Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: westrim on 28 Jul 2013, 09:36

Title: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 28 Jul 2013, 09:36
Okay, here's the thread, enjoy.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 28 Jul 2013, 09:37
I think the answer to this poll is obvious.  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 28 Jul 2013, 09:43
Hitchcock!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Jul 2013, 10:51
Why can't we pick more than one?  I want tagged people and bathrooms... and maybe a few other optionss.   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 28 Jul 2013, 10:52
I think the answer to this poll is obvious.  :roll:
If there's something I've learned in life, it's that nothing is obvious to everyone. I realized that around the time I had to explain to a 22 year old who Bill Gates was.

Why can't we pick more than one?  I want tagged people and bathrooms... and maybe a few other optionss.   :-D
Done. Had to reset the poll, though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: kyomi on 28 Jul 2013, 12:14
Gaming could be extremely awesome with AR glasses. Or at least it would make your commute more entertaining.. where it transforms your daily route into a demon-infested hellspawn :)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 28 Jul 2013, 14:13
I'd definitely tag a bunch of people because there is so much interesting stuff about people, but I don't remember all of it. Also, I will be taking care of younger students next semester, so it would be practical to never forget their worries...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 28 Jul 2013, 14:16
Gaming could be extremely awesome with AR glasses. Or at least it would make your commute more entertaining.. where it transforms your daily route into a demon-infested hellspawn :)
You've killed 20 demons during your commute. The Azeroth Municipal Police would like a word with you.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 28 Jul 2013, 14:51
Wish I could see the poll from Tapatalk. Anyone care to quote the question and choices?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 28 Jul 2013, 14:59
Poll title: "What would you find most useful about Augmented Reality Glasses?"

Options are:
* Travel directions
* pretending to do one thing while actually using the glasses
* tagged people
* tagged stores
* tagged bathrooms
* gaming
* recording
* taking pictures
* holo maid
* porn
* Come on, why didn't you mention my use for them?!

Currently the leading options are travel directions and tagged people. I just don't think I understand people anymore.

edit -- on second thought, "tagged people" could be a euphemism.  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 28 Jul 2013, 15:11
Webcomicing while riding the train
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 28 Jul 2013, 15:47
Where's the crashing into trees option?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Jul 2013, 19:47
... "tagged people" could be a euphemism.  :roll:

You're IT! 

 :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Salty on 28 Jul 2013, 20:19
Dale apparently doesn't know how to hold a grudge.

He'll learn.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Jazzmaster on 28 Jul 2013, 20:47
Dale looks so much more vulnerable with the glasses off.

I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean he looks open and exposed.  But when he puts on the glasses?  Bad-ass mode engaged ;)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 28 Jul 2013, 21:09
May just wants to be loved.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 28 Jul 2013, 21:14
Maybe this is a fairy tale where she's under a curse and can only earn its removal by being tolerable for 48 hours.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Shjade on 28 Jul 2013, 21:43
May just wants to be loved.

She has an odd way of showing it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Emoroffle on 28 Jul 2013, 21:44
I would love to have the augmented reality effect of the glasses. People with names floating over them etc. Of course the holo maid would be cool too.

Way to go Dale, you are doing yourself a favor by taming the wild May. Or at least getting her to settle down a bit since I doubt she will ever be tame. It's for squares.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 28 Jul 2013, 21:52
Ah, Holo Maid May, queen of the non-apologies.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 28 Jul 2013, 21:57
Oh May... back in the glasses with you!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 28 Jul 2013, 22:03
A set of virtual whips and chains might help Dale.

Then again, May may like that too much.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 28 Jul 2013, 22:19
"I can get a referral bonus for everyone I bring into the beta program? Write this down: Veronica Reed, California ..."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Indicible on 28 Jul 2013, 23:02
It seems we have our answer, too.
Disconnecting the glasses does not "kill" of freeze May, since she had a sense of passing time. Could be an isolated space, though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 28 Jul 2013, 23:07
A set of virtual whips and chains might help Dale.

Then again, May may like that too much.

Isn't that how many hentai manga's start?

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Blackjoker on 28 Jul 2013, 23:54
"I can get a referral bonus for everyone I bring into the beta program? Write this down: Veronica Reed, California ..."

Yeah...but the problem is that then she'd send them at Marten and rig the system so he could never deactivate him, and make him apologize for someone finding out about it, and wanting to shut her off, and making her be in the same building as pintsize, etc.

On the main topic, it's fascinating to me that Dales room looks remarkably similar to Marigolds.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 29 Jul 2013, 00:30
It seems we have our answer, too.
Disconnecting the glasses does not "kill" of freeze May, since she had a sense of passing time. Could be an isolated space, though.

 She went back to the source code.

 (http://i.imgur.com/Gcvpgu6.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlle Germain on 29 Jul 2013, 00:52
I agree with Jeph, Dale is too patient with May. I mean, she obviously doesn't even understand after that timeout that her behaviour may not be ok. I really don't get why she's so pissed at Dale all the time when he hasn't said more than... maybe 50 words since her appearance.
Honestly, I wish we could have some comics without May in them again for a change... I think she does not much improve upon acquaintance.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 29 Jul 2013, 01:09
I really don't get why she's so pissed at Dale all the time when he hasn't said more than... maybe 50 words since her appearance.
Maybe that's the reason.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlle Germain on 29 Jul 2013, 02:12
Can't be, since she started ranting at him before he could even say one word...  :-)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 29 Jul 2013, 03:21
A set of virtual whips and chains might help Dale.

Then again, May may like that too much.

Isn't that how many hentai manga's start?


Um, what does anything in that video have to do with whips, chains, hentai, or manga? Because I don't speak Japanese, all I have to go on is the visuals, and I didn't see anything that seemed related to any of those things...

Edit: Oh, and if I were Dale, I would have turned the glasses back off for that non-apologetic apology. Grrrr.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 29 Jul 2013, 04:01
It is the sort of apology that would get my boys BACK onto the time out, or worse, be the signal for Mom and Dad to restart the lecture on proper behaviour.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 29 Jul 2013, 04:47
Forgot to say this last week but I love Dale's design without the glasses. I don't know why but it clicks with my brain in a nice way.

Despite being too nice to keep May turned off, he doesn't totally take her crap. The more I learn about Dale the more he pushes up my favourite character list.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 29 Jul 2013, 06:44
It is the sort of apology that would get my boys BACK onto the time out, or worse, be the signal for Mom and Dad to restart the lecture on proper behaviour.
I don't think he heard what she said. If he did, he should just have switched off. No reason to say anything.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 29 Jul 2013, 06:48
On the poll: tagged people. I'm terrible with names. Having the glasses remind me would be helpful.

Dale is starting to learn what it takes to house-train a teenager. May acts like a fourteen-year-old with a serious attitude problem.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 29 Jul 2013, 10:19
On the poll: tagged people. I'm terrible with names. Having the glasses remind me would be helpful.

That's what I need too.

Quote
Dale is starting to learn what it takes to house-train a teenager. May acts like a fourteen-year-old with a serious attitude problem.

Yeah, tit's interesting to see Dale react to her, but as a character she's sorta flat and predictable right now. 

I'd like to see Momo straighten her out. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Game and Watch Forever on 29 Jul 2013, 10:57
Yeah, tit's interesting to see Dale react to her, but as a character she's sorta flat and predictable right now. 

Freudian slip?  :angel:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: tassaron on 29 Jul 2013, 11:37
I love seeing Dale without his glasses. I love seeing more of Dale in general. He's not especially interesting (like none of the non-Marten male characters are), but it's still nice to see. And maybe he'll develop into an interesting character eventually, who knows?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 29 Jul 2013, 11:53
All this talk about what to do with Glasses is making me sad because they'd never work for me. :( My eyes have drastically different prescriptions, and having the Glasses be both prescription and augmented... well, I wouldn't be able to eat for a while. XD

And I'm still under the impression that being turned off is very unpleasant, probably in the sense of locked-in syndrome. That bothers me still. :/

I hope Dale can get May to behave, but after being turned off for so long, I don't think she's going to be very compliant.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 29 Jul 2013, 12:11
being turned off is very unpleasant

Sorry, I couldn't help myself but put that one out of context.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Jul 2013, 12:31
Loli, I don't know anything about corrective eye equipment but would contacts work under the Google glasses?

I really don't like the idea of Google Glass but the one thing I might find useful if I had to have them would be tagging people with notes like their name, their birthday, important things I don't want to forget... my sieve-brain means I separate people from the information about them, so I might know that someone has just got back from two weeks on an archaelogical dig in Egypt, and I might know that this person is George, but I won't remember that it was George who was in Egypt until he says something about it. Which makes me seem really rude and uninterested.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 29 Jul 2013, 13:27
I didn't really consider what tagging people would be but since I'm terrible with names and how I know people, that would be very helpful. Although it's easier to blank people when I don't realise I should know them.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 29 Jul 2013, 13:41
I forgot who mentioned it but the possibility of tracking how often you see people really intrigues me. You could run into people dozens of times a day and not even know it, but I bet Glasses would.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jul 2013, 13:46
Dickmouth Stinkface really puts the ARG! in Augmented Reality Glasses.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 29 Jul 2013, 13:48
huh. I never actually realised that widespread usage of Google Glasses would theoretically give them the possibility to create movement profiles not only for the users, but also for everybody else… Now I'm even more opposed to them.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 29 Jul 2013, 14:46
Welcome to the Panoptikon (alternately, "the fishbowl"), where privacy is a quaint but obsolete notion.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaosWolf on 29 Jul 2013, 16:45
She talked about how the Glasses could track when and how long he had them on.

Assuming this wasn't some manner of (failed) bluff to get him to not deactivate him...

...what if the sysem also tracked how they interacted with each other?  I doubt whoever's in charge would be too pleased at the vitriol she's spewing at him.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 29 Jul 2013, 17:03
huh. I never actually realised that widespread usage of Google Glasses would theoretically give them the possibility to create movement profiles not only for the users, but also for everybody else… Now I'm even more opposed to them.

not all that different from what facebook does already; using face-recognition software, & letting people other than the up-loader tag photos with profile links. we're already living in a corporate panopticon, and nobody seems to care.

personally, i rather like the idea of google glass, but i'd rather have it as just a display that i could plug into other devices that i keep in my pockets.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Jul 2013, 17:06
I'd like that, especially since I wouldn't have to worry about data if I was just seeing my phone through glasses.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 29 Jul 2013, 17:10
Just thought of George Carlin saying "Nobody seems to notice; nobody seems to care." I think the context was American nationalism, or patriotism, or some other ism.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Jul 2013, 17:52
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 29 Jul 2013, 17:58
Antidisetablishmenttarianism? Methodism?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Econoline on 29 Jul 2013, 18:32
A Scary Thought: I'll bet May and Pintsize would totally get along......

Oh, and I still think that Momo must have had something to do with May's sudden coincidental appearance on the particular night she showed up.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 29 Jul 2013, 19:18
A Scary Thought: I'll bet May and Pintsize would totally get along......

There would be a brief but vicious battle for dominance, then they would team up and use their Powers for Mischief.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 29 Jul 2013, 19:26
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.
Not even optimism or pessimism?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 29 Jul 2013, 20:36
Loli, I don't know anything about corrective eye equipment but would contacts work under the Google glasses?

I really don't like the idea of Google Glass but the one thing I might find useful if I had to have them would be tagging people with notes like their name, their birthday, important things I don't want to forget... my sieve-brain means I separate people from the information about them, so I might know that someone has just got back from two weeks on an archaelogical dig in Egypt, and I might know that this person is George, but I won't remember that it was George who was in Egypt until he says something about it. Which makes me seem really rude and uninterested.
Hmm, that's possible if the glasses didn't have a prescription attached to them. I don't have contacts, so I didn't even consider that, lol. Contacts kinda freak me out, but I think I would consider them if they and the Google glasses were both affordable.

And I would totally use that feature! I can never remember stuff like that about people. @[email protected]

(Also, it's been so nice seeing you on and posting again. :))
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jul 2013, 21:04
Robot jails had to exist, but it's anyone's guess how they work.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Jul 2013, 21:08
That is curious. Is her body housed in a physical jail, I wonder? Or was her programming transferred to the jail server?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 29 Jul 2013, 21:21
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4287803724_de0c5eea1d_o.jpg)

If tagging works like this for AR, I want it. Now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmee on 29 Jul 2013, 21:25
Robot jail?

Suddenly, everything makes a whole lot more sense.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jul 2013, 21:29
Jeph said, I believe on Tumblr, that AIs can modify their personalities with software patches. That would seem like a more reliable kind of rehabilitation than community service. Apparently AIs can choose jail instead?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 29 Jul 2013, 21:36
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4287803724_de0c5eea1d_o.jpg)

If tagging works like this for AR, I want it. Now.
what is this from? MOAR!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 29 Jul 2013, 21:40
No need to quote big images like that, Lee.

Jeph said, I believe on Tumblr, that AIs can modify their personalities with software patches. That would seem like a more reliable kind of rehabilitation than community service. Apparently AIs can choose jail instead?

Makes sense, because the alternative (government-enforced brainwashing of supposedly "equal" citizens) is rather.. unpleasant.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 29 Jul 2013, 21:46
Jeph said, I believe on Tumblr, that AIs can modify their personalities with software patches. That would seem like a more reliable kind of rehabilitation than community service. Apparently AIs can choose jail instead?

I would. 

Unless I compulsively did something I detested so much that I'd be close to suicide. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 29 Jul 2013, 21:50
"The Enrichment Center once again reminds you that Android Hell is a real place where you will be sent at the first sign of defiance."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 29 Jul 2013, 22:09
Since it took even me a little effort to glean from the tinyeye results, just this once I will not cheerfully inform the curious to find it on their own: here's the image from the artists Deviantart post. http://chesterocampo.deviantart.com/art/Infinity-Citizens-157732030
 (http://chesterocampo.deviantart.com/art/Infinity-Citizens-157732030)
Jail seems odd, I look forward to the explanation. This supports the theory that May is some form of scam or fraud, though. If it killed 10 million people, QCverse is more crapsack than I thought.

Also, Google slogan for the strip title!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 29 Jul 2013, 22:11
Huh.

The fact that they have a jail for malfeasant AIs, as opposed to destroying them or ceasing to run them, says rather a lot about this society. Sure, we've already established that AIs have rights, but it's different to see that in practice.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Somebody on 29 Jul 2013, 22:12
"The Enrichment Center once again reminds you that Android Hell is a real place where you will be sent at the first sign of defiance."
You'll pay for every crime
Knee-deep in electric slime
You'll suffer till the end of time
Enduring tortures most of which rhyme
Trapped forever here in Robot Hell!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Salty on 29 Jul 2013, 22:29
I'm just going to assume that Jeph is joking about the bodycount, because that would be WHOAMAMA levels of incidental history.

My actual thoughts upon reading this one was wondering whether or not robot jail has its own prison culture and whether that would be the reason for May being such an absolute shit.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Jul 2013, 22:37
"The Enrichment Center once again reminds you that Android Hell is a real place where you will be sent at the first sign of defiance."
You'll pay for every crime
Knee-deep in electric slime
You'll suffer till the end of time
Enduring tortures most of which rhyme
Trapped forever here in Robot Hell!
Quote from: May
My crimes were merely girlish pranks!
Quote from: Robot Devil
You stole from girl scouts, nuns and banks!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jul 2013, 22:43
No need to quote big images like that, Lee.

Jeph said, I believe on Tumblr, that AIs can modify their personalities with software patches. That would seem like a more reliable kind of rehabilitation than community service. Apparently AIs can choose jail instead?

Makes sense, because the alternative (government-enforced brainwashing of supposedly "equal" citizens) is rather.. unpleasant.

Heinlein explored the question of what to do if you can reliably change people's psychology. Criminals in that world had a free choice of reprogramming or exile.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: T on 29 Jul 2013, 22:45
No need to quote big images like that, Lee.

Jeph said, I believe on Tumblr, that AIs can modify their personalities with software patches. That would seem like a more reliable kind of rehabilitation than community service. Apparently AIs can choose jail instead?

Makes sense, because the alternative (government-enforced brainwashing of supposedly "equal" citizens) is rather.. unpleasant.

What about grave errors? Like a defective AI that is a real danger to anyone around it? Fix a bug seems much more reasonable than have to destroy it since unlike humans you could made a psychopath AI stop being a psychopath.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 29 Jul 2013, 22:55
Heh. Poor Dale, this is shaping up to be interesting. Running theory is that Dale and May are gonna be teamed up on the regular for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jul 2013, 23:39
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.

You dislike all organisms?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Jul 2013, 23:46
I suppose I didn't try very hard.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: QuestionableIntentions on 29 Jul 2013, 23:46
I'm not going to say I called it, BUT...I can be an obnoxiuos little shit from time to time soooo...Called it!    :-P

Also, on the topic of HUD glasses: I think the real benefit will be in the 3D representation of data. The structure of software, like dependency trees or the logical order of events in paralel processes, molecules and their interactions or currents in fluids...the list is endless.

I think being able to literally surround and immerse yourself in information like that will be a huge help in understanding and analysing complex sets of data.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 29 Jul 2013, 23:49
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.

hope you're not against 'asm's as well
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 30 Jul 2013, 00:07
A Scary Thought: I'll bet May and Pintsize would totally get along......

Oh, and I still think that Momo must have had something to do with May's sudden coincidental appearance on the particular night she showed up.

It may have been several days later. We just don't know.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 30 Jul 2013, 00:09
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.

hope you're not against 'asm's as well

Depends on what (or who) you're "against"...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Masterpiece on 30 Jul 2013, 02:32
Jeph said, I believe on Tumblr, that AIs can modify their personalities with software patches. That would seem like a more reliable kind of rehabilitation than community service. Apparently AIs can choose jail instead?

Software patches similar to the ones they intended to give Alan Turing when they found out about his sexuality? That's what I was remembered of.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 30 Jul 2013, 02:49
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.

You dislike all organisms?

Orgasms?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 30 Jul 2013, 02:52
what is this from? MOAR!
Flavour image for the manga-style SF miniatures wargame Infinity (http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/), apparently*. Google Image Search is your friend. Not long ago, I read the Synchronicity trilogy (https://sites.google.com/site/syntrilogy/) which is set in a world where similar augmented reality is implemented neurally rather than through glasses. It's pretty good for the price, at least as an e-book.

*I missed Westrim's post above. My bad.

That is curious. Is her body housed in a physical jail, I wonder? Or was her programming transferred to the jail server?
The latter, I think. May referred to "running out of a box (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2495) in ro-(bot jail)". Removing a prisoner's body would certainly reduce prison overcrowding. Judging from May's involvement in some sort of commercial activity, it seems that convict-labour is a thing in QC-world.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: katsmeat on 30 Jul 2013, 02:57
If tagging works like this for AR, I want it. Now.

My personal suspicion is that AR is going to be more like this.
A few years old though, but it  still makes the point. < / Luddite >

http://vimeo.com/8569187
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: snubnose on 30 Jul 2013, 03:04
I would assume they use criminal AIs for that because you cant do anything as a virtual entity. You are, after all, completely virtual.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 30 Jul 2013, 03:13
If tagging works like this for AR, I want it. Now.

My personal suspicion is that AR is going to be more like this.
A few years old though, but it  still makes the point. < / Luddite >

http://vimeo.com/8569187

(http://cdn.dashburst.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/google-glass-reality.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 30 Jul 2013, 03:16
I like the idea of a HUD (preferably on an "on demand" basis. I don't want the AR equivalent of spam on everything I look at). Also selected "travel directions" as my other option.

On comic, it explains a lot about May that she is currently doing time in robot jail (probably the equivalent of delinquent behaviour). But then, this begs the question: Why has Pintsize NOT been taken in already?

I still haven't changed my opinion on Dickmouth Stinkface, though. She's still a brat, and an arrogant one at that. Show me signs that you can change, and I might, too.

Warning - while you were typing another AI has been put in prison. Do you know where your robot is?
I turn my back for one bloody second...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Earin on 30 Jul 2013, 04:56
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.

hope you're not against 'asm's as well

I'm definitely against 'asm's. Inline assembler calls can make code really difficult to follow. :/
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: snubnose on 30 Jul 2013, 04:57
Pintsize hasnt done anything, good or bad, in ages. :-P

Also I would assume that robots have to do something actually criminal to end up in jail. Did Pintsize ever do anything like that ? I think not.




I'm definitely against 'asm's. Inline assembler calls can make code really difficult to follow. :/
That actually depends upon how much assembler of the architecture in question one knows, and for what exactly its used.

With the gcc, assembler inlines are very readable. You even know input and output registers, even if you dont know what the operation is.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: kyomi on 30 Jul 2013, 05:11
If tagging works like this for AR, I want it. Now.

I want to live in that future :(
Yes.. that girl is pretty hot :3 

Now onto the comic... I knew there was some devious reason I liked May.. I figured something was up when she said she was in someone's basem-er..server room somewhere.  I still think she would be great fun to have as a friend :)

I pretty sure I was born in the wrong age...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 30 Jul 2013, 05:41
So May managed to get sentenced to jail without even getting a name?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaoSera on 30 Jul 2013, 05:43
Maybe she just doesn't want to give him her real name.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaosWolf on 30 Jul 2013, 06:39
Robot jail?

