Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3211 to 3215 (2nd to 6th May 2016)
DSL:
--- Quote from: SubaruStephen on 05 May 2016, 20:14 ---Is it me, or does his hair look surprised as well?
Panel 1: angry/irritated hair
Panel 5: epiphany hair.
--- End quote ---
A time-honored cartooning tradition.
mustang6172:
--- Quote from: Truec on 05 May 2016, 19:57 ---
--- Quote from: mustang6172 on 05 May 2016, 19:52 ---The fact that Claire was expecting Emily to provide a response in the affirmative does not justify her actions.
--- End quote ---
It entirely justifies her actions. The only person who feels wronged here is Clinton. If Emily had said yes, Clinton would not feel wronged, and thus no wrong would have taken place.
This page perfectly sums up my feelings on this arc. Clinton was never (entirely) mad about being manipulated by Claire. He thought he was mad about that, and plenty of readers were mad about it on his behalf, but he was actually primarily mad about Emily rejecting him, and blamed Claire for pushing him into that situation. If the manipulation had resulted in a second date, he never would have had issue.
Hopefully, Claire learns to not push her brother's boundaries and Clinton learns to push his own damn boundaries so his sister doesn't have to do it for him.
--- End quote ---
He wouldn't have been mad in that moment because he would have been pleased with the yes. Let's see what happens when we look past that initial moment.
Claire: Aren't you happy she said "yes!"
Clinton: Of course
Claire: And you aren't at all mad I manipulated you into doing this while I watched?
Clinton: (Pauses) Fuck you, Claire!
TheEvilDog:
At the end of the day, what Claire did was still wrong and no amount of "what ifs" or "what could have beens" will change that.
She manipulated two people into a situation without forethought of the consequences or without even talking to those involved first. She made a decision for two people without consulting them. She acted on her own without thinking or looking where she was going. This is not a situation where the outcome justifies the deed, when all is said and done, Claire did something she shouldn't have and it backfired on Clinton.
It boils down to this, if you do something and its someone else who has to pay the price, you have done something wrong, you have screwed up. Claire screwed up. And thinking of the potential positive outcomes does not change that.
Tova:
Let's add a bit of nuance, shall we?
Setting up someone so they can ask for a date isn't inherently wrong, unless the person involved doesn't want that kind of meddling.
Today's comic suggests that he was actually fine with the meddling, and was only upset that it went wrong. But let's go with your theory in the face of today's comic that he's upset at the meddling regardless. Until Clinton told Claire he didn't want it, she wasn't to know. And yes, she ought to have asked. BUT:
What I'm trying to say is that maybe take a step back and stop simplistic painting of one party as the bad guy, eh?
mikmaxs:
--- Quote from: Tova on 05 May 2016, 21:00 ---Let's add a bit of nuance, shall we?
Setting up someone so they can ask for a date isn't inherently wrong, unless the person involved doesn't want that kind of meddling.
Today's comic suggests that he was actually fine with the meddling, and was only upset that it went wrong. But let's go with your theory in the face of today's comic that he's upset at the meddling regardless. Until Clinton told Claire he didn't want it, she wasn't to know. And yes, she ought to have asked. BUT:
What I'm trying to say is that maybe take a step back and stop simplistic painting of one party as the bad guy, eh?
--- End quote ---
I'm sorry, when was anyone ever painting Claire as a cartoonish villain? Even her biggest detractors here have been like 'Yeah, she screwed up and did something bad, but she's not a bad person'.
I do not care for this comic. Just because Clinton is stupid doesn't make Claire's actions okay. I'm going to bold this next point:
The reason it is wrong to manipulate someone else for their benefit is because it could potentially go wrong.
There's more to it than that, but yeah. In the broad strokes. If someone's going to take a chance at being emotionally wrecked, they need to give *consent* to the risk before it gets off the ground.
It doesn't matter how self aware or not-self-aware Clinton is. He's the victim of emotional manipulation. While I do think he should be called out for his over-the-top freakout on Claire, this is *not* deserving of an "Everyone screwed up, let's hug it out!" Story.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version