Print

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

A genuine like-for-like replacement;

A Union Robotics repair job (with some enthusiasm-created customisations);

Something horribly primitive that Brun loves (A pincer or something);

Something horribly advanced that creeps everyone out (Biomimicry to a very high degree);

Something military-grade sourced from a dodgy vendor on eBay (with such gimmicks as a magnetic clamp, a laser gun and spy sensors);

He doesn't need a replacement; he has two or three perfectly good spares at home;

Emily grows a new bio-hand using something she whipped up in Comp Sci class;

A spooky second-hand robo-hand that seems to have its own personality... and agenda!

Other (please specify in a comment)

[Case]

"Toxic masculinity," on the other hand, does not explain why. It's a very broad umbrella term describing all kinds of undesirable male behaviours, including the ones above and many many others. As such, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion except to perhaps ostracise anyone who might mistake the expression for implying that masculinity is inherently "toxic."

Yeah, I once suffered the same confuzzlement.

Then I googled it.


My 2 cents: Neko's hit it on the head - there's many possible masculinities (actually, there's as many as there's specimens of menfolk, whatwith us being bona fide human beings), and there's one widespread stereotype being drilled into every male's head that turns out to be poison for us XY-chromosome bearers, and via the infected, hurtful for the rest. That this stereotypical behaviour encompasses many aspects means it is the explanation for several different types of bullshit. Don't see any logical problems here (And if we're tired of hearing it from wimminfolk then mayhap we should start having a look at this shit & taking care of it ourselves ... but don't let them hear that [SecretHandshake]).   

(Still find it annoying to have a running commentary to my interactions, no matter if it's found 'cute' or not. It's a bit voyeuristic to my taste. No biggy, though)

Edit: Come to think of it, take 'XY-chromosome' as a placeholder-term.

[MrNumbers]

In this forum, we try to show the same respect to the fictional characters as we do to real people.  It's a form of practice for real life, perhaps, but more importantly it's also true that real people can be hurt by the treatment of fictional people that they identify with in some manner.

People here have identified very strongly with the characters.

Another issue, which might make more sense to a writer, is that these are somebody else's characters.

I'm going to say straight up this isn't an argument, I'm not disagreeing, and I acknowledge the rules and culture of this forum. With that out of the way, I want to talk about this for the sole reason I've never heard this argument before, I've not encountered this mindset, and I genuinely do not understand it.

1) Is it not accepted that one can identify with a character very strongly while still acknowledging one is not the character, and others may have different interpretations of the character that are not one's own? I find the notion of taking personal offense or discomfort to this... bizarre?

2) They are fictitious characters, not real people. Treating them like real people is... They're constructs. They're fabrications. They're tools to explore ideas, like interpersonal relationships. To say to me to treat them like real people, is like telling me to be gentle with a hammer. Or less violent with a saw. While I understand, superficially, that the actions themselves can be construed negatively, it seems to go against the purpose/function of the tool.

3) Other persons' character... Actually ties neatly to 1) and 2) for me. When someone writes my characters, they're not writing my character, they're writing their interpretation of the character. It's a response in a conversation to an idea I've put forth. Hell, I put forward the idea of music remixes as a similar practice in another medium. Fanfiction in general and shipping in specific isn't a malicious act, or plagiarism; It's someone resonating with an idea enough they want to personally explore it and extrapolate it from their perspective. And that's pretty cool, in my opinion.

That's what it comes down to for me. The idea of not wanting to treat characters as characters, as literary tools, to explore as ideas and explore ideas with, because it might offend someone who identifies with them -- when identifying with a character is the point of that character being an effective tool  -- is utterly antithetical to my core understanding of fiction as a concept.

[Case]

[Drunken Hamster]

No. Toxic masculinity is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Viewing accidental flirting or paying a sincere compliment being seen as a sign of being gay and therefore a bad thing is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Fragile egos and fear of being ostracized are why guys don't talk to each other like that. Two girls thinking they were cute and having a little chuckle is not the reason.

"Toxic Masculinity"

Try Toxic SJW. Oh, wait. You already have.

Profound and original! Can I have an autograph?

I would, but, unfortunately, autograph signings are between 2 and 4 every other Thursday.

