshole." Both statements declare that you don't like Tai by hanging a pejorative label on her, but nothing beyond that. The stance you ascribe to me is your imagination. If you find it shitty, you did that to yourself. Why should I care that you don't like Tai? Why should you care that I don't care? Beyond that it says nothing about anything.
Moreover, my lack of care was primarily in reference to the standard the someone who is not you was using to judge Tai. That you share that standard is incidental, so still not personal (just like your "in your place statement" while shitty on it's own, wasn't actually racist). You interjected yourself into a discussion already in progress. To take my application, to your argument, of a theme I already expressed as a personal attack just feels like you are looking for something to view as a personal attack. So if you have an argument on how my not seeing the labels being hung on characters as important is shitty in itself, rather than as a perceived slight, share.
I stated that there is difference between labeling a character, which I suggest communicates nothing, and discussing--or calling out--what they did. I notice that here you label Dora's behavior, but not Dora. Why not hang "bitch" around Dora's neck, rather than label her behavior "strident?" Since my thesis is that "selfish," used as label, is no different than "asshole" it's no different than "bitch." I just have personal dislike for that word. That dislike is why I use it here. I could have asked about "asshole," but choosing the gendered term here underlines the reason I say labels don't communicate anything. I think most people will feel how bitch comes off wrong. I think selfish does the same thing, but people find it more socially acceptable.
Yes, we're all allowed opinions, and yes were all allowed to express them. I didn't say you could not express your labels. What is it that separates your right to aply the label from my right to comment on your application it? Why is it not my place to express my opinion, but it is okay for you express yours? I'm guessing it goes back to you viewing my opinion on the use of labels, and words that I opine to have limited meaning, as an opinion of you.
Just to be clear, I don't think you are being racist. I'm using hyperbole to underline that I do think you're overeacting.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version