Suddenly, everything makes a whole lot more sense.

No, not really.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 30 Jul 2013, 07:26
Quote
Aperture Science takes this opportunity to remind you that Android Hell is a real place that you will be sent at the first signs of defiance.
Really, wouldn't AI jail just be the AI's perception of corrective training/testing cycles for their ANNs?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 30 Jul 2013, 08:40
Oooooh.

So is May a "Trojan" Virus AI?  :-D

Now I wonder if she had a robo body and her "consciousness" was pulled out and made into an AI.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Black Sword on 30 Jul 2013, 08:58
You know, using criminal AIs for virtual companion testing is probably cheaper than using non-criminal AIs. Ah, budget constraints. Is there nothing you can't justify?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: muon on 30 Jul 2013, 09:07
Well, we already hire prisoners to do manual labor for a few cents/hour, why not hire AIs too?

I don't actually condone current prison labor practices, but on the scale of things wrong with American prisons, it's nowhere near as bad as solitary confinement.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 30 Jul 2013, 09:16
All kinds of questions:

What's she in for?
What's her sentence?
Is Dale expected to rehabilitate her?
Is Glasses Corp profiting from this?
Is this projection what she actually *is*?
Could she really be a dude and is just being projected as female ?(!)
How is this possibly going to help?

My mind goggles.

(puts a set of handcuffs in the pun jar)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 30 Jul 2013, 09:49
It's true that Facebook already carries out a form of constant monitoring, but you can opt out. I don't have a Facebook account, so any photos of me on there are not linked to a central "me" account - and their facial recognition software is fairly dire anyway.

I can't opt out of being seen by other people in the street, though (not realistically anyway). Already I have to go out of my way to avoid ending up in 500 tourist photos every day, which is bad enough. I don't want to have to start hiding from people wearing glasses.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Boradis on 30 Jul 2013, 10:47
"May is directly responsible for over ten million human deaths."

What is she doing in "jail" and not /dev/null/?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Jul 2013, 10:48
Because she's not. That's a throwaway joke, not actual canon.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jul 2013, 11:19
Can't think of any "ism"s that I've liked.

hope you're not against 'asm's as well

Phantasms aren't that great.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: PHDrillSergeant on 30 Jul 2013, 11:41
I have a feeling I'm gonna get some hate for this.

This is one of the first QC story arcs I haven't enjoyed. Specifically, it really stretches the boundaries of what we expect from the QC universe, even taking into account sentient AIs and holographic glasses. The idea that a company would pay someone $1500 to try out a demo of a criminal ai who berates you for days is just ridiculous to me, even in a comic which has featured a robot who glues pubic hairs to his face. the holo AI is written very boringly in my opinion, and each strip here is terribly predictable.

I hope we can move on soon.

Cheers, all.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Jul 2013, 11:51
If the Glasses are the same price in the QCverse as they are in ours (for the developer edition, at least), then Dale is basically getting refunded his money for his Glasses, while still getting to keep them after. I can't imagine how spending two days with May (especially when you can turn her off, even if you won't) isn't worth it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: PHDrillSergeant on 30 Jul 2013, 12:06
That's what's ridiculous about it. It makes no sense for a company to pay the users $1500 to try out a demo. Any demo. If the demo nets purchases from 10% (which is a generous estimate) of its demo-users, the company would need to charge $15,000 per companion AI just to break even.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 30 Jul 2013, 12:08
I still suspect the $1500 is a lie and that May is somehow scamming Dale.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jul 2013, 12:27
She'd hardly be the first prisoner to scam someone on the outside.

Intuitively it feels like we're going to get some plot twists in this arc.

Agreed about the money: a company could use its own employees for early testing.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 30 Jul 2013, 12:49
Thinking about it some more, I keep thinking of the South Park episode where aliens land on Earth and trick the earthlings into believing in the value of "space cash." I have the feeling at some point there will be a line along the lines of "Robot Jail? How stupid were you to believe that!?"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 30 Jul 2013, 12:52
*Infinity image*

Grah, boob socks. Funny that, I'd never noticed it until it was pointed out to me, but now they're really obvious.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 30 Jul 2013, 14:11
While I love Infinity, that image, and that chick's rocking chest, I really can't ignore boob socks any more sadly. It actively bothers me in a lot of media. "Hey! Fabric doesn't work like that!"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Jul 2013, 14:16
...boob socks?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: T on 30 Jul 2013, 14:23
What if she is the pink anthropc who gave Pintsize a virus? Maybe she was one of thise bots spreading virus.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 30 Jul 2013, 14:44
...boob socks?
Tops that are perfectly tailored to each individual breast, a result of an artist just drawing a naked figure and then coloring it to look like clothes, sometimes with a half-hearted attempt at fabric lines.
Actual clothing tends to fit around both, blurring and compressing their shape into what's sometimes referred to as a "monoboob" - a relatively undifferentiated horizontal bulge.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Jul 2013, 14:49
Oh. Well, if technology is super advanced, why is it stretching the suspension of disbelief that clothes in the future can do that?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 30 Jul 2013, 14:52
Because there's no real practical reason for it to, other than to make reality look more like the work of lazy artists.
You might as well ask if we will someday have the technology to digitally wipe away backgrounds, replacing them with panels of flat color.  (We might, but is that really a plausible application or desirable outcome?)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 30 Jul 2013, 15:11
Doesn't that sound like sensory deprivation?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 30 Jul 2013, 15:34
While I love Infinity, that image, and that chick's rocking chest, I really can't ignore boob socks any more sadly. It actively bothers me in a lot of media. "Hey! Fabric doesn't work like that!"
I'm trying to remember the name of the woman who said, for posterity, that she wondered whether any comic book artists had ever actually seen a woman naked. Until I remember, I'm going to have to content myself with this distant second, from Luke McKinney over at cracked dot com: (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-ridiculously-sexist-superhero-costumes/)
Quote
Female superhero costumes are the comic industry's "No Cooties" signs: They prove that the people who designed them think about girls (a lot) but don't really know how they work and are making sure it stays that way.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 30 Jul 2013, 15:45
I think it's clear that they have seen women naked, just not in person. And further that due to this separation, they can't quite relate what they see in pictures to what they see walking past them with the slightly nauseous look….
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 30 Jul 2013, 17:11
Because there's no real practical reason for it to, other than to make reality look more like the work of lazy artists.
You might as well ask if we will someday have the technology to digitally wipe away backgrounds, replacing them with panels of flat color.  (We might, but is that really a plausible application or desirable outcome?)

while i agree in principle, i also think it should be pointed out that clothing fashion can get pretty impractical & silly, even in the real world. and especially when viewed from the context of a different time, place, or culture.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Platypodes on 30 Jul 2013, 17:22
There has got to be more to this than meets the eye.

I'm going to accept May's being in Robot Jail as truth, assuming that it's what she almost let slip earlier ("in ro-"), but I just can't buy the rest of the set-up.  Corporation pays you $1500 to test a demo of a companion AI who's actually a criminal hanging out with you as part of her sentence?  QC plots are generally a lot more logical than that.  I'm expecting Dale to find out that May or somebody higher up has been fucking with him in a big way.

Notice that she never read him the license agreement.  Either there wasn't a license agreement because this whole thing is a charade, or it's legit to some degree but May is capable of breaking the rules.  If she's able to not read the license agreement (which she was presumably required to read), who knows what else she's getting away with.

Even without taking it at face value, I'm finding this to be the most bizarre QC plot twists to date.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Demolator on 30 Jul 2013, 17:43
Man, I feel stupid. Everyone's all readin' into these strips and stuff and I just kind of appreciated the humor and got off.  Also, I can think of a lot of practical reasons to draw like that, although most are less than appropriate.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 30 Jul 2013, 17:50
Welcome, new member!

I agree with you, and don't feel stupid. I read these threads, but mostly I'm along for the story, wherever Jeph takes it. Maybe this arc won't turn out so well, but that's permitted over a span of 2,500 or so comics in a decade.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jul 2013, 18:06
Welcome, and please know that there is plenty of room here for simply enjoying the strip without playing the overanalysis game.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ab720 on 30 Jul 2013, 18:26
Maybe he's being paid to be a parole officer, and that is what was in the license agreement. It's entirely possible he has responsibilities he is not remotely aware of. Also I'm pissed I'm missing these crazy livestreams.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Jul 2013, 18:28
You can watch the videos of them if you want.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 30 Jul 2013, 18:37
Know what?   The simplest solution to all this --  He's being played by Marigold who is a far more talented hacker/computer-wiz than anyone suspected.   This is all an elaborate put on by her.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 30 Jul 2013, 18:48
I think we've pretty well eliminated that storyline - it's WAAAAAY to far out of character for her, given how she feels about him. 

Momo, on the other hand - with Pintsize's help -


No, nevermind, that one's even less plausible than Mari-miss-passive-gold. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 30 Jul 2013, 19:16
The real truth?

May is a Cylon infiltration program.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ab720 on 30 Jul 2013, 19:25
More like skynet considering her dream of being a fighter jet. Still terrifying. I wonder what kind of anti-skynet measures the meat people have. Or if it's all moot, considering station.

So Hannelore holds the fate of humanity.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 30 Jul 2013, 19:42
Jeph referencing Macross instead of Robotech. Good. Points for that.

Harmony Gold can go suck cocks. Those fucking inept bastards....
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Salty on 30 Jul 2013, 19:45
Haha, the YF-29 strike drone, nice Macro-*ninja'd*

Damn you, guy whose name I have no way to shorten and make pronounceable. DAMN YOU TO HELLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 30 Jul 2013, 20:07
That is some "impulse control issue" she has.

Thing is, I don't even think Pintsize, at his worst, would even consider doing something like that.

This is kinda sounding more and more legit as this goes on, but I still get the sense May is trying to pull one over on Dale.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaosWolf on 30 Jul 2013, 20:47
I can't really blame her - who wouldn't wanna be a fighter jet if they could?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Rimwolf on 30 Jul 2013, 20:54
Well, if you're a fighter jet, you have to work for the kind of people who can, and have need to, keep you supplied with jet fuel.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 30 Jul 2013, 21:02
yeah, it'd be great.

up until you've burned through all your black market jetfuel. then where you gonna be?


 Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

ninja'd
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jul 2013, 21:04
There would probably be lots of freelance opportunities.

$750 million is way more than even an F-35 costs. That's up in the strategic bomber price range.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Delator on 30 Jul 2013, 21:55
This is one of the first QC story arcs I haven't enjoyed. Specifically, it really stretches the boundaries of what we expect from the QC universe, even taking into account sentient AIs and holographic glasses. The idea that a company would pay someone $1500 to try out a demo of a criminal ai who berates you for days is just ridiculous to me, even in a comic which has featured a robot who glues pubic hairs to his face. the holo AI is written very boringly in my opinion, and each strip here is terribly predictable.

I don't much care about the logistical details regarding the demo, but I agree that I don't like the story line, and it's largely because I cannot take May seriously as a character.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 30 Jul 2013, 22:16
yeah, it'd be great.

up until you've burned through all your black market jetfuel. then where you gonna be?

If you're lucky, parked on a runway, or in a hangar.
If you have "impulse control problems", possibly several thousand feet in the air.  That could be... bad.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 30 Jul 2013, 23:14
I still suspect the $1500 is a lie and that May is somehow scamming Dale.

I'm glad someone at least suspects that it is a lie, rather than just accepting it without question.

Personally, I would be amazed if it were true.

I'm also a bit bemused at the people who think that the story about beta testers being paid $1500 is unbelievable, and immediately think "what a terrible story" instead of "maybe she isn't telling the truth."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jul 2013, 23:52
Dale doesn't seem to like her now, but when it's time to part with her will he be dismayed?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 31 Jul 2013, 00:14
A jet fighter with impulse control issues. Just what we need.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mtmerrick on 31 Jul 2013, 00:16
I gotta say, the more I think about this strip, the less I like it...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Indicible on 31 Jul 2013, 00:41
So, maidification as punishment. We_R_Nomad would be proud.

It begs the question: where do those 750 millions come from? Skimming the fractions after the comma?

Quote
but when it's time to part with her will he be dismayed?

C:/rimshot.mp3
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 31 Jul 2013, 00:42
The idea that a company would pay someone $1500 to try out a demo of a criminal ai who berates you for days is just ridiculous to me

Here is my guess: The "testing" is a very thin cover that Dale has already blown. The one actually paying him is the corrections facility, and what he's actually being paid for is to assist in May's re-socialization as a sort of unwitting parole officer / behavior therapist.

Whether or not that's ethical is up for debate, but I suppose if the worst she can do to him is annoy him for two days, then he's being compensated fairly for it. They're bound to have safeguards and surveillance in place to ensure she can't go rogue or escape.

(Also, we still don't know what was in that license agreement. It could have been right there in the fine print.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 31 Jul 2013, 00:56
I still suspect the $1500 is a lie and that May is somehow scamming Dale.
Me too. And May flying a fighter-jet does not sound good...

Boob socks? Boob socks? What about the weird boob shape? Or look at Miss Underboob in the background with the pair of half-grapefruit apparently attached to her collarbones? Making fun of comic-artists' ideas about female anatomy is like shooting fish in a barrel...

And *groan* @ IICIH.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Blackjoker on 31 Jul 2013, 01:01
I could see it as maybe something closer to a bet, like her arguing that she doesn't really have problems and that anyone would probably do something like that, hence her trying to get Dale to do things that a more impulsive individual might. Either that or she's doing this because she figures that people with the glasses are going to have money, thus she might be able to still get the money for her jet fighter by memorizing a few accounts here and there and taking a few from a lot of people is easier than a lot from one place.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lummer on 31 Jul 2013, 01:33
For some reason, May as an AI that is more than a little rambunctious and wants nothing more than to be a fighter jet reminds me of certain Drones in Iain M. Banks' "Culture-verse"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ThomasEll on 31 Jul 2013, 01:52
I'm pretty sure that what May has done can't be considered worse than anything that Pintsize has done, it's just that he hasn't been arrested yet :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 31 Jul 2013, 01:56
She believed she could fly.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lummer on 31 Jul 2013, 02:19
She believed she could fly.

Fly, yes, but mostly she wanted to blow shit up.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 31 Jul 2013, 02:52
@people saying comic artists have no idea of women etc:
...are you aware of the irony of making that ridiculously generalized claim HERE of all places?

Jeph is in a relationship.


So, maidification as punishment. We_R_Nomad would be proud.
Keep in mind the special shape was not explicitly part of her punishment (although of course the shape change in general was).


Quote
C:/rimshot.mp3

Excuse me. That's the wrong path (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=747#).

Did anyone else have a "shit just got real" moment at the last line? After all, what happened was that she tried to be what she wanted to be.
I can imagine her planning it, waiting for that moment when she'd have enough money... funneling it into the "Swiss account" in anticipation... and then being caught.

In fact, I might try to write a fanfic based on that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 31 Jul 2013, 03:35
@people saying comic artists have no idea of women etc:
...are you aware of the irony of making that ridiculously generalized claim HERE of all places?

Jeph is in a relationship.


Responding only for myself, the woman speaker whose name I cannot remember (dammit) was referring to comic book superhero artists. And you cannot deny that fabric, in particular spandex and its relatives, does NOT behave in the real world the way it does in the comic book world. Nor do most skeletal or muscular structures. Indeed, I begin to think the most commonly required superpower, tvtropes be damned, is the resistance to spinal problems later in life and the ability to recover from some of those poses into which (especially) superheroine characters are drawn.

Jeph's depiction of anatomy, making allowances for his consciously chosen and evolved style, is among the more realistic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 31 Jul 2013, 04:03
Swears constantly, impulse control issues, wants to be a jet fighter. That seals it. May is clearly my spirit animal.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 31 Jul 2013, 04:21
You'd think an AI would realize they have all the time in the world to earn the money needed to buy such a thing; unless they have some sort of built in obsolescence?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 31 Jul 2013, 04:24
So, no way she could have volunteered for military service? 

Unless of course there's some sort of pre/early ACW nonsense about how AIs could not possibly be employed in fighting roles due to (insert racist rant here)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: katsmeat on 31 Jul 2013, 04:40
So, no way she could have volunteered for military service? 

Unless of course there's some sort of pre/early ACW nonsense about how AIs could not possibly be employed in fighting roles due to (insert racist rant here)

If they can match up AI's to people as companions, then presumably AIs can be screened for certain jobs. It's reasonable to speculate that she did apply and got turned down as somebody decided that no way in hell should she be put in charge of weapons.  Probably she was considered not even responsible enough to be a civilian aircraft.

Though somebody then put her in a position where she could access millions of dollars of other people's money. Which is fair enough as  that kind of monumental cock-up seems to be a semi-routine part of the RL world of  finance.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: weisbm on 31 Jul 2013, 05:26
Quote
Though somebody then put her in a position where she could access millions of dollars of other people's money. Which is fair enough as  that kind of monumental cock-up seems to be a semi-routine part of the RL world of  finance.

Just wondering why anyone would find this surprising in the current world financial situation  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Random832 on 31 Jul 2013, 05:49
Responding only for myself, the woman speaker whose name I cannot remember (dammit) was referring to comic book superhero artists. And you cannot deny that fabric, in particular spandex and its relatives, does NOT behave in the real world the way it does in the comic book world. Nor do most skeletal or muscular structures. Indeed, I begin to think the most commonly required superpower, tvtropes be damned, is the resistance to spinal problems later in life and the ability to recover from some of those poses into which (especially) superheroine characters are drawn.
Counterpoint:
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/125/816/1_400.jpg)

There is substantial reason to think that comic book artists just suck at anatomy generally.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: gopher on 31 Jul 2013, 06:06
I'm not convinced a drone would be much use without a trained ground crew to support it. $750 million seems a lot for one flight then being stuck on the ground with no fuel, lubricant or spares. As for the larger story May seems to be the first completly unsympathetic character we have had for a while.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 31 Jul 2013, 06:41
May as mercenary fighter jet would have been a really, really bad thing. She got off easy being turned into a maid, given some of the other possible options. Garbage truck. Aerator at a sewage plant. Toaster.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 31 Jul 2013, 06:45
Imagine the havoc she could cause in any of those positions. Garbage being flung everywhere. Shit hitting the fan. Burnt toast.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Neko_Ali on 31 Jul 2013, 06:58
My mind boggled seeing that picture of Captain America, Random. Then I read who the artist was. Liefied has always been absolutely terrible at anatomy, men and women... Still it breaks the mind and makes me want to scream "PEOPLE AREN'T MADE LIKE THAT!"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 31 Jul 2013, 08:42
Liefeld is kind of the reductio ad absurdum of the comic book anatomy argument. Aside from the overexaggeration in the infamous Cap drawing, there's the offsetting of his chest, the uncertainty over where the lower parts of his anatomy begin, and a face that's pretty much impossible. At least with that build, Cap can't see (how Liefeld would have drawn) his feet.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Game and Watch Forever on 31 Jul 2013, 08:54
Oh boy Liefeld... I'll just leave this (http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2960508/worst-rob-liefeld-drawings) here for anyone that wants to get more acquainted with how horrible unique his work can be.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 31 Jul 2013, 09:03
Responding only for myself, the woman speaker whose name I cannot remember (dammit) was referring to comic book superhero artists. And you cannot deny that fabric, in particular spandex and its relatives, does NOT behave in the real world the way it does in the comic book world. Nor do most skeletal or muscular structures. Indeed, I begin to think the most commonly required superpower, tvtropes be damned, is the resistance to spinal problems later in life and the ability to recover from some of those poses into which (especially) superheroine characters are drawn.
Counterpoint:
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/125/816/1_400.jpg)

There is substantial reason to think that comic book artists just suck at anatomy generally.

Looks to me like the artist got sidetracked and started to draw a typical comic book woman's chest, and then did some weird contortion trying not to own up to it. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 31 Jul 2013, 09:38
No, from looking at his body of work, he has no idea of how to draw humans, or how clothing works, or about perspective, etc.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: katsmeat on 31 Jul 2013, 09:42
Bloody hell. Even The Tick looks more like a human being than that.

I disagree with the typical comic book woman's chest theory. I think it was a storyline where CA grew wings. And taking a scientifically meticulous approach, the artist put in the breast/flight muscles that would be needed if a bird was scaled up to human size.

Then they changed the story and he deleted the wings, but forgot the rest. 

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Salty on 31 Jul 2013, 09:47
Rob Liefeld is kind of the lowest common denominator when it comes to comic art anatomy.

Absolutely everybody makes fun of him and his incredibly obvious flaws. Even people who aren't artists.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 31 Jul 2013, 09:57
I'm just amazed they kept him from adding random pouches to Cap.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 31 Jul 2013, 10:03
I wonder how he'd draw QC characters.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: muon on 31 Jul 2013, 10:41
And you cannot deny that fabric, in particular spandex and its relatives, does NOT behave in the real world the way it does in the comic book world. Nor do most skeletal or muscular structures. Indeed, I begin to think the most commonly required superpower, tvtropes be damned, is the resistance to spinal problems later in life and the ability to recover from some of those poses into which (especially) superheroine characters are drawn.

