THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: BenRG on 24 Apr 2016, 13:09

Title: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 24 Apr 2016, 13:09
Jeph may or may not to do his usual 'one strip per night' thing this week as he has to get ready for Calgary Expo. Sometimes, this can lead to some unique ideas and highly sequential strip sequences as Jeph is writing and drawing many strips in quick succession.

So, here's a chance for you to come up with something completely wild or completely... Jeph. I've tried to cover as wide a scale of options as I can. Feel free to vote 'Other' add your own ideas! What would I like...? Well, I know that Jeph likes RPGs. I wonder if he's ever thought of doing 'Character Sheets' for Marten, Faye, Hannelore, Dora and Claire?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 24 Apr 2016, 13:31
Corpse Witch visits her Government Handler - Agent Turing
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebediah on 24 Apr 2016, 14:34
Yes, because Corpse Witch is actually training robot assassins for the government. That's why the fight club has never been shut down.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: cesium133 on 24 Apr 2016, 14:40
Corpse Witch is actually Vespavenger, after the unfortunate accident with the Robotifier.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: jheartney on 24 Apr 2016, 15:38
Future!Emily reveals that Sam is the Prophecied Saviour of the World!

Nonsense. Punchbot is obviously the Kwisatz Haderach. His uncontrollable punching is the aftereffect of his punch arm's encounter with the Gom Jabbar. This means both Corpse Witch and Bubbles are part of the Bene Gesserit sisterhood, and CW is probably a Reverend Mother.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: comicalArchitect on 24 Apr 2016, 18:21
Vespavenger determines that Emily is a threat to world security, and comes to assassinate her. Clinnnn-ton has to prove himself a hero and defeat her.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mustang6172 on 24 Apr 2016, 20:05
Didn't Emily start working at CoD before the time jump?  Is Clin-ton not on Facebook?  Worst stalker ever!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Method of Madness on 24 Apr 2016, 20:24
Maybe he's just stopped his stalking ways after being tied up and told to stop his stalking ways.

Also wow, they never went on a second date? Hopefully they do soon, and also I hope Clin-ton survives.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Gladstone on 24 Apr 2016, 20:26
Didn't Emily start working at CoD before the time jump?  Is Clin-ton not on Facebook?  Worst stalker ever!

Yeah, that's the weird thing about this jump.  Several months have passed, but it feels like everyone was in stasis.  Did nobody interact with each other at all?  Faye and Dora, Sam and Faye, Veronica and Jim and Sam, Clin-ton and Emily...I mean, Clinton apparently not knowing that Emily was working at CoD for the past few months is one thing, but Sam not trying to hang out with Faye, Veronica waiting several months to ask to move in with Jim (when their relationship progressed so quickly in the beginning), hell, even Pintsize and Claire getting to know each other, all these little stories that have happened after the jump feel really weird.  Apparently the only change that happened during the jump was Claire becoming a TA.  Everyone else must've been in a coma or something.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mustang6172 on 24 Apr 2016, 20:45
As I think about it further, I find more plot hole.  Since Clin-ton is too timid to ask for a second date, why hasn't Emily asked for a second date?  She appeared to have a good time on the first date and doesn't seem at all shy.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: cesium133 on 24 Apr 2016, 20:58
She's too scatterbrained to remember she had a first date. Either that, or she thinks she scared him off.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: MrNumbers on 24 Apr 2016, 22:10
Clinton looks sexy when he's angry in the fourth panel.

... what? He does.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DonInKansas on 24 Apr 2016, 23:03
Fancy Clinton is fancy.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Nepiophage on 24 Apr 2016, 23:31
Corpse Witch visits her Government Handler - Agent Turing
While Steve is ordered by his DKYA superior to stop investigating the robofighting ciub. You can write the rest of the arc from there -- though the thought of Steve with Faye is a bit unbelievable . .
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 24 Apr 2016, 23:32
So, indecision, thy name is Clinton Augustus! From what Claire says, he really wants a second date with Emily but he keeps on talking himself out of asking or finding excuses not to do so. Emily, meanwhile, retains her cute, otherworldly innocence.

Now, is it me or can the Augustus siblings not be on the same panel without pushing, shoving and arguing?

Since Clin-ton is too timid to ask for a second date, why hasn't Emily asked for a second date?

It might be cultural conditioning that women don't make the first move. Alternatively, she might genuinely not understand the concept of a 'second date'!

Of course, it would also be plausible if she interpreted Clinton's zealous avoidance of her as meaning that he isn't interested in her.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: SubaruStephen on 24 Apr 2016, 23:43
Yet another cute Claireface.  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Timemaster on 24 Apr 2016, 23:48
Yay, Emily & Clinton.  :laugh:

I find it a bit strange, too, that their relationship (or however you want to call it) hasn´t moved on since the time jump. And that he doesn´t know she´s working at CoD. 200 strips and several months with no interaction is a long time. But on the other side now we´ll be able to witness how things will continue between the two.
I think that is worth this little plothole.

TM
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 24 Apr 2016, 23:49
Well if you won't get up the gumption to ask Emily out again Clin-ton, I guess it was up to Claire to make you make a move.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: foolsguinea on 24 Apr 2016, 23:56
I'm going backwards through the comic reading the little lines of text at the bottom. I just noticed that there's one every day.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: USS Martenclaire on 25 Apr 2016, 00:19
Mrrrr. I see quite a lot of myself in Clinton. I struggle a lot with the concept of someone being romantically interested in me. So while I would be annoyed in Clinton's position, I think I would also be quite grateful as well as I'm too clueless/lacking in confidence to be so direct.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 25 Apr 2016, 00:20
Shouldn't take you long then foolsguinea.  I don't think Jeph started doing that more than three or four months ago.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Ysobel on 25 Apr 2016, 02:07
Just to remind, Clin-ton & Emily did have another Claire-set-up encounter (though not a 'second date', as in silly American sit-com conventions :j) after their first date, in the doggy park. Starting #2992 and culminating in the epic #2999 strip.
They also went to CoD and she clearly wasn't yet on banana-hammer duty then.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: ThePerilsOfDan on 25 Apr 2016, 07:03
I'm going backwards through the comic reading the little lines of text at the bottom. I just noticed that there's one every day.

aw, damn, now why did you go and do that?  I had lots of things I planned to do today.

seriously, I'm pissed at myself for not noticing that before.  I mean I think I've seen a couple of them but didn't know there was one for every day.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: ThePerilsOfDan on 25 Apr 2016, 07:04
Shouldn't take you long then foolsguinea.  I don't think Jeph started doing that more than three or four months ago.

Phew, that's good to know
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: ThePerilsOfDan on 25 Apr 2016, 07:21
I, for purely selfish reasons, would almost like another time-jump to warmer weather as it is late April IRL and seeing the characters in winter clothing gives me a sad.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 25 Apr 2016, 08:11
It is possible that Emily doesn't much care one way or another about dating in general, or Clin-ton in particular. While Claire and Clinton are doing the almost stereotypical 'trying to hook up my sibling' routine, Emily is to busy making banana smoothies with a mallet, using caffeine to set her mind in motion and knitting sweaters using non-Euclidean mathematics. Romance is just something that isn't on her mind.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Endellion on 25 Apr 2016, 10:18
I was wondering whether Clin-ton and Emily were 'hanging out' still, it seems that he hasn't got around to asking her yet.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebediah on 25 Apr 2016, 10:24
Emily is possibly the only woman on the planet who wouldn't find anything at all strange or insulting about Clinton waiting so long to ask her out again.

Emily's mind moves in mysterious ways.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: thedevilissix on 25 Apr 2016, 11:06
I somehow see a fancy dress party in their future where they dress up as John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Can't imagine why  :-P
It's certainly fascinating that Emily's not really fussed about there being no followup - it'd be refreshing to be that oblivious at times, if you'll forgive my projection!
I voted in the poll for MartenClaireFaye indie snarks. I miss these.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: chaospersonified on 25 Apr 2016, 13:10
I voted in the poll for MartenClaireFaye indie snarks. I miss these.

You are not the only one...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Laura on 25 Apr 2016, 18:10
♫ you gotta set him up whoop oh rye ow ♫
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 25 Apr 2016, 19:34
The expressions of the siblings are delightful. Especially in the last panel.
Also more Emily!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 25 Apr 2016, 20:36
It is possible that Emily doesn't much care one way or another about dating in general, or Clin-ton in particular. While Claire and Clinton are doing the almost stereotypical 'trying to hook up my sibling' routine, Emily is to busy making banana smoothies with a mallet, using caffeine to set her mind in motion and knitting sweaters using non-Euclidean mathematics. Romance is just something that isn't on her mind.

Looks like it's more or less this.

I suppose that deals with the plot hole speculation.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Nepiophage on 25 Apr 2016, 20:43
I'm feeling nearly as crushed and disappointed as Clinton    :-(
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mustang6172 on 25 Apr 2016, 20:44

And then the ship sank.  The end.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 25 Apr 2016, 21:32
And for her next magic trick, Claire will stick both her feet into her mouth while frantically chasing her brother down the street.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Loki on 25 Apr 2016, 22:41
Ohgodamn.
This situation hits close to home. Working up the to ask someone out, while being convinced it will surely go well... Having one's hopes crushed with one sentence... that feeling really sucks.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 25 Apr 2016, 23:19
The old proverb is: "He who hesitates is lost". Clinton, old pal, you hesitated and you lost, at least this round. This is what indecision and not striking when the iron is hot always gets you! I hope that he's not going to blame Claire for this. She's been pushing him to act on this pretty consistently from what we've seen; Clinton just didn't take her advice and now he's reaping the harvest that he'd sown!

Still, Emily didn't say he was dumped, only that she didn't have the time for anything formal. So, he and she can still hang out at lunchtime and the like, if he's willing to make that effort.

Th viability of this ship really has always depended on whether Clinton was brave enough to act. We'll see how things go forwards from here!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 25 Apr 2016, 23:22
Well, the tactic of simply popping in for a coffee on a regular basis to say hi does have a successful* precedent...

* Well, initially successful...  :-\
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: anahata on 26 Apr 2016, 00:00
This situation hits close to home. Working up the to ask someone out, while being convinced it will surely go well... Having one's hopes crushed with one sentence... that feeling really sucks.
Poor Clinton.
Oh yes - been there, done that. Haven't we all?

More often never getting the courage to  even ask - and then much later in life, finding out that being rejected is actually less painful than spending the rest of your life regretting missed opportunities.

The worst for Clinton would be if, having declared she has no time for dates, Emily suddenly got into a very public romance with somebody else. I don't think Jeph would go there, though.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: pwhodges on 26 Apr 2016, 00:12
Still, Emily didn't say he was dumped, only that she didn't have the time for anything formal. So, he and she can still hang out at lunchtime and the like, if he's willing to make that effort.

Indeed, she showed every sign that she was happy he was there (though maybe she's never unhappy about anything?).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 26 Apr 2016, 00:18
One can only feel sorry for Clinton.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: MrNumbers on 26 Apr 2016, 01:16
The problems with being a shipper, yo, Claire?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Doc on 26 Apr 2016, 01:25
No problems whatsoever here. Because between work and school there's always bedtime!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: War Sparrow on 26 Apr 2016, 02:17
Good on Emily for knowing where she stands, time management wise. Instead of juggling dating, work, and school, she has identified her priorities and knows what she needs to do to balance them.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 26 Apr 2016, 03:13
Good on Emily for knowing where she stands, time management wise. Instead of juggling dating, work, and school, she has identified her priorities and knows what she needs to do to balance them.
Yeah! She might be a genius who will further science by miles by making a sweater, but it makes a lot of sense that she has to work hard for it.

Clintons reaction is better than last time, I guess! This time, he accepts that the lady declines and doesn't stalk her! And he didn't even try to find out where she lived or worked for months.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 26 Apr 2016, 03:22
Well, the tactic of simply popping in for a coffee on a regular basis to say hi does have a successful* precedent...

I don't think that the precedent of Angus and Faye is applicable. The 'stalk at place of work' part worked out for Angus. It was 'turn fascination and mutual amusement into a firm relationship' that made the whole thing collapse.

FWIW, I'm expecting Clinton to get sulky and Claire to be upset. There will probably be at least one strip this week of Claire going to Marten for comfort. Meanwhile, I guarantee that Emily will not understand why Claire is a bit cold around her for the next few days.

[Edit]
Just to expand on my sort-of-prediction for the future of this arc:

Clinton is going to be upset; he does like Emily and this sort-of-rejection will hurt. Being human, he's going to lash out at the closest person to hand, who is Claire. He's going to accuse her of setting him up to fail as some sort of elaborate practical joke and storm off. That will upset Claire who, in her idiosyncratic way, was trying to help him be as happy as she is with Marten. Because of this, I think she'll blame herself but, more significantly the only obvious 'malefactor', namely Emily.

Blaming Emily for anything in this would be self-defeating. I'm not sure she'd even necessarily understand Claire if accused of doing something wrong. However, I can see Claire being a bit cold and formal with her for a while, if only because she loves her brother really and it upset her to see him hurt and for him to blame her for that. In any case, not interacting with Emily probably won't improve Claire's mood; being upset with your best friend never does. It's at that point that someone, probably Marten, will step in, mostly because he can't reconcile Claire's complaints with the Emily he knows and he doesn't want Claire to stay miserable.

Of course, I could have totally misread Emily and, with the same attitude as she manifested in strip 2999, she might instead tell off Claire for accusing her of something that she actually hasn't done. I'm not sure if Claire would lose her temper if told she is being irrational or if the whole thing will end with a tearful reconciliation, likely at the counter in Coffee of Doom, which may lead to Dora asking them to leave such things until Emily is off-shift. :-P
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Radium_Coyote on 26 Apr 2016, 04:53
This is where one doubles down.  To weave oneself into Emily's self-narration would take a big leap of imagination, but it is possible.

Clinton's up for it, if the last date is anything to go by.  He just needs to figure out how.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 26 Apr 2016, 08:36
Clinton needs to start asking out other women soon as he can, and forget about the one who rejected him. Easier said than done I know, but the man who doesn't get proactive in the dating arena is doomed to end up alone, since the vast majority of women still don't ask men out.

Plus, a man like Clinton, with his looks and lack of social skills, definitely can't afford to wait around to be asked out; it is highly unlikely to happen.  He also needs to start building up a thick skin and high tolerance for rejection, since he's likely to get it a lot.

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mad hands murphy on 26 Apr 2016, 09:08
claire is always wrong, lol
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Method of Madness on 26 Apr 2016, 09:16
Emily did say she doesn't have time for dates right now. No indication she wouldn't be interested when she has the time.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 26 Apr 2016, 09:29
Only Jeph knows when that will be. Could be months or years down the line, by which time Emily may well have forgotten about Clinton, or some other guy may swoop in for whom she may be willing to make the time. In any case, Clinton is wise not to wait.

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Method of Madness on 26 Apr 2016, 13:56
Oh, I'm not saying Clinton should wait, but I hardly think this is Emily not being interested.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: thedevilissix on 26 Apr 2016, 13:58
Welp! Poor Clinton. That situation is a swift sharp gut punch and is every bit as not at all fun.
From seeing Emily's previous form though, I think she's probably a bit too oblivious to construct any sort of "busy" excuse whih is actually intended to reject. I think there's a fair chance she genuinely means what she says.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: thedevilissix on 26 Apr 2016, 14:08
Clinton needs to start asking out other women soon as he can, and forget about the one who rejected him. Easier said than done I know, but the man who doesn't get proactive in the dating arena is doomed to end up alone, since the vast majority of women still don't ask men out.

Plus, a man like Clinton, with his looks and lack of social skills, definitely can't afford to wait around to be asked out; it is highly unlikely to happen.  He also needs to start building up a thick skin and high tolerance for rejection, since he's likely to get it a lot.

It's sound practical advice I agree for Clinton to put himself out there (in it to win it and all that) but I would hope that such a thing wouldn't turn into a means for Clinton or anyone else for that matter to beat themselves up if things don't happen right away in spite of doing everything possible.
In Nina Simone's words, "It Be's That Way Sometimes" - sometimes at least temporarily, everyone really is just taken. But it is temporary!
In events like that, I think it's a very healthy and helpful idea for the person  to take care of themselves first and feed their self-esteem with work they love, exercise, friends, family....I think potential significant others gravitate towards that kind of happiness and self-assurance more than might be assumed. And honestly, I don't think anyone should ever feel like time is running out. Ever. Or that they risk being alone forever. I would hope no one should ever have to feel like that.

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mad hands murphy on 26 Apr 2016, 17:17
Clinton needs to start asking out other women soon as he can, and forget about the one who rejected him. Easier said than done I know, but the man who doesn't get proactive in the dating arena is doomed to end up alone, since the vast majority of women still don't ask men out.

Plus, a man like Clinton, with his looks and lack of social skills, definitely can't afford to wait around to be asked out; it is highly unlikely to happen.  He also needs to start building up a thick skin and high tolerance for rejection, since he's likely to get it a lot.

clint doesn't seem generally lonely or in need of a girl, it seemed like he just caught feelings for emily

if he isn't generally looking for someone, he shouldn't wildly overcompensate just because it didn't work out with emily.

