THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: BenRG on 28 Jan 2018, 12:21

Title: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 28 Jan 2018, 12:21
Something tells me that Faye is going to have a ton of questions for Bubbles when she speaks to her next. I'm pretty sure that Bubbles won't be even slightly ready to answer. What do you think she'll ask her big friend? I've tried to get Faye's 'voice' right but I didn't want to use up too much space.

Personally, I think that Faye's first priority will be to see if Bubbles is okay and, only when she's certain that all is generally well would she consider teasing her. That said, Faye is horrible at boundaries sometimes and I could see her channelling her Inner May if she's in a sufficiently urgent mood. However, I think that she'll first want to know all is well and that involves being sure that Bubbles isn't lacking anything in her life.

I'm honestly not sure where things are going to go this week. It's obvious (as my poll shows) that Faye is going to respond to Evie and Amanda's questioning by talking to Bubbles but I really don't know what will be the outcome (or even if there will be an outcome in the immediate future). Either way though, I'm pretty sure that Faye will be given food for thought. It is possible that Bubbles too may start wondering if the status quo in their friendship is sustainable in the long term.

Feel free to speculate wildly... It isn't as if we haven't been doing that already!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: OldGoat on 28 Jan 2018, 15:01
"We got a postcard from Hanners and Winslow!"
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 28 Jan 2018, 15:16
"So, do you want to talk about what happened before we went out to dinner?"
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A Duck on 28 Jan 2018, 15:34
We could  go for maximum overdrama:

Faye returns to find Bubbles chatting with...Angus!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 28 Jan 2018, 16:07
Alternative, Faye returns to the workshop and finds out that Bubbles is actually
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Shjade on 28 Jan 2018, 16:07
We could  go for maximum overdrama:

Faye returns to find Bubbles chatting with...Angus!

Wow. That...that'd be a thing, for sure. Daaaang.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: shanejayell on 28 Jan 2018, 18:12
She might ask if Bubbles is lonely. We'll see...

Tho I think Jeph may be evil & do something with other characters.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A Duck on 28 Jan 2018, 19:16
Comic's up!

I think Amanda and Evie have performed their plot-mandated duties. Now, let's see where this takes Faye.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 28 Jan 2018, 19:25
Should I ever own a sledgehammer, I will christen it Amanda ...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 28 Jan 2018, 19:25
Where did Evie get that nifty color-changing coat?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 28 Jan 2018, 19:28
And since when do you 'warm' your sis' SO about murdering the crap out of them if they hurt her'?  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Penquin47 on 28 Jan 2018, 19:30
But Amanda's expression is perfect for the situation.  That is the correct expression for when your sibling/parent threatens your SO in front of you.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Ravenswing on 28 Jan 2018, 19:31
Where did Evie get that nifty color-changing coat?
Dang, beat me to it.  That or "Olympic-level judoka" comes with WAY more nifty powers than one might think!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: OldGoat on 28 Jan 2018, 19:36
Alternative, Faye returns to the workshop and finds out that Bubbles is actually
(click to show/hide)
That'd 'splain Spookybot.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 28 Jan 2018, 19:38
And since when do you 'warm' your sis' SO about murdering the crap out of them if they hurt her'?  :psyduck:

Obviously Faye's combining the fact that she's warming up to Evie, as well as warning her that there'll be some murderin' if she does anything to hurt Amanda. Makes it folksy and less outright threatening.

Also, regarding today's comic,
Amanda, possessing all the subtlety of a brick through a window.
Faye, possessing enough obliviousness to fill a tvtropes page. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaptainOblivious)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: shanejayell on 28 Jan 2018, 20:08
Should I ever own a sledgehammer, I will christen it Amanda ...

Amanda would DIE for this ship!  :-D :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Pennepasta on 28 Jan 2018, 20:15

Amanda would DIE for this ship!  :-D :laugh: :laugh:

Oh, I'm sure that can be arranged. Now, if it's by sledgehammer, that's slightly trickier...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Thrudd on 28 Jan 2018, 21:42
Cereal shall be consumed. Massive quantities of cereal. Many Bothans will die only because Bothans are the main ingredient of some of the tastiest cereals ever.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 28 Jan 2018, 21:50
Jeph is rather fond of that joke, isn't he?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: WoaLG on 28 Jan 2018, 22:10
Jeph is rather fond of that joke, isn't he?

Honestly, I think the forums are more fond of it than he is.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 28 Jan 2018, 22:18
Maybe? I used to find it heartwarming. It's not quite as affecting when it's obligatory. YMMV.
.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 28 Jan 2018, 22:51
Do you suppose that Evie's jacket was made by the same people who made that damn dress?

EDIT: The jacket is fixed. My suspicions remain.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 28 Jan 2018, 23:25
I think it is genuinely sweet how concerned Amanda is that Faye is happy. I also think it's brilliant how much this clunking lack of subtlety is clearly a family trait! It probably tells you a lot that it has taken Faye this long to realise that there is something abnormal about her sister's behaviour! :lol: What's the likelihood that Faye is now fretting that she needs to make a move because Amanda is interested in Bubbles too? :laugh:

I'm pretty sure that, thinking about marriage or no, Evie plans to be in for the long haul. Amanda clearly approves, based on her expression in panel 2. I'm sure that Marten will be glad to have another Token Sane One in the strip.

Where did Evie get that nifty color-changing coat?

I dunno; comparing today's strip with Evie's introduction (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3650), I can't see any difference that you can't explain by way of differing ambient light levels.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: neurocase on 28 Jan 2018, 23:41
Where did Evie get that nifty color-changing coat?

I dunno; comparing today's strip with Evie's introduction (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3650), I can't see any difference that you can't explain by way of differing ambient light levels.

It's been fixed now, but the bulk of Evie's coat was the same color as Amanda's when the strip was uploaded.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: no one special on 29 Jan 2018, 02:09
I haven't been following the WCDT's in a while, but...

...is Amanda just ignoring the fact that Faye's never really shown any romantic or sexual interest in female-bodied/female-identifying beings?  I know that Bubbles isn't human and all, but if her personal pronouns tell us anything, she seems to identify as female.  I'm not saying that it's impossible that Faye could fall in love with Bubbles simply because she is female-identifying/bodied, but it doesn't seem likely, given what we know about Faye.  Plus, it also just bugs me when really, really close friendship is mistaken by onlookers for romantic love. 

Anyway, I dunno, maybe y'all have other theories.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 29 Jan 2018, 02:14
I can only assume that Amanda and Evie (and especially Amanda) saw something in Faye and Bubbles's interactions. Both of them seem sure that Faye is crushing on Bubbles and just won't admit it to herself.

In Amanda's case, she probably has a lot of past correspondence with Faye and conversations to go on too. Maybe Faye has waxed a bit too enthusiastically about Bubbles to her and, once she's seen their interactions for herself, she was convinced that it was romantic attraction.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 29 Jan 2018, 02:29

I'm honestly not sure where things are going to go this week. It's obvious (as my poll shows) that Faye is going to respond to Evie and Amanda's questioning by talking to Bubbles but I really don't know what will be the outcome (or even if there will be an outcome in the immediate future). Either way though, I'm pretty sure that Faye will be given food for thought. It is possible that Bubbles too may start wondering if the status quo in their friendship is sustainable in the long term.


In my opinion, Faye already got plenty of "food for thoughts". It's time she starts to chew on it!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: gopher on 29 Jan 2018, 06:35
Maybe the whole arc is a "F**k you" to the shippers here?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jan 2018, 06:44
Plus, it also just bugs me when really, really close friendship is mistaken by onlookers for romantic love. 

You and me both and many others. That's part of why (random unjustified) shipping gets such a negative response here.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: poofdepoof on 29 Jan 2018, 08:42
I voted 'Other': She ignores everything about the dinner conversation and immediately focuses on Bubble's mood during http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3659

Because her actual interactions with her upset friend are more important than the random questions of people who don't know her upset friend.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 29 Jan 2018, 11:02
Plus, it also just bugs me when really, really close friendship is mistaken by onlookers for romantic love. 

You and me both and many others. That's part of why (random unjustified) shipping gets such a negative response here.

U2 and #methree.

Also, I don't really 'get' shipping (same way that I think it is possible to watch 'Little Lord Fountleroy' too many times - but try telling that to my beloved Sistermonster).

Doesn't mean I loathe shippers, or that I won't squeeeeeh! on occasion (very softly, and you didn't hear it from me, k?). Nothing wrong with squeeing, in moderation. I can give it up any time I want to.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A Duck on 29 Jan 2018, 11:55
Maybe the whole arc is a "F**k you" to the shippers here?
That arc you mentioned is called "Questionable Content"  :claireface:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 29 Jan 2018, 13:32
I voted 'Other': She ignores everything about the dinner conversation and immediately focuses on Bubble's mood during http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3659

Because her actual interactions with her upset friend are more important than the random questions of people who don't know her upset friend.

Yes, I voted that way for the same reason. If you believe that Faye has a strong bond with Bubbles, then surely you'd have to believe that finding out what was wrong with Bubbles would be at the forefront of Faye's mind?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jan 2018, 15:08
It's her top ethical priority whether she's a friend or a lover and a high practical priority as a business partner.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 29 Jan 2018, 15:46
Assuming she remembers. Which she probably will. But she has had a whole dinner where her sister was acting *really weird* to distract her, so that may come up first.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Jan 2018, 15:57
The dinner may come up first? :-)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 29 Jan 2018, 16:31
Depends how bad the burgers were, I guess.  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Gyrre on 29 Jan 2018, 17:28
"My sister asked me to give you a hug for her, but she made it weird."
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Wombat on 29 Jan 2018, 20:11
New comic.

Very cute; what babes. Looking forward to Bubbles opening up.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 29 Jan 2018, 20:12
Ah, but will Bubbles open up or will she evade Faye's questions?

Because its only Tuesday and we can't get to the good stuff yet.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Penquin47 on 29 Jan 2018, 20:54
Aw, Faye. <3  "I'll be very disappointed" is indeed a much better threat against Miss Bubbles than violence.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 29 Jan 2018, 20:58
Faye is *not* threatening punitive violence.

"Its a bold move Cotton, lets see if it pays off."
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: brasca on 29 Jan 2018, 21:26
It’s refreshing when Faye’s usual methods fail.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Gyrre on 29 Jan 2018, 21:44
Methinks Jeph may have been watching too much anime again.
Love the stark white bg in panel 5, though.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: pwhodges on 29 Jan 2018, 22:17
too much anime

I don't recognise this concept.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SmilingCat on 29 Jan 2018, 22:42
too much anime

I don't recognise this concept.

I think it's one of those concepts like "Too much bacon" that horrible people make up to try to harm mankind.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 29 Jan 2018, 23:16
This is going to hurt me as much as it hurts you, but there actually is such a thing as too much bacon.

I haven't seen any studies on the effects of too much anime, so I'll reserve judgement on that one.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 29 Jan 2018, 23:17
I've seen this emotional cascade before IRL. Hell, I've felt it personally. Whatever Bubbles has thought of has first and foremost embarrassed her and has poked her personal insecurities. Because she's sure her friends will laugh at her fears and/or her realisation, she's become pre-emptively angry and is attempting to hide the whole thing away because she's sure she'll be hurt by opening up. Heck, she must be frightened if she's interpreting Faye's smile in panel 3 as a 'smirk'!

Panels 4 through 6 are so cute in so many ways. I'm thinking that panel 5 is Faye's 'pause button' internal monologue when her brain caught up enough to realise what she was about to say just sounded stupid. Then we have the lovely pay-off when we are reminded just to what degree Faye has grown up and also how she has become 'The Voice of Reason' in Bubbles's mind.