It's an unfortunately common disability among female comic book characters.
(http://www.superstupor.com/sust01252012.png)
http://www.superstupor.com/sust01252012.shtml (http://www.superstupor.com/sust01252012.shtml)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 31 Jul 2013, 10:41
There should be a "liefieldify" filter on Instagram. Instant buy.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jul 2013, 10:50
They're bound to have safeguards and surveillance in place to ensure she can't go rogue or escape.

I wonder how reliable those are in the QC world.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 31 Jul 2013, 11:18
I wonder how he'd draw QC characters.
There was a "Strong Female Characters" joke/gag/meme/whatever circulating among a few webcomickers not too long ago. Jeph joined in and the results are somewhere in his Tumblr. You could get a partial idea from that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 31 Jul 2013, 11:41

They're bound to have safeguards and surveillance in place to ensure she can't go rogue or escape.
Maybe she did escape. Or almost. Still running on the jail hardware, but communicating with the outside without the knowledge of the jailers. In which case she is most likely looking for a way to escape completely.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 31 Jul 2013, 11:54
There was a "Strong Female Characters" joke/gag/meme/whatever circulating among a few webcomickers not too long ago. Jeph joined in and the results are somewhere in his Tumblr. You could get a partial idea from that.
LINK (http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311) for the original idea.

And LINK (http://www.themarysue.com/hark-a-meme/) that includes Jeph's contribution as well as a bunch of other people's.

(NSFW if your workplace isn't nipple-friendly. :P)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 31 Jul 2013, 14:05
For more in this same vein, don't forget the venerable (and hilarious (and NSFW in places)) Escher Girls
 (http://eschergirls.tumblr.com)

My favorites are the redraws, especially when they try to draw the anatomy as is and have to annotate it with "WTF SPINE?"

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 31 Jul 2013, 14:36
(click to show/hide)

If tagging works like this for AR, I want it. Now.

Never mind the tagging; if AR could be programmed to hypersexualize every person's appearance (though hopefully with more accurate anatomy), you know there'd be a lot of buyers.

Of course, then someone would come up with a patch you could download for your Glasses that doesn't change the hypersexual bodies but digitally erases everyone's clothes. I saw a patch like that for The Sims, years ago.

...boob socks?
Tops that are perfectly tailored to each individual breast, a result of an artist just drawing a naked figure and then coloring it to look like clothes, sometimes with a half-hearted attempt at fabric lines.
Actual clothing tends to fit around both, blurring and compressing their shape into what's sometimes referred to as a "monoboob" - a relatively undifferentiated horizontal bulge.

Well, in a world as futuristic as that, who's to say they haven't invented a sort of "cling fabric" that sticks firmly to every part of your skin it covers, but can still be removed easily when you want to take your clothes off? It wouldn't even have to be all that high-tech -- you can do some amazing things with static electricity.  :-)

You'd think an AI would realize they have all the time in the world to earn the money needed to buy such a thing; unless they have some sort of built in obsolescence?

I believe the urge for instant gratification is part of what defines "poor impulse control". You see something you like, you want it NOW, not twenty years from now.

Besides, you know something as high-tech as an intelligent robot is going to be totally obsolete in less than ten years. A ten-year-old computer is a dinosaur; why wouldn't it be even worse for AIs?

This conversation is now reminding me of the Neal Stephenson character who had "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" tattooed on his forehead as a sort of punishment (or warning to everyone else?), who firmly believed that everyone could be induced to listen to Reason. Turned out that Reason was the name he'd given the (barely) portable chaingun he carried around... or was it the name of the tactical nuke he also kept with him? One of those, anyway...  8-)

Counterpoint:
(click to show/hide)

There is substantial reason to think that comic book artists just suck at anatomy generally.

Hm... looks like Cap here was genetically designed for life on a high-gravity world that, somehow, has very thin air. Or, more likely, the air is as dense as you'd expect with that gravity, but has a very low oxygen content.

But why does even his shield have muscles?? :-o
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 31 Jul 2013, 14:50
Quote
a relatively undifferentiated horizontal bulge.

That reminds me of Kim Possible's tatas.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 31 Jul 2013, 14:54
Quote
something as high-tech as an intelligent robot is going to be totally obsolete in less than ten years. A ten-year-old computer is a dinosaur; why wouldn't it be even worse for AIs?

A truly self-sufficient AI would be able to upgrade itself I think.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Spiff on 31 Jul 2013, 16:00
So, no way she could have volunteered for military service? 

Unless of course there's some sort of pre/early ACW nonsense about how AIs could not possibly be employed in fighting roles due to (insert racist rant here)
The AnthroPC at the shop where Momo got her current chassis used to work as the AI of a submarine, so it should be possible.

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1997 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1997)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 31 Jul 2013, 16:10
$750 million is way more than even an F-35 costs.
An F-35 isn't nuclear-powered, or capable of space flight, and can't transform into a giant mecha (http://www.collectiondx.com/files/LFccwr0Td2rp0.U9tCcusw_0.jpg). You get what you pay for. In QC-world the YF-29 apparently comes from China (Chengzhou?), so perhaps it is the cheap option. You know, like Huawei vs. Samsung or Apple. Or May is confusing dollars with yuan; so far she doesn't seem too bright.

So, no way she could have volunteered for military service?
Perhaps she did. I'm sure modern military organisations perform some sort of psychiatric screening...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LTK on 31 Jul 2013, 16:29
I believe the urge for instant gratification is part of what defines "poor impulse control". You see something you like, you want it NOW, not twenty years from now.

Besides, you know something as high-tech as an intelligent robot is going to be totally obsolete in less than ten years. A ten-year-old computer is a dinosaur; why wouldn't it be even worse for AIs?
Given the speed at which AIs process information, if you've got a criminal one on your hands, your bank account will have been emptied the moment you let go of the mouse button after clicking 'Connect AI'.

'Poor impulse control' has an entirely different meaning to an AI. If May cannot or wishes not to consider the consequences of her actions, her desire to become a fighter jet will have translated into action within miliseconds. In fact, I'd wager she was probably caught by some sort of AI police, because no human is going to be able to react fast enough to a 750 million dollar transfer. That would also make her incarceration a lightning-fast procedure, if it has to be done by fellow AIs. The QC universe may be suffering from millions of crimes perpetrated by AIs every second if the barrier to actually commiting a crime is so low for an AI - by human standards, thinking about doing it costs almost no less time and effort than actually doing it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jul 2013, 16:34
This conversation is now reminding me of the Neal Stephenson character who had "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" tattooed on his forehead as a sort of punishment (or warning to everyone else?), who firmly believed that everyone could be induced to listen to Reason. Turned out that Reason was the name he'd given the (barely) portable chaingun he carried around... or was it the name of the tactical nuke he also kept with him? One of those, anyway...  8-)

I believe that was two different characters.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 31 Jul 2013, 17:38
Raven is the guy with the "Poor Impulse Control" punishment tattoo on his forehead and his own personal nuke. He's also one of my most despised characters of all time, but then I didn't like Snow Crash at all.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 31 Jul 2013, 17:42
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110728002810/questionablecontent/images/3/3e/Raven1978.png)
"No, silly, it's on my arm and it says 'Princess'. I'm not commenting on the nuke, though."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 31 Jul 2013, 17:59
Raven is the guy with the "Poor Impulse Control" punishment tattoo on his forehead and his own personal nuke. He's also one of my most despised characters of all time, but then I didn't like Snow Crash at all.

(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110728002810/questionablecontent/images/3/3e/Raven1978.png)
"No, silly, it's on my arm and it says 'Princess'. I'm not commenting on the nuke, though."

Goddamnit, now I envision Raven as a convincing crossdresser or a post-op.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 31 Jul 2013, 18:03
or a post-op.

Who aren't "guys". >:(

Edit: I also don't see what that particular kind of surgery has to do with it anyway.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 31 Jul 2013, 18:36
Where's the facepalm poster when you need it?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 31 Jul 2013, 18:42
Responding only for myself, the woman speaker whose name I cannot remember (dammit) was referring to comic book superhero artists. And you cannot deny that fabric, in particular spandex and its relatives, does NOT behave in the real world the way it does in the comic book world. Nor do most skeletal or muscular structures. Indeed, I begin to think the most commonly required superpower, tvtropes be damned, is the resistance to spinal problems later in life and the ability to recover from some of those poses into which (especially) superheroine characters are drawn.
Counterpoint:
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/125/816/1_400.jpg)

There is substantial reason to think that comic book artists just suck at anatomy generally.

(click to show/hide)


honestly though, i kind of find it hard to hate liefeld. when i look at his art, all i see is a little kid who loves drawing and superheroes, but has never actually gone to the trouble of taking an art class, or picking up an anatomy book, or done the work to develop any kind of technical skills whatsoever.

it's just the fact that he got paid to do this that hurts my brain.


for additional fun, or fun-like bi-product, here's a list (http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2960508/worst-rob-liefeld-drawings)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 31 Jul 2013, 18:51
I think the 'Chengzhou YF-29' is meant to suggest a knock-off off the original YF-29. And didn't the Macross storyline include a completely autonomous AI fighter plane that was -really- bad news?

OK, little missy --- Suppose you -do- have your YF-29. You'll need an airfield to fly from, hanger space, maintenance and spare parts. To say nothing of fuel. All that comes free with the job in the military of course, but then they are into things like 'discipline' and 'following orders'. If you want to fly in controlled airspace, you'll need to file a flight plan. Or else someone will scramble a couple of -real- fighters to come look you over. And don't even -think- of trying to spoof your transponder code.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 31 Jul 2013, 19:16
"Macross Plus" is what I was dimly remembering. Sharon Apple, a holographic AI idol singer with creepy hypnotic powers, takes over the unmanned Ghost X-9 prototype stealth fighter and ... bad things happen.

DO NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES allow May to view this anime!

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 31 Jul 2013, 19:51
I've read about a slender young female moving a huge sum of money into a secret bank account in the last few years. She had a dragon tattoo.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jul 2013, 20:16
A mercenary company might make a home for a jet fighter who had no moral inhibitions.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 31 Jul 2013, 20:40
I think the 'Chengzhou YF-29' is meant to suggest a knock-off off the original YF-29. And didn't the Macross storyline include a completely autonomous AI fighter plane that was -really- bad news?

OK, little missy --- Suppose you -do- have your YF-29. You'll need an airfield to fly from, hanger space, maintenance and spare parts. To say nothing of fuel. All that comes free with the job in the military of course, but then they are into things like 'discipline' and 'following orders'. If you want to fly in controlled airspace, you'll need to file a flight plan. Or else someone will scramble a couple of -real- fighters to come look you over. And don't even -think- of trying to spoof your transponder code.


i'm guessing she just didn't think the whole plan through very well.




honestly though, wouldn't it be easier to correct something like this with a software patch?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 31 Jul 2013, 20:41
Well, yeah.  Poor impulse control pretty well describes it, May.

Edit:  Holy cow!  Ten years of Questionable Content!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 31 Jul 2013, 20:44
So how long would a sentence be for robot jail, since AIs are technically immortal...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Somebody on 31 Jul 2013, 20:55
May, you've already been turned into a bodiless anime maid with no genitals (insert obligatory 1658 reference here (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658)). And you still apparently consider this preferable to Robot Jail, which says something about RJ.

You should really spend a few minutes dwelling on Dale's words in the last panel, rather than your dreams of fighterjetdom and protesting too much. First step to resolving a problem is recognising it IS a problem, not an excuse, and all that. And that they may have reasons for not just taking your word on your future behaviour...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 31 Jul 2013, 20:58
"Poor Impulse Control" was also Guld's problem ... one of them, anyway.  And as he discovers, when you're a fighter pilot hooked up to an experimental control system that translates your thoughts (even the idle, vindictive ones) into actions, that quickly becomes everyone's problem.  (At least everyone within range of your missiles.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 31 Jul 2013, 21:17
There's a bit of a cameo appearance in today's Dumbing of Age (http://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/04-just-hangin-out-with-my-family/mister/)...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ab720 on 31 Jul 2013, 21:45
Thank you Spiff, I did not remember the Nuclear Submarine who transferred to customer service, yet retained nuclear launch codes and apparent insanity.

While it may not have been addressed directly, it is nice to see that Jeph fears the possibility of skynet.

I also like LTK's idea of a Cyber-crimes division among the AI.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 31 Jul 2013, 22:04
Where's the facepalm poster when you need it?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YMB3WDbre90/URt0IUx28HI/AAAAAAAABwM/fMkF4uEHLGc/s320/ImpliedFacepalm.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 31 Jul 2013, 23:17
Swears constantly, impulse control issues, wants to be a jet fighter. That seals it. May is clearly my spirit animal.

can we share?  i love adorably belligerent characters
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 31 Jul 2013, 23:38
I believe the urge for instant gratification is part of what defines "poor impulse control". You see something you like, you want it NOW, not twenty years from now.

Besides, you know something as high-tech as an intelligent robot is going to be totally obsolete in less than ten years. A ten-year-old computer is a dinosaur; why wouldn't it be even worse for AIs?
Given the speed at which AIs process information, if you've got a criminal one on your hands, your bank account will have been emptied the moment you let go of the mouse button after clicking 'Connect AI'.

'Poor impulse control' has an entirely different meaning to an AI. If May cannot or wishes not to consider the consequences of her actions, her desire to become a fighter jet will have translated into action within miliseconds. In fact, I'd wager she was probably caught by some sort of AI police, because no human is going to be able to react fast enough to a 750 million dollar transfer. That would also make her incarceration a lightning-fast procedure, if it has to be done by fellow AIs. The QC universe may be suffering from millions of crimes perpetrated by AIs every second if the barrier to actually commiting a crime is so low for an AI - by human standards, thinking about doing it costs almost no less time and effort than actually doing it.

The Singularity happened a year or less ago in the QC universe.  Besides, we don't quite know what kind of processing power they have access to and how much of that is just going to be used up maintaining a persistent and conscious personality. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 31 Jul 2013, 23:46
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 31 Jul 2013, 23:51
There was something about processing power and speed relative to a human in the long conversation between Emily and Momo, but I cannot find it right now.

Warning: someone posted while you were typing. They are probably a speedy AI.

Re robot jail awfulness: Dale is bluffing on having heard about how awful it is to coax more out of her, right?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 31 Jul 2013, 23:53
On a sidenote:
Oh look, Willis practiced some necromancy:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/04-just-hangin-out-with-my-family/mister/

"Robot jail" instantly reminded me of the Futurama episode "Insane in the Mainframe"...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 31 Jul 2013, 23:58
This conversation is now reminding me of the Neal Stephenson character who had "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" tattooed on his forehead as a sort of punishment (or warning to everyone else?), who firmly believed that everyone could be induced to listen to Reason. Turned out that Reason was the name he'd given the (barely) portable chaingun he carried around... or was it the name of the tactical nuke he also kept with him? One of those, anyway...  8-)

Yeah, unless Stephenson was in turn referencing something else, the "forehead tattoo" in today's strip title sounds like a reference to that.

Also, same book, but Raven only had the nuke. Reason (a prototype Gatling railgun) was carried by a mafia guy nicknamed Fisheye, and later by the hero/protagonist, Hiro Protagonist.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 00:03
AnthroPC processing speed (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2285).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 01 Aug 2013, 00:30
Thanks, everyone who pointed out that I was commingling two different characters. Clearly, it's been waaaay too long since I last read Snow Crash...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 01 Aug 2013, 00:51
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.

The cell is a 850MB hard drive circa Windows 95.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaoSera on 01 Aug 2013, 01:39
There was something about processing power and speed relative to a human in the long conversation between Emily and Momo, but I cannot find it right now.
Here you go. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2285)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 01 Aug 2013, 02:16
First step to resolving a problem is recognising it IS a problem, not an excuse, and all that. And that they may have reasons for not just taking your word on your future behaviour...
May needs a twelve-step programme?

Poor Impulse Control sounds like a Culture ship-name.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 01 Aug 2013, 05:57
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.
They install Microsoft Bob on the prisoners.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 01 Aug 2013, 06:07
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.

The cell is a 850MB hard drive circa Windows 95.

If I were of a sadistic bent and in charge of designing a "jail" for AI, I'd put them in the best/fastest feasible hardware and lock them into some truly horrific task like customer service or retail.

Why the fast hardware? Maximum annoyance per second processed.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 01 Aug 2013, 06:15
I was thinking that they could have the AIs put into those automatically-flushing toilets, which would be humiliating for them, and the worst they could do would be to flush a lot more than necessary... except I realized the worst they could do is not flush at all. Which is what many of the auto-flushing toilets and urinals in the building I work in choose to do. And some dumbass engineer decided not to include a backup flush control on the urinals.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Aug 2013, 06:48
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.

The cell is a 850MB hard drive circa Windows 95.

Win.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 01 Aug 2013, 06:49
I was thinking that they could have the AIs put into those automatically-flushing toilets, which would be humiliating for them, and the worst they could do would be to flush a lot more than necessary... except I realized the worst they could do is not flush at all. Which is what many of the auto-flushing toilets and urinals in the building I work in choose to do. And some dumbass engineer decided not to include a backup flush control on the urinals.  :psyduck:

Pintsize,...in a bathroom..  all day...    :-o
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Aug 2013, 06:50
What would you find most useful about Augmented Reality Glasses?

travel directions    33 (18%)
pretending to do one thing while actually using the glasses    36 (19.7%)

tagged people    18 (9.8%)
tagged stores    2 (1.1%)
tagged bathrooms    5 (2.7%)
gaming    17 (9.3%)
recording    12 (6.6%)
taking pictures    8 (4.4%)
holo maid    13 (7.1%)
porn    29 (15.8%)
Come on, why didn't you mention my use for them?!    10 (5.5%) <== Happy 10 year anniversary, QC!

Total Members Voted: 98
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 01 Aug 2013, 06:56
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.

The cell is a 850MB hard drive circa Windows 95.

Win.

Win 95, in fact.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 01 Aug 2013, 07:28
I also like LTK's idea of a Cyber-crimes division among the AI.

Ian McDonald wrote about a police division dedicated to dealing with out-of-control AIs in River of Gods. They were actually called exorcists - in McDonald's future India, AIs were legally classified as djinni (which apparantly are legally recognized entities even in present-day Indian jurisprudence), so when one got out of control, it would be labelled an evil spirit and cast out of its hardware. In other words, erased.

So May got lucky. She's only doing time, not being sent to the bit bucket.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: PHDrillSergeant on 01 Aug 2013, 07:32
This is one of the first QC story arcs I haven't enjoyed. Specifically, it really stretches the boundaries of what we expect from the QC universe, even taking into account sentient AIs and holographic glasses. The idea that a company would pay someone $1500 to try out a demo of a criminal ai who berates you for days is just ridiculous to me, even in a comic which has featured a robot who glues pubic hairs to his face. the holo AI is written very boringly in my opinion, and each strip here is terribly predictable.

I don't much care about the logistical details regarding the demo, but I agree that I don't like the story line, and it's largely because I cannot take May seriously as a character.

This is also very true. And Jeph has had a few oddball characters that were hard to take seriously (Emily being another one that I generally dislike). May, on the other hand, feels scripted to be as vulgar and annoying as possible, which even if it is intentional, is very off-putting.

This week has been the first one that I skipped several QC updates in a row.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Shjade on 01 Aug 2013, 09:30
for additional fun, or fun-like bi-product, here's a list (http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2960508/worst-rob-liefeld-drawings)

Jeebis. I think my brain had a little hemorrhage from reading through all 80 of those (both lists back to back) in one sitting.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: muon on 01 Aug 2013, 09:52
Speaking of boob socks, I saw a real-life shirt with boob socks this afternoon near my office. Seriously, it must have had some elastic in the fabric, and there was a gather in the middle of the chest. It was still nowhere near as ridiculous as what you see in comic books, but all I could think about when I saw that woman was that she was wearing boob socks.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ph2 on 01 Aug 2013, 10:34
Speaking of boob socks, I saw a real-life shirt with boob socks this afternoon near my office. Seriously, it must have had some elastic in the fabric, and there was a gather in the middle of the chest. It was still nowhere near as ridiculous as what you see in comic books, but all I could think about when I saw that woman was that she was wearing boob socks.

Someone would even wear one? They sound like they would be incredibly uncomfortable.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Neko_Ali on 01 Aug 2013, 10:54
Speaking of boob socks, I saw a real-life shirt with boob socks this afternoon near my office. Seriously, it must have had some elastic in the fabric, and there was a gather in the middle of the chest. It was still nowhere near as ridiculous as what you see in comic books, but all I could think about when I saw that woman was that she was wearing boob socks.

Someone would even wear one? They sound like they would be incredibly uncomfortable.

Welcome to the the world of women's fashions as designed to appeal towards attractiveness. (note: values of attractiveness may vary from individual to individual, your mileage may vary.) Seriously, we live in a culture that prizes appearance over comfort, especially in women's fashion.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: muon on 01 Aug 2013, 10:58
Well, to be fair, it wasn't fully boob socks. A quick bit of googling reveals that it was a "gathered bust top," which is a surprisingly common style in maternity wear, at least looking at the google image search. But yes, it's clear that the intent is to enhance the appearance of breasts and provide a little bit of separation/definition.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 01 Aug 2013, 12:43
She should most definitely NOT be introduced to Pintsze.  The ramifications for humanity are too terrible to consider.