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 26 Apr 2016, 17:25
Ah, the talented and wonderful Nina Simone with sage advice.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Method of Madness on 26 Apr 2016, 19:06
Oh, fuck you, Clinton.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: blt on 26 Apr 2016, 19:19
The old proverb is: "He who hesitates is lost".

Alternatively "He who hesitates, masturbates" :meh:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: brightwings00 on 26 Apr 2016, 19:20
Hoo boy.

Claire, your assigned reading for the week is Emma by Jane Austen. Clinton, your homework is a major slap upside the head.

(Also, "asshole"? I've never heard guys use that against girls--is Clinton misgendering her?)

Now someone give me a banana smoothie.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 26 Apr 2016, 19:39
That's a spectacular reaction to a routine rejection. I wonder what's going on in his head or in his history to account for it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Jazzmaster on 26 Apr 2016, 19:40
Emily did say she doesn't have time for dates right now. No indication she wouldn't be interested when she has the time.

Often times when a woman has told me "I don't have time to date, I have to focus on myself/work/school etc." what it really meant was "I'm not interested in dating you. Sorry."

Really, everyone is busy, but few are so very busy that they absolutely cannot carve out time to date somebody they are interested in.  I know too many people who work multiple jobs and juggle all sorts of responsibilities, yet still manage a relationship.

That said, Clinton really felt the rejection in this one.  Damn.  He'll owe Emily an apology later, but I'm sure she feels just as bad for how this turned out as well.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Analogy on 26 Apr 2016, 19:44
Emily did say she doesn't have time for dates right now. No indication she wouldn't be interested when she has the time.

"I don't have time for dates right now" is girl-language for "I don't want to hurt your feelings too bad 'cause I think you're a nice guy and I hate confrontation so I'm gonna try and make it not sound like a complete rejection." This has the unfortunate effect of leaving the guy with a shred of hope, making it all the more painful when he sees her with another guy and he realizes that, no, she has plenty of time for dates when she actually wants to, she just doesn't have time for dates with him.

Source: This has happened to me many, many times. Hopefully when it happens to Clinton he won't get angry and confrontational about it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Analogy on 26 Apr 2016, 19:56
I don't think it's terrible unreasonable for Clinton to be angry right now, if you look at the emotional rollercoaster he's just been through. Before this encounter he was probably like "yeah, I like Emily, but I'm pretty sure I blew it and that ship has sailed." Hence, he hasn't tried to interact with her in months. Now Claire shoves him into the coffee shop and is like "you should totally ask her out again." Clinton at this point is like "well, maybe my sister knows something I don't?" and gets his hopes up all over again. Only for those hopes to get crushed again. Claire didn't know something he didn't, put him in this situation anyway, and now he's been crushed again by something that he had already decided to put behind him and only allowed to come back because he thought his sister knew what she was doing. That's really hurtful. He has every right to be angry right now.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: hedgie on 26 Apr 2016, 20:00
(Also, "asshole"? I've never heard guys use that against girls--is Clinton misgendering her?)
I've heard it.  I suspect that Jeph also wanted to stay away from such gendered insults such as "you bitch".   Either would work for this comic, and a less problematic insult was used.  Clinton is angry, not malicious.  he's not  Mary (http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-6/02-that-perfect-girl/wrong-2/)

"I don't have time for dates right now" is girl-language for <snip>
That is almost certainly how Clinton is reading it.  But this *is* Emily.  She is rather literal-minded, and says exactly what she thinks.  She hasn't shown any aptitude for any sort of code that doesn't involve computers.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Roxtar on 26 Apr 2016, 20:04
That's a spectacular reaction to a routine rejection. I wonder what's going on in his head or in his history to account for it.
do you have a sibling with a propensity for meddling?
it gets really old, really fast. My sister tried to engineer encounters for me with numerous of her friends who were clearly not my type (no similar interests, vastly different lifestyles) and it got to the point where I'd just stop going to the parties she'd plan because I didn't want to be prodded into interactions with people I had nothing in common with other than we were both single. It's really irritating when your sibling constantly thinks they know what is best for you and manipulates you into doing things.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mad hands murphy on 26 Apr 2016, 20:05
SAVAGE
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 26 Apr 2016, 20:10
Hoo boy.

Claire, your assigned reading for the week is Emma by Jane Austen. Clinton, your homework is a major slap upside the head.

(Also, "asshole"? I've never heard guys use that against girls--is Clinton misgendering her?)

Now someone give me a banana smoothie.

Good assignment for Claire, but I think Clinton's not wrong. Yeah, he could have said it nicer, but Claire's behaviour is annoyingly patronizing and manipulative. She didn't leave him any choice or a way out, said that he'd wanted to ask Emily out for months in front of her after dragging him into the CoD. They do studies together, he could have asked her whenever he wanted, it's not as if he didn't see her for months. (Also, note that he's not blaming Emily - she had to shoot him down in public.)

(also, asshole is gender-neutral! Although you are right, I've only heard of girls behaving 'like an asshole'. It's a more precise insult than most that come to mind, though, and I think a gendered (female) insult would be worse. Jackass would work, but that sounds male to my ears as well).

Also, as an older sister with a younger brother - how does she even think this could be a good idea? Or is this sitcom-logic, I can't tell.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: bhtooefr on 26 Apr 2016, 20:13
(Also, "asshole"? I've never heard guys use that against girls--is Clinton misgendering her?)

I personally use it, because it's applicable (women have assholes too), and it's far less gendered than "bitch" or other epithets. (Yes, it has male connotations from society's use of it, but that's mainly due to "bitch" being used for women, and there's "prick" for a gendered epithet against men.)

However, that doesn't mean that Clinton's not misgendering her. He doesn't seem to have the level of awareness that would make him specifically avoid "bitch" as the automatic epithet to use against a woman...

And, I do agree that Claire really did do a bad job of this, in a way that was disrespectful to both Clinton and Emily. But, Clinton is being quite an asshole himself. They're both in the wrong.

Edit: Also, "jack-ass" actually is gendered. It literally means "male donkey". "She-ass", however, would be the female version (now outdated, "jenny" is the preferred term for female donkeys).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 26 Apr 2016, 20:14
(Also, "asshole"? I've never heard guys use that against girls--is Clinton misgendering her?)

Maybe if he called her a dick he was.  Even then, it's an insult.  Wasn't meant to be nice.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: brightwings00 on 26 Apr 2016, 20:21
Good assignment for Claire, but I think Clinton's not wrong.

Completely agreed--I'm 100% on board with Clinton's argument, but his anger to me is way over the top and, frankly, slightly terrifying. It's not the end of the world if a girl shoots him down (as politely as possible, even).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mustang6172 on 26 Apr 2016, 20:24
I wish there were an extra panel that's just Clin-ton dropping a mic.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: St.Clair on 26 Apr 2016, 20:27
That's a spectacular reaction to a routine rejection. I wonder what's going on in his head or in his history to account for it.

I don't think he has a history, which is one reason this is hitting him so hard.
And, IMO, it's very likely given his tendency to come on way too strong - with Hannelore, et al - that the few occasions where he has have all also resulted in rejection.
A small data set, with uniformly negative results, tends to lead to bad and/or pessimistic conclusions.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 26 Apr 2016, 20:28
Over-the-top reaction but in the end... I completely agree with Clinton considering all the previous points raised by all of you fellas.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: RyanW1019 on 26 Apr 2016, 20:31
I don't think it's unreasonable for Clinton to be mad. This is a guy who needed a lot of time to psyche himself up for his first date, and still freaked out as soon as he actually met up with her; he likes to have time to mentally prepare himself for social interactions, at least those of the dating variety (see 2933). Even after he got a kiss on the cheek after their first date, he was still scared to ask her out again, and is visibly nervous when Claire arranges for them to meet up by surprise (see 2997). Even though that interaction goes well, he is still scared to make another move. Clearly, he is an extremely introverted person who is uncomfortable with romantic interactions and impromptu meetups.

Now, Claire has tricked him into another surprise meeting, and instead of this encounter having the appearance of an innocent meet-up, Claire says to him in front of Emily that the purpose of this meeting is for him to ask her out again. This is a nightmare for introverts like Clinton. A minute ago, he had been spending the day with his sister; while they may fight from time to time, he's known Claire his whole life, and is probably very comfortable around her socially. Now he's been kicked out of his comfort zone with zero warning. He had no chance to mentally prepare to interact with somebody who makes him extremely nervous, and he can't even play this off as a meeting between friends because of Claire's comments. He has to ask her out, which he hadn't wanted to do over the last few months for two reasons:

1. He isn't sure if he wants to go steady with Emily

2. He is afraid of rejection

Therefore, he is very stressed out & uncomfortable when Claire puts him on the spot. Then, he gets shut down, in front of his sister to boot. I know Emily tried to let him down gently, but for someone as insecure as Clinton, there is no such thing as a breakup which feels good. So Clinton is currently angry at having been set up, stressed over having to interact with Emily with no warning, and embarrassed at being rejected. On top of that, he learns that Claire had no idea whether things were going to work out, and decided to force the issue anyway.

So Clinton feels like Claire threw him into a situation way outside his comfort zone without asking, and it went poorly on top of that. Is Clinton being a jerk, and will he regret what he said later? Yes. But right now he's hurt and lashing out. I don't want to defend his actions, but as an extremely introverted person I can totally understand how Clinton is feeling right now.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Analogy on 26 Apr 2016, 20:33
It's not the end of the world if a girl shoots him down (as politely as possible, even).

He's not angry about being rejected. What happened here was he had already resolved to put his thing for Emily behind him, he already knew nothing was going to happen there, except Claire decided to put him in a situation where he had to bring it back up again, she encourages him as if she knows it's going to go well for him, and that makes his hopes go way up. Only for Emily to shoot them back down again. This isn't a normal rejection, normally you're prepared for the possibility of a no and you don't invest emotionally in the outcome. Clinton is having his hopes brought up, and it's causing a lot more emotional investment than normal, making it hit a lot harder when Emily turns him down. He's angry because of the way Claire inflated his hopes, he's not angry that Emily turned him down.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: jheartney on 26 Apr 2016, 20:34
Not feeling much sympathy for Clinton at the moment. He'd broken the ice with Emily, and even had a nice honest moment with her where they shared something of themselves. Then he obviously couldn't be bothered to keep it going - finding out something about her life (like where she was currently working), and putting in the effort to make contact, even (or especially) if the contacts weren't formal dates. IOW, building the relationship. Instead he let things refreeze to the point that asking her out again was as stiff and blind as a first date ask. Dumb.

Having been shot down, he then takes it out on Claire. Look, getting shot down is something that happens to guys. It hurts, but you should deal with it gracefully. Lashing out at someone else (like a sibling who can't just cut you off for being a jerk) is uncalled for and not justified. Clinton owes Claire an apology.

WRT the "meddling sibling" complaint against Claire, the fact is that Clinton actually wants to make things work with Emily, even if he's clueless about how to go about it. Claire is not just pushing him into some random gal-pal; this is someone Clinton kind of has some hots for. It would be meddling if she tried setting him up with a random someone. But not here.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: jheartney on 26 Apr 2016, 20:49
Now, Claire has tricked him into another surprise meeting, and instead of this encounter having the appearance of an innocent meet-up, Claire says to him in front of Emily that the purpose of this meeting is for him to ask her out again.

The only reason that exchange is awkward is because Clinton himself makes it so. Instead of reacting to Emily's presence by acting like she isn't there and lobbing an angry accusation at Claire, Clinton could have taken the opportunity to chat Emily up, and try to recreate their connection. Then, after that, he could suggest a get-together. He's obviously clueless about this stuff, but you don't have to turn everything into a do-or-die date ask. WRT the embarrassing "you set me up!" conversation in public, Clinton should have held that till later. It's possible to do. Clinton is the one who insisted on having it right away, and in humiliating circumstances. (BTW, it's pretty rude to Emily for him to talk to Claire that way in front of her. And yes, he's the one who initiated the conversation.)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Analogy on 26 Apr 2016, 20:52
Not feeling much sympathy for Clinton at the moment.

Probably because you're not bothering to properly empathize with him. You're acting as if he could have just magically pulled a bunch of social skills out of a hat and made the best of the situation. He's not capable of that, he doesn't have those skills. You need to put yourself in the shoes of a weird, introverted, nerdy dude with little to no romantic experience, and experience that interaction he just had through those eyes rather than your own.

Having to take an active role in interpersonal relationships as an introvert is exhausting. Every interaction you have requires an investment of your emotional energy, and you become very conservative about how you spend it because you want to get the most positive results out of the limited amount of energy you have to spend. The idea of having to invest your emotional energy into something that is very likely to have a negative result is terrifying. The fact that you have no experience to fall back on, increasing the odds that what you're about to do isn't going to work, pushes things into "why bother, at least I know my cat will love me" territory.

Introverts need to be able to approach social interactions on their own terms. Claire should have known this about her own brother.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 26 Apr 2016, 21:01
That's a spectacular reaction to a routine rejection. I wonder what's going on in his head or in his history to account for it.

Who said it was routine?

Claire put two people on the spot for a rather personal conversation, one that can be difficult at the best of times and you're alone, even more so when you're put on the spot like that and forced to have that conversation and the added pressure of an audience.

I can see Clinton's point of view and utterly agree with him, I am a younger brother with an older sister and when you have someone interfering in your life for your whole life, its frustrating, irritating and that anger does build up and it can lead to exploding at them.

Claire put her brother and Emily in a pretty bad situation without any forethought of what might go wrong, its one thing to make mistakes in your own life, but when you mess with someone else's, that is asking for trouble.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: sitnspin on 26 Apr 2016, 21:06
I'm actually going to agree with Clinton in this, which is not something I would normally do. It's not the rejection that is the issue, it is the manipulation. One thing I can not abide in other people is manipulative bullshit, even when done with "good intentions." Actually, that's even worse than when it is malicious. It reeks of condescension. "I know what's best for you, so I'm going to trick you into doing the thing I think you should do." Was his reaction extreme? Sure, but not unreasonable. He didn't threaten her, he just told her to fuck off and wait until he actually asks for help, which is what she should have done, what any adult should do.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 26 Apr 2016, 21:08
That's a spectacular reaction to a routine rejection. I wonder what's going on in his head or in his history to account for it.

How often do you get rejected that it is routine?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 26 Apr 2016, 21:10
That's a spectacular reaction to a routine rejection. I wonder what's going on in his head or in his history to account for it.

Rejection is painful. If you personally can simply shrug it off, then I'm impressed. Not everyone has that ability, however.

Clinton will most probably regret his harsh words later, but it might still be better for both of them if she doesn't spring this kind of thing on him without at least some warning.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mad hands murphy on 26 Apr 2016, 21:13
I wish there were an extra panel that's just Clin-ton dropping a mic.

I was really glad he told Claire off, her behavior was atrocious.

If someone ever set me up like that I would cut them out of my life family or no. There is absolutely zero reason why i should ever have to spend my life worrying that some innocent random afternoon outing will suddenly turn into another social ambush.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebetite on 26 Apr 2016, 21:16
Matchmakers can die in a fire. Maybe Clinton was too angry here, but his reaction is 100% justified. I've been in this same boat before, and not once has the matchmaker owned up to their behavior when it went wrong.

You can call him out on his anger, but he is in the right here.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Dagoonite on 26 Apr 2016, 21:17
I'm actually going to agree with Clinton in this, which is not something I would normally do. It's not the rejection that is the issue, it is the manipulation. One thing I can not abide in other people is manipulative bullshit, even when done with "good intentions." Actually, that's even worse than when it is malicious. It reeks of condescension. "I know what's best for you, so I'm going to trick you into doing the thing I think you should do." Was his reaction extreme? Sure, but not unreasonable. He didn't threaten her, he just told her to fuck off and wait until he actually asks for help, which is what she should have done, what any adult should do.
Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, Clinton's actually justified for being pissed off.  That said, I don't think he's expressing it well, but I can also understand that, too.

Clinton's been, in his own horrible way, really supportive to Claire this entire time.  And yes, Claire meant good things, but you know what they say about the road to hell and gumdrops.  When someone's been put through an emotional wringer like that, they often don't see the positive efforts and lash out.  So, yeah, I can completely understand Clinton here, and applaud that he didn't just think about himself, but Emily as well.

Of course, he might just feel like crap about what he said when he calms down.  Maybe a day or two later.  He might double down, just because he seems the type to know he's wrong but stick to his guns.  A lot of folks are like that.

Holy crap, no wonder Clinton irritates me so much.  He's me with a prosthetic hand when I was twenty!  I need 20 CCs of drunk, stat!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Roxtar on 26 Apr 2016, 21:18
It would be meddling if she tried setting him up with a random someone. But not here.

it's still meddling.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 26 Apr 2016, 21:28
Well, anyone who thinks that Clinton's reaction is over the top or surprising has plenty of food for thought in this thread. Judging by the emotional reactions, his situation is far from unique. I've never been in that situation myself (either side of the equation). I'm actually slightly surprised, to be honest.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 26 Apr 2016, 21:30
Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, Clinton's actually justified for being pissed off.  That said, I don't think he's expressing it well, but I can also understand that, too.

