Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3551 to 3555 (21st to 25th August 2017)
Cornelius:
--- Quote from: DannyboyTheDane on 23 Aug 2017, 11:39 ---Of course, disagreements with an author are perfectly fine! Like you say, the problem was that we were too quick to criticise; a pitfall of the medium, I imagine - getting the story one piece a day leaves us time to form opinions at every step which evidently can turn out to be very premature.
--- End quote ---
A pitfall, perhaps, though I prefer to see it as an opportunity. Like the discussion or not, it did give a wealth of feedback, which you don't necessarily get in other media. Most other forms of story telling either are too fast paced, or need to present later chunks of narrative at a time. If someone should be So inclined, this medium seems admirably suited to make a narrative custom fit to its specific audience. It would take careful monitoring of the reactions and their respective arguments, thing, and hence, a lot of time and effort. A downside of going so, would mean, however, that out would be a rather large challenge to write longer story arcs coherently.
Mind, I'm not saying or even trying to imply that it plays a part in Jeph's creative process. It's just a reflection on the possible advantages of the medium, and nothing more.
Larm Hargraven:
I think the development and discussions in the forums are actually a good thing. It's just a longer form of the same thought processes people who are critiquing a film series or musical. Instead though, we get to also then converge to one medium to discuss what we think so far and postulate what's going to happen/what we want to happen.
I hope it isn't me, but when I watch a movie, I'm constantly running a million theories, plots, and opinions of it from start to finish. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. And it's not overall, I could be right on a character development but wrong on a plot point, etc. etc.
I like people discussing the topic of privilege. It's seen as a very touchy egg-shell-walking conversation piece but is very important as society evolves. 100 years ago we were debating women voting as the industrial age was in full swing and locomotion was becoming the norm, 100 before that it was rights for previously owned slaves and their children as steam boats and the recently invented cotton gin allowed for faster travel and quicker means of production. Convenience and social rights have evolved side by side throughout history and as we get closer and closer to an age where manual labor isn't our main focus, we can turn out minds towards arts, literature, and other topics of such.
While, yes, some posts teetered into accusatory/instigating, but that's expected when it's such a controversial (again in the neutral term,) and eccentrically viewed issue. Emotions rise and a want to make sure your view is understood and accepted as valid is very tough to NOT get excitable about.
I think what this comic line proved was that this community, as a whole, is able to at least handle these discussions civilly and with discourse that doesn't result in in-fighting and insults. That and because the mods have their ever so powerful and big ban hammers in case it does ;)
Tova:
I'm glad to see you're all mollified now, oh ye of little faith.
--- Quote from: Larm Hargraven on 23 Aug 2017, 14:37 ---I like people discussing the topic of privilege. It's seen as a very touchy egg-shell-walking conversation piece but is very important as society evolves.
--- End quote ---
Isn't it, though! I've seen how just speaking the word out loud can either press people's buttons or make them hold their breath.
Kugai:
It certainly gave May something to think about, which is what I think Hanners wants.
At least she didn't loose her Biscuit :claireface:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1jNYifQrE
Emperor Norton:
--- Quote from: castn on 23 Aug 2017, 11:54 ---Aaw, Hanners is the best.
I don't think May was at fault for checking Winslow's privilege but Hanner's interaction with May definitely points out the flaw in how May behaves when she's offended - i.e. if she wants to actually have friends, she needs to put the effort into maintaining friendships. Being rude is one thing when you have no intention of being friends with the person whose privilege you've just checked but May is a part of the social circle now so she can't just trample on people's feelings without reciprocating an apology.
--- End quote ---
Your level of friendship with someone should not be a requirement for you to treat them with the same respect you wish to be treated. There are ways to get people to understand their privilege that do not require attacking them. If you get hurt, and lash out and attack someone, you should probably apologize, whether you want to be friends with the person or not. Because they are a human being and if you want people to be treated with respect, you should do the same.
Either it was the wrong thing to do, and you need to apologize, or it was the right thing to do, and you owe no apology. Your friendship level or desired friendship level with the person does not enter into the equation. Doing otherwise is saying that you aren't apologizing because you hurt them, but because you want something from them (their friendship).
EDIT: This is specifically addressing a well-meaning person being thoughtless. Be as rude as you want to Nazis, they are actively making the choice to be shitty.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version