THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Method of Madness on 24 Apr 2011, 13:02
-
Will Jeph succumb to his tragic case of Butts, or will it get even worse and become Buttslol?
-
I voted for "Hannerdad," but as long as I have "Space Dad II -- Attack of the Clones" stuck in my head, the rest of you might as well suffer, too.
-
Oops! Did Hannerdad make it do that?
-
It's detachable!
No rocket punch, but a remote boob grab is the next best thing (or the QC equivalent, at least.)
-
"Thing" and Clinton are about to get a fist to the palm and face (respectively) from Faye.
AI is really a crapshoot....
-
AI is really a crapshoot....
Not really - they ALL have libidos...
-
I didn't think Clinton was in contact with Pintsize all that long!! :-D
-
Hannerdad is chuckling on his Space Station right now......
-
Oh god. I think Faye might actually kill a man.
-
Even Clinton's hand is creepy.
Go figure.
-
It's detachable!
No rocket punch, but a remote boob grab is the next best thing (or the QC equivalent, at least.)
next up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4
-
Oh, you're not sorry yet, Clinton. Seriously, I'm gonna be a little disappointed if he hasn't been chased out of the shop or is in the process of said scenario tomorrow.
Also, I think this is further evidence that in the QC-verse, every piece of sophisticated machinery has a libido. Very interesting :psyduck:
-
Man, his one chance to redeem himself after all that weirdness and his hand has to go have a mind of it's own on him. <_< I was actually feeling bad for Clinton, I've made my fair share of unintentional strong come-ons and freakouts upon realizing the strength of said come-ons.
-
Theory: Pintsize somehow "infected" Clinton's hand with his porn hound personality.
In other news, I'm back! Miss me?
-
BAHAHAHAHAHA! Poor Clinton. He's gonna have to learn how to be a leftie now.
-
So, "Semi-autonomous". As in, he was still controlling it subconsciously?
Rookie mistake around Faye, mostly because nobody gets to make it twice.
-
Everything wants a piece o' Fayes boobs, it seems.
-
Clinton: You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses and missing a hand, would you?
-
Why, exactly, should a prosthesis or any other artificial device have a "semi-autonomous" mode? Do you really want it to have independent thoughts? What purpose does that have other than be an awkward conversation starter? Whatever happened to Asimov's three laws?
-
Pintsize has obviously managed some sort of interface - or else it was manufactured by the same company...
-
Clinton: You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses and missing a hand, would you?
Faye: Oh I'm not going to hit you...
-
Why, exactly, should a prosthesis or any other artificial device have a "semi-autonomous" mode? Do you really want it to have independent thoughts? What purpose does that have other than be an awkward conversation starter? Whatever happened to Asimov's three laws?
Don't know about independent thoughts, but I do see the point of having a hand that could make a trip to the fridge while I continue to watch sports.
Asimov's three laws don't seem to apply in QCverse. Looks like ClintonHand violated all three. Ok, may be Faye was too surprised to give an order.
-
None of the laws were broken. And even if they were, it could be explain by the zeroth law (humanity's survival depended on someone, nay, something grabbing Faye's boob.
In other news, I'm back! Miss me?
I haven't the foggiest idea who you are.
So yes, I missed you.
-
None of the laws were broken. And even if they were, it could be explain by the zeroth law (humanity's survival depended on someone, nay, something grabbing Faye's boob.
In other news, I'm back! Miss me?
I haven't the foggiest idea who you are.
So yes, I missed you.
Use a better scope then. :-D
-
That maneuver may actually have the rocket-punch beat. Providing, of course, the hand provides some sort of tactile telemetry back to the base on Clinton's wrist.
What? When he sends it into a service duct, what use is it otherwise?
-
None of the laws were broken. And even if they were, it could be explain by the zeroth law (humanity's survival depended on someone, nay, something grabbing Faye's boob.
Man, the zeroth law?!?!
That's gotta be the biggest kludge in sci-fi history!!!
There are three laws, except if the robots follow the three laws and only the three laws, it leads to the robots enslaving humanity, so lets think of a new law that's supersedes all three, but we still want to call them the three laws...
Three shall be the number of the laws, and the number of the laws shall be three... not four, nor shall they be two, except as a subset of the three, Five's right out...
-
Just because its against Robot Law to harm humans doesn't mean some humans wouldn't realistically get an NS-5 and use it as their sex slave. All movies show us is the ones with a bad attitude and an asthmatic lady.
The hand does what we're all thinking...
-
None of the laws were broken. And even if they were, it could be explain by the zeroth law (humanity's survival depended on someone, nay, something grabbing Faye's boob.
Man, the zeroth law?!?!
That's gotta be the biggest kludge in sci-fi history!!!
Well Daneel and Giskard saved the day once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Zeroth_Law_added) by inventing and following up on the zeroth law.
There are three laws, except if the robots follow the three laws and only the three laws, it leads to the robots enslaving humanity, ...
Well. There is a reason why the little buggers are designed with libidos. King Henry: "I could have conquered Europe. All of it. But I had women in my life." (apologies for an eventual misquote)
-
am i the only one who would totally consider lopping a hand off if there were prosthesis' like that available?
actually, scratch that.
i'd have a whole new pair of arms grafted on, below my original ones.
i really want to know what hackaday (http://hackaday.com/) looks like in qc now.
-
There are three laws, except if the robots follow the three laws and only the three laws, it leads to the robots enslaving humanity, so lets think of a new law that's supersedes all three, but we still want to call them the three laws...
Three shall be the number of the laws, and the number of the laws shall be three... not four, nor shall they be two, except as a subset of the three, Five's right out...
An Asimov and Monty Python reference in the same sentence! Are there NO rules left in the world?
Re: Today's comic, LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!!!
-
An Asimov and Monty Python reference in the same sentence! Are there NO rules left in the world?
[allfourBeatles]No.[/allfourBeatles]
Next question...
-
This hand has it figured out, man.
-
Faye's bosom is clearly magnetic. I wonder what would happen if Marigold walked in; would the hand abandon Faye for Marigold's Homeric bosoms?
-
Oh well, Clinton's gonna need a new hand now. And a new arm, if he doesn't make a VERY fast exit from CoD.
I can really see Faye ripping that arm off and beating Clinton senseless with it.
-
Re: Today's comic, LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!!!
Make sure it's in semi-autonomous mode, so it can find its way home...
-
Faye's bosom is clearly magnetic.
Turns out that while the Doctors were fixing her up after her car accident, one of the surgeons, a little too enthusiastic about robotics, took the opportunity to replace Faye's breasts with artificial mechaboobs that dramatically increases the power they have over men (and some women). That's the real reason for that scar on her chest. It's how she was able to break Sven so very efficiently. Faye, of course, is unaware of her enhancement.
WHAT A TWEEST!!
-
Faye's bosom is clearly magnetic. I wonder what would happen if Marigold walked in; would the hand abandon Faye for Marigold's Homeric bosoms?
Filthy perverted minds think alike. :-D
-
Regarding today's comic:
I saw it coming but I LOL'd anyway.
-
I'd like your essays on gender identity and sexual libido in AI as portrayed by Jeph Jacques handed in by the 14th of next month, please. 2000 words excluding bibliography.
Seriously though, we've seen 'male' heterosexual AI (Pintsize), 'male' asexual(?) AI (Winslow), 'female' AI that appears to be a young girl to all intents and purposes (potential for later sexual development), and now a genderless (or male?) sexual AI.
Well, it's certainly consistent with this answer (http://jephjacques.tumblr.com/post/4817688824/can-anthropcs-fall-in-love-or-something-that-looks)...
-
1533, 1658. Momo also has some sexuality built in.
-
Why was Clinton even allowed to remain in the shop without being immediately kicked out after Thursday's strip, is what I want to know?
Is that why Marten is no longer present? Did he leave in disgust?
-
Hanners intervened. Marten's simply standing outside Faye's blast radius. Boston, I think. Or maybe Albany.
-
I totally thought about Thing (from The Adams Family) when I saw today's comic.
-
I totally thought about Thing (from The Addams Family) when I saw today's comic.
FYP (a common error).
Faye thought the same, as did anyone else familiar with the movie(s).
Thing never walked about in the old TV show, though - as a kid, I was pretty sure it was a many-handed creature that somehow lived throughout the house, appearing out of anything with a lid when and wherever needed. I recall Lurch carrying one of Thing's boxes on a tray more than once...
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(The_Addams_Family)
-
Hanners intervened. Marten's simply standing outside Faye's blast radius. Boston, I think. Or maybe Albany.
I'm Thinking that St. John's might still be in the blast radius....
-
... of course, the hand provides some sort of tactile telemetry back to the base on Clinton's wrist...!
fixed it for you.
...What?
:angel:
-
Angus had a pretty unpromising introduction, and has turned into an accepted part of their social circle. I wonder if the same will happen with Clinton.
-
I wonder if that hand has a vibrate function.
And that's all I'll say about it.
-
It just occurred to me QC-Thing is covering the "Dere" part of Faye's shirt slogan. Oh, yes, Clinton, the "Tsun" also rises.
-
What is it with robots (kind of...) squeezing boobs (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1457) in this series? They presumably don't have the tactile sensations to make it enjoyable. As many robots have squeezed awesome boobs in this series as people. As far as I'm aware, only Angus and Sven have managed it.
-
Angus had a pretty unpromising introduction, and has turned into an accepted part of their social circle. I wonder if the same will happen with Clinton.
I'm kinda hoping not; I'm really disliking Clinton so far. He seems to be one of those people who are complete assholes while refusing to realise their assholery no matter how often people point it out. Hopefully he can prove me wrong on this, but so far I'm seeing no evidence pointing in that direction.
-
It just occurred to me QC-Thing is covering the "Dere" part of Faye's shirt slogan. Oh, yes, Clinton, the "Tsun" also rises.
The Pun Gods smile sweetly upon you. :mrgreen:
Seriously though, nice observation. I'm going to assume Jeph did it on purpose.
-
What is it with robots (kind of...) squeezing boobs (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1457) in this series? They presumably don't have the tactile sensations to make it enjoyable. As many robots have squeezed awesome boobs in this series as people. As far as I'm aware, only Angus and Sven have managed it.
Beyond just squeezing, breasts are one of Jeph's favorite punchline. QC is basically obsessed with breasts, Faye's in particular. Personally, I think the joke is stale.
-
It just occurred to me QC-Thing is covering the "Dere" part of Faye's shirt slogan. Oh, yes, Clinton, the "Tsun" also rises.
The Pun Gods smile sweetly upon you. :mrgreen:
Seriously though, nice observation. I'm going to assume Jeph did it on purpose.
Having watched a handful of livestreams, I'd say Jeph does very little by accident.
-
It just occurred to me QC-Thing is covering the "Dere" part of Faye's shirt slogan. Oh, yes, Clinton, the "Tsun" also rises.
I'd definitely say she's about to go tsuntsun on him, yeah.
-
Faye thought the same, as did anyone else familiar with the movie(s).
D'oh, I missed that part of Faye's lines (along with the title of the comic).
-
Angus had a pretty unpromising introduction, and has turned into an accepted part of their social circle. I wonder if the same will happen with Clinton.
Yes, but remember Angus's original goal. He joined the social circle and then met that goal.
Which of course means that if Clinton ever does join the social circle...he'll get to meet Hannelore's dad!
-
'sincerely, marten', if you must know :-P
-
Damn! Ninja'd!
So, Hanners knows morse code. That might come in handy someday...
-
I'd be more surprised if she didn't know it. I mean, 26 patterns for her is nothing.
... .. -. -.-. . .-. . .-.. -.-- --..-- / -- . - .... --- -..
-
Anyone the slightest bit surprised that Hanners knows Morse Code? No?
Well then, back to the groping, dented robots we shall go.
-
Ham radio would be a plausible hobby for Hannelore, except it's difficult to get an adequate antenna system in an apartment. Maybe she learned on the space station.
-
I'm imagining Hannelore's last line in an adorable but disturbingly perfect sine wave.
...and of course she knows Morse code.
-
I bet Hanners and Winslow, when no one else around, have long conversations in binary. Or perhaps Bocce.
-
What is it with robots (kind of...) squeezing boobs (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1457) in this series? They presumably don't have the tactile sensations to make it enjoyable. As many robots have squeezed awesome boobs in this series as people. As far as I'm aware, only Angus and Sven have managed it.
Don't forget Dora (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=415)... 3-2 to the humans?
I am ... surprised.
I am fairly sure, Marten, Steve etc "squeeze" or rather touch their respective girlfriends breasts offscreen on a regular basis ...
Does this somehow not count ?
Or do some people here believe that doesnt count ?
Or do only Fayes breasts count ???
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else think all the haircuts are starting to look the same? Today Marten, Faye, and even Hanners have about the same 'do, in different colours. And Dora's generally matches Marten's. Maybe we know Clinton won't fit in because he has that creepy mad-scientist sweep.
-
I am fairly sure, Marten, Steve etc "squeeze" or rather touch their respective girlfriends breasts offscreen on a regular basis ...
Does this somehow not count ?
The other characters in QC ) seem to regard Marigold and Faye with particular esteem in this regard. Just so happens they are the ones getting grabbed by the robots. Just struck me as kinda funny. The opinions have been expressed by Marten, Will, Sven, Angus, Dora, Tai... it's an established feature of the strip.
Don't forget Dora (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=415)... 3-2 to the humans?
Ahh, yes! I'm frankly rather glad. If the machines were beating the humans at (epic...) breast fondling, surely life as we know it would be over.
-
Hanners intervened. Marten's simply standing outside Faye's blast radius. Boston, I think. Or maybe Albany.
I'm Thinking that St. John's might still be in the blast radius....
And I thought I was safe here. (woo, shout out!) :-D
-
The central PA weather report called for fallout...
but with just a mettalic tsundere slap*, it's nice today!
I know, it doesn't quite rhyme with thunder clap, but I couldn't resist when I saw it...
-
....brilliant, Faye. Yes, go ahead and bring along the ex without warning. That will turn out just so well.
She avoids Sven and expects Marten to suddenly just pop up at Dora's. What the hell, Faye, just what the hell.
-
Does anyone here know Morse Code?
-
....brilliant, Faye. Yes, go ahead and bring along the ex without warning. That will turn out just so well.
She avoids Sven and expects Marten to suddenly just pop up at Dora's. What the hell, Faye, just what the hell.
I agree. I know it's been weeks, but Dora's moving right now and that's stressful enough; this isn't a good time for her to see Marten.
-
http://morsecode.scphillips.com/jtranslator.html
... .. -. -.-. . .-. . .-.. -.-- --..-- / -- . - .... --- -..
SINCERELY, METHOD
Edit - Haha, I copy and pasted from the post above, but the comic says, "MARTEN"
Oh well lol.
-
So what kind of girl do you all think Hanners is?
A "bee", "boo", "dee" or "doo" girl?
-
I agree. I know it's been weeks, but Dora's moving right now and that's stressful enough; this isn't a good time for her to see Marten.
The whole thing about not being Marten's messenger girl is a pretty valid point, though.
-
Does anyone here know Morse Code?
No, but Wikipedia was kind enought to print the alphabet and numbers in Morse.
I think Hanners may have garbled part of her transmission as I got this:
... .. -. -.-. . .-. . .-.. -.--
Sincerely
--..--
mim (or could be dm, or even gw depending on where you read the break between letters)
/(not a morse character)
-- . - .... --- -..
Method
-
Does anyone here know Morse Code?
No, but Wikipedia was kind enought to print the alphabet and numbers in Morse.
I think Hanners may have garbled part of her transmission as I got this:
... .. -. -.-. . .-. . .-.. -.--
Sincerely
--..--
mim (or could be dm, or even gw depending on where you read the break between letters)
/(not a morse character)
-- . - .... --- -..
Method
--..--
is a comma.
-
I agree. I know it's been weeks, but Dora's moving right now and that's stressful enough; this isn't a good time for her to see Marten.
The whole thing about not being Marten's messenger girl is a pretty valid point, though.
I hardly think saying "hi" for someone counts as being a messenger. It's not like he's asking Faye to recite the freaking preamble* to Dora.
*that is, the preamble to the constitution, which I had to memorize and recite in 8th grade
-
Still doesn't make a whole lot of sense "Sincerely, method"? And in my own defence, Wiki only lists the alphabet and numbers.
-
... .. -. -.-. . .-. . .-.. -.-- --..-- / -- . - .... --- -..
This (which has been quoted several times) isn't what's in the comic, which is why people are getting it wrong! In any case the correct answer was given ages ago.
-
... .. -. -.-. . .-. . .-.. -.-- --..-- / -- . - .... --- -..
This (which has been quoted several times) isn't what's in the comic, which is why people are getting it wrong! In any case the correct answer was given ages ago.
Yeah, the "Sincerely, Method" thing is what the user Method of Madness posted earlier in the thread.
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code#Letters.2C_numbers.2C_punctuation ;)
-
I agree. I know it's been weeks, but Dora's moving right now and that's stressful enough; this isn't a good time for her to see Marten.
The whole thing about not being Marten's messenger girl is a pretty valid point, though.
I hardly think saying "hi" for someone counts as being a messenger. It's not like he's asking Faye to recite the freaking preamble* to Dora.
*that is, the preamble to the constitution, which I had to memorize and recite in 8th grade
In Faye's defense, it's reasonable for her to assume Marten might be interested in coming along because, after all, he finally psyched himself back into the coffee shop (and then reinstituted himself right into the defense of the social circle). Aside to Marten, though: I wouldn't recommend asking, by Morse or otherwise, if she's banging. Not your business anymore, friend, though she's free to tell you and might volunteer the information anyway.
Seems to me the social circle has moved past the breakup and a couple subsets of it are hinting to Marten he might want to head in that direction, too. Don't seem to be too many enablers in that bunch -- and that's not a bad thing at all.
Also, Hanners' little sly/shy Morse Code smile is cute.
-
Aside to Marten, though: I wouldn't recommend asking, by Morse or otherwise, if she's banging. Not your business anymore, friend, though she's free to tell you and might volunteer the information anyway.
That's just typical Nice Guy Marten crap coming out again, really.
I keep hoping one of the in-comic characters picks up on it and calls him out on it because god damn that shit is creepy and pathetic, easily on par with Clinton's shenanigans.
-
... .. -. -.-. . .-. . .-.. -.-- --..-- / -- . - .... --- -..
This (which has been quoted several times) isn't what's in the comic, which is why people are getting it wrong! In any case the correct answer was given ages ago.
Yeah, the "Sincerely, Method" thing is what the user Method of Madness posted earlier in the thread.
Yep, Hannelore said Marten, but it'd hardly make sense for me to end my post with "Sincerely, Marten". So I changed it a bit.
-
Aside to Marten, though: I wouldn't recommend asking, by Morse or otherwise, if she's banging. Not your business anymore, friend, though she's free to tell you and might volunteer the information anyway.
That's just typical Nice Guy Marten crap coming out again, really.
I keep hoping one of the in-comic characters picks up on it and calls him out on it because god damn that shit is creepy and pathetic, easily on par with Clinton's shenanigans.
...or it's a joke.
-
Yep, it's part of the joke that Marten's internal censor can't always keep up with his mouth; sometimes the others let it slip, sometimes it's a doorway to ...
The Awkward Zone.
And then hijinks ensue. Wait, that's another webcomic.
Meanwhile ... I just noticed: Hanners is a little unsymmetrical in 1912. Did she get caught in the blast radius of the Tsundereslap?
-
A random suggestion to the mods (and Jeph). Change the last word in the board from "furnace" to "cauldron".
-
A random suggestion to the mods (and Jeph). Change the last word in the board from "furnace" to "cauldron".
Don't! We need to burn! Than our ashes can rise into the atmosphere, get caught up in some rain cloud, that we can infect the earth with the next rainfall!
-
Note that it is not this part of the forum that is the Sex Furnace referred to...
-
I wonder if Clintons next stopis the Dentist.
I don't think it's a good idea for Marten to show up at Doras just yet. Eventually, they're gonna wind up meeting, but I think the semi-neutral ground of CoD would be better for that.
Ahh Hanners, CoD's very own Telegraph Key. :-D
-
Jeph sure knows how to make some awesome T-shirts. If Faye gets to be her own trope, I'd like my own Antihero T-shirt. Or 'Real Men Wear Pink'.
-
Aside to Marten, though: I wouldn't recommend asking, by Morse or otherwise, if she's banging. Not your business anymore, friend, though she's free to tell you and might volunteer the information anyway.
That's just typical Nice Guy Marten crap coming out again, really.
I keep hoping one of the in-comic characters picks up on it and calls him out on it because god damn that shit is creepy and pathetic, easily on par with Clinton's shenanigans.
...or it's a joke.
Absolutely! And not an unintentional one, either (sorry, DSL). Marten knows full well how creepy a comment like that is when it slips out in normal conversation - teh funny is the idea of an unpremeditated faux pas in a telegram. After all, they charged by the word (except "stop", which is actually the term for an end of a line without paying for an end-of-sentence period, since punctuation marks were conted as separate words).
And now the joke has been explained.
And I feel like I need a shower.
-
Should I not be scared of someone who can speak Eldritch Horror and Morse?
-
Should I not be scared of someone who can speak Eldritch Horror and Morse?
Yes and no. Speaking morse, not that scary. Speaking the language of the Great Old Ones.........if Hanners ever says "HE COMES!" in this comic, we should all run for the hills.
-
Note that it is not this part of the forum that is the Sex Furnace referred to...
Oh, that actually means something? Also, you guys got the "Sex Cauldron" reference, right?
-
Oh, that actually means something? Also, you guys got the "Sex Cauldron" reference, right?
Euphemism for the female vagina?
-
Nope. Simpsons reference.
Maude: We're talking about S-E-X in front of the C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N!
Krusty: Sex Cauldron? I thought they shut that place down!
-
....brilliant, Faye. Yes, go ahead and bring along the ex without warning. That will turn out just so well.
She avoids Sven and expects Marten to suddenly just pop up at Dora's. What the hell, Faye, just what the hell.
So I take it YOU would have dared to give a message from two exlovers just weeks after the breakup ?
I would stay the hell out of that situation.
So what kind of girl do you all think Hanners is?
A "bee", "boo", "dee" or "doo" girl?
:-o :?
That's just typical Nice Guy Marten crap coming out again, really.
I keep hoping one of the in-comic characters picks up on it and calls him out on it because god damn that shit is creepy and pathetic, easily on par with Clinton's shenanigans.
I am simply amazed at your skill to change a simple joke into a reason for hatespeech against what you call "nice guy".
Nope. Simpsons reference.
Hmm, hmm. Theres over 20 seasons of Simpsons now ... and while I like compareable shows like South Park and Futurama a lot, Simpsons kind of got very boring after a while.
-
Haha, I was talking about what kind of noises she makes when speaking Morse. Everyone beeps a little differently!
-
Nope. Simpsons reference.
Hmm, hmm. Theres over 20 seasons of Simpsons now ... and while I like compareable shows like South Park and Futurama a lot, Simpsons kind of got very boring after a while.
Agreed. But this was a fairly early episode, well within its golden age (I think it was season 8).
-
Sven and Faye interacting like normal people is fun to see and evidence of progress. (I deliberately said "normal" and not "functional").
-
If Marten had shown up he probably would have been welcome simply for the greater lifting ability.
On the other hand, Steve, Angus, Jimbo, Penelope, Wil, Marigold, the other Bartender from tHR, Renee, Padma, Tai, Hanners, Momo, Pintsize and Winslow would probably each contribute more lifting capacity than our skinny indie boy...
-
Euphemism for the female vagina?
What, there are other types? :psyduck: (my first psyduck)
I imagine Sven and Faye are both stronger than Dora. How'd she draw the short straw?
-
1997?
-
Yup, definitely NOT the best time for Marten to have shown up.
Hmmm, 1997 - Foreshadowing?
-
Probably Sven's graduation t-shirt. The comic started in about '03, right? After 8 years, it's moved about 4 years, so it's 2007 or so, Sven's about 10 years out of high school, makes him about 28 to Dora's 27 or so.
The Wiki needs a timeline of some sort, but it probably wouldn't coincide with the one in Jeph's head.
-
A timeline would be rather hard to arrange, as the comic's references to the real world remain contemporary even though time passes at a different speed in the comic.
-
I just love the fact that two people are taking the light end together while one person is taking the heavy end. :D
-
god i hate moving
-
I am simply amazed at your skill to change a simple joke into a reason for hatespeech against what you call "nice guy".
I'm not the one that coined the term, but Marten is still very much one (has been since the comic began and I've covered the point repeatedly in past WCDTs and other threads where Marten does something shitty and people act surprised by it--that's just his character and all I'm doing is pointing out that people shouldn't be surprised by it at this point; which means that it isn't even hate speech at this point so much as "stop being surprised by this, people, Marten is actually a shitty person and not really someone you should be rooting for that much").
If that was indeed a joke, it sucked, because that kind of thing is never actually funny in any context. Why would Marten (or anyone) even be asking something like that in jest (hint: They don't, the only people that vocalize questions like that are people that are fucked enough in the head to actually be bothered by it and who are still fixated on the other person)?
-
Oh, the joys of getting your friends to help you move.
Did that ONCE!
The subsequent 3 times were by professionals.
The friendships those saved was well worth the co$t.
-
Are these forums some kind of bizzare social experiment?
It was a joke, god.
-
I got instantly reminded of this scene from Friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYH4lO6Bug
-
Are these forums some kind of bizzare social experiment?
It was a joke, god.
No, it is a bizzare social reality.
Everyone expressing their own opinion. Like a huge party. But with less drugs.