I think he expressed it perfectly fine.  He got it out of his system and gave Claire no way to think she did the right thing, which she didn't do at all. 

Of course, he might just feel like crap about what he said when he calms down. 

He probably will, but he was better off getting it out of his system now then letting it fester.  People let things fester for too long when they really need to get it off their chests and be done with it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mikmaxs on 26 Apr 2016, 21:31
Speaking as someone with a similar set of social skills and dating experience to Clinton, (not many, and I typically act awkward and uncomfortable on the first date and don't make it to the second,) I can totally empathize with him.
I have gotten good at laughing shit off and not taking it personally, but I still absolutely hate being manipulated. When people do it in the way Claire did here, they're basically saying "You aren't smart or capable enough to run your life, so I'm going to do it for you without your consent or approval". What Claire did was relatively benign, but if Clinton's been on the recieving end of such manipulation before (Or its more sinister cousin, "You aren't smart or capable enough to realize I'm tricking you, so I'll take you for everything you have,") it could easily trigger a lot of pent up frustration.

On top of that, he was clearly uncomfortable with the whole Emily 'Situation' to begin with, and Claire's manipulation made the situation significantly worse.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: haikupoet on 26 Apr 2016, 21:41
Well, anyone who thinks that Clinton's reaction is over the top or surprising has plenty of food for thought in this thread. Judging by the emotional reactions, his situation is far from unique. I've never been in that situation myself (either side of the equation). I'm actually slightly surprised, to be honest.

You know, I understand Clinton's situation, having been there myself, and I think Claire was kind of out of line. That said, Clinton is and always has been kind of an immature shithead. If he blew his chance back then, he doesn't deserve Emily now. Claire may technically owe him an apology, but if Clinton's expecting one, he'd best write it off.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 26 Apr 2016, 21:50
Well, anyone who thinks that Clinton's reaction is over the top or surprising has plenty of food for thought in this thread. Judging by the emotional reactions, his situation is far from unique. I've never been in that situation myself (either side of the equation). I'm actually slightly surprised, to be honest.

You know, I understand Clinton's situation, having been there myself, and I think Claire was kind of out of line. That said, Clinton is and always has been kind of an immature shithead. If he blew his chance back then, he doesn't deserve Emily now. Claire may technically owe him an apology, but if Clinton's expecting one, he'd best write it off.

While I do agree on the 'immature shithead' front (this is the first time I think he's actually justified in blowing up at anybody), it's not a question if he 'deserves' Emily. They had good chemistry, and she seemed to like him, just as he seemed to like her back, but I don't think Clinton's really ready or actually wants a relationship with Emily. Just as Emily doesn't want a relationship, otherwise she might have asked him out.

Claire does not only owe him an apology, she owes him a change in behaviour as well; that's not how you treat your brother, no matter how funny it is to bully him.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: haikupoet on 26 Apr 2016, 21:53
Yes-ish. But hink of it from Emily's standpoint -- she's strange as hell, but she still has human emotions. How do you know she isn't giving him the brushoff because she felt rejected the first time around and doesn't want to give him a second chance? You can't really blame her for that. (Or at least that's what I tend to assume women think about me.)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 26 Apr 2016, 21:58
That said, Clinton is and always has been kind of an immature shithead. If he blew his chance back then, he doesn't deserve Emily now.

Of course Clinton is immature, he's in his early twenties, he is probably still in college. Given how far up his own backside he can be at times and with the added in built deal breaker that is his hand, I highly doubt Clinton has much experience with dealing with the opposite sex other than his mother and sister. Emotionally, he is no worse than Tai on a bad day, or Dora on a terrible day. But add to that Clinton's lack of experience and that this was the first relationship he had and in his eyes, it's over before it began, from his frame of reference this probably akin to the Hindenburg going down in flames. Because it's the only experience he has.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 26 Apr 2016, 22:02
Yes-ish. But hink of it from Emily's standpoint -- she's strange as hell, but she still has human emotions. How do you know she isn't giving him the brushoff because she felt rejected the first time around and doesn't want to give him a second chance? You can't really blame her for that. (Or at least that's what I tend to assume women think about me.)

I doubt seriously she even gave it a second thought.  It's not like either one of them has a deep dating history, plus the fact that she admits her life is a little too packed right now to handle a relationship, I would say she chalked it up as a one time thing.  Plus we have no idea if she ever reached out to him for another date, which is something perfectly acceptable.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 26 Apr 2016, 22:39
That's a spectacular reaction to a routine rejection. I wonder what's going on in his head or in his history to account for it.

How often do you get rejected that it is routine?

I thank my wife over and over for making it possible for me to escape dating.

Norah Vincent, in "Self Made Man", wrote about her experiments with a male presentation in different environments, including trying to date women. Before long, she turned to a guy friend who knew about her project and exclaimed How do you handle all this rejection?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: derris_kharlan on 26 Apr 2016, 22:42
Clinton is absolutely right that Claire's well intentioned interference is obnoxious.  His reaction seems to be over the top, but perhaps there is a history of meddling and he's finally reached a breaking point.  While I do feel sorry that Claire had this blow up in her face, I am somewhat relieved that she got called out on her behavior.  I actually find her to be kind of annoying as a character.  But I hope Clinton calms down and apologizes for the degree to which he blew up at her.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: QuestionableIntentions on 26 Apr 2016, 22:55
Clinton was always angry before when Claire has meddled. He just didn't say anything because it worked out or he was distracted by something else. This time it didn't and so he finally said what he wanted to say before.


Also, "gendered insults" seriously? As if it matters what "gender" an insult has. This is just getting ridiculous.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 26 Apr 2016, 23:03
OK, I get that Clinton is upset here about how Emily shot him down, and I understand him being upset with Claire for bringing him in for that wee bit of unintended public embarrassment over it, but seriously???

That was a bit over the top.  I know Claire can be a bit clueless over certain things, but even she wasn't expecting that, and Clintons reaction, while understandable about being shot down like that, was totally OOT, though I wouldn't go as far as saying not completely unexpected considering how he's behaved in the past.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: pwhodges on 26 Apr 2016, 23:05
Also, "gendered insults" seriously? As if it matters what "gender" an insult has. This is just getting ridiculous.

Yes, seriously.  We go into such matters in the Serious Discussion part of the forum.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Blackbird on 26 Apr 2016, 23:06
I haven't been on the forums for quite a while, but I had to come back just to see the reaction to this strip.  Clinton was entirely justified, but I know Claire is the pet character of many posters on here.  I'm kind of proud of all of you that the reactions are ranging from "Yup, that'll happen" to "I mean, yeah he's right, but why did he have to act so much like he's acted in every single Clinton storyline before now!?!?"

(That said, regarding the misgendering thing: even if some here might take it as such, you know Clinton himself (and thus Jeph) did not view it as a misgendering, because Clinton didn't immediately stop and profusely apologize for it. One of Clinton's best traits is how unconditionally supportive he is of Claire's transition and there's a big gulf between "I'm telling you that I think you're being self-centred and shitty" and "I'm saying shit intentionally to hurt you".  Clinton is an immature shithead who's pissed off at his sister, but he's not a hateful immature shithead.)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 26 Apr 2016, 23:14
Clinton was always angry before when Claire has meddled. He just didn't say anything because it worked out or he was distracted by something else. This time it didn't and so he finally said what he wanted to say before.


Also, "gendered insults" seriously? As if it matters what "gender" an insult has. This is just getting ridiculous.
Global Moderator Comment Doesn't it make sense a priori that there's something insulting to women in general about, say, calling someone a "cunt"? Isn't that at least plausible? The moderators have heard from women we trust that things like that make them feel less welcome, and inclusiveness is a core value here.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 26 Apr 2016, 23:21

Doesn't it make sense a priori that there's something insulting to women in general about, say, calling someone a "cunt"? Isn't that at least plausible? The moderators have heard from women we trust that things like that make them feel less welcome, and inclusiveness is a core value here.


Then are any insults talked about in the comic as something that could make people feel less welcome and included?  And yes, I am serious about that and not just being a dick.  If people have to worry about general insults, just where do you draw the line?  Is even mentioning the insult going too far?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: pwhodges on 26 Apr 2016, 23:26
Using an insult and talking about it are completely separate matters.  We couldn't even have a view without being able to discuss it.

But note that "asshole" is not inherently a gendered insult - we all have one.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Penquin47 on 26 Apr 2016, 23:27
(That said, regarding the misgendering thing: even if some here might take it as such, you know Clinton himself (and thus Jeph) did not view it as a misgendering, because Clinton didn't immediately stop and profusely apologize for it. One of Clinton's best traits is how unconditionally supportive he is of Claire's transition and there's a big gulf between "I'm telling you that I think you're being self-centred and shitty" and "I'm saying shit intentionally to hurt you".  Clinton is an immature shithead who's pissed off at his sister, but he's not a hateful immature shithead.)

If it *is* misgendering, I'm thinking it's of the sort where he's falling into patterns that have been established since childhood, well before Claire's transition, that he's never examined to see if maybe they should change because they're no longer appropriate.  Like you, I think if Claire feels misgendered and calls him out on it, he'll be contrite and apologetic and promise to do better in the future, because his support of Claire's transition is so strong.  (That said, my brother calls me an asshole when he thinks I deserve it, and I'm a cis woman.  I do the same to him.  So I never really thought of asshole as in any way gendered.)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 26 Apr 2016, 23:30
OUCH! Still, as I posted yesterday, this outcome was pretty much inevitable, given the emotional context for all the characters involved. I'm still unsure if Claire will now get into an argument with Emily for hurting Clinton (a difficult prospect, given Emily's essential nature) or just run to Marten for comfort.

I've posted this before but, in the end, one of the real problems here is that, whilst Claire loves her brother, she neither likes or respects him. Add to this the fact that she is manipulative in nature (as she's shown with Pintsize) and her basically treating Clinton's personal life as a problem to solve, with or without his cooperation, was pretty much inevitable.

Her intentions were good but, in the end, it was all torn down by her basically assuming that she is so smart that everything will happen according to her scheme, even though she didn't even clear it with Emily first.

As I say, it will be interesting to see where Claire goes from here. It will tell us a lot about her as a person.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Timemaster on 26 Apr 2016, 23:45
For the record (as most things about Clintons outburst have already been pointed out here), I think his reaction may be a bit harsh, but his intention isn´t. Claire tried to manipulate him twice, and while the first time still was kinda sweet and well executed, this time it was blunt and indiscrete. This simply was one time too much. She could have asked him if she should arrange another meeting with Emily, but if he´d rejected she should have let it be. He may be immature, but he´s a grownup after all.
It´s his own decision. And Claire must learn to respect that.

And I don´t put too much weight into that insult. He´s simply angry, furious and sad. He insulted her, but she is still his sister. He didn´t tell her to get out of his life forever or worse things. Give them some time to get their feelings sorted out, and they´ll patch up again. He loves her and cares for her, he made that clear several times.

Blood is thicker than water after all.  :-)

TM
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: gopher on 26 Apr 2016, 23:47
Good to see Clinton asserting himself, though it is in a thoroughly unpleasant way. Claire needs to realise life isn't a romantic  comedy.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: MrNumbers on 27 Apr 2016, 00:04
Blood is thicker than water after all.

Oooh this one grinds my gears.

The original saying is; "The blood of brotherhood is thicker than the waters of the womb", which is to say, it means the exact opposite of how it's traditioally abbrviated.

For good reason too. You owe nothing, not even respect, to people simply for shared genetics. They earn that with their actions, and by being good family to you. I see way too many people get pushed back into abusive relationships with family under the guise of; "But they're your X!" as if that somehow means a contractual obligation to forgiveness.

(Which is not to say Clinton isn't going to forgive Claire, or shouldn't forgive Claire. That's different. He's just super mad at the moment. As soon as he stops being super angry he's going to get super sad, and maybe he'll be in a huggy-forgivey mood then. Because his relationship with Claire, for the most part, is super healthy and affectionate sibling stuff, shown time and time again. But they love each other because they prove it on their own terms, not just because they were born into it, damn it!)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: anahata on 27 Apr 2016, 00:12
whilst Claire loves her brother, she neither likes or respects him.

She also has a long history of teasing and embarrassing him in ways only a sibling can get away with, and that's influenced the way she's gone about setting this up. Maybe she'll realise it's a childish habit and it's about time she learned to grow out of it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: katsmeat on 27 Apr 2016, 00:13
I've posted this before but, in the end, one of the real problems here is that, whilst Claire loves her brother, she neither likes or respects him. Add to this the fact that she is manipulative in nature (as she's shown with Pintsize) and her basically treating Clinton's personal life as a problem to solve, with or without his cooperation, was pretty much inevitable.

I came on the forum to write something along the lines of  "This is the horrible fallout that happens when somebody sees too many romantic comedy movies and tries to replicate  their imbecilic scenarios in real-life"

I now think that's nonsense. The comment from BenRg absolutely nails it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Pilchard123 on 27 Apr 2016, 00:25
The original saying is; "The blood of brotherhood is thicker than the waters of the womb", which is to say, it means the exact opposite of how it's traditioally abbrviated.

I doubt it. It's seen in similar form in

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: MrNumbers on 27 Apr 2016, 00:48
The original saying is; "The blood of brotherhood is thicker than the waters of the womb", which is to say, it means the exact opposite of how it's traditioally abbrviated.

I doubt it. It's seen in similar form in
SNIP

My apologies. What I was quoting was probably a partially remembered elongated explanation of the 1180 version, or a modern translation of it.

Still, it seems to corroborate that the saying still means the opposite of what other people think, even if my phrasing of it was wrong.

Addendum; Following up on your citations brought further evidence in that there is a very similar saying in Middle Eastern cultures, and Mongolian ones, where 'water' is replaced with 'milk', referring to breasts, referring to a shared mother.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 27 Apr 2016, 00:50

I came on the forum, something along the lines of  "This is the horrible fallout that happens when somebody sees too many romantic comedy movies and tries to replicate  their imbecilic scenarios in real-life"

I now think that's nonsense. The comment from BenRg absolutely nails it.

FWIW, the romcom addiction is a problem too, I think; just not the main one.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 27 Apr 2016, 01:10
Well, you know what they say. Every aphorism has an equal and opposite aphorism.  :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 27 Apr 2016, 01:11

Doesn't it make sense a priori that there's something insulting to women in general about, say, calling someone a "cunt"? Isn't that at least plausible? The moderators have heard from women we trust that things like that make them feel less welcome, and inclusiveness is a core value here.


Then are any insults talked about in the comic as something that could make people feel less welcome and included?  And yes, I am serious about that and not just being a dick.  If people have to worry about general insults, just where do you draw the line?  Is even mentioning the insult going too far?

It's a cromulent question.

A discussion of Clinton's emotional state and character legitimately includes quoting his insults and asking whether they're targeted at Claire's gender. Imagine if he'd used some insult specific to her assignment at birth. That would be a thing of total horror.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Apr 2016, 01:34
The original saying is; "The blood of brotherhood is thicker than the waters of the womb", which is to say, it means the exact opposite of how it's traditionally abbreviated.

The talk page of the Wikipedia article on the saying argues that the only sources for this assertion are modern, and do not cite any sources in turn.  They do bring up the Arabic version with milk as well.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: QuestionableIntentions on 27 Apr 2016, 02:25

Quote
Imagine if he'd used some insult specific to her assignment at birth. That would be a thing of total horror.

Yes, but he didn't. The people claiming insults have genders turn this insult into an attack on Claire's gender.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Analogy on 27 Apr 2016, 02:37
If someone in the comic had said "Faye is being an asshole," how would you have interpreted that? I don't think you would have leaped to "they're using a male insult because she's butch" or whatever, I think you would have accepted it as a non-gendered insult. The only reason you're wondering whether it's a gendered insult or not is because Claire has a "special" gender identity and so your impulse becomes to read all of her interactions in that light. I don't think that's how Jeph writes her, I don't think the interactions she has are "about" her gender identity unless it's explicitly given. I think Jeph is mostly interested in writing a human female who happens to be genetically XY, and in writing a world where there's been enough social progress that this isn't a big deal to anyone.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Apr 2016, 02:57
The people claiming insults have genders

Many insults have genders, and in this forum we care about that.  However the one used in this case does not inherently have gender.  Some people are reacting to the fact that in their perception it is mainly used against men, but this is not universal even in the US (and the US is not the whole world, remember!).

I believe that Jeph used a non-gendered insult precisely to try to avoid this kind of problem, but the forum illustrates that there are times when there is no answer that works exactly the same for everyone.  In such instances it is important that we are understanding rather than critical of each others' reactions.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: bhtooefr on 27 Apr 2016, 03:41
I think Jeph is mostly interested in writing a human female who happens to be genetically XY, and in writing a world where there's been enough social progress that this isn't a big deal to anyone.
While I agree that the focus of her character isn't on her being trans, it's on her being her, Jeph has had story arcs that discuss her fears relating to her trans status. As far as the world having social progress, a counterpoint to that is that there's been discussion (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2426) of violent transphobia existing in the QC universe, even though everyone who knows has been shown as quite supportive so far.

The comic's setting likely affects the amount of social progress, too, relative to the rest of the US. I'd guess that Northampton (real or QC) is far more accepting of trans people than, say, the real or QC version of rural North Carolina.