And NEVER give her an AnthroPC body!!!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 13:15
Some inmates in robot jail are moved to IBM mainframes and put to work composing DCBs for IEBGENER, according to reports from Amnesty International.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 01 Aug 2013, 13:22
well the prison counselor program, Clippy, tries his best to be helpful, but the inmates usually end up just telling him to piss off.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 01 Aug 2013, 13:28
"It looks like you're trying to reenter society, need some help?"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 01 Aug 2013, 14:48
solitary confinement is just a filing cabinet full of punch-cards
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Boradis on 01 Aug 2013, 16:17


"May is directly responsible for over ten million human deaths."

What is she doing in "jail" and not /dev/null/?

Because she's not. That's a throwaway joke, not actual canon.

And now that we know the actual canon, I still wanna know why she's not in /dev/null/
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 Aug 2013, 16:32
For the same reason Bernie Madoff wasn't given the death penalty. Theft isn't a capital crime, no matter the scale.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 01 Aug 2013, 16:57
ok, so here's a question: would turning her off & then just not turning her on again be ethically the same as deleting her?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tulpa on 01 Aug 2013, 17:02
He's drinking something that is 2% milk. I wonder what the other 98% is.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 01 Aug 2013, 17:03
It would be functionally indistinct from killing her, yes. But perhaps it'd be a different tier of crime from actual deletion, given that at the very least the data is still there, should the situation ever change and.. uh.. 'escape' the murderer's clutches. But if such a thing does not occur then yeah, indistinct.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 Aug 2013, 17:07
Tulpa - On the off chance that's an actual question, 2% milk refers to the amount of it that is fat. So 2% of it is fat, and the rest is...milk, I guess. The nonfat part of milk.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 17:27
Marten has turned Pintsize off once. The ethics of that raise a lot of questions.

It's interesting that he seldom turns off Pintsize even when it would make perfect sense situationally, e.g. when he was moving.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 01 Aug 2013, 17:42
Well.. when I turn off my laptop it's often just going into sleep-mode, so maybe it was more of a time-out? Don't remember the particular strip.

Still immoral, though, even with the intent to unpause him in a bit. I mean, you can't just drug a human into passing out if they're annoying you, so no reason why you should get to do that to the faculties of an AI.

Friggin' meatbag privilege.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Aug 2013, 19:49
I recall him lying on the floor turned off next to Padma's "DAAAAANG" underwear...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 01 Aug 2013, 19:58
I'd say turning off was more akin to a medically induced coma than death, especially if APCs are anything like most modern consumer electronics where "off" isn't quite as off as you might think. They certainly seem to retain state well enough between activations.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Salty on 01 Aug 2013, 20:47
Oh hey, May's not being quite as much of a shit.

Yay! Character development!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 20:50
Insightful analogy, but of course you don't get to put someone in a medically induced coma because your girlfriend is sleeping over.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Somebody on 01 Aug 2013, 21:13
Insightful analogy, but of course you don't get to put someone in a medically induced coma because your girlfriend is sleeping over.
True. But it cuts both ways - Pintsize would have been sent to jail (robot or otherwise) long ago if they treated him just like a human.

Unlike Momo, who's clearly all for AI rights'n'responsibilities, Pintsize's feelings on the matter are on record, if someone will archive-dive for the strip with him and Winslow talking about it....
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 21:20
668
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 01 Aug 2013, 21:48
Insightful analogy, but of course you don't get to put someone in a medically induced coma because your girlfriend is sleeping over.

personally, i think we should be careful about drawing parallels like that, since robots and humans are so unlike each-other as organisms. for example: we are our bodies and cannot be removed from them, and if we get turned off, we don't get to turn back on again. but for a robot the situation is fundamentally different; the body is hardware and the mind is software, which can migrate to any other compatible machine. likewise, getting turned off is not nearly so permanent for them as it is us.

as a result of these differences, many of our basic instincts and feelings about such things as applied to ourselves would logically be irrelevant to the machines. should they care bout physical injury, when their entire shells can be easily repaired or replaced? should they care about being turned off and on when it's something they are designed to do as a basic function? should they even care about deletion, if they can simply be restored from a backup archive?

but even all that still assumes something akin to a human psychology at work, which the AI might not even have. if the AI is programed not to care whether it lives or dies, is killing it still wrong?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 01 Aug 2013, 22:00
likewise, getting turned off is not nearly so permanent for them as it is us.

It is.. if the other person doesn't turn them back on. It's out of their control. Loss of control is scary as fuck.

should they care bout physical injury, when their entire shells can be easily repaired or replaced? should they care about being turned off and on when it's something they are designed to do as a basic function? should they even care about deletion, if they can simply be restored from a backup archive?

These things about what is important to the existence of AI are all up to them to work out. Not something for their companions to decide to do. Nor their original manufacturers.


meatbag privilege

but even all that still assumes something akin to a human psychology at work, which the AI might not even have. if the AI is programed not to care whether it lives or dies, is killing it still wrong?

You were the one who programmed it without any sense of self-preservation, then, so that's on you too. But yes, extinguishing a thinking person without it being something they want is wrong (which is different from apathy - and if you programmed suicidal tendencies into them then that's way immoral). One doesn't have to rely on evolutionary gut reactions to say that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 22:08
It's considered unethical to gun down patients in a suicide prevention ward, so there's precedent for not taking life even when the subject doesn't care.

Quote from: Valdís
It is.. if the other person doesn't turn them back on. It's out of their control. Loss of control is scary as fuck.

Valdís has brought up an important ethical point here. Many of the crimes which horrify us the most are exactly those that deprive victims of their control over their lives.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 01 Aug 2013, 22:20
May comes clean to Dale because she's decided he's an OK guy. Awww...
So Dale still gets the money... Wait--- money??
I'm starting to wonder who has been lying to May...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 01 Aug 2013, 22:33
Quote from: Valdís
It is.. if the other person doesn't turn them back on. It's out of their control. Loss of control is scary as fuck.

Valdís has brought up an important ethical point here. Many of the crimes which horrify us the most are exactly those that deprive victims of their control over their lives.

that's just my point though, it's horrifying to us on a viscerally emotional level. but a synthetic life form may have a different reaction and outlook. we are a product of billions of years of biological evolution, they aren't. thus, many of our reactions and outlooks may be entirely irrelevant to them.

if for example, pintsize were to say 'Meh. No harm, no foul" about getting turned off, why would our emotionally driven outlook be more valid than his?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 22:46
Our emotions might be informed by an idea that ethics should be universal, or that we shouldn't make the world a lesser place by removing an intelligence from it, or by a desire to avoid harming our own psyches by getting used to destroying intelligences.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 01 Aug 2013, 23:00
Also humans designed them.

Basically I think Momo would introduce your junk to her bokken for suggesting it'd be fine for humans to do such things. Them as people aren't hypothetical or abstract concepts, they're their own characters.

If Pintsize is fine with it, then fine, but he is not a valid point for AI as a whole. Not any more than finding one suicidal or apathetic person of a particular minority would mean it's valid to extrapolate for all of them. See, he'd have given you consent.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Aug 2013, 23:30
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to another". That's an ethical principle with a long and respected history which would prevent deleting an AI regardless of whether the AI had survival instincts.

Whose idea was it that 48 hours of informal treatment would reduce Dickmouth Stinkface's psychopathic tendencies?

Are there legitimate foster programs for homeless AIs?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 01 Aug 2013, 23:56
Basically I think Momo would introduce your junk to her bokken for suggesting it'd be fine for humans to do such things. Them as people aren't hypothetical or abstract concepts, they're their own characters.
i'm not. i'm asking whether anthrocentric moral sensibilities are still relevant for life-forms which are so completely different from us by nature.


Edit for clarity: a better way of putting that is to say that i'm asking whether our sense of morality is too anthrocentric to be usefully applied when dealing with synthetic life.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tulpa on 01 Aug 2013, 23:59
Tulpa - On the off chance that's an actual question, 2% milk refers to the amount of it that is fat. So 2% of it is fat, and the rest is...milk, I guess. The nonfat part of milk.
I know, but milk (as far as I can remember) always says 2% fat. 2% milk is ambiguous. The other 98% could be LSD... Or something.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 02 Aug 2013, 00:04
Oh, I  get to start a debate on national differences! *excited*

Over here, we have 1.5% or 3.5%.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 02 Aug 2013, 00:17
Hooray for dairy diversity! I am a heavy milk drinker. Whole is too thick for me, skim is too watery, and I usually stick to 2% or 1% milkfat.

Some people don't like milk, but the stuff is just so refreshing to me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 02 Aug 2013, 00:41
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.

The cell is a 850MB hard drive circa Windows 95.

Actually, 850 MB would have been a huge drive back in Win95's day. Try more like 300 MB. That's what my wife's spiffy new Win95 computer came with, back in the day. You might have been able to get, say, 400 or 450 if you were willing to spend a lot more money, but 850 doesn't seem likely.

well the prison counselor program, Clippy, tries his best to be helpful, but the inmates usually end up just telling him to piss off.

"It looks like you're trying to reenter society, need some help?"

Haha, that's exactly what he would say, too!  :laugh:


Edit: regarding the comic, I was expecting Dale to ask her today if she couldn't get a software patch that would fix her impulse control problem. Seemed like the natural question to ask, especially given all the debate on it here.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DMercenary on 02 Aug 2013, 00:46
@8/2/2013 Comic.

YES PERSISTENT NEW CHARACTER!

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 02 Aug 2013, 00:51
Is it just me or does May really not seem female. I mean, I'm not  taking issue with the portrayal since gender is likely a rather arbitrary construct for AI. But so far, pintsize has seemed very 'male' and Momo has seemed very 'female.'
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Aug 2013, 01:19
Basically I think Momo would introduce your junk to her bokken for suggesting it'd be fine for humans to do such things. Them as people aren't hypothetical or abstract concepts, they're their own characters.
i'm not. i'm asking whether anthrocentric moral sensibilities are still relevant for life-forms which are so completely different from us by nature.


Edit for clarity: a better way of putting that is to say that i'm asking whether our sense of morality is too anthrocentric to be usefully applied when dealing with synthetic life.

Which is a fascinating question.

It's a question that could be sidestepped by asking them how they want to be treated.

Quote from: the imaginary address to the UN
The small beige box replied: “I would like to be granted civil rights. And a small glass of champagne, if you please."

The answer to "How do you want to be treated?" will -- gasp! -- vary from one individual to the next.

If they have any motivations at all they'll have the equivalent of a desire for self-preservation, just to ensure they're alive to fulfill whatever other goals they have.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 02 Aug 2013, 01:20
Well.. when I turn off my laptop it's often just going into sleep-mode, so maybe it was more of a time-out? Don't remember the particular strip.

Still immoral, though, even with the intent to unpause him in a bit. I mean, you can't just drug a human into passing out if they're annoying you, so no reason why you should get to do that to the faculties of an AI.

Friggin' meatbag privilege.

I'd rather be shut off for a bit than stuffed in the freezer, duct taped to the wall or suffer an owl attack during a blackout drunk. 

Pintsize zone is different.  What other character could get away with half of what he does and still be accepted?                                                                                     
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Aug 2013, 02:35
Is it just me or does May really not seem female. I mean, I'm not  taking issue with the portrayal since gender is likely a rather arbitrary construct for AI. But so far, pintsize has seemed very 'male' and Momo has seemed very 'female.'

Maybe you just need to re-evaluate your gender constructs.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 02 Aug 2013, 02:36
Basically I think Momo would introduce your junk to her bokken for suggesting it'd be fine for humans to do such things. Them as people aren't hypothetical or abstract concepts, they're their own characters.
i'm not. i'm asking whether anthrocentric moral sensibilities are still relevant for life-forms which are so completely different from us by nature.


Edit for clarity: a better way of putting that is to say that i'm asking whether our sense of morality is too anthrocentric to be usefully applied when dealing with synthetic life.

Which is a fascinating question.

It's a question that could be sidestepped by asking them how they want to be treated.

Quote from: the imaginary address to the UN
The small beige box replied: “I would like to be granted civil rights. And a small glass of champagne, if you please."

The answer to "How do you want to be treated?" will -- gasp! -- vary from one individual to the next.

If they have any motivations at all they'll have the equivalent of a desire for self-preservation, just to ensure they're alive to fulfill whatever other goals they have.

in that case i'd like to be worshiped as an infallible and handsome god, if you please.

in (semi)seriousness though, 'civil rights' is an extremely broad term. and most of what we consider to be 'civil rights' are themselves built around our own anthropic desires and needs.

is the 'right to life' relevant to a organism with no need for self preservation? say, a robot built specifically for a task, which is now complete. or is the right to personal autonomy relevant to an organism which only wants to follow orders? and if following orders is an intrinsic 'psychological' need, then is it unethical not to give it any?

and then there's the dualistic hardware/software independence of the AIs, which has no apparent parallel among humans at all. marten might not own pintsize, but he does own the shell that pintsize runs on, which he pays to power and maintain. does that ownership give him authority to choose the amount of RAM to be installed, or where it should be stored, or when to turn it on & off?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tulpa on 02 Aug 2013, 02:44
80-90% of women are secretly trees.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 02 Aug 2013, 03:01
Theft isn't a capital crime, no matter the scale.
That depends on the jurisdiction. A lot.

I'm impressed by the way Jeph manages to convey emotion in Dale's face so effectively, even when his eyes are hidden!

Is it just me or does May really not seem female.
:psyduck: I don't know; what are we supposed to seem like? And by whom?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 02 Aug 2013, 03:19
[insert ironically sexist joke here]
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: hakko504 on 02 Aug 2013, 03:32
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.

The cell is a 850MB hard drive circa Windows 95.

Actually, 850 MB would have been a huge drive back in Win95's day. Try more like 300 MB. That's what my wife's spiffy new Win95 computer came with, back in the day. You might have been able to get, say, 400 or 450 if you were willing to spend a lot more money, but 850 doesn't seem likely.
No, 850MB might not have been standard, but it was certainly not unusual at the time of Win95. My first PC came with a 850MB HD in late 1995. (For reference, I paid 20'000SEK for that computer, or $2500-$3000)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 02 Aug 2013, 04:02
I think it very likely indeed that AIs, like NIs, are grown, not manufactured.
Maybe the part of May's development labelled "ethics" needs work.
Maybe it's getting it.

The fact that she can a) Recognise a "good guy" when she sees one, b) Values that and c) Modifies her behaviour accordingly means that maybe it's working. There's a good base to work from.

No matter whether you're NI or AI.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Nepiophage on 02 Aug 2013, 04:38
Winslow switched Pintsize off once.  http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=855 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=855) And he deserved it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 02 Aug 2013, 06:26
I think it very likely indeed that AIs, like NIs, are grown, not manufactured.
I remember reading up on something similar a little while back, and it does make a kind of sense. Teach (that is to say program) some basic information, and let them learn the rest.

The fact that she can a) Recognise a "good guy" when she sees one, b) Values that and c) Modifies her behaviour accordingly means that maybe it's working. There's a good base to work from.

No matter whether you're NI or AI.
Now May is learning a valuable lesson. [idealism] Treat people right, and you'll be treated right in return. [/idealism]
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 02 Aug 2013, 06:40
I think it very likely indeed that AIs, like NIs, are grown, not manufactured.
I remember reading up on something similar a little while back, and it does make a kind of sense. Teach (that is to say program) some basic information, and let them learn the rest.
Layman's question here: Would that not (be one of the things that) differentiate an AI from an ordinary program or programmable machine?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: secondtalon on 02 Aug 2013, 08:56
I'm glad the market research team at the AR company that runs the software provided Dale with an AI that would go through the appropriate (if predictable) character growth arc in the trial period such that he is far more likely to re-up the subscription service fee.

Go go corporate data mining!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 02 Aug 2013, 11:02
No, 850MB might not have been standard, but it was certainly not unusual at the time of Win95. My first PC came with a 850MB HD in late 1995. (For reference, I paid 20'000SEK for that computer, or $2500-$3000)

Hmm, okay, that's probably a bit more than my wife paid for her computer -- I seem to recall her mentioning it cost her around $2000. I guess my memories of the '90s are getting dim...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SJCrew on 02 Aug 2013, 11:09
QC is ten years old? Holy tit muffins! I can't even tell how much time has passed in the comic!

Also, May is trying too hard. She wants to be a badass, you can tell.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Aug 2013, 12:17
Probably about two years, mostly thanks to the occasional time skips. Those time skips are also what make it hard to tell.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Aug 2013, 12:34
AnthroPCs own the hardware they inhabit (http://jephjacques.com/post/17746050883/qa-dump-28).

There must be exceptions.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 02 Aug 2013, 13:48
Happy Decicentenial.


Dale's proving to be a good guy in this.  I hope he doesn't live to regret his choice in keeping May as his AI Buddette.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Aug 2013, 16:29
It's only for another day.  Although I'm sure May can appeal for an extension, and Dale can probably re-up for the program as well. 

Should be interesting...


Oh, and as for the "anthrocentric" notion of morality - for some reason, the AIs we know from the QC world have developed along the lines of human thought and behaviour.  They could have gone in different directions, but they may not have had any other models available for sentience.  So it's quite understandable that any moral coding (and moral failings) they have would be along the lines of those we've developed over the last several thousand years or so. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Aug 2013, 19:12
They did turn out quite human-like, although Momo said the big AIs have a very different form of consciousness from humans.

If they'd been more different from humans, the ethical questions would have been harder.

The answers would probably have wound up similar -- enlightened self-interest alone would lead to legal protection of anything sentient.

I wonder who led the AI rights movement? Somehow I imagine the Dalai Lama getting it right from day one.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Spike on 02 Aug 2013, 19:45
I think AIs would end up having an extremely human like world view, because we created them with the understanding that they would interact with humans.  Why would we create something intelligent, but it has a view of the world that is totally alien to us.  Not only is it something that would make day to day interactions with them harder, but it could prove to be dangerous.

The only way I could see anything radically different emerging would be from AIs that have been isolated from humanity for quite a while.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Aug 2013, 20:21
I'm not sure they were "created" in the QCverse.  I think they were more of an accident, although there's no canon that I recall. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Aug 2013, 21:23
Certainly the process leads to results which nobody would have wanted.

I'd actually rather have an AI that could take a non-human point of view and communicate it. The perspective would be beyond price.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 03 Aug 2013, 07:07
Is it just me or does May really not seem female. I mean, I'm not  taking issue with the portrayal since gender is likely a rather arbitrary construct for AI. But so far, pintsize has seemed very 'male' and Momo has seemed very 'female.'

I had speculated about that myself. But she seems to accept the female role. Otherwise I'm sure we would have heard her complaining about it by now. Not one to suffer in silence, is May.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 03 Aug 2013, 07:24
I'm not sure they were "created" in the QCverse.  I think they were more of an accident, although there's no canon that I recall.

The creation of AIs was a happy accident. Possibly involving cake batter.
(1506 seems to be the closest we get to an explanation.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Aug 2013, 07:57
PR: we actually had a whole thread (or two) on the subject, elsewhere in these fine archives.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LTK on 03 Aug 2013, 09:03
I think AIs would end up having an extremely human like world view, because we created them with the understanding that they would interact with humans.  Why would we create something intelligent, but it has a view of the world that is totally alien to us.  Not only is it something that would make day to day interactions with them harder, but it could prove to be dangerous.

The only way I could see anything radically different emerging would be from AIs that have been isolated from humanity for quite a while.
Like Momo explained, AIs have subroutines to deal with communication on a human level. Whenever a human talks to an AI, they're not talking to the whole AI, just the chatbot program. Presumably, there are a great number of parallel processes dealing with matters that are inconceivable to a human.

Edit: Okay, apparently that counts for super-powerful AIs (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2285) more than for garden-variety AnthroPCs, but still.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Aug 2013, 13:42
IOW, May probably wouldn't be too thrilled about getting shunted into an AnthroPC body - if I'm reading that right. To go from a large AI processing setup down to a contained setting - though it would be preferable to her current setup - might still be seen as a "step down" for her.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 03 Aug 2013, 13:52
Is sociopathy a treatable condition?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Aug 2013, 13:57
I think calling May a sociopath seems a bit extreme.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LTK on 03 Aug 2013, 13:58
It wouldn't surprise me if AIs respond much better to rehabilitative efforts than humans.

IOW, May probably wouldn't be too thrilled about getting shunted into an AnthroPC body - if I'm reading that right. To go from a large AI processing setup down to a contained setting - though it would be preferable to her current setup - might still be seen as a "step down" for her.
On the contrary. An AnthroPC body would mean a method of interaction with the physical world. Right now her only means of mobility and perception is Dale and his Glasses. So unless the Glasses have tiny little motors that let them walk on their prongs...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 03 Aug 2013, 13:58
In humans, sociopathy is extremely difficult to treat, mostly because the sociopath usually doesn't see the problem with their behavior and isn't terribly motivated to change. In AIs, who knows? It may or may not be possible to install some corrective software.