And this Thursday is a skip week. Lol.

;P

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[JimC]

...utterly antithetical to my core understanding of fiction as a concept.

Maybe so, but clearly not antithetical to other folk's understanding.

It seems to be a general principle/considered good manners amongst writers that you don't steal other folks characters and put them in situations the originator hadn't envisaged *unless* there is specific permission. I find that very easy to understand. What I find less easy to understand is people thinking that because they call themselves fans they, as amateur writers, are automatically given a licence that professional writers wouldn't have. To me that's wrong. If its bad manners to take other folks characters and use them then its bad manners whether you're a pro or a fan.

In this particular case the creator has made it very clear that he objects to having his characters taken and used to construct relationship scenarios. To my mind its his privilege to object, and I have no problem whatsoever with it, and its entirely correct that this forum should follow his wishes.

[BenRG]

@JimC,

I think that you're missing the central thrust of MrNumbers' post. He is stating that the official disapproval of speculation and theorising regarding unknowns or ambiguities about the characters (including shipping, specifically in the area of sexual alignment) has a basis that he feels is not entirely rational and that, whilst he undertakes to abide by it, he won't pretend to entirely understand it. I feel the same way sometimes.

[TheEvilDog]

See, I took the comic to be a dig at the fandom who think that any interaction between two characters automatically thinks they're going to end up banging. Which is not a healthy attitude for anyone involved. At the end of the day, the forum tends to be a little cautious on overly shipping characters because (i) it can quickly get out of control, (ii) can quickly become creepy (C.F. Anything involving Hanners), (iii) other forum members can feel uncomfortable with it and (iv) it creeps Jeph out.

Even if people think that fictitious characters shouldn't be seen as real people, there are certainly real people who are also reading them and there should be a certain level of consideration for them. This is an inclusive forum, no one wants to be driven away and of course people shouldn't feel as if they are being booted out. 

[pwhodges]

1) Is it not accepted that one can identify with a character very strongly while still acknowledging one is not the character, and others may have different interpretations of the character that are not one's own? I find the notion of taking personal offense or discomfort to this... bizarre?

You may feel that it was bizarre when early on we insisted on the correct spelling of names (usually Marten's), as a matter of respect for the author.  However, the real issue came into play when Claire was shewn to be transgendered.  We had people coming to the forum spilling bile about this, and transgender folk who came to the forum (because they wanted to thank Jeph for handling it so well) told us that they were upset when the character Claire was abused by other forum members for being just like they were.  So it was clear to us that we had to draw a line.  And once such a line is drawn, we cannot easily say it is only for this kind of person, or that state of affairs - so it became our general rule.

Listen to the people who say it is a problem to them rather than saying it isn't one to you.

[hakko504]

For example, Claire is the only QC cast member we know of who owns a car, an older Mazda - which I reckon she saved up for and purchased outright for cash*. 

Um, no. We know at least Dale, Tai and Raven have their own cars. IIRC Dora has one as well. bhtooefr posted a summary of all cars shown in the comics here: (old WCDT)

[hedgie]

Dora does as well.  She *does* drive from Amherst to go to work after all.

[Is it cold in here?]

I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

Some of the shipping that's happened here was just that childish and just that creepy. That was a long time ago but is what comes to mind for the moderation team.

MrNumbers, am I getting you right, that what you're describing as shipping is thoughtful instead? Like exploring how an organic and a synthetic could have a romantic relationship instead of writing Faye/Bubbles porn?

[MrNumbers]

MrNumbers, am I getting you right, that what you're describing as shipping is thoughtful instead? Like exploring how an organic and a synthetic could have a romantic relationship instead of writing Faye/Bubbles porn?

I mean, yeah. Yep, that's how I take it, that's how I've been interpreting it, and that's what I mean. The former is what I take to be shipping, literally 'relationshipping', the latter I would classify as 'slashfic' because... well, as you did there, "/".

We had people coming to the forum spilling bile about this, and transgender folk who came to the forum (because they wanted to thank Jeph for handling it so well) told us that they were upset when the character Claire was abused by other forum members for being just like they were.

Ah! I now understand the problem. Excellent.