On a slight tangent, this strip also reminds me that Bubbles is no older than a fifth of Faye's chronological age. Although AIs generally seem to be more stable, emotionally speaking, than humans of twice their chronological age - possibly some artefact of their compiling process - Bubbles still has far less useful experience in dealing with her emotions than a human adult. So, in some ways, her reacting to Faye like an angsting teenager makes sense.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: chris73 on 29 Jan 2018, 23:23
This is why I still dislike Faye "my usual threats of violence won't work" its her go to, its her first reaction

Shes, still, just a really unpleasant garbage person.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SmilingCat on 30 Jan 2018, 01:12
This is going to hurt me as much as it hurts you, but there actually is such a thing as too much bacon.

Fake news, you and my cardiologist have just been taken in by the man!

Open your eyes, sheeple!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: oeoek on 30 Jan 2018, 01:29
I impressed with Faye's remembering Bubbles mood straight away (because I surely would have forgotten about it by the time i got back from a diner like that, and would have felt guilty about that only later, when I did remember (usually in bed)).
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 30 Jan 2018, 02:15
This is why I still dislike Faye "my usual threats of violence won't work" its her go to, its her first reaction

Shes, still, just a really unpleasant garbage person.

Take no other meaning from this than the bare words below:

If this is your interpretation of Faye...
You might be reading the wrong kinda webcomics... for you.   :cry:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: oddtail on 30 Jan 2018, 02:44
This is why I still dislike Faye "my usual threats of violence won't work" its her go to, its her first reaction

Shes, still, just a really unpleasant garbage person.

Take no other meaning from this than the bare words below:

If this is your interpretation of Faye...
You might be reading the wrong kinda webcomics... for you.   :cry:

To be fair, I *would* say that Faye and her brand of "talking" to people is less than acceptable - or at least it would be in real life. It's important to remember that fiction works on its own terms. I believe the TvTropes term for Faye's attitude and how the comic frames it is "comedic sociopathy". At least in terms of her violent behaviour and words.

That being said, even from a realistic standpoint I wouldn't call Faye a "garbage person". She's flawed, and some of her behaviour has been inexcusable (YMMV), but "garbage" is WAY too harsh, in my opinion. She's more often thoughtless, self-centred and impulsive than any kind of malicious.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 30 Jan 2018, 02:59
Maybe the whole arc is a "F**k you" to the shippers here?

Know what? That's just not very nice.

Shes, still, just a really unpleasant garbage person.

Is that the same as a 'mean poopoohead'?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: pwhodges on 30 Jan 2018, 03:29
This is why I still dislike Faye "my usual threats of violence won't work" its her go to, its her first reaction

Then presumably you're glad to see her changing, and perhaps moving towards becoming the person you'd like her to be.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Technoir on 30 Jan 2018, 04:45
Since everybody else has delved into the socio-emotional aspects of today's strip, allow me to ask..

What happened to panel #5?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Zebediah on 30 Jan 2018, 04:49
Same thing  that happened to panel #6 in this (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3663). It's just a stylistic thing Jeph does from time to time to highlight certain beats.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 30 Jan 2018, 04:50
Those two are good for each other.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: pwhodges on 30 Jan 2018, 05:18
What happened to panel #5?

It's the kind of exaggerated simplification or distortion which is commonly used in anime (Japanese animation) to make a point.  Jeph is a fan of anime and manga (Emily's surname - Azuma - is that of a Japanese manga artist).
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: APersonAmI on 30 Jan 2018, 05:25
I also think of Faye as a garbage person because of her frequent and unwarranted violence and threats of violence. I am glad she might possibly to be taking steps that might eventually lead her unto a path that will slowly take her to a place where she has a slight chance of becoming somewhat less likely to do so, but considering she made a threat of physical violence in the last comic, and only just stopped herself from doing so this comic, she is very much still a garbage person.

Also, let me remind you, she didn't stop herself from threatening violence this comic because that would be wrong, or rude, or a violation of her friendship with Bubbles, but because the person she wants to threaten is physically stronger than her.

Let me also remind you that she is displeased that she thus cannot do the wrong, rude violation of her friendship with Bubbles, which is what she actually wanted.

Yeah, saying that she has begun moving away from such behaviours seems to me either naive or disingenuous, and saying that she has already moved away from them is plain wrong.

Verdict: garbage person.

Edited for spelling.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 05:39
I also think of Faye as a garbage person because of her frequent and unwarranted violence and threats of violence. I am glad she might possibly to be taking steps that might eventually lead her unto a path that will slowly take her to a place where she has a slight chance of becoming somewhat less likely to do so, but considering she made a threat of physical violence in the last comic, and only just stopped herself from doing so this comic, she is very much still a garbage person.

Also, let me remind you, she didn't stop herself from threatening violence this comic because that would be wrong, or rude, or a violation of her friendship with Bubbles, but because the person she wants to threaten is physically stronger than her.

Let me also remind you that she is displeased that she thus cannot do the wrong, rude violation of her friendship with Bubbles, which is what she actually wanted.

Yeah, saying that she has begun moving away from such behaviours seems to me either naive or disingenuous, and saying that she has already moved away from them is plain wrong.

Verdict: garbage person.

Edited for spelling.

Honest Question: do you see Faye as a malicious person? If so, perhaps your interpretation of the comic is outside the 2 SD limit.
 While I see Faye as a person with some serious flaws (that she has to some extent worked on), I have never interpreted her actions, or threats of violence, as malicious in intent.
Most of her threats of physical violence have been mostly in jest, imo, but YMMV. As far as the threat in the last comic you refer to, I don't know where you are from of course, but where I'm from (Europe+USA) it's really not that uncommon to say something like that when a new SO enters your friend/family-member's life. Said mostly in jest of course, with the undertone of "if you hurt them I may not physically harm you but will be very angry with you", and easily understood as such by the SO. Again, YMMV.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 30 Jan 2018, 05:56
I'm going to be very, very disappointed with the next poster calling anyone a 'garbage person'. Seriously, there might be tears ...

Jokes aside: Are we doing it again? Already? It's been barely a day since everyone agreed we're fed up with all the negativity and myopia and "Raaaarrrrghhh! I HATE xyz and y'all HAVE to know why, in excrutiating detail!!!"
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: daphne on 30 Jan 2018, 06:34
I agree with the poster who said that in real life, Faye would certainly be a garbage person, but this is comic. There is a certain comedic and exaggerated element in faye's behaviour. I don't think the character is to be taken as an example of real-life abusive behaviour.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: APersonAmI on 30 Jan 2018, 06:53
@dutchrvl

I appreciate the polite response. The honest answer is that I don't care if she's malicious or not. She hits people and she threatens people with violence for reasons I would consider flimsy, therefore I don't like her. Whether she does it to hurt others or whether she just doesn't think about the effects of her actions isn't that important to me, emotionally.

On the SO thing - this comic has an arc about a girl on a Vespa beating up exes. Attacking somebody when a relationship goes bad is not remotely unrealistic or comical in the fictional world of QC.
(Nor do I find it unrealistic or comical in the real world, either. Exes frequently get murdered. I don't really find it an absurdist silly statement.)

@daphne

I'm cool with this take on fictional events. I don't get it however. Mainly, because Faye's violence or threats thereof are not exaggerated. People do violence to people a lot. A person doing violence to people for no reason isn't silly absurdism, it is something that happens literally every day. It is common, ordinary, and realistic, and therefore not funny.

Also, even if it wasn't so common in real life, I just don't find violence funny. I am aware that other people find violence comical, and that's cool if no real people are actually getting hurt, but I really, really don't get the appeal.

I guess I'm wierd like that :P
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 07:09
@dutchrvl

I appreciate the polite response. The honest answer is that I don't care if she's malicious or not. She hits people and she threatens people with violence for reasons I would consider flimsy, therefore I don't like her. Whether she does it to hurt others or whether she just doesn't think about the effects of her actions isn't that important to me, emotionally.

On the SO thing - this comic has an arc about a girl on a Vespa beating up exes. Attacking somebody when a relationship goes bad is not remotely unrealistic or comical in the fictional world of QC.
(Nor do I find it unrealistic or comical in the real world, either. Exes frequently get murdered. I don't really find it an absurdist silly statement.)


Edited out your response to Daphne.
That's of course all well taken, but wouldn't you say that Faye's threat to Evie was clearly in jest? (highlighted by her introducing it with "I'm obligated to...")

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 07:16
Perhaps I am the odd one out.

For me personally, the threshold to call another human being "garbage" (i.e. worthless, to be discarded) is very, very high, and I typically only use that qualification if the person has shown evil intent.

People with flawed behaviors who unintentionally (without malice) hurt others typically don't qualify as garbage to me, especially if I know that the person has a backstory that may have something to do with certain behavioral patterns. I may strongly dislike them, avoid interactions, call them a*holes/d*cks/jerks/etc, but they'd still not be garbage.

To each their own. 
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 30 Jan 2018, 07:18
The thing about AIs and their age relative to humans vs their maturity is that they seem to be released into the wild fully formed and... well as mature as they get. We have never seen AI as children. If I remember when we first met Momo she was only about three years old, yet she was far more mature than Marigold. Heck she was a more responsible person than most of the cast. I don't know if they are 'born' fully cognitive out of the experience of other AI that came before them or they spend time learning before interacting with the human world but their maturity level and experience with emotion even at a low chronological age seems comparable to adult humans. With the wide range of experience that encompasses.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: shanejayell on 30 Jan 2018, 07:23
Its weird. Even when they're cranky or pissy with each other, I still go AWWWW when Faye and Bubbles interact.  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 07:26
The thing about AIs and their age relative to humans vs their maturity is that they seem to be released into the wild fully formed and... well as mature as they get. We have never seen AI as children. If I remember when we first met Momo she was only about three years old, yet she was far more mature than Marigold. Heck she was a more responsible person than most of the cast. I don't know if they are 'born' fully cognitive out of the experience of other AI that came before them or they spend time learning before interacting with the human world but their maturity level and experience with emotion even at a low chronological age seems comparable to adult humans. With the wide range of experience that encompasses.

Interesting points. At the same time, Momo has displayed a certain curiosity and behavior (especially in her interactions with Sam) that appears more similar to that of a teenager. It seems that AIs are 'released' fully mature in the sense of general knowledge and cognitive skills, but without the experience-informed emotional maturity.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jan 2018, 07:26
Momo acted like a teenager in some ways early on ("I'll void my warranty! Then you'll be sorry!"). The maturity and responsibility came later, interestingly about the same time as the humaniform chassis. She still acts more like a 20-year-old than a 60-year-old emotionally.

Faye is taking initiative to deal with the emotional well-being of a friend. That would have been surprising and maybe even impossible for pre-therapy Faye.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: APersonAmI on 30 Jan 2018, 07:32
In real life, if someone said that they would murder me, I would think less of that person. If someone I just met just hours before did that, it wouldn't matter to me if there is a possibility that they did it "in jest", I would think less of them.

I was going to say that I would be okay with someone I was a close friend with said they would murder me if it was clearly a joke and they had a significantly better delivery then Faye had in the comic, but actually thinking about it, no, I'd still see that as a character flaw. I once did something like that (in a more absurd way. The other person said "I would erect a magic shield before you could" in response, clearly taking it to be facetious), but I see me doing that as a sign of character flaws I had yet to resolve.

If someone says they will murder somebody else, I will think less of that person. If I say I will murder somebody, I will think less of myself. Especially so if you don't know eachother that well, but also in general.

Perhaps I am the odd one out.

For me personally, the threshold to call another human being "garbage" (i.e. worthless, to be discarded) is very, very high, and I typically only use that qualification if the person has shown evil intent.

People with flawed behaviors who unintentionally (without malice) hurt others typically don't qualify as garbage to me, especially if I know that the person has a backstory that may have something to do with certain behavioral patterns. I may strongly dislike them, avoid interactions, call them a*holes/d*cks/jerks/etc, but they'd still not be garbage.

To each their own. 
Fair. As for myself, it is not a word I would have chosen in a vacuum. I tend to act more forcefully when I feel as if violent people are defended, or if I feel people who question violent people are criticized. I would not have chosen “garbage” as a descriptor in my initial post were it not for this trait.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: MrNumbers on 30 Jan 2018, 07:52
I like the person Faye has become.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 07:58
In real life, if someone said that they would murder me, I would think less of that person. If someone I just met just hours before did that, it wouldn't matter to me if there is a possibility that they did it "in jest", I would think less of them.