-
Oh, the joys of getting your friends to help you move.
Did that ONCE!
The subsequent 3 times were by professionals.
The friendships those saved was well worth the co$t.
Moving apartments/houses not a huge problem. now my buddy with the Graphic Arts buisiness? That is a problem.
The man has a paper cutter made in 1848 - made of flippin' cast iron - nothing like dismantling it then moving the bits - the bolts holding it together weigh about a pound each and don't remind me of the frame....
-
Oh, the joys of getting your friends to help you move.
Did that ONCE!
The subsequent 3 times were by professionals.
The friendships those saved was well worth the co$t.
This.
Plus, unless you're talking literal piles of huge furniture, this isn't even that expensive if you've already moved all the small stuff and all you're hiring them for is to move the couch & bedroom furniture.
-
Frankly disappointed in today's comic. Seriously, three educated, intelligent people don't know how to lift a sofa down some stairs.
Alright, not actually disappointed. Amused and also feeling a little superior.
Mind you, feeling superior to fictional characters isn't as fulfilling as one would hope.
-
Frankly disappointed in today's comic. Seriously, three educated, intelligent people don't know how to lift a sofa down some stairs.
Alright, not actually disappointed. Amused and also feeling a little superior.
Mind you, feeling superior to fictional characters isn't as fulfilling as one would hope.
Read Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" about how to get a couch up a stairwell! Semi-spoiler: The process is a sub-plot through most of the book.
-
blah, blah, Marten is actually a shitty person, blah
One of the defining features of your so-called "nice guy" is that everything they do, however altruistic it may seem, is actually driven by selfishness. I have seen nothing of that in Marten. He's almost always looked out for his friends even when there was nothing in it for him.
I saw Marten's comment as mostly a sarcastic dig at Faye. But even if he is bothered whether Dora's seeing someone else that doesn't mean he's fucked in the head. They just broke up. It takes to move on. He has clearly gone a fair way but it's not surprising if he still has feelings for her.
I think Faye was actually a bit rude in her response. Marten had gone to COD to see Dora in person, so he clearly wasn't chickening out. He would have been out of line to tag along with Faye when she went to help Dora move. Why shouldn't he ask Faye to pass on a small greeting?
I wonder if Faye will mention anything to Dora in the next few comics.
-
Frankly disappointed in today's comic. Seriously, three educated, intelligent people don't know how to lift a sofa down some stairs.
Were they trying to go up the stairs or down the stairs?
Either way, none of the people involved are all that educated. Has QC even bothered covering the educational background of Dora and Sven? Dora doesn't have to have a degree to own a coffee shop and Faye is a damn barista that does not attend college in her off time working on any sort of degree, so she is not educated either. And Sven, well, he maybe has a degree in music production/theory or something since he has people trying to intern with him, but that isn't exactly applicable to moving furniture.
As for intelligence, well, the antics up until now in the comics should discredit that notion far enough that today's fucking around trying to move a couch wouldn't be that huge a departure from the norm.
blah, blah, Marten is actually a shitty person, blah
One of the defining features of your so-called "nice guy" is that everything they do, however altruistic it may seem, is actually driven by selfishness. I have seen nothing of that in Marten. He's almost always looked out for his friends even when there was nothing in it for him.
That is actually a more recent development (and only really in his relationships with Hannelore, Marigold and people-other-than-Faye-and-Dora), his early history in the comic was very much driven by selfishness, though.
I saw Marten's comment as mostly a sarcastic dig at Faye. But even if he is bothered whether Dora's seeing someone else that doesn't mean he's fucked in the head. They just broke up. It takes to move on. He has clearly gone a fair way but it's not surprising if he still has feelings for her.
They broke up two months ago, QC-time, after dating and living together for a grand total of 6 months QC-time. :psyduck:
I think Faye was actually a bit rude in her response. Marten had gone to COD to see Dora in person, so he clearly wasn't chickening out. He would have been out of line to tag along with Faye when she went to help Dora move. Why shouldn't he ask Faye to pass on a small greeting?
The point was that he shouldn't be involving Faye at all in the post-breakup nonsense with Dora, which is correct (if a bit hypocritical given how much whining Faye did after things went tits-up with Sven).
I wonder if Faye will mention anything to Dora in the next few comics.
Why would she? I mean honestly, what would be the point in doing that when Faye has her own issues to work on without getting involved in the problems Dora and Marten have with each other?
-
Dora has a business-related degree of some sort, Sven has an intern he met at an alumnus benefit and Faye quit college half-way through a fine arts degree mostly specialising in metal sculpture, which is applicable to furniture moving because have you ever tried to install a large steel objet d'art? Worse than sofas man. Even when you've got a loading dock and a clear pathway.
-
1997?
"1997 was an American pop/rock band from Chicago, Illinois, who formed in October 2005. They released three albums between 2007 and 2009, but broke up the following year."
It's either that, or Sven's HS class.
-
Either way, none of the people involved are all that educated. Has QC even bothered covering the educational background of Dora and Sven? Dora doesn't have to have a degree to own a coffee shop and Faye is a damn barista that does not attend college in her off time working on any sort of degree, so she is not educated either. And Sven, well, he maybe has a degree in music production/theory or something since he has people trying to intern with him, but that isn't exactly applicable to moving furniture.
As for intelligence, well, the antics up until now in the comics should discredit that notion far enough that today's fucking around trying to move a couch wouldn't be that huge a departure from the norm.
The QC wiki lists the educational background of all three characters. All three attended college, Faye dropped out owing to a psychological breakdown but prior to that was a straight A student. Not sure what the term elsewhere in the world would cover but in Secondary/High School level education. Certainly it's a lot more than I ever did. Well I did attend College, but failed all of my A-levels outright. As for intelligence, whilst the characters aren't averse to silliness and other mischievy, they have all at some point engaged in some discussion that requires an above average level of intelligence to participate. Perhaps it's one of those perspective things, were they real people, I would class just about all of the characters in QC as more intelligent than me, therefore ,educated and intelligent. Still, having worked in removals for some time in the past, I can assure you that education and average intelligence are not industry requisites. Moving furniture really only requires that the application of a small amount of logic and rationale.
Also, regards upthread, I have read Dirk Gently and although a good running joke in the book, sofa's inextricably stuck in stairwells is less likely than Schroedinger's cat being both alive and dead when the box is opened.
-
Were they trying to go up the stairs or down the stairs?
I still haven't figured that out. Up makes more sense since they're stuck on the corner and if they were going down they'd be past it already. But Why would Dora be going backwards from the rear end?
Still, I didn't think it took a degree to move furniture. Have none of them played tetris?
That is actually a more recent development (and only really in his relationships with Hannelore, Marigold and people-other-than-Faye-and-Dora), his early history in the comic was very much driven by selfishness, though.
Only in the very early comics. And i put the change more down to Jeph finding Marten's character rather than his character actually changing.
They broke up two months ago, QC-time, after dating and living together for a grand total of 6 months QC-time. :psyduck:
I didn't know the timeline, but it sure feels like they were dating longer than that and broke up more recently than that. In any case, everyone is different. I do not think that 2 months equals fucked up territory.
The point was that he shouldn't be involving Faye at all in the post-breakup nonsense with Dora, which is correct (if a bit hypocritical given how much whining Faye did after things went tits-up with Sven).
Why not? Faye's his friend. Fayes Dora's friend. This isn't some bitter spat, he's just wanting to know that Dora's doing OK
Why would she? I mean honestly, what would be the point in doing that when Faye has her own issues to work on without getting involved in the problems Dora and Marten have with each other?
Once again, because she's their friend, and she presumably knows that Dora would be interested.
What exactly do friends do if not get involved in each others lives?
-
Either way, none of the people involved are all that educated. Has QC even bothered covering the educational background of Dora and Sven? Dora doesn't have to have a degree to own a coffee shop and Faye is a damn barista that does not attend college in her off time working on any sort of degree, so she is not educated either. And Sven, well, he maybe has a degree in music production/theory or something since he has people trying to intern with him, but that isn't exactly applicable to moving furniture.
As for intelligence, well, the antics up until now in the comics should discredit that notion far enough that today's fucking around trying to move a couch wouldn't be that huge a departure from the norm.
The QC wiki lists the educational background of all three characters.
Is the Wiki maintained by Jeph or by third-party internet readers of the comic?
Were they trying to go up the stairs or down the stairs?
I still haven't figured that out. Up makes more sense since they're stuck on the corner and if they were going down they'd be past it already. But Why would Dora be going backwards from the rear end?
Depends on how it's easier for someone to lift something like that. Since Dora is on the heavy end of the couch, she may be relying on her leg strength and using her back to support the weight of the couch. That stance also makes it easier to brace against the couch falling on her than if she is facing into it (if the couch were to suddenly drop, she could crouch with it and not be pushed over backwards and crushed beneath it down a flight of stairs).
I didn't know the timeline, but it sure feels like they were dating longer than that and broke up more recently than that. In any case, everyone is different. I do not think that 2 months equals fucked up territory.
There is a lot of dispute over the timeline (arguments over the starting point being either when Marten hangs out with Dora without Faye around or when they actually date/start fucking, etc.), but the point I was going for is that the relationship moved into "Let's live together!" territory way too fast and the breakup also being pretty soon should mean the relationship shouldn't take that long to get over. Unless it is literally Marten's second "real" relationship.
It should literally be more along the lines of Marten thinking "Damn, what the hell was I thinking moving that fast in a relationship" not "Hey, is she boning other dudes already?".
Why not? Faye's his friend. Fayes Dora's friend. This isn't some bitter spat, he's just wanting to know that Dora's doing OK.
Because friends don't use each other as go-betweens during post-breakup recovery time outside of high school. It invites needless drama and stinks of asking mutual friends to "choose sides" post-breakup.
Once again, because she's their friend, and she presumably knows that Dora would be interested.
What exactly do friends do if not get involved in each others lives?
See above.
-
Is the Wiki maintained by Jeph or by third-party internet readers of the comic?
I would guess that it's maintained by third-party internet readers of the comic. However, as each fact in the relevant sections are linked directly to the canonical articles that confirm them I don't really see why you're asking the question? Unless you're doubting the author's own provenance?
-
Odin, you state several opinions about people's actual or expected behaviour as if they are absolutes; they are not, as human behaviour is pretty much infinitely variable. And the ability of people to visualise the movements necessary to get a couch round a tricky bend is also highly variable (and shows no correlation with intelligence - whatever that is anyway - in my experience).
Also, the comic timeline is not merely unknown, but not even clearly defined in Jeph's own mind; I seem to recall that some considerable while ago he remarked that the comic had run for something between six months and two years.
The wiki is nothing whatever to do with Jeph.
-
Odin, you state several opinions about people's actual or expected behaviour as if they are absolutes; they are not, as human behaviour is pretty much infinitely variable.
That is a pretty meaningless stance to take, pwhodges. Also wrong, since humanity in general is not an infinite array of unique snowflakes. Even the most varied theory on personality characteristics had only 4,000 variables while modern takes on the same theory have taken it down to 16 or even as low as 5 (though the stipulations within each variable became more complex).
And the ability of people to visualise the movements necessary to get a couch round a tricky bend is also highly variable (and shows no correlation with intelligence - whatever that is anyway - in my experience).
Not really, the only variables to consider are the dimensions of the couch vs. the dimensions of the turns you have to take in the stairwell and how to best manipulate the orientation of one while traveling through the other. It really isn't that difficult to do and that was the entire point (though I was taking the opportunity to disparage the characters in a completely different direction than the person I was quoting).
Also, the comic timeline is not merely unknown, but not even clearly defined in Jeph's own mind; I seem to recall that some considerable while ago he remarked that the comic had run for something between six months and two years.
When we had the discussion at the time of the breakup, somebody quoted Jeph as having tweeted that the relationship had been between six to eight months from first-meeting to breakup.
The wiki is nothing whatever to do with Jeph.
Pretty much my point (can't use it as a reliable source for answering comic-related questions, especially given how easily wikis are vandalized/altered).
-
Depends on how it's easier for someone to lift something like that. Since Dora is on the heavy end of the couch, she may be relying on her leg strength and using her back to support the weight of the couch. That stance also makes it easier to brace against the couch falling on her than if she is facing into it (if the couch were to suddenly drop, she could crouch with it and not be pushed over backwards and crushed beneath it down a flight of stairs).
But if you're facing forward you lean in to the couch and can see it as it is pulled away. If you are facing backwards and the couch is pulled away you are going to fall.
Because friends don't use each other as go-betweens during post-breakup recovery time outside of high school. It invites needless drama and stinks of asking mutual friends to "choose sides" post-breakup.
But he's not using Faye as a go between. There are no sides; Marten and Dora are not fighting. Faye was just a convenient point of contact since she was about to go see Dora.
Not really, the only variables to consider are the dimensions of the couch vs. the dimensions of the turns you have to take in the stairwell and how to best manipulate the orientation of one while traveling through the other. It really isn't that difficult to do and that was the entire point (though I was taking the opportunity to disparage the characters in a completely different direction than the person I was quoting).
And the weight/distribution. Those couches aren't made of air (and if they were I'd suggest deflating them first.)
-
That is a pretty meaningless stance to take, pwhodges. Also wrong, since humanity in general is not an infinite array of unique snowflakes. Even the most varied theory on personality characteristics had only 4,000 variables while modern takes on the same theory have taken it down to 16 or even as low as 5 (though the stipulations within each variable became more complex).
That sounds an extraordinary claim. In any case, I was merely wanting to point out that you cannot simply say that "Marten shouldn't be involving Faye at all"; many people would disagree with you over whether it is necessarily inappropriate. You seem to define the acceptable world in terms of (what I presume are) your reactions to situations without being prepared to countenance others.
Not really, the only variables to consider are the dimensions of the couch vs. the dimensions of the turns you have to take in the stairwell and how to best manipulate the orientation of one while traveling through the other. It really isn't that difficult to do
You may think that way, and I may agree; but observation shows that many people simply cannot think in this manner.
-
Odin, you state several opinions about people's actual or expected behaviour as if they are absolutes; they are not, as human behaviour is pretty much infinitely variable.
That is a pretty meaningless stance to take, pwhodges. Also wrong, since humanity in general is not an infinite array of unique snowflakes. Even the most varied theory on personality characteristics had only 4,000 variables while modern takes on the same theory have taken it down to 16 or even as low as 5 (though the stipulations within each variable became more complex).
Odin, are you familiar with chaos theory? Even with only two or three variables, some systems become completely unpredictable! And again, you're stating that someone's opinion is wrong, a statement of absolutes. You really seem to prefer them, which makes you a hard pill to swallow at times...
And the ability of people to visualise the movements necessary to get a couch round a tricky bend is also highly variable (and shows no correlation with intelligence - whatever that is anyway - in my experience).
Not really, the only variables to consider are the dimensions of the couch vs. the dimensions of the turns you have to take in the stairwell and how to best manipulate the orientation of one while traveling through the other. It really isn't that difficult to do and that was the entire point (though I was taking the opportunity to disparage the characters in a completely different direction than the person I was quoting).
Doesn't mean some people don't have trouble with it. 3-D visualization is not a universal skill.
The wiki is nothing whatever to do with Jeph.
Pretty much my point (can't use it as a reliable source for answering comic-related questions, especially given how easily wikis are vandalized/altered).
Take a look, it's very well done and well documented. You may even be able to contribute something, like the tweet info you cited.
Wait, maybe you shouldn't. You seem the type to mess with a wiki just for the halibut. :angel:
-
Well, today's comic is a nice breather.
I too know how hard it is to move a couch. A few years ago, I had to help my mom take a couch of hers to get restored (since the restorer did not have a pickup service). The restorer was several blocks away and sweet Jesus, was the couch HEAVY AS HELL. We were cursing at each other about every other corner, and by God did my arms hurt afterwards.
So yeah, Sven and Faye have every right to complain about the couch being heavy. Although, to be fair to Dora, she is handling her side on her own while her helpers are bitching. I guess there's a bit of a balance there. I do recommend that Sven and Faye do not drop the couch on Dora. Because Dora will more than likely unleash the Four Horsemen on their asses. At minimum.
-
But if you're facing forward you lean in to the couch and can see it as it is pulled away. If you are facing backwards and the couch is pulled away you are going to fall.
There is this constant force called Gravity, see. You may have heard of it, and that is the force that will prevent this from happening if you are the putz on the heavy end of the couch trying to go up stairs.
But he's not using Faye as a go between. There are no sides; Marten and Dora are not fighting. Faye was just a convenient point of contact since she was about to go see Dora.
Marten and Dora aren't currently fighting because they have had no contact since the breakup, which was a pretty rough and hostile one due to Dora's "Fuck you I don't have to take this, I'm out!" when Marten was getting sick of never standing up for himself in an argument.
And the weight/distribution. Those couches aren't made of air (and if they were I'd suggest deflating them first.)
If it's light enough for Dora to take the heavy end going up the stairs, it really isn't that bad.
That sounds an extraordinary claim.
The progression is outlined briefly on Helping Psychology.com on one of their pages talking about personality trait theory, this isn't really that extraordinary a claim to make.
In any case, I was merely wanting to point out that you cannot simply say that "Marten shouldn't be involving Faye at all"; many people would disagree with you over whether it is necessarily inappropriate.
Argumentum ad populum is almost always wrong, you should know this.
You seem to define the acceptable world in terms of (what I presume are) your reactions to situations without being prepared to countenance others.
Why should I countenance reactions that I've observed as always leading to worsening a given situation as being good and valid reactions to a given situation?
Like, in this case, asking a friend to relay a message to an ex after a particularly nasty breakup where the friend doing the asking was also a bit of a drunken asshole to the person they're asking a favor of not long after the breakup. Is Faye not allowed to still be aggravated about it or (as I've interpreted how she acts around Marten in the comic) nowhere near as close a friend as she used to be after that? Is she not allowed to make that decision with regard to how she treats Marten?
You may think that way, and I may agree; but observation shows that many people simply cannot think in this manner.
That is irrelevant, since we were talking about whether or not it required actual intelligence to do and not perspective.
Odin, are you familiar with chaos theory? Even with only two or three variables, some systems become completely unpredictable! And again, you're stating that someone's opinion is wrong, a statement of absolutes. You really seem to prefer them, which makes you a hard pill to swallow at times...
Chaos theory doesn't say that systems become completely unpredictable, just that we're very bad at tracking all of the required variables at the precision required for some chaotic systems (never mind that the shorthand Crichton used in certain popular novels was wrong, but don't get me started on that).
Doesn't mean some people don't have trouble with it. 3-D visualization is not a universal skill.
Granted, but it isn't all that difficult to figure out that there should be two people at the heavy end of the couch when you're coming up on a corner in a stairwell (so that they can support the weight while the person at the light end lifts their end of the couch higher so the required turning radius to get the couch around the corner gets smaller).
-
There is this constant force called Gravity, see. You may have heard of it, and that is the force that will prevent this from happening if you are the putz on the heavy end of the couch trying to go up stairs.
No, see you have that backwards. Gravity is precisely the force that will make you fall over. (It really depends on how much pushing you do vs. how much pulling the other end does.)
And what is this heavy end of which you speak? Last I checked most couches were symmetrical.
Marten and Dora aren't currently fighting because they have had no contact since the breakup, which was a pretty rough and hostile one due to Dora's "Fuck you I don't have to take this, I'm out!" when Marten was getting sick of never standing up for himself in an argument.
And there's no sign that either currently harbours ill thoughts towards the other. Not that they actually know that since there hasn't been any contact. Regardless, Marten wasn't using Faye to keep at a distance from Dora; quite the opposite in fact.
If it's light enough for Dora to take the heavy end going up the stairs, it really isn't that bad.
To pick straight up from the ends maybe. But when you have to twist and turn it, and confined space means you can't get to the ideal leverage points, even a modest weight can become difficult to handle.
-
No, see you have that backwards. Gravity is precisely the force that will make you fall over. (It really depends on how much pushing you do vs. how much pulling the other end does.)
If Dora is facing into the couch while trying to go up the stairs, she's already in a bad balancing position with regard to carrying that end of the couch up the stairs (unless she lifts it up to her shoulders and uses her arms to push it up that way, requiring a lot more work in addition to lifting with her legs like she is now).
And what is this heavy end of which you speak? Last I checked most couches were symmetrical.
The end of the couch Dora is holding, where all of the weight is on her and all Sven and Faye are doing is keeping the front end from hitting the stairs as Dora pushes the couch up?
And there's no sign that either currently harbours ill thoughts towards the other. Not that they actually know that since there hasn't been any contact. Regardless, Marten wasn't using Faye to keep at a distance from Dora; quite the opposite in fact.
Marten plainly does, considering how he had to psyche himself up for going to the coffee shop to begin with.
-
Aw crappin' crap craps, to quote a character of whom I'd like to see more.
Or maybe daaaaaaaaaaaaannnnng, to quote a couple others.
I was going to post something trenchant and witty about how moving couches can start a war among a group of pacifists, but y'all have taken care of that.
Sounds like the car wreck and the space shuttle explosion finally had their baby.
-
The part of this that is amusing to me is that people are referring to the "light" and "heavy" ends of the couch as if the mass shifts when you bring it up the stairs. Having moved a number of pieces of furniture up and down stairs from both sides I will simply state that whatever end you have is the "heavy end", unless of course all the change in the couch has shifted to one side.
-
The wiki is nothing whatever to do with Jeph.
Pretty much my point (can't use it as a reliable source for answering comic-related questions, especially given how easily wikis are vandalized/altered).
Wrong, it can be used as a reliable source if the citations in place are accurate and verified by canonical articles. Unless you're suggesting that someone has also vandalised or altered the comic archive in order to correlate with an altered wiki entry. However, were that the situation, then the wiki would still be as reliable a source of information as the comic itself. Perhaps worth mentioning that referencing the wiki rather than the comic archive itself is the same as using any dedicated reference source on a specific subject in which it houses and groups information with a greater ease of access.
-
And there's no sign that either currently harbours ill thoughts towards the other.
Marten plainly does, considering how he had to psyche himself up
Psyching himself up doesn't necessarily mean he has ill thoughts, or even believes she has. It's most likely simple nervousness.
I presume you have never experienced this feeling in this situation, as you seem not to recognise it.
-
...wait, whose couch is that?
-
...wait, whose couch is that?
... and the Game Ball goes to Near Lurker.
-
...wait, whose couch is that?
I was wondering that myself.
-
...wait, whose couch is that?
I was wondering that myself.
I can't tell you who actually owns the couch, but ask yourself, "Who is in the process of moving?" and maybe you'll come up with a plausable hypothysis.
-
...wait, whose couch is that?
Dora's, obviously. She did have one of her own when she lived on her own before moving in with Marten, after all.
Psyching himself up doesn't necessarily mean he has ill thoughts, or even believes she has. It's most likely simple nervousness.
Simple nervousness doesn't usually result in talking to yourself out loud (panels 1-4) (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) as you try to psyche yourself up to do something (as opposed to, say, thought bubbles).
I presume you have never experienced this feeling in this situation, as you seem not to recognise it.
I make it a point not to move in with people that exhibit glaring red flags of instability in their life or have so much repressed resentment for someone that a bottle of alcohol causes me to be on the verge of attempted rape (because I'm not broken), yes.
-
...wait, whose couch is that?
I was wondering that myself.
I can't tell you who actually owns the couch, but ask yourself, "Who is in the process of moving?" and maybe you'll come up with a plausable hypothysis.
Except when Dora and Marten moved in together, they did something with her old couch, we don't know what. Seeing as how Marten and Faye have their own couch, I doubt they would have moved Dora's one into the apartment. So, it probably wasn't amongst the things that Sven collected after the break up and moved into his apartment. So, either Dora put her furniture into storage (which would have been a subconscious idea that the relationship wouldn't have worked) or she sold her stuff.
-
I think the confusion here is that people have assumed that Dora sold her couch when she moved in with Marten and Faye, yes? Since we know that she obviously had a couch in her old place before moving in with them. Well, we know that she rents storage to keep her car in, so maybe the couch and a few other items of furniture wound up there. Or, maybe she simply bought a new couch. Who knows? But it's not like couches are hard things to come by, really. And since they're moving Dora into her new apartment, and that couch is clearly being lifted up the stairs and thus being installed rather than removed, it's fairly simple to twig who the couch's owner is.
...it's Dora. Dora owns that couch.
Edit: Ninja'd by TheEvilDog! But yeah, it's pretty straightforward if you think about it.
-
Well, Near Lurker, *I* thought it was funny.
-
For me it is pretty clear that the couch is being moved upwards and not down - otherwise the position of the corner wouldn't be relevant as they would have passed it and been on the straight if they were going down.
For me, I always find it easier being the person on the lower step like Dora. The advantage is that you can often rest the coach (or whatever) on your trouser's belt as an extra "support" (a technique often used in The World's Strongest Man events). If you are going fowards rather than the backwards way that Dora is using, you can often partly rest the couch on your front leg that is on the next step up and conserve your energy. Being lower, you use your legs to lift but then lean over and use your body weight to move the couch forward. The person at the top while travelling backwards has to make sure the couch isn't moved forward too quickly or they will run out of room to raise their first leg onto the next step and at risk of falling over backwards. The people at the top often seem to hold the couch lower down their body in relation to the person at the bottom which means they can't utilise their leg muscles as effectively.
What they should be doing to get around the corner is for Sven and Faye to start to lift the top part of the couch to be vertical so that Dora positions the bottom part of the couch on the landing step. Once the couch is sitting there vertical, you then tip the couch sideways so that it is leaning towards the second part of the stairs....