Here it's not a problem of people identifying with the character, so much as others criticizing traits they identify with personally. That's far more understandable! Yes, when people are using it to deride a character you identify with, it's hard not to take it as a personal attack, because they're attacking an aspect of yourself that you share.

That's completely straightforward to me, and not something I was getting from the initial posts and arguments. I disagree with this being tied to the original conclusions I was responding to, but now I at least appreciate where you're coming from, which is what I was missing before.

Listen to the people who say it is a problem to them rather than saying it isn't one to you.

I am listening. I was not understanding, and trying to outline where I wasn't understanding. I appreciate these things being explained so that I can follow the spirit of these issues, as well as just the letter of them.

And @JimC, what @BenRG said, practically verbatim.

In this particular case the creator has made it very clear that he objects to having his characters taken and used to construct relationship scenarios. To my mind its his privilege to object, and I have no problem whatsoever with it, and its entirely correct that this forum should follow his wishes.

I was not aware of this. I strongly object to this, purely personally, on both legal and ethical grounds, but I was not aware of this and I'll take that into consideration.

My objection being "I will abide by your decision, but I disagree with you making this decision" and not "I will ignore this has been said" to be as clear as possible.

[St.Clair]

It, by definition, doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps you disagree with the mindset of someone who enjoys the exercise? Sure. But it's damn fun for those of us who do like it, a free and infinite vice unlikely to harm mind, body or soul, mine or yours.

In that sense, it is much like masturbation (an activity which, in my experience, it often accompanies and provides material for).  As such, while I agree with your assessment as to the (lack of) actual harm, I would still tend to prefer that people do it in private, where I don't have to see it.

Fandom is, IMO, in general, inordinately concerned with (getting off to) who's getting off with whom, which I find both offputting and tiresome.  (For what it's worth, I feel almost exactly the same about another common fannish activity, the speculation over "who would beat who in a fight", including the comparison to masturbation.)

[Neko_Ali]

"Toxic masculinity," on the other hand, does not explain why. It's a very broad umbrella term describing all kinds of undesirable male behaviours, including the ones above and many many others. As such, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion except to perhaps ostracise anyone who might mistake the expression for implying that masculinity is inherently "toxic."

Yeah, I once suffered the same confuzzlement.

Then I googled it.


My 2 cents: Neko's hit it on the head - there's many possible masculinities (actually, there's as many as there's specimens of menfolk, whatwith us being bona fide human beings), and there's one widespread stereotype being drilled into every male's head that turns out to be poison for us XY-chromosome bearers, and via the infected, hurtful for the rest. That this stereotypical behaviour encompasses many aspects means it is the explanation for several different types of bullshit. Don't see any logical problems here (And if we're tired of hearing it from wimminfolk then mayhap we should start having a look at this shit & taking care of it ourselves ... but don't let them hear that [SecretHandshake]).   

(Still find it annoying to have a running commentary to my interactions, no matter if it's found 'cute' or not. It's a bit voyeuristic to my taste. No biggy, though)

Edit: Come to think of it, take 'XY-chromosome' as a placeholder-term.

The term toxic masculinity does have a specific meaning. Which is behaviors that are taught and propagated that men must behave in certain ways to be seen as 'real men', or otherwise ostracized. It has many facets, one of which being that two men talking like Clinton and Elliott were in the comic is a sign that they are not manly enough and probably gay, which is not appropriate. This term is not to call out all masculinity as toxic, but rather the behavior of considering there to be only one true way to be a man is inherently sexist and harmful, both towards men who do not live up to the standard, and those who do.

I apologize if I was not clear in my post, and to any hurt or confusion I may have caused to anyone. That certainly wasn't my intention. Though I do stand by the point I was trying to make. Renee and Claire joking was not why 'guys don't act like that'. It's because being thought of as gay is considered inferior according to the terms and reasoning I laid out above. They did come close to that point, but there was one difference, that I think is telling. They weren't mocking or insulting the guys for their behavior. They thought they were being  cute for being open enough to talk about their feelings, which could be seen by some as flirtatious in some ways with the way they were talking. Only filtered though the toxic mindset is that seen as a negative thing.

Two guys should be able to talk about that without anyone a) thinking they are gay or b) thinking there was anything wrong with it. But because of the culture of sexism, this sort of behavior is looked down on and insulted, leading to this toxic view that to be a man means not having emotions or conversations like that.