I was going to say that I would be okay with someone I was a close friend with said they would murder me if it was clearly a joke and they had a significantly better delivery then Faye had in the comic, but actually thinking about it, no, I'd still see that as a character flaw. I once did something like that (in a more absurd way. The other person said "I would erect a magic shield before you could" in response, clearly taking it to be facetious), but I see me doing that as a sign of character flaws I had yet to resolve.

If someone says they will murder somebody else, I will think less of that person. If I say I will murder somebody, I will think less of myself. Especially so if you don't know eachother that well, but also in general.

Fair enough. As you already mentioned, you seem to have very low tolerance (not saying that that's a negative by the way) for using violence in any way, including jokes.

Perhaps I am the odd one out.

For me personally, the threshold to call another human being "garbage" (i.e. worthless, to be discarded) is very, very high, and I typically only use that qualification if the person has shown evil intent.

People with flawed behaviors who unintentionally (without malice) hurt others typically don't qualify as garbage to me, especially if I know that the person has a backstory that may have something to do with certain behavioral patterns. I may strongly dislike them, avoid interactions, call them a*holes/d*cks/jerks/etc, but they'd still not be garbage.

To each their own. 
Fair. As for myself, it is not a word I would have chosen in a vacuum. I tend to act more forcefully when I feel as if violent people are defended, or if I feel people who question violent people are criticized. I would not have chosen “garbage” as a descriptor in my initial post were it not for this trait.

I appreciate your honesty. You do realize though that your description/opinion of another person therefore depends on the opinions of 3rd parties.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 08:03
I like the person Faye has become.

So do I, actually. I have some people in my life who may on the surface display very good behavior to other people (always polite etc.), but who are not attuned to other peoples' emotions very well and/or lack the capability/desire to function as a support system. I'd rather have Faye.   
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 08:42
Out of interest, I really can't recall- when did Faye last actually indulge in physical violence? I get the impression that since the comic has grown more self-reflective, focusing on realistic emotional fall-out rather than absurdist slapstick (YMMV if that perception is correct or not, of course), incidents of actual physical violence by the cast have dropped hugely.

As far as threatening it is concerned- yeah, it's not cool that Faye does default to that so often, but a) it's rare she does so outside of obvious hyperbole, especially recently, and b) writing her off as a garbage person because of it seems to ignore the exaggerated misbehaviours of other cast members (Pintsize, May, Tai, Clinton and Dora have all had their moments) which are frequently displayed aspects of their character. If we give Pintsize a pass because this is a comic and his behaviours are obviously exaggerated, why does Faye not get the similar benefit of doubt? Alternatively, if we decide that anyone who has failed to behave righteously in every interaction must be shunned, the number of sympathetic characters in the comic rapidly drops to zero- so again, why single out Faye?

I don't think you have to like Faye. You can even find her unpleasant and objectionable, she certainly has character flaws. But portraying her as somehow egregiously foul and disgusting as a character seems... unnecessarily harsh.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 30 Jan 2018, 08:45
Out of interest, I really can't recall- when did Faye last actually indulge in physical violence?

The last time I remember it happening is when Marten propositioned her whilst he was stinking drunk and on a bad rebound from Dora dumping him. That was arguably self-defence though as I think it was not inconceivable that he was going to attempt to force himself on her (although he was so drunk I would have considered it more likely that he'd miss even a kiss, let alone anything more mechanically complex).

What I found interesting about that scene and it's aftermath is that Faye's behaviour towards Marten didn't change; indeed she even declined to tell him why he had a black eye, instead, IIRC, making up some story about him falling over whilst drunk. That was a truly kind thing to do because I think realising that he'd got that out of control would have destroyed him.

[EDIT]
Having thought about it, I recall her more recently hitting Angus but, once again, that was arguably self-defence or at least justifiable on the grounds that Angus during the early phase of their relationship was creepy almost to the point of being a stalker.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: David F on 30 Jan 2018, 10:07
Since it's a slow day, I figured I'd go read part of the archives.  The last person Faye hit was Corpse Witch, in #3365.  With cause, and major consequences.

Interestingly, Bubbles has been more violent since then, to Corpse Witch a little later, and then shaking Clinton (#3525) when he suggested she was sleeping with Faye.  And there was the door incident in #3564 leading to refinement of the Claire Threat Evaluation Protocol...

Even Hannelore has been more violent recently.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 30 Jan 2018, 10:14
Perhaps I am the odd one out.

For me personally, the threshold to call another human being "garbage" (i.e. worthless, to be discarded) is very, very high, and I typically only use that qualification if the person has shown evil intent.

Nope, you're not alone - we're at least two oddballs.

Mayhaps my socialization as a German makes me more sensitive to the connotations: Calling people 'garbage person', or 'human garbage' is a pretty unambiguous violation of their human dignity. Which, in turn, has really ugly historical connotations, and has been used as a means to incite against vulnerable minorities, or suppress political dissent. Truth be told, I find that at least as offensive as 'playful threats of violence', and I don't like those to begin with. Habitually violent people are jerks, true - but violating the human dignity of others is often taken by jerks as a permission to be violent, to give just one example.

I get where people are coming from with disliking even comedic violence, and I feel similar, believe me. But I do think that 'garbage person' is coming close to the line where the cure starts becoming as toxic as the poison.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 10:41
Perhaps I am the odd one out.

For me personally, the threshold to call another human being "garbage" (i.e. worthless, to be discarded) is very, very high, and I typically only use that qualification if the person has shown evil intent.

Nope, you're not alone - we're at least two oddballs.

Mayhaps my socialization as a German makes me more sensitive to the connotations: Calling people 'garbage person', or 'human garbage' is a pretty unambiguous violation of their human dignity. Which, in turn, has really ugly historical connotations, and has been used as a means to incite against vulnerable minorities, or suppress political dissent. Truth be told, I find that at least as offensive as 'playful threats of violence', and I don't like those to begin with. Habitually violent people are jerks, true - but violating the human dignity of others is often taken by jerks as a permission to be violent, to give just one example.

I get where people are coming from with disliking even comedic violence, and I feel similar, believe me. But I do think that 'garbage person' is coming close to the line where the cure starts becoming as toxic as the poison.

Well howdy then neighbor (I'm Dutch and was there until 24, but have been living in Japan for 2 years and now the USA for 10).
(your last line incidentally is also why I feel the more radical left groups in the US right now are not doing the left in general a favor, but that's a different story altogether...)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 10:44
Calling people 'garbage person', or 'human garbage' is a pretty unambiguous violation of their human dignity.

I think this actually gets to the heart of my problem with the phrase as well, also why I felt the need to defend Evie last week- I think it's the dismissal based on absolutes that gets to me. I can't see any reason to object to someone not liking a character, or if they don't like what a character is doing. It's when characters (or people in general in fact) get labelled as *objectively* irredeemable that I find my metaphorical hackles rising. No one is perfect, and everyone screws up. Perfection is an unreasonable standard to hold people to, especially if the price of falling beneath it is to become eternally reviled. And to assume then that because someone has behaved badly once all their behaviours must be suspect is frankly exhausting.

Again, I'm not saying one has to like or even tolerate people or behaviours one finds unpleasant. But if we make them entirely other, something less than we are, we are ignoring the need of self-reflection and the possibility that we ought to check our own behaviours to ensure there aren't uncomfortable paralells. "If bad behaviours are only done by garbage people, and I know I am not a garbage person, my behaviours cannot be bad". I don't for a moment believe that anyone here actually thinks like this, but I worry that characters/people get judged too quickly.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Thrudd on 30 Jan 2018, 11:21
This is going to hurt me as much as it hurts you, but there actually is such a thing as too much bacon.
Fake news, you and my cardiologist have just been taken in by the man!
Open your eyes, sheeple!
Beer never hurt anyone, well except the guy who was run over by a Tun of Beer or the others who drowned - one in a fermenter the other in the warehouse from the CO2 buildup.
Same goes for Bacon where people have been crushed, smothered, drowned, set on fire and stabbed with bacon.

It is a madd madd world out there - it's also pretty dang crazy in here as well - in all things symmetry.  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Zebediah on 30 Jan 2018, 11:34
And as long as we're discussing food-related mortality, let's not leave out the Great Molasses Flood of 1919 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood), which killed 21 people in the North End of Boston.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 30 Jan 2018, 11:45
Resolving tension by means of BizarreFoodAccidents-digression?  Yay!  :laugh:

https://www.thedailymeal.com/food-deaths-through-history

My favourite:
Quote
Sir Francis Bacon: The former British Lord Chancellor died in 1626 of pneumonia supposedly contracted while stuffing a chicken with snow to test a theory about its preservative properties. You hate to be insensitive, but Pip Wilson's poem is pretty funny: "Against cold meats was he insured? For frozen chickens he procured — brought on the illness he endured, and never was this Bacon cured."
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Storel on 30 Jan 2018, 12:18
too much anime

I don't recognise this concept.

I think it's one of those concepts like "Too much bacon" that horrible people make up to try to harm mankind.

Oh, like "too much chocolate"!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jan 2018, 12:25
Again, I'm not saying one has to like or even tolerate people or behaviours one finds unpleasant. But if we make them entirely other, something less than we are, we are ignoring the need of self-reflection and the possibility that we ought to check our own behaviours to ensure there aren't uncomfortable paralells. "If bad behaviours are only done by garbage people, and I know I am not a garbage person, my behaviours cannot be bad". I don't for a moment believe that anyone here actually thinks like this, but I worry that characters/people get judged too quickly.

Akima is I believe the one who raised the point in DISCUSS that if we think of ourselves as good people it blinds us to when we do bad things. I forget if it was her or someone else who suggested cultivating humility and compassion as opposed to striving to feel virtuous.

--------------

I can't figure out whether I'm being a moderator when I say this so please tolerate ambiguity.

It's worth remembering that a lot of people here must have had backgrounds of witnessing or experiencing violence. When they don't see the humor in Faye they've got good reason.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 12:30

I can't figure out whether I'm being a moderator when I say this so please tolerate ambiguity.

It's worth remembering that a lot of people here must have had backgrounds of witnessing or experiencing violence. When they don't see the humor in Faye they've got good reason.

I completely appreciate that.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Pennepasta on 30 Jan 2018, 12:59
I can't figure out whether I'm being a moderator when I say this so please tolerate ambiguity.

It's worth remembering that a lot of people here must have had backgrounds of witnessing or experiencing violence. When they don't see the humor in Faye they've got good reason.

But at the same time "Your sense of humour - regardless of when you reign it in - makes you a garbage person" is rather insulting. Sure, I have a dark sense of humour - but does that make me subhuman? Even if I don't actually use said dark sense of humour around people I don't know well or that I know would not appreciate it?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 30 Jan 2018, 13:30
That might be taking things a bit too far. The important thing, I think, is to avoid absolutes. That makes life around others quite a lot easier.

I had intended to reply more fully in this thread, but Case and SpanielBear seem to have made the points I was going to make. Let's just sum it up, by saying that before we judge someone to be garbage, it would be good take a long look in the mirror first. There's a thing about casting first stones.

I'm not saying that there aren't people who actually deserve that label but, thankfully, they are not many.

Still, I liked today's comic. Faye's concern for Bubbles is touching, and part of why I picked her asking Bubbles is she is lonely, which was my interpretation of her mood, as they left for dinner. Hopefully it helps Faye realise that violence, even if only in jest, isn't always the answer. Bubbles' assessment of the threat does show how much she values Faye, though.

And yes, too much bacon will kill you. Especially if it's still alive, and angry.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 30 Jan 2018, 13:40
Actually, I realized that I do not fully understand why shippers want to see a romantic relationship between Faye and Bubbles, as opposed to simply a very strong and intimate friendship, which they have been developing for some time now.

Could one of the shippers elucidate this?