-
Simple nervousness doesn't usually result in talking to yourself out loud (panels 1-4) (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) as you try to psyche yourself up to do something (as opposed to, say, thought bubbles).
But not infrequently it does. Why do persist in denying what happens not to be part of your own experience?
-
Whether they're going up or down depends. Is this Sven's apartment or Dora's new one? If the former, down, if the latter, up.
Also, check out the new poll!
-
Dora's couch at Marten's Apartment. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1602)
The brown one on the left.
-
Daaaaang! Akronnick is right.
-
But not infrequently it does. Why do persist in denying what happens not to be part of your own experience?
I'm sane? If there is nobody around to hear me and I'm not specifically talking to someone, I don't say anything out loud (unless I've stubbed my toe in the dark or something, and then it's just a stream of fucks and damnits).
-
Daaaaang! Akronnick is right.
You act surprised!
You see I, like the QC wiki, provide evidence to support my hypotheses, rather than just asserting my own opinion as absolute fact...
-
Simple nervousness doesn't usually result in talking to yourself out loud (panels 1-4) (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) as you try to psyche yourself up to do something (as opposed to, say, thought bubbles).
Sounds like fairly common outward processor behaviour to me. It's not unreasonable for someone to vocalise something out loud to prevent that sounded better in my head moments. I understand that hearing it out loud helps reduce fear as someone psyches themselves up.
-
Simple nervousness doesn't usually result in talking to yourself out loud (panels 1-4) (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) as you try to psyche yourself up to do something (as opposed to, say, thought bubbles).
Sounds like fairly common outward processor behaviour to me. It's not unreasonable for someone to vocalise something out loud to prevent that sounded better in my head moments. I understand that hearing it out loud helps reduce fear as someone psyches themselves up.
But then you're leaving "simple nervousness" territory and entering "abject fear/terror".
-
Dora's couch at Marten's Apartment. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1602)
The brown one on the left.
So it's Dora's couch. That doesn't answer the question of where they are, which would answer the question of up or down. Unless I'm missing something.
-
Read the first two panels again. They're going up because they're arguing about being unable to go around the corner.
Which wouldn't make sense if they were going down the stairs because they're already facing down that way with the couch.
-
I didn't know the timeline, but it sure feels like they were dating longer than that and broke up more recently than that. In any case, everyone is different. I do not think that 2 months equals fucked up territory.
There is a lot of dispute over the timeline (arguments over the starting point being either when Marten hangs out with Dora without Faye around or when they actually date/start fucking, etc.), but the point I was going for is that the relationship moved into "Let's live together!" territory way too fast and the breakup also being pretty soon should mean the relationship shouldn't take that long to get over. Unless it is literally Marten's second "real" relationship.
Actually, the time line is a lot more simple than that thanks to this http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) comic which is on the same day as today's comic. In it Martin comments that "it's been weeks, we've both had plenty of time to chill out". The only thing it can possibly refer to is the breakup night when they last saw each other. For me, "weeks" would be 2-3 weeks (as 4 weeks would probably be referred to as a month).
Interestingly this helps disproves Odin's previous arguments that Martin should stop being a whiney little bitch for not being over Dora on the basis that it has been months since the breakup - I'm paraphrasing Odin's argument as to whether it would be acceptable for Tai to make a move on Dora post break up. We still don't know how long they were together - probably 6 months or more, but not a year - but we know the breakup was "weeks" ago. The question is whether or not 2-3 weeks is plenty of time for someone to get over a relationship that both parties were taking seriously but split up spectacularly rather than die a natural death.
-
Dora's couch at Marten's Apartment. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1602)
The brown one on the left.
So it's Dora's couch. That doesn't answer the question of where they are, which would answer the question of up or down. Unless I'm missing something.
I wasn't addressing the question of up or down, merely the disposition of the couch during the period when Dora lived with Marten.
The location of the stairwell in today's comic, and thus the direction of the couch, remains unclear, unless someone can produce a link that can establish the location of the stairwell in question.
-
Actually, the time line is a lot more simple than that thanks to this http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) comic which is on the same day as today's comic. In it Martin comments that "it's been weeks, we've both had plenty of time to chill out". The only thing it can possibly refer to is the breakup night when they last saw each other. For me, "weeks" would be 2-3 weeks (as 4 weeks would probably be referred to as a month).
Jeph seems to be being intentionally vague on this point, but it has been more than 2-3 weeks because people have changed hair styles (longer hair) and Marten has been going to the Secret Bakery for a few weeks already (pretty sure Hannelore commented on this).
Interestingly this helps disproves Odin's previous arguments that Martin should stop being a whiney little bitch for not being over Dora on the basis that it has been months since the breakup - I'm paraphrasing Odin's argument as to whether it would be acceptable for Tai to make a move on Dora post break up. We still don't know how long they were together - probably 6 months or more, but not a year - but we know the breakup was "weeks" ago. The question is whether or not 2-3 weeks is plenty of time for someone to get over a relationship that both parties were taking seriously but split up spectacularly rather than die a natural death.
In one of the previous arguments about this I also said that Marten should be farther along getting over it because there have been plenty of clues along the way that Dora was going to break up with him if he ever grew a spine and stood up to her, with that easy stipulation that this doesn't really apply if Marten is literally that inexperienced in the dating/relationship world and Dora was literally his third "serious" attempt at a relationship (after the two failures we know about with the ex he moved across the country for and the non-starter with Faye).
-
But not infrequently it does. Why do persist in denying what happens not to be part of your own experience?
I'm sane? If there is nobody around to hear me and I'm not specifically talking to someone, I don't say anything out loud (unless I've stubbed my toe in the dark or something, and then it's just a stream of fucks and damnits).
It is quite a common exercise that people without confidence are sometimes advised to do is to look in the mirror and say out loud lines such as "I am strong, I am capable and I can X" where X is whatever task is that the person has to do that day. I've known people who have counted down vocally with the intention of acting once they hit zero if they are nervous about what they have to do.
People giving themselves an audiable peptalk before doing something is surprisingly common.
-
Actually, the time line is a lot more simple than that thanks to this http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) comic which is on the same day as today's comic. In it Martin comments that "it's been weeks, we've both had plenty of time to chill out". The only thing it can possibly refer to is the breakup night when they last saw each other. For me, "weeks" would be 2-3 weeks (as 4 weeks would probably be referred to as a month).
Jeph seems to be being intentionally vague on this point, but it has been more than 2-3 weeks because people have changed hair styles (longer hair) and Marten has been going to the Secret Bakery for a few weeks already (pretty sure Hannelore commented on this).
So although Martin comments it has been weeks, and Hannelore might have commented that Martin has been going to the Secret Bakery for weeks (something Martin only going to days at most post break up) then clearly what both meant to say was "months" and not "weeks" which was a typo on Jeph's part.
And flicking back through the achives from the most recent one backwards, I'd say quite a few characters appear to have recently had haircuts - whose hiar do you think has got significantly longer that would suggest months?
-
^^^Faye is the one whose hair got longer, then got cut. There was a thread about it and everything.
It is quite a common exercise that people without confidence are sometimes advised to do is to look in the mirror and say out loud lines such as "I am strong, I am capable and I can X" where X is whatever task is that the person has to do that day. I've known people who have counted down vocally with the intention of acting once they hit zero if they are nervous about what they have to do.
People giving themselves an audiable peptalk before doing something is surprisingly common.
So something being common means it should be considered correct/normal? Here is a more extreme example: Should the 52% of Americans that believe the Civil War was not entirely due to the racist Confederacy's stance on Slavery (completely ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary like the Cornerstone Speech the VP of the Confederate States gave) not be derided for their stupidity?
-
Something being common makes it normal...but not necessarily correct.
Modifier: Also, what bothers me about the "states rights" argument is that they make the argument that states rights not only trump the right of the federal government to make national laws, but also the right of individuals to not be owned by someone else.
-
One brown couch in the Reed/Whitaker/(Bianchi) apartment in happier days. There is source support for that. Good eye, AkronNick.
How many gray couches? There appear to be two, though you only see one at a time. One against the wall, one standing off from another wall. And there are windows along two walls of the living room (real estate agent said it was a corner unit, and we've seen the windows).
Where does everything go?
Reminds me of the Brady Bunch house, for which one TV fan tried to draw plans based on the set seen on screen. He even made a book out of it. Buildable, but improbable.
Is this living room like that? Or the Enterprise? Or The Doctor's time-space-traveling phone booth? You want to apply logic, but there are all these little talking robots running around. Things ain't normal.
-
^^^Faye is the one whose hair got longer, then got cut. There was a thread about it and everything.
It is quite a common exercise that people without confidence are sometimes advised to do is to look in the mirror and say out loud lines such as "I am strong, I am capable and I can X" where X is whatever task is that the person has to do that day. I've known people who have counted down vocally with the intention of acting once they hit zero if they are nervous about what they have to do.
People giving themselves an audiable peptalk before doing something is surprisingly common.
So something being common means it should be considered correct/normal? Here is a more extreme example: Should the 52% of Americans that believe the Civil War was not entirely due to the racist Confederacy's stance on Slavery (completely ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary like the Cornerstone Speech the VP of the Confederate States gave) not be derided for their stupidity?
Statistically, a person is more likely to be hetrosexual rather than homosexuality. Are you implying that because homosexuality is not the most common type of sexuality that people who are gay are abnormal and acting wrongly? People giving themselves a verbal peptalk is common enough that other people don't immediately assume they are suffering from schizofenia (spelling?) and locked up under the mental health act for doing so. Since the idea of people giving themsleves a verbial peptalk is something that psychologists sometimes advise their patients to do, we'll assume that in their professional expert opinion is that talking to oneself can be an acceptably correct and normal behaviour.
In terms of your extreme example, since I am not american and therefore not fully knowledgable on the finer points of the American Civil War then I cannot answer the question. I am assuming on the basis of the tone of the question that the answer you seek is "yes".
-
Which means it wasn't a question at all, but rather a rhetorical device. The only thing Odin likes more than making a point is being right... to the point that he'll defend himself into ridicularity, talking circles around everyone (and often himself).
At this juncture, I'd like to remind everyone that despite appearances, Odin is not actually a troll. True, it often seems as though he says things only to evoke an emotional response, but his life experiences are sufficiently different from the majority's that he just looks at things from a very different point of view. Absolutism is part of his personality, as is abrasiveness. So, like a troll, responding in kind will rarely have an effect except to ramp things up.
Let cooler heads prevail. Don't feed the Odin.
:police:
-
Discussion should be about the comic and not about particular posters. That kind of thing just spirals out of control and obstructs the regular conversation.
-
if Marten is literally that inexperienced in the dating/relationship world and Dora was literally his third "serious" attempt at a relationship (after the two failures we know about with the ex he moved across the country for and the non-starter with Faye).
We know about at least four others (though I'm ready for you to respond that high-school relationships don't count as serious!), because he's said so (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1066).
So something being common means it should be considered correct/normal?
No - it should be recognised as common, and so not dismissed as irrelevant.
-
Thought balloons are indeed rare. I don't have a citation for this, but Jeph said once something to the effect that characters standing around thinking are too "static" to suit him.
Couches at an angle do have a heavy end. Imagine a couch tipped all the way up: all the weight will be on the bottom end. Imagine moving it a little off vertical: most of the weight will be at the lower end. In between, more than half the weight will be on the lower end.
-
How many times will I get shot if I make a comment about Sven looking hot in more than one sense of the word?
-
How many times will I get shot if I make a comment about Sven looking hot in more than one sense of the word?
Depends on what the senses of the word you are using. At least, that's what the mods have TOLD me to say.
-
Re: The Couch
The Chainsaw Option is always available :evil:
-
It seems to me that even if just one person is going to be lower than the others on the stairs, that person being Dora is not the most efficient way to operate. Based solely on appearances, I would say that Sven and Faye are both likely to be stronger than her.
I guess there's no joke then, though.
-
There is this constant force called Gravity, see. You may have heard of it, and that is the force that will prevent this from happening if you are the putz on the heavy end of the couch trying to go up stairs.
Marten and Dora aren't currently fighting because they have had no contact since the breakup, which was a pretty rough and hostile one due to Dora's "Fuck you I don't have to take this, I'm out!" when Marten was getting sick of never standing up for himself in an argument.
If it's light enough for Dora to take the heavy end going up the stairs, it really isn't that bad.
The progression is outlined briefly on Helping Psychology.com on one of their pages talking about personality trait theory, this isn't really that extraordinary a claim to make.
Argumentum ad populum is almost always wrong, you should know this.
Why should I countenance reactions that I've observed as always leading to worsening a given situation as being good and valid reactions to a given situation?
Like, in this case, asking a friend to relay a message to an ex after a particularly nasty breakup where the friend doing the asking was also a bit of a drunken asshole to the person they're asking a favor of not long after the breakup. Is Faye not allowed to still be aggravated about it or (as I've interpreted how she acts around Marten in the comic) nowhere near as close a friend as she used to be after that? Is she not allowed to make that decision with regard to how she treats Marten?
That is irrelevant, since we were talking about whether or not it required actual intelligence to do and not perspective.
Chaos theory doesn't say that systems become completely unpredictable, just that we're very bad at tracking all of the required variables at the precision required for some chaotic systems (never mind that the shorthand Crichton used in certain popular novels was wrong, but don't get me started on that).
Granted, but it isn't all that difficult to figure out that there should be two people at the heavy end of the couch when you're coming up on a corner in a stairwell (so that they can support the weight while the person at the light end lifts their end of the couch higher so the required turning radius to get the couch around the corner gets smaller).
I'm sane? If there is nobody around to hear me and I'm not specifically talking to someone, I don't say anything out loud (unless I've stubbed my toe in the dark or something, and then it's just a stream of fucks and damnits).
The urge to disagree with you, even when you're right (though I make no claims about that at the moment), is very strong simply because your posting is so reminiscent of the kid on the debate team that even the other debating dorks avoid.
-
A shame the strip documenting the couch's long-established proof of existence wasn't issued earlier in this stirring internet discussion!
Sheeesh!!!
Next they'll be wanting to see the couch's long form birth certificate! :psyduck:
-
Late to the thread, but regarding Marten's alleged "Nice Guy"-ness:
As was pointed out, Nice Guys are essentially selfish. This would require Marten to have a self, which by observation, he does not.
We've seen many examples, including a solid two weeks that actually (finally) made some people uncomfortable, of Marten either meekly submitting to anything asked of/done to him or making a brief effort to resist and then being browbeaten into submitting anyway.
It seems to me that "Veronica Vance" raised herself a fine doormat, intentionally or not.
Marten doesn't do things for women in hopes/expectation of getting something out of them. He does it just because he's conditioned to it.
-
god i hate moving
x1,000.
-
god i hate moving
x1,000.
I second that x1,000.
Say, isn't 1997 one of the forms of the leet word "leet" . . . ?
-
1337
-
What akron said. A 9 is a lowercase g.
-
\/\/@+ |2 w3 t4l|<1|\|6 1337 n@0?
Sorry. And must sympathize with Dora, especially since I'm 6'5", I'm always stuck on the lower end when bringing large objects up/down stairs.
-
Tai is cute when she lets her crush side show ;)
-
I'm confused. The dialog says they're in front of Dora's new place...but what's Tai doing just wandering around Amherst?
-
I'm confused. The dialog says they're in front of Dora's new place...but what's Tai doing just wandering around Amherst?
Stalking her new crush.
-
I wouldnt necessarily say new crush, Tai's been crushing for awhile. Dora is newly available though.
-
GASDFDSAGFGSF
I SO WANT THAT NEW T-SHIRT
-
Mieville, what have they done to you!
And onto the important stuff: Who can figure out what the box had written on it?
-
GASDFDSAGFGSF
I SO WANT THAT NEW T-SHIRT
Just ordered it literally 2 minutes ago. To commemorate the purchase I'm now listening to Komm, susser Tod, Tsubasa wo Kudasai, and Thanatos - If I Can't Be Yours all in succession. :-D
To answer your question Waffle, I can't tell clearly but it looks like either a D or large P for the first letter.
-
Oh, the joys of getting your friends to help you move. Did that ONCE! The subsequent 3 times were by professionals. The friendships those saved was well worth the co$t.
Yes. I hate moving and always hire pros. They're not expensive for local moves, and physiotherapy for the back injuries etc. is expensive. Not only are professional movers usually big and strong (certainly compared to me anyway), but they have slings and other specialised equipement, and they have lots of practice in manoeuvring sofas round stairs. Just move the small delicate stuff yourself.
And yes, Tai is well off her normal territory. Or perhaps not; we haven't seen much of her background.
-
tai is so making a pass at dora.....how hard do you think she'll get shot down?
oh...and somebody explain this shirt to me, im not familiar with the reference
-
tai is so making a pass at dora.....how hard do you think she'll get shot down?
oh...and somebody explain this shirt to me, im not familiar with the reference
Svens 1997 or Tai's SMIF? SMIF is the name of the local college Tai goes to/lives and where Martin works in the library with Tai.
-
And yes, Tai is well off her normal territory. Or perhaps not; we haven't seen much of her background.
That's true, but for all we know, her whole family has lived in Amhearst for years and she was visiting her sister...
And how would she have known where Dora was moving too, and when?
This strikes me as a chance oppurtunity that Tai is (awkwardly) trying to exploit.
-
I'm confused. The dialog says they're in front of Dora's new place...but what's Tai doing just wandering around Amherst?
Hmm. I interpreted the dialogue saying that they just got all of Dora's stuff out of Sven's place. Apparently there's a loaded truck/van/uhaul-trailer/whatever just next to them. After all, if this isn't Sven's place, why would Tai have gone in to pick up anything?!! Conclusion: This isn't Amherst.
Well. If we accept that bit, then the couch was on its way out in the previous strip, leaving us with a minor logical gap?? Wait! I got it. The sofa was at Sven's basement, and they were hauling it up the stairs to the ground floor.
So Tai can tag along and give a hand at the Amherst end of the move (provided that she can help carry anything other than plush toys). Wonder what's Tai's fixation in wanting to help Dora move. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1593)
Edit: Scratch all of the above. I did not notice Tai entering a truck as opposed to a hallway, where they might have piled Dora's stuff temporarily waiting for the truck. So the mystery of Tai wandering around Amherst remains.
-
Something being common makes it normal...but not necessarily correct.
Modifier: Also, what bothers me about the "states rights" argument is that they make the argument that states rights not only trump the right of the federal government to make national laws, but also the right of individuals to not be owned by someone else.
The "States Rights" argument is pure shit, given The Confederate Cornerstone Speech given by Alexander H. Stephens (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76). Especially these tidbits:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Anyway, this is silly:
Statistically, a person is more likely to be hetrosexual rather than homosexuality. Are you implying that because homosexuality is not the most common type of sexuality that people who are gay are abnormal and acting wrongly?
Two points:
1) You're starting from a flawed premise, because human sexuality is not a binary position and actually exists on a sliding scale (going from Heterosexual -> Bisexual -> Homosexual; with most people being somewhere between the three points and there being very few hardline heterosexual or homosexual people, not to mention the phenomena of people who are sexuality-phobes usually turning out to be in denial about their own sexuality--the vast majority of people are actually some degree of bisexual with Hetero/Homosexuals being the outliers).
2) Are you being deliberately obtuse and equating beliefs about human sexuality with racist beliefs?
People giving themselves a verbal peptalk is common enough that other people don't immediately assume they are suffering from schizofenia (spelling?) and locked up under the mental health act for doing so. Since the idea of people giving themsleves a verbial peptalk is something that psychologists sometimes advise their patients to do, we'll assume that in their professional expert opinion is that talking to oneself can be an acceptably correct and normal behaviour.
Psychologists are not Psychiatrists (the former tends to be a researcher, with very small pools of direct patient contact for when they're not working on a specific research subject, not to mention usually a whole hell of a lot more expensive to get appointments with), but even granting that you're going to have to provide a bit more evidence since I've always heard and read that it was an intermediate step in therapy prior to moving on to internalizing those actions and making them require far less conscious effort.
In terms of your extreme example, since I am not american and therefore not fully knowledgable on the finer points of the American Civil War then I cannot answer the question. I am assuming on the basis of the tone of the question that the answer you seek is "yes".
Given the presence of the word "not" in the question I asked, you may want to re-read the post you quoted and think about it a bit. The way I worded the question doesn't exactly allow for a simple "Yes or No" response without a follow-up explanation.
oh...and somebody explain this shirt to me, im not familiar with the reference
The shirt Jeph posted at the bottom of the comic or the shirt Sven is wearing that everyone is talking about?
If it's the first one, it isn't exactly "new" since Hot Topic used to have one back when End of Evangelion was released and it has been on various Cafepress t-shirt stores over the years (though usually with a different background, like the words imposed over fanart of Asuka beating the shit out of Shinji or something), if it's about Sven's shirt, I have no idea other than it being a continuation of everyone in the comic wearing "hipster" shirts.
-
Who can figure out what the box had written on it?
I happened to see as Jeph was drawing it; the crossed out word is DILDOS. I took it to be a modified reference to the "Party Favors" box here (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1588).
-
oh...and somebody explain this shirt to me, im not familiar with the reference
The main character of Neon Genesis Evangelion is a whiny, spineless teenager with daddy issues named Shinji. His internal conflict tends to get in the way of him piloting his giant robot and saving the world. The T-shirt is in reference to the mass of frustration fans and non-fans alike have experienced in watching the show and having to put up with his shit while a much more interesting conflict around him unfolds.
-
oh...and somebody explain this shirt to me, im not familiar with the reference
The main character of Neon Genesis Evangelion is a whiny, spineless teenager with daddy issues named Shinji. His internal conflict tends to get in the way of him piloting his giant robot and saving the world. The T-shirt is in reference to the mass of frustration fans and non-fans alike have experienced in watching the show and having to put up with his shit while a much more interesting conflict around him unfolds.
hm, il go check that one out see if i like it :P
but for now its F5'ing for naruto for the next half hour.....
-
Psychologists are not Psychiatrists (the former tends to be a researcher, with very small pools of direct patient contact for when they're not working on a specific research subject, not to mention usually a whole hell of a lot more expensive to get appointments with), but even granting that you're going to have to provide a bit more evidence since I've always heard and read that it was an intermediate step in therapy prior to moving on to internalizing those actions and making them require far less conscious effort.
I thought psychiatrists were medically trained physicians and so were able to do things that only doctors are allowed to do like prescribe drugs. And are much more expensive than psychologists. Psychologists tend to focus more on the counselling side of things.
Hmm. I interpreted the dialogue saying that they just got all of Dora's stuff out of Sven's place. Apparently there's a loaded truck/van/uhaul-trailer/whatever just next to them. After all, if this isn't Sven's place, why would Tai have gone in to pick up anything?!! Conclusion: This isn't Amherst.
Tai grabs the kitty out of the truck. In panel 3 she is stepping into the truck which is mostly empty
I happened to see as Jeph was drawing it; the crossed out word is DILDOS. I took it to be a modified reference to the "Party Favors" box here (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1588).
Hmmm...well that wasn't really much fun. Next question: what's inside now?
-
Next question: what's inside now?
An intermediate version of the drawing had NOT DILDOS! underneath the crossed-out DILDOS, but he decided against that version.
-
Hmm. I interpreted the dialogue saying that they just got all of Dora's stuff out of Sven's place. Apparently there's a loaded truck/van/uhaul-trailer/whatever just next to them. After all, if this isn't Sven's place, why would Tai have gone in to pick up anything?!! Conclusion: This isn't Amherst.
Well. If we accept that bit, then the couch was on its way out in the previous strip, leaving us with a minor logical gap?? Wait! I got it. The sofa was at Sven's basement, and they were hauling it up the stairs to the ground floor.
Except for one thing, why would Tai hop into a near empty moving truck and bring out that cat-doll-thingy, if they weren't at Dora's new place in Amherst?
-
Is this living room like that? Or the Enterprise? Or The Doctor's time-space-traveling phone booth? You want to apply logic, but there are all these little talking robots running around. Things ain't normal.
Soundstage sets have the rooms more open. The side walls are usually set at 100-135 degrees (rather than 90) from the back wall. Then there's that missing fourth wall that we kinda need in the real world......
Remember all rooms/cars/ships/planes are just big enough to fit the plot. Being trans-dimensionally unstable, the T.A.R.D.I.S. is a perfect example. (GOM alert: Jon Pertwee was the best Doctor.)
Re: Todays' comic when did Tai get some serious shape?
-
Is this living room like that? Or the Enterprise? Or The Doctor's time-space-traveling phone booth? You want to apply logic, but there are all these little talking robots running around. Things ain't normal.
That reminds me of something...
The Doctor: Look around you. Examine everything. Look for all the details that don't ring true.
Rory: Okay, well we're in a spaceship that's bigger on the inside than the outside.
Amy: With a bowtie-wearing idiot.
Rory: So maybe "what rings true" isn't so simple.
The Doctor: Valid point.
Also, my lazy habit of not reading the comic title until well after I've read the comic paid off today.
-
I just read the title of today's comic AFTER being in the forum for a while. :psyduck:
The shippers may be right. The Dora-Tia may leave dry dock yet....
-
Hmm. I interpreted the dialogue saying that they just got all of Dora's stuff out of Sven's place. Apparently there's a loaded truck/van/uhaul-trailer/whatever just next to them. After all, if this isn't Sven's place, why would Tai have gone in to pick up anything?!! Conclusion: This isn't Amherst.
Well. If we accept that bit, then the couch was on its way out in the previous strip, leaving us with a minor logical gap?? Wait! I got it. The sofa was at Sven's basement, and they were hauling it up the stairs to the ground floor.