As far as "asshole", it really depends on some context we don't have as of this strip. I could see Clinton, out of unthinking anger (he wouldn't intentionally misgender Claire), reverting to slightly gendered epithets that he used before Claire transitioned (although it's worth noting that Claire didn't react to that, as someone else pointed out), or I could see him just calling everyone that.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: neurocase on 27 Apr 2016, 03:45
I agree with Analogy; the only reason the insult was brought up at all is because of Claire's gender identity. Directed at anyone else in the comic, it wouldn't have garnered mention whatsoever. There are certain insults that are only targeted toward certain genders, yes, but making this about gender is utterly pointless. If Claire was cis, it wouldn't have come up. Not everything needs to be made about gender.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: USS Martenclaire on 27 Apr 2016, 03:58
I agree with Analogy; the only reason the insult was brought up at all is because of Claire's gender identity. Directed at anyone else in the comic, it wouldn't have garnered mention whatsoever. There are certain insults that are only targeted toward certain genders, yes, but making this about gender is utterly pointless. If Claire was cis, it wouldn't have come up. Not everything needs to be made about gender.

I'm inclined to agree in this case. Clin-ton is furious at Claire right now but that doesn't instantly change him from a caring loving brother into a raging transphobe. Remember when Claire first said to him that she'd told Marten she was trans? "He wasn't a dick about it, was he?!" In short, I feel that it is possible to read *too* much into a momentary angry word.

Yet even while angry, we still have our "NOPE" lines. Lines that we don't cross no matter how pissed we are at someone. I think with Claire, Clinton's NOPE line is anything that would make her feel ashamed of being trans. That's not the same as making her want to feel ashamed of interfering in his life.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 27 Apr 2016, 04:09
The fact that someone brought up Claire's gender at all is ridiculous and looking for a problem where there isn't one.  I cannot speak for all transgendered people, but I can speak from my own experience with my wife (who is transgender, just in case that wasn't clear), being known as "the trans one" makes things very difficult for people that don't want it known.  Going with my wife to trans support groups, it's pretty rare to find a trans person that wears that fact that they are trans on their sleeves.  Most every trans person I've ever met doesn't want to anyone to say "And this is Bob, he used to be a woman!" or "This is Rachael, she used to be a man!" even to other trans people.  I don't know if Claire is pre or post op, and frankly I don't give two shits either way.  What I do care about is that Claire is a cool character that fucked up.  Clinton is a cool character that got fucked over.  Claire owes Clinton an apology.  Clinton doesn't own Claire shit, but he should forgive her from my point of view.  I'm sorry if I'm coming off like an asshole, but if the first thing you jump to is "was that because XXXX is trans?" when is clearly wasn't, you seriously need to figure out what is wrong with you.  Calling someone an asshole isn't a trans insult.  If Clinton had said "Dude!  You fucking asshole!" THEN I'll consider it might have something to do with gender. 
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: pwhodges on 27 Apr 2016, 04:27
The fact that someone brought up Claire's gender at all is ridiculous

It isn't if you believe (as some seem to, but I don't) that the insult used was gender-specific.

being known as "the trans one" makes things very difficult for people that don't want it known.

Remember that we are not in the same universe as Claire.  We are observing a representation, and considering how Jeph is handling the issue (when relevant, which of course it usually isn't) of Claire's being trans.  As such, a matter like this insult can be a valid subject for discussion by us, even when it would not be within a single universe (whether the comic universe or real life) - though such discussion should be held sensitively, assuming the likelihood of trans people being part of it.

In this case, I think from my point of view that the matter did not even need to be raised, simply because the word used is not really a gendered insult; however, clearly some people are conscious of the possibility that it might be used that way (and thus the reaction of the comic characters if they see it that way might be worth discussing), and I guess that fact alone is something we can usefully learn from.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: brightwings00 on 27 Apr 2016, 04:38
*raises hand*

I'm the one who first brought up 'asshole' as a gendered insult, because I'd mostly heard it applied to men in the past. But I can definitely see how it's a gender-neutral term (everyone has one) and how Jeph would have wanted to avoid anything more salty.

Now I'm thinking about how women get insulted. :-\
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebediah on 27 Apr 2016, 04:42
The comic's setting likely affects the amount of social progress, too, relative to the rest of the US. I'd guess that Northampton (real or QC) is far more accepting of trans people than, say, the real or QC version of rural North Carolina.

God yes. I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of RL politics, but having lived both places, I can assert that Massachusetts is FAR more accepting of trans people than most of North Carolina. And Claire is living in one of the most tolerant parts of Massachusetts. She's in possibly the safest place for her in the entire US, and she STILL has to worry about her safety if she's outed.

That being said, Clinton wasn't misgendering Claire in any way. It's one of his best character traits that he's always been very supportive of Claire's transition.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DSL on 27 Apr 2016, 04:49
I think that in _this particular_ discussion, the "gendered insult" topic snowballed from a relatively offhand observation, and to me is starting to resemble the "so what you're rrally saying is ... " method of argument, a method I find somewhat odious. Odorous. Whatever.

I admit my first thought on reading the comic was that Clinton, in his rage, will do something rash with bad consequences for Claire. Two things mitigate against that: Jeph has presented the Augustus sibling dynamic as fighting like cats with each other, but each defending the other against all outside comers with equal ferocity; and Jeph's pattern of presenting what looks like an insurmountable crisis only to show at least parts of it resolving themselves or fading out in short order, if only through the characters' own impulse to just keep on keepin' on.

Wherr Clinton may have _really_ stepped in it, though, is in going off on not only his sister, but on Emily's much-admired possibly Very Best Friend, possibly in full view through the CoD front window. Jeph has presented enough hints that We Wouldn't Like To See Emily When She's Angry. Of coirse, we're bavk to the Jeph Pattern as a possible mitigator.

I keep thinking Jeph shows that pattern repeatedly only to make it all the more jarring if/when he finally does choose to show an absolutely irreparable blowup.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: blt on 27 Apr 2016, 04:58
I've posted this before but, in the end, one of the real problems here is that, whilst Claire loves her brother, she neither likes or respects him. Add to this the fact that she is manipulative in nature (as she's shown with Pintsize) and her basically treating Clinton's personal life as a problem to solve, with or without his cooperation, was pretty much inevitable.

Her intentions were good but, in the end, it was all torn down by her basically assuming that she is so smart that everything will happen according to her scheme, even though she didn't even clear it with Emily first.

As I say, it will be interesting to see where Claire goes from here. It will tell us a lot about her as a person.

This post honestly made me rethink a lot of my opinion about Claire.  Before, I was still on Clinton's side, yeah, because I'm just not a fan of meddling, especially as a surprise to both parties, but I just felt like Claire was well intentioned and made a stupid mistake.

Now I actually sort of see Clinton's "manipulated" angle (some of the stuff she did to Pintsize was kinda messed up too), and hopefully the strip might go that way for her character development thread, cause I still really like Claire.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Method of Madness on 27 Apr 2016, 05:03
I'm pretty sure Claire is going to talk to Emily tomorrow, what I'm not sure about is whether she'll apologize, blame Emily, or something in between.

Also, I think people are being way too hard on Claire. This isn't the first time she's done this with Clinton and Emily, and the other times it's ended up well and Clinton probably seemed grateful at the time. Why should she not expect it to work again?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: MrNumbers on 27 Apr 2016, 05:14
This isn't the first time she's done this with Clinton and Emily, and the other times it's ended up well

Plus or minus the cost of new designer glasses, a tattoo of a powerpoint, and/or a broken facenose (AKA boopsnoot)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 27 Apr 2016, 05:19
Also, I think people are being way too hard on Claire. This isn't the first time she's done this with Clinton and Emily, and the other times it's ended up well and Clinton probably seemed grateful at the time. Why should she not expect it to work again?

The problem is, or so we perceive in hindsight, that this whole strategy was a ticking time-bomb from the start. It was just a matter of time before she misread the situation (or, due to previous successes, decided that she didn't need to think things through) and we ended up in a situation like this.

In many ways, this is a nicely nuanced bit of long-term writing from Jeph. Yes, it worked before but, in truth, it was no nicer then than it is now. It's just that things worked out well enough that Clinton didn't complain about it (and Emily just isn't the sort of woman who would complain about it).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not casting Claire as the villain here. If she's guilty of anything, it's of overconfidence and, basically, thinking that she understands what her friends and family might want without actually asking them. IMO, that's very in-character for her.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 27 Apr 2016, 05:36
Panel 2:

There is no Claire. There is only Hair.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: aliensporebomb on 27 Apr 2016, 06:27
Wow.  The new strip was like getting punched in the stomach.  I understand the way Clinton is feeling but his anger let him go way over the top.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Analogy on 27 Apr 2016, 07:55
A thought just occurred to me about GLBT characters in fiction. One could devise a sort of GLBT version of the Bechdel Test, regarding how fully-realized they are as a character apart from their sexuality/gender identity.

What should the criteria be for a character to pass the Gay Literary Bechdel Test?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: bhtooefr on 27 Apr 2016, 08:05
Well, the Bechdel test is intended to be a very low bar to pass, that doesn't indicate that a work is necessarily feminist in nature, but that it's not contributing to a specific non-feminist media representation.

The test being that there be two women, who speak to each other, about something that isn't a man.

So, would a LGBT version be, two LGBT people, who speak to each other, about something that isn't a cisgender and heterosexual person (be it other LGBT people, themselves, their careers, their hobbies, whatever)? In which case QC passes multiple times - Dora and Tai satisfy it (by talking about each other), Tai and Claire satisfy it somehow (although Tai doesn't know that), and I can't think of other examples at the moment.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 27 Apr 2016, 08:33
Also, I think people are being way too hard on Claire. This isn't the first time she's done this with Clinton and Emily, and the other times it's ended up well and Clinton probably seemed grateful at the time. Why should she not expect it to work again?

I just highlighted the problem a lot of people are having.

It isn't the first time Claire has done this to Clinton, manipulating him into a situation that he had no preparation for or any idea was coming up. Siblings tend to have a pattern in their interactions with each other, one that repeats throughout their entire lives. So presumably, Claire has manipulated Clinton on more than one occasion in some misguided belief that he needs the help.

Well for one, that attitude is infantilizing and basically saying that "I can't really trust you to make your own decisions so I'm going to make them for you." Now imagine that attitude being the prevailing one you have had to deal with your entire life. It gets old very, very quickly.

Secondly, Clinton might not have blown up at Claire like that had she not involved Emily. Its one thing if your brother or sister manipulates you, its something else entirely when they drag a third party into their idiotic scheme. A person can handle being humiliated or hurt by a sibling, but its different when they do it in front of an audience or inadvertently hurt another person.

The problem is that Claire's entire romantic experience is probably limited to Marten and romantic comedies. As we all know, what happens in a romantic comedy can be meant to look "awww" inducing and look incredibly romantic. Thing is, you try that in real life it doesn't look romantic, it just looks creepy and stalkerish.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: jheartney on 27 Apr 2016, 08:39
You need to put yourself in the shoes of a weird, introverted, nerdy dude with little to no romantic experience, and experience that interaction he just had through those eyes rather than your own.

I was that guy years ago. I know exactly how it is to face all that. I figured it out without the kind of outburst Clinton just had.

Introverts need to be able to approach social interactions on their own terms. Claire should have known this about her own brother.

Introvert here as well. I know how it is to have to steel myself to talk to strangers. But sometimes you just have to swallow hard and do it.

Clinton's problem isn't that he didn't prepare himself. His problem was that he'd blown off facing this at all for months.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: RyanW1019 on 27 Apr 2016, 09:56
Introverts need to be able to approach social interactions on their own terms. Claire should have known this about her own brother.

Introvert here as well. I know how it is to have to steel myself to talk to strangers. But sometimes you just have to swallow hard and do it.

Clinton's problem isn't that he didn't prepare himself. His problem was that he'd blown off facing this at all for months.

Yeah, but there's a difference between Claire telling Clinton he needs to man up and do it and "Surprise! Now you have to ask her out right now with no preparation or warning!"

Let me try to use a different example from the comics. Claire decided that she wanted to get her ears pierced, after weeks of trying to work up the courage to do so. She brought Marten along for support, but the actual decision to do it came from her. This ended up having a good outcome, and Claire got a little more self-confident because she overcame her fears. Plus, her relationship with Marten got a little deeper because he was there for her when she needed support. Now, imagine that Marten hears Claire wants to get her ears pierced, so he takes her to the mall, walks her into a piercing booth, and says "Surprise! Now you can get your ears pierced!" If Claire freaks out and runs away, is she within her rights to be mad at Marten? Absolutely. The difference between working up the courage to choose to do something you're afraid to do, and being forced into it by somebody else, is huge in terms of your personal development. Clinton doesn't grow as a person by being set up like this, even if it ends up going well.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Ysobel on 27 Apr 2016, 09:59
Regarding a "Gay Bechdel Test", GLAAD proposes this: (cited from http://www.glaad.org/sri/2015/vitorusso )
"To pass the Vito Russo Test, the following must be true:

* The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
* That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity. i.e. they are comprised of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight/non-transgender characters from one another.
* The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect. Meaning they are not there to simply provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline. The character should "matter.""

To this some people add, therewith lowering the number of passing films significantly :
* The LGBT character(s) must survive the film. (Somewhat implied by the existing points, but still...)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 27 Apr 2016, 10:07
Clinton's problem isn't that he didn't prepare himself. His problem was that he'd blown off facing this at all for months.

That's the thing, though, and a big part of the reason for Clinton's anger; Claire doesn't seem to respect that Clinton's issues with women are his problem to deal with, not hers. Yes, he wasn't dealing with it well, but it was still his business. Claire tries to intervene to "fix" things and it backfires. I can't blame Clinton for being pissed at Claire as a result, especially considering the way she just threw them together with no warning or even a 'by your leave'.

Besides, it wasn't like Clinton went into a screaming tirade calling Claire all kinds of female-specific insults then hitting her. He mostly told her exactly what he thought of her meddling in his romantic affairs (such as they were), and then told her to butt out unless asked. Rather reasonable, all things considered.

I'd say he hopefully learned a valuable lesson about hesitation and procrastination; but I'm pretty sure he already suspected he'd blown his chance with Emily by waiting too long. Claire's actions forced Emily to confirm his suspicion (part of the reason he's pissed at Claire, for putting Emily on the spot as well as him - she owes Emily an apology for this IMO).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: sitnspin on 27 Apr 2016, 10:24
Clinton's problem isn't that he didn't prepare himself. His problem was that he'd blown off facing this at all for months.
Clinton's problem is Claire and her incessant need to enforce her will on others. No matter how well meaning, she was manipulative and controlling. That shit does not fly. It is shitty behavior regardless of intent. She deserved to be called out in it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 27 Apr 2016, 13:50
Clinton's problem isn't that he didn't prepare himself. His problem was that he'd blown off facing this at all for months.
Clinton's problem is Claire and her incessant need to enforce her will on others. No matter how well meaning, she was manipulative and controlling. That shit does not fly. It is shitty behavior regardless of intent. She deserved to be called out in it.

+1

Matchmaking without the consent (or even knowledge) of the people involved = big red flag for boundary issues.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebediah on 27 Apr 2016, 13:58
The whole Augustus clan (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2804) seems to have trouble with appropriate boundaries.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: oeoek on 27 Apr 2016, 14:14
Just wondering; would Clinton have been this mad if Emily had said agreed on a next date?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 27 Apr 2016, 14:27
He might have been, but his objections would have been more easily swatted down by Cllaire;

"Dammit Claire, what if she said no?.."
"Well she didn't, so get over yourself! I know what I'm doing."
"This time..."
"Last time too, brother dear."

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: hedgie on 27 Apr 2016, 14:35
Clinton's problem isn't that he didn't prepare himself. His problem was that he'd blown off facing this at all for months.
Clinton's problem is Claire and her incessant need to enforce her will on others. No matter how well meaning, she was manipulative and controlling. That shit does not fly. It is shitty behavior regardless of intent. She deserved to be called out in it.

+1

Matchmaking without the consent (or even knowledge) of the people involved = big red flag for boundary issues.
Matchmaker, Matchmaker fuck the hell off.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: jheartney on 27 Apr 2016, 14:51
Claire didn't make Clinton ask out Emily; all she did was take him to the coffee shop where Emily worked. He could have just said hello to her. He's the one that A. pitched a fit at Claire in front of Emily and then B. made a hamfisted date ask, and then C. went medieval on Claire after Emily said no. I don't see how he could have handled it any worse.

Had Claire told Clinton Emily was there ahead of time, he probably would have chickened out. At least this way the whole thing is resolved, and Clinton can move on to blowing it with some other gal. Or just hanging out alone forever because he's chicken.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 27 Apr 2016, 15:34
Claire didn't make Clinton ask out Emily; all she did was take him to the coffee shop where Emily worked. He could have just said hello to her. He's the one that A. pitched a fit at Claire in front of Emily and then B. made a hamfisted date ask, and then C. went medieval on Claire after Emily said no. I don't see how he could have handled it any worse.