[Case]

Listen to the people who say it is a problem to them rather than saying it isn't one to you.

You know, that sounds like a reasonable, balanced and fair approach ...

... to discussions in the WCDT.

You MONSTER! 

(click to show/hide)

[Tova]

In this particular case the creator has made it very clear that he objects to having his characters taken and used to construct relationship scenarios. To my mind its his privilege to object, and I have no problem whatsoever with it, and its entirely correct that this forum should follow his wishes.

For whatever it's worth, I am thankful for this rule on a daily basis.

[Is it cold in here?]

resonating with an idea enough they want to personally explore it and extrapolate it from their perspective

The moderators would see a ton of difference between "Can two people with PTSD make a relationship work?" and "When are they going to fuck already?".

Thank FSM, there's the sub-Reddit, free of the constraint of being Jeph's property.

[Gyrre]

I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

Some of the shipping that's happened here was just that childish and just that creepy. That was a long time ago but is what comes to mind for the moderation team.

MrNumbers, am I getting you right, that what you're describing as shipping is thoughtful instead? Like exploring how an organic and a synthetic could have a romantic relationship instead of writing Faye/Bubbles porn?

Ah. That's ultimately what it boils down to, isn't it. Motivation and intention.

Is it being done to explore something, or is it purely prurient (maturbatory)?

EDIT: Harry x Draco and Cloud x Sephiroth are the two common examples given for male-male arbitrary shipping that goes against character. What are two examples of arbitrary female-female shipping that goes against the character's personality/motivations. i.e. Sephiroth wants to kill Cloud, not have sex with him.

[BenRG]

It's my experience that a significant element of fan-shipping (especially between character antagonists) boils down to 'they look cute together' and has no other real basis beyond some strange idea that you can have a functional relationship based on violent passion moving from hate to lust.

I may ship on more than one occasion but there are some out there who do it...? Well 'crazy' doesn't come close to defining it.

[Gyrre]

If the fanfic writer actually takes time to write full character arcs that work with their established character, I don't mind so much. But, as I understand it, that almost never happens.
Considering how many people write fanfic, at least one person has actually tried to make it believable within the confines of canon.

[Neko_Ali]

One of the biggest female FoeYay fanships I've seen lately has been WidowTracer, from Overwatch. They're on enemy teams, pre-game banter shows they don't much like each other. Tracer is shown to be in a relationship, while Widowmaker is an emotionless husk who killed her own husband. Yet it's one of the most popular ships in Overwatch. To be fair, I have seen a number of explanations that could explain why they could be a couple, but none of that is supported in canon. Hasn't stopped anyone though, never does.

[Case]

Awwwh, c'mon! It's obvious!

[MrNumbers]

So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

And, yeah, okay that's fair enough.

If the fanfic writer actually takes time to write full character arcs that work with their established character, I don't mind so much.

This would go a lot smoother for me if this were assumed to be the actual point, or at least the direction I approached this from. In the circles I choose to move in, it definitely is the whole point. "Then they fucked" isn't even a thing most of the time.

The moderators would see a ton of difference between "Can two people with PTSD make a relationship work?" and "When are they going to fuck already?".

Fantastic. The first one is so much more interesting. That's what I'm talking about here.

Like when I say I am one of the original Claire-Marten shippers, I mean I spent time thinking about how Marten would handle being in a relationship with a person who was way more passive than Dora, where he'd be the one taking the lead for once, and I spent approximately between nothing and bupkis thinking about her genitals. Bah.

[Case]

This would go a lot smoother for me if this were assumed to be the actual point, or at least the direction I approached this from. In the circles I choose to move in, it definitely is the whole point. "Then they fucked" isn't even a thing most of the time.

Marigold hates you ...

[TheEvilDog]

The moderators would see a ton of difference between "Can two people with PTSD make a relationship work?" and "When are they going to fuck already?".

Fantastic. The first one is so much more interesting. That's what I'm talking about here.

You can see that and that's great.

To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones slightly: You're a person. A person is smart. Fandoms are dumb, toxic animals who can leap to the wrong conclusion and become vicious when challenged and you know that. Fandoms can latch onto unhealthy ideas of what relationships entail and let them colour their view of the rest of the world. Which in turn can have a negative effect on others around them. Now, I'm not saying shipping is wrong, but I think we can all agree that we have seen the worst of it on the net.