Except for one thing, why would Tai hop into a near empty moving truck and bring out that cat-doll-thingy, if they weren't at Dora's new place in Amherst?
That cat-doll-thingy is Dora's cat Melville or whoever its name is spelt.... I'm pretty certain in a previous comic he caused a "Awwwwwwww" type reaction from Tai...
Dora's cat was an actual living cat with black fur (and an on-again-off-again creep-out war with Hannelore), so no, that wasn't Dora's cat that Tai picked up.
-
That cat-doll-thingy is Dora's cat Melville or whoever its name is spelt.... I'm pretty certain in a previous comic he caused a "Awwwwwwww" type reaction from Tai...
The doll is NOT Meiville. Dora's cat is a black, living, stoner, creature that may be a daemon. [Damn, I can't find a strip with him in the archives]
Grrrrr. Ninja'd
-
the white cat is a bonercat doll i think
-
Anyway, this is silly:
Statistically, a person is more likely to be hetrosexual rather than homosexuality. Are you implying that because homosexuality is not the most common type of sexuality that people who are gay are abnormal and acting wrongly?
Two points:
1) You're starting from a flawed premise, because human sexuality is not a binary position and actually exists on a sliding scale (going from Heterosexual -> Bisexual -> Homosexual; with most people being somewhere between the three points and there being very few hardline heterosexual or homosexual people, not to mention the phenomena of people who are sexuality-phobes usually turning out to be in denial about their own sexuality--the vast majority of people are actually some degree of bisexual with Hetero/Homosexuals being the outliers).
2) Are you being deliberately obtuse and equating beliefs about human sexuality with racist beliefs?
1) If you are asked what your sexuality is, do you declare yourself to be straight/bi/gay (delete as applicable) or do you declare yourself to be 90% straight with 10% homosexual tendancies? Although it is recognised there are various levels of 'sexuality' on a sliding scale, in the real world most people don't bother try to quantify it to the nearest decimal point on a "How gay are you?" chart. People tend to use one of the three common terms, although bisexuals might add they tend to lean towards a certain gender a little more than the other.
2) I only brought up the example as a slightly more extreme example towards your argument that just because a behaviour was common that it was in some way incorrect or wrong. I never even brought up the issue of racism.
People giving themselves a verbal peptalk is common enough that other people don't immediately assume they are suffering from schizofenia (spelling?) and locked up under the mental health act for doing so. Since the idea of people giving themsleves a verbial peptalk is something that psychologists sometimes advise their patients to do, we'll assume that in their professional expert opinion is that talking to oneself can be an acceptably correct and normal behaviour.
Psychologists are not Psychiatrists (the former tends to be a researcher, with very small pools of direct patient contact for when they're not working on a specific research subject, not to mention usually a whole hell of a lot more expensive to get appointments with), but even granting that you're going to have to provide a bit more evidence since I've always heard and read that it was an intermediate step in therapy prior to moving on to internalizing those actions and making them require far less conscious effort.
Psychologist, psychiatrist, psychopaths or whatever. I believe you knew exactly who I was referring to in my argument and you seem to be spending too much time being pedantic over a typo.
The fact is that people do verbially give themselves a peptalk when facing either a difficult or awkward challenge without anyone thinking they are crazy for a given definition of crazy...
In terms of your extreme example, since I am not american and therefore not fully knowledgable on the finer points of the American Civil War then I cannot answer the question. I am assuming on the basis of the tone of the question that the answer you seek is "yes".
Given the presence of the word "not" in the question I asked, you may want to re-read the post you quoted and think about it a bit. The way I worded the question doesn't exactly allow for a simple "Yes or No" response without a follow-up explanation.
Since you started the question with "Should" then the form typically would suggest a yes or no answer, although usually the person answering the question adds an explaination as to why they think that in order to get all the marks on offer. Being pedantic, you never actually requested an explaination - and certainly you should have guessed I wasn't going to giving one having indicated in the previous sentence that I didn't have any background knowledge of the subject. And writing from a non-American perspective, any question that contains "Should Americans............... be derided for their stupidity?" in it has the default answer yes. Although to folllow that answer up, that can extend to people from other countries as well.
-
I had to look through older comics to make sure that wasn't a new tattoo on Tai. She usually wears long sleeves. I like that Dora and Sven are sweating from lifting the couch but Faye is fine. She must have given up on helping with the couch.
I meant to say this yesterday but didn't get a chance to post but Dora's "KILL YOU BOTH" face genuinely made me feel uneasy.
-
I meant to say this yesterday but didn't get a chance to post but Dora's "KILL YOU BOTH" face genuinely made me feel uneasy.
That is PROOF that Jeph's skills as an artist are excelent!
-
I like that Dora and Sven are sweating from lifting the couch but Faye is fine.
Southern Ladies do not sweat, and Faye is a Southern Lady.
-
I like that Dora and Sven are sweating from lifting the couch but Faye is fine.
Southern Ladies do not sweat, and Faye is a Southern Lady.
Try again! Faye got there just in time to help with only one. Count 'em 1. Heavy piece.
And Tai really pitched in too! :wink:
-
Except for one thing, why would Tai hop into a near empty moving truck and bring out that cat-doll-thingy, if they weren't at Dora's new place in Amherst?
Rats. I didn't really look at that panel. For some reason I thought that Tai had went into a hallway now nearly empty of Dora's stuff, and picked up the last remaining thing (while Faye & Dora were waiting outdoors). An inspection (doesn't need to be a careful one) reveals that she really went inside that truck. My bad.
-
Southern Ladies do not sweat,
"Horses sweat, gentlemen perspire, but ladies only glow."
-
Southern Ladies do not sweat,
"Horses sweat, gentlemen perspire, but ladies only glow."
OMG you're from planet 1850's!
p.s. nice pic of Meiville
-
Maybe the only decent bubble tea shop is in Amherst (because that is definitely what Tai is drinking there). And Dora said it's only 20 minutes away; maybe she's got a friend in Amherst or something. It's not that crazy.
Also, Tai's got a nicer behind than we've been led to believe :evil:
-
OMG you're from planet 1850's!
Well, I did know my great granny who was alive in 1850!
-
SMIF is the name of the local college Tai goes to/lives and where Martin works in the library with Tai.
Located in the town of Norfhampton.
-
Simple nervousness doesn't usually result in talking to yourself out loud (panels 1-4) (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1907) as you try to psyche yourself up to do something (as opposed to, say, thought bubbles).
Sounds like fairly common outward processor behaviour to me. It's not unreasonable for someone to vocalise something out loud to prevent that sounded better in my head moments. I understand that hearing it out loud helps reduce fear as someone psyches themselves up.
But then you're leaving "simple nervousness" territory and entering "abject fear/terror".
Just because you've never had to rubberduck-debug something doesn't mean it's not a valid process.
-
Tai's shirt is all the proof I need to think she's semi-stalking Dora.
When she arrives, the hem is at the level of her crotch. In the panel where she's walking into the truck, it's high enough to show her "coin slot", which would have involved it moving up 2-3 inches or so. Only way I can see that happening is if Tai pulled up her shirt herself.
So, I still think she is stalking Dora, even if Dora's new apartment was around the corner from the college. :-D
-
If anything, the fact that the Bianchi siblings are sweating so much shows how much help Faye contributed to moving the couch. Then again, I'm from NYC, so I have no idea how Southern women operate and/or if there is a difference between regions.
Am I the only thinking Sven is off-panel facepalming at the end?
-
Just because you've never had to rubberduck-debug something doesn't mean it's not a valid process.
I've debuged computer code, electronic circuts and mechanical systems. And, yes, talking to myself is often part of the process.
Please explain the "rubberduck-" part?
Thanks.
Am I the only thinking Sven is off-panel facepalming at the end?
Didn't think of it, but it definitly makes sense!
-
oh...and somebody explain this shirt to me, im not familiar with the reference
The main character of Neon Genesis Evangelion is a whiny, spineless teenager with daddy issues named Shinji. His internal conflict tends to get in the way of him piloting his giant robot and saving the world. The T-shirt is in reference to the mass of frustration fans and non-fans alike have experienced in watching the show and having to put up with his shit while a much more interesting conflict around him unfolds.
Was a whiny, spineless etc.
Was.
Please everybody watch Evangelion 2.0 You Can Not Advance
-
Still waiting for the UK release of 2.22...
(Curiously, I actually already have a copy of it dubbed in Italian, but that's not really a lot of use to me! If anyone wants it...)
-
And don't forget, last time (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1593) Dora moved, she wasn't involved and felt left out, so it's partly "get into the social circle" as well as "get in with Dora".
I don't think it even is about getting an "in" with the social circle. We rarely see Tai making any sort of interaction with the likes of Faye (I can only think of the lap incident off the top of my head), Penelope or any of Marten's other friends. Even Hanners has been explicably marked as off limits, several times in fact, while Tai just eyed Marigold as another potential notch on the bedpost (before being brutally shot down, albeit unknownly by Marigold). The only person we've seen Tai ever actually pay any attention to besides Marten has been Dora.
-
Tai's shirt is all the proof I need to think she's semi-stalking Dora.
When she arrives, the hem is at the level of her crotch. In the panel where she's walking into the truck, it's high enough to show her "coin slot", which would have involved it moving up 2-3 inches or so. Only way I can see that happening is if Tai pulled up her shirt herself.
So, I still think she is stalking Dora, even if Dora's new apartment was around the corner from the college. :-D
If you look hard enough for evidence you will find it.
Tai's shirt lifted because she's stepping up into the truck. The artwork may be a little off, but I'm sure that was the intention.
I don't think Tai is clued in or thinks ahead enough to know that Dora was moving, find out when and where, and then have a 'surprise' encounter
-
Am I the only one who noticed the top of Tai's asscrack? (too lazy to check the other responses)
-
Nope. The title of the comic made sure we noticed.
-
Ah. I practically never read the comic titles. Yay me for figuring it out on my own :-D
-
I just read the title of today's comic AFTER being in the forum for a while. :psyduck:
The shippers may be right. The Dora-Tia may leave dry dock yet....
No no no, the title (as has just been referenced) is about Tai's "other cleavage" peeking out in panel 3.
-
Dear Tai:
Nice ass.
<3, me.
-
Wow. Tai really is built like a boy. Except, you know, that whole boobs and a vagina thing.
-
Goddamn cat! :mrgreen:
Looks like Tai's crush on Dora is coming to a head...this could end badly. :psyduck:
-
:-o
Why can't that moth have flown the other way?
Why teh Hell is Dora disrobing in front of Tai and Faye anyway?
-
If it were up to Tai, all ladies would be naked at all times.
I was gonna cross out Tai and put everyone, but then I remember "all ladies" includes my immediate family. (shudders)
And Faye, come on, Tai is just helping you out. Remember? YOU'RE SO WARM!
And Akron, she still had her bra on, and was in her own place, she probably doesn't see that as that big a deal (no more revealing than a bathing suit, really).
-
While I can understand why Tai doesn't bother to wear a bra...
Is she really totally comfortable doing so with Sven around?
Also, briefly, do we know whether Sven is aware of Tai and her orientation? I don't imagine it gets brought up much.
-
Dear God, Tai.
-
Just the girls in there, akronick. I don't think she expected Tai to start a stripping party.
Tai has an elbow tat?
-
Why teh Hell is Dora disrobing in front of Tai and Faye anyway?
Probably because she's a) used to female company and b) isn't exactly what you'd call inhibited (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=108)
-
Sven was gone at that point, Boomstick.
-
Also, just read the newspost on that comic I linked to...needless to say, Jeph's comic today proved it was wrong, ha!
-
1) Tai seems a TAD creepy in this comic, just saying.
2) I am somehow imagining in Mievilles thought process "Emergency boob cover, initiate!"
Yes, I am a very odd person.
-
It looks like Tai is no longer the ordinary human being who wanted a serious relationship because she was sick of casual sex. Jeph has finally devolved her into the stereotypical horny lesbian imagined by all the guys in the world who still can't get over the idea of two girls doing it. WHAT A SURPRISE :psyduck:
-
Hmm I am apparently the only one who thought Tai was really funny today.
While I can understand why Tai doesn't bother to wear a bra...
Is she really totally comfortable doing so with Sven around?
Hu ? Sven has never showed the slightest interest in Tai. And why should he ? For all we know, Sven could have an army of blonde busty babes if he wanted to.
-
It looks like Tai is no longer the ordinary human being who wanted a serious relationship because she was sick of casual sex. Jeph has finally devolved her into the stereotypical horny lesbian imagined by all the guys in the world who still can't get over the idea of two girls doing it. WHAT A SURPRISE :psyduck:
I think rather that Tai is falling back into some old habits from the Smif dorms. She may not really know how to woo someone other than a "direct approach"!
-----------------------------
You know, for a comic titled "Questionable Content", Jeph's never really had much more than implied sex and conveniently censored nudity.
No, I'm not complaining. It's just an observation!
-
It looks like Tai is no longer the ordinary human being who wanted a serious relationship because she was sick of casual sex. Jeph has finally devolved her into the stereotypical horny lesbian imagined by all the guys in the world who still can't get over the idea of two girls doing it. WHAT A SURPRISE :psyduck:
I was also disappointed to see her treated as essentially a walking stereotype.
-
And Tai's own particular and peculiar brand of Social Awkwardness (TM) rears it's head.
Look!
It's a Bird! It's a Plane!
NO!! It's SuperMeiville!!!!
-
Rather than throw fuel into the "Is Tai a sterotype of female homosexuality?" fire, I'll simply ask: was I was the only one that heard the Metal Gear "spotted by a guard" sound go off in my head at the exclamation point in panel 2?
I hope not.
-
Tai is about a quarter second from an elbow in the snoot.
-
Rather than throw fuel into the "Is Tai a sterotype of female homosexuality?" fire, I'll simply ask: was I was the only one that heard the Metal Gear "spotted by a guard" sound go off in my head at the exclamation point in panel 2?
I hope not.
I FEEL ASLEEP!
-
If it hadn't been for Meiville's heroic leap, that wouldn't have been nearly as funny.
-
Dear Jeph:
What the fuck?
Sincerely,
normal average sane person super drunk person at 4 am on a whole bottle of 2007 Guenoc Zinfandel California
-
It looks like Tai is no longer the ordinary human being who wanted a serious relationship because she was sick of casual sex. Jeph has finally devolved her into the stereotypical horny lesbian imagined by all the guys in the world who still can't get over the idea of two girls doing it. WHAT A SURPRISE :psyduck:
I think rather that Tai is falling back into some old habits from the Smif dorms. She may not really know how to woo someone other than a "direct approach"!
-----------------------------
You know, for a comic titled "Questionable Content", Jeph's never really had much more than implied sex and conveniently censored nudity.
No, I'm not complaining. It's just an observation!
A direct approach... with TWO women. ONE of which is well known for a proclivity towards casual violence. Riiiiiiight. I stand by my original statement. Jeph hasn't really developed the character of Tai beyond the whole lesbian angle, so now he has to resort to a stereotype to drive today's comic.
-
We've all heard of the Modesty Blanket, but a Modesty Cat is a new one.
Dora's going to have to do something, and I'm afraid it will hurt Tai. Who, granted, created this situation.
-
Sven was gone at that point, Boomstick.
Gah, yeah. If I ever claim expert reading comprehension, feel free to laugh yourself sick.
-
We've all heard of the Modesty Blanket, but a Modesty Cat is a new one.
Dora's going to have to do something, and I'm afraid it will hurt Tai. Who, granted, created this situation.
Are you kidding? Dora and Tai will hook up. Why? Because Dora's written to be a thoughtless, needy, and broken woman who can't get over her histrionic personality disorder. Tai is written to be a thoughtless, needy, self-serving horndog for the ladies. Jeph is dumping pretty obvious spoilers on us with strips like this.
-
Either that or creating the most outrageous and sneaky misdirect in the history of QC.
-
Either that or creating the most outrageous and sneaky misdirect in the history of QC.
Please stop trying to give me hope. :-(
-
Both Jeph and Randy Milholland are taking their shirts off! Hoorah!
-
I never want to see Jeph or Randy with their shirts off.
<shudder>
-
Rather than throw fuel into the "Is Tai a sterotype of female homosexuality?" fire, I'll simply ask: was I was the only one that heard the Metal Gear "spotted by a guard" sound go off in my head at the exclamation point in panel 2?
I hope not.
No, more like the Pokemon Trainers "PING!" thought bubble when they see you and go to battle you on some route in the games.
-
For me, the punchline was the newspost's segue into "I have a new shirt for you to buy ... "
-
Either that or creating the most outrageous and sneaky misdirect in the history of QC.
Please stop trying to give me hope. :-(
Can't top the deus ex machina storyline, I'm afraid. Though...that featured Dora grabbing Faye's behind just before the twist.
-
It looks like Tai is no longer the ordinary human being who wanted a serious relationship because she was sick of casual sex. Jeph has finally devolved her into the stereotypical horny lesbian imagined by all the guys in the world who still can't get over the idea of two girls doing it. WHAT A SURPRISE :psyduck:
I was also disappointed to see her treated as essentially a walking stereotype.
What stereotype? Women can be horny and love sex too. Tai just happens the be the one female character in this strip who's least modest about it. You're really digging deep for a complaint on this one.
-
And to be fair, both times we saw Faye's lesbian sister it was pretty clear she certainly doesn't fit the stereotype. This is just how Tai is.
Also, I like the modesty cat. Nicely done, Jeph :wink: (assuming he ever sees this).
-
I love the way that strips like today's expose people's hang-ups or their blinkered views of the world around them!
-
...Tai, why do you insist on making me dislike you when I truly want to like you?
-
Rather than throw fuel into the "Is Tai a sterotype of female homosexuality?" fire, I'll simply ask: was I was the only one that heard the Metal Gear "spotted by a guard" sound go off in my head at the exclamation point in panel 2?
I hope not.
You are not alone. I literally heard the alert sound in my head when I saw it. What we need to find out is how fast Tai really is? She took that shirt off way to fast and with her arms nowhere near position to take it off quickly.
My guess? Lesbian Saiyan.
-
DORA WHERE ARE YOUR BOOBS GOD DAMN
-
I loved the Modesty Cat myself. And I really hope Jeph stays with this Monday, I'd like to see how badly Faye's hurt Tai (physically, of course) in response to her aggressiveness this comic.
-
I loved the Modesty Cat myself.
Haha, yeah, love Mieville :-)
-
Modesty cat is both timely and awesome. I think it is more a classic case of Tai acting the ass around her current crush and not knowing how to handle herself. Therefore she resorts to old familiar routines. Tai is so on the verge of a knuckle sandwich. Personally I think that the world would be a safer place from both Tai and Dora and their personality ticks if they hook up.
At least for a short time anyway. :D
-
I was soooo happy to see that .... Mieville has survived two moves, a break-up, multiple encounters with Pintsize, and ... shared space with Princess.
-
<-- I was inspired.
D
-
On the topic of hangups and revelation; so when Dora flashed Marten, in a public place no less, and Raven took her top off to get Sven's attention, also in a public place, that was what?
And now, Tai, who has a crush and severe impulse control issues, does exactly what her crush just did (classic "I wanna be just like them" behaviour) then remembers they aren't alone and tries to cover her error by taking it too far (which she has done many times before) she's a "stereotypical lesbian horndog?"
-
I don't think anything's going to come off this. I haven't seen any serious attraction to Tai coming from Dora - only that little "ohh, I love butch girls!" and fawning over her hood-piercing (whipping her top off in this situation doesn't really rate compared to getting her hood pierced in front of Marten and then showing Dora up close). Dora actually seemed pretty ambivalent to her in her last several appearances. I think the next strip will be "uh, look Tai, you're cool and all but...".
Not to mention the possible situation of Dora dumping Marten and making her next partner his boss. Not cool?
I must express my disappointment with the Bonercat plushie's complete lack of genitals. Now it's just... a cat.
Side note: WE NEED BONERCAT PLUSHIES. WITH BONERS.
-
I find it very ....'victorian' for a webcomic that has such adult themes to go and put a modesty cat.
It's just boobs for chrissake!
They were part of the joke, in showing this girl's character.
-
daryljfontaine - nice avatar!
Ya know I think if modesty cat was not there. This strip *hur hur* would be more cringe and less giggle. I like the awkward moment that Jeph has given us. It's a nice balance.
For some reason as yet unknown to me, I think we might end up back at the secret bakery next week.
-
I actually kind of have to agree that Tai is showing a bit of the "lesbian party-girl horndog" stereotype. The thing is, the reason that stereotype exists is because some people are actually like that. Tai' flashed her naughty-bits before, you know. In fact between drunken pantslessness and her hood piercing, she's spent more time disrobed than probably any other character in QC. We also know that she has poor impulse control at the best of times, and considering the library rave she started and the fact that she uses LSD at work, she's not exactly inhibited even when she's actually thinking about her actions. Today's comic is... actually pretty standard, for her. And if you've never had that one crazy friend who pulls shenanigans at every turn - maybe not at this standard, but stil - then all I can say is that you must live in a very open-minded monastery to allow you free internet access like this.
Seriously, this is such a non-issue it's not even worth waving The Useless Broom Made Entirely Out Of Dicks over. And since the broom is, y'know, useless... that's saying something.
-
Meiville, the modesty cat is just one in a long line of creative self-censorship by Our Hero, Jeph.
Some beer bottles saved Raven's modesty. I think a talk baloon was used too.
I have to agree that Panel 2 did send bells off in my head, since I don't know the sound from Metal Gear.
I was wondering why there was a moth in panel 2. Checkov's gun for panel 3!
-
I find it very ....'victorian' for a webcomic that has such adult themes to go and put a modesty cat.
It's just boobs for chrissake!
They were part of the joke, in showing this girl's character.
Your desperation to see cartoon tits notwithstanding, I'd wager the reason Jeph censors stuff like that has more to do with the artistic side of things than any actual reserve about drawing them (read: He can't draw them without them looking horribly wrong/stupid).
-
Um... or the fact that since Jeph makes his living from the site, he has to follow ratings that his advertisers apply rather than be seen with tits all over the page. Quite aside from the fact that he's drawn holiday cheesecake before and has a firm grasp of what a female body looks like, you might try the non-troll answer as to why he chooses to censor himself?
-
I find it very ....'victorian' for a webcomic that has such adult themes to go and put a modesty cat.
It's just boobs for chrissake!
They were part of the joke, in showing this girl's character.
Hu ? Jeph has never shown the breasts of his female characters, so why should he start now ?
Or does the joke not work, just because of the "modesty cat" ?
Except it doesnt seem to work, but really, I have no idea why. I considered todays comic perfectly funny and absolutely in harmony with the characters, just as we knew them before.
I am totally at loss why everyone is so worked up.
-
Could also be that Jeph's already kinda squicked out about fans crushing on his characters as is (hence the moderators' stance on such things) and so doesn't want to feed their fantasies with actual xxx-rated content featuring said characters.
-
Quite aside from the fact that he's drawn holiday cheesecake before and has a firm grasp of what a female body looks like, you might try the non-troll answer as to why he chooses to censor himself?
How about "It's more interesting to NOT show something"? Let's talk Fan-dancing. How about how much gore was shown in ALL of Mr. Hitchock's films?
How about the title character getting 2.5 minutes of screen time because the mechanical shark didn't work properly!
LESS is more!
Grrr. Ninja'd
-
Also a fine point!
-
Personally, my favorite moment was Modesty Cat leaping in to save the day. :D
-
Jeph has said many times that the idea of nudity in the comic makes him feel sceevy.
I think he does it that way because that's what he's comfortable with, not from any pressure from the audience or advertisers or the Bill Donahues of the world.
Also it's funnier if you don't see 'em, as the opening scene of the second Austin Powers flick illustrates.
-
While I can understand why Tai doesn't bother to wear a bra...
Is she really totally comfortable doing so with Sven around?
Why should someone else get a say in your wardrobe choices?
Also, Tai doesn't think about boys that much, or concern herself with what they think about her.
-
Rather than throw fuel into the "Is Tai a sterotype of female homosexuality?" fire, I'll simply ask: was I was the only one that heard the Metal Gear "spotted by a guard" sound go off in my head at the exclamation point in panel 2?
I hope not.
Nope, I heard it too the instant I saw the second panel. And now I have the Metal Gear Solid theme running through my head.
It'll be interesting to see how Dora reacts when she realises that Tai is zooming in on her. From what we've seen in the comic, its likely that all Dora's exes have been guys, so while she does identify as bisexual, we have never seen anything that indicates that Dora has been in a relationship with another woman. Shock? Confusion? Muttered and embarressed rejection anyone?
-
It looks like Tai is no longer the ordinary human being who wanted a serious relationship because she was sick of casual sex. Jeph has finally devolved her into the stereotypical horny lesbian imagined by all the guys in the world who still can't get over the idea of two girls doing it. WHAT A SURPRISE :psyduck:
I was also disappointed to see her treated as essentially a walking stereotype.
What stereotype? Women can be horny and love sex too. Tai just happens the be the one female character in this strip who's least modest about it. You're really digging deep for a complaint on this one.
Indeed. It is also quite possible that Jeph could be using this as a silly start to an arc that gives Tai the character development you seek. Patience, friends. Also, listen to Tergon. He makes a good point.
-
Um... or the fact that since Jeph makes his living from the site, he has to follow ratings that his advertisers apply rather than be seen with tits all over the page.
You obviously haven't been seeing the same ads I have on the main site, most of them are easily worse than the stuff Jeph features in the comic proper.