To me, the cuteness (squee?) factor would not really increase if they'd become romantic instead of what they have now, so I'm curious what the added appeal is of a romantic development. 
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: APersonAmI on 30 Jan 2018, 14:21
I had initially decided not to respond further to this thread, but yeah, no, I have said things that really should be clarified. Which means I'm going to share some things I'm not entirely comfortable sharing, but fuck it, it's important for context. Not meant as an excuse, it doesn’t matter what my issues are, its actions that matter, but I think it is necessary for context.

The way my brain processes emotion pretty unusual. I stop feeling emotions really fast. I noticed it for the first time when I was 17, 9 years ago, when I was in a very heated argument with a classmate, where we both shouted loudly at each other. I left right after. About five minutes after the argument, a teacher called to make sure I was okay, and at first, I didn't realize what she was talking about. Shortly after I left, I had completely stopped thinking about it, and had to be reminded of the argument to remember it at all. I remember laughing about it over the phone. At the time I made my last post in this thread, the emotions that made me make the first post were alien to me. They were genuine at that moment, but now, I can no longer remember them. I can psychoanalyze to look at what triggered them, but from my current point of view, it's like looking at the actions of somebody else.

For a long time, I've just assumed that this is another aspect of my Asperger's syndrome. I realized this evening that I never actually gotten my memory problems diagnosed, and it is possible that it is trauma related. Because, when I describe it like this, it sounds an awful lot like dissociation. Which is quite common in people who were abused as children. And, props to Is It Cold In Here for their wisdom on this one, but yeah, I've experienced a lot of violence. I spent an hour tonight trying to remember every violent event I’ve experienced, but I couldn’t. Ballpark guess, I might be able to remember maybe half of it. I’ve literally experienced more violence than I can count.

All this adds up to me having a lot of difficulties participating in forums like this one. If it feels low-key like your last comment was written by somebody else (it wasn't, it was written by me, but it was written while under the influence of emotions I can’t remember having), it can be difficult to respond to replies to that comment. Do I feel differently because I was wrong, or is it my condition?

Okay, I think that's most of the context established, perhaps I can finally get to the point now.

I am now of the opinion that I was wrong to use the word garbage person. It was way too strong a word for what I was attempting to convey. Part of the issue for me is that Faye has gradually become less violent, but I didn't feel as if her initial violence was every really resolved, and have therefore had trouble giving her the same leeway I might be willing to give real person. I'm still not cool with how automatic threats of murder are to her, but "garbage person" was the wrong word to use.

However, I didn't mean to say anything about anyone posting in this thread, and I definitely did not mean that just having an emotion, but not acting on it, makes one a bad person. I'm against acts of violence and threats of violence, but thoughts of violence are not wrong to have. What goes on in our heads only matters insofar as we let it affect the world around us.

I can't figure out whether I'm being a moderator when I say this so please tolerate ambiguity.

It's worth remembering that a lot of people here must have had backgrounds of witnessing or experiencing violence. When they don't see the humor in Faye they've got good reason.

But at the same time "Your sense of humour - regardless of when you reign it in - makes you a garbage person" is rather insulting. Sure, I have a dark sense of humour - but does that make me subhuman? Even if I don't actually use said dark sense of humour around people I don't know well or that I know would not appreciate it?

Not sure why you put that in quotes, Pennepasta, because nobody in this thread said that. In fact, I specifically clarified I wasn't saying that.

Also, even if it wasn't so common in real life, I just don't find violence funny. I am aware that other people find violence comical, and that's cool if no real people are actually getting hurt, but I really, really don't get the appeal.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 30 Jan 2018, 15:14
@APersonAmI: I'm sorry for what you had to go through. And I don't think less of you because you feel so strongly about 'comedic violence' - not even before you explained your background. Anger, even extreme expressions of it (not that you've come close to what I'd call extreme), are understandable. They are human.

I don't mean to pry, so feel free to ignore the question: Could it be that you felt like 'we' (the people who objected to 'garbage person') were defending bullies, like we were taking the side of people like those who hurt you? And that it was important to point out that that'd be wrong?

Because ... no that's not how it is. There's a place here for you and your anger - and for the (hopefully gentle and helpful) reminders that some terminology can be harmful. When I say I cannot stand by silently when de-humanizing terminology is used, that does not mean that I reject you, or your feelings. And it's only human to find it difficult to see the humanity of people who torment others. It is difficult for me, and I can count the numbers of times I've experienced (rather benign degrees of) violence.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: blt on 30 Jan 2018, 15:31
Actually, I realized that I do not fully understand why shippers want to see a romantic relationship between Faye and Bubbles, as opposed to simply a very strong and intimate friendship, which they have been developing for some time now.

Could one of the shippers elucidate this?

To me, the cuteness (squee?) factor would not really increase if they'd become romantic instead of what they have now, so I'm curious what the added appeal is of a romantic development.

I would be fine with either honestly. 

I lean towards a shipping side because I interpret their past interactions as telegraphing (from a story telling perspective) a progression to a romantic relationship, and think it would be a logical payoff.

Sometimes it seems like this forum strains to interpret events as having absolutely NO chance of foreshadowing a romantic relationship, because of the moratorium on shipping.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 30 Jan 2018, 16:55
As the forum's Official Friendshipper*, I will just chip in here and say that at this point, it would be pretty brave to say that there is NO chance of a romantic relationship developing. Of course there is a chance.

I've said in the past that I found it unlikely, but stuff has happened since then. As of now, I honestly don't know which way this will go.

If anyone does believe there is no chance, it's probably not because of the moratorium on shipping. They probably hold their beliefs for their own reasons, just like you.

* Respect my headcanon, pls.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Pennepasta on 30 Jan 2018, 17:22

I can't figure out whether I'm being a moderator when I say this so please tolerate ambiguity.

It's worth remembering that a lot of people here must have had backgrounds of witnessing or experiencing violence. When they don't see the humor in Faye they've got good reason.

But at the same time "Your sense of humour - regardless of when you reign it in - makes you a garbage person" is rather insulting. Sure, I have a dark sense of humour - but does that make me subhuman? Even if I don't actually use said dark sense of humour around people I don't know well or that I know would not appreciate it?

Not sure why you put that in quotes, Pennepasta, because nobody in this thread said that. In fact, I specifically clarified I wasn't saying that.

Also, even if it wasn't so common in real life, I just don't find violence funny. I am aware that other people find violence comical, and that's cool if no real people are actually getting hurt, but I really, really don't get the appeal.

Gotcha. I think I'd misinterpreted your comments earlier about people talking about killing in jest - I do apologize (I have this strange disconnect between violence and death; violence tends to suck, but killing is fair game to me for humour etc., hence why I skimmed that part of your earlier post). I have a tendency at times to take things personally (usually a good indicator my mood's wonky and I should GTFO from the internet), and get overdefensive - on reflection with what was said, I seem to have done that here, so sorry. Have a pint of tea as a make-up gift.

Further apologies if I caused you to say more background of yours than you're comfortable with, particularly as it was caused by a misunderstanding on my end. There's never a need to justify yourself if it's going to be painful/hard to do; you are you.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 30 Jan 2018, 18:13
COMIC

Well, that was cathartic. Let's discuss it.

Over tea and crumpets.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 30 Jan 2018, 19:23
Well, that was cathartic. Let's discuss it. Over tea and crumpets.

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/39953226/hmm-yes-jolly-good-old-chap.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 30 Jan 2018, 19:25
"AGH! Humans are so STUPID sometimes!"

I think that may be the best summary of Evie's and Amanda's behavior in this arc.  Also, Faye being kind, supportive, and mature? Who is this unknown character in this comic?

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jan 2018, 19:30
I can't figure out whether I'm being a moderator when I say this so please tolerate ambiguity.

It's worth remembering that a lot of people here must have had backgrounds of witnessing or experiencing violence. When they don't see the humor in Faye they've got good reason.

But at the same time "Your sense of humour - regardless of when you reign it in - makes you a garbage person" is rather insulting. Sure, I have a dark sense of humour - but does that make me subhuman? Even if I don't actually use said dark sense of humour around people I don't know well or that I know would not appreciate it?

Global Moderator Comment If anyone says that about you hit the Report to Moderator button. We take such things very seriously.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 30 Jan 2018, 19:39
I do find it a little odd that Bubbles doesn't interpret Faye's "tea and crumpets" suggestion as a glib remark. To my knowledge people in the U.S. almost never suggest that in earnest.

EDIT: nvm cant read lol
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 30 Jan 2018, 19:41
I do find it a little odd that Bubbles doesn't interpret Faye's "tea and crumpets" suggestion as a glib remark. To my knowledge people in the U.S. almost never suggest that in earnest.

I read it as Faye asking "Tea and Crumpets? Where did you get that from? We're in the US - nobody suggests Tea and Crumpets, not even rich people's children ..."
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 19:46
I do find it a little odd that Bubbles doesn't interpret Faye's "tea and crumpets" suggestion as a glib remark. To my knowledge people in the U.S. almost never suggest that in earnest.

Don't be so sure. Crumpets are serious business. The Boston Tea Party would have ended very differently had the redcoats not disobeyed orders and served pikelets instead.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: DSL on 30 Jan 2018, 20:03
Tea and crumpets, which I  understand to be a perfectly ordinary light meal in Jollie Olde, has a bit of an effete air in the minds of my fellow beer'n'pretzels/coffee'n'donuts 'Mericans. I'm going to say, extrapolating from that assumption, that Bubbles is using that to suggest the people who discuss her people in abstract academic terms are quite disconnected from Real Life (TM). And Faye is twitting Bubbles about her word choice, as friends will.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: sitnspin on 30 Jan 2018, 20:05
To be fair, I had a professor at university who regularly invited us to tea and crumpets.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: fayelovesbubbles on 30 Jan 2018, 20:07
Yup. Evie was the problem.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JRDelirio on 30 Jan 2018, 20:15
I do find it a little odd that Bubbles doesn't interpret Faye's "tea and crumpets" suggestion as a glib remark. To my knowledge people in the U.S. almost never suggest that in earnest.

I read it as Faye asking "Tea and Crumpets? Where did you get that from? We're in the US - nobody suggests Tea and Crumpets, not even rich people's children ..."
  Yep, got that same impression.  She's teasing her as to how even if Evie is looking at Bubs from the Ivory Tower, that would be an unexpected way to think of it these days.   

Evie of course is entirely oblivious to her bioprivileged frame of reference -- as is to be expected, since in that context the "privileged" position is the one assumed to be the default so it is not even noticed by those holding it.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Shaitan051 on 30 Jan 2018, 20:36
Yes, it is a real issue that affects real people. Possibly all people. So how about we don't brush it aside as a debate for "rich people's children" because it makes you uncomfortable, Ms Literal Warbot?

Ms Literal Warbot that actually met an "AI God", unbound by law and morality, and therefore knows damn well that humanities fears are completely justified. :x

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 21:01
Yes, it is a real issue that affects real people. Possibly all people. So how about we don't brush it aside as a debate for "rich people's children" because it makes you uncomfortable, Ms Literal Warbot?

Ms Literal Warbot that actually met an "AI God", unbound by law and morality, and therefore knows damn well that humanities fears are completely justified. :x

I get the feeling that Bubbles wasn't objecting to the debate so much as how it was raised. Evie was talking about wide ranging social issues as though they were entirely abstract, ignoring the fact that to Bubbles this is something she lives with and experiences daily.

I'm trying hard to think of a sensitive way to rephrase the analogy, but saying "in some ways AI's are as dangerous as nukes" is not a neutral statement when as far as Bubbles is concerned, Evie was saying "In some ways *you* are as dangerous as nukes". Evie saying that also carried with it a subtext (an unintentional subtext) of "so obviously you cannot fit in to our society, the friendships you are making are illusory and to humanity artificial lives will always be fearsome and "other"". I can see why Bubbles would find this massively upsetting.