[pwhodges]

So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Indeed.  In fact, even I have written fan fiction - a conclusion following the third Evangelion film in which there are three possible ships with the MC (Shinji) with which I tease the readers ever so gently (ending up with the one they are conventionally least likely to expect, naturally).  The shipping is not the essence of the story, though.

[Thrillho]

Something I have enjoyed about coming to terms with my own queerness and investing in the queer community more is having a group of male friends that I can be affectionate with, verbally and physically, the same way I am with my female and non-binary friends.

Sometimes I like to tell someone I like what they're wearing or that their hair looks good. This shouldn't need to be something unique to my interaction with females.

I am actually very pleased that a couple of my hetero cis male friends are down with this kind of thing too. It's actually even more heartening. I work with a guy who is a definitive 'lad' but is such a softy deep down and is always quick to comment if I've had a trim or if he likes my shirt.

The world is getting better in some small ways, sometimes.

[Is it cold in here?]

So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Ultimately though ours is not the opinion that matters.

[Tova]

You're a moderator. Your opinion of what kind of shipping does or does not constitute a problem matters a very great deal.

[pwhodges]

He means that we try to do what we believe Jeph would want in his forum (in the first instance to prevent him feeling the need to close the forum down, which was a real possibility when I became a moderator); and he has in fact endorsed our attitude to shipping - see the sticky thread: "Conduct in this forum".  Our opinion matters to the forum because it is what informs our decisions; but it is intended, in this respect, to be a mirror of Jeph's opinion rather than necessarily our own personal one (which, mind you, could be the same).

[Is it cold in here?]

That's what I was trying to say.

[Tova]

Yes, sure. But because your opinion does indeed inform your decisions, and you don't presumably discuss every moderator discussion with Jeph himself, then as I said, your opinion cannot be held to be unimportant. And your opinion obviously matters to people who post and don't want to break the rules. If, in a moderator's opinion, a poster has indeed broken the rules, then they have broken the rules.

[pwhodges]

Given that Jeph leaves it to us, that's the best we can do for him, naturally.  But it does mean that we may well be making decisions that are not the same as each of us might make in another forum without that constraint.

[Is it cold in here?]

The word "ultimately" was key to the meaning of that sentence. We run the place but bottom line is we don't own it.

[Tova]

I comprehend and appreciate what you are saying.

I just wonder if you could put on your official moderator hats and answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

Here it is again.

So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

[JimC]

... answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

from the https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,27466.0.html Please Read if you are new topic above

One of the key things you need to understand about how things work is that it's Jeph's comic, not ours. What that means is that the forum is for discussion, speculation, even criticism (specific and respectful), but not for posting about how you would write it, or heaven forbid telling Jeph what to do. Creativity is good, and there's a whole subforum for it, but only Jeph gets to be creative with the QC characters.  In particular, "shipping" is not allowed - there is a discussion of this in the Conduct in this forum thread.

[Tova]

With respect, I'm asking the mods, not you. And I'm certainly not asking to be recited that thread. I've read it more than once.

The rule says "no shipping," but clearly some degree of shipping has been allowed and continues to be allowed. What I'm requesting is a clear answer to the specific question.

[anahata]

I seem to remember somewhere in that thread a guideline that suggests it's OK to discuss a relationship that is quite clearly already developing or at least being hinted at in-comic, but off limits to pick a pathologically unlikely or inappropriate pair of characters and try shipping them.

No, I'm not a mod either. Sorry about that.

[pwhodges]

I'm sorry if you find the guidelines in the Conduct thread unclear; they've served pretty well for well over six years now.  The essence of them is contained in this post and the following (note that Cold wasn't yet a mod when he wrote that).  Beyond that, if we think it's going beyond our guidelines we will let you know; we're not going to punish people without clarifying where they stand.  On the other hand, systematically pushing the limits for too long might be seen as acting in bad faith - but again, not without warning.

It is my experience elsewhere that trying to write completely comprehensive rules is a futile endeavour, leading to great over-complication, and people still finding loopholes.  Relying on common sense and friendly guidance is preferable by far.