Quite aside from the fact that he's drawn holiday cheesecake before and has a firm grasp of what a female body looks like, you might try the non-troll answer as to why he chooses to censor himself?
Or maybe you could pay a bit more attention to who I'm actually trolling (the people begging for cartoon tits).
-
Well, you may have been trolling the tit-seekers, but it came off as a jab at Jeph's artistic ability. And while that's not really trolling, I don't think a pair of nipples is really beyond him.
Also, whoever made the lolcat avatar, I fully expect to see that on icanhascheezburger.com!
-
You know, Tai, usually I find your antics amusing. Today is the first time I want Faye to visit untimely violence on you.
-
To be honest, my favourite part of today's comic is Faye's expression in panel 3.
-
You obviously haven't been seeing the same ads I have on the main site, most of them are easily worse than the stuff Jeph features in the comic proper.
You may have seen in his Twitter that a few days ago Jeph decided to block the Snorg Tees ads from his site.
-
The only time I see Jeph's Twitter is when someone quote or links to it on these forums.
-
You know, for a comic titled "Questionable Content", Jeph's never really had much more than implied sex and conveniently censored nudity.
No, I'm not complaining. It's just an observation!
I would consider those things fairly questionable. Sure, these things come up in close groups of friends, but they're not necessarily standard topics of polite situations. To me, the questionability arises from the appropriateness of the topics in the presence of a general population. Topics like this aren't comfortable for many; and yet, they are not outright taboo.
I don't know. I may be over thinking this. My 2¢. :psyduck:
-
You know, for a comic titled "Questionable Content", Jeph's never really had much more than implied sex and conveniently censored nudity.
No, I'm not complaining. It's just an observation!
I would consider those things fairly questionable. Sure, these things come up in close groups of friends, but they're not necessarily standard topics of polite situations. To me, the questionability arises from the appropriateness of the topics in the presence of a general population. Topics like this aren't comfortable for many; and yet, they are not outright taboo.
I don't know. I may be over thinking this. My 2¢. :psyduck:
Quite a few of his comics would prompt dirty looks at the office, where many of us check the comic first thing in the morning, so little surprises like that do provoke some complaints of questionablity. Also, implied sex? Fairly sure Gina Riversmith was WAY beyond implied (http://www.questionablecontent.net/1334).
-
I won't ever do nudity in my comic mainly because I want people to be able to look at it at work without getting fired, if possible. Also drawing people doin' it would feel REALLY creepy.
Since then there's been 1334 and the Rene Engstrom guest strip, but Jeph's been pretty consistent about keeping to PG for nudity.
-
I wasn't paying attention to why Mieville jumped and thought the look on his face was -priceless-, like a sudden fear/panic 'MUST - COVER - NEKKID - BREASTESES!' :lol: But then I saw the moth (which I thought at first was a previously-unseen magically disappearing tat on Tai's neck) ... it must be too early for me to attempt cohesive thought, sheesh xD
My favorite part is the 'nyom nyom' ... if Mieville's anything like my cat, Dora's going to have a lovely little pile of mushed-up moth and vomit to clean up in a few minutes.
She also seems rather blase' about the appearance of said boobs, poor Tai...that is really not the reaction you're wanting with surprise nudity. :(
-
Is Tai a stereotype of anything other than the dissipated college student?
-
Tai's lost a lot of subtlety since Marigold. If anything were likely to happen, Dora probably would have acknowledged her at least a bit by now.
...of course, she doesn't go for the butch girls, anyway. Especially not the ones her last boyfriend works for. Then again, Tai said she'd never go for a bi girl whose ex-boyfriend she knew, didn't she?
-
I'd say the most consisient thing about Tai is her lack of a sense of boundaries. To be fair to her, she cheerfully puts up with it coming back. I'd say her function as a character is comparson- contrast: Someone with no (well, few, anyway) hangups about anything. She's a foil and a test for the other characters.
-
My favorite part is the 'nyom nyom' ... if Mieville's anything like my cat, Dora's going to have a lovely little pile of mushed-up moth and vomit to clean up in a few minutes.
lol I didn't even notice the nyomming until you just pointed it out. And I feel your pain, my cat has an awesome habit of vomiting on a regular basis too -_-
-
Is Tai a stereotype of anything other than the dissipated college student?
Yep. See below.
What stereotype? Women can be horny and love sex too. Tai just happens the be the one female character in this strip who's least modest about it. You're really digging deep for a complaint on this one.
Believe me, you don't have to convince me that women can be horny and love sex as much as men. However, there absolutely is a stereotype of gays and lesbians as excessively sexual. Lesbian women are in particular painted as slutty, because lesbian sexuality is so often portrayed for the male gaze, and because they are often assumed to be one straight sex encounter from being straight. Today's comic is particularly egregious because not only does Tai go topless as a reflex to seeing Dora in a bra, but she then tries to strip Faye! This is effectively a caricature of the slutty lesbian, illustrating what is probably the most dangerous stereotype for gays and lesbians: that they will, given half a chance, try to have sex with and "convert" straight people. It speaks to a deep homophobia in the media, a fear of gay sexuality as essentially contagious. This was a huge problem in the 80s when AIDS became a problem, and it's a huge problem today.
And this is all to say nothing of how Tai fits numerous other lesbian stereotypes (life revolves around sex, gets a piercing at the drop of a hat, recreational drug user).
I love the way that strips like today's expose people's hang-ups or their blinkered views of the world around them!
What's more revealing is the perpetuation of lesbian stereotypes in media, including this comic, and the defense of such stereotypes as innocuous rather than participating in a widespread and generally male-controlled media that, despite any purported innocent intentions, rarely misses an opportunity to cast gays and lesbians as willing to get naked and have sex with anyone, anywhere. I'm not blaming Jeph for all of these stereotypes in the media, but to say that today's comic does not further entrench lesbian stereotypes is plain wrong.
I actually kind of have to agree that Tai is showing a bit of the "lesbian party-girl horndog" stereotype. The thing is, the reason that stereotype exists is because some people are actually like that. Tai' flashed her naughty-bits before, you know. In fact between drunken pantslessness and her hood piercing, she's spent more time disrobed than probably any other character in QC. We also know that she has poor impulse control at the best of times, and considering the library rave she started and the fact that she uses LSD at work, she's not exactly inhibited even when she's actually thinking about her actions. Today's comic is... actually pretty standard, for her. And if you've never had that one crazy friend who pulls shenanigans at every turn - maybe not at this standard, but stil - then all I can say is that you must live in a very open-minded monastery to allow you free internet access like this.
Seriously, this is such a non-issue it's not even worth waving The Useless Broom Made Entirely Out Of Dicks over. And since the broom is, y'know, useless... that's saying something.
That's all exactly right! The problem is that it says something that Tai is drunken and pantsless and drugged up and pierced and uninhibited and lesbian. There are absolutely people who are actually like that (I've known some myself). That is not the issue. The issue is how this comic participates in media that ingrains these stereotypes in the public consciousness. The issue is beyond the comic, and the comic is only a symptom.
-
<stuff about stereotypes>
It seems to me that you have a strong stereotype* of lesbians that you feel Tai in today's comic matches. However, my (reasonably wide) experience of lesbians has revealed no behaviour that fits the stereotype you are going on about; in any case, I try quite hard myself not to deal in inappropriate stereotyping..
* Alternatively, what you have is a stereotype of people that you think have stereotypes of lesbians...
-
<stuff about stereotypes>
It seems to me that you have a strong stereotype* of lesbians that you feel Tai in today's comic matches. However, my (reasonably wide) experience of lesbians has revealed no behaviour that fits the stereotype you are going on about; in any case, I try quite hard myself not to deal in inappropriate stereotyping..
* Alternatively, what you have is a stereotype of people that you think have stereotypes of lesbians...
The thing about how stereotypes work is that your (or my) experience with lesbians and gays is not what is portrayed in media, which is where my criticism falls. I know gays and lesbians who are completely unlike Tai, and I know some who are sort of like Tai, and I know some who are Tai to a Tee. It is admirable that you make an effort not to deal in stereotypes in your personal life. However, that does not mean that the stereotype of gays and lesbians as perpetually on the hunt for people to convert does not exist. It does, and it's repeated in all kinds of media, and it's dangerous. As I mentioned earlier, my criticism is not of Jeph personally and it is not even really of the comic in particular, it is of what the comic is symptomatic of. The comic has a context, a specific cultural setting, and it is reflective of norms and values. And in this particular case it portrays a pretty common lesbian stereotype. My noticing it is not me projecting stereotypes onto the character, because Tai definitely does things that illustrate her as a caricature.
-
But don't forget that the behaviour associated with a stereotype can also be real and natural in some cases - stereotypes are, after all, no more than a simplification of the truth (though sometimes based on an extreme or inaccurate variant rather than a mean). However, as we cannot deal with every individual in the world separately at all times, the use of stereotypes is a necessary part of many discussions or interactions - after all, I am stereotyping if I address a stranger in the language of the country I am in, for instance, but that doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point. The problem with stereotypes is not their existence or use, but their use when not appropriate.
-
<stuff about stereotypes>
It seems to me that you have a strong stereotype* of lesbians that you feel Tai in today's comic matches. However, my (reasonably wide) experience of lesbians has revealed no behaviour that fits the stereotype you are going on about; in any case, I try quite hard myself not to deal in inappropriate stereotyping..
* Alternatively, what you have is a stereotype of people that you think have stereotypes of lesbians...
But don't forget that the behaviour associated with a stereotype can also be real and natural in some cases - stereotypes are, after all, no more than a simplification of the truth (though sometimes based on an extreme or inaccurate variant rather than a mean). However, as we cannot deal with every individual in the world separately at all times, the use of stereotypes is a necessary part of many discussions or interactions - after all, I am stereotyping if I address a stranger in the language of the country I am in, for instance, but that doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point. The problem with stereotypes is not their existence or use, but their use when not appropriate.
(http://i.imgur.com/Ba3JN.gif)
-
What is that?
Also, dude, really? An image of ASCII? Doesn't that go against the idea of ASCII?
-
What is that?
I think it's a photocopier; it seems we have found something we agree on!
-
But don't forget that the behaviour associated with a stereotype can also be real and natural in some cases - stereotypes are, after all, no more than a simplification of the truth (though sometimes based on an extreme or inaccurate variant rather than a mean). However, as we cannot deal with every individual in the world separately at all times, the use of stereotypes is a necessary part of many discussions or interactions - after all, I am stereotyping if I address a stranger in the language of the country I am in, for instance, but that doesn't seem an unreasonable starting point. The problem with stereotypes is not their existence or use, but their use when not appropriate.
That is not really the same sort of stereotype I am talking about. Of course in an everyday situation, such as speaking with someone in another country, you will assume that they can speak the native language of their country, but that is again a one-on-one interaction, not an endemic portrayal of a minority in media. You are absolutely correct that the problem with stereotypes is when their use is inappropriate, and I understand that this is a comic that relies on humor and sometimes stereotypes. However, I think that even in our entertainment, perhaps especially in our entertainment, we need to be conscious of how the media we consume participates in and perpetuates stereotypes, and Tai's character definitely qualifies.
-
So, even though the comic has portrayed at least one other lesbian who is not like Tai, and other gays who are also different, you feel that the portrayal of Tai should specifically avoid being like a particular stereotype that you are conscious of?
As I said before, I can't say that I am conscious of that exact stereotype, so maybe others, Jeph even, are not - certainly the (poor) Wikipedia article on LGBT stereotypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_stereotypes) doesn't seem to point to there being a common stereotype specifically like Tai, nor this Yahoo Answers (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100305023039AAjmhlE).
-
Those scenes only happen in real life to titilate the male gaze, silly. Whatever women choose to do is never really a choice: it's all part of a carefully scripted societal paradigm of male dominance through sexual subjugation.
Yes! And it also is getting those males to part with their money.
-
Raven flashed Sven in a crowded bar. She and Tai are just very... outgoing.
-
Tai will shortly be tsunned...
-
That was worse than Hannelore's "designer genes" pun.
(Which was actually awesome, since not only was she probably not joking, but she probably has them.)
-
So, even though the comic has portrayed at least one other lesbian who is not like Tai,
I thought there were two other lesbian one shot characters (The time Tai pumped Techno thru the Library Sound System, forgot the strip #), or are we juts assuming for the moment that two girls in bed = LESBIANS as an automatic default?
-
Faye's lesbian sister was around for a whole arc; but there have also been lesbian extras in scenes with both Tai and Cosette - hence the "at least".
-
or are we juts assuming for the moment that two girls in bed = LESBIANS as an automatic default?
That's a pretty garbage way of guilt tripping people for a perfectly reasonable assumption that was never made. Where did this come from, anyway?
-
So, even though the comic has portrayed at least one other lesbian who is not like Tai,
I thought there were two other lesbian one shot characters (The time Tai pumped Techno thru the Library Sound System, forgot the strip #), or are we juts assuming for the moment that two girls in bed = LESBIANS as an automatic default?
The only other lesbian we've actually seen in QC has been Bailey, who I think has had a grand total of two lines, "Hi Tai." and "My E has just kicked in." Compare her to Tai or Faye's sister Amanda, and we now have two second tier characters, who have been involved in multiple story arcs. (I say second tier because neither have been the cause of a major story arc, instead they have been incidental characters or just starting off a quick sidestory). Given their involvment in QC, it could be easier to kind of think of them as the only prominent lesbians in the comic.
-
So, even though the comic has portrayed at least one other lesbian who is not like Tai, and other gays who are also different, you feel that the portrayal of Tai should specifically avoid being like a particular stereotype that you are conscious of?
As I said before, I can't say that I am conscious of that exact stereotype, so maybe others, Jeph even, are not - certainly the (poor) Wikipedia article on LGBT stereotypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_stereotypes) doesn't seem to point to there being a common stereotype specifically like Tai, nor this Yahoo Answers (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100305023039AAjmhlE).
No, I am not making a claim as to what the comic should or shouldn't do. I am recognizing that it exists in a media context, and that it is participating in a stereotype common in the media. Other portrayals of lesbians aren't very relevant to how this particular instance operates in perpetuating the stereotype. The fact that you're not conscious of that stereotype doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and Yahoo answers is perhaps not the most authoritative source here. Feminist and GLBT blogs would be a better place to look; see Jezebel's list of Lesbian Cliches and Stereotypes (http://jezebel.com/#!5205953/pssst-the-girls-guide-to-lesbian-cliches--stereotypes), in particular under Lifestyle, where it says, "Partner choices: Recruiting straight women preferred". I'm not sure how anyone could deny that homosexuals in media are portrayed as sex-obsessed. It is incredibly common.
-
So, even though the comic has portrayed at least one other lesbian who is not like Tai, and other gays who are also different, you feel that the portrayal of Tai should specifically avoid being like a particular stereotype that you are conscious of?
As I said before, I can't say that I am conscious of that exact stereotype, so maybe others, Jeph even, are not - certainly the (poor) Wikipedia article on LGBT stereotypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_stereotypes) doesn't seem to point to there being a common stereotype specifically like Tai, nor this Yahoo Answers (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100305023039AAjmhlE).
No, I am not making a claim as to what the comic should or shouldn't do. I am recognizing that it exists in a media context, and that it is participating in a stereotype common in the media. Other portrayals of lesbians aren't very relevant to how this particular instance operates in perpetuating the stereotype. The fact that you're not conscious of that stereotype doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and Yahoo answers is perhaps not the most authoritative source here. Feminist and GLBT blogs would be a better place to look; see Jezebel's list of Lesbian Cliches and Stereotypes (http://jezebel.com/#!5205953/pssst-the-girls-guide-to-lesbian-cliches--stereotypes), in particular under Lifestyle, where it says, "Partner choices: Recruiting straight women preferred". I'm not sure how anyone could deny that homosexuals in media are portrayed as sex-obsessed. It is incredibly common.
Following that logic, the entire cast of QC is a walking stereotype, because OMG THEY'RE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE SEX AUGUBLUAHLUAHAUHALAH!!11! :roll:
Guess what; every orientation is portrayed as "sex-obsessed" in the media, because in effect it's true. Does it mean it's 100% correct? No. Do we all think it's true because the media says it's true? No. The only people who really care about the "stereotypes" are people who are looking for something to get offended about. Yes, one female character is less inhibited than social norms dictate. Let's look at her background:
1) She is a member of an all-girls college, where women tend to walk around in next to nothing because they don't have any reason to cover up.
2) She periodically has random sex with girls that are mutually interested in her, and has no idea how things work in "the real world" of relationships.
3) She has an intense crush on Dora, which has been heavily hinted at since her induction to the cast. People do stupid things around people they like, regardless of orientation.
Stop finding fault where none exists.
-
<-- I was inspired.
D
Your new avatar just won the thread. +1
-
3) She has an intense crush on Dora, which has been heavily hinted at since her induction to the cast. People do stupid things around people they like, regardless of orientation.
Further to 3); not just a romantic crush either; the dynamic has a little bit of "big sister I want to be like (when I grow up)" in there too; Tai seems to see Dora as a mature (ha!) successful role model, as well as the hot italo-swede she wants to fall in love with.
Those are all powerful spurs toward silly behaviour. :psyduck:
Edit: @LoveJaneAusten; where are you getting "Partner choices: Recruiting straight women preferred" from exactly? Which straight woman do you think Tai is recruiting here? Or if you don't think that's what she's doing, why did you mention it?
-
The fact that you're not conscious of that stereotype doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and Yahoo answers is perhaps not the most authoritative source here.
My point was not just that the stereotype you seem to be describing was not listed, but also that as there are apparently a considerable number of different stereotypes, the force of any one is correspondingly reduced.
see Jezebel's list of Lesbian Cliches and Stereotypes (http://jezebel.com/#!5205953/pssst-the-girls-guide-to-lesbian-cliches--stereotypes), in particular under Lifestyle,
I'd tried looking there earlier and found nothing except stuff about the royal wedding and suchlike! I guess that I have to log in to get any pertinent stuff, which I'm not inclined to do, thanks (either that, or it's geographically limited).
-
Following that logic, the entire cast of QC is a walking stereotype, because OMG THEY'RE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE SEX AUGUBLUAHLUAHAUHALAH!!11! :roll:
Guess what; every orientation is portrayed as "sex-obsessed" in the media, because in effect it's true.
That doesn't really make sense, and the treatment of lesbians and gays in the media is not at all equivalent to the treatment of straight people in the media. They really are characterized in particular ways, largely because they are minorities. Furthermore, the effects of portrayals of straights, lesbians, and gays in the media are not equivalent, either.
sigh.gif
"It is sooooo cliché for lesbians to not wear bras. Shame on Jeph for perpetuating those sinister media narratives! Especially when the character gets naked in such an alarming way. I mean, I'm not shaming him... and it's not a matter of what he should or shouldn't do as a writer. Even though I said was 'disappointed to see her treated as essentially a walking stereotype.' I'm just asking everyone to recognize that the third panel Questionable Content #1915 exists in the scope of the global meta-narrative of lesbian stereotypes in media, and want to awaken everyone's consciousness of those stereotypes."
I'm not sure if you don't understand my critique or are deliberately avoiding it, but I don't think I've shamed Jeph for anything. My disappointment at another example of lesbian stereotypes in media is not the same as casting shame, and in fact Jeph could easily use QC to subvert certain harmful stereotypes, which would be great. It seems that a lot of people really do need their eyes opened to these sorts of problems in media. One of the things about entertainment media is that it can be subtle in how it thematizes subjects, so I think it's especially important to have these conversations. Regardless, sarcastically and ironically putting words in my mouth to mischaracterize my argument isn't very constructive as far as conversations go.
Edit: @LoveJaneAusten; where are you getting "Partner choices: Recruiting straight women preferred" from exactly? Which straight woman do you think Tai is recruiting here? Or if you don't think that's what she's doing, why did you mention it?
I did, actually. I pointed out that Tai attempts to strip Faye. I think she actually has hit on Faye before, but I don't even know where in the archives to look. Oh, for a search function...
I'd tried looking there earlier and found nothing except stuff about the royal wedding and suchlike! I guess that I have to log in to get any pertinent stuff, which I'm not inclined to do, thanks (either that, or it's geographically limited).
Oh! I'm sorry, it must be geographically limited, since I can see it and I don't have a Jezebel account. Anyway, I quoted the most relevant stereotype ("Partner choices: Recruiting straight women preferred").
-
I'm not sure if you don't understand my critique or are deliberately avoiding it, but I don't think I've shamed Jeph for anything.
Maybe you don't remember one of your very first posts. Shall we go back in time?
Lesbian women are in particular painted as slutty, because lesbian sexuality is so often portrayed for the male gaze, and because they are often assumed to be one straight sex encounter from being straight. Today's comic is particularly egregious because not only does Tai go topless as a reflex to seeing Dora in a bra, but she then tries to strip Faye! This is effectively a caricature of the slutty lesbian, illustrating what is probably the most dangerous stereotype for gays and lesbians: that they will, given half a chance, try to have sex with and "convert" straight people. It speaks to a deep homophobia in the media, a fear of gay sexuality as essentially contagious. This was a huge problem in the 80s when AIDS became a problem, and it's a huge problem today.
And this is all to say nothing of how Tai fits numerous other lesbian stereotypes (life revolves around sex, gets a piercing at the drop of a hat, recreational drug user).
Seems to me like there's plenty of shaming going on here.
-
Again, I do agree that Tai's a bit of a horny-lesbian stereotype. But then, if I saw a portly Italian man with a magnificent moustache, I could reasonably say the same about him matching another stereotype, no? Or perhaps if I were to meet a rock star who had a habit of leaving motel rooms in a mess. The observation that someone matches a stereotype is just that - an observation. By itself, it goes no further than that. And I think we can all agree that as an uninhibited person with few sexual or social boundaries, Tai does meet a stereotype.
The conflict here seems to be whether or not this is a negative thing. I submit that it is not! For a stereotype to be seen as negative, then I think one of two things are required, and we're not seeing either of those.
The person is portraying the stereotype to an insulting degree.
Well, even ignoring the fact that Tai is not the only lesbian or homosexual in the strip, Tai is just not a negative character. The rest of the cast all get along with her, plus she's tiny and hilarious and adorable. She's confident, outgoing, she's gainfully employed despite the fact that she's only a student, she's clearly intelligent, and she's living her life in a way that she chooses. The fact that she's uninhibited regarding her sex life and has poor impulse control is just a bit of spice to all that sugar, but I don't believe she's at all an insulting image to hold up to lesbians as a group.
The person is exemplifying the stereotype to an unrealistic point in lieu of serious character development.
From what we've seen, this isn't going against her character development, this is a part of it! As I noted before, Tai's spent a greater percentage of her screen time in QC at least partially naked than pretty much every other character. She's quirky, uninhibited, and despite other characters being considerably more straight-laced she's not even the first to flash her boobs, which doesn't exactly make this a watershed moment for the strip. Not to mention? That quirky, uninhibited nature of hers has led to most of her interaction with the other characters, but from there it's led to discussions about her lifestyle choices and whether it makes her happy, it's introduced her through Marten to the rest of the cast, it also led to Steve finding Cosette, it got her introduced to Hannelore and Marigold. And saying that the current strip is going to lead to drama is a pointless statement because... obviously that's the case. This strip isn't gratuitous boobage in place of character development, it's setting up the scene for what we all know is to come, which will only lead to us exploring Tai's character more deeply.
So, in short, I agree. Tai is in many ways matching a stereotypical horny, uninhibited lesbian. I don't deny that. I just have to follow up the observation with one simple question.
...so what?
-
Maybe you don't remember one of your very first posts. Shall we go back in time?
Seems to me like there's plenty of shaming going on here.
Ah, I see how you could read my critique as shaming Jeph, but it really isn't. It's an analysis of the comic, not a missive directed at Jeph, and I think I ground it pretty well in the context of media stereotypes.
So, in short, I agree. Tai is in many ways matching a stereotypical horny, uninhibited lesbian. I don't deny that. I just have to follow up the observation with one simple question.
...so what?
This is a pretty good analysis! There is another way a stereotype can be harmful or seen as negative, however, and that is when stereotypes, even ones that appear innocuous, exist in a larger context of portrayals. That is what I've been trying to get across in this discussion. This particular comic is only one example or symptom of what are pretty thoughtless characterizations of lesbians and gays in the media. So to answer your "so what?", I would say that portrayals of sex-obsessed lesbians and gays are not helpful for efforts to deconstruct negative stereotyping of homosexuals in media. They reinforce these stereotypes and, writ large, reflect our current social values and prejudices. If we are going to work toward more a more equitable society, it's important that we recognize this for what it is and learn how to deconstruct it.
-
I pointed out that Tai attempts to strip Faye. I think she actually has hit on Faye before, but I don't even know where in the archives to look. Oh, for a search function...
Some of the strips are searchable via ohnorobot.com. For others, summaries (but not transcripts) are available in jwhouk's awesome article at http://questionablecontent.wikia.com/wiki/Questionable_Content_strip_by_strip .
I can't remember Tai making any passes at Faye, but if you're thinking of Dora, examples are legion, up to and including a boob grab.
All she's done is take off her top
If that were all she did, that would be one thing, but it's highly relevant that she tried to undress a straight woman whom she probably knew to be straight. I think that was meant to be Tai being playful, but if I'd had to live under the threat of people who believe the "recruiting" fantasy, I would take the comic ill.
-
Tai continues to make advances on Dora after those advances contributed to the failure of her last relationship.
Surprising nobody, disappointing everybody.
-
Well, this week ended....on an interesting note. The options for Monday are insane.