You are right that the existence of spookybot and the powers Station has demonstrated are potential threats. But so are many things. I live in England, a country known for incredibly tight gun laws. Following the spate of terrorist attacks last summer, armed police were patrolling public areas for about a week. Seeing men with assault weapons in a shopping centre was deeply, deeply disturbing. It felt like we were sacrificing liberty through fear. Also, freaking men with guns, it is really hard to get across how unsettling that is in this country. So a debate about the need for armed civilian police in our country in that case would be legitimate. Telling those men to their faces that they represented a threat to my way of life just as much as the terrorists did would *definately* be out of order.

Evie has a right to debate and study the relationship between AI's and humanity. She has a responsibilty to do so with sensitivity. She failed to do so, and ended up being rude.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Shaitan051 on 30 Jan 2018, 21:11
Telling those men to their faces that they represented a threat to my way of life just as much as the terrorists did would *definately* be out of order.
and utterly ludicrous.  :roll:



When it comes to the possible destruction/enslavement of the human race, "am I being rude to the living example of what we fear?" is the least of your worries. (How the hell did she get to keep her armour let alone her current body, which is almost certainly government issued?)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 21:17
Telling those men to their faces that they represented a threat to my way of life just as much as the terrorists did would *definately* be out of order.
and utterly ludicrous.  :roll:

When it comes to the possible destruction/enslavement of the human race, "am I being rude?" is the least of your worries.

It is if you are talking to a sentient agent. If nothing else, if you are legitimately concerned that they are a risk to humanity (and for the record, I don't think Evie does think that), surely being polite would be basic self preservation...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Shaitan051 on 30 Jan 2018, 21:28
Telling those men to their faces that they represented a threat to my way of life just as much as the terrorists did would *definately* be out of order.
and utterly ludicrous.  :roll:

When it comes to the possible destruction/enslavement of the human race, "am I being rude?" is the least of your worries.
It is if you are talking to a sentient agent. If nothing else, if you are legitimately concerned that they are a risk to humanity (and for the record, I don't think Evie does think that), surely being polite would be basic self preservation...
"Be nice to robots or DIE", yeah nothing to worry about there.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 21:32
"Be nice to robots or DIE", yeah nothing to worry about there.

I get the feeling you are deliberately misrepresenting my point here, but okay. Put another way- why do you want to be rude to Bubbles?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jan 2018, 21:35
Being decent to the person in front of you is usually a good thing to put on top of your worry list.

QC world is post-Singularity. There's no need to guess the intentions of AIs. Now that they run the world, QC people can simply look at their actions.
Quote from: Abraham Lincoln
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Shaitan051 on 30 Jan 2018, 21:50
"Be nice to robots or DIE", yeah nothing to worry about there.

I get the feeling you are deliberately misrepresenting my point here, but okay. Put another way- why do you want to be rude to Bubbles?
I get the feeling you are deliberately misrepresenting my point here...


It is a very serious issue, potentially genocidally serious, and transcends Bubbles hurt feelings. I'm being somewhat meta here, things will be fine in the comic because it's a comic, but if the comic has any connection to our potential future we're talking about potential human extinction.
 
Flame bait removed by moderator
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: brasca on 30 Jan 2018, 21:57
It could've been worse.  Bubbles could've been stuck talking to a philosophy student.  Those people will bore you to death. 

But seriously, I can understand why Bubbles is irritated since no one really wants their existence scrutinized and summarized into one thesis statement, but I would think she'd keep in mind the person who's writing this isn't using their research to justify an anti-AI political agenda. 

Perhaps Evie was tone deaf which tends to happen in academia, but at the end of the day she means well.   
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 30 Jan 2018, 22:09
To be fair, I had a professor at university who regularly invited us to tea and crumpets.

I've never been invited to tea and crumpets. :(

Tea and scones, yes.

And I'll just make a general remark that it is clear to me that Bubbles would be perfectly happy to have a discussion about AIs in society, just not with someone who speaks about the topic without empathy and as though it is a purely academic conversation that affects no-one.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 30 Jan 2018, 22:14
Honestly, I'd take the scones over the crumpets.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Sorflakne on 30 Jan 2018, 22:17
Quote
It could've been worse.  Bubbles could've been stuck talking to a philosophy student. 
Isn't puzzling out existence a big part of several branches of philosophy?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 30 Jan 2018, 22:25
Quote
It could've been worse.  Bubbles could've been stuck talking to a philosophy student. 
Isn't puzzling out existence a big part of several branches of philosophy?
One part, certainly. The other part is working out an answer to the question "Isn't puzzling out existence a big part of several branches of philosophy?"  :-)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: OldGoat on 30 Jan 2018, 22:29
"Garbage person" seems to be a weakly euphemistic term for "white trash," but it's got a feeling of finality to it that the latter doesn't carry.  No recycling here, just toss 'em into the compost bin - they're worth more to the world as worm castings.

I've known white trash like Faye.  All in all, they're often better people than those folks Mark Twain called "the Quality," in spite of their faults.  Especially the fundamentally honest ones like Faye.


Edit - My apologies if this seems out of context.  I'm finding this tablet screen a challenge when it comes to following a thread.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jan 2018, 22:38
To be fair, I had a professor at university who regularly invited us to tea and crumpets.

I've never been invited to tea and crumpets. :(

Tea and scones, yes.

And I'll just make a general remark that it is clear to me that Bubbles would be perfectly happy to have a discussion about AIs in society, just not with someone who speaks about the topic without empathy and as though it is a purely academic conversation that affects no-one.

That is a discussion I would really enjoy reading.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: MrNumbers on 30 Jan 2018, 22:57
Again, a conversation requires two participants. As I said before, Bubbles being hurt by it can be more seen as a reflection of Bubbles than Evie.

Like, if Evie took the exact same tact with Momo we would have seen a really cool discussion, for instance. Ev isn't psychic, she didn't dismiss Bubbles offense when it was brought up, she seems pretty empathetic in a lot of other ways. Bubbles just has a chip on her shoulder which happened to get homed in on with laser precision, which sucks.

So like... chill out, guys?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Jan 2018, 23:05
Hmm. I'm thinking of Momo reminding Clinton pointedly about her people's long struggle for civil rights. She might have done the same when Evie talked about how wonderful it was to have Others around who weren't the subject of racist "baggage".

Since Momo sees her calling as being an inter-species ambassador she might have explained things at greater length, if she
had been able to get a word in edgewise. On past form she would have been even more direct about Evie's approach being hurtful.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 30 Jan 2018, 23:25
So, I'm thinking that basically, Jeph is using this strip to attack 'mansplaining' and its cousins; he's calling out all the so-called 'experts' who try to explain away people's sense of alienation and persecution. Basically, Evie was condescendingly claiming to understand Bubbles's struggles and feelings better than someone who actually lived them.

The thing is that I'm sure Evie would have been horrified if Bubbles had actually come out and expressed this to her. The thought that she had been condescending and belittling Bubbles would have been like a punch to the gut. However, as we discussed last week, one of the great problems with the academic mindset in the social sciences is that one easily loses track of the real people behind the data.

Meanwhile, as an Englishman, I have to say this: Every kind of philosophical discussion is better with tea and crumpets. Every kind.

Oh, and with regard to Panel 4, is Jeph experimenting with using David M Willis's 'red panels' to communicate a character experiencing traumatic emotions or flashbacks?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: sitnspin on 31 Jan 2018, 00:24
I see this a lot with the (mostly white) academics that study indigenous cultures. Those folks who have the privilege of looking at our history "objectively" are rarely those who have had to live with the consequences of it.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: fayelovesbubbles on 31 Jan 2018, 00:24
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jan 2018, 00:41
I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't get to enjoy hot buttered crumpets:

(https://cassland.org/images/crumpets.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Morituri on 31 Jan 2018, 00:50
For a lot of people speech about violent acts are just a class of casual metaphor, or even a sign of affection or care, and shouldn't be understood as literal threats.  Faye is such a person.  "You better do such-and-such or I'll kick your butt" honestly is one of the ways she might express "Doing such-and-such would be good for you and I care about you enough that I'm going to pester to do it, because I want what's best for you (but I don't want this to sound sappy so I'm going to play like it's aggressive, rar)." 

That can make her very hard to be around and hard to interpret, for people who have trouble with metaphor and sarcasm.  Or for people who've lived in environments where every mention of violence has corresponded to an absolutely real threat of violence. 

Some people can be provoked, with sufficient cause, if you do something magnificently horrible, to real violence.  Faye is such a person.  You seriously traumatize someone she cares about, steal years of their life with a deception, lose their memories, exploit their work, and then try for extortion?  Uh, yeah, okay, she lost her temper and *ACTUALLY* punched somebody in the face.  She does have a temper, but it doesn't look like she's so uncontrolled that anyone who hasn't done something magnificently horrible has anything to worry about.

What I want to point out though is that her (rare) genuine acts of violence have never had anything whatsoever to do with her (frequent) use of violence in figures of speech and metaphors.  People are in no physical danger when she threatens them with violence; it almost has the same connotations as saying 'please' except more aggressively.  She absolutely never threatens anyone she's really going to punch. 

Conversely, I don't think I remember ever seeing her actually punch anybody she cared enough about to threaten - with the possible exception of Pintsize, and that was kind of a running gag with him for a while.

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Akima on 31 Jan 2018, 00:52
Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.
Yeah... Often.

I see this a lot with the (mostly white) academics that study indigenous cultures.
Mmm... And the (mostly white) comparative-religion types who want to talk my ear off about Buddhism, when they have essentially the same attitude towards it that an entomologist has towards beetles.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 31 Jan 2018, 01:23
Conversely, I don't think I remember ever seeing her actually punch anybody she cared enough about to threaten - with the possible exception of Pintsize, and that was kind of a running gag with him for a while.

Jeph went through a 'The Three Stooges'-type sitcom phase for a while when Dora was living at the apartment. Pintsize was the oblivious pest/creep who completely failed to respond to threats or even physical violence and just carried right on being vile and obnoxious. Bottom line: It wasn't just Faye who regularly beat up Pintsize. Momo did it too as did Sam and Emily. Recently Bubbles crushed his head for daring to discuss Faye's 'assets'; it's just his role in the slapstick end of the comic.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 01:39
I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't get to enjoy hot buttered crumpets ...

As an Australian, ...

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e9/25/6b/e9256b32dae49b31f38895d272fd046b--crumpets-australia.jpg)

I'm hungry now.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jan 2018, 02:04
I suppose Vegemite is an acceptable alternative to Marmite in context.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 02:23
Marmite is a little harder to find in Australia, unfortunately*.

This is exacerbated by the fact that Australian company Sanitarium trademarked the term Marmite first. So if we want the real deal, we have to look out for jars of Our Mate.

* I do prefer Marmite these days. Tell no-one.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Jan 2018, 02:26
Your secret is safe with me and the Internet.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 02:29
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TinPenguin on 31 Jan 2018, 02:33
Tova what have you done to those poor innocent crumpets.

(I'd jokingly call you a garbage person but I'd probably get banned given current forum mood)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 02:37
At some point, I liked crumpets, with butter and jam. Now, I think it's too squishy...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 02:39
Tova what have you done to those poor innocent crumpets.

My mother never did approve. What can I say?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: maneyan on 31 Jan 2018, 02:40
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

Pretty much this. From where I'm seeing it, the issue is not with Evie per se, it's simply with the fact that Bubbles is hypersensitive to these issues and can't really deal with that kind of scrutiny. This, after all, is a PTSD-suffering veteran whose main coping mechanism we've seen thus far is explosive violence towards things (that and tea admittedly). Still, it's this kind of scrutiny that is needed to build a greater understanding between people. Thus far we've seen laser-armed sociopath-bots (Pintsize), giant walker death robots (Deathbot 9000), 2.5 meter emotionally unstable Terminators (Bubbles), an omniscient demigod-bot etc. If that's the AI lineup I'm gonna say that "sorry, humanity is trying to understand you and being perceived as rude does not take precedence"

EDIT: Having reviewed the thread a bit more, I'm going to simply say "Yeah, Evie could have been way more diplomatic". Still: Bubbles should have been more clear she personally took offense. "Some might find that offensive" pretty much means "Some, not me", at least where I'm standing.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 02:43
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

I mean, yes of course. That is fine.