[flondrix]

I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

On the other hand, I do not apologize in the slightest for the many gruesome and painful ways fans found to kill off Wesley Crusher back in the late eighties and early nineties.

[Tova]

Answering the question would not have even remotely involved "writing comprehensive rules." I thought the question was perfectly reasonable, but instead of a straight answer, it got evaded in a way that would have made our PM green with envy.

I guess I will just drop it, but I am surprised and disappointed.

[DSL]

I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

On the other hand, I do not apologize in the slightest for the many gruesome and painful ways fans found to kill off Wesley Crusher back in the late eighties and early nineties.

Considering some of those ways were likely to have been dreamed up the actor who played him, I think an apology is contraindicated here anyway.

[Method of Madness]

I comprehend and appreciate what you are saying.

I just wonder if you could put on your official moderator hats and answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

Here it is again.

So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Basically if it can't be justified by canon, it doesn't belong here. If it can be justified by canon, still don't be creepy about it. Obviously what can and can't be justified by canon is an example of varying mileage, but be reasonable.

[TheEvilDog]

I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

On the other hand, I do not apologize in the slightest for the many gruesome and painful ways fans found to kill off Wesley Crusher back in the late eighties and early nineties.

Considering some of those ways were likely to have been dreamed up the actor who played him, I think an apology is contraindicated here anyway.

See, I would have imagined it was the Writers who should have suffered those gruesome fates. If only for the episode "Shades of Grey".

[Tova]

Thank you, Mister Madness. That is pretty reasonable.

[Is it cold in here?]

I comprehend and appreciate what you are saying.

I just wonder if you could put on your official moderator hats and answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

Here it is again.

So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Officialness, on!

Global Moderator Comment

To the extent we understand what Jeph does and doesn't want, it boils down to "don't be creepy", probably with a chaser of "respect my intellectual property". That is inherently subjective and resistant to concrete explicit rule-making. Our decision making is inevitably going to be case by case. See also Method's good clear summary: if it's canon, it's exploring the characters, if not, then it's hijacking them. The more grounded it is in the evidence of the comic and the less explicit it is, the better. Wrong: Marigold/Hannelore. Right: Dora/Tai anytime after the "butterflies" strip. Infinitely debatable: Faye and Bubbles. That falls lamentably short of the clear line you asked for but I hope it helps.

[Tova]

Thank you, IICIH. I can't speak for MrNumbers of course, but I found that useful. If I do decide to participate in a discussion in, say, human/AI relationships in the comic, I'll feel happier having that guidance.

[pwhodges]

Today's comic (3524) makes the point that friendship is not necessarily romantic or sexual, and that jumping too quickly to the conclusion that it is can quickly get one out of line with the characters' own canon reactions.  I'm inclined to take it as a gentle warning from Jeph to be careful when shipping.

[MrNumbers]

Thank you, IICIH. I can't speak for MrNumbers of course, but I found that useful. If I do decide to participate in a discussion in, say, human/AI relationships in the comic, I'll feel happier having that guidance.

Sorry, yes, should jump back in; I've been watching, I just stopped replying because I was really satisfied with a lot of the answers here (Especially MoM's. Love you, MoM) and didn't really feel the need to reply because of it.

But yeah, no, I've been following along and nodding my head pretty hard at the resolution of this. Like I said, I want to understand the spirit of the rules, not just the letter of them, and this has been extremely helpful in that regard.

[Tova]

Today's comic (3524) makes the point that friendship is not necessarily romantic or sexual, and that jumping too quickly to the conclusion that it is can quickly get one out of line with the characters' own canon reactions.  I'm inclined to take it as a gentle warning from Jeph to be careful when shipping.

I think that my current averse reaction to shipping stems from my time at university, when two of my friends developed a close friendship but were mutually uninterested in dating each other. Many people assumed either that they were secretly dating or soon would be dating. It annoyed them, and their annoyance rubbed off on me, I guess. A close friendship is an incredibly valuable thing, and I do think that shipping can devalue it. I have only a small number of what I would call close friendships, and they are priceless to me. I'd like to see more discussion of the nature of friendships and fewer mindless portmanteau name posts.

My 2 coppers.