Will Faye go all-out Adon on Tai? Will Dora put a new shirt on? Will Marten walk in at the wrong time? Will Yelling Bird suddenly appear and make the whole situation even more awkward? Will Jeph finally make a appearance in his own webcomic?
-
And I think this is a great example of jumping to conclusions against an implication that doesn't exist in the comic. Today's comic is particularly egregious? I can't agree with that statement. Call it whatever you want (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools), but Tai wants to undress while in the company of friends (something perfectly normal, considering the circumstances), and that doesn't turn her into some kind of slut who's one step away from a straight sex encounter. Nor does it mean she's trying to convert straight people. And I especially don't think the strip is speaking to a deeper case of homophobia in the media, or a fear of gay sexuality as a some kind of contagious disease.
If anything, I see your posts as a bizarre, well-intentioned (yet disingenuous) defense of sexuality. I say disingenuous because it seems like even the slightest hint of sexuality with Tai would be met with the same criticism from you. All she's done is take off her top, and it unsettled you to such a degree to provoke this criticism... I really don't know what else to say.
Thank you for not replying sarcastically. I disagree that stereotyped implications don't exist in the comic. Whether they are intentional (or not) or part of Tai's character arc (or not) is kind of immaterial to what this comic is symptomatic of. Namely, a larger trend of certain characterizations of lesbians and gays, a trend (or trope) that in this case actually is harmful to perceptions of lesbians and gays. There are absolutely ways to portray lesbians and gays as sexual that don't fall back onto stereotypes, and such would not be met with the same criticism from me, so no, I don't think I'm jumping at topless Tai disingenuously.
Some of the strips are searchable via ohnorobot.com. For others, summaries (but not transcripts) are available in jwhouk's awesome article at http://questionablecontent.wikia.com/wiki/Questionable_Content_strip_by_strip .
Whoa, thanks for this!
-
(moderator)
Pat yourselves on the back, people! You're all handling a potentially fraught subject civilly.
Good work.
(/moderator)
-
This is a pretty good analysis! There is another way a stereotype can be harmful or seen as negative, however, and that is when stereotypes, even ones that appear innocuous, exist in a larger context of portrayals. That is what I've been trying to get across in this discussion. This particular comic is only one example or symptom of what are pretty thoughtless characterizations of lesbians and gays in the media. So to answer your "so what?", I would say that portrayals of sex-obsessed lesbians and gays are not helpful for efforts to deconstruct negative stereotyping of homosexuals in media. They reinforce these stereotypes and, writ large, reflect our current social values and prejudices. If we are going to work toward more a more equitable society, it's important that we recognize this for what it is and learn how to deconstruct it.
But at the same time that's the core of this discussion, no? Considering the amount of positive characterisation Tai has undergone beyond the fact that she's uninhibited regarding sex, I'd consider this to be simply another facet of her personality and not at all a negative one. Yet you're claiming that it is.
A character who exists for comedic purposes, who has been written into a form of comedic media in the shape of Questionable Content, is acting in a comedic manner as befits her character. Yet, because other forms of media have done this, and some of those portrayals were done in a negative light, you choose to take the stance that this is a bad thing for QC to have done. This despite the fact that the characterisation seen here is not negative and is done for two apparent reasons: One, to set up further development of Tai's character, and two, simply because it's humorous.
I could not agree more that the common portrayal in media of homosexuals in general is negative. I further agree that this is a bad thing. I just... don't agree that what we're seeing here is an example of that. Tai's a well-written and fairly harmless character who took her top off. She also happens to be a lesbian. The two things don't have to be related, nor does a connection need to be drawn when that clearly wasn't the author's intent.
-
The thing about stereotypes is that there are negative as well as positive aspects about a subgroup that are seen so often that they become the identifying ideas about a people.
For example, I'm a 26 year Irish male. Looking at the negative aspects of stereotyping, I should be a drunken, ignorant lout with about a dozen kids, all the while harping on about going to Mass while eating a mountain of potatoes. Well, straight off, if you went with that, you'd be completely wrong about me, I still have 11 bottles from a 24 box of Heineken in my front room, left over from Christmas. I just don't drink. I have two degrees in Applied Science and Quality Assurance, while serious contemplating on going back to college next year to try and work on an English Degree. I have a girlfriend, but there is no way I can see kids in my future before I'm 30-35. I haven't been to any church service since my best friend's father passed away in 2008. And my diet usually consists of salads, rice, the occasional sushi/Thai dish, supplemented by apples, bananas, grapes, pommegranites, etc.
So, no negative about the Irish people applies to me, or to the vast majority of the people I know, but what about the positive? Are we a people who go out and take the bull by the horns? Yeah, we'll probably be trampled into the dust, but we'll get up and try again. Will we have a 30 minute chat with some stranger we've literally met there and then? Definitely. Will we help someone in need even if we don't have much ourselves? Again, definitely. Are we a people who are always humourous, and willing to make people laugh? Well I definitely do.
The point is, there are two sides to every coin, and that the stereotype of the stereotype being a bad idea, is both pointless and useless. As its been said, there have obviously been people who have led to the creation and formation of a stereotype, but in the end, thats all it is, an idea. In regards to the comic, Tai has always been shown to be a sex mad student, quite willing to have her cake and eat it too ( :roll: as an aside, does anyone else feel this saying makes no sense whatsoever? I mean, why have cake but not eat it? Cake is meant to be eaten damnit!), who why is it now, when Tai is alone with Dora and another woman that sudden people are trying to call Jeph out on using a supposed negative stereotype? Jeph has used these archetypial characters before, building them up before tearing them down in an often brutal manner. Example, Sven the (former) manwhore, Faye, the tsundere who would pound someone into dust as soon as their stare stayed a second too long.
-
Edit: @LoveJaneAusten; where are you getting "Partner choices: Recruiting straight women preferred" from exactly? Which straight woman do you think Tai is recruiting here? Or if you don't think that's what she's doing, why did you mention it?
I did, actually. I pointed out that Tai attempts to strip Faye. I think she actually has hit on Faye before, but I don't even know where in the archives to look. Oh, for a search function...
And again, what particular of this indicates that she is attempting to 'recruit' Faye? A woman she's shown no physical interest in beyond as a heat source?
As opposed to a panicked "oh shit that could be construed as flirting and I'm not ready for Dora to know about my crush, how do I balance this out?" reaction gone horribly wrong?
-
I could not agree more that the common portrayal in media of homosexuals in general is negative. I further agree that this is a bad thing. I just... don't agree that what we're seeing here is an example of that. Tai's a well-written and fairly harmless character who took her top off. She also happens to be a lesbian. The two things don't have to be related, nor does a connection need to be drawn when that clearly wasn't the author's intent.
Tai did more than take her top off; she also tried to take Faye's top off. I find that to be a troubling example of a sex-obsessed lesbian. Whether Jeph intended to make her a stereotype or not, or being unwilling to see the connection between Tai's example and a host of common characterizations of gays and lesbians in the media, doesn't change the fact that she is. Alone, she would be a harmless character. In a greater media context, she serves as a further entrenchment of lesbian stereotypes. I don't think that this is what Jeph intended, personally, but it is there, irrespective of intention.
And again, what particular of this indicates that she is attempting to 'recruit' Faye? A woman she's shown no physical interest in beyond as a heat source?
As opposed to a panicked "oh shit that could be construed as flirting and I'm not ready for Dora to know about my crush, how do I balance this out?" reaction gone horribly wrong?
There really is no denying that Tai is often shown trying to instigate encounters with straight women, or women she believes to be bi or gay.
-
Some friends are comfortable being naked or teasing or undressing each other, and some aren't. That's the point. It's a strip that reveals each character's comfort zones, not "harmful to perceptions of lesbians and gays."
What kind of questionable content, then? Again, considering the circumstances, I'm curious what wouldn't result in a critical reaction. Is this only a bad thing because Tai's gay? Because Tai's gay and Faye's straight? What if Faye was gay and Tai was straight, or if they both were of the same orientation? Would any of these be negative portrayals of stereotypes? How can you safely portray a topless Tai interacting with Dora and Faye without crossing the boundaries of your harmful perceptions? I can think of a lot of things Tai could do to live up to terrible stereotypes, but this situation still doesn't fit in my mind as terrible or egregious or symptomatic of a greater societal problem ^^
The strip is definitely about comfort zones. This doesn't mean it doesn't participate in perpetuating harmful stereotypes of lesbians in media. It wouldn't be hard at all to have a character like Tai not be a stereotype! All Jeph would have to do is not assign her lesbian cliches and show her actively destabilizing common media myths about lesbians. So far, she hasn't functioned for that very much at all, as far as I can tell. She really is a lot like a caricature in many ways. Not all ways, but many.
See, comments like these are why it's hard for me to understand you, and why I say you're jumping to conclusions. Taking off a friend's top ≠ sex-obsessed lesbian in my mind!
Tai is hypersexualized in QC. That's one of her prime character traits. Trying to take Faye's top off is only one example.
-
Today's comic is... actually pretty standard, for her. And if you've never had that one crazy friend who pulls shenanigans at every turn - maybe not at this standard, but stil
People are different, some more than others... it's part of the fun of life, and webcomix
- then all I can say is that you must live in a very open-minded monastery to allow you free internet access like this.
One of The BEST. LINES. EVAR. !!!! :angel:
-
Nudity and sexuality aren't exactly the same thing. Related, yes, but not the same.
-
Will Jeph finally make a appearance in his own webcomic?
He did, once, in a strip about him resorting to crass methods of attracting viewership. Fanservice and all that junk.
-
And yet, I'm still considering the comment that Penelope made long ago in 1037 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1037):
Pen: "I knew a couple of girls in college who would get all up on each other any time they smoked. Or got drunk. Or did coke."
Faye: "I think you're mistaking bisexuality for substance abuse."
Pen: "I think THEY were."
-
Tai consistently makes me feel uncomfortable. I can never shake the idea that Tai's antics would be completely unacceptable were she a male, whereas they are considered good-natured and funny in that she is female (though, given her sexuality, her gender makes her no less lecherous and creepy.)
-
Well, her actions are being taken in a very not-good-natured way by Faye in the last panel, and I think that's the point. Yes, many of the readers may be saying "Oh, that's just Tai", but she's making the others uncomfortable, and has before (sucker rule (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1688)).
And yes, as a straight male with many lesbians in my life, I have to side with LoveJaneAusten about the stereotype. But I think part of the problem is that the comic, as a standalone, can almost only be read in the light of that stereotype; whereas with the rest of Tai's actions through the comic, as several people pointed out, this is not all that out of line for Tai's character.
It's unfortunate, but thinking of her as a person makes her one of those people who perpetuate such a stereotype; but as a character, she's the creation of an artist who then has to be accountable for the fact that he's carrying the stereotype forward.
However, and I forget who made this point, we don't know the fallout of all this yet, and knowing Jeph, there will be an interesting twist to this, developing Tai well beyond her stereotypical behaviour.
Patience, all.
-
I think Tai is trying to cover for her embarrassment by trying to re-characterize it, rather than being predatory.
The thing is, Faye is uniquely inhibited among those in her social circle (excepting Hanners, but that's a different issue). If Tai has tried to remove, say, Raven's shirt, then silliness would have ensued rather than rage.
-
Tai continues to make advances on Dora after those advances contributed to the failure of her last relationship.
Uh... how?! When did Tai even make an advance on Dora that wasn't an obvious joke before the breakup?
-
1595 and 1596 make it plausible that Tai's advances were in the vein of "many a true word is spoken in jest".
How would we have reacted if a straight man had tried to pull Faye's shirt off? Is that different from Tai doing it? If so, how and why?
-
How would we have reacted if a straight man had tried to pull Faye's shirt off? Is that different from Tai doing it? If so, how and why?
I believe the term would be "sexual harassment" or "sexual assault."
-
1595 and 1596 make it plausible that Tai's advances were in the vein of "many a true word is spoken in jest".
How would we have reacted if a straight man had tried to pull Faye's shirt off? Is that different from Tai doing it? If so, how and why?
To see that, simply look at the people who strongly dislike Angus because they view him as a pushy stalker who wouldn't take 'no' for an answer from Faye.
-
Tai did more than take her top off; she also tried to take Faye's top off. I find that to be a troubling example of a sex-obsessed lesbian. Whether Jeph intended to make her a stereotype or not, or being unwilling to see the connection between Tai's example and a host of common characterizations of gays and lesbians in the media, doesn't change the fact that she is. Alone, she would be a harmless character. In a greater media context, she serves as a further entrenchment of lesbian stereotypes. I don't think that this is what Jeph intended, personally, but it is there, irrespective of intention.
But you see, to me, that's as big a problem in society as the alternative. By that logic, how is it even possible to portray a homosexual character as a sexual entity at all without confirming to the offensive stereotype? And if your intention is to portray the character in a completely non-sexual light who forms no physical or romantic relationships, by what measure is that character then homosexual in the first place? Because if media simply refused to acknowledge the existence of homosexuals in the first place, that's even worse in my mind than a horndog stereotype.
This is not a joke about Tai being gay. Imagine that instead of Tai, Faye and Dora, it was Raven, Marten and Steve, respectively! The exact same joke could play out, in the exact same manner, without a hitch. Hell, considering that Steve's in a relationship and Marten is recently broken-up, it'd be just as inappropriate! And since all three are firmly heterosexual, it'd be even more sexually charged as a comic. Or maybe you'd prefer to take it in the other direction: assume that this is the first time you have ever seen a QC strip. You have no knowledge about any of these characters, and therefore do not know anything about their sexuality. The joke still works simply for what it is, with gay or straight undertones being utterly irrelevant, because it is a joke about Tai having few boundaries on the subject of nudity and finding such things amusing, while Faye clearly does not.
To take this joke and then to insert the subject of lesbian stereotyping is not merely to misunderstand the joke, it's to actively search for a reason to be offended by it. And you even acknowledge that aside from one or two of these examples, Tai is shown as a headstrong, intelligent, independent young woman who knows what she wants in life. The fact that she's uninhibited is a facet of her personality. Taking that facet, twisting it into a comparison with negative portrayals of homosexuals in other media, and then claiming that because the comparison can be made, it's offensive... it just bewilders me. The logic seems similar to how Jack Thompson claimed that school shootings were a direct result of kids playing Grand Theft Auto games.
Tai's a quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving character who coincidentally happens to be a lesbian. Now, we could all declare that portraying her as a sexual entity is serious business and so we shall make no jokes, harrumph! But where would that get us? It's literally choosing to become offended over something that was never even remotely intended to be so, and can only be vaguely connected to anything that is. And perhaps it could have been done more respectfully, but this was done to be true to the character and for the sake of a harmless joke, compared with several other perfectly respectful discussions of the same topic. And if this one, single, throwaway joke offended you that badly that you can't get past it... well, I just don't know how to help you get over that hurdle when for me, the hurdle doesn't even exist.
-
Tai did more than take her top off; she also tried to take Faye's top off. I find that to be a troubling example of a sex-obsessed lesbian. Whether Jeph intended to make her a stereotype or not, or being unwilling to see the connection between Tai's example and a host of common characterizations of gays and lesbians in the media, doesn't change the fact that she is. Alone, she would be a harmless character. In a greater media context, she serves as a further entrenchment of lesbian stereotypes. I don't think that this is what Jeph intended, personally, but it is there, irrespective of intention.
But you see, to me, that's as big a problem in society as the alternative. By that logic, how is it even possible to portray a homosexual character as a sexual entity at all without confirming to the offensive stereotype? And if your intention is to portray the character in a completely non-sexual light who forms no physical or romantic relationships, by what measure is that character then homosexual in the first place? Because if media simply refused to acknowledge the existence of homosexuals in the first place, that's even worse in my mind than a horndog stereotype.
Going to give this section an "exactly". We should all know by now that no "perfect" characters are going to appear, so clutching at flaws as a sign of stereotypes seems more indicative of which stereotypes we assign to groups ourselves, rather than Jeph has.
-
But you see, to me, that's as big a problem in society as the alternative. By that logic, how is it even possible to portray a homosexual character as a sexual entity at all without confirming to the offensive stereotype? And if your intention is to portray the character in a completely non-sexual light who forms no physical or romantic relationships, by what measure is that character then homosexual in the first place? Because if media simply refused to acknowledge the existence of homosexuals in the first place, that's even worse in my mind than a horndog stereotype.
It's actually quite telling that you can't imagine a portrayal of a gay or lesbian character that doesn't resort to stereotypes, and further proves that ideas about gays and lesbians and what they can, may, and must be are so strongly influenced by their treatment in the media.
This is not a joke about Tai being gay. Imagine that instead of Tai, Faye and Dora, it was Raven, Marten and Steve, respectively! The exact same joke could play out, in the exact same manner, without a hitch. Hell, considering that Steve's in a relationship and Marten is recently broken-up, it'd be just as inappropriate! And since all three are firmly heterosexual, it'd be even more sexually charged as a comic. Or maybe you'd prefer to take it in the other direction: assume that this is the first time you have ever seen a QC strip. You have no knowledge about any of these characters, and therefore do not know anything about their sexuality. The joke still works simply for what it is, with gay or straight undertones being utterly irrelevant, because it is a joke about Tai having few boundaries on the subject of nudity and finding such things amusing, while Faye clearly does not.
As I've said, the fact that the joke is about Tai's personality does not mean the comic does not participate in stereotyping.
To take this joke and then to insert the subject of lesbian stereotyping is not merely to misunderstand the joke, it's to actively search for a reason to be offended by it. And you even acknowledge that aside from one or two of these examples, Tai is shown as a headstrong, intelligent, independent young woman who knows what she wants in life. The fact that she's uninhibited is a facet of her personality. Taking that facet, twisting it into a comparison with negative portrayals of homosexuals in other media, and then claiming that because the comparison can be made, it's offensive... it just bewilders me. The logic seems similar to how Jack Thompson claimed that school shootings were a direct result of kids playing Grand Theft Auto games.
When did I ascribe those qualities to Tai? Tai is probably the worst-written of all the QC characters, in my opinion, because Jeph consistently treats her like a caricature. Further, you're at least the third person to suggest that I'm actively looking for reasons to be offended, which is untrue. I'm not sure how I could prove to you that it's untrue, except to say that it is. Jeph's comic did not offend me, it disappointed me, because of his use of a negative stereotype to make a joke.
Tai's a quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving character who coincidentally happens to be a lesbian. Now, we could all declare that portraying her as a sexual entity is serious business and so we shall make no jokes, harrumph! But where would that get us? It's literally choosing to become offended over something that was never even remotely intended to be so, and can only be vaguely connected to anything that is. And perhaps it could have been done more respectfully, but this was done to be true to the character and for the sake of a harmless joke, compared with several other perfectly respectful discussions of the same topic. And if this one, single, throwaway joke offended you that badly that you can't get past it... well, I just don't know how to help you get over that hurdle when for me, the hurdle doesn't even exist.
Being "true to the character" misses the forest for the trees. Think about what it says that in order to be true to the character, Tai is always shown hypersexualized. Seriously, think about that. That is where the problem is: the fact that Jeph has written a quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving lesbian cliche. If you can't see how that participates in a greater problem endemic in the media, then the hurdle truly doesn't exist for you, I agree.
Going to give this section an "exactly". We should all know by now that no "perfect" characters are going to appear, so clutching at flaws as a sign of stereotypes seems more indicative of which stereotypes we assign to groups ourselves, rather than Jeph has.
The fact that there are no "perfect" characters does not in any way excuse the use of harmful stereotypes, and it's silly to suggest so.
-
Well, last week Jeph had another person, Clinton, behave in an even more stereotypical manner. We didn't see too many people getting offended by how QC reinforces the stereotypical image of nerds splashed all over the media, did we? In fact quite the opposite.
I really hoped Clinton was a vehicle for every creepy and annoying Hanners fan and really hoped he'd be unceremoniously shamed or hurt, but if he gets redemption I will conclude that Jeph actually enjoys people obsessing over Hannelore.
Comparing Tai to Clinton is, of course, not quite appropriate. As readers it is easier for us to let Tai's shenanigans slide, because we know so much more about her, more or less expect something like this from her every now and then, but also know of her other qualities. In other words: for us Tai is a character, but Clinton is a caricature.
-
It's actually quite telling that you can't imagine a portrayal of a gay or lesbian character that doesn't resort to stereotypes,
If you meet a real-life lesbian who happens to match a number of features that you view as indicators of stereotyping (which in the Jezebel page, which I found a way to get to, includes "having a cat" and "wearing trousers"), do you suggest to them that they should change their behaviour or personality because they are reinforcing harmful stereotypes?
-
If you meet a real-life lesbian who happens to match a number of features that you view as indicators of stereotyping (which in the Jezebel page, which I found a way to get to, includes "having a cat" and "wearing trousers"), do you suggest to them that they should change their behaviour or personality because they are reinforcing harmful stereotypes?
No. Can you guess why? (Hint: it has to do with media saturation rather than dealing with people on an individual level.)
C'mon, was that question serious? It's like you're trying to set a logic trap so you can show an inconsistency and disregard my critique rather than engaging it.
-
Well, last week Jeph had another person, Clinton, behave in an even more stereotypical manner. We didn't see too many people getting offended by how QC reinforces the stereotypical image of nerds splashed all over the media, did we? In fact quite the opposite.
I really hoped Clinton was a vehicle for every creepy and annoying Hanners fan and really hoped he'd be unceremoniously shamed or hurt, but if he gets redemption I will conclude that Jeph actually enjoys people obsessing over Hannelore.
Comparing Tai to Clinton is, of course, not quite appropriate. As readers it is easier for us to let Tai's shenanigans slide, because we know so much more about her, more or less expect something like this from her every now and then, but also know of her other qualities. In other words: for us Tai is a character, but Clinton is a caricature.
Two sides on this.
1) Technically true, however nerds aren't a hated group in the way that gays are, I haven't seen an organized nerd bash outside of a high school nor do I hear people consistently saying that nerds will burn in hell for their book learnin' ways. It is also worth noting that Clintons first action could be written off as awkwardness/foolishness/non-creepiness but in his second appearance he took her picture before she could give permission or deny it, and while his reaction could be understandable his behavior seems less stereotypical nerd and more creepy. It could also be pointed out that Tai has a tendency to ignore the boundaries of others and while she might be 'playful' in doing it were her character male it would get probably make people think the guy is kinda skeevy. A lot of Tais stuff could just be in jest, like when she told Dora that Marten was cheating on her after finding out that would pretty much be the only way to get Dora to have a relationship with her, she also talks frequently about her own sexual exploits but gets really angry when Marten makes any comments about his, especially when he started it. But it does kind of make Tai a negative character and it could be seen as a negative view on lesbians or pandering to stereotypes. I think it's also fair to point out that Tai has groped Faye before and if memory serves Faye wasn't thrilled then either, and in some ways Tai being a long standing member of the group who would probably know that Faye would not like this, makes it worse, not better.
Conversely
2) I never saw Tai's behavior as being a lesbian stereotype, I saw her as being a hypersexualized person who also happened to be wired to want to pursue relationships, physical and emotional, with women. Tai as a character is not a favorite of mine, as mentioned before she has a lot of negative traits, while I enjoy the stuff where she banters with Marten and some of her interactions are pretty cool she also can be rather unlikeable. I should also point out that to a certain extent stereotypes are going to be inevitable, not that you can't write without them but if you want to create people you will have them fulfill certain tropes or concepts. I see Tai more in the tropes of the college student experimenting with whatever she can before it's time to really enter the real world (see the LSD strip and the like), and she's also a lesbian. There is also the fact that people all have positive and negative traits, that's what makes them human, and since QC is more a humor comic than a drama one and humor does require a bit of conflict here and there negative traits will be used to humorous effect.
Tai wasn't inherently hypersexualized when she talked with Marten, we did get the idea that she enjoyed sex and eventually was in a poly relationship, however we also had little contact with her since she wasn't a major part of the groups social circle, given that they went to bars and drank a fair amount as well one might as well say that the entirety of the QC cast are alcoholics. Tai's actions here are a result of a combination of impulse control issues, lack of boundaries, etc. I don't see them as lesbian issues, I do see them making Tai behave in a manner that I find rather creepy. I think comparing to Clinton is apt in some ways, but yeah, the behaviors are a bit different and Tai is an established character so her actions get a bit more leeway in that context.
-
It's actually quite telling that you can't imagine a portrayal of a gay or lesbian character that doesn't resort to stereotypes, and further proves that ideas about gays and lesbians and what they can, may, and must be are so strongly influenced by their treatment in the media.
Nonono, that's precisely my point - I can. Easily. I've seen several in various media, I've got the people I know in my own life, there are even the other gay or bisexual characters we've seen in QC. What I'm saying is that simply because someone likes sex it doesn't mean that they're necessarily part of some negative archetype. There does not need to be a connection between gay and promiscuous unless we intentionally draw one.
As I've said, the fact that the joke is about Tai's personality does not mean the comic does not participate in stereotyping.
And I've never denied that Tai confirms to the stereotype. I simply fail to see how it's either negative, or really relevant.
When did I ascribe those qualities to Tai? Tai is probably the worst-written of all the QC characters, in my opinion, because Jeph consistently treats her like a caricature. Further, you're at least the third person to suggest that I'm actively looking for reasons to be offended, which is untrue. I'm not sure how I could prove to you that it's untrue, except to say that it is. Jeph's comic did not offend me, it disappointed me, because of his use of a negative stereotype to make a joke.