That doesn't mean doctors, for example, start telling their patients what their pain feels like.

If you think that Bubbles is upset about AIs being studied, then you are not grasping today's comic. At all.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Jakk Frost on 31 Jan 2018, 02:48
Telling those men to their faces that they represented a threat to my way of life just as much as the terrorists did would *definately* be out of order.
and utterly ludicrous.  :roll:

When it comes to the possible destruction/enslavement of the human race, "am I being rude?" is the least of your worries.

It is if you are talking to a sentient agent. If nothing else, if you are legitimately concerned that they are a risk to humanity (and for the record, I don't think Evie does think that), surely being polite would be basic self preservation...

AKA "Let the wookiee win".
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: maneyan on 31 Jan 2018, 02:51
Telling those men to their faces that they represented a threat to my way of life just as much as the terrorists did would *definately* be out of order.
and utterly ludicrous.  :roll:

When it comes to the possible destruction/enslavement of the human race, "am I being rude?" is the least of your worries.

It is if you are talking to a sentient agent. If nothing else, if you are legitimately concerned that they are a risk to humanity (and for the record, I don't think Evie does think that), surely being polite would be basic self preservation...

AKA "Let the wookiee win".

Even, in a way, minorities feeling they need to be more respectful to white people because white people hold disproportionately much more power and could do way more things to the minorities than vice versa.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 31 Jan 2018, 02:51


I've never been invited to tea and crumpets. :(


I've you're ever in Dundee (Scotland) consider this an open invitation!

:)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: WoaLG on 31 Jan 2018, 02:54
I'm sure many of you have already seen this, but it's still interesting and I feel it's relevant to the current conversation. Jeph wrote a speech for a fictional UN meeting about AI rights on his Tumblr.

http://jephjacques.com/post/14655843351/un-hearing-on-ai-rights

I understand Evie's curiosity, but you've still gotta be considerate of others. And comparing AIs to nuclear weapons seems like a bad idea, no matter how much May wants to be fighter jet.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 02:59


I've never been invited to tea and crumpets. :(


I've you're ever in Dundee (Scotland) consider this an open invitation!

:)

Why, thank you! How could I refuse such an offer?   8-)

I've been to Scotland only once, all too briefly, and never to Dundee. A future visit is certainly on the cards.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 31 Jan 2018, 03:12
I'm torn about this whole thing.
I love Bubbles.
I totally understood Evi's reason for looking into what she was looking into.

Was Evi pretty insensitive to Bubbles feelings?
Yes... and No...
As has been said above, with some AIs in this universe that comment could have led to a genuinely interesting and maybe enlightening discussion.

But Bubbles has (for want of a better phrase) a robo-variant of PTSD, and such a comparison was always going to be a bit touchy for her.
But Evi didn't know this.
And there's where the problem lies.

Should Evi, as an academic, NOT pursue avenues of conversation?
It could be argued that Bubbles, as an ex war-bot, might be touchy on this subject...
But then, Bubbles is 'probably' not the norm for such creatures.
After all, we've seen the *rage* side of Bubbles spill over into violence - and it's only through interaction with *the cast* that this has toned down and lessened.
For all we know, Bubbles was to all intents and purposes "illegal" - after all, why would an ex military, fully armed (or at least armoured and chassis-d ) ex-warbot be released into the wild?

So - maybe Evi acted out of sheer curiosity, taking it as read that there probably should not BE any PTSD war-bots "on the streets".
(Which again leads to a VERY interesting potential discussion and the parallels of Human War Vets and AI Warbots being left unprepared for Civvy life.)

Also...
People should maybe take their foot off the gas a bit when it comes to decrying Evi for being concerned about AIs (of the war variety) being as dangerous as a nuke... remember, it's pretty much all popular culture has been feeding us forever! 

Sometimes literally...



Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 31 Jan 2018, 03:14
I've taken a few minutes to re-read Evie's mini-lecture. Really, all she had to do was slightly reword things. She really did come across as saying she considered Synthetics as a latent threat to humanity much the same way that the proliferation of WMDs demonstrably are and that she considered it remarkable that so few humans are reacting appropriately. So, yes, thinking about her chosen wording in panel 3 of strip 3656 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3656) in isolation, she does come across as bigoted. However, taking the strip as a whole, I think that it is more poor communication on her part than anything more malicious.

IMO, Evie could have defused a lot of the problem if she's put it this way:

"Humans just don't typically seem to respond aggressively to non-immediate risks and this strongly indicates that the fear of the unknown and the actual threat response instinct are either decoupled in the human mind or at least that this 'different = bad' equation is a low action priority in the average psyche. The point I'm making is that anti-Synthetic activism is a learned behaviour rather than an instinctual response to the unknown or a threat. These people hate because they want to have something to hate; they found something and taught themselves to respond appropriately."
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Akima on 31 Jan 2018, 03:50
Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), or Unit 631 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731). The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Piscador on 31 Jan 2018, 03:54
I have to admit, the turn of events in #3668 caught me by surprise.

I really expected that Bubbles would be thoroughly pissed off with Faye, not Evie. Faye behaved horribly towards Melon. It wasn't just the condescending tone and words (although the whole 'domesticated robo-dick' dialog *was* pretty funny), it was the way that Faye took advantage of Melon's naiveté and accepted $100 for telling her to get batteries.

Bubbles and Faye's long-term business prospects depend on the good will of the AI community. I imagine that if something like that got out, their business would be damaged beyond repair.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Zebediah on 31 Jan 2018, 04:02
I’d like to back this conversation up a few steps, because I think we may be criticizing Evie for the wrong thing.

Evie is supposedly studying AI psychology. But looking back over Evie’s lecture to Bubbles, she’s actually not talking about AI psychology at all. She’s talking about human responses to AI. She’s not studying AI psychology, but rather human psychology as it relates to AIs. And everyone missed that. She may not be aware of it herself. (Shoot, it’s possible that Jeph might not be aware of what he did here.)

And that, in my opinion, is the real reason that Bubbles should be offended by Evie’s speech. Evie looks at AIs but doesn’t see them - she sees only the reflection of her own kind. The real AI experience is lost. I imagine her AI colleague who is studying her would have some interesting things to say about what this means.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 31 Jan 2018, 04:21
I’d like to back this conversation up a few steps, because I think we may be criticizing Evie for the wrong thing.

Evie is supposedly studying AI psychology. But looking back over Evie’s lecture to Bubbles, she’s actually not talking about AI psychology at all. She’s talking about human responses to AI. She’s not studying AI psychology, but rather human psychology as it relates to AIs. And everyone missed that. She may not be aware of it herself. (Shoot, it’s possible that Jeph might not be aware of what he did here.)

And that, in my opinion, is the real reason that Bubbles should be offended by Evie’s speech. Evie looks at AIs but doesn’t see them - she sees only the reflection of her own kind. The real AI experience is lost. I imagine her AI colleague who is studying her would have some interesting things to say about what this means.

Actually, Evie's field is "post-singularity psychology" - which I'd assume means human psychology (Could be wrong, of course - but a) Why would humans not default to themselves, we do it all the time even amongst our own, as Sitnspin & Akima have pointed out above b) AI are a very young species).

That changes nothing about her talking right over Bubbles and not seeing her, and that not being OK.

It would, however, provide an answer to IICIH's question from previous WCDT's: Why she, as a researcher, isn't being more sensitive - didn't she get any sort of briefings on how to behave around members of the culture she studies? (*) Nope, she didn't, since AI aren't her research subject, humans are. And she isn't an "AI-anthropologist", either - she's a human psychologist studying the effects of the presence of AI on human psyche.


(*) The 'topic' seems to be well-known amongst anthropologist since at least the late 60's -> Googlebooks "Indians and Anthropologists" (https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=A0oari8CGBQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Anthropology,+native+americans,+research,+sensitivity&ots=3T95rieU8z&sig=BSH6RZgnuYxblHbCAqBNowueUao#v=onepage&q=Anthropology%2C%20native%20americans%2C%20research%2C%20sensitivity&f=false), the intro page is quite ... instructive.

I think I also recall seeing some 'best practises' recommendations for newbie anthropologists studying native Americans. The list was quite long.

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Technoir on 31 Jan 2018, 04:41
Same thing  that happened to panel #6 in this (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3663). It's just a stylistic thing Jeph does from time to time to highlight certain beats.

Danke! Never noticed it before, but for some reason it really jumped out at me yesterday.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 31 Jan 2018, 04:41
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

Pretty much this. From where I'm seeing it, the issue is not with Evie per se, it's simply with the fact that Bubbles is hypersensitive to these issues and can't really deal with that kind of scrutiny. This, after all, is a PTSD-suffering veteran whose main coping mechanism we've seen thus far is explosive violence towards things (that and tea admittedly). Still, it's this kind of scrutiny that is needed to build a greater understanding between people. Thus far we've seen laser-armed sociopath-bots (Pintsize), giant walker death robots (Deathbot 9000), 2.5 meter emotionally unstable Terminators (Bubbles), an omniscient demigod-bot etc. If that's the AI lineup I'm gonna say that "sorry, humanity is trying to understand you and being perceived as rude does not take precedence"

EDIT: Having reviewed the thread a bit more, I'm going to simply say "Yeah, Evie could have been way more diplomatic". Still: Bubbles should have been more clear she personally took offense. "Some might find that offensive" pretty much means "Some, not me", at least where I'm standing.

That last bit is definitely where Bubbles could have been a lot more clear.
Personally, while Bubbles' anger is absolutely justified and should lead to a discussion with Evie so she understands why her approach to AI sociology was not cool, I also find it slightly disappointing that Bubbles felt the need to add the qualifier "for rich people's children". Not only is it completely unnecessary (the sentence reads just as good without it), it also implies that only rich kids are that stupid, which is highly unlikely (not to mention that we've seen no evidence that Evie is such a rich kid).

In addition, Evie did not 'merely shrug it off', she in fact acknowledged that the comparison was offensive. Yes, she could have, and I think should have, apologized for it, but Bubbles misinterprets or misrepresents Evie's response, in my opinion.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 31 Jan 2018, 04:49
Again, a conversation requires two participants. As I said before, Bubbles being hurt by it can be more seen as a reflection of Bubbles than Evie.

Like, if Evie took the exact same tact with Momo we would have seen a really cool discussion, for instance. Ev isn't psychic, she didn't dismiss Bubbles offense when it was brought up, she seems pretty empathetic in a lot of other ways. Bubbles just has a chip on her shoulder which happened to get homed in on with laser precision, which sucks.

So like... chill out, guys?

I agree with your perception that the same conversation with Momo would likely have fared different and probably better.

However, we do not get to decide whether somebody has a reason to be offended. If they are, it usually warrants a conversation to see why that is and how both parties can work together to not have that.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Technoir on 31 Jan 2018, 04:50
A shame, really. Warm crumpets with butter and jam are delish!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 31 Jan 2018, 04:51
I have to admit, the turn of events in #3668 caught me by surprise.

I really expected that Bubbles would be thoroughly pissed off with Faye, not Evie. Faye behaved horribly towards Melon. It wasn't just the condescending tone and words (although the whole 'domesticated robo-dick' dialog *was* pretty funny), it was the way that Faye took advantage of Melon's naiveté and accepted $100 for telling her to get batteries.

Bubbles and Faye's long-term business prospects depend on the good will of the AI community. I imagine that if something like that got out, their business would be damaged beyond repair.

I have a feeling we might see some kind of resolution to the Faye/Melon thing as well at some point.
For now, we don't even know if Bubbles is aware of what exactly transpired in that whole transaction between them.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 31 Jan 2018, 04:52
A shame, really. Warm crumpets with butter and jam are delish!