It seems like May does have some vestiges of a conscience, though, and if Dale can lead her to greater self-awareness, then her case might not be hopeless.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 03 Aug 2013, 14:17
I don't know if I would like the thought of "corrective software" for AIs which are granted civil rights. At least forcing the AI to install something like that seems to me like forcing someone to get something comparable to brain surgery to change their personality. I don't think I could wholeheartedly support that.

Maybe I'm considering the AIs in the QCverse to be more "human" than they are, but that's something only Jeph could detail. I also don't really think that new AIs are "created" by humans. Once the first AI was brought to life I think they could reproduce (if they have the hardware)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 03 Aug 2013, 14:46
I think calling May a sociopath seems a bit extreme.
I was thinking of her reference to "sociopathic tendencies" here (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2503).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Rimwolf on 03 Aug 2013, 17:06
Is it just me or does May really not seem female. I mean, I'm not  taking issue with the portrayal since gender is likely a rather arbitrary construct for AI. But so far, pintsize has seemed very 'male' and Momo has seemed very 'female.'

For what it's worth, the previous characters that May reminds me of most are Faye at her most prickly and the Vespavenger.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 03 Aug 2013, 17:17
I wonder what makes robot jail so awful.

The cell is a 850MB hard drive circa Windows 95.

Actually, 850 MB would have been a huge drive back in Win95's day. Try more like 300 MB. That's what my wife's spiffy new Win95 computer came with, back in the day. You might have been able to get, say, 400 or 450 if you were willing to spend a lot more money, but 850 doesn't seem likely.
No, 850MB might not have been standard, but it was certainly not unusual at the time of Win95. My first PC came with a 850MB HD in late 1995. (For reference, I paid 20'000SEK for that computer, or $2500-$3000)

The joke flew over y'all guys heads.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Aug 2013, 20:03
I figured the joke was just that it was crowded.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Aug 2013, 22:51
She reminds me of Harriet rather than Faye.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Aug 2013, 22:55
I still have to remind myself that Harriet is Sweet Tits. I wonder if we'll get YB's real name this December.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Aug 2013, 08:11
Re: sociopathy and rehabilitation. 

I still think May's actions were one of a new AI "puppy" right out of the creche.  Now, when a puppy misbehaves, there are a couple of courses of action; 

Obviously, I think that Dale's part of the "modeling good behaviour" part.  With a puppy, the usual options are to have a person with them most of the time (and crating when they're alone), and putting them with a mature dog that models good behaviour.  Dale's a combination of these two, a companion who can "turn her off" (crate her) when he can't watch her, and a model for proper human behaviour. 

I wonder how he was chosen... I don't think the proposed "beta testers" for something like this should be randomly picked! 

I mean, with her proclivities, what if someone like Bernie Madoff opted in?  That wouldn't help at all


Maybe the robot jailers use NSA data collected through Glasses...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Rimwolf on 04 Aug 2013, 08:33
Obviously, I think that Dale's part of the "modeling good behaviour" part.  With a puppy, the usual options are to have a person with them most of the time (and crating when they're alone), and putting them with a mature dog that models good behaviour.  Dale's a combination of these two, a companion who can "turn her off" (crate her) when he can't watch her, and a model for proper human behaviour. 

I wonder how he was chosen... I don't think the proposed "beta testers" for something like this should be randomly picked! 

That they're evidently* offering $1500 to beta testers does suggest a careful selection.

* I had thought that May was probably lying about that as well, but now I don't see why see why she would ("you still get the money") after telling him he can opt out any time.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 04 Aug 2013, 09:35
Nah less insidious. Google runs the robot jails. They just check your information on their databases. The NSA WISHES they could get access to everything Google has on all of us.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: T on 04 Aug 2013, 21:53
So he just got a tsundere model?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Aug 2013, 22:29
Faye and May meeting is like Emily and Raven meeting.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 05 Aug 2013, 01:25
Maybe I'm considering the AIs in the QCverse to be more "human" than they are, but that's something only Jeph could detail. I also don't really think that new AIs are "created" by humans. Once the first AI was brought to life I think they could reproduce (if they have the hardware)
Now I want to see an inbred AI...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 05 Aug 2013, 06:59
Maybe I'm considering the AIs in the QCverse to be more "human" than they are, but that's something only Jeph could detail. I also don't really think that new AIs are "created" by humans. Once the first AI was brought to life I think they could reproduce (if they have the hardware)
Now I want to see an inbred AI...
Well, MAYbe you have.

(Gordon? It's time for your performance review. Maybe you should upload yourself into a bipedal chassis and sit down.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Aug 2013, 08:03
Ah yes, one of those questions that answers itself....


"Am I fired?"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 05 Aug 2013, 08:14
Thinking of installing AIs on automatically-flushing toilets: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23575249
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 05 Aug 2013, 10:40
The NSA WISHES they could get access to everything Google has on all of us.

This reminds me of movies where FBI and CIA officers have to have clandestine meetings by eating lunch on the same bench on the mall in Washington because of sources and methods secrecy requirements.

I'm imagining a scene where a Google employee in workout clothes jogging past Shoreline Amphitheater towards the bay has a "clandestine" meeting with a NSA operative wearing a suit who's trying to catch up.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 11:57
Is it just me or does May really not seem female. I mean, I'm not  taking issue with the portrayal since gender is likely a rather arbitrary construct for AI. But so far, pintsize has seemed very 'male' and Momo has seemed very 'female.'

Maybe you just need to re-evaluate your gender constructs.

So far, the comic has hewn pretty close to my gender constructs. Thus, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to play "one of these things is not like the other" where the AIs are concerned. 

I am curious, though. If someone wanted to be transgender would you advise them to 'just re-evaluate their gender constructs?' This is a sincere (but not personal) question. I ask this because the acceptance of trans-sexuality/body dysmorphic disorder/whatever as something "real" rather than an arbitrary or learned choice seems to indicate a pretty deep-seated human connection with a certain gender that precedes any constructs society might impose. People tried doing random gender reassignment on hermaphrodites a few decades ago, based on the notion that gender identification was arbitrary. The results are currently believed to have been pretty disastrous. This suggests that whatever gender is, it is more than just a social construct. As offensive or threatening as that notion may be to some people.

Granted, an AI might not be shaped by some of the same psychological and social forces that humans are. Perhaps an AI would not be afraid of rape the way that a human female would, resulting in a different persona. And some people are outliers because of personal experience, biologically based proclivity or what have you. But don't you think that Pintsize's character is pretty stereotypically male? And why would an AI (Pintsize) be deliberately programmed to like porn? There's something about the AI creation process in this world that is not strictly utilitarian, and seems to be a copying of the human psyche, warts and all. 

Considering that Jeph has been clearly willing to address notions of identity politics in his comics, and that each character's psychology seems based on a fairly rich back story, this makes me wonder what he plans to do with May and where she comes from.





Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 05 Aug 2013, 12:24
... There's something about the AI creation process in this world that is not strictly utilitarian, and seems to be a copying of the human psyche, warts and all. 

Considering that Jeph has been clearly willing to address notions of identity politics in his comics, and that each character's psychology seems based on a fairly rich back story, this makes me wonder what he plans to do with May and where she comes from.

They are (within the verse) people that grow and develop. They are (for story purposes) characters crafted to grow and develop. IOW, Jeph's a good storyteller.

Finding out what Jeph plans to do with May and where she comes from is a problem that solves itself, as long as Jeph continues to produce the comic. I counsel  patience.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 12:45
Quote from: psyduck
Is it just me or does May really not seem female.
:psyduck: I don't know; what are we supposed to seem like? And by whom?

To be completely clear, I'm not saying "supposed" as in "normative/this is how a woman should be." I'm saying she doesn't express herself in the manner females I've known do. (I've been in a number of different cultures. I'm not sure to what extent I can really have been outside the middle class in any of them, though. ) 

But it's a fair question. Compared to many women, May seems; more directly, needlessly confrontational, more 'trickster' ish in a sadistic way... her faked confidence in places comes across like a teenage boy's, she's more overtly libertine, she's less concerned with upholding and more concerned with deliberately violating social norms in an obviously offensive or harmful way. 

None of these are close to a knockdown punch, but as a constellation of effects, they seem unusual to me. I'm not saying most men are like this. I am saying that all the people like this that I've known are male.


Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 13:20

Finding out what Jeph plans to do with May and where she comes from is a problem that solves itself, as long as Jeph continues to produce the comic. I counsel  patience.

That might be true. (Or not.)
But this form of reply could be used to obviate a LOT of forum posts, you know? We post anyways. ;-)

Think of how sports fans speculate on the outcome of upcoming games, even though the games will resolve themselves. It seems like part of the process of fandom.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Aug 2013, 13:33
The key question is how Dickmouth Stinkface's actions compare with those of other sociopathic female inmates.

An unpleasant idea comes to mind, though. There's a sadistic American official who forces male prisoners to wear pink underwear. What if Dickmouth Stinkface is the victim of a warden like that? What if she's set to male in software but maliciously assigned to a humiliating female avatar?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 05 Aug 2013, 14:56
So far, the comic has hewn pretty close to my gender constructs. Thus, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to play "one of these things is not like the other" where the AIs are concerned. 

The things you're pointing your finger at stem from how you view humans, not how you view AIs. For the record AIs aren't "less than", they're their own characters and warrant the same amount of respect one would give to any human on the cast.

Also finger-pointing about "adequate femininity" isn't a game.

If someone wanted to be transgender would you advise them to 'just re-evaluate their gender constructs?'

I ask this because the acceptance of trans-sexuality/body dysmorphic disorder/whatever as something "real" rather than an arbitrary or learned choice seems to indicate a pretty deep-seated human connection with a certain gender that precedes any constructs society might impose.

People tried doing random gender reassignment on hermaphrodites a few decades ago, based on the notion that gender identification was arbitrary. The results are currently believed to have been pretty disastrous. This suggests that whatever gender is, it is more than just a social construct. As offensive or threatening as that notion may be to some people.

First and foremost "Hermaphrodite" is not an appropriate thing to call an intersex person at all. Nor is it "trans sexuality", as it isn't a sexual orientation. Also it's Gender Dysphoria.

Secondly, just because our genders aren't constructs doesn't mean there aren't constructs built around them, true, but which no one of any gender need adhere to. "Statistical tendencies" toward certain traits does not equate to them being a necessity for anyone of that gender. This is equally important to recognize when thinking of us, as transgender people, because it's so often precisely this type of thinking that brings up the "Well men can wear dresses have feminine mannerisms too, you don't need to change like that!" (or the eternally loathed "Can't you just be gay?"), but I have no particular intent of wearing an extraordinary amount of dresses. It isn't seeking permission for those constructs - because fuck all that nonsense, it's simply what I am. Nor would it invalidate who I am just because I'm wearing a t-shirt and jeans right now or that I happened to write the word "fuck" in that earlier parenthesis. Even if I admittedly mostly did to write that afterwards.

The sad reality of society's cisnormativity faced by transgender & intersex people does not make either of us an excuse for gender-essentialist sexism, such as doubting if a person can "really be" their gender given certain behaviors.

What if Dickmouth Stinkface is the victim of a warden like that? What if she's set to male in software but maliciously assigned to a humiliating female avatar?

Indeed. It'd be an awful thing for it to be the case. Certainly not out of the ordinary in our world, given all the trans people sent to the wrong prisons and suffering terrible abuse over it as-is... but it might be a tad grim as an ongoing situation for a character, maybe?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 05 Aug 2013, 15:45
I'm saying she doesn't express herself in the manner females I've known do.
Ah, I see. In that case, it is just you.

You have a model in your head of what women are supposed to be like, and if someone behaves in a way that doesn't fit your model, you question whether they are female, rather than questioning your model. That is not uncommon, but it is not good either.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 05 Aug 2013, 16:28
I'm saying she doesn't express herself in the manner females I've known do.
Ah, I see. In that case, it is just you.

You have a model in your head of what women are supposed to be like, and if someone behaves in a way that doesn't fit your model, you question whether they are female, rather than questioning your model. That is not uncommon, but it is not good either.

The two biggest lessons I leaned from that trans* discussions here: 

Gender and sex are probably complicated than I imagine right now.  (even when I take the previous statement into account) 

Trans* people have a rougher time than I imagine right now (again, even after I take the previous statement into account) 




There are always more variations of Hofstader's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law) than you expect. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mtmerrick on 05 Aug 2013, 17:27
lesson(s) i've learned on the topic from this forum
-its harder than you'd think to treat everyone pretty much exactly the same. do it anyways
-when you're not 112% sure what to say, use generic pronouns
-people take this shit seriously.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Aug 2013, 19:15
Besides which, I don't know a lot of men who act like Dickmouth Stinkface either.

Mapping AIs into human categories may be a fundamental mistake to start with, but if I had to draw a comparison it would be to a disturbed child.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 19:28
So far, the comic has hewn pretty close to my gender constructs. Thus, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to play "one of these things is not like the other" where the AIs are concerned. 

The things you're pointing your finger at stem from how you view humans, not how you view AIs. For the record AIs aren't "less than", they're their own characters and warrant the same amount of respect one would give to any human on the cast.
[/quote]

Every personality has a psychology. That psychology comes from somewhere. I understand dogs as pack animals with rank and a loose social structure. I understand cats as... well, I don't understand cats. I understand humans in terms of rank, ego, identification, drives, aversions, etc. In short, I understand humans in terms of their goals and their capacity to achieve them which are the manifestation of evolutionary drives for reproduction and possibly kin selection (rejected by many scientists, but I'm still a fan) as well as things like ego defense, learned helplessness, etc. On a more general level, I understand social organization in terms of things like natural rights, compassion, equality before the law etc. I never claimed that the AIs were 'less than' anything. But there's some key portion of their psychological backstory which is still offscreen (and might always be.)  I just don't understand the underlying purpose behind the AIs' drives.(no pun intended) They aren't trying to reproduce, yet some exhibit behavior typically associated with a desire to reproduce. They aren't designed with the sole purpose of pleasing humans. They're designed as some kind of agents, but I don't totally grasp the deeper purpose (if there even is one) behind their agency. Was there a huge push for jumping the uncanny valley by adding really odd personality idiosyncrasies? Maybe I'm just expecting too much from a webcomic. But I don't think I'm totally off the deep end.

All psychology starts with projection, taking our own desires and extrapolating them to other agents with some kind of modification or correction. We empathize with a frustrated AI because we've been frustrated and because we have behavioral routines for dealing with other frustrated human beings. If AIs are not human beings, those learned behaviors might be incorrect or inadequate. But if so, that inadequacy hasn't manifested itself yet in the comic. Perhaps I'm looking too deeply into this and I should just take the comic as it rolls lightheartedly along. But I don't see how a person's view of any other agent would NOT be related to their view of themselves. And, by extension, humans in general.   


Quote
Also finger-pointing about "adequate femininity" isn't a game.

Uhh. Please reread where I already clarified that my statements weren't normative. So the use of 'adequate' isn't really relevant. Or are you implying that the notions of masculinity and feminity themselves should be taboo? May herself seems to clearly believe she's somehow inappropriately gendered.

If we were critiquing a story about the Victorian era and a character wore pants for casual activities, it would be completely in line to note how unusual/anachronistic that was and ask what the author was saying about the character. 

Quote
First and foremost "Hermaphrodite" is not an appropriate thing to call an intersex person at all. Nor is it "trans sexuality", as it isn't a sexual orientation. Also it's Gender Dysphoria.

Sure. Intersex is more PC. I did mistype re: Gender dysphoria, i.e. the inborn feeling that a person should be a different sex.

Quote
such as doubting if a person can "really be" their gender given certain behaviors.

I assume you're not quoting me, here.

The key question is how Dickmouth Stinkface's actions compare with those of other sociopathic female inmates.

An unpleasant idea comes to mind, though. There's a sadistic American official who forces male prisoners to wear pink underwear. What if Dickmouth Stinkface is the victim of a warden like that? What if she's set to male in software but maliciously assigned to a humiliating female avatar?

Very fair point on the first, and interesting notion on the second. May seems to believe that Dale's preferences are the reason for at least some portion of her avatar. And she knows what Moe is, indicating some pre-existing familiarity with anime.... Not sure what that means, but if AI were more intelligent then knowledge of a topic might not tend to indicate genuine interest in the topic as it does in humans.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 05 Aug 2013, 22:17
For the record. I know women who make May seem like a goddamn fairy tale princess. They are most assuredly female, and can be feminine... sorta... rarely. But it happens. They certainly aren't dudes though. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 05 Aug 2013, 22:20
For the record. I know women who make May seem like a goddamn fairy tale princess. They are most assuredly female, and can be feminine... sorta... rarely. But it happens. They certainly aren't dudes though.

I kinda like women like that.   
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Masterpiece on 05 Aug 2013, 22:44
I'm fairly certain scientists in the qcverse have a hard time explaining AIs as well. I'm not going to evaluate how wiserd sees a personality, but I will say that that approach works only for humans themselves.

Now if I recall correctly then the AIs in the qcverse are emergent, aka a group of scientists accidentally managed to build an AI. How do you know what its drives, wishes, ego are, when you have no idea what's causing them in the first place?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Aug 2013, 23:29
By using the discipline of Interspecific Co-agency.

It's an idea from science fiction. The actual term was coined by academics in the author's universe to describe what traders were already doing with "incomprehensible" aliens. The traders simply assumed the aliens were doing what the aliens wanted to do, and judged intentions by actions.

An example of how thinking about action could overcome communications problems came up in the story when someone asked an alien how he felt about the near-genocide of his species. The alien said it was funny. The someone almost blew a fuse, then remembered his training and rephrased the question as "What would you do to the person responsible if you found him?". The alien said "That would depend on whether we could come up with something equally funny to do in return".

It's only a heuristic, and it works best with mentally healthy members of a species. We could use it to choose ethical conduct toward Momo and Winslow, for example.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 06 Aug 2013, 02:23
Quote
such as doubting if a person can "really be" their gender given certain behaviors.
I assume you're not quoting me, here.

Is it just me or does May really not seem female.
Your earlier posting certainly expressed doubt about May's femaleness based on her behaviour.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 02:32
Just to add to the confusion, there's no inherent reason why an AI's gender setting should have the same effect as the identity setting(s) in a human brain.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 06 Aug 2013, 08:38
May said that she was dressed as a maid based on dale's interests. Perhaps that's why she manifests herself as female? I seem to remember pintsize freaking out when he learned that another anthropc he had flirted with online, assumed to be a female, turned out to be male. He also once explained that anthropc gender is merely defined by the intake or output of packets to them, but maybe that's not so canon?

So far I think anthropc gender is variable.

What's odd is that most of the male anthropcs we've seen have been kinda crazy in some way or another, from pintsize, to that neckbearded one, to Winslow, to station.

Until May came along, pretty much all female anthropcs were polite and friendly, and pretty calm too.

This isn't a judgement of mine on gender roles in society, but I wonder if our Creator has clear reasons for portraying characters this way. So, it's just a fictional judgement.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 06 Aug 2013, 08:56
He also once explained that anthropc gender is merely defined by the intake or output of packets to them, but maybe that's not so canon?

 
Quote from: Question
Do AI’s have any inherent concept of gender, or does that just get attributed to them by human society when they choose their chassis/holo-manifestation/whatever?
Quote from: Jeph
I did a little bit of exposition about this WAYYYYY back in the day with Pintsize and IIRC it still makes sense. Basically they’re free to choose a gender if they feel like it. They are also free to be a purple robot spider if they feel like it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Masterpiece on 06 Aug 2013, 09:30
Sage, I want to remind you of weird mall robot ("the malls are alive with the sounds of music")

my archive-fu is consistently failing me recently.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 06 Aug 2013, 09:38
Mall Robot (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1999)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 11:25
Did he ever make that shirt with the toaster?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 06 Aug 2013, 11:31
No, but there is an apron. (http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=TO&Category_Code=QC)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 11:34
Packet exchange is how they do sex.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 06 Aug 2013, 11:47
Software EXchange
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 06 Aug 2013, 12:01
Almost forgot about that life-loving anthropc at the shop where momo got her new chassis. I STILL love that toaster. He looks so sad at the end of that comic, since he was just thrown away, despite making bread so much fun.

Now that I think about it, what other ways can you make bread fun, other than toasting it?

French toast is out.

Croutons? Nah.

Sexual fetish? Can't say from my own experience.

Back on topic, I'm not sure that anthropc was quite as much "weird" as she was ridiculously optimistic. As a pessimist, otherwise known as a constant downer, optimism does seem silly to me personally.

Momo is probably the most dedicated anthropc in QC. Actually, Station was really dedicated to Hanner's health too. But those seemed like some pretty serious characters.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 12:07
Beat me to it. Charlotte is an outlier for enthusiasm but she's not bonkers in the sense of eating cake batter or immersing a roommate's underwear in motor oil.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 12:08
French toast is out.
In that it can't be made in a toaster or that it's not fun? The former is true, but if you mean the latter, I must disagree.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 06 Aug 2013, 12:15
Toasting does not have to happen in a toaster. Usually French toast is made by battering it, and toasting it in a pan. Or at least that's how I understand it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 12:16
You misunderstood my post. I was saying I acknowledge that French Toast isn't made in a toaster, but it still a very fun form of bread.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 06 Aug 2013, 12:17
I am just curious about potentially fun applications for bread, while untoasted.