Apologies... I'm putting words in your mouth. Those are the qualities that I attribute to her, and have been working with for the discussion. But I stand by them - she's clearly intelligent, she's confident and outgoing most of the time, she's Marten's boss despite being much younger than him. Besides the fact that she's promiscuous, she's actually a pretty awesome person, right down to being totally open and unashamed about her sexuality. I see nothing negative there. And you yourself noted above that this is a joke about Tai's personality, not a joke about a negative stereotype. That's something you're adding in to the joke.
Being "true to the character" misses the forest for the trees. Think about what it says that in order to be true to the character, Tai is always shown hypersexualized. Seriously, think about that. That is where the problem is: the fact that Jeph has written a quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving lesbian cliche. If you can't see how that participates in a greater problem endemic in the media, then the hurdle truly doesn't exist for you, I agree.
And it'd be, what, less offensive if she were straight? Or perhaps if she were a lesbian but was morbidly ashamed of that fact and tried to hide in the closet? Instead Tai's open about her sexuality. Yes, she's hypersexualised, but then so was Raven, and she wasn't a lesbian. Hell, even Steve has been canonically portrayed as a bit of a ladies' man with several relationships over the course of QC, many of whom involved girls much younger than him. Did it offend you when he got into a relationship with an impressionable girl who wasn't even of the age of consent, or when he picked up Cosette who was clearly becoming slightly obsessed with him at the time when they finally met in person? Many, many potentially-controversial issues have been brought up over the course of QC. This one, which you acknowledge was not done with malevolent intent even if it may be considered offensive, is so minor in comparison.
I think what gets me so into this discussion is that I do actually see your viewpoint. I get it. And I can think of many examples in culture of offensive or stereotypical portrayals of gay and lesbian people, even subtle ones like you describe. But I just can't see it here, in this comic, relevant to this conversation. No matter how hard I try, I cannot see Tai taking off her shirt as being a degrading stereotype of slutty lesbians that is offensive to society. It's a joke in an internet webcomic. Worlds do not turn on these cogs. And even if they did, I just can't see it being as negative as you say.
-
It's like you're trying to set a logic trap so you can show an inconsistency and disregard my critique rather than engaging it.
No, I am trying to think around the subject, rather than getting stuck on one view of it; I often play devil's advocate, or throw out ideas to try them for size. In this case, I was exploring the boundaries of your viewpoint.
I now find my thoughts turning to a discussion that has arisen a couple of times in another part of this forum, about authorial intention. The consensus (which I don't entirely agree with, but which is fashionable) seems to be that the author has no special claim for consideration in the interpretation of their work. A corollary of this would seem to be that they have no responsibility for how it it is interpreted or used either. This line of thought leads me to suggest that attacking (OK, too harsh a word, as you've said) a comic strip for stereotyping is going for the wrong target - you should be addressing those who use or respond to the stereotype (inappropriately, that is, as we've said before). Perhaps too much such mistargetting is a symptom of the over-zealous application of political correctness.
-
Tai's a quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving character who coincidentally happens to be a lesbian. Now, we could all declare that portraying her as a sexual entity is serious business and so we shall make no jokes, harrumph! But where would that get us? It's literally choosing to become offended over something that was never even remotely intended to be so, and can only be vaguely connected to anything that is. And perhaps it could have been done more respectfully, but this was done to be true to the character and for the sake of a harmless joke, compared with several other perfectly respectful discussions of the same topic. And if this one, single, throwaway joke offended you that badly that you can't get past it... well, I just don't know how to help you get over that hurdle when for me, the hurdle doesn't even exist.
Being "true to the character" misses the forest for the trees. Think about what it says that in order to be true to the character, Tai is always shown hypersexualized. Seriously, think about that. That is where the problem is: the fact that Jeph has written a quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving lesbian cliche. If you can't see how that participates in a greater problem endemic in the media, then the hurdle truly doesn't exist for you, I agree.
I can only speak for myself, but when I saw the strip today, the last thing in my brain was, "AHA! Tai's a stereotypical sex-crazed lesbian!" Besides the awesome boob-blocking cat, I took away that Tai entered the Awkward Zone in a BIG way, which as a 100% heterosexual male, I can relate to from instances in my single days when I was around someone I REALLY wanted to sleep with. Gays and lesbians have sex drives, at least as I'm lead to believe, so why wouldn't you write situations where people with sex drives get goofy around those they're attracted to? Also, let's not discount the fact that Dora's not arrow-straight herself, and I believe Tai's knowledge of that fact has led us here.
-
I know I may be beating a dead horse here, but let me see if I can put this in perspective with an example.
Suppose I'm the director of a B-Horror movie. Real corny slasher-thriller stuff, lots of gore. And when it comes casting day, I've been very specific and clear to everyone, including the people trying out for the roles: I want the biggest, strongest, meanest-looking, juggernaut of a guy to be my killer. Someone who when you saw him walking down the street, you'd get out of his way because he's so big and scary-looking. Of course, I also want this guy to be an excellent actor. And, suitably, during tryouts one guy stands out - he has excellent diction, he's intelligent, he's been well-trained and he's been in several smaller roles before. He's also by far the biggest, strongest, meanest-looking juggernaut of a guy within five hundred miles. He knows it, I know it, everyone knows it, and there is absolutely no question that he's the best guy for the role.
But, surprise! He's black.
Now, if I cast this man, I'm furthering the black-people-are-criminals stereotype, which I think we can all agree is awful. But if I don't, then absolutely everyone knows the truth: I'm turning down the best man for the job based entirely on his race. And you know what? Besides being illegal, and besides being a worse choice for my movie, I think door number two here is a far, far worse option, ethically speaking. Now, I don't care about the racial issue of casting him. And he clearly doesn't, or he wouldn't be there. But because some asshole somewhere is going to call me racist no matter what I do, I have to make a devil's choice because of what's politically correct.
That's the kind of issue I draw here. We all seem to agree that the joke was specifically about Tai's lack of boundaries and not about her sexuality. And we also seem to agree that based on how her character has been designed, her pulling a stunt like this is in-character. But we get hung up on the issue of her being a lesbian stereotype because... why? What possible reason is there to bring this up? Well, because the stereotype exists and no matter how hard we try, we can't get away from it. Just like a black man being a horror movie murderer. The connection exists because we choose to make a big deal out if it, and for no other reason at all.
Hell, let's pull out all the stops and throw up this for a suggestion: Jeph made Tai the way she is, intentionally aware that he was confirming to the stereotype. Has he made Tai a hairy, flannel-wearing trucker lesbian? Nope. Has he repeatedly shown her in gratuitous cheesecake shots? Nope. Does she have AIDS or some other STD? Nope. Does she commit crimes or lead children into temptation? Nope. She's smart, she's feminine without looking like a porn star, she's sassy, she's cheerful and outgoing, she's extremely well-employed for a student of her age, and she happens to be promiscuous.
I submit to you that if Tai is to be held up to the stereotype of the horndog homosexual, then she should be considered a deconstruction of the trope considering how successful and normal she is beyond that.
And that's why I have trouble accepting this as negative. I refuse to simply see Tai's portrayal as negative just because Political Correctness says I should, and so I have to look at the character herself. In doing this, I see nothing that I consider offensive that really holds up to any kind of scrutiny.
-
What's wrong with being promiscuous?
Whether you're gay, straight, bi, transexual, transgendered, male, female, black, white, hispanic or Martian, why is seen as a bad thing to be open about your sexual desires?
Tai has never been shown to act an any way irresponsible or dishonest with any of her friends or partners, so why is she catching shit for having an active sex life?
-
LoveJaneAusten, you should ask Jeph via Tumblr why he's chosen to write Tai the way he has; the answer you get might be illuminating.
-
why is she catching shit for having an active sex life?
Prudery, religion, maturity, societal norms - take your pick according to where you stand.
-
Indeed. My objection to these (from outside the world of literary criticism, I admit) is not that I believe that the author can tell the whole truth about their work, but that taking the opposite position as an absolute is identically flawed.
-
Going to give this section an "exactly". We should all know by now that no "perfect" characters are going to appear, so clutching at flaws as a sign of stereotypes seems more indicative of which stereotypes we assign to groups ourselves, rather than Jeph has.
The fact that there are no "perfect" characters does not in any way excuse the use of harmful stereotypes, and it's silly to suggest so.
I could have been clearer, I meant stereotypes are only persistant when people are conscious of them. Whether using them or arguing against. I've only known (for certain) two lesbians, and they are pretty much polar opposites, so I guess I don't have any expectations for lesbians as a "whole". Well, apart from the defining trait.
-
I need to read that book.
Meant to several years ago but somehow never got around to it. :|
-
In my comic, I'm going to make a homosexual serial killer the main character. I hope that doesn't offend any gay males who do not personally subscribe to the act of shanking.
-
Imagine if you will that Tai was a heterosexual male rather than a homosexual woman. Their sexual interest is obviously the same (exclusively women). Now, imagine that heterosexual male Tai was forcefully trying to remove Faye's shirt after removing his own.
-
Imagine if you will that Tai was a heterosexual male rather than a homosexual woman. Their sexual interest is obviously the same (exclusively women). Now, imagine that heterosexual male Tai was forcefully trying to remove Faye's shirt after removing his own.
Good idea ... now imagine it was Steve who reacted to Dora removing her sweaty shirt by removing his own, and then playfully pretended to help Faye do the same.
What is the "media stereotype" of lesbians? I dunno, seems so multifaceted that I can't identify a single stereotype. Let's see, the most prominent lesbians in my media bubble are Melissa Etheridge, Rachel Maddow, Ellen DeGeneres and Stephanie Miller, so I guess the stereotype is talented, funny, good-looking, progressive and the smartest person in the room. OK, there are negative stereotypes out there too, but people are too various and the stereotypes are too numerous to expect every character to somehow avoid every possible stereotype.
Let Tai be Tai.
This is going to be interesting.
-
Imagine if you will that Tai was a heterosexual male rather than a homosexual woman. Their sexual interest is obviously the same (exclusively women). Now, imagine that heterosexual male Tai was forcefully trying to remove Faye's shirt after removing his own.
You mean like Sven (prior to having sex with Faye) and the way he acted with the ladies was very slutty one night stands? Sven's behaviour clearly enforced the negative stereotype that some women have that all men are ultimately only interested in sex and not at all interested in long term relationships etc. Since these sort of 'players' do exist in real life, I must protest at Sven's previous actions which implies that all hetrosexual men are in some way sex crazed and are portraying us more sexually controlled males in a bad, negative light....
-
Well, as long as we're talking about what offends us personally ... Reviewing/evaluating/rating a work's merits based on whether it agrees with one's politics.
-
Tai (if she is a sterotype of anything) is a stereotype of college students. She just happens to be gay.
How is being a highly sexual, free-spirited, fun-loving person at all negative? I honestly do not understand how Tai is being portrayed negatively. Is she shown as not conforming to the (in my opinion) Puritanical social norm? Most definitely, but I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Is your problem that we, as non-straights, should seek to fit into the narrow definition of what is acceptable pushed so heavily by the mainstream culture? I for one have no interest in that and do not feel I, or anyone else, should have to fit into the hetero-normative mold. How do you think we SHOULD be portrayed in the media? What would be your mythical perfectly representative character for us?
-
I figured out finally why we react differently to Tai than we would to a straight man trying to pull off Faye's shirt. Tai is small and slightly built enough that she won't come across to most people as a physical threat. Also, arguably stereotyping, but men do commit the majority of violent crime so Faye's security reflexes might not be on the hyper alert they were for Marten, which would explain why Faye reacted differently.
-
...There does not need to be a connection between gay and promiscuous unless we intentionally draw one...
I know, it's not right to take a long well worded argument and pick on a point, but I had to pick on this one.
The line was drawn over a century ago for us, it's a stereotype that was not only ingrained into our psyches but made its way into many laws still on the books in various places. And it's because of this connection that the stereotype is seen by the LGBTQ community as a dangerous one.
Now, are we intelligent enough to know better? Well, I can't speak for everyone on his board, and certainly not for all the readers of Jeph's work, but I'd like to think so.
This does not make it true. Nor does it make the stereotype any less dangerous.
-
Nonono, that's precisely my point - I can. Easily. I've seen several in various media, I've got the people I know in my own life, there are even the other gay or bisexual characters we've seen in QC. What I'm saying is that simply because someone likes sex it doesn't mean that they're necessarily part of some negative archetype. There does not need to be a connection between gay and promiscuous unless we intentionally draw one.
See, again you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my point. I am not saying “simply because someone likes sex” they are a stereotype. I am saying “there is a stereotype of lesbians and gays portrayed as sex-obsessed and Tai’s example in this comic fulfills that stereotype”.
And I've never denied that Tai confirms to the stereotype. I simply fail to see how it's either negative, or really relevant.
I can’t help it if you don’t see why and how that stereotype is negative. I can only encourage you to read more about how media has characterized gays and lesbians, and how for generations they’ve been shown as deviant, and attacked and strawmanned as freaks. Only in very recent times have positive gay and lesbian characters been part of a mass media consciousness, and even then they often fall into stereotypes.
Apologies... I'm putting words in your mouth. Those are the qualities that I attribute to her, and have been working with for the discussion. But I stand by them - she's clearly intelligent, she's confident and outgoing most of the time, she's Marten's boss despite being much younger than him. Besides the fact that she's promiscuous, she's actually a pretty awesome person, right down to being totally open and unashamed about her sexuality. I see nothing negative there. And you yourself noted above that this is a joke about Tai's personality, not a joke about a negative stereotype. That's something you're adding in to the joke.
It’s amazing that I’ve had to explain at least three times now that simply because a joke is about Tai’s personality, it doesn’t mean it also doesn’t make use of stereotypes.
And it'd be, what, less offensive if she were straight?
Yes! If Tai were straight in this comic, then it would not be stereotyping lesbians (which it is).
Or perhaps if she were a lesbian but was morbidly ashamed of that fact and tried to hide in the closet? Instead Tai's open about her sexuality. Yes, she's hypersexualised, but then so was Raven, and she wasn't a lesbian. Hell, even Steve has been canonically portrayed as a bit of a ladies' man with several relationships over the course of QC, many of whom involved girls much younger than him. Did it offend you when he got into a relationship with an impressionable girl who wasn't even of the age of consent, or when he picked up Cosette who was clearly becoming slightly obsessed with him at the time when they finally met in person? Many, many potentially-controversial issues have been brought up over the course of QC. This one, which you acknowledge was not done with malevolent intent even if it may be considered offensive, is so minor in comparison.
You’re asking me about other plotlines that occurred before I began to follow QC, so I’m afraid I can’t answer them. My suspicious is that Jeph has probably made use of stereotypes many times, likely unconsciously. But since I wasn’t reading QC at those times, it’s not very fair to ask me where my critiques were then, is it?
I think what gets me so into this discussion is that I do actually see your viewpoint. I get it. And I can think of many examples in culture of offensive or stereotypical portrayals of gay and lesbian people, even subtle ones like you describe. But I just can't see it here, in this comic, relevant to this conversation. No matter how hard I try, I cannot see Tai taking off her shirt as being a degrading stereotype of slutty lesbians that is offensive to society. It's a joke in an internet webcomic. Worlds do not turn on these cogs. And even if they did, I just can't see it being as negative as you say.
You’re so close to a better understanding. Closer than most people in this thread. I really think all you have to do is read more about how media stereotypes have affected gays and lesbians and actually look at it from the minority perspective, and you’ll get there. However, saying “it’s just an internet comic” is a pretty obvious shut-down, unless you think that somehow internet comics take place in a vacuum, are not connected to any sort of context, and somehow exist without influence of cultural and societal values. That’s a hard case to make, I think.
No, I am trying to think around the subject, rather than getting stuck on one view of it; I often play devil's advocate, or throw out ideas to try them for size. In this case, I was exploring the boundaries of your viewpoint.
What’s interesting about this is that devil’s advocate is supposed to get someone to think through their argument and look for holes in it. The implication is that the person hasn’t thought through their assertions. I find in these discussions that people with privilege (straight privilege, white privilege in discussions of race, etc.) often play devil’s advocate, when in reality the people making assertions have thought through their arguments usually much more than the devil’s advocate. Yes, I know how to deal with real-life lesbians (trust me on this). The better question is have you thought through your assertions?
I know I may be beating a dead horse here, but let me see if I can put this in perspective with an example.
... But because some asshole somewhere is going to call me racist no matter what I do, I have to make a devil's choice because of what's politically correct.
None of this is about political correctness, which is a term the privileged levy at those without when their privilege is pointed out to them, usually via language. In your example, you absolutely would be participating in the stereotyping of how black men are portrayed in media; you admit as much. But it’s interesting that your “devil’s choice” precludes writing a better movie that doesn’t further negative stereotypes. Why is that?
I submit to you that if Tai is to be held up to the stereotype of the horndog homosexual, then she should be considered a deconstruction of the trope considering how successful and normal she is beyond that.
And that's why I have trouble accepting this as negative. I refuse to simply see Tai's portrayal as negative just because Political Correctness says I should, and so I have to look at the character herself. In doing this, I see nothing that I consider offensive that really holds up to any kind of scrutiny.
For Tai to be a deconstruction of the stereotypes she exhibits, she’d have to parody them. Do you think Tai’s function is parodic? You’re very generous in your readings, then, because Tai’s actions are both in line with her character (hypersexualized, uninhibited, etc) but they really don’t get called into question or critiqued, do they? Now, if you can show they do, then I will concede this point, but so far her actions are caricatures and nothing more. (Jeph started to complicate her character – and thus set up a deconstruction of her personality – with her butterflies upon seeing Dora, but chose to get her topless and horny instead.)
What's wrong with being promiscuous?
Whether you're gay, straight, bi, transexual, transgendered, male, female, black, white, hispanic or Martian, why is seen as a bad thing to be open about your sexual desires?
Tai has never been shown to act an any way irresponsible or dishonest with any of her friends or partners, so why is she catching shit for having an active sex life?
There is nothing wrong with being promiscuous; there is something wrong with the common stereotype of lesbians and gays as promiscuous in media. You ought to go back and see how my assertion is a little more complex than giving Tai shit for having an active sex life.
LoveJaneAusten, you should ask Jeph via Tumblr why he's chosen to write Tai the way he has; the answer you get might be illuminating.
That's a good idea!
I could have been clearer, I meant stereotypes are only persistant when people are conscious of them. Whether using them or arguing against. I've only known (for certain) two lesbians, and they are pretty much polar opposites, so I guess I don't have any expectations for lesbians as a "whole". Well, apart from the defining trait.
That’s wrong, though. Stereotypes persist regardless of whether or not you’re conscious of them; in fact, that they are often subtle and unrecognized is one of their prime dangers. Just look at pwhodges; he was unaware of the “lesbians recruiting straight women” stereotype until this thread. And yet the stereotype existed before that.
What is the "media stereotype" of lesbians? I dunno, seems so multifaceted that I can't identify a single stereotype. Let's see, the most prominent lesbians in my media bubble are Melissa Etheridge, Rachel Maddow, Ellen DeGeneres and Stephanie Miller, so I guess the stereotype is talented, funny, good-looking, progressive and the smartest person in the room. OK, there are negative stereotypes out there too, but people are too various and the stereotypes are too numerous to expect every character to somehow avoid every possible stereotype.
There are many and they are definitely multifaceted and I encourage you to read and learn more about them! If you have already decided to not expect non-stereotyped characters in your media, then you are setting your standards low.
-
The idea that because a stereotype exists, no character in fiction can be that way EVEN WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT IN REAL LIFE EXIST and EVEN WHEN THE WORK HAS SHOWN OTHERS OF THAT GROUP NOT FITTING THE STEREOTYPE is absurd.
That's like saying I can't use my friend Israel as a inspiration for a gay man in something I write, just because he happens to match the very effeminate stereotype of a gay man wearing a boa and short shorts. People like this exist. Therefore, characters like this should be allowed in fiction AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT USED IN A DEMEANING WAY.
Tai is not being used in a demeaning way. Stop acting like its awful for a character who is entirely believable to exist solely because they manage to match a stereotype.
EDIT: I use caps for emphasis, not intended for yelling... I can see how it would be read that way so I thought I would add a note down here >_>
-
What’s interesting about this is that devil’s advocate is supposed to get someone to think through their argument and look for holes in it. The implication is that the person hasn’t thought through their assertions.
Yes, I get myself to think through an argument and look for holes in it! Or others kindly point the holes out for me...
-
I figure there are good intentions here, but it's a matter of "know your audience."
Folks on a forum for a webcomic aren't here to be informed how very *wrong* they are.
-
If this keeps going around in anymore circles we might be able to offer Formula 1 a new circuit.
This "discussion" just keeps going around and around and around and around and around and around and someone look out coz you're about to see my lunch! (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-barf.gif)
-
More like NASCAR or Indy TheEvilDog.
-
'Eh, just call me Evil, less of a mouthful.
-
'Eh, just call me Evil, less of a mouthful.
Better than "Yo Dog" huh? :D ;)
-
'Eh, just call me Evil, less of a mouthful.
Better than "Yo Dog" huh? :D ;)
I heard you like evil dogs, so I put an evil in your dog so you can post while you post.
-
On the topic of hangups and revelation; so when Dora flashed Marten, in a public place no less, and Raven took her top off to get Sven's attention, also in a public place, that was what?
And now, Tai, who has a crush and severe impulse control issues, does exactly what her crush just did (classic "I wanna be just like them" behaviour) then remembers they aren't alone and tries to cover her error by taking it too far (which she has done many times before) she's a "stereotypical lesbian horndog?"
This is the viewpoint I agree with in this argument. Why are people so quick to jump to the conclusion that nudity is about sex?
-
The idea that because a stereotype exists, no character in fiction can be that way EVEN WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT IN REAL LIFE EXIST and EVEN WHEN THE WORK HAS SHOWN OTHERS OF THAT GROUP NOT FITTING THE STEREOTYPE is absurd.
That's like saying I can't use my friend Israel as a inspiration for a gay man in something I write, just because he happens to match the very effeminate stereotype of a gay man wearing a boa and short shorts. People like this exist. Therefore, characters like this should be allowed in fiction AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT USED IN A DEMEANING WAY.
Agreed. It’s a good thing no one made that argument.
Tai is not being used in a demeaning way. Stop acting like its awful for a character who is entirely believable to exist solely because they manage to match a stereotype.
Actually she is. You may not see it, but stereotypes are demeaning.
Yes, I get myself to think through an argument and look for holes in it! Or others kindly point the holes out for me...
I see. I hope I’ve been able to clarify whether you’d tell a lesbian irl to stop doing something!
I figure there are good intentions here, but it's a matter of "know your audience."
Folks on a forum for a webcomic aren't here to be informed how very *wrong* they are.
I’m sure you’re right. On the other hand, I did not know that agreeing with someone pointing out how Tai fulfills lesbian stereotypes would be so controversial!
I confess, I dropped a word from the last sentence I quoted. At face value, would you actually have a problem with that last bit? I hope not! You see, you added "cliché" to the end of the last sentence. This quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving lesbian shares some facets of behavior you see as cliché, and suddenly everything's terrible. Or is being a quirky, uninhibited, fun-loving lesbian a cliché in itself, something that shouldn't be used? This ties in with what E. Norton wrote (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,26670.msg1035440.html#msg1035440), so I'll leave it at that.
Well, since E. Norton was wrong, as I stated earlier, I’m happy to leave it at that, too.
Thank you for answering a question I asked. In a nutshell: Tai is hypersexualized and uninhibited character, and you have a problem with this because her actions don't get called into question or critiqued. To save yourself from being contradictory: In your eyes, do all hypersexualized and uninhibited characters have to be called into question, or do only the lesbian characters have to worry about this?
This is a fair question. The answer is no, not everyone who is hypersexualized is necessarily a stereotype and therefore doesn’t have to be analyzed with this lens. However, seeing as there is a common negative stereotype of lesbians and gays in particular as sex-obsessed, it makes sense to pay attention to how they are portrayed.
This is the viewpoint I agree with in this argument. Why are people so quick to jump to the conclusion that nudity is about sex?
That's a pretty obtuse viewpoint, since it ignores basically all the characterization of Tai so far.
If this keeps going around in anymore circles we might be able to offer Formula 1 a new circuit.
This "discussion" just keeps going around and around and around and around and around and around and someone look out coz you're about to see my lunch! (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-barf.gif)
I agree very much. By now I’ve repeated myself enough for anyone who could or wanted to understand. I think I’ll stop here, seeing as I’ve made my point sufficiently clear. Thanks for the mostly mature discussion, everyone!
-
So, to sum up: because people have been treated differently based on various characteristics for decades, the answer is to treat people differently based on various characteristics, JUST THE OTHER WAY.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to help the cause of equality and harmony, but what do I know?
-
That's a pretty obtuse viewpoint, since it ignores basically all the characterization of Tai so far.
no, it just means Tai is more comfortable with nudity, so it's perfectly in-character.
-
Rather than do another quote-wall, I'll simply lay this out straight.
Jane, while I appreciate that you think I'm close to a "higher understanding" - I wasn't personally aware that disagreeing with you meant that I suffered from a worse perspective on the universe, but there it is - I must agree that I'm not quite there. Perhaps my confusion stems from your own admission that things involving other characters happened before you started reading - implying you've not read QC and thus don't quite understand a lot about Tai, or how the other characters interact with her? If so I might suggest that you browse the archives. They're hefty, I admit, but if you like QC then they are worth the time to read. It would certainly help you explain your viewpoint on the comic if you've read it first.