Had Claire told Clinton Emily was there ahead of time, he probably would have chickened out. At least this way the whole thing is resolved, and Clinton can move on to blowing it with some other gal. Or just hanging out alone forever because he's chicken.

Well, she also (indirectly) informed Emily that Clinton wanted to ask her out; but yeah, he's not very good at it. The point here is - he had the option to ask her out any time, and he didn't. They see each other; they have classes together. He thought about it (and trusted Claire with his problems), but it's still his problem. Claire forced a decision, and she immediately forced a romantic direction. If he'd asked her to spend time with him as a friend, he would have looked dishonest and sleazy.

And yes, he might have chickened out, but where's the harm in that? Maybe the reason why he didn't ask her out again is because he didn't know if they were a good fit, after the first date. She seems to think so (or she genuinely doesn't have the time, could be both with Emily). Why make her shoot him down when he knows that it's probably going to happen, instead of accepting the missing romantic connection?  It's not as if 'resolving' anything makes it better somehow, on the contrary.

Edit: Also, he's 21. He's still figuring everything out - he might be a late bloomer, just as his sister. As far as we know, Claire only started dating when she was 24, and that is because Marten made the first move. He is clearly uncomfortable with dating, and he has a lot to learn about himself and others. It's not as if there's no time, or as if he has to date or as if he's going to be "forever alone" if he doesn't ask out a lot of girls. Which is a bad motivation to ask someone out anyway; would you go out with someone who just wants a warm body next to them and fakes interest as a means to an end, if you could actually hang with people who are interested in you as a person?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Roxtar on 27 Apr 2016, 15:52
it's disheartening how many people are excusing Claire's bullshit behavior. then again, most people are willing to overlook massive flaws in characters they happen to like... which is why people remain in toxic relationships for so long.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: sitnspin on 27 Apr 2016, 15:55
Had Claire told Clinton Emily was there ahead of time, he probably would have chickened out. At least this way the whole thing is resolved, and Clinton can move on to blowing it with some other gal. Or just hanging out alone forever because he's chicken.

So what? That would be his decision, made entirely of his own informed free will. Just because she condescendingly thinks she knows what is best for him. That doesn't give her the right to lie and manipulate him into making the choices she thinks he should make. That is totally disrespectful and dismissive of his agency.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 27 Apr 2016, 16:39

Edit: Also, he's 21. He's still figuring everything out - he might be a late bloomer, just as his sister. As far as we know, Claire only started dating when she was 24, and that is because Marten made the first move. He is clearly uncomfortable with dating, and he has a lot to learn about himself and others. It's not as if there's no time, or as if he has to date or as if he's going to be "forever alone" if he doesn't ask out a lot of girls. Which is a bad motivation to ask someone out anyway; would you go out with someone who just wants a warm body next to them and fakes interest as a means to an end, if you could actually hang with people who are interested in you as a person?

I agreed with the rest of your post, but had to disagree somewhat with this part. Yes Clinton is young, and yes, he's quite inexperienced in the dating arena; but this is precisely why he needs to get out there and start dating soon as possible. He has many mistakes to get out of the way; choosing the wrong women, saying or doing the wrong things, not saying or doing the right things. These mistakes will likely cost him the woman he makes those mistakes with, just as his hesitancy in asking for the second date cost him Emily.

He might as well get those mistakes out of the way now while he's young, single and has relatively little to lose. Along the way, he'll also need to develop a thick skin for rejection, since that is mainly the man's burden to bear in the dating arena, and someone like Clinton is going to get rejected rather often. Sucks, but that's the way it is since the majority of men are never going to be asked out by a woman, they will always have to do the asking. If Clinton ultimately wants fenale romantic companionship (and his efforts with Emily show that he does), then he's going to have to get out there, start making mistakes, and hopefully learning from them. Romantic companionship seldom falls into a man's lap, especially a man like Clinton.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: hedgie on 27 Apr 2016, 17:01
He certainly needs some self-confidence, at the very least.  I'm pretty sure that I'm not going ever going to get another date without a strong whisky and ativan.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 27 Apr 2016, 17:35
Whatever it takes hedgie. But perhaps you should start with just the Ativan?

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mustang6172 on 27 Apr 2016, 18:19
Clinton was always angry before when Claire has meddled. He just didn't say anything because it worked out or he was distracted by something else. This time it didn't and so he finally said what he wanted to say before.


Also, "gendered insults" seriously? As if it matters what "gender" an insult has. This is just getting ridiculous.

Doesn't it make sense a priori that there's something insulting to women in general about, say, calling someone a "cunt"? Isn't that at least plausible? The moderators have heard from women we trust that things like that make them feel less welcome, and inclusiveness is a core value here.


Could a misogynistic hurled at Claire be interpreted as trans accepting?
"Trans Inclusive Misogyny.  From the makers of TERF!"
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Arkantos on 27 Apr 2016, 19:21
Could a misogynistic hurled at Claire be interpreted as trans accepting?
"Trans Inclusive Misogyny.  From the makers of TERF!"
If you want to, I suppose, but the person using the insult would have to know Claire is trans. Either way, I'd be far more inclined to focus on the misogyny.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 27 Apr 2016, 20:09

Edit: Also, he's 21. He's still figuring everything out - he might be a late bloomer, just as his sister. As far as we know, Claire only started dating when she was 24, and that is because Marten made the first move. He is clearly uncomfortable with dating, and he has a lot to learn about himself and others. It's not as if there's no time, or as if he has to date or as if he's going to be "forever alone" if he doesn't ask out a lot of girls. Which is a bad motivation to ask someone out anyway; would you go out with someone who just wants a warm body next to them and fakes interest as a means to an end, if you could actually hang with people who are interested in you as a person?

I agreed with the rest of your post, but had to disagree somewhat with this part. Yes Clinton is young, and yes, he's quite inexperienced in the dating arena; but this is precisely why he needs to get out there and start dating soon as possible. He has many mistakes to get out of the way; choosing the wrong women, saying or doing the wrong things, not saying or doing the right things. These mistakes will likely cost him the woman he makes those mistakes with, just as his hesitancy in asking for the second date cost him Emily.

He might as well get those mistakes out of the way now while he's young, single and has relatively little to lose. Along the way, he'll also need to develop a thick skin for rejection, since that is mainly the man's burden to bear in the dating arena, and someone like Clinton is going to get rejected rather often. Sucks, but that's the way it is since the majority of men are never going to be asked out by a woman, they will always have to do the asking. If Clinton ultimately wants fenale romantic companionship (and his efforts with Emily show that he does), then he's going to have to get out there, start making mistakes, and hopefully learning from them. Romantic companionship seldom falls into a man's lap, especially a man like Clinton.

Therein lies the rub; to get to the point where he can roll with the rejection, Clinton still has to get through all that rejection first. Yeah, one day he might be able to say "Well, I tried and it didn't work out, but hey, I tried." But it won't be today or tomorrow because right now it hurts. He's been shot down in a rather painful manner, not by Emily's fault, but by Claire.

Its all well and good to say that one day he's going to have the thick skin, but then again, no one likes getting rejected. No one likes the idea of getting rejected and it takes a very long time for someone to get used to the idea of being rejected. I've been dating half my life and I still don't like getting shot down. But I'm used to it. Clinton isn't, its all still new to him.

Both Clinton and Claire have a lot to learn from this fiasco and who knows, they might come out the better for it, equally likely they might not. Clinton might need to be more assertive and drop the more "creepy" aspects of his personalities, while Claire really does need to learn that there are boundries with people and that she shouldn't cross those particular lines (example, when Faye (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2930), quite rightly in my opinion, put Claire in her place by reminding her that she was still relatively new to the group and this hadn't "earned" the right to sass Faye as Marten could).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Vyse Inglebard on 27 Apr 2016, 20:36
The kicker with this is that Clinton wants to do this stuff on his own, which is totally within his rights, because only he knows what kind of comfort level he has with the dating scene. Claire does not, and she really had no place to step in and try to push him, even if she's trying to do the 'right thing' and be helpful. You can still be helpful and hurt the people you're trying to help. His anger is justified, even if it's incensed to a level that most would find inappropriate. His comfort has been infringed upon, and he should be allowed to be angry when a person who he trusts set him up through this mess.

Even if he's not going headfirst into things, he's clearly thinking about how he's been going about dating, and that's really cool. It's important. He doesn't have to be elbow deep in dating to learn what he needs to do. He can take things as slow as he needs and wants to if that's what he wants to do.

...I also say this thinking on his lack of self confidence, as he really needs to work on that before dating. People are attracted to those who trust in what they're doing.

So you do you, Clinton, just don't let your anger burn you to ash.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: jheartney on 27 Apr 2016, 21:02
He might as well get those mistakes out of the way now while he's young, single and has relatively little to lose. Along the way, he'll also need to develop a thick skin for rejection, since that is mainly the man's burden to bear in the dating arena, and someone like Clinton is going to get rejected rather often. Sucks, but that's the way it is since the majority of men are never going to be asked out by a woman, they will always have to do the asking. If Clinton ultimately wants fenale romantic companionship (and his efforts with Emily show that he does), then he's going to have to get out there, start making mistakes, and hopefully learning from them. Romantic companionship seldom falls into a man's lap, especially a man like Clinton.

This is exactly right. Which is why I think Claire did him a favor. She pushed him out of his holding pattern and made him either move ahead with Emily or let it die.

Some of you castigated me for being unable to empathize with Clinton. Hardly. I know exactly what's going on there; in his mind, the Emily thing was still a possibility, so he'd hang on to that despite the fact that he'd already allowed it to shrivel and die by not pursuing it. With that excuse, he'd let himself not bother to pursue anyone else, because he'd already (sort of) got something started with Emily. I know how the extreme introvert mind works - he'd use this faint possibility to excuse himself from trying anything else. Plus, as you pointed out, being rejected is part of the game. It's no worse for Clinton now than later, so he may as well get his first rejection out of the way now.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: sitnspin on 27 Apr 2016, 21:19
You're missing the point. It wasn't her call to make. Manipulating others, even for their supposed benefit, is fucked up. She had no right to do that.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Magniras on 27 Apr 2016, 21:39
Wingmanning 101: Make sure the other party wants a wingman before you cut in on the Foxtrot.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 27 Apr 2016, 21:40
Maybe, just maybe, both Emily and Clinton have a lot of shit going on in their lives and a second date just wasn't in the picture?

Maybe, just maybe, Claire really is an asshole for forcing the issue that really wasn't an issue to begin with.

Maybe, just maybe, when you are in your early 20s and you don't know shit about shit you need to mind your own shit.

Maybe.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: rbrim08 on 27 Apr 2016, 21:45
I think Clinton's overreacting. His sister was just trying to set him up to ASK for a second date.
She didn't set him up WITH a date and Emily turned him down when she found out it was him.
And Clinton was the one that went along with it, in the end, he didn't HAVE to ask her out again.
And Emily didn't REJECT him, she just said she doesn't have the time to date at the moment.
All in all... yeah, Claire probably shouldn't have done that without at least one of their knowledge of it.
But Clinton didn't have to attack her so much and tell her to fuck off like he did. That's way overboard.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: skarnet on 27 Apr 2016, 22:01
I liked this comic, a lot, for a simple reason: it shows an assertive, confident side of Clinton, that makes me think he's definitely on the right path - even if it manifests through anger.
Previously, Clinton was either the gushing Hannelore fanboy, or the immature guy ready to do anything to impress a woman (the haircut / power plug tatoo comic was both hilarious and sad at the same time). We've rarely seen him stand up for himself and take control of his own life.
Here, it's exactly what he does. He's calling his sister on her bullshit; he's demanding respect, maybe for the first time; he defines what is acceptable to him and what isn't. And that's wonderful - that's so much more mature than the Clinton we know. He's growing, he's definitely growing and learning; and even though things are not working out with Emily, he'll overcome it, and have more success in the future.

 As for Claire, I'm not worried about her. She'll have a good cry in Marten's arms, and be fine. And I'm pretty sure that Marten, while laughing about the situation, will confirm - in a nice, gentle way - that what she did was not okay, and she'll think about it, and will eventually grow as a person too. Everybody grows!

 The kicker is that I'm certain that Emily meant exactly what she said by "I just don't have time for dates", and that it wasn't a rejection aimed at Clinton particularly. It makes perfect sense in Emily-logic!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Vyse Inglebard on 27 Apr 2016, 22:40
And Clinton was the one that went along with it, in the end, he didn't HAVE to ask her out again.

We've all learned that Clinton is very easily coerced into things. During the date, he did whatever he felt would impress Emily (the haircut, the tattoo, etc.), but that was something he took responsibility for himself for because he knew that was something he could have said no to. He wasn't being coerced into doing those things; Emily just said "hey, that's cool" or, "you'd look good with that hairstyle".

This is different, however. Clinton was put into a position where he felt like he HAD to do this because he was being put on the spot. It's a very natural and common thing for people to just go through with it, or else they'd feel humiliated. Knowing how Claire treats her brother, it wouldn't be surprising if she picked on him for backing out on something he wasn't put up to. No, he didn't have to, but he felt like he wasn't being given a choice by making this a public thing, and further by announcing it in front of Emily.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: danuis on 27 Apr 2016, 23:06
(Also, "asshole"? I've never heard guys use that against girls--is Clinton misgendering her?)
he's not  Mary (http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-6/02-that-perfect-girl/wrong-2/)


HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Timemaster on 27 Apr 2016, 23:11
Comic!

Marty, to the rescue. 
In his owh, gentle way he tells Claire what we´ve all thought yesterday: that Clinton is basically right here. But Her reaction when he takes his side shows that it hasn´t completely sunk in to her yet.
But I´m sure, she´ll manage and she´ll be able to apologize to her brother soon.

TM

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 27 Apr 2016, 23:20
Well, it looks like skarnet called it! In fact, they called it with such accuracy that I'm wondering if they're actually Jeph l :wink:

This comic, by the way, is proof of how strong Marten and Claire's relationship is now. Not that she went to him for comfort but that, when he criticised her (it was kindly but it was still a very blunt criticism), she didn't pull away but instead went back to the hug. She trusts Marten enough to believe that it was to help, not a personal attack on her. IMO, that's a good sign of a very healthy relationship.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DSL on 27 Apr 2016, 23:32
It's almost like Jeph looks in on the forum for pointers on how not to have characters respond.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 27 Apr 2016, 23:34
Marten is leveling his Diplomacy skill.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: K1dmor on 28 Apr 2016, 00:27
 "I don't even like romantic comedies."
 Are you sure Claire? (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2481)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: USS Martenclaire on 28 Apr 2016, 00:33
My final thought on this was that at the very beginning Clin-ton very specifically *did* ask for outside input on his dating life: "I'll let you date my sister if you help set me up with someone" (paraphrased but that was essentially the gist of it). But I do also agree that Claire was being at least a little interfering.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mikmaxs on 28 Apr 2016, 00:44
My final thought on this was that at the very beginning Clin-ton very specifically *did* ask for outside input on his dating life: "I'll let you date my sister if you help set me up with someone" (paraphrased but that was essentially the gist of it). But I do also agree that Claire was being at least a little interfering.
And they *did* help set him up with Claire. What he didn't ask for help with was continuing the relationship without his knowledge, desire, or consent. If you ask for my help moving to a new house, you're still going to be understandably pissed off if I show up a month later and start rearranging your furniture.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: neurocase on 28 Apr 2016, 02:22
I sincerely hope that all the people who seemed to be trying their best yesterday to paint Claire as a manipulative, thoughtless person take a good look at today's strip and realize that it wasn't intentional manipulation on her part.

I read so many posts that just reeked of accusatory statements about how Claire is a manipulator and ALWAYZ DUZ THIS and she's NO GOOD WITH BOUNDARIES, and not one of them ever seemed to take into consideration the fact that Claire not only thought she was doing the right thing, she's as socially inept as Clinton is! She didn't respect his boundaries because she didn't even see them. That doesn't remove her of all blame, but the way some posters here were absolutely dragging her, you'd think she'd done something a thousand times worse than what she did. Y'all seemed ready to run her up the flagpole for doing something like this, while instantly absolving Clinton of his -sometimes overwhelming- faults because he got rejected for a second date and oh noes that's so terrible. This is intended as character growth, please read it as such. Clinton is growing out of the person he was when he got super creepy with Hanners (sort of), and Claire is now growing because she's realizing she can't fix everything around her. She's been shown to compulsively want to fix things, and make them better. It's not an entirely selfless drive, but it has the absolute best intentions. She's now learning that it's not possible to fix everything for everyone, and that not all people want their "problems" to be "fixed" at all.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: JimC on 28 Apr 2016, 02:43
Quote
[romantic comedies]and yet I absolutely love writing and drawing one
I'm sure Jeph has learned this one as a musician too. You may not necessarily much like listening to what you really like playing. Which is why there are (or were when I went to see such bands) very few audience members as old as the band at metal gigs. That stuff can be great fun to play even if you don't much enjoy listening to it any more.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Akima on 28 Apr 2016, 03:12
I sincerely hope that all the people who seemed to be trying their best yesterday to paint Claire as a manipulative, thoughtless person take a good look at today's strip and realize that it wasn't intentional manipulation on her part.
I think Claire acted in a thoughtless and manipulative way. She's now upset because her scheme turned out badly, and her brother is angry with her when she though she was acting in his best interests, but that does not really say anything to deny that she acted with intention. On the contrary, she says: "I was just trying to help!" which makes it pretty clear that she acted intentionally in manipulating Clinton into a meeting with Emily. I'm quite sure she did not have ill intent, which would obviously be worse, but unfortunately intent, however good, is not magic, or a get-out-of-jail-free card.