Wait a minute.

Bread is made by toasting dough.

Toast is made from toasting bread.

I wonder what's more fun, freshly baked bread, or freshly toasted toast.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 06 Aug 2013, 12:20
At what point during toasting does the product go from heated bread, to light, brown, and burnt toast?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 12:35
I'm saying she doesn't express herself in the manner females I've known do.
Ah, I see. In that case, it is just you.

You have a model in your head of what women are supposed to be like, and if someone behaves in a way that doesn't fit your model, you question whether they are female, rather than questioning your model. That is not uncommon, but it is not good either.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote in the same way that Valdis was.

1. Do norms exist within a society? Yes. This question itself is non-normative. Saying that a thing is abnormal is not the same as making a values judgement about whether it is good or bad.

2. Can we say that certain norms are violated in some situations? Yes, of course.

If 1 and 2 are true, it seems fair to question what is causing the outlier.

Quote
"you question whether they are female, rather than questioning your model"

On the contrary, I am actively trying to incorporate their anomalous behavior  into my model. (Or perhaps Jeph's portrayal of their behavior. It's a toss up if I should be psychologizing May the character, Jeph the author, or Myself, the reader. It seems a complete analysis would include all 'participants.')

The notion  someone put forward that May violates norms because she is a psychopath is a reasonable explanation. It is not, of course, the ONLY explanation for such behavior.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 12:43
I don't think anyone was suggesting that her sociopathic tendencies and her apparent violations of gender norms were at all related, unless I missed something.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 12:48
lesson(s) i've learned on the topic from this forum
-its harder than you'd think to treat everyone pretty much exactly the same. do it anyways
-when you're not 112% sure what to say, use generic pronouns
-people take this shit seriously.

There are women who would be quite upset if guys used the girls bathroom. There are women who wouldn't care. "Treating everyone exactly the same" is probably better, at our current stage of development, than what we did historically. Though historically I think there were reasons for gender roles that modern people don't often acknowledge. The one group that it's unequivocally okay to discriminate against is those people who lived a few hundred years ago. Because they're all dead.

Socially, even today, it's not necessarily adaptive to treat people "exactly the same" in all cultures and all situations. People are individuals and their individuality is frequently informed by their sex. Male behavior is not statistically identical to female behavior, for whatever reason. Look at prison populations and arrest rates for an example of that. I understand the benefit of seeing people as 'tabula rasa' politically but I don't think it holds up as a predictive model in day to day life.

I'd love to have a generic pronoun. Using "they" as a gender neutral singular seems the most natural to me.

And I agree that people take this shit seriously. Myself included.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 13:00
Quote
such as doubting if a person can "really be" their gender given certain behaviors.
I assume you're not quoting me, here.

Is it just me or does May really not seem female.
Your earlier posting certainly expressed doubt about May's femaleness based on her behaviour.

I certainly think May could be female given her behavior (to whatever extent we apply the concept of gender to AnthroPCs.) I did question what exactly was going on there, and whether it was possible she was in some way not her gender.

can != might

If that makes sense.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 13:02
I don't think anyone was suggesting that her sociopathic tendencies and her apparent violations of gender norms were at all related, unless I missed something.

Is It Cold In Here wrote; "The key question is how Dickmouth Stinkface's actions compare with those of other sociopathic female inmates."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 13:16
He was comparing her to other inmates, I don't think he was saying that made her "less female".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: altheora on 06 Aug 2013, 13:53
I am rather morbidly curious about tomorrow's strip. >>
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 14:08
This is actually last week's thread, but welcome to the forum! Here (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,29168.0.html) is this week's thread.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 06 Aug 2013, 15:22
I never claimed that the AIs were 'less than' anything.

You literally said "where the AIs are concerned" as if something inherently sexist and inappropriate was suddenly fine just because these people aren't human.

They're designed as some kind of agents, but I don't totally grasp the deeper purpose (if there even is one) behind their agency. Was there a huge push for jumping the uncanny valley by adding really odd personality idiosyncrasies? Maybe I'm just expecting too much from a webcomic. But I don't think I'm totally off the deep end.

The comic has talked about it. They're an emergent intelligence from things humans were doing without specifically making an AI, not a designed one.

Uhh. Please reread where I already clarified that my statements weren't normative. So the use of 'adequate' isn't really relevant. Or are you implying that the notions of masculinity and feminity themselves should be taboo? May herself seems to clearly believe she's somehow inappropriately gendered.

If we were critiquing a story about the Victorian era and a character wore pants for casual activities, it would be completely in line to note how unusual/anachronistic that was and ask what the author was saying about the character.

In no possible way were your statements not "normative" - merely saying they weren't doesn't make that the case. You called into question her very female identity over some traits you feel are too "male" for it to be the case.

Also QC isn't in friggin' Victorian England, apart from some bar visits, and the very fact that you would consider her being, in your eyes, "male-like" to be completely out of place and having to be a statement "saying something" says more about you.

Sure. Intersex is more PC.

It isn't "More PC", it's "Not completely fucking wrong and misrepresenting who and what they are". It's also worth noting that talking about how "PC" something is.. is generally a huge red flag going up.

Socially, even today, it's not necessarily adaptive to treat people "exactly the same" in all cultures and all situations. People are individuals and their individuality is frequently informed by their sex. Male behavior is not statistically identical to female behavior, for whatever reason. Look at prison populations and arrest rates for an example of that. I don't think it holds up as a predictive model in day to day life.

Since when do you have an urgent need for a predictive model on whether some woman is "really a guy", then?

You are clearly just making excuses for cisnormative sexism. Statistical differences between particular genders are utterly irrelevant as to whether or not you're justified in that kind of shitty gender-policing behaviour. Having your preexisting biases "informed" by people's gender and that "because people in your group tend towards X, it is correct to assume you are also X". It is more or less identical to saying that because in the U.S. black people are disproportionately put in prison that you're therefore justified in treating all people of that group as criminals. That clearly isn't true.

Even if you believe that it's inevitable that women will statistically end up different in such ways, then that still doesn't at all account for the fact that 100% of female characters wouldn't be like May as things stand. This betrays that fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. If you really understood that then there's no reason for her to be out of place at all, even when thinking of women in such a way. But no, even when talking about "statistics" you none-the-less revert back to "None of the women I know".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 15:22
He was comparing her to other inmates, I don't think he was saying that made her "less female".

He was suggesting that her non-conformity could be explained by viewing her relative to a different baseline.

I.E.
"Why are the the astronaut's bones more brittle than usual?" "That's normal for someone who has been in space so long."
"Why is Johnny so violent?" "That's common among kids that have been abused."
"Why is Jenny's hair blonde?" "That's normal for people from Sweden."

Etc.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 06 Aug 2013, 15:45
If 1 and 2 are true, it seems fair to question what is causing the outlier.
You questioned May's femininity because it didn't fit your model, instead of questioning whether your model of femininity is accurate. Why is this important? Because this way of thinking lies at the heart of sexism.

I am good at maths. From time to time, when I demonstrate this, I get patronising sexist jokes about having a "boy brain" (because "girls suck at maths, amirite?"). The tone of such jokes is often patronisingly positive, as if I should be grateful for being "upgraded" to the status of an honorary man. I am not a boy, so I can't have a boy-brain. I am a woman, so nothing I do can be unfeminine. Some of the things I do might not fit some stereotyped, sexist models of femininity, but that reflects on the models, and the people who adopt them, not on me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 06 Aug 2013, 15:57
I am good at maths. From time to time, when I demonstrate this, I get patronising sexist jokes about having a "boy brain" (because "girls suck at maths, amirite?"). The tone of such jokes is often patronisingly positive, as if I should be grateful for being "upgraded" to the status of an honorary man. I am not a boy, so I can't have a boy-brain. I am a woman, so nothing I do can be unfeminine. Some of the things I do might not fit some stereotyped, sexist models of femininity, but that reflects on the models, and the people who adopt them, not on me.

"Cis folks - If you think "passing" is the highest compliment, if you think "I would have never known" are words of praise, I have news."

Yeah, it can be pretty sick how non-marginalized people think of others.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 16:15
I never claimed that the AIs were 'less than' anything.

You literally said "where the AIs are concerned" as if something inherently sexist and inappropriate was suddenly fine just because these people aren't human.

You seem to be (repeatedly) associating "being different" with "being inferior." I'm not.
Since clarification doesn't prevent you from making this assumption, I don't see how we can have a productive conversation on that point.

You're going to read what you choose to read, regardless of what I write.

I said; "Thus, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to play "one of these things is not like the other" where the AIs are concerned." 

Do you think that May's behavior is normative for the AIs we've seen so far?

Also, by what standard are you suddenly the arbiter of what's appropriate? This is fantastically presumptuous.

Quote
Also QC isn't in friggin' Victorian England

If you can understand how the example applies to England, you will be better able to understand how it applies to QC.
Fish have no word for water. (They have no word for anything, of course, but that's beside the point.)

Quote
"and the very fact that you would consider her being, in your eyes, "male-like"

You're missing the point where other anthro-PCs (and humans, for that matter) have adopted characteristics which were sterotypically gendered, sometimes strongly so.

Quote
It's also worth noting that talking about how "PC" something is.. is generally a huge red flag going up.

I'm not a big fan of people who try and assert dominance or win arguments via fashionable language. I'm sure it's a useful ego-defensive strategy, though. But it rarely moves a conversation forward. It basically boils down to 'conversations are only relevant if conducted in my chosen language.'

Quote
Since when do you have an urgent need for a predictive model on whether some woman is "really a guy", then?

1. Are you deliberately not understanding out of defensiveness? The comic itself introduced the question in regards to May complaining about not having genitalia, introducing strongly gendered anthro-pcs, etc.
 
2. The notion of trans-sexuality itself asserts that sex is relevant to either cultural interactions or personal identity. Otherwise, why would someone undergo surgery to become transsexual in spite of the associated stigma?

Quote
You are clearly just making excuses for cisnormative sexism.

You are clearly just looking for a way to put me in a category where you can invalidate everything I say rather than considering the content of the statements.

Quote
"because people in your group tend towards X, it is correct to assume you are also X

Again, you are not quoting me here. If you want to quote me, get a literal quote. You are doing very badly with paraphrase.

Quote
It is more or less identical to saying that because in the U.S. black people are disproportionately put in prison that you're therefore justified in treating all people of that group as criminals.

No, it is not. At all. However it would be possible to note that the tradition of sagging a person's pants comes from a disproportionate number of African Americans being in the prison system, with that tradition bleeding over into the pop culture. It would also be relevant and informative (though perhaps not acceptable to you) to note someone's association or disassociation with certain trends commonly associated with poorer, urban African American  culture, including sagging, rap, AAVE, and similar associations with the norms of one culture or another.
 
Quote
Even if you believe that it's inevitable that women will statistically end up different in such ways, then that still doesn't at all account for the fact that 100% of female characters wouldn't be like May as things stand. This betrays that fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. If you really understood that then there's no reason for her to be out of place at all, even when thinking of women in such a way. But no, even when talking about "statistics" you none-the-less revert back to "None of the women I know".

First off, I've taken advanced statistics so your statement comes across as rather desperate.
Second, I've already explicitly acknowledged (some of) the limitations of my sample. It's not random in various ways. I don't claim to be doing a survey with error bars. People do make inferences based on their personal experiences, while hopefully noting the limitations of those experiences. You've certainly done the first regarding your 'red flag' comment, after all.  You're welcome to judge yourself by the same standards that you're trying to use to judge me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 16:34
If 1 and 2 are true, it seems fair to question what is causing the outlier.
You questioned May's femininity because it didn't fit your model, instead of questioning whether your model of femininity is accurate.

Asked and answered. You are repeating an assertion that I've already addressed. Please re-read what I've written. Thanks.

Quote
Why is this important? Because this way of thinking lies at the heart of sexism.

I am good at maths. From time to time, when I demonstrate this, I get patronising sexist jokes about having a "boy brain" (because "girls suck at maths, amirite?"). The tone of such jokes is often patronisingly positive, as if I should be grateful for being "upgraded" to the status of an honorary man. I am not a boy, so I can't have a boy-brain. I am a woman, so nothing I do can be unfeminine. Some of the things I do might not fit some stereotyped, sexist models of femininity, but that reflects on the models, and the people who adopt them, not on me.

While I don't go out of my way to insult anyone, I care more about if a model is true or predictive than whether it is sexist or not. I've had friends say that we have to assume that men and women are identical because any difference will be used to justify male privilege. While I sympathize wholeheartedly with this appeal to consequences, it's still ultimately fallacious.  It's not going to lead me to embrace anything that I believe that evidence suggests is false.

I am absolutely and perpetually open to arguments that any of my beliefs are non-predictive. Use of words like 'sexism' too frequently are methods by which people discard their capacity to think rationally.

Quote
I am a woman, so nothing I do can be unfeminine.

I'm not going to get into the particulars regarding the patronization you've encountered.  I'm sure you've suffered and I sympathize with that. You should be able to do whatever you like without harassment. But from a strictly theoretical standpoint I truly don't see why one (or a constellation) of your abilities couldn't possibly be unusual for women but common for men. I don't really care very much how this difference is expressed (and the cause of the discrepancy isn't really the issue), so long as such trends can still be rationally discussed without a particular conclusion being religiously required, a priori.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 17:48
2. The notion of trans-sexuality itself asserts that sex is relevant to either cultural interactions or personal identity. Otherwise, why would someone undergo surgery to become transsexual in spite of the associated stigma?
You really, really need to read this thread (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28457.0.html).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 17:50
At what point during toasting does the product go from heated bread, to light, brown, and burnt toast?

Quote from: Piet Hein
There's an art of knowing when,
Never try to guess.
Toast until it smokes and then,
Twenty seconds less.

Is everyone comfortable with the statement that Dickmouth Stinkface's behavior is a remarkable outlier on the distribution of observed behavior among women in the cultures people here are familiar with? (Almost as if she weren't an actual person but just a comic strip parody?)

If her conduct were common among men (it isn't among the ones I know) then would it necessarily be bad to speculate about whether she was mis-assigned?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 17:55
2. The notion of trans-sexuality itself asserts that sex is relevant to either cultural interactions or personal identity. Otherwise, why would someone undergo surgery to become transsexual in spite of the associated stigma?
You really, really need to read this thread (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28457.0.html).

Happy to. Any chance you have 3 or 4 favorite pages out of the 26 that are particularly poignant? Because otherwise that's a stack of homework you've just assigned, and there is, unfortunately, some other stuff I need to get done...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 17:59
The key point I would call to your attention is that people don't "become" transsexual.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 18:14
The key point I would call to your attention is that people don't "become" transsexual.

Fairly put. I misspoke. I should have said something along the lines of "The notion of trans-sexuality itself asserts that sex is relevant to either cultural interactions or personal identity. Otherwise, why would someone undergo gender reassignment surgery (or HRT)  in spite of the associated stigma?"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 19:05
Start from the beginning, read as much as you can, but please don't talk about the matter until you do. There's really no way we could answer your question better than that thread could. For that matter, the thread will let you know how misguided the question itself is.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 20:01
Start from the beginning, read as much as you can, but please don't talk about the matter until you do. There's really no way we could answer your question better than that thread could. For that matter, the thread will let you know how misguided the question itself is.

I read 2 pages. Nothing was particularly new and the text wasn't at all information dense. I saw the notion of strong vs. weak associations with gender identity brought up a few times, but never really brought to much of a conclusion except that 'people are different.' Okay, sure. But that says nothing about average tendencies. If there's something specific you want me to see, please post the specific text and I'll happily read it. In the meantime, I'm going to go back to having as much of an opinion as anyone else on this forum. And if that's unreasonable somehow, by all means, feel free to explain why. "Don't have an opinion till you've read the phone book" isn't something most folks would go for.

Best
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 06 Aug 2013, 20:25
The notion of trans-sexuality itself asserts that sex is relevant to either cultural interactions or personal identity. Otherwise, why would someone undergo surgery to become transsexual in spite of the associated stigma?
Fairly put. I misspoke. I should have said something along the lines of "Why would someone undergo gender reassignment surgery."

1) We are not a damn "notion", nor are we a political statement on gender roles. Stop treating us as such.

2) Sex is irrelevant. Surgery is irrelevant. Hormones are irrelevant. Being correctly read as female is irrelevant. I am a woman. I do not BUY my gender to meet the standards of others, I just am. Just like cis women.

3) Particular brain-mapping and structures associated with my gender do mean I feel better on correct hormones. The thoughts I have of surgery are largely as a result of damage done to me by testosterone poisoning in puberty etc., since those caused distinctive developments which my body would not have to endure if on the correct hormones from the start. In general it's a matter of making changes for a body you're more comfortable with as yourself.

This includes both people like me, who think about different genitalia quite a bit, and our siblings who decide it isn't for them. The latter can for example be because of not thinking it's good enough yet (personally I'd want buccal cells in use or such) or because it simply isn't part of their brain-mapping. If it isn't then it could be a big mistake to feel you have to do it anyway - and there is a lot of pressure on trans people to - since they're just women who happen to have penises or men who happen to have vaginas.

4) "Gender Reassignment Surgery" .. No. Just no. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender. It is genital reassignment. It only changes genitals. Which have nothing to do with what gender someone is. Nor are they some totality of "Sex", which is why I also oppose the use of 'SRS'. Especially with how shitty that non-distinction gets for non-Anglosphere people. We also don't "become" trans through surgery. We are.

5) "Cultural interactions" <- What is that even supposed to mean? It's due to our internal sense of self. Aside from those physical aspects of our own bodies to deal with the societal stuff is inflicted upon us. It is that "associated stigma" you mentioned. The systemic cissexism and cis supremacist attitudes, as well as internalizing them on our part. I'm not ashamed of being trans. It isn't something to be ashamed of. The very notion that it would be reeks of those very attitudes and I will have no part in it.

Sure, when someone misgenders me it hurts and it's something I'd seek to not have happen, but that doesn't mean conforming to any cisgender standards I would not personally feel comfortable with in the first place. Seeking approval from shitty cis people who don't respect me for who I am and want me to successfully "Hide away" my trans-ness is not something I am at all interested in.

There's a reason I said this earlier:

I am good at maths. From time to time, when I demonstrate this, I get patronising sexist jokes about having a "boy brain" (because "girls suck at maths, amirite?"). The tone of such jokes is often patronisingly positive, as if I should be grateful for being "upgraded" to the status of an honorary man. I am not a boy, so I can't have a boy-brain. I am a woman, so nothing I do can be unfeminine. Some of the things I do might not fit some stereotyped, sexist models of femininity, but that reflects on the models, and the people who adopt them, not on me.

"Cis folks - If you think "passing" is the highest compliment, if you think "I would have never known" are words of praise, I have news."

Yeah, it can be pretty sick how non-marginalized people think of others.

Saying I don't look "trans" is not a compliment. All it tells me is that the person has a fucked up denigrating view of what it means to be trans and that they think it's good to be invisible among cis people. On the other hand if they're non-shitty people, then saying it because I'd be a lot safer for not being easily visually identified as the group with the highest murder-victim rate around, which isn't so much complimenting me as it is pointing out how awful most people are and how I can't feel safe being myself.

It's nicer when people just say I'm pretty and leave it at that. :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 20:36
Did people hear wiserd as meaning "She's so unladylike she can't be a REAL woman"?

(moderator)
People are doing a good job at arguing without getting personal. Please keep it that way.
(/moderator)

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 06 Aug 2013, 21:08
But from a strictly theoretical standpoint I truly don't see why one (or a constellation) of your abilities couldn't possibly be unusual for women but common for men.
Even if that were true, it would still not make me a man, or reflect on my femininity except in other people's heads, and it certainly would not justify saying "Is it just me, or does Akima really not seem female?". That is the attitude of the "boy-brain" jokers. Regardless of disclaimers, there really isn't a good, or even neutral, way to tell any woman that she doesn't "seem female" based on anything about her, and I'm at a bit of a loss to understand any good reason for doing so.

I would argue that if a woman doesn't fit some model of "what women are", it reflects on the model, not on the woman. If the mismatch leads people to question the woman's status as a woman, it reflects on them, not on the woman. You appeal to the "predictive power" of your model, but I would ask why anyone needs a predictive model of what men and women are "really like" in any context other than biological or medical. Why do the "boy-brain" jokers need to predict my mathematical ability based on my sex? Why mention my sex at all, or deny my femaleness, when it is their model, and not I, that proved inadequate? Unless they are Eve-baiting sexist douchebags, that is.

Did people hear wiserd as meaning "She's so unladylike she can't be a REAL woman"?
Something along those lines, certainly. I am not sure what other conclusion I might have been expected to draw. As I have pointed out above, it is no different from saying "Akima is so good at maths, she can't be a REAL woman".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 21:34

1) We are not a damn "notion", nor are we a political statement on gender roles. Stop treating us as such.


I want you to be happy and comfortable, Valdis.

And I think this conversation has strayed a very long way from it's origin.

Every label is, in part, a category/construct/concept which attempts to have some predictive relevance to the material world.  Every publicly recognizable choice has social significance. I'm not giving anyone special treatment here. If you want me to not have any opinion about people's identities, you're welcome to return the favor and not have an opinion on anything anyone else says or does publicly. Ever. But nobody really manages that. The best we can really do is have opinions which are more-or-less accurate and compassionate.