We agree on so many areas here, though. We agree that Jeph almost certainly didn't mean to write Tai in a negative stereotype. We agree that within the context of the QC story, Tai is not seen as a negative character; though she does occasionally make the others feel awkward, she's popular with the main cast. We even agree that she does adhere in many ways to the Lesbian Horndog stereotype. And yet this "higher understanding" eludes me still! But I think I've cottoned onto why. Since the beginnings of the discussion, you've maintained that Tai being an enthusiastically sexual character is negative. You've said that this is bad because of the existing stereotype that lesbians are sex-crazed individuals.
Now while I do not agree that Tai falls into the category of sex-crazed, I'll let that pass for the sake of pushing one question that you've avoided. You've simply hand-waved it by saying that you "can't really explain if I don't get it". Or that it's a "negative stereotype in society". But my lack of understanding here is what, I think, holds me back from your higher understanding. So assume I'm an idiot, assume I'm naive and oblivious, take whatever liberties with my intelligence you need to. But I'm asking you, please: Explain why Tai enjoying sex is a negative thing.
-
I could have been clearer, I meant stereotypes are only persistant when people are conscious of them. Whether using them or arguing against. I've only known (for certain) two lesbians, and they are pretty much polar opposites, so I guess I don't have any expectations for lesbians as a "whole". Well, apart from the defining trait.
That’s wrong, though. Stereotypes persist regardless of whether or not you’re conscious of them; in fact, that they are often subtle and unrecognized is one of their prime dangers. Just look at pwhodges; he was unaware of the “lesbians recruiting straight women” stereotype until this thread. And yet the stereotype existed before that.
She has a tatto, does that bring the old "only criminals have tattoos" stereotype into play? Are the left-handed characters involved in Satan worship, since that was a Medieval stereotype?
-
I find Tai completely believable and consistent as a character.
She's a pure lesbian and not into men at all. And she would like to have a relationship with a woman, but she just cant get any. Obviously she's actually very frustrated in that area, even if, thanks to her cheerful character, she doesnt show it much.
Also, she's highly attracted to Faye and her breasts and would absolutely love to see them. Sadly Faye isnt into women at all, so Tai stands no chance in hell to have any success with Faye in this respect.
So when she sees Dora, who is comfortable around women, undressing so carelessly, she's inspired to attempt to undress Faye in a joking way.
Personally I found this move highly amusing and completely understandable, as was Faye's reaction, as Faye knows all this too and doesnt want to follow through.
-
On the topic of hangups and revelation; so when Dora flashed Marten, in a public place no less, and Raven took her top off to get Sven's attention, also in a public place, that was what?
Um, which strip was this?
-
At the risk of joining one of these discussions...
I think Jane is informing us in the QC world, that out there in the hardball, high-stakes arenas where social sexual politics are being thrashed out, but which I (and I suspect many of us here) have little or no contact with, that presenting Tai in certain ways CAN BE USED by malignant, reactionary "Moral Guardians" to support their oppressive agendas and harm people.
I agree in theory, we don't generally want to give these misguided, manipulative morons bad people fuel for their fires, and God Forbid some QC image or joke is taken out of context and misused.
But just how conscious, careful and responsible should people like Jeph be in avoiding all possible misinterpretations of his work? Like many others, I love QC and have massive respect for Jeph's continual creation of a delightful world and characters that touch and entertain us; as well as his overall tolerant, supportive mainstreaming of alternative lifestyles and differently-abled people. I wouldn't want to make that job any harder.
Sadly, sometimes I see the better, more supportive artists receiving more criticism than the evil actors; attacking Faux News seems useless, but 'adjusting' a liberal comic's policies seems more doable.
-
Wait, so people are taking issue that some of the content in Jeph's comic is questionable?
Sorry to be blunt, but what the hell did you expect it to be?
-
Wait, so people are taking issue that some of the content in Jeph's comic is questionable?
Sorry to be blunt, but what the hell did you expect it to be?
No, it's that some of the content was insufficiently supportive of one poster's worldview, and therefore had to atone for the sins of all other media.
-
Yeah, that about sums it up.
-
She's a pure lesbian and not into men at all. And she would like to have a relationship with a woman, but she just cant get any. Obviously she's actually very frustrated in that area, even if, thanks to her cheerful character, she doesnt show it much.
Yes, she can. She's getting plenty. At most, she wants something more meaningful, but what's relevant to the current situation is just that she wants something with Dora.
Also, she's highly attracted to Faye and her breasts and would absolutely love to see them. Sadly Faye isnt into women at all, so Tai stands no chance in hell to have any success with Faye in this respect.
So when she sees Dora, who is comfortable around women, undressing so carelessly, she's inspired to attempt to undress Faye in a joking way.
I don't think so. I think it was the only action she could think of after pulling off her own top that was clearly flirty but didn't completely blow plausible deniability out of the water; Faye just happened to be there. If it had been Penelope or Hannelore there, she'd have done it to Penelope or Hannelore.
-
I don't think so. I think it was the only action she could think of after pulling off her own top that was clearly flirty but didn't completely blow plausible deniability out of the water; Faye just happened to be there. If it had been Penelope or Hannelore there, she'd have done it to Penelope or Hannelore.
Prediction for tomorrow, Tai with a black eye or several bruises, gifts from the house of Whitaker. (Of course, if it had been Hanners, Tai might have gotten a concussion, what with Hanners tendency to flail about when she panics. Penelope, I think she'd be the kind of person to slap people across the cheek. Nothing says no like a stinging cheek.)
-
Just an observation ... just about every time the forum lights up with "Oooh, now shit's gonna get real," what actually happens is way less severe and a tad more comic than the predictions ( including mine).
That said, I can imagine Hanners's reaction ranging from the aforementioned flailing to "Dwah?!" to "It bothers me that I'm becoming inured to this."
Penelope's reaction could be interesting; for all her priggish rants when the situation is theoretical, she's displayed amusing aplomb when the situation finally presents itself, viz. the accidential presentation if Wil's Poetry Of Tumescence. Look at her ass, Tai, and tell her it's pretty.
Hm. The Bitter Barista could be the one to stop our little libidinous librarian dead in her tracks. For purposes of hilarity, of course.
-
The idea that because a stereotype exists, no character in fiction can be that way EVEN WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT IN REAL LIFE EXIST and EVEN WHEN THE WORK HAS SHOWN OTHERS OF THAT GROUP NOT FITTING THE STEREOTYPE is absurd.
That's like saying I can't use my friend Israel as a inspiration for a gay man in something I write, just because he happens to match the very effeminate stereotype of a gay man wearing a boa and short shorts. People like this exist. Therefore, characters like this should be allowed in fiction AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT USED IN A DEMEANING WAY.
Agreed. It’s a good thing no one made that argument.
Tai is not being used in a demeaning way. Stop acting like its awful for a character who is entirely believable to exist solely because they manage to match a stereotype.
Actually she is. You may not see it, but stereotypes are demeaning.
... Ok, lets see if I read this correctly.
No one is arguing that just being the stereotype is bad, but I don't understand because being the stereotype is bad.
I'm sorry if I don't have a "HIGHER UNDERSTANDING" of your single worldview to understand a bunch of points that YOU FAIL TO EXPLAIN OTHER THAN ITS BAD GUYS BECAUSE ITS BAD OMG. Which you use to prove how I am "WRONG".
I'm excusing myself from this, its apparently the view that "YOU WILL NEVER GET IT SO I SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOU HEATHEN"
-
What worries me is that it can distort art to make it detour around all possible stereotypes. Jeph wrote a promiscuous character: should he have made her straight to avoid writing a promiscuous gay character?
-
This horse is mostly sausages by now, but...
Historically LJA has a point. Homosexuals have been treated badly in the past. The first QC-related example that comes to mind is Alan Turing (the math dude who saved Britain during WWII by breaking the German cipher, but was prosecuted and driven to suicide shortly afterwards).
However, this is the 21st century. Apparently LJA's media exposure is totally distinct from mine. At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem! Unless I'm mistaken the goal is that a person's sexual orientation would not be news worthy at all. Something at par with, whether he or she is right or left-handed, or has coffee or tea at breakfast. At the moment we are at a point, where the young, educated generation seems to be taking variations in sexual orientation for granted. Somewhat older people (including yours truly??) are sorta walking on eggshells, have a little bit trouble acting naturally, and might prefer not to discuss the matter at all. Media is flaunting its political correctness. Not the ideal situation, but probably a necessary point on the learning curve?
Mind you, the backwash of too much PC forced down certain people's throats is coming up here, too. I am not living in a politically correct heaven free of rednecks by any means.
-
There's PC and there's ordinary decency. One, you choose to practice yourself. The other is an attitude you try to make everyone else adopt ... Sometimes on behalf of another who may or may not particularly want you speaking or acting on their behalf. One helps people get along.. The other usually results in the opposite.
-
Just look at pwhodges; he was unaware of the “lesbians recruiting straight women” stereotype until this thread. And yet the stereotype existed before that.
I remain unaware of it, in that I can't think of any portrayal of a lesbian that I have come across which has shown this as a stereotype, in spite of it being mentioned here and on the Jezebel site.
Mind you, I don't read the Daily Mail or The Sun.
-
There's PC and there's ordinary decency. One, you choose to practice yourself. The other is an attitude you try to make everyone else adopt ... Sometimes on behalf of another who may or may not particularly want you speaking or acting on their behalf. One helps people get along.. The other usually results in the opposite.
Well said. I especially resent those who get all intolerant and censorshippy on behalf of "the cheeldren!"... then many of said children get all interested in the Forbidden Stuff, and - ironically - go seek it out.
The Bitter Barista could be the one to stop our little libidinous librarian dead in her tracks.
The new Monday comic features both of your alliterative actors! : )
-
This horse is mostly sausages by now, but...
Historically LJA has a point. Homosexuals have been treated badly in the past. The first QC-related example that comes to mind is Alan Turing (the math dude who saved Britain during WWII by breaking the German cipher, but was prosecuted and driven to suicide shortly afterwards).
However, this is the 21st century. Apparently LJA's media exposure is totally distinct from mine. At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem! Unless I'm mistaken the goal is that a person's sexual orientation would not be news worthy at all. Something at par with, whether he or she is right or left-handed, or has coffee or tea at breakfast. At the moment we are at a point, where the young, educated generation seems to be taking variations in sexual orientation for granted. Somewhat older people (including yours truly??) are sorta walking on eggshells, have a little bit trouble acting naturally, and might prefer not to discuss the matter at all. Media is flaunting its political correctness. Not the ideal situation, but probably a necessary point on the learning curve?
As I recall, you're not in the US, but rather in a fairly progressive country in northern Europe (Denmark?). It's really not that way here in the US at all, especially away from the two coasts. While Barney Frank (of Massachssetts) is openly gay, there are few other politicians who are brave enough to be open about it, especially from the mid- and soutwestern parts of the country. The rise in popularity of evangelical christianity has als led to a rather strong backlash against homosexuality in this country for the last decade or so. Yes, we see more of them in the media, and the media does prefer the heavy hand of a stereotype when portraying them (as it does with damn near everything else). And some aspects of these portrayals are problematic in that people who are anti-homosexual can seize on them and use them to point out (screaming all the way) that this "lifestyle" is "evil" (or whatever the popular buzzwords are now in that closed circle of minds...)
So I agree with Jane to a great extent. But I also know that this is Tai, her personality, her character. And that character was carefully developed over the last 1000 strips or so. It doesn't stop some people from completely misinterpreting her actions, and taken alone would indeed strengthen a negative stereotype in a lot of people's minds. But I really can't fault Jeph for the portrayal!
-
Historically LJA has a point. Homosexuals have been treated badly in the past. The first QC-related example that comes to mind is Alan Turing (the math dude who saved Britain during WWII by breaking the German cipher, but was prosecuted and driven to suicide shortly afterwards).
In the past? Homosexuals are treated badly to this day. Law-abiding homosexual citizens are denied equal legal rights in Australia (where I live) for example. Don't Ask Don't Tell, a policy that led to the expulsion of homosexual men and women from the US armed forces, remains in force despite the passage of repeal legislation. Let's delay the back-slapping, OK?
At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem!
Media darlings? There are more, and more positive, representations of homosexuals in media than in the past, but that just means slightly more than none at all, and more positive than extremely hostile. Homosexuals featured in media are rolled out with a big "Oh look, a gay!" fuss. So yes, as you say, we still have a problem that has most certainly not been consigned to the unenlightened past. We've only barely started up the learning curve.
-
108 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=108) & 519 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raven+dora+flashes+sven+marten+questionable+content), respectively.
519 link isn't working. Might wanna rethink using LMGTFY.
-
Come to think of it, it's interesting that the discussion went as far as it did without cultural differences being raised.
-
Mind you, I don't read the Daily Mail or The Sun.
So you read one of the other papers? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M)
-
At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem!
Media darlings? There are more, and more positive, representations of homosexuals in media than in the past, but that just means slightly more than none at all, and more positive than extremely hostile. Homosexuals featured in media are rolled out with a big "Oh look, a gay!" fuss. So yes, as you say, we still have a problem that has most certainly not been consigned to the unenlightened past. We've only barely started up the learning curve.
That reminds me of rewatching American Beauty recently and being totally surprised to find out that one of the two homosexuals in the movie was actually Captain Archer (from Star Trek Enterprise).
-
I try to address some of the points and refutations. TL; DR; alert
First and foremost. I agree with everybody that it is way too early to start patting our respective backs. Here in Finland (close enough, Carl-E!) there is probably less variation within the mainstream media than what is seen in the U.S. Mostly due to size. A population of 5 million cannot support too many TV channels for example. And the mainstream media happens to be firmly in the progressive hands (or under parliamentary control). I did forget that in a bigger country a percentage wise small group is still big enough to, say, run a TV station. So my media exposure may, indeed, be very different from yours. I should've thought about this a bit more in advance. My bad.
My U.S.A. experience is from 20+ years ago and consists of 4 years at Notre Dame, Indiana followed by a semester at Berkeley, California. Those two might represent the opposite ends of the spectrum in some sense. But even at the presumably ultra-conservative N.D. the student body had a largish enlightened faction giving support to the Gay/Lesbian student group seeking recognition. I don't know what the current status is there now. The shadow of the Vatican is long and dark. Anyway, I have been under the impression that CollegeTown, U.S.A. is a very politically correct place? Save the likes of Notre Dame and Brigham Young, where political correctness is limited to gender and race, or some really wacko smaller colleges (Is Oral Roberts still in operation?). But again. The filter formed by geographic distance means that to me U.S. mainstream media is from D.C., New York City or LA, but to LJA and you all it may mean something else. Yes, I am aware that I do not have a complete picture, but my understanding is that she was talking about stereotypes in media like nationwide TV networks, NYT and such. Not some televangelist's private channel.
I don't know if Northern Europe is more PC than the U.S.? May be we are? At least when it comes to gender equality. When dealing with racial diversity the melting pots of the world are ahead of us. Immigration to Finland is such a small phenomenon that the presumed political correctness has not been tested. A large number of people outside major towns have never met a person of a different ethnicity, so the dealings could be clumsy, even if the intentions were the best. Also a large fraction of the immigrants are refugees, and they are easy prey for some given that it takes a lot of time for them to start contributing to the economy.
I am unable to tell whether we are ahead or behind U.S. in gay rights. Here the homosexual couples were given the right to get a "registered relationship" giving them most of the same legal rights and obligations that married couples have e.g. in case of a death or a divorce and for the purposes of taxation. The currently debated questions are whether homosexual couples should have the right to adopt children, and whether the "registered relationship" should be called a marriage, and brought under the same law with heterosexual marriage. We are a little bit behind the other Nordic countries like Sweden that aspires to be the politically correct utopia.
All this is relative recent (mostly 21st century). In terms of legislation we are now at a relatively good point. The battle in the minds and hearts of people is, unfortunately, still ongoing. Gay/lesbian activities as well as the immigrants occasionally attract violent acts. Gays are excused of military service (general conscription for men, voluntary military service for women). I don't know, whether homosexuals are prohibited from service or not? So can't claim us to be more progressive than the U.S. armed forces. Our incumbent president was a gay/lesbian activist in her youth. I don't know, whether she did that to show off how progressive she is, or whether she had a personal take on the matter. We are unlikely to elect a non-caucasian president in the foreseeable future, though.
Where do I stand in all this? My choice of phrase ("media darlings", "walking on eggshells our toes") was meant to convey that I don't consider myself to be fully PC. Not all of it is second nature to me, and I occasionally need to operate on something like Momo's database of protocols. For example, I will laugh at some markedly politically incorrect jokes. While that is perhaps the most harmless form of homophobia/racism/sexism, it is also something relatively deep inside my core.
We are definitely not there, yet.
-
The cultural divide is probably deeper than you may have thought, skewbrow. For one thing, college towns and campuses (including large private ones like Notre Dame) are considerably more liberally minded and accepting than most of the rest of the country. The proliferation of colleges is one of the reasons the east coast and large cities are considered to be so liberal. Thought there are a lot of colleges in the midwest, they are spread thinner and have less influence on the general population, and it's worse in the soutwest and the "bible belt", where the majority of colleges are smaller, private and more conservative institutions (Oral Roberts University is thriving, btw).
Media is a whole different story - it works sooooo hard not to step on anyone's toes for fear of offending a part of the public that their advertisers cater to. So despite being painted as "liberal", much of the US media is held hostage by a conservative audience.
Here in the US, states decide on marriage, it's not a federal institution. Some have what are called "civil unions" (I think only about 10 states have these) and only 5 states and the District of Columbia have legal same sex marriage. That's 15 out of 50. Reciprocity laws aren't universal, and so having a civil union/marriage in one state doesn't help if you're in another state that doesn't recognize such a union. You can't inherit, adopt, or make decisions about your partners medical issues, or even visit them in the hospital if visitation is restricted to family only, as are most ICU's. Forget insurance from your partner's work (although most unionized jobs allow it, as do some private companies). You live in a legal limbo, and it can be a nightmare.
So yes, Finland (and many other European countries) are well ahead of the US, since the laws are at least nationally recognized. And others are well behind; much of South America, Africa and Asia come to mind. But I think we're in a unique spot, because of the hodgepodge way in which the US was cobbled together. It'll be a much harder and longer road for us to become a nation that can deal with these issues in a consistant way.
-
Honestly, I think in the US it's just a matter of time.
If you look at the graphs of positions on social issues versus age, younger people in every area tend to have more progressive views and this trend is increasing over time. The US as a whole is also becoming less religious, and let's face it- religion is one of the few reasons that people here are opposing giving gay folks the same rights as the rest of us.
I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.
However, I can't talk to people like LJA because trying to think about this from her (?) perspective makes my brain hurt and my blood pressure rise. There is definitely such a thing as hurting your own side's position based on the manner in which you engage in argument, and I wish people could recognize that dividing line. LJA, I know you mean well, but you really should change your approach, it's ultra-confrontational and makes you out to be the thought-police.
-
While America has become slightly "less religious" (going from about 11% non-religious in the 80's to about 16% now), what's more telling is that the liberal denominations in most religions have declined while the conservative denominations have all showed growth (this includes Jewish and Muslim groups as well as Christians). So what's been happening is what we see in many other aspects of the culture, including our madia and politics - a wider gap and greater polarization.
It will come, yes. Because it's right, indeed.
But it's gonna be a looooong time comin'!
-
Not all. Ohnorobot is missing a chunk in the 900s, and stops completely somewhere in the 1200s. The completion of the professionally done transcription of everything hasn't been announced yet.
-
I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.
Ridiculous. The "right side of history" will not be the same in a hundred years as in two hundred. And if you were living in the sixties or seventies, you might have made the same prediction, or even predicted that socialism would have taken over, and yet here we are. Relying on this kind of teleological argument is almost as insane as relying on God.
-
jwhouk's amazing work on the wiki and on scribd covers all the comics but doesn't try to have all the dialog, though when I search it for something memorable I usually find what I'm looking for.
-
@Carl-E: Thanks for reminding me that in the U.S. the states have a lot of say on matters like this. Perhaps I should have remembered, but somehow that bit never really sank into my brain. I guess the explanation comes from the history, but it always felt somewhat alien to me. Well. It is your country, your rules and you need to play by them. Even the EU seems to operate on different principles, but then again, it is a long way from becoming anything resembling a federal government.
And... Notre Dame is one of the more liberal places? :? Ho'kay. Houston, we have a problem. :psyduck:
-
Oh, it works for me. I told you the numbers of the strips you wanted, but the "joke" of using LMGTFY for the second link was to show what I typed to find the answer to your question. Since all the strips have been transcribed and put into some kind of searchable format, it's really easy to find a strip you've forgotten, if you ever feel the need.
I'm calling BS, i couldn't find the strip where Jeph is contemplating on resorting to crass methods to garner more page views.
-
And... Notre Dame is one of the more liberal places? :? Ho'kay. Houston, we have a problem. :psyduck:
Well no, not liberal. It's still Catholic owned and operated, but it's also large enough that it needs to be accomodating.
Let's call it middle-of-the-road. Compared with Oral Roberts, or several smaller church-run colleges, it's pretty liberal. But that's like comparing Conservative Judaism to Hassidism...
-
I'm calling BS, i couldn't find the strip where Jeph is contemplating on resorting to crass methods to garner more page views.
I don't remember what you're talking about from that description, but clicking on the wiki link (http://questionablecontent.wikia.com/wiki/Questionable_Content_strip_by_strip) from the earlier google search and searching for Jeph's name on the page leads to 1236 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1236). Is it something else, or a guest strip?
I'm not going to go dragging thru the archives to find the strip number, but it's a guest strip in which Jeph is directed by the "webcomics illuminati" to get on with the sexin' and watch the traffic climb. One assumes the intent is satire, the chief danger of which is that someone is going to be stupidly, and loudly, literal about it.
-
In my comic, I'm going to make a homosexual serial killer the main character. I hope that doesn't offend any gay males who do not personally subscribe to the act of shanking.
Been done. (http://"http://choppingblock.keenspot.com/d/20000920.html")
-
I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.
Ridiculous. The "right side of history" will not be the same in a hundred years as in two hundred. And if you were living in the sixties or seventies, you might have made the same prediction, or even predicted that socialism would have taken over, and yet here we are. Relying on this kind of teleological argument is almost as insane as relying on God.
I believe that, all else being equal, the more intelligent, enlightened view does generally, over time, prevail, in most places, especially with open communication. But here in the US, there are rich and powerful conservatives who generously fund radical fundamentalists, and we liberals have to "accomodate" medieval beliefs alongside modern science. For examples, evolution is being actively fought, and Al Gore's sincere efforts to warn us about global warming are met with vicious, mocking attacks. Conservative Talk Radio, in my opinion, is a curse on my country, and unfortunately succeeds in manipulating many to vote against their own (and my!) interests.
/rant
-
I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.
In the long run, as Keynes famously pointed out (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes), we are all dead. There is no right side to history, no victories are guaranteed, and battles are not won by waiting them out. If someone says "wait it out" to me, I hear "I am quite comfortable with the status quo thank you; stop making a fuss". Those who live their lives subject to abuse and legal discrimination should not be asked to be patient, especially by those who don't.
There is definitely such a thing as hurting your own side's position based on the manner in which you engage in argument, and I wish people could recognize that dividing line.
Maybe there is, but in my experience this argument is usually just another variation on "Oh, shut up!". Generally people have an extremely low tolerance for hearing things that make them uncomfortable, and saying anything at all about social bias and discrimination that they do not themselves experience, will quickly garner accusations that one is "shrill", "counter-productive", or "always going on about it".
-
There is a "right side" to history if there are universal standards of ethics or morals. That is of course a matter of long-running philosophical debate, and of course even if you agree with it the good guys don't always win (Stalin comes to mind as an example of bad guys winning).
I do believe in progress, maybe because I'm American and that belief is part of the culture I grew up in.
Gay rights need to be fought for, but the fighters can take some comfort in knowing that on that particular issue demographics promise that they will prevail.
-
There is definitely such a thing as hurting your own side's position based on the manner in which you engage in argument, and I wish people could recognize that dividing line.
Maybe there is, but in my experience this argument is usually just another variation on "Oh, shut up!". Generally people have an extremely low tolerance for hearing things that make them uncomfortable, and saying anything at all about social bias and discrimination that they do not themselves experience, will quickly garner accusations that one is "shrill", "counter-productive", or "always going on about it".
And there are also times when I hear people who I AGREE with and just want to tell them to shut up because they represent themselves terribly and actually DO hurt their cause.
Throwing everything on people being bigoted is a cop out. He was referring to the fact that the person in this thread refused to explain things for instance because "If you don't get it you will never understand" and basically looked down on everyone that disagreed, or at the least that was the way the text came across.
If you think that is an acceptable way to win people over to your side, I really just don't know what to say to that.
-
@Cold? - You could also make the bad guys winning argument about Reagan.
-
@Cold? - You could also make the bad guys winning argument about Reagan.
Expect can Reagan be remembered as a tyrant who transfromed one of the worlds most backward countries into an economic and military superpower in 15 years, while also synonomous with the slaughter of millions of his country's own citizens in various gulags?
-
There are various levels of bad, although he put us trillions of dollars in debt, and can be said to be largely responsible for the anti-intellectualism movement (along with a whole bunch of things I won't even go into here).
...also, you say "transfromed [sic] one of the worlds [sic] most backward countries into an economic and military superpower in 15 years" like it's a bad thing. I'm not saying how he did it was good by any means, but isn't making your country more powerful what a leader is supposed to do?
-
(moderator)
Political arguments into Discuss, please.
(/moderator)
-
Sorry.
-
I'm sorry, but the whole post supporting Stalin with the Pintsize/Fidel avatar just made me giggle.
I'm a little warped that way, I know.
-
¡Viva la Pube-olución!