We know from previous strips that Clinton cares for Claire and is protective of her, and we know that Claire cares for Clinton. They'll get through this, and with luck have a more adult relationship as a result. Kudos to Jeph for creating great characters to whom we can relate so strongly.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 28 Apr 2016, 03:29
I sincerely hope that all the people who seemed to be trying their best yesterday to paint Claire as a manipulative, thoughtless person take a good look at today's strip and realize that it wasn't intentional manipulation on her part.

Nope, she is still the asshole in this.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 28 Apr 2016, 04:07
I sincerely hope that all the people who seemed to be trying their best yesterday to paint Claire as a manipulative, thoughtless person take a good look at today's strip and realize that it wasn't intentional manipulation on her part.

Yeah, it was still intentional manipulation. As Akima said, it was good intent, but that doesn't absolve her here.

It's also really fascinating that when she sees Clinton is very hurt and angry, she doesn't try to find out why; she's just upset that he yelled at her for "helping". She still doesn't arrive at the conclusion that she might have done something hurtful much later, when she's telling her story to Marten even though Clinton was very clear about why he's angry.
She's not very empathic to her brother's feelings, which is consistent with her treatment of him - usually condescending and not very respectful. Usually, she's not called out on it because Clinton is just as much of an idiot, and also doesn't know when he shouldn't step boundaries.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mad hands murphy on 28 Apr 2016, 04:10
BASED MARTEN
A
S
E
D

M
A
R
T
E
N

SPEAKS THE TRUTH
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Method of Madness on 28 Apr 2016, 04:14
Huh?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: MrNumbers on 28 Apr 2016, 04:44
[...]but that, when he criticised her (it was kindly but it was still a very blunt criticism), she didn't pull away but instead went back to the hug. She trusts Marten enough to believe that it was to help, not a personal attack on her. IMO, that's a good sign of a very healthy relationship.

Dude. Marten was honest about the situation! Hallelujah! Real character growth there since his relationship with Dora.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 28 Apr 2016, 06:21
I read so many posts that just reeked of accusatory statements about how Claire is a manipulator and ALWAYZ DUZ THIS and she's NO GOOD WITH BOUNDARIES, and not one of them ever seemed to take into consideration the fact that Claire not only thought she was doing the right thing, she's as socially inept as Clinton is!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just because you may not intend harm doesn't mean harm won't be done.

Dude. Marten was honest about the situation! Hallelujah! Real character growth there since his relationship with Dora.

It helps when the person he's seeing doesn't go totally off the rails when confronted with the truth. Claire is better for Marten than Dora was in that way.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 28 Apr 2016, 06:47
Does this plot-resolution count as a Deus Ex Marten?
 :psyduck:

And more importantly: Does tvtropes.org (http://tvtropes.org/) know about that one?
Why don't you go have a look?  :evil:


EDIT:
I read so many posts that just reeked of ...
It's astounding, but there really is evidence in the fossil record that something other than "my projection = objective reality" actually can follow that specific introduction. Some researchers even claim that in the immediate aftermath of the great Tunguska Extinction Event of 1908 ...

For further answers to all your questions about why people are yelling at you to stop beating that specific dead horse (we sorta kinda know it's dead, whatwith all the bits and pieces coming off of it, see?) the distinction between intent and ill intent and why it sometimes matters less than (unspecified) people stopping their manipulative shit already, please consult your local instantiation of Akima, conveniently placed in the 2nd post after yours.

Or TheMacNut in the post right above this one ...

EDITEDIT:
Or you can listen to Neko_Ali in the post right below this one ...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 28 Apr 2016, 06:58
Maybe we could just all stop trying to find the one singular bad guy in all of this? Life is never that simple, no matter how much people want to reduce problems to one singular cause.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: St.Clair on 28 Apr 2016, 08:13
In case anyone here hasn't seen it already, a relevant blast from the Onion past:

Romantic-Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested (http://www.theonion.com/article/romantic-comedy-behavior-gets-real-life-man-arrest-757)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: WareWolf on 28 Apr 2016, 09:59
Maybe we could just all stop trying to find the one singular bad guy in all of this? Life is never that simple, no matter how much people want to reduce problems to one singular cause.

Absolutely correct.

Claire shouldn't have meddled.

Clinton shouldn't have told his sister to fuck off.

Also: given Emily's  lack of  any skills at pretense, I don't think she was trying to reject Clinton because she doesn't like him. I think she really is that busy.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 28 Apr 2016, 11:51
I'm half surprised no one has tried to blame Marten, Faye or Dora for this yet... Some have tried to put some of the blame on Emily for giving a stereotypicial  blow off excuse.. but I think that's more projecting. Emily just isn't like that... I would 100% say the reason she says she's to busy to date Clinton right now is just that.. She's to busy. Emily has always just been totally open and honest about things as far as we know.. I think that's one of the things some people find off putting about her. And you know.. accidentally nearly summoning Elder Gods.

Claire shouldn't have meddled. Clinton shouldn't have blown up. But I understand where both were coming from and why they did it. Right now the thing would be for the to apologize and mend some fences. Not play 'who's fault is it' games.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Endellion on 28 Apr 2016, 13:57
I'm half surprised no one has tried to blame Marten, Faye or Dora for this yet...

Well it's clearly Dora's fault for giving Emily too many hours so she doesn't have time out of school/work for other activities ie. dating.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebediah on 28 Apr 2016, 14:15
No, it's obviously Timemaster's fault. He could have given Emily a few more hours a day to work with, but could he be bothered? Could he?

  :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Penquin47 on 28 Apr 2016, 14:27
I'm half surprised no one has tried to blame Marten, Faye or Dora for this yet...

Well it's clearly Dora's fault for giving Emily too many hours so she doesn't have time out of school/work for other activities ie. dating.

And it's obviously Faye's fault because Emily was hired to fill the void created when Faye got fired!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Endellion on 28 Apr 2016, 14:46
Marten is not completely blameless in this situation, given that his relationship with Claire has gone pretty much trouble free she no doubt expects Emily to say yes, they go on to have a million babies and Claire gets to name one Fighter Jet.

And going back to an earlier post:

We know from previous strips that Clinton cares for Claire and is protective of her, and we know that Claire cares for Clinton. They'll get through this, and with luck have a more adult relationship as a result. Kudos to Jeph for creating great characters to whom we can relate so strongly.

If Claire cares for Clin-ton, does that make her a Claire Bear?  :claireface:

Enough silliness, Serious point: In the nucleur fallout from that bust-up; Claire has Marten to go back to and in doing so gets another view point on the prior situation: yes you did it with the best intentions at heart but in the manner you did it you fucked up. Clinton, on the other hand, has...no one to rebound off. Other than his Jock-type room mate which in my opinion isn't the best person for him to vent at.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 28 Apr 2016, 15:12
...

Also: given Emily's  lack of  any skills at pretense, I don't think she was trying to reject Clinton because she doesn't like him. I think she really is that busy.

Can't speak for CS grad students, but methinks it's not such a far-fetched idea, especially the closer one gets to writing up the dissertation. It's by no means mandatory for STEM grad students to eschew possible romantic involvements - e.g because you "simply have no space left on your harddrive", or because you fear introducing anything into your life that might upset your precariously balanced mental workings - but ... it's not unheard of. I've done it, once (Or rather: It was a strong contributing factor). There's a lot of pressure to graduate as fast as you can, especially if you want to have a shot at staying @Uni - STEM academe is pretty ageist.

That Emily's aptitude at confabulation is approximately equal to that of a falling brick - I think that's just the good old "John von Neumann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann)"-trope.

TL;DR - I don't think it would have mattered much if Clinton had hesitated less with his asking for a 2nd date. Sometimes it isn't lack of attraction, or assertiveness, or whatever  - but simply people realizing they are at the wrong places in their lives right now.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 28 Apr 2016, 15:20
It shall be interesting to see where this goes after this one and what will happen when Claire and Clinton meet up again, most likely at their mothers house at some stage.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 28 Apr 2016, 15:41
For the record, I don't think Emily is opposed to the idea of dating Clinton. Despite his acting way out of character during said date, she seemed to mostly enjoy it. And I notice that Clinton still seems to be sporting the same hair style, which means he's been maintaining it over the last few months. I'm interested to see if he did any more work on the tattoo, or maybe had it removed?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DonInKansas on 28 Apr 2016, 16:20
On a lighter note, snuffly Claire makes her nose ring look like a huge booger is hanging from her nose.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DSL on 28 Apr 2016, 16:40
On a lighter note, snuffly Claire makes her nose ring look like a huge booger is hanging from her nose.

Sounds as though that could be a problem. A friend with a tongue stud told me she avoided skinny pasta.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: skarnet on 28 Apr 2016, 17:24
Well, it looks like skarnet called it! In fact, they called it with such accuracy that I'm wondering if they're actually Jeph l :wink:

Not so accurate - I expected Marten to laugh, just a tiny bit. But it's understandable that he doesn't, given how Claire looks distressed! Anyway, I hope this mistake is proof enough that I'm not Jeph - although I wish I had his talent! :wink:

(I'm a he. Lazy me doesn't like to fill in profiles, but I guess it's the polite thing to do...)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 28 Apr 2016, 17:49
I'm half surprised no one has tried to blame Marten, Faye or Dora for this yet...

Well it's clearly Dora's fault for giving Emily too many hours so she doesn't have time out of school/work for other activities ie. dating.

And it's obviously Faye's fault because Emily was hired to fill the void created when Faye got fired!

You fools, 'tis clearly Angus' fault, for seeking a job in New York, leaving Faye behind to drink herself into oblivion and unemployment, which lead to Dora hiring Emily.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mustang6172 on 28 Apr 2016, 18:10
I'm half surprised no one has tried to blame Marten, Faye or Dora for this yet...

Well it's clearly Dora's fault for giving Emily too many hours so she doesn't have time out of school/work for other activities ie. dating.

And it's obviously Faye's fault because Emily was hired to fill the void created when Faye got fired!

You fools, 'tis clearly Angus' fault, for seeking a job in New York, leaving Faye behind to drink herself into oblivion and unemployment, which lead to Dora hiring Emily.

And if Faye's father hadn't killed himself then she wouldn't have moved to Northampton and been hired at CoD in the first place.

If you want to go back farther, we can blame someone's parents for not using birth control.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebediah on 28 Apr 2016, 18:36
It all goes back to the Big Bang. If the Big hadn't Banged, none of this would have happened. Literally.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: hedgie on 28 Apr 2016, 18:51
The Big Bang?  Isn't *that* what the Large Hardon Collider is supposed to duplicate?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: retrosteve on 28 Apr 2016, 18:52
Compliments to Jeph on the very fluid and natural body language for Marten and Claire in this cuddle strip. This cannot have been easy to draw, and he did it very well!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 28 Apr 2016, 18:53
It all goes back to the Big Bang. If the Big hadn't Banged, none of this would have happened. Literally.

Looks like you have the market on retcon-guilt-tripping cornered in two posts.
Chapeau!

The Big Bang?  Isn't *that* what the Large Hardon Collider is supposed to duplicate?

Every time somebody makes that pun, Edward Witten starts twitching.
(So go right ahead ...)


Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 28 Apr 2016, 22:39
Welcome, skarnet!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Delator on 28 Apr 2016, 23:23
Well I don't know about Massachusetts, but any bar in Wisconsin will serve you water at no charge without any backtalk.

Designated drivers being somewhat helpful, after all.

Hell, if I went into a bar, asked for water, and got treated like that, my next phone call would be to the Tavern League.

Only so many liquor licenses to go around, and it's a long wait list.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 28 Apr 2016, 23:40
I'm not sure what I think about this. On the one hand, there is the issue of the boss's profits, water being literally dirt-cheap, after all. On the other hand, the customer is always right and surely some sale is better than no sale and increases the chance of repeat business!

I might be remembering wrong but I seem to recall from the date with Emily that Clinton doesn't have the strongest tolerance for alcohol. He also pretty much on the rebound here and alcohol would nicely numb his bad mood; lots of alcohol. I'm wondering if Jeph is planning a drunken one-night stand possibly even leading to consequences of some sort?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Deadman on 28 Apr 2016, 23:44
Why do I get the strange feeling this might lead to romance even though it is probably just going to be him working through his problems in a drunken stupor.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mad hands murphy on 28 Apr 2016, 23:45
the bar i used to go to would give you anything non alchoholic for free

like water but also cranberry juice or ginger ale or whatever

it was nice
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mad hands murphy on 28 Apr 2016, 23:46
Why do I get the strange feeling this might lead to romance even though it is probably just going to be him working through his problems in a drunken stupor.

maybe he'll fall in love with being a drunk
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Mordhaus on 28 Apr 2016, 23:50
Yeah, most bars have soda if they require you to purchase something.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Timemaster on 28 Apr 2016, 23:53
Clinton, frustation, anger and alcohol. This cannot possibly end well.

For him.

For us, as the omniscent spectators, it´s completely different.


@ Zebediah: I´d gladly give Emily more hours, but I´m worried what she´ll do with them, given her genius-like skills.
Maybe distort the space-time continuum or create a flux-compensator.
Hmm, I´ll see what I can do.  :-D

TM
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 28 Apr 2016, 23:55
Never known a bar that wouldn't give or serve you water even if you wound up paying a small fee for it.

Then again, most of the bars I've been to have been the sort of mid level places that would charge $3 for a large glass of water.

I think Monday is gonna find Clinton passed out somewhere
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: oeoek on 28 Apr 2016, 23:57
Looks like the Jimbo kind of bar to me. So uhm, next week will be Clin-ton taking romantic advice from our Notorious Novelist? I still have high hopes for this romance...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 29 Apr 2016, 00:04
This comic was very strange for me to read.

Licensed premises in Australia are legally obliged to serve drinking water to anyone who requests it, either free or at a reasonable cost. It's a part of the Responsible Service of Alcohol laws.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: creatureshock on 29 Apr 2016, 00:10
Well I don't know about Massachusetts, but any bar in Wisconsin will serve you water at no charge without any backtalk.

Designated drivers being somewhat helpful, after all.

Coffee, soda, tea in some cases.  Being the DD one driving people home means you need something to drink.  You want people spending money on booze?  Make sure they can get home.  Easiest way is giving the DD the ability to drink something without booze in it. 
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 29 Apr 2016, 00:12
Isn't there a law against this? Where I live, it's illegal for bars not to offer non-alcoholics, and also at least one non-alcoholic drink has to be cheaper than the cheapest alcoholic one. And even if it's not the law, it doesn't make sense not to serve non-alcoholic drinks; they're cheaper, yes, but there's still profit to be made from designated drivers, people who don't drink but like the company and people who do drink but want to slow down sometimes.

Well, maybe Jeph didn't have any other justification for Clinton to get drunk except a very, very weird bartender.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: K1dmor on 29 Apr 2016, 00:19
 Last time Clinton went to a bar, things got really ugly (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2936). Here's hoping it doesn't happen again.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Doc on 29 Apr 2016, 00:24
"Okay barb*tch, there are a gazillion bars in this neighborhood. If you serve me a water now, maybe a next time I'll take a beer. And hey, maybe you'll get a tip!"
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Near Lurker on 29 Apr 2016, 00:48
Well I don't know about Massachusetts, but any bar in Wisconsin will serve you water at no charge without any backtalk.

Designated drivers being somewhat helpful, after all.

Hell, if I went into a bar, asked for water, and got treated like that, my next phone call would be to the Tavern League.

Only so many liquor licenses to go around, and it's a long wait list.

Liquor licenses are a notorious pain in the ass here, but I doubt you could get one revoked over a thing like that.

Designated drivers are fine, but if you're alone, at least if you're a young man, you'd better be buying something.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Dust on 29 Apr 2016, 01:57
So they don't even have water in the bar gun? I've seen some rough as guts small-town pubs, but that's a first for me.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 29 Apr 2016, 02:02
Liquor licenses are a notorious pain in the ass here, but I doubt you could get one revoked over a thing like that.

Designated drivers are fine, but if you're alone, at least if you're a young man, you'd better be buying something.

I don't think he expected to get the water for free; she could also have offered him a soda or a coffee or something.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: USS Martenclaire on 29 Apr 2016, 02:04
The Big Bang?  Isn't *that* what the Large Hardon Collider is supposed to duplicate?

The LHC creates a Very Small Parping Sound. Think "cosmic fart in an elevator".
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 29 Apr 2016, 02:05
Why do I get the strange feeling this might lead to romance even though it is probably just going to be him working through his problems in a drunken stupor.

BARLADY: "I am not the 'Barkeep'. I am the 'Host'; the lady who draws the brews; the genial smile that greets the sad faces that come through the door; the sympathetic listening ear to the tales of woe brought to me by hopeless patrons."

CLINTON: "Whatever! You sure helped me out! Thanks, Barkeep!"

CLINTON throws a few bills at BARLADY and runs out of the bar.

BARLADY: "I... think I might be good at this!"

BARLADY turns to an unconscious JIMBO, whose head is resting on the bar. She pats him on the shoulder.

BARLADY: "So, what's your story?"

JIMBO slumps bonelessly onto the floor.

Yes, a ST-DS9 reference, courtesy of Quark, surely the most awesomely funny barkeep in the history of sci-fi!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Akima on 29 Apr 2016, 02:34
Licensed premises in Australia are legally obliged to serve drinking water to anyone who requests it, either free or at a reasonable cost. It's a part of the Responsible Service of Alcohol laws.
I've ordered non-alcoholic drinks in bars in the USA too, so yes, this comic seemed strange. The is the bar of compulsory alcohol, apparently.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Cypher on 29 Apr 2016, 03:06
Seems that no chance is ever to be missed for personal interaction between Clinton and another person to go badly/ uncomfortably... if Jeph is trying to make about half his readers completely sympathise with Clinton, who appears to be some kind of universal chump, he's going the right way about it in my book. I mean, seriously? She couldn't have addressed him in something approaching a pleasant (or just not asinine) manner? Oh well, par for the course if you're Clinton, it seems (and no, this isn't an endorsement of his flying off the handle at Claire, even if I do think her actions were, to say the least, ill-advised).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: oddtail on 29 Apr 2016, 03:07
I was actually baffled enough at the comic that I registered just to comment (hi, everyone!)

Judging from the responses above mine, I'm not the only person who found the comic a bit strange... I don't know if it's different in America, but I have never seen a bar that didn't offer at least a few non-alcoholic drinks (and some snacks). If nothing else, I know very few people who drink vodka (and vodka is a pretty popular drink in my country) without any sort of chaser. In fact, the fact that I don't bother with chasers leads, more often than not, to people giving me funny looks (again, maybe that's specific to how people tend to drink in Poland, if people in the US and elsewhere typically drink hard liquor with no chaser, let me know). So a bar without at least orange juice offered or something would be inconvenient in addition to being somewhat weird.

Is the "bar that offers absolutely nothing non-alcoholic because they're a bar" a thing in the US?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 29 Apr 2016, 03:16
Isn't there a law against this? Where I live, it's illegal for bars not to offer non-alcoholics, and also at least one non-alcoholic drink has to be cheaper than the cheapest alcoholic one.

Same where I live. 

Well, maybe Jeph didn't have any other justification for Clinton to get drunk except a very, very weird bartender.

Could be smth. as simple as pointing out how policies like the one portrayed affect people trying to stay dry ... if the local bars in your place of residence refuse to serve non-alcoholic drinks, a lot of the resident night-life becomes off-limits.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Lubricus on 29 Apr 2016, 03:18
Hi, oddtail!

Here in Norway, it's technically illegal for a bar to refuse water to people, and even to charge money for it. The latter part is ignored quite often, but the law is crystal clear. You do not refuse to give someone water.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TinPenguin on 29 Apr 2016, 03:52
It's the law in England, too. I've walked into pubs parched, got a drink of water, walked straight out. Does the hired bartender give a shit? Of course not.

That aside, it's a really weird business model to sell nothing but alcohol. May as well just be an off-license with a bench outside.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: swapna on 29 Apr 2016, 03:59
Well, maybe Jeph didn't have any other justification for Clinton to get drunk except a very, very weird bartender.

Could be smth. as simple as pointing out how policies like the one portrayed affect people trying to stay dry ... if the local bars in your place of residence refuse to serve non-alcoholic drinks, a lot of the resident night-life becomes off-limits.

Could be, but that would be.. a weird, non-existing problem. No bar would have such a policy (for all the reasons mentioned). People trying to stay dry have a lot of other problems (peer pressure, temptation, dealing with drunk people, paying 3$ for a small glass of soda) but being refused water is not one of them.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Delator on 29 Apr 2016, 04:00
(click to show/hide)

Liquor licenses are a notorious pain in the ass here, but I doubt you could get one revoked over a thing like that.

In all likelihood, no, but they will do a follow up, and unless the bartender is also the owner, she can expect to get an earful.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: blt on 29 Apr 2016, 04:09
Is Clinton underage?  Her trying to bluntly remind him it's a bar basically to say "you don't belong here, shoo" is about the only reason this could begin to resemble a normal human interaction in my books.   :?

Unless she's a robot, given a high quality skin covering and VERY limited programming.

Or she's been cursed by a travelling witch to only know those two phrases and she's desperately trying to say them louder to get help  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: brightwings00 on 29 Apr 2016, 04:15
I could see her being a little baffled and irritated if Clinton only ordered a water, in the vein of "...so, you can't get a bottle from a convenience store because...?" You have to admit, alcohol is usually the first, second and third reason people show up to bars.

Her insistence that he has to buy a drink is weird, though. Maybe they give out water for free and she's irritated that he's taking up space from tipping/paying customers?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: cloudbuster on 29 Apr 2016, 04:22
"Scotch and water. Hold the scotch."
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: gopher on 29 Apr 2016, 04:47
"I think this line's mostly filler"
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: themacnut on 29 Apr 2016, 05:03
Clinton has clearly become such a butt monkey that he's gotten the bad luck to wander into the one bar that says "f*ck the law, alcohol only". Since he's presently the comic's butt monkey, he doesn't realize he can just wander over to the next bar, who'd happily serve him water.

Either that, or he's come in on the shift of the new barkeep who isn't fully acquainted with the law or general bar policy. Or she's taken one look at him and decided he could be bullied into buying an alcoholic drink.

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 29 Apr 2016, 05:20
Well, maybe Jeph didn't have any other justification for Clinton to get drunk except a very, very weird bartender.

Could be smth. as simple as pointing out how policies like the one portrayed affect people trying to stay dry ... if the local bars in your place of residence refuse to serve non-alcoholic drinks, a lot of the resident night-life becomes off-limits.

Could be, but that would be.. a weird, non-existing problem. No bar would have such a policy (for all the reasons mentioned). People trying to stay dry have a lot of other problems (peer pressure, temptation, dealing with drunk people, paying 3$ for a small glass of soda) but being refused water is not one of them.

You're probably right - I was just racking my mind for a possible explanation & since Jeph going dry a while back was an inspiration for me to do the same, I came up with this one. I actually stayed away from bars for close to year, for fear of giving in to temptation - but apparently, I was lucky to have jumped the train at the last possible stop before "functional Alcoholic" Central Station (which is a misnomer - it just means that your schedule is flexible enough for you to keep up appearances & stay below the threshold where both you and people around you cannot avoid noticing any longer). Breaking the habit turned out to be a lot easier than I had feared.

I didn't find peer pressure such a problem - though I have to add I'm way past college age - the only thing I found odd was that virtually everybody around me, from family and friends, to fellow barflies or servers, broached the subject A LOT more readily when I stopped drinking, instead of when I was showing very clear warning signs, over a long period of time. Nobody ever tried to pressure me into drinking, but there's stuff like:
* People suddenly starting to worry about appearing drunk when you're around (Answer: Nope. I don't notice any difference until roughly 2:00 AM - but then it becomes pretty drastic)
* You've suddenly become the leading expert on breaking an alcohol habit -> My weirdest experience was a bartender at my local watering hole suddenly loudly worrying about her habit. There's as many reasons for developing a bad habit as there are people - I only know what worked for me.
 
Wrt. to US law - I'm trying to make it a habit to not assume anything about US legal standards, especially when it comes to state-, or communal legislation. It's too easy to project my central european cultural experience onto a culture that looks similar, but didn't develop in the same way. Though you are probably right: MA seems to be one of the places where the problem is rather one of getting properly shitfaced with gusto, in public.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Dust on 29 Apr 2016, 05:52
I could see her being a little baffled and irritated if Clinton only ordered a water, in the vein of "...so, you can't get a bottle from a convenience store because...?" You have to admit, alcohol is usually the first, second and third reason people show up to bars.

Her insistence that he has to buy a drink is weird, though. Maybe they give out water for free and she's irritated that he's taking up space from tipping/paying customers?

Maybe. Should still be mid-afternoon at the latest, and the place seems empty, so it's not like he's holding up the queue.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 29 Apr 2016, 05:53
All this condemnation of Clarie's behaviour would carry a little more weight if anyone had called her out on it before Clinton blew up.

Dismiss all you want people defending her by saying that she didn't realise she was doing the wrong thing, but you know what? No-one else here realised, either.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 29 Apr 2016, 05:53
Sometimes, it takes a bad and destructive failure to realise that a methodology was wrong from the outset.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: MrNumbers on 29 Apr 2016, 06:16
This comic was very strange for me to read.

Licensed premises in Australia are legally obliged to serve drinking water to anyone who requests it, either free or at a reasonable cost. It's a part of the Responsible Service of Alcohol laws.

I was about to say, but then another Australian beat me to it.

Always weird finding an Australian out in the wild, isn't it? You just take it for granted there won't be another one on the forum/comments section of wherever you visit, because you're already filling the Token Designated Australian slot by being there yourself.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BlueFatima on 29 Apr 2016, 06:17
This comic was very strange for me to read.

Licensed premises in Australia are legally obliged to serve drinking water to anyone who requests it, either free or at a reasonable cost. It's a part of the Responsible Service of Alcohol laws.

We have a lot of variations from state-to-state in the US, but in my state it is law to give a cup of free water—even if you sell bottled water. Every bar I've been to offers it, too (I always order water with my drinks).

Of course, just because something is law doesn't mean people will choose to follow it. This bar tender could be uneducated or just an angry and wanting $$$ regardless of what their law is.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 29 Apr 2016, 06:20
Well, here's a point. It may not be anything to do with laws or the bar's policy. It may just be frustration on  the bartender's fault. Clinton is just waiting on the bus.  Which means that the area where the buses stop probably doesn't have a waiting area of it's own, or one that is uncomfortable. And the bar is probably the closest place where you can sit down in comfort. So she probably has a lot of people just coming down and squatting until their boss shows up. Would you like it if your work had an issue day after day of people just coming in, hanging out and never buying anything?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Cartagia on 29 Apr 2016, 06:23
I think we found the real asshole in this story, bar lady.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BlueFatima on 29 Apr 2016, 06:25
Why do I have the feeling this is going to end with Clinton getting drunk and doing something out of character?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DSL on 29 Apr 2016, 06:26
Manipulated again, Clinton ...

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BlueFatima on 29 Apr 2016, 06:29
Manipulated again, Clinton ...

He needs a beer or two to tell the bartender to piss off.   :-D

Edit - On a different note, could this be Sam's mom? If so, I think we can piece together why she and Jim aren't still married from her lovely personality here.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 29 Apr 2016, 06:39
Well, here's a point. It may not be anything to do with laws or the bar's policy. It may just be frustration on  the bartender's fault. Clinton is just waiting on the bus.  Which means that the area where the buses stop probably doesn't have a waiting area of it's own, or one that is uncomfortable. And the bar is probably the closest place where you can sit down in comfort. So she probably has a lot of people just coming down and squatting until their boss shows up. Would you like it if your work had an issue day after day of people just coming in, hanging out and never buying anything?

How dare you post a simple, logical and probable explanation in the WCDT?

What are we going to speculate about until tomorrow? What about all the lost opportunities to group into deeply entrenched warring factions - Do you think they grow on trees?
 :x
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 29 Apr 2016, 06:42
Yeah, that's me. Being the sensible, logical one again. I'll get my hat and show myself out...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: BenRG on 29 Apr 2016, 06:44
Well, at least we now know who 'Balls' (https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/722212177445306374) is. It's Bartender Lady! There are a few differences but, comparing 'Balls' with this sketch (https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/725832824972926976), I think that everyone can see the character design development lineage leading to Bartender Lady today.

So, apart from being an extremely dogmatic bartender, who is she? I can't see Jeph going to all this trouble just for a one-off character for a single arc. She may quite possibly be a new regular character, the first since Corpse Witch!

Is there some kind of partnership with Clinton in the offing? Ummm... maybe. Monday's comic probably will tell. Jeph did them all in a single run-through so I'm betting Monday will be part 2 of Clinton's adventure in the bar.

On a different note, could this be Sam's mom? If so, I think we can piece together why she and Jim aren't still married from her lovely personality here.

If it is, and she's about to become a recurring character, the potential for soap operatic levels of drama are quite immence, especially if she isn't happy with Jim remarrying and especially isn't happy with Sam preferring Veronica's company to hers. Could Clinton become a tool to attack Veronica via Claire and Marten? Alternately, this may just be her introduction and she'll have her own ally group (as we saw in those other sketches in Jeph's Twitter feed).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DSL on 29 Apr 2016, 06:45
The WCDT could always group into entrenched factions over whether the WCDT groups into entrenched factions -- with a superheated sub-discussion over whether the focus on trees is "arborist."
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zebediah on 29 Apr 2016, 06:55
We are not entrenched. We are heavily fortified. There's a difference. Trenches are dug into the ground. Your faction may be entrenched, but my side is above ground in a friggin' castle!

Wait, which side am I on again anyway?  :?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Arkantos on 29 Apr 2016, 08:15
Your faction may be entrenched, but my side is above ground in a friggin' castle!
There's a reason we stopped using castles. Explosives make it quite easy to destroy vertical things. Horizontal things or things dug into the ground? Not so much.

Think Twin Towers vs. Pentagon on 9/11. Imagine how bad it would've been if our entire military command structure was house in a skyscraper on that day.

So yeah, trenches>castles.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 29 Apr 2016, 09:30
Yeah, that's me. Being the sensible, logical one again. I'll get my hat and show myself out...

AND you have a hat too! You monster!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Y on 29 Apr 2016, 09:31
A little late to this topic, but the only bar I know of where the bartender hassles people for not ordering alcohol was in "It's a Wonderful Life."
This actually reminded me of Coyote Ugly, so Clinton is actually lucky he didn't get doused in water.
Quote
Hell, no H2O!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: hedgie on 29 Apr 2016, 09:35
I was actually baffled enough at the comic that I registered just to comment (hi, everyone!)

Judging from the responses above mine, I'm not the only person who found the comic a bit strange... I don't know if it's different in America, but I have never seen a bar that didn't offer at least a few non-alcoholic drinks (and some snacks).
It's probably a dive that doesn't really care about the local law.  I have been to plenty of bars where they didn't even care if one smoked inside, despite it being illegal in my state since '98.  All it takes on top of that is one surly bartender and I can see this happening.

Quote
If nothing else, I know very few people who drink vodka (and vodka is a pretty popular drink in my country) without any sort of chaser. In fact, the fact that I don't bother with chasers leads, more often than not, to people giving me funny looks
Actually, I got a round of Grey Goose for a friend and some people she knew for her birthday and when they all wanted a chaser, I would have at least teased them if it weren't for the occasion.  I blame it on them being inexperienced drinkers, though.  Living in a university town now compared to a major city, I do see fewer people drinking their booze neat (usually only the regulars at the sole remaining working class bar actually eschew a chaser).  It seems as though many at that age want the effect and not the taste.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Pilchard123 on 29 Apr 2016, 10:45
The Big Bang?  Isn't *that* what the Large Hardon Collider is supposed to duplicate?

The LHC creates a Very Small Parping Sound. Think "cosmic fart in an elevator".

Or quite possibly, "weasel flambée".
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Random832 on 29 Apr 2016, 11:35
Dismiss all you want people defending her by saying that she didn't realise she was doing the wrong thing, but you know what? No-one else here realised, either.

Well, we've got the disadvantage that since QC is a fictional universe to us we don't actually know that romantic-comedy tropes aren't valid for it. Characters should know better.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheCollector on 29 Apr 2016, 12:44
If this was in fact a romantic comedy, my personal reaction to this page would be, "I smell loooove." :3
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: jwhouk on 29 Apr 2016, 12:48
Well I don't know about Massachusetts, but any bar in Wisconsin will serve you water at no charge without any backtalk.

Designated drivers being somewhat helpful, after all.

Hell, if I went into a bar, asked for water, and got treated like that, my next phone call would be to the Tavern League.

Only so many liquor licenses to go around, and it's a long wait list.

Ah, a fellow cheesehead, dere hey, aina?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: DSL on 29 Apr 2016, 14:27
We are not entrenched. We are heavily fortified. There's a difference. Trenches are dug into the ground. Your faction may be entrenched, but my side is above ground in a friggin' castle!

Wait, which side am I on again anyway?  :?

You got a moat? 'Coz a moat is a trench. And foundations? Those start with trenches. Imma just hook a chain up to your castle and tow it away with my pickup truck, past the Maginot Line in the sand.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 29 Apr 2016, 14:53
(https://images4.alphacoders.com/112/112526.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 29 Apr 2016, 15:46
"Large house, fantastic views. minor flooding in basement. Priced to move."
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: War Sparrow on 29 Apr 2016, 16:26
Is that a painting or a real place? I wish to read about it. And perhaps hang it on my wall.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Arkantos on 29 Apr 2016, 17:45
That's a painting; there's no place like this on Earth. The universe is (probably) infinite, though, so, somewhere out there, this place exists. Probably not near you, though.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Akima on 29 Apr 2016, 17:49
Wrt. to US law - I'm trying to make it a habit to not assume anything about US legal standards, especially when it comes to state-, or communal legislation. It's too easy to project my central european cultural experience onto a culture that looks similar, but didn't develop in the same way.
I think that's an even bigger problem for foreigners from other English-speaking, ex-British countries. In some ways, the USA is so familiar, particularly because of the ubiquity of its pop-culture products, and then you stumble over something that reminds you just how very foreign it is.

Always weird finding an Australian out in the wild, isn't it?
There are at least four of us active in this forum. :)

That building on the edge of a waterfall looks more like a cathedral than a castle.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mustang6172 on 29 Apr 2016, 18:17
That's a painting; there's no place like this on Earth. The universe is (probably) infinite, though, so, somewhere out there, this place exists. Probably not near you, though.

Based on the Big Bang, the universe is finite.

Always weird finding an Australian out in the wild, isn't it?
There are at least four of us active in this forum. :)

If you can call this forum "wild."
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Rimwolf on 29 Apr 2016, 18:51
Ĉi tiu. estas. trinkejo. Ni. servas. bieron. kaj. likvoron.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: War Sparrow on 29 Apr 2016, 19:25
That's a painting; there's no place like this on Earth. The universe is (probably) infinite, though, so, somewhere out there, this place exists. Probably not near you, though.

Well, that stands to reason, as my current living area is boring, and there is a lack of large water. And castles.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Arkantos on 29 Apr 2016, 19:33
Based on the Big Bang, the universe is finite.
That isn't how it works. The Big Bang occurred everywhere in the universe, when all matter was condensed into a singularity and began expanding suddenly and quickly. It is conceivable that some area of the universe may be largely without matter in it (we've found such an area), but, as far as we can tell, the universe is infinite and expanding.

It is really hard to explain adequately and in a comprehensible way.

Well, that stands to reason, as my current living area is boring, and there is a lack of large water. And castles.

By "near you" I meant "in this galaxy" or maybe even "in our supercluster of galaxies".
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 29 Apr 2016, 20:26
Clinton will now tell the beerista his life story.
...
She will quit early, with a headache.


> BenRG:  BierGarten of Doom?
  Mi nur ŝercas.


Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Akima on 29 Apr 2016, 20:44
Ĉi tiu. estas. trinkejo. Ni. servas. bieron. kaj. likvoron.
Clinton: Mi ne parolas Esperanton.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: RyanW1019 on 29 Apr 2016, 21:07
The WCDT could always group into entrenched factions over whether the WCDT groups into entrenched factions -- with a superheated sub-discussion over whether the focus on trees is "arborist."

"Human subcultures are nested fractally. There is no bottom." https://xkcd.com/1095/
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Zog on 29 Apr 2016, 22:17
The WCDT could always group into entrenched factions over whether the WCDT groups into entrenched factions -- with a superheated sub-discussion over whether the focus on trees is "arborist."

"Human subcultures are nested fractally. There is no bottom." https://xkcd.com/1095/

I hear that there are some people that are not divided into internal subcultures. I cannot guarantee that this is so as I am not one of them.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: katsmeat on 30 Apr 2016, 02:26
Apropos of nothing, in the UK, it's a legal requirement that licensed premises must provide free tap water if a customer asks for it.   in my experience, many are pretty good about it and will offer ice, a slice of lemon or carbonated water even though they'd be technically allowed to charge for those extras.  Presumably it's in their commercial interests to be accommodating.

Not exactly relevant as Clinton isn't in the UK, but I just thought I'd mention.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 30 Apr 2016, 03:13
That building on the edge of a waterfall looks more like a cathedral than a castle.

Yup, that's Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption de Clermont-Ferrand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clermont-Ferrand_Cathedral) in the Auvergne region of France.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Facade_cathedrale_clermont-ferrand.jpg/220px-Facade_cathedrale_clermont-ferrand.jpg)

Is that a painting or a real place? I wish to read about it. And perhaps hang it on my wall.

Streetview here (https://www.google.de/#q=Cath%C3%A9drale+Notre-Dame-de-l%27Assomption&rlst=f&rflfq=1&num=20&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAB1QO05DQRBTGkS_SEivyhHG85-So0QhUqoUIO7FuTgF3myzsndtz_j15XhDuPYgkK7RLigoWSgikTYZAhtYzWazhmAyp6t9pONYmtnZUSAGLeL5NRwTHiJmxaMuQdbb2pJhTJP01EiyMqHtNaXjNA4ZPP-qVFdZSfF9BnWsVFOdTtozL-Blx4oxMkYQ5pIi2HoO7jPGODcggsonq7QUpnRJWqhv1xSmVfAlvWqgTbLTZVJFc9Ia9D0WTHcbpIsKsJct35BSuG6imlut5qITu0_hQOnBpRZLDTSU0ytXQ4wei-42U2LtXjSQcA5KIGyUU8CSu7HB39Pp7_T-8fi8fd3O3z_X--1xvvA6Py7X-z_lZ7E0zQEAAA&tbs=lf:1&rlfi=hd:;si:11679391966987849085) - Though sadly, no waterfall ...  :cry:

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: JimC on 30 Apr 2016, 03:28
... so, somewhere out there, this place exists. Probably not near you, though.
And, sadly, thanks to erosion, not for very long.  But its fun to imagine that when the first structure was built that was an island well back from the falls. Historically the  Niagara falls was 5 feet a year (http://www.niagarafallsinfo.com/history-item.php?entry_id=1268&current_category_id=152), so I reckon some of those viaduct arches only have 10 years or so.

But what a splendid image!

The original artist, BTW, seems to be http://www.frederic-st-arnaud.com/ (http://www.frederic-st-arnaud.com/)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: War Sparrow on 30 Apr 2016, 03:43
Quote from: Arkantos link=topic=33
[quote author=War Sparrow link=topic=33346.msg1353500#msg1353500 date=1461983127
Well, that stands to reason, as my current living area is boring, and there is a lack of large water. And castles.

By "near you" I meant "in this galaxy" or maybe even "in our supercluster of galaxies".
[/quote]

Do not take my dreams from me. Lots of European royalty got crazy. Maybe it existed once. Or tried to.

Thanks for the link,  Case. I shall read of pretty churches.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: danuis on 30 Apr 2016, 07:35
Based on the Big Bang, the universe is finite.
That isn't how it works. The Big Bang occurred everywhere in the universe, when all matter was condensed into a singularity and began expanding suddenly and quickly. It is conceivable that some area of the universe may be largely without matter in it (we've found such an area), but, as far as we can tell, the universe is infinite and expanding.

It is really hard to explain adequately and in a comprehensible way.


I think I get what you're saying, but let me add this: The big bang was the expansion of that singularity, yes. Everything from that singularity IS the universe; there is a 'limit' to the universe; the edge of that expansion. What lies BEYOND that expansion is not the universe. It's just nothing. No dark energy, no dark matter, no matter, just....nothing. A true void, a true 'space'. No atoms. No molecules. None of the fundamental forces, no rays or spectrums, nothing. Unless another universe exists in that void as well, or on a whole other 'plane' entirely, on another leaf/side of paper, if you will.

If you could get beyond the universe into that void, you could turn around and possibly see the universe in some form; though it does beg the question since it's outside the universe, would you, if you could get there, even manifest in some form? Would the laws of gravity, attraction, and matter and everything else work there? Or would one begin to scatter as the laws of the universe, also held by the boundary of the expanding universe, decay at the edge or right after it?

Since faster than light travel is impossible on the laws of physics we have now; and even if it were it would be a logistical nightmare to reach the edge of the universe, those answers may very well go forever unquestioned. But they can still be at the least asked, eh?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: sitnspin on 30 Apr 2016, 12:42
There is no outside the universe. The universe is literally everything.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Storel on 30 Apr 2016, 15:09
If nothing else, I know very few people who drink vodka (and vodka is a pretty popular drink in my country) without any sort of chaser. In fact, the fact that I don't bother with chasers leads, more often than not, to people giving me funny looks

Actually, I got a round of Grey Goose for a friend and some people she knew for her birthday and when they all wanted a chaser, I would have at least teased them if it weren't for the occasion.  I blame it on them being inexperienced drinkers, though.  Living in a university town now compared to a major city, I do see fewer people drinking their booze neat (usually only the regulars at the sole remaining working class bar actually eschew a chaser).  It seems as though many at that age want the effect and not the taste.

Straight vodka tastes like rubbing alcohol smells.*  :grumpypuss: I don't want a chaser with my vodka, I want a mixer. Preferably something that can hide the taste of the vodka, like orange juice, tomato juice, or cranberry juice.

And don't try to tell me that good vodka has no taste. I am one of the small minority who can taste alcohol... which is probably the reason I never developed a liking for alcohol.
____________
*Which makes sense, actually, because around here rubbing alcohol = 70% isopropyl alcohol, 30% water. If you replaced the isopropyl alcohol with ethyl alcohol, you'd just have 140-proof vodka. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/Old_Ned/tongue.gif) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Old_Ned/media/tongue.gif.html) The 80-proof stuff is bad enough.

That building on the edge of a waterfall looks more like a cathedral than a castle.

Yup, that's Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption de Clermont-Ferrand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clermont-Ferrand_Cathedral) in the Auvergne region of France.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Facade_cathedrale_clermont-ferrand.jpg/220px-Facade_cathedrale_clermont-ferrand.jpg)

It may have been inspired by the Clermont-Ferrand cathedral, but it isn't actually that cathedral (or a copy). The picture on that wikipedia page shows it only has two towers -- the one on the waterfall has four or five.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Cathedrale_vue_de_montjuzet_detail.jpg/330px-Cathedrale_vue_de_montjuzet_detail.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Kugai on 30 Apr 2016, 15:36
There is no outside the universe. The universe is literally everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1gBLX7ihaA
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: JimC on 30 Apr 2016, 15:43
I've now found the artists original image here.  Its got a lot more top and especially bottom. There are also some of his work up sketches.

http://www.laberge.qc.ca/fred/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pid=73#top_display_media

The various copies seem to have been cropped to remove all the identification. I dunno, the vision of the new world we had of the internet back in the day didn't include relentless ripping off of creators by both corporations and individuals...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Storel on 30 Apr 2016, 16:48
Thank you! It's nice to see the full image, and I appreciate your restoring the artist's information, too.

There is no outside the universe. The universe is literally everything.

Then what is the expanding universe expanding into?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Case on 30 Apr 2016, 17:07

That building on the edge of a waterfall looks more like a cathedral than a castle.

Yup, that's Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption de Clermont-Ferrand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clermont-Ferrand_Cathedral) in the Auvergne region of France.

It may have been inspired by the Clermont-Ferrand cathedral, but it isn't actually that cathedral (or a copy). The picture on that wikipedia page shows it only has two towers -- the one on the waterfall has four or five.

(http://uploads7.wikiart.org/images/rene-magritte/the-treachery-of-images-this-is-not-a-pipe-1948(2).jpg)

Snark aside: You're right. I guess one has to make stuff more pointy for northern Americans to feel it's gothic enough. Even the actually gothic stuff ...


Re: Finite Universe or not - We don't know. Here's some interesting discussion (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24017/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite) by people I think are competent - most of them talk "physicese" competently enough.

The scales involved are so large that we can't really be certain whether spacetime is more-or-less "flat", or has a small positive curvature that is merely too small to measure with certainty. Einsteins field equations allow for several different large-scale topologies - we might be living on the surface of a humongous, "Universal Doughnut" - we can't measure precisely enough to be absolutely sure.
Humans observing a sailing ship appear from "under the horizon" could see the Earth's curvature with their own eyes, without instruments- a civilization of hyperintelligent Ants would have to reach far further into the technological box of tricks, use more precise instruments. And the poor microbes may never know for sure.   

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Undrneath on 30 Apr 2016, 21:32
Thank you! It's nice to see the full image, and I appreciate your restoring the artist's information, too.

There is no outside the universe. The universe is literally everything.

Then what is the expanding universe expanding into?

It isn't expanding into anything, it's just getting larger.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 30 Apr 2016, 23:46
There is no outside the universe. The universe is literally everything.

Then what is the expanding universe expanding into?
That's actually kind of a strange question; the universe contains everything there is, including the space-time we use to define "volume" amongst many other things. We can talk about observable changes in the interior volume but even the concept of it having an exterior volume is contradictory to what we know.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: bhtooefr on 01 May 2016, 05:22
Straight vodka tastes like rubbing alcohol smells.*  :grumpypuss: I don't want a chaser with my vodka, I want a mixer. Preferably something that can hide the taste of the vodka, like orange juice, tomato juice, or cranberry juice.

And don't try to tell me that good vodka has no taste. I am one of the small minority who can taste alcohol... which is probably the reason I never developed a liking for alcohol.

There's actually a craft distillery near me that is making vodka and specifically wants the natural flavors of the wheat they use to come through, so they don't do any charcoal filtering. It ends up creating a smoother vodka than normal, almost a sippable vodka.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Arkantos on 01 May 2016, 07:15
Then what is the expanding universe expanding into?
Itself. The Universe, by definition, cannot get larger or smaller. Everything in it is merely getting farther apart, though not by moving in the traditional sense. There's just more spacetime between things.

Yeah, we don't really know how this works, but we know that it's happening.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 May 2016, 07:43
A short explanation from Harvard university regarding the possibility of an edge of the universe:
"Does the Universe have an edge, beyond which there is nothing?
Galaxies extend as far as we can detect... with no sign of diminishing.There is no evidence that the universe has an edge. The part of the universe we can observe from Earth is filled more or less uniformly with galaxies extending in every direction as far as we can see - more than 10 billion light-years, or about 6 billion trillion miles. We know that the galaxies must extend much further than we can see, but we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not. When astronomers sometimes refer (carelessly!) to galaxies "near the edge of the universe," they are referring only to the edge of the OBSERVABLE universe - i.e., the part we can see."


I've highlighted the part that people seem to get caught on.

Regards to the comic, I honestly would not be surprised if Clinton ended up reciting the laws regarding the legal requirements of any business providing alcohol and any soft drinks.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Monday's comic features Clinton nursing a black eye.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Near Lurker on 01 May 2016, 12:46
Again, I'm fairly sure this is a roundabout way of telling him not to freeload, not that they don't have water - water is usually free, and you can't charge one customer for water and not the next, so...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 May 2016, 20:03
I still can't believe how unbelievably shitty that bartender is.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: JimC on 02 May 2016, 04:34
I still can't believe how unbelievably shitty that bartender is.
You deal with the damn public day after day, idiot after idiot, it doesn't matter how calm, measured, placid and professional you are, sooner or later someone will catch you with the wrong words at the wrong time and you'll find yourself saying something you wouldn't normally.
Especially true in the catering business where you get the morons talking down to you as if you are somehow subnormal. But you know, how do you become a business owner in the trade*? Like Dora did you put the hard yards in as an employee, you learn it from top to bottom, and you start out on your own or in a larger outfit you graduate into management. And hopefully you end up with a much better living and a more worthwhile career than the jumped up little office boy in a suit that used to sneer at you...



*other than the lucky sperm method...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mikmaxs on 02 May 2016, 20:34
I still can't believe how unbelievably shitty that bartender is.
You deal with the damn public day after day, idiot after idiot, it doesn't matter how calm, measured, placid and professional you are, sooner or later someone will catch you with the wrong words at the wrong time and you'll find yourself saying something you wouldn't normally.
Uh, no. She had that shotgun ready at hand. Clinton didn't say 'The wrong words', he barely said anything at all. In fact, all he did was try to order water and then brood. He's a guy brooding at a bus-stop adjacent bar. If that's seriously what's going to set her off, she's a shitty bartender indeed.

(Also: That IS a shotgun, right? Jeph's comments below the comic confuse me.)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: pwhodges on 03 May 2016, 03:10
Maybe you need to refresh (I don't know if he put the other version up, though) - it's clearly not a gun, and the text referring to a nautical theme would make no sense with a gun.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Lubricus on 03 May 2016, 03:16
the text referring to a nautical theme would make no sense with a gun.

Even if it is a water gun?  :claireface:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Tova on 03 May 2016, 17:05
Only if it were used against shippers.  :claireface:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mikmaxs on 03 May 2016, 23:57
Maybe you need to refresh (I don't know if he put the other version up, though) - it's clearly not a gun, and the text referring to a nautical theme would make no sense with a gun.
There were uploading issues. For the first couple of hours after going live, the website had her holding a shotgun, (And the punchline was different,) and going back found that Dolphin Jack had been replaced by the harpoon version. Then, both comics became harpoon version, and since that it's been fixed so that Dolphin Jack is back in his rightful place and only the harpoon version is live.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Lubricus on 04 May 2016, 00:39
What was the original punchline? I somehow missed it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: mikmaxs on 04 May 2016, 01:11
What was the original punchline? I somehow missed it.
Clinton stammered something like 'I'll just go' and bartenderlady said 'You shouldn't waste your beer' and cut to close-up of Clinton frantically drinking with a concerned expression.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3206 to 3210 (25 to 29 April 2016)
Post by: Lubricus on 04 May 2016, 01:52
Thanks! I'm happier with the harpoon version, then.