They really are.
I sometimes get them from Trader Joe's, and while vacuum sealed, they are actually quite decent after putting them in a toaster :)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: maneyan on 31 Jan 2018, 04:57
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

Pretty much this. From where I'm seeing it, the issue is not with Evie per se, it's simply with the fact that Bubbles is hypersensitive to these issues and can't really deal with that kind of scrutiny. This, after all, is a PTSD-suffering veteran whose main coping mechanism we've seen thus far is explosive violence towards things (that and tea admittedly). Still, it's this kind of scrutiny that is needed to build a greater understanding between people. Thus far we've seen laser-armed sociopath-bots (Pintsize), giant walker death robots (Deathbot 9000), 2.5 meter emotionally unstable Terminators (Bubbles), an omniscient demigod-bot etc. If that's the AI lineup I'm gonna say that "sorry, humanity is trying to understand you and being perceived as rude does not take precedence"

EDIT: Having reviewed the thread a bit more, I'm going to simply say "Yeah, Evie could have been way more diplomatic". Still: Bubbles should have been more clear she personally took offense. "Some might find that offensive" pretty much means "Some, not me", at least where I'm standing.

That last bit is definitely where Bubbles could have been a lot more clear.
Personally, while Bubbles' anger is absolutely justified and should lead to a discussion with Evie so she understands why her approach to AI sociology was not cool, I also find it slightly disappointing that Bubbles felt the need to add the qualifier "for rich people's children". Not only is it completely unnecessary (the sentence reads just as good without it), it also implies that only rich kids are that stupid, which is highly unlikely (not to mention that we've seen no evidence that Evie is such a rich kid).

In addition, Evie did not 'merely shrug it off', she in fact acknowledged that the comparison was offensive. Yes, she could have, and I think should have, apologized for it, but Bubbles misinterprets or misrepresents Evie's response, in my opinion.


Yeah, that bit about rich people's children really rubbed me the wrong way... it sounded honestly like something I'd expect out of an anti-intellectual Trump fanatic. "Hurr durr, educated elites"

AND YET! Is that statement offensive? I'd take it as sorta offensive because it really belittles the academic view of things, and as I took it that way, there's a case to be made that it was indeed offensive. And if I can say that, Bubbles can definitely say that she found the comparison offensive and was hurt by it. So I guess it works out both ways her really.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Technoir on 31 Jan 2018, 04:57
Argh. Now i really want warm crumpets with butter and jam. I don't even want to look and see how many points that is on my WW app.  Yikes. 2 crumpets each with a 1/2 tbsp each of butter and jam....16 points, out of my daily 40.  Sigh. Maybe on the weekend with my leftover weekly points. 

#CrumpetTalk
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 31 Jan 2018, 05:16
I've said it before, Bubbles main problem is that she doesn't communicate how she feels. She remains quiet and quiet and quiet, until its too late and she vents. By which time, the person who could actually use the information, in this case, Evie, has already left.
That remains her biggest obstacle and she needs to learn how to talk to people.

And I am still waiting on my damn scones!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Dal Gurak on 31 Jan 2018, 05:37
After reading today's comic, I went back and re-read #3656 to make sure I remembered something correctly.  And I did - Bubbles said "Some of us would resent being compared to weapons of mass destruction."  She did not say "I am offended that you would compare me to weapons of mass destruction."

I'm not trying to nitpick her - I realize that, in most cases, when hearing something like that the other person is expected to make the mental translation (i.e. "Uh oh, I offended this person.") and apologize appropriately.  Perhaps Bubbles was just trying to not be too blunt?  (I'll defer to people who understand social context better than me, which is to say most people.)  The reason I bring it up is that I think it's possible Evie took those words literally.  She reacts to the statement as if it was a broad sweep of A.I. opinions, not the opinion of the person right in front of her speaking to her.

I could be projecting.  This sort of thing would happen to me constantly as a child, and still happens pretty often.  For example, when I was a kid, my mother might tell me "Your room is a mess - you really need to clean it up."  And I would interpret that as her saying my room was a mess and I need to clean it - a disapproving comment on the situation.  Okay.  I'd go back to whatever I was doing.  Later, she'd get angry and say "Why didn't you clean your room like I told you to??"  And I'd respond "What?  You didn't tell me to."  And she'd get more angry because she thought I was intentionally overanalyzing her words and misinterpreting them deliberately out of spite or mischief.  I take things literally - it's very difficult for me to suss out what a statement really means when it's indirect, such as Bubbles' statement.  When I first read #3656, I thought she was talking about A.I.s in general, and it wasn't until today's strip that it was clarified that, oh, she was actually talking about her own personal feelings.

Again, that's not saying Bubbles or anyone else must only speak directly and bluntly.  It's my responsibility to learn how to communicate and internally translate what people say to me, and it's Evie's responsibility to realize she said something rude and apologize to Bubbles.  I get the feeling that if Evie was told that she hurt Bubbles' feelings, she would be surprised and very sorry.  Or she might shrug and say something like "Well, that's too bad - this issue is more important than one person's feelings", in which case I suppose the many, many Evie-haters on here can have a field day with that callous attitude.

So to sum up - the hurt feelings and anger may have been caused by miscommunication.  Which happens all the time, and really sucks.  I would hope that, if things were explained to her, Evie could make up with Bubbles and all would be well.  Maybe too idealistic, but it would be nice.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:34
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

I mean, yes of course. That is fine.

That doesn't mean doctors, for example, start telling their patients what their pain feels like.

If you think that Bubbles is upset about AIs being studied, then you are not grasping today's comic. At all.

You mean the part where Evie compared AIs to nuclear weapons and how it hit right on the wrong spot for Bubbles, given her traumatic military past? Sure, but that's really specific to Bubbles, not AIs in general, is it? So there is no why she could expect that Evie could take that into account. I understand Bubbles' point of view in today's comic, but I still can't see anything wrong in what Evie said in #3656...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 31 Jan 2018, 06:40
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the key objection Bubbles expressed was that Evie was dehumanizing her by treating her as a tape recorder to which Evie was confiding her theories. Evie should know better, even if she is in the throes of her dissertation focus, and the comment that "Some might find that offensive" should have brought her up short. It didn't.

Basically, what I'm reading here is the Evie is a condescending, self-centered jerk. It's all very well to treat people as representatives of a group in some circumstances, but it's kind of, you know, critical to remember that they're more than that. Evie doesn't realize that any more, even if she might well have done so initially.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 31 Jan 2018, 06:42
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.

I mean, yes of course. That is fine.

That doesn't mean doctors, for example, start telling their patients what their pain feels like.

If you think that Bubbles is upset about AIs being studied, then you are not grasping today's comic. At all.

You mean the part where Evie compared AIs to nuclear weapons and how it hit right on the wrong spot for Bubbles, given her traumatic military past? Sure, but that's really specific to Bubbles, not AIs in general, is it? So there is no why she could expect that Evie could take that into account. I understand Bubbles' point of view in today's comic, but I still can't see anything wrong in what Evie said in #3656...

No, he means the part where Evie brings up Skynet and grey goo as examples of pre-singularity human fears of AIs, notably near-extinction scenarios, then wonders why humans aren't freaking out more now that AIs are a reality and then shrugs and says "Whelp, we didn't freak out about nukes, either, cause humans are really bad at assessing dangers".

That is a comparison between AIs and nukes, in the frame of the reaction of humans to either.

I mean ... is there any other reading in which Bubble's reply to Evie - that Evie agrees with - makes sense?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:43
Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), or Unit 631 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731). The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism). That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists "experiments" can hardly be called science by any objective observer. More like sadistic massacres.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jan 2018, 06:44
"Bubbles needs to chill, Evie didn't mean any harm."

Gee, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, white people telling me how to feel about racism, men telling me how to feel about misogyny and straight people telling me how to feel about homophobia.

Prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues because people who don't mean harm can and will cause it unless they learn not to.

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 31 Jan 2018, 06:47
Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), or Unit 631 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731). The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism). That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer...

That's ... not even wrong.

And it's 'distanced', not distentiated.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:49
Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), or Unit 631 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731). The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism). That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer...

That's ... not even wrong.

And it's 'distanced', not distentiated.
Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...

What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jan 2018, 06:56
Things I have learned trying to manage this place:

Whenever you think the word "oversensitive" about someone from a marginalized group, that's a signal to stop and think some more, including asking yourself "Am I missing something?" or "What kind of experiences led to that reaction?".

Bubbles's experiences have rubbed her raw emotionally. Her reactions are not ideal for productive social interaction. But if someone told her she needs to chill, that would be just like saying "You need to grow thicker skin" to someone in a burn ward.

Trivia: burn wards are kept at summer temperatures, because people can get dangerously cold without the insulation that had been provided by the skin that got burned off.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: shanejayell on 31 Jan 2018, 07:05
I liked the update. If Bubbles feels offended, she has every right to. They're her feelings after all.

Now Faye, give her a hug. :D
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Magniras on 31 Jan 2018, 07:59
This comic really looks like Bubs had too much time to sit alone and stew.  How many of you have made a conversation so much worse than it was because you over thought it?  Because I know I've done it. A lot.

She says she told Evie the comparison was offensive, but all she did was say she resented the comparison. Evie was the one who called it offensive. I'm sure if Bubbles expressed her frustrations Evie would apologize for everything in a heartbeat.

Because I think a black lesbian from the south understands real issues that real people face.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: MrNumbers on 31 Jan 2018, 08:01
A bunch of people seem to have mistaken my last post to mean Bubbles should chill, or is wrong to be offended.

No, no, I should absolutely clarify.

I'm not telling Bubbles to chill. Bubbles was rightfully hurt and offended, and her feelings are completely legitimate. I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 31 Jan 2018, 09:04
"Humans just don't typically seem to respond aggressively to non-immediate risks and this strongly indicates that the fear of the unknown and the actual threat response instinct are either decoupled in the human mind or at least that this 'different = bad' equation is a low action priority in the average psyche. The point I'm making is that anti-Synthetic activism is a learned behaviour rather than an instinctual response to the unknown or a threat. These people hate because they want to have something to hate; they found something and taught themselves to respond appropriately."

You've worded the issue quite eloquently.

The question is, has Evie reached this sophisticated level of thinking, or is she as naive and sheltered as she acts?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 09:09
I liked the update. If Bubbles feels offended, she has every right to. They're her feelings after all.


Sure. Bubbles has every right to feel offended, and Evie didn't actually make anything wrong. What could we conclude from that situation?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 09:14
I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.

I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: OldGoat on 31 Jan 2018, 09:32
I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't get to enjoy hot buttered crumpets ...

As an Australian, ...

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e9/25/6b/e9256b32dae49b31f38895d272fd046b--crumpets-australia.jpg)
So that's what they're for!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jan 2018, 09:48
I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.

I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...

Golden Rule would cover it. Evie could have reflected on how she'd feel if positions in the conversation had been reversed.

Walking on eggshells I don't advocate but go back to Momo. She was presented with a faux pas from Ms. Reed and said something to the effect "If everyone does their best it will work out". "Do your best" is a far higher standard than having good intentions!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Morituri on 31 Jan 2018, 10:47
What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about.  Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question  are examples of things that are not even wrong.

They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them.  If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong?  You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence.  It's not even wrong.

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Storel on 31 Jan 2018, 11:29
What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about.  Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question  are examples of things that are not even wrong.

They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them.  If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong?  You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence.  It's not even wrong.

Wow. I'm a native English speaker and I had no idea what "That's... not even wrong" was supposed to mean. Despite feeling that there are so many things wrong with what was said that you can't address all of them, perhaps you could provide some specific examples of some of the things that are wrong with it? Because I for one don't see what the problem is.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: sitnspin on 31 Jan 2018, 12:02

She says she told Evie the comparison was offensive, but all she did was say she resented the comparison.
She resented it, because it's offensive. I don't see how you are missing that.
Quote
Evie was the one who called it offensive. I'm sure if Bubbles expressed her frustrations Evie would apologize for everything in a heartbeat.
She expressed her frustration twice in that conversation and Evie kept right on going.
Quote
Because I think a black lesbian from the south understands real issues that real people face.
Being part of one (or more) marginalized groups does not automatically make one aware of or sensitive to the experiences of other marginalized groups. I say that as a biracial lesbian from a very conservative region.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 31 Jan 2018, 12:30
Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), or Unit 631 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731). The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism). That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer...