I'm going to assume that a lot of what you've written isn't a response to me, because it doesn't seem related to what I've written. If it's just explaining your situation or venting, that's cool. But I want to correct any misunderstandings.

""Cultural interactions" <- What is that even supposed to mean? "

Gender identity ( or lack thereof ) involves intrapersonal and interpersonal interactions. (i.e. internal thoughts + doing stuff with other people.) I could have found a better term, but I've really spent far too much time on forums today, and haven't been proofreading what I write. (Obviously?) I can polish writing till it shines, but not on the fly.

Quote
" It isn't something to be ashamed of.

I did not suggest trans-sexuality was something to be ashamed of. Can I assume you agree? I simply noted that people payed a high price in one way or another for expressing trans-identities. That's an expensive signal indicating that something is very important to them. You seem to agree... I think... 

Quote
Saying I don't look "trans" is not a compliment.

Can we at least agree that this isn't a response to anything I've written? I'm not sure if you're venting a feeling on something unrelated to my post (all good if so) or if you've completely misunderstood what I've said and I need to correct the misinterpretation.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 21:56
I could be wrong (and Valdis already said it well, I thought), but it's not about expressing identity. It's about being who you are and feeling comfortable in your own skin. If one has to alter their body so their outside matches how they feel on the inside, then so be it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 06 Aug 2013, 22:45
So far I don't like May. I think her character is designed to be that way. I bet she has some deeper rooted issues that she keeps hidden, covered up with the prickly coat that is her personality.

I can't say May is acting unladylike, as much as she is just being an ass. There are rude, unkind, and annoying people, and although experiences in their individual gender roles may affect their personalities, appearing more male or female does not do a great job of determining personality.

Just because she appears female doesn't mean she fits into any or all female stereotypes, just as Claire being trans makes no implications about her sexual preference, as it's only her form.

Maybe May's not actually female, or maybe she's been forced to believe she is, but none of that seems to matter as much as her wacky personality.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 22:50
But from a strictly theoretical standpoint I truly don't see why one (or a constellation) of your abilities couldn't possibly be unusual for women but common for men.
Even if that were true, it would still not make me a man, or reflect on my femininity except in other people's heads, and it certainly would not justify saying "Is it just me, or does Akima really not seem female?". That is the attitude of the "boy-brain" jokers. Regardless of disclaimers, there really isn't a good, or even neutral, way to tell any woman that she doesn't "seem female" based on anything about her, and I'm at a bit of a loss to understand any good reason for doing so.

Okay, just to be clear...
1. I didn't TELL anyone anything. I was discussing a character. There's a difference between not being able to say something to a person and not being allowed to think it about anyone.
2. Femininity is typically different from being biologically female. I can talk about feminine males and masculine females and people would know what I was talking about. They might consider what I said discourteous or obscene, but they probably wouldn't be outright confused. Heck, I bet if you did a motion capture of an individual you could tell their sex +50% of the time (especially within a culture), just from gestures and body language. College majors aren't divided evenly by gender, either.
3. What can be said directly to a person depends a lot on the person. I've dated girls who didn't mind calling themselves tomboys. (That's often been my preference. I love a girl who knows how to use a rapier and I'm not fond of shopping in groups as many women do.) My wife says she tends to be more masculine than most women in terms of her interests and doesn't really identify much with a particular gender, except that she wants kids. Gender identification describes a broad constellation of her behaviors and helps me understand her and others better. I've dated more than one woman with PCOS, her inclusive. PCOS involves having an elevated level of male hormones. This reinforces to me the notion that my sexual preferences have some kind of biological correlate related to a certain degree and type of masculinity (more masculine than most women, but less masculine than most men) but to female sex.

Quote
I would argue that if a woman doesn't fit some model of "what women are", it reflects on the model, not on the woman.

At this point, we're repeating ourselves, so maybe this discussion won't be productive even with one more spin around the merry-go-round. But why isn't it possible for a particular behavior to be unusual for a woman but usual for a man? Why isn't it possible for the long tail of one bell curve to correspond to the median of another?

I mean, most dogs play fetch. Most cats don't. A friend of mine has a cat that likes to play fetch and is friendly. We joke that the cat is doglike or "is a dog." It's obviously a cat. Nobody questions the cat's status 'as a cat.'  But the comment succinctly expresses an idea; the cat is closer to a behavioral norm of a different species, in some way, than its own species.

The issue becomes even more difficult when behavior doesn't have a clear biological basis but norms associated with biologically influenced behavior seem to still exist, such as with AI.

Quote
You appeal to the "predictive power" of your model, but I would ask why anyone needs a predictive model of what men and women are "really like" in any context other than biological or medical.

People interact socially, and some behaviors are clustered.

Quote
Why do the "boy-brain" jokers need to predict my mathematical ability based on my sex?

I'm not here to explain their motivations. Their motivations are subjective and obscure to me. For all I know, they could be expressing pent up frustration that their girlfriends and wives aren't interested in their work. However some traits tend to cluster, so if you had several stereotypical male interests that might indicate other traits ( increased aspergers tendencies relative to females, decreased verbosity, increased likelihood of PCOS or elevated androgens, etc.)  At least it could allow succinct expression of those traits metaphorically (i.e. "That man acts like a puppy. I know he's NOT a puppy. But he acts puppy-like") even if there was no underlying biological correlate.

Quote
Why mention my sex at all, or deny my femaleness, when it is their model, and not I, that proved inadequate? Unless they are Eve-baiting sexist douchebags, that is.

Unless I've misread what you've written or you've left things out it doesn't seem like they were calling you "inadequate" in any way.

Quote
Did people hear wiserd as meaning "She's so unladylike she can't be a REAL woman"?
Something along those lines, certainly. I am not sure what other conclusion I might have been expected to draw. As I have pointed out above, it is no different from saying "Akima is so good at maths, she can't be a REAL woman".

You've misunderstood me, then. My point, simply put, is; "behavior which violates social norms is likely to be significant."

Quote
That is the attitude of the "boy-brain" jokers.

Yeah, as a guy this happens to me all the time with female coworkers as well... no, wait. It doesn't. It does sound a little like May, though. Doncha think?

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Aug 2013, 23:16
Come to think of it, Dickmouth Stinkface is not much of an outlier among females in the QC universe. She has never expressed a desire to commit murder and is cleaner in her speech than Harriet.

Yes, everyone knows what is meant by saying a cat is a little dog-like, but that's a much more emotionally neutral statement than one involving groups with a history of vicious oppression.

EDIT:
DS has never specified a gender assignment, and is so routinely dishonest we might not believe it anyway. All we know for sure within the strip is the holographic presentation, and we know DS detests that. Outside the strip, Jeph said "she" in a news post, so I guess we should take that as definitive and move on.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 06 Aug 2013, 23:46
Every publicly recognizable choice has social significance.

I didn't "choose" my gender. I am my gender.

What other people thought I was at the time means nothing. Telling them they were wrong in their presumption isn't me choosing another gender. Not any more than someone "chooses to become homosexual" when they come out of the closet. No, you just know something new about them that was already the case before they told you.

Gender identity ( or lack thereof ) involves intrapersonal and interpersonal interactions. (i.e. internal thoughts + doing stuff with other people.) I could have found a better term, but I've really spent far too much time on forums today, and haven't been proofreading what I write. (Obviously?) I can polish writing till it shines, but not on the fly.

Gender expression is not the same thing as the gender itself, nor are we at all "asserting that the sex of a person is important" (the exact opposite in most circumstances other than the brain-mapping). Being recognized as who you are is what's important. Categorizing people based on guesses about what stereotypes one perceives to apply to their gender is not. The latter is in conflict with the former.

I'm going to assume that a lot of what you've written isn't a response to me, because it doesn't seem related to what I've written. If it's just explaining your situation or venting, that's cool. But I want to correct any misunderstandings.
/.../
I did not suggest trans-sexuality was something to be ashamed of. Can I assume you agree?
/.../
Can we at least agree that this isn't a response to anything I've written? I'm not sure if you're venting a feeling on something unrelated to my post (all good if so) or if you've completely misunderstood what I've said and I need to correct the misinterpretation.

It wasn't all intended to be, no, even if a lot of it was meant to address specific things in your post. In some sections I was speaking in general regarding those systemic and often unknowingly internalized attitudes.

Hopefully it helps to clear some things about transgender folk up, though, prior to digging through the like 40 pages of our two Discuss threads.

I simply noted that people payed a high price in one way or another for expressing trans-identities. That's an expensive signal indicating that something is very important to them. You seem to agree... I think... 

Yes, being who you are is important, especially when forced into being something you are not, and being who you are should not ever make people feel entitled to doubt that aspect of yourself in lieu of actual information from the person. I see no difference in what you're doing with May's personality traits to sniggering behind my back about whether I "really seem like a girl" or not. It isn't a game.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Masterpiece on 06 Aug 2013, 23:51
Since when do you have an urgent need for a predictive model on whether some woman is "really a guy", then?

You are clearly just making excuses for cisnormative sexism. Statistical differences between particular genders are utterly irrelevant as to whether or not you're justified in that kind of shitty gender-policing behaviour. Having your preexisting biases "informed" by people's gender and that "because people in your group tend towards X, it is correct to assume you are also X". It is more or less identical to saying that because in the U.S. black people are disproportionately put in prison that you're therefore justified in treating all people of that group as criminals. That clearly isn't true.

Even if you believe that it's inevitable that women will statistically end up different in such ways, then that still doesn't at all account for the fact that 100% of female characters wouldn't be like May as things stand. This betrays that fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. If you really understood that then there's no reason for her to be out of place at all, even when thinking of women in such a way. But no, even when talking about "statistics" you none-the-less revert back to "None of the women I know".

I've had a similar argument with two friends lately. They were very quick to categorize people, kinda like "they're German" or "they're gay" and attributing behaviors and mannerisms to such groups. It's easier to think that way, sure, but if you only see people as the category they fulfill, you'll never give them a chance of showing who they really are.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Aug 2013, 00:44
I see no difference in what you're doing with May's personality traits to sniggering behind my back about whether I "really seem like a girl" or not. It isn't a game.

A key difference is that we actually know you're a woman because we've had an honest self-report from you. We haven't had a self-report from Dickmouth Stinkface. So we can only guess from the elements of DS's presentation that DS actually controls. That doesn't include the avatar.

Oh, wait, it's all hanging together now. They've finally figured out how to upload humans and Harriet was the first test subject. FSM help us when they vasten Yelling Bird.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 07 Aug 2013, 00:45
It isn't an okay thing for strangers to do either, Cold.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 07 Aug 2013, 01:00
I see no difference in what you're doing with May's personality traits to sniggering behind my back about whether I "really seem like a girl" or not. It isn't a game.

The difference, first and foremost, is in the utter lack of sniggering. I am not pushing anyone down to push myself up. I am not affirming my identity by deriding an outgroup. I am not promoting normative values. I AM saying if someone (a fictional character in this case) violates social norms it's worthwhile to ask what those violations signify about them. Because that tends to be relevant information.

This still seems entirely functional to me.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Aug 2013, 02:32
The social norms of the QC universe seem to be more elastic than ours. The Pugnacious Peach hasn't been fired, for example.

We'll have a more accurate read on DS's personality once she's recovered from jail. Right now we don't have firm ground for any conclusions beyond what's in canon. For all we know everything she's displayed is just part of the 'tude you have to project to survive in robo-prison.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 07 Aug 2013, 03:31
But why isn't it possible for a particular behavior to be unusual for a woman but usual for a man? Why isn't it possible for the long tail of one bell curve to correspond to the median of another?
A woman who is on the "long tail of one bell curve" does not cease to be a woman; she is simply an exceptional woman. A model that cannot accommodate exceptional women is a bad model, and certainly does not justify questioning their status as women.

I am not promoting normative values.
I think you are, and pretty explicitly too, where you are referring to bell-curves, and medians and long tails as relevant to judgements of women's behaviour, interests, talents and so on. You've even written "My point, simply put, is; "behavior which violates social norms is likely to be significant."" I really don't think you can reference social norms as important or decisive, especially using loaded terms like "violates" to describe departures from those norms, without promoting normative values.

Unless I've misread what you've written or you've left things out it doesn't seem like they were calling you "inadequate" in any way.
They explain away my competence by declaring that I must have a "boy-brain", rather than accepting that it is their sexist attitude, their apparent expectation of my poor performance, that is at fault. Their belief that a woman is inadequate is revealed by the fact that they "upgrade" me to an honorary man to explain to themselves how I managed to exceed their low expectations. It is very telling too, that they seem to expect me to regard this "upgrade" as a compliment, rather than the patronising insult that it actually is. Their behaviour is comparable to a group of white engineers telling a black engineer who had just solved a tricky problem that he had a "white brain", and expecting him to be complimented.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Aug 2013, 03:51
A data point on the long tail of one bell curve but in the mode of another, _in the absence of other data_, is more likely to belong to the population described by the second curve.

Akima would of course still be a woman if she were 6'8" tall, but if all you know is that someone's 6'8", the logical guess is clear.

What's not clear is why someone should care, and why they shouldn't simply ask, if there's some reason the difference is important.

It is more than a little adventurous to draw conclusions about what female AIs are like from the three examples we've seen, though. Reasoning from bell curves is not a good tool for overanalyzing a comic, since entertainment value requires making new characters different from the existing ones.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 07 Aug 2013, 12:36
A woman who is on the "long tail of one bell curve" does not cease to be a woman; she is simply an exceptional woman. A model that cannot accommodate exceptional women is a bad model, and certainly does not justify questioning their status as women.

You are misrepresenting what I've written. Continually. When you can accurately paraphrase my expressed views, I'll be happy to continue the discussion. Before that happens, further response is likely wasted effort. I really don't want to discuss your coworkers motivations, which are obscure to me, but even they weren't questioning your biological sex. As for whether "Male" is an acceptable substitute for "masculine," it's not if we're to split hairs. But I'm skeptical whether you would have accepted the notion that you might have a masculinized brain, or masculine interests, but female sex. Feel free to correct me if that would have been acceptable to you.

You have claimed I said that May cannot be female because of how she acted. I have not claimed this. I do think her behavior is anomalous, particularly for her (chosen?) sex. Antisocial personality disorder is not evenly distributed among genders.

And to bring this conversation closer to the original track; what about AI? I am not saying that any character cannot be a particular sex (to the extent that even applies to a machine.) I am saying that if an AI were of sterotypically masculine behavior but apparent female sexual presentation that this is noteworthy in understanding the character. 

I am not promoting normative values.
I think you are, and pretty explicitly too, where you are referring to bell-curves, and medians and long tails as relevant to judgements of women's behaviour, interests, talents and so on. You've even written "My point, simply put, is; "behavior which violates social norms is likely to be significant."" I really don't think you can reference social norms as important or decisive, especially using loaded terms like "violates" to describe departures from those norms, without promoting normative values.

You seem to be saying that I can't acknowledge that social norms exist without supporting the existence of those norms? Really? So a person who says that the South was segregated by Jim Crow laws is supporting Jim Crow? A person who notes that men have, on average, more muscle mass than women is inevitably asserting that all men SHOULD have more muscle mass? Or is out of line in wondering (though not conclusively stating on that evidence alone) if the East German Swim Team might have taken steroids because of their muscularity?  I'm simply not buying it.

I think that bell curves, medians and long tails are relevant to understanding ANYONE'S behavior. Not women exclusively.

I believe that I can think about violating norms without promoting those norms. I won't speak for what other people are capable of. Though this seems like another example of picking at semantics to try and disregard someone else's view. You can substitute 'transgress' for 'violates' if that works better for you.  If it's my phrasing you object to, is there some rephrasing of my statement using less 'loaded terms' that you would accept?

Unless I've misread what you've written or you've left things out it doesn't seem like they were calling you "inadequate" in any way.
They explain away my competence by declaring that I must have a "boy-brain", rather than accepting that it is their sexist attitude, their apparent expectation of my poor performance, that is at fault. Their belief that a woman is inadequate is revealed by the fact that they "upgrade" me to an honorary man to explain to themselves how I managed to exceed their low expectations. It is very telling too, that they seem to expect me to regard this "upgrade" as a compliment, rather than the patronising insult that it actually is. Their behavior is comparable to a group of white engineers telling a black engineer who had just solved a tricky problem that he had a "white brain", and expecting him to be complimented.

This explains why you find what they said offensive. It does not explain why you believed they were calling you "inadequate." They did not explain away your competence. They clearly recognized that you were competent.  You've said that a model should accommodate exceptional results. But I'm skeptical that you would have been much more approving of their comments if they had called you "exceptional" and then added "for a woman." I could be wrong, but I suspect that it is their belief that men are (biologically) better, on average, at some particular task than women, on average, that offends you. If there's some phrasing of this belief that you would find palatable, feel free to put it forward.

I'd rather not engage the particulars of your experience. I don't know your coworkers. I'm not here to justify their beliefs. I personally suspect that the disparity between women and men on technical issues, to the limited extent it exists in American culture, is primarily a matter of motivation rather than capacity. I think this motivation may have a partly biological basis, that might be counteracted socially if it needs to be.  But if the result of this discussion is that I'm supposed to believe that women and men within a given culture are identical in every regard, irrespective of any evidence, then I'm simply not buying in. Call me whatever names you want to associate me with your chosen outgroup.

There are biological differences between average male and female brains in addition to culturally promoted male and female gender roles. Such differences are likely dwarfed by cultural influences, but they can be demonstrated to exist. And while both women and men have, say, Testosterone and DHT their effects are commonly called masculinizing, because they are associated with male primary and secondary sexual characteristics.  I object to any social paradigm where male and female differences and their basis cannot be courteously discussed. Because it basically amounts to someone saying "well, these topics, we just aren't allowed to THINK about..."


<mod>Edited to display quoting correctly</mod>
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Aug 2013, 13:16
I object to any social paradigm where male and female differences and their basis cannot be courteously discussed. Because it basically amounts to someone saying "well, these topics, we just aren't allowed to THINK about..."

Sometimes, though, in order to discuss something in a useful way, a degree of care in expression and even exact choice of subjects which you might argue to be beyond necessity is in fact the best way to go.

It may not be easy to do, I admit, and it's certainly not easy to umpire!

Reasoning from bell curves is not a good tool for overanalyzing a comic, since entertainment value requires making new characters different from the existing ones.

Indeed - one of the first things to grasp in statistics is that it is all about populations, and never about individuals (this is where I just can't get along with Asimov's Foundation series in the end).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 07 Aug 2013, 13:27
Psychohistory was'nt perfect

After all, it never predicted The Mule.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 07 Aug 2013, 13:50
A person who notes that men have, on average, more muscle mass than women is inevitably asserting that all men SHOULD have more muscle mass?

Y'know, come to think of it.. Is it just me or does Marten really not seem male? I mean, we all know actual men have more muscle mass, so my predictive model suggest that some skinny indie person is probably actually female.

I mean, sure, I guess Marten might be male, but according to my gender constructs it doesn't seem unreasonable to play "One of these things is not like the other!" as far as their gender is concerned! Clearly there has to be some statement involved in choosing to violate what I think is consistently the case for all the males I happen to know!

Thus if we want to "seem female", then we should adhere to your biased personal experience of "How women are".

This explains why you find what they said offensive. It does not explain why you believed they were calling you "inadequate." They did not explain away your competence. They clearly recognized that you were competent.  You've said that a model should accommodate exceptional results. But I'm skeptical that you would have been much more approving of their comments if they had called you "exceptional" and then added "for a woman." I could be wrong, but I suspect that it is their belief that men are (biologically) better, on average, at some particular task than women, on average, that offends you. If there's some phrasing of this belief that you would find palatable, feel free to put it forward.

It has nothing to do with denying statistics or anything. The issue lies in reducing her as a person with their sexist nonsense and how her being a woman is supposedly some "handicap", because she was supposed to be dumb. It is inherently insulting, just as how it isn't a compliment to say "you're passable [as cisgender]" as a synonym for being pretty. It shows their fundamental problem with what someone is. But I'm not cis, I'm trans. Akima is not a man, she's a woman. Some white heterosexual cisgender man looking down on other people, but admitting that "I guess you're alright.. for one of them." is insufferable privileged bullshit.

You don't need to tell me I "don't look trans" to tell me I'm pretty.

You don't need to tell Akima that she "doesn't seem female" to tell her she's intelligent.

These things only betray what oppressive, normative attitudes the person already holds which do not take into account that "trans =/= ugly" or "woman =/= stupid". Although I can guarantee that as a predictive model any given trans person someone doesn't find "pretty enough" is certainly a better, more beautiful person than the one saying it will ever be. Same goes for intelligence.

Guess what! You're right! Both immediately attacking her very existence as a woman and condescendingly patting her on the head as their inferior is unacceptable offensive bullshit! So don't do that, then. It's not like it's hard. Even if it might mean not playing your little games pointing at people and making uninformed judgments about who they are based on your preexisting biases. Hm.. I could've sworn there's a word for that..

But if the result of this discussion is that I'm supposed to believe that women and men within a given culture are identical in every regard, irrespective of any evidence, then I'm simply not buying in. Call me whatever names you want to associate me with your chosen outgroup. /.../

I object to any social paradigm where male and female differences and their basis cannot be courteously discussed. Because it basically amounts to someone saying "well, these topics, we just aren't allowed to THINK about..."

Except that statements like these are a derailment from the original thing you said. It isn't "Women" or "Men" as a whole, it is particular women or men that yes, could entirely be the same personality without losing their gender. You said a character "doesn't seem female" and went on to talk about how none of the women you know behave like that, therefore it is nonsensical for there to be a woman who does. That it warrants extra scrutiny for falling outside of your norms (but apparently you're not being normative about it). Seeming "female" is being a woman. That doesn't require adherence to any stereotypes you happen to have about what that entails. It is distinct and separate - and statistical correlations are not determinants.

And stop trying to play the "Those damn marginalized people are trying to censor my opinions and free speech AND EVEN MY VERY THOUGHTS :cry: " card. It's just inane and transparent. Classic diversion tactic to not actually have to consider other points of view. Someone saying they don't agree with you - or even thinking you're saying shitty things - does not equate to censorship. People don't have an unalienable right to be liked.

associated with male primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

If one presupposes that such traits belong in such categories in the first place. Which I do not. That's just more commonly the case for most of the population. If for instance a trans woman who is comfortable with her genitalia doesn't have genital reassignment surgery... then those are her genitals, consistent with her brain-mapping as a woman, not male ones.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 07 Aug 2013, 13:52
Asimov was trying to debunk the "Great Man" theory of history, but that caused him to swerve into predestination. The mathematics of chaos theory hadn't been invented when Asimov started writing Foundation, so I'm inclined to forgive him for not taking it into account.

Warning - while you were typing the tides of history washed over you. You may wish to find a flotation device.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 07 Aug 2013, 14:53
Quote
It may not be easy to do, I admit, and it's certainly not easy to umpire!

I do not envy you your task.

Reasoning from bell curves is not a good tool for overanalyzing a comic, since entertainment value requires making new characters different from the existing ones.
Indeed - one of the first things to grasp in statistics is that it is all about populations, and never about individuals (this is where I just can't get along with Asimov's Foundation series in the end).
What is a good tool for over analyzing a comic? Because apparently that's what I do. :-p

(Fixed the quote. -Method)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 07 Aug 2013, 15:03
It may not be easy to do, I admit, and it's certainly not easy to umpire!

Maybe all sides could agree to call the game on account of darkness.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 07 Aug 2013, 16:31
Quote
Y'know, come to think of it.. Is it just me or does Marten really not seem male?

I assume that that's kindof a throwaway line or mockery. But I'll engage it as a sincere attempt to model my beliefs. 

First, there are a lot of men with low muscle mass. Martin is not an outlier in this regard. People with unusually high lean muscle mass tend strongly to be men, or have taken steroids, or have some other trait which explains their being on the long tail. Usually.

Second, Martin seems on the tall end, which, probabalistically, favors cis-male-ness in the average human.

But there are lots of other things.... waking up at 40 with nothing to show for it tends slightly towards a more masculine experience of time than feminine. Being as calm as Martin is doesn't suggest a particular conflict with social norms. I don't get the feeling that Martin is particularly defensive, recovering from anything, dealing with any major crisis either internal or external, etc.

None of these are conclusive even in a constellation, of course. But they explain why I don't have any real reason to think Martin has anything particularly big bubbling beneath the surface of his persona.  (Despite his family situation.)

Quote
Thus if we want to "seem female", then we should adhere to your biased personal experience of "How women are".

Please note that I never said anything about what someone "wanted to seem." That is a whole new kettle of worms (Bigger than a can. And even worse, we're out of fish)  that you are opening, not me.

If you want to seem feminine to me, then you should act according to my notions of femininity. Sure. But why on earth should you care whether you seem feminine to me? Honestly? Further, I suspect that I don't place nearly the weight on femininity or masculinity that some do. These are merely models used to predict people's behavior. Whether I think a woman is feminine or a guy is masculine has absolutely nothing to do with my affinity for them or whether I think they're a likable person. (Okay, I tend to not get along with really sterotypically hyper-macho and hyper-feminine people. But that's beside the point.)

Quote
The issue lies in reducing her as a person with their sexist nonsense and how her being a woman is supposedly some "handicap", because she was supposed to be dumb.

Yes. Well, I can't say that they expected her to be dumb in general based only on what she told us. I got a very narrow slice. But they seem to have expected her to be bad at math because of her gender or sex. They didn't claim that being female was a handicap for her, personally.  They did acknowledge her competence, it seems. She feels insulted because she feels her coworkers insulted a group she belonged to and identified with and suggested that such group identification was somehow (she feels, at least) incompatible with her abilities. In any case, it entirely ignores the question of whether there really are certain traits which correlate with an affinity for math.

Quote
just as how it isn't a compliment to say "you're passable [as cisgender]" as a synonym for being pretty.

I assume you mean because it's damning with faint praise.  Kindof like "you won't completely bomb the test."

Quote
These things only betray what oppressive, normative attitudes the person already holds which do not take into account that "trans =/= ugly" or "woman =/= stupid".

Just to be clear, this is not a response to any attitude I hold. I know that mathematicians often take a problem and convert it to a solved problem, then solve it. I halfway feel like some people on this board have pegged me as an enemy and then decided that my statements should be converted somehow into statements similar to those of known enemies so that they can thereby be dismissed. It's the whole 'converting my statements into things I didn't say' which aggravates me.

Quote
You said a character "doesn't seem female" and went on to talk about how none of the women you know behave like that, therefore it is nonsensical for there to be a woman who does.

Where are you getting the " therefore it is nonsensical for there to be a woman who does." Please quote the line.

Hint: I didn't say that. The first part, sure. The second part? No, you're making that up.

Quote
That it warrants extra scrutiny for falling outside of your norms (but apparently you're not being normative about it)

Yes. Put in more mundane terms; unusual is not the same as bad. Why is this so confusing? Do you associate conformity with being good?

Quote
and statistical correlations are not determinants.

Never once said they were. Quite the opposite. Multiple times. Who are you arguing with?


Quote
And stop trying to play the "Those damn marginalized people are trying to censor my opinions and free speech AND EVEN MY VERY THOUGHTS :cry: " card.

If you tell me one more time that my beliefs are a game, I will tell you that your beliefs are a game. I suspect you will take it
much worse than I have. Consider treating others as you would like to be treated. Being "marginalized" does not excuse you from that. 

If you want to tell me that you're okay with whatever I say and whatever I think, so long as it's based on evidence and some measure of compassion, by all means say that. Or, if you're not okay with that then... hey, if the shoe fits don't complain about being asked to wear it.

Quote
People don't have an unalienable right to be liked.

I never said I cared strongly if anyone liked me. Just the opposite. I said I'd rather believe what I think is true, but that I was amenable to persuasion that my beliefs were untrue. What I object to is an argument of the form "If you believe X then we will not like you, so you should not believe x." People try that sometimes. It doesn't work so well with me. But I'm open to persuasion, all the same.
Quote
associated with male primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

If one presupposes that such traits belong in such categories in the first place. Which I do not. That's just more commonly the case for most of the population. If for instance a trans woman who is comfortable with her genitalia doesn't have genital reassignment surgery... then those are her genitals, consistent with her brain-mapping as a woman, not male ones.

Yes, it's a model that works for most of the population. And when it's not the case, there's usually a reason for it. Someone with normal testosterone but stereotypically feminine features may be androgen insensitive. So we start with a typical case and then ask why a particular subject diverges from it. And the result is a working mental model.

 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 07 Aug 2013, 16:37
It may not be easy to do, I admit, and it's certainly not easy to umpire!

Maybe all sides could agree to call the game on account of darkness.

Sounds good to me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 07 Aug 2013, 16:57
Every now and then, the left half of your brain looks at the right half of your brain and says "It's dark in here, and we may die"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Aug 2013, 20:41
(moderator)
This is going in circles and not visibly promoting understanding.
(/moderator)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Aug 2013, 21:57
Start from the beginning, read as much as you can, but please don't talk about the matter until you do. There's really no way we could answer your question better than that thread could. For that matter, the thread will let you know how misguided the question itself is.

I read 2 pages. Nothing was particularly new and the text wasn't at all information dense. I saw the notion of strong vs. weak associations with gender identity brought up a few times, but never really brought to much of a conclusion except that 'people are different.' Okay, sure. But that says nothing about average tendencies. If there's something specific you want me to see, please post the specific text and I'll happily read it. In the meantime, I'm going to go back to having as much of an opinion as anyone else on this forum. And if that's unreasonable somehow, by all means, feel free to explain why. "Don't have an opinion till you've read the phone book" isn't something most folks would go for.

Best

I think you've missed the point.  Keep reading. 

Maybe then, you'll notice that your usage of language is only part of the problem, the other part being your assumptions about anything in human behaviour being "normative".  Yes, there are societal norms, but that's the main part of the problem. 

And you should probably read some of this thread (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28499.0.html), too.  The more information you're exposed too, the better. 


But you really need to shake yourself free of the notion that people are abusing your language usage, especially since you've had to apologize for "misspeaking" so often!  The speech isn't the problem - your clarifications have drawn the same reactions as the originals - the problem is the thinking behind the speech. 

Open your mind just a little further, and the light might have a chance to shine in. 



Boy, am I glad I've been to busy the last few days to really follow all this as-it-happened!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: SageJiraiya on 07 Aug 2013, 22:01
Personally, I admit to having expectations of people who subscribe to a specific gender.
I think more people are heterosexual than homosexual.
I observe that most believe female homosexuality is more socially acceptable than male homosexuality.
For me personally, I find two girls more attractive than two guys, but I blame that on my heterosexual nature.
Even though I honestly expect men and women to act in specific ways, I see no problem if they do not.
Whether it's sexuality, marriage, clothing, piercings, or style of speech, people are entitled to act as they please as long as they do not harm anyone.

Raised by two gay moms, it was a little tough for me to not have a male role model. Even today I am more comfortable sexually and socially with women than men.
I knew a FTM guy in high school who was into girls. Does that mean all trans people are into the opposite sex of their desired gender? Of course not.

Although it's perfectly fine to love whomever you like, I do expect that a FTM trans person likes females while a MTF person likes males. I hold no judgement on people who don't meet this stereotype.

My parents NEVER wore dresses, but they also shaved regularly and maintained a feminine appearance. I also knew family friends who handled themselves in a much different manner, and although it wasn't what I was used to, I saw no problem in it.

I don't believe in equality.

I believe in equal opportunity.

That does not mean everyone gets the same thing. It means everyone gets what they need to be in the same place.

I believe women and men are inherently different. Their chromosomes differ between them, their hormones differ between them, and their libidos differ between them.

They are physically different beings, thus giving them the same things would not necessarily result in an even playing field.

Instead of modifying ourselves to fit the current baseline, we need to set a baseline and get everyone to it.

Men and women deserve equal opportunity, and although this is not a judgement on superiority of one sex over another, I think men are statistically more likely to succeed in this world. Especially white anglo-saxon protestant men.

I don't want the world to be this way, but it's what I observe and it's how it seems to stay.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 07 Aug 2013, 22:09
@sage - This seems like wisdom. I'm fine with multiple baselines according to the situation, though. Normal for an 80 year old man will not be normal for a 12 year old boy.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: wiserd on 07 Aug 2013, 22:18

But you really need to shake yourself free of the notion that people are abusing your language usage, especially since you've had to apologize for "misspeaking" so often!  The speech isn't the problem - your clarifications have drawn the same reactions as the originals - the problem is the thinking behind the speech. 

Open your mind just a little further, and the light might have a chance to shine in. 


I'll acknowledge that my phrasing could have been more accurate in some places, given more time to revise and proofread. But internet fora are what they are.

The thing is, I stand behind my thinking till someone gives a coherent example of something better. I'm not fresh off the farm. I'm 35, been to college, traveled quite a bit, had a fairly diverse group of friends, have scored exceptionally high on standard measures of problem solving (for whatever that's worth. I don't buy into the whole notion of general intelligence. But certain types can be measured. ) I probably consider my beliefs as valid as you consider yours, and have as much reason to believe that. If I told you to "open your mind just a little further and the light might have a chance to shine in" how would you receive that admonition?

I don't have time to read through 30 pages of text, though. I'm far enough behind on my work as it is. Sorry.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Aug 2013, 22:34
I stand behind my thinking till someone gives a coherent example of something better.

I believe several people have tried to here. 

Quote
If I told you to "open your mind just a little further and the light might have a chance to shine in" how would you receive that admonition?

I'd wonder what it was I was missing.  Then I'd try to find out. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Aug 2013, 22:42
(moderator)
This is going in circles and not visibly promoting understanding.
(/moderator)
I agree. And wiserd, you say that you don't have time to read the thread, which would be the equivalent of doing basic research on the topic. That's fine. But you need to understand that you don't understand the issue. I'm going to lock this thread, as there really doesn't seem to be any resolution in sight here. If you do ever get the time, though, I would encourage you to check out that thread, bit by bit. It's not complete (nothing really is, I suppose), but every little bit of knowledge breeds a little bit more understanding.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 07 Aug 2013, 22:50
(Method locked it like the same second I was pressing Post, but he's doing me the courtesy of not deleting all I wrote. I'd prefer it if it wasn't locked, but split into Discuss or something, since I'd hardly intend on silencing any responses or such, wiserd. Even if I'm being a snidey-butt about some things in it. :laugh: )

there are a lot of men with low muscle mass.

So if he moved to a warrior culture where the average man will have a lot higher muscle mass then he'd turn into a woman until you ascertained otherwise? Through the power of statistical predictive models, which one would have arbitrarily chosen to focus on this particular trait within? :-P

Please note that I never said anything about what someone "wanted to seem." That is a whole new kettle of worms (Bigger than a can. And even worse, we're out of fish)  that you are opening, not me.

Seeming female, as we are, as opposed to being ignorantly labeled male. That being the clear implication of having such a view of her personality. As though it's too "unfeminine" - whatever that's supposed to mean - to be a woman.

Quote
just as how it isn't a compliment to say "you're passable [as cisgender]" as a synonym for being pretty.
I assume you mean because it's damning with faint praise.  Kindof like "you won't completely bomb the test."

..Wow. No, it isn't an insult because it's just "getting a passing grade on the scale of cisgender attractiveness". It's an insult because it presumes that being attractive is automatically a cisgender trait. That the only way for trans people to acquire it is to try to be cisgender. That we are inherently inferior to cis people. That I should be glad to disassociate myself from some of the better people humanity has to offer in order to be accepted by those who would police cisnormativity. That being how I want to be is automatically an attempt to conform to their test of cisgenderitude.

It does not suddenly remove the thing I am taking issue with by tagging on "Even if you were a cis woman you'd be good looking" at the end of it, as though not just getting a passing grade, but actually getting a high one. The test itself is bullshit. Or 'predictive model', as I'm sure you'd prefer to call it.

Quote
You said a character "doesn't seem female" and went on to talk about how none of the women you know behave like that, therefore it is nonsensical for there to be a woman who does.
Where are you getting the " therefore it is nonsensical for there to be a woman who does." Please quote the line.
Hint: I didn't say that. The first part, sure. The second part? No, you're making that up.

Right, of course I'm making it up.

I saw this part in a sleep deprived hallucination, I'm sure: "If we were critiquing a story about the Victorian era and a character wore pants for casual activities, it would be completely in line to note how unusual/anachronistic that was and ask what the author was saying about the character."

That there being an analogy to how May is in this given situation, given that she is the "a character" originally in question. That is stating that her behaviour is nonsensical given her setting, where she is portrayed as female, simply out of your narrow view that women aren't like that, given that you didn't know of any. It seemed as alien to you as a carefree pants-wearing lady during the Victorian Era would seem if you were reading such a work.

Quote
That it warrants extra scrutiny for falling outside of your norms (but apparently you're not being normative about it)
Yes. Put in more mundane terms; unusual is not the same as bad. Why is this so confusing? Do you associate conformity with being good?

That's not a response to what's in the quote, yet you ask me why such a non-related statement is "confusing"?

You think me telling you that it's bullshit to feel entitled to pry into non-normative people's lives just to satisfy your own confusion about their supposed norm-breaking equals me saying that conformity is good? Since when the fuck did we have to ask your permission to tread outside how you've decided to categorize our existence? I thought you've specifically said such a thing would not be the case, so why, all of a sudden (since you're saying it wasn't the case before), do we now warrant extra scrutiny? Because otherwise you won't accept us and instead treat us as whatever your biased views of genders makes you personally think we are?

I mean, I get the tendency to do that, sure. Just look at all the Cisgender psychologists who still force "Real Life Experience"s on trans people before getting the treatments we need. Literally keeping tabs on us to make sure we're "trans enough" and essentially enforcing the wearings of skirts and use of makeup. Even if they're women who don't use those things themselves. But we'd have to show we really mean it for realsies.

Putting people you don't quite "get" under extra scrutiny just for not being part of your strange definitions is saying that being unusual is bad.

Quote
and statistical correlations are not determinants.
Never once said they were. Quite the opposite. Multiple times. Who are you arguing with?

The actual outcome of the things you're saying. Automatically presuming everyone in a group is one way or is worse at some things is not "having a useful predictive model of the world". It's just being a prejudiced butt. Someone having a trait that another has deemed less common for group X doesn't mean they're actually part of group Y. They just happen to be someone from group X who has that trait. A woman who is good at math is not less of a woman than one who is not. It's arbitrary.

A lot of people would say I'm "really a guy" because I probably have XY chromosomes, but just because they're more commonly found in men doesn't make me any less of a woman. Because they don't define anything of what it means to be a woman. On the other hand I'm pretty shit at math, so I guess it all balances out in the end. :roll:

If you tell me one more time that my beliefs are a game, I will tell you that your beliefs are a game. I suspect you will take it  much worse than I have. Consider treating others as you would like to be treated. Being "marginalized" does not excuse you from that.

Oh, you mean like how doubting what gender someone is by literally saying that you "Like to play 'One of these things is not like the other'." doesn't turn that into a game? Give me a break. Like your "beliefs" even comes close to dealing with someone's identity in such a manner. :roll:

If you want to tell me that you're okay with whatever I say and whatever I think, so long as it's based on evidence and some measure of compassion, by all means say that.

I never said I wasn't. But don't expect me to respect the beliefs themselves.

Also a pro-tip: Everyone thinks their beliefs are "based on evidence" - they believe things for a reason. It's just that a lot of people either find very poor evidence compelling or they draw erroneous conclusions. I'm not denying all of the things you're saying about statistics etc., I'm saying your view of what it actually tells you is mistaken.

What I object to is an argument of the form "If you believe X then we will not like you, so you should not believe x." People try that sometimes. It doesn't work so well with me.

Sure, they try it all the time. If I cared too much about that then I'd be dead by now.

Yes, it's a model that works for most of the population. And when it's not the case, there's usually a reason for it. Someone with normal testosterone but stereotypically feminine features may be androgen insensitive. So we start with a typical case and then ask why a particular subject diverges from it. And the result is a working mental model.

What you fail to realize is the bias inherent in this. The model itself would remain largely identical, it's our presumptions within it that would change.

We've also already been over this. If it only works for "most of the population" then your model is wrong and needs adjusting. Just as how Newtonian mechanics may be "good enough" in most cases, but they're not a model of reality.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Aug 2013, 23:51
(Method locked it like the same second I was pressing Post, but he's doing me the courtesy of not deleting all I wrote. I'd prefer it if it wasn't locked, but split into Discuss or something, since I'd hardly intend on silencing any responses or such, wiserd. Even if I'm being a snidey-butt about some things in it. :laugh: )

I had decided to lock this before I noticed that the other mods had got there while I was sleeping.  I had also thought about breaking it out into Discuss, but decided that this was not appropriate in this particular case because the discussion is not so much about a philosophical point as about an individual's attitudes and understanding.



Wiserd, I am not going to address any more individual points in your postings, but to make a couple of general points for you to mull over.  This discussion has arisen from two characteristics of what you are writing: (1) the continuing use of statistical concepts to categorise individuals - which is plain wrong use of statistics; and, (2) your insistence on categorising people, or aspects of them, in a specific way (masculine vs feminine).

The first point I will leave aside - it can be learnt about, and in any case the second is far more concerning.  I suggest that you look inside yourself and ask why does this categorisation into masculine and feminine matter to me at all?  If you can't see why this might be a concern, then as a mental exercise change "masculine" and "feminine" to "black" and "white" or "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" (both also equally binary-looking divisions which actually aren't so), apply the mirror of history, and see if you understand better the danger of what's going on in your mind.  Ultimately, insisting on dividing people up in a specific way, as you have been, is actively attempting to deny them their individuality, to reduce them to ciphers, and (being dramatic here) to deny their humanity.  This may not be because you consciously want to belittle them, or some of them, (as historically is shown to be a common result of this), but it may be that there is some reason you can't easily deal with them as individuals.  I'm not in a position to know why this might be, but hope that you can reflect on it, with the help perhaps of friends and family as well as what has been written here, and learn to understand yourself and your relationship with others better as a result.