That's ... not even wrong.

And it's 'distanced', not distentiated.
Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...

What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

Uhmmmh - actually, it is. It's a ... 'bonmot' by theoretical Physicist Wolfgang Pauli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli) that somehow became an English nerdism. In the narrowest sense, it means that a statement is non-falsifiable. Like e.g. "I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done." It can neither be proven right nor wrong, since there's no unambiguous, universally and measurable definition of either 'distanced', or 'valuable'. Hence 'not even wrong' (Pauli was called many things, but rarely diplomatic. Least not without a 'not' in front).

Lysenkoism is pseudoscience - not particularly unethical, apart from setting back the research of a veritable superpower for several decades, and causing untold headaches due to the horrendous cognitive dissonance. I don't see how it necessarily follows from a non-falsifiable statement, how one could ascertain or falsify it, or what it has to do with ethics in in research with human subjects.

I think you might be confusing deontology with the opposite of ontology (which it is not), and I was of the opinion that the branch of philosophy relevant to science was Epistemology, but I'd bow the the resident philosophers expertise (or really anyone who has a formal education in the humanities).

Lastly, the statment "By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer..." is at best useless, since there is no such a thing as an objective observer (or if there is, they're not human), it's an ideal to aspire to.

Also, I don't see why those experiments cannot be called science - I haven't seen anything about the hypothesis being non-falsifiable, or systematic measurement errors etc. Maybe you have studied them in greater detail and can help.

They are, however, deeply unethical and a crime - and here is the point that Akima tried to convey to you: There is nothing in any formulation of the 'scientific method' I have read that gives guidance as to ethical conduct wrt. human (or animal) subject. It's purely Epistomology, it's only concerned with knowledge. The only 'ethos' in the scientific method is the Feynman rule “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” .

For everything else, you need moral philosophy, compassion and a conscience - and the latter two are not particularly closely related to 'distanced'. Well, Mengele might disagree, but he's a monster, so what the fuck does he know?


Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...

You kept repeating that mistake, despite Akima's attempts to point them out to you - I thought you'd rather not have people sniggering behind your back. Personally, I use a spellchecker, since I'm also a non-native speaker on a board full of native speakers (mostly because German capitalization is so different).

P.S.: Akima has a math degree. Doesn't strictly make her a scientist, but I'm pretty sure she could have explained the above to you just as well. Math-nerds are like that.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 31 Jan 2018, 12:55
I'm sure there are other resident philosophers, but I'm the one who's here.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. What does it mean to know something, how do we get to truth rather than belief, what level of certainty are we happy with. Scepticism, scientific method, experiments vs metaphysics- these are all subjects that epistemology deals or has dealt with. You are right to call it a branch related to science, because it is asking the same basic questions- what can we know, and how do we know it?

Deontology is basically to do with creating a system or practice based on first principles and logical rules considered in abstract. It comes up most often in moral philosophy and especially in the works of Immanuel Kant. He tried to formulate a system of morality based on logic, with the maxim "only act as if that act could become a universal law." So if asking oneself "is it right to kill this man", one would reformulate the question as "how would it be if we killed all men". The universal law being obviously insupportable , one would use that as a guide to action.

This is a controversial theory, to say the least.

Not much to do with science either, especially as Kant was an "armchair philosopher", who believed he could make practical guide to life based on pure reason, without reference to that mucky outside world.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 13:54
I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.

I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...

Golden Rule would cover it. Evie could have reflected on how she'd feel if positions in the conversation had been reversed.

Walking on eggshells I don't advocate but go back to Momo. She was presented with a faux pas from Ms. Reed and said something to the effect "If everyone does their best it will work out". "Do your best" is a far higher standard than having good intentions!

Okay, so let's take a step back. I hope that this conflict can be resolved somehow, even though they may not meet again in awhle.

Much as we like to go back and forth to figure out who was right and who was wrong, Faye has got it right so far. She has first listened and then acknowledged Bubbles' legitimate reasons for feeling angry and upset.

If you take a moment's thought, then maybe you can empathise with both sides? We've already discussed Evie's background and why she may have been as thoughtless as she was. If you take a moment to consider Bubbles' background, I am confident it will occur to you why Bubbles did not feel free to be absolutely forthright in a conversation with a person she didn't know.

So, where to from here? Like the Hanners/Tilly situation, should Faye encourage Bubbles to express her discomfort more assertively next time? Should Faye have a word with her about what happened? Or something else?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jan 2018, 15:26
Kant is highly relevant here because another formulation of the categorical imperative is always to treat people as ends in themselves and not as means to an end.

Practicing that will save a scientist from letting professional detachment drift into horror.

Evie let herself treat Bubbles as an audience rather than as a person. That was avoidable.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 17:46
COMIC.

Here we go...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 31 Jan 2018, 17:48
U.S.S Faye Whitaker, oblivious to the point of clinical blindness, plows on like an icebreaker through a polar bear's back yard.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 31 Jan 2018, 18:06
U.S.S Faye Whitaker, oblivious to the point of clinical blindness, plows on like an icebreaker through a polar bear's back yard.

Speaking of shipping, Jeph has been teasing us for almost a month now. Goddamn man, either launch this ship or decommission it already! :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SPK on 31 Jan 2018, 18:07
It's a healthy thing to be able to vent, holding it in won't do any good.

That third panel is a look of sheer terror on her face, I adore it.

*goes to make popcorn for the next few strips*
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Zebediah on 31 Jan 2018, 18:10
Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: OldGoat on 31 Jan 2018, 18:26
What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.

"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about.  Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question  are examples of things that are not even wrong.

They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them.  If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong?  You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence.  It's not even wrong.

Wow. I'm a native English speaker and I had no idea what "That's... not even wrong" was supposed to mean. Despite feeling that there are so many things wrong with what was said that you can't address all of them, perhaps you could provide some specific examples of some of the things that are wrong with it? Because I for one don't see what the problem is.
It's no doubt it's an attempt by some American student of freshman French at revenge for passé simple.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Akima on 31 Jan 2018, 18:32
I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...
I think there is a difference between demanding clairvoyance, and expecting basic social toilet-training. I don't expect people to be clairvoyant about how I'm going to react, but I don't believe clairvoyance should be required to anticipate that saying, for example, "you can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies" would offend me. Comparing Bubbles's entire "species" to weapons of mass-destruction, is similar to regarding my entire people (I'm an ethnic Han (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese)) as part of the Yellow Peril (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril), an attitude still widespread today.

Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?
Because Bubbles is pining for Faye?  :claireface: (I know she isn't, exactly, but I could not resist the pun.)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SmilingCat on 31 Jan 2018, 18:44
Speaking of shipping, Jeph has been teasing us for almost a month now. Goddamn man, either launch this ship or decommission it already! :psyduck:

Just a month? Oh my sweet summer child...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 31 Jan 2018, 18:55
Fweeeeeeesnort ...

(Omg I am dying over here. Ze lafter, she hurtz!)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 19:00
Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?
Because Bubbles is pining for Faye?  :claireface: (I know she isn't, exactly, but I could not resist the pun.)

You're just saying that to needle us.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 31 Jan 2018, 19:04
Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?
Because Bubbles is pining for Faye?  :claireface: (I know she isn't, exactly, but I could not resist the pun.)

You're just saying that to needle us.

I think she's raised a fir point.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 19:06
You wood say that.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 31 Jan 2018, 19:16
Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?

Well the old scent of rusty metal, death and burnt popcorn was discontinued a while back.

You wood say that.

These puns don't really make a lot of scents.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 31 Jan 2018, 19:23
These puns don't really make a lot of scents.

Do they really leaf you feeling that stumped?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 31 Jan 2018, 19:24
That pun was oak-kay.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 31 Jan 2018, 19:30
I didn't come here for the puns, I camphor the scents.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2018, 19:33
Oh, this thread is getting poplar.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: St.Clair on 31 Jan 2018, 19:42
Bornyl acetate is used as a scent in air fresheners. Why would anyone put it in a coolant?

Serious, non-punny speculative answer:

Either to cover other, more disagreeable scents of the coolant compound(s), or to serve as a "marker" to indicate the recent release of said coolant.  See how mercaptin is added to normally odorless natural gas, so that everyone knows if there's a leak somewhere, or dye markers in various substances/applications.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 31 Jan 2018, 19:49
Hey, if you're going to vent in public, it would be nice if you were releasing pleasant odors... Most humans don't after all. This question seriously got Bubble hot under the collar, that's fir sure. And you know, it's abough time some  progress was made here. It was beginning to feel like an Ent was telling this tale.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 31 Jan 2018, 20:27
Oh, this thread is getting poplar.
That's your o-pinyon
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: DaiJB on 31 Jan 2018, 20:36
You know what? It's beginning to seem more and more (to me) that Faye simply hasn't ever even considered the possibility of Bubbles maybe wanting a girlfriend. It's just not on Faye's radar, you know? - Which makes me think that Faye's attitude towards Bubbles really might be as a "buddy", rather than anything romantic.

...And that could be good too! Friendship (without romance) can be just as deep and enduring as a romantic relationship. Possibly more so - there are few things that can be as transitory as the modern romance!   :roll:

I rather like the idea of Faye and Bubs being best buddies. Of course, there is the obvious problem - which is that Bubbles certainly seems attracted to Faye...

More drama will no doubt ensue!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 31 Jan 2018, 20:38
Tomorrow is Friday, so expect a cliffhanger tomorrow and a looooong weekend to wait.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Jan 2018, 20:40
Poor Bubbles. This must be pineful.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Wagimawr on 31 Jan 2018, 20:44
I have to admit, the turn of events in #3668 caught me by surprise.

I really expected that Bubbles would be thoroughly pissed off with Faye, not Evie. Faye behaved horribly towards Melon. It wasn't just the condescending tone and words (although the whole 'domesticated robo-dick' dialog *was* pretty funny), it was the way that Faye took advantage of Melon's naiveté and accepted $100 for telling her to get batteries.

I enjoy seeing people bang this drum when the story focus here is so clearly not even remotely on that Faye/Melon interaction.

'Twas a goof, y'all.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 31 Jan 2018, 20:46
Poor Bubbles. This must be pineful.
Hey look at it this way, she’s got 99 problems but a beech isn’t one of them.
.....
.....
I’ll leaf now.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Bad Superman on 31 Jan 2018, 21:00
That facial expression in panel 3… pure gold!    :-D
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: OldGoat on 31 Jan 2018, 21:10
That facial expression in panel 3… pure gold!    :-D
Seriously, it says so much without any text.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: brasca on 31 Jan 2018, 21:14
Someone is hot under the collar. 
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A Duck on 31 Jan 2018, 21:21
So... Friday is a "Steve-eating-cereal" day?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ElsaStegosaurus on 31 Jan 2018, 22:36
So... Friday is a "Steve-eating-cereal" day?

Plz be Tortura doing a reading of "Ze Little Girl Who Hid Ze Bodies" at a local library.

Plz.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: fayelovesbubbles on 31 Jan 2018, 22:56
I've said it before, Bubbles main problem is that she doesn't communicate how she feels. She remains quiet and quiet and quiet, until its too late and she vents. By which time, the person who could actually use the information, in this case, Evie, has already left.
That remains her biggest obstacle and she needs to learn how to talk to people.

And I am still waiting on my damn scones!

I think part of why I have a soft spot for Bubbles is because I'm the same way. I don't tell people I'm pissed off, I silently fume. I figure people should have enough sense not to treat me some crappy way, but go figure, they don't.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 31 Jan 2018, 23:09
If Faye doesn't realise something is up after panel 3, she actually has issues with perception that may be medical in nature! I'm thinking that, wanting to help her friend, she is going to rope all the rest of the cast into finding out who Bubbles fancies so they she can get them together. That becomes something of a trial for everyone because they all know that Bubbles is attracted to Faye, but Faye appears oblivious and no-one really wants to tell her when it would be better for her to find out for herself. A year's worth of romcom arcs follows whilst Faybles shippers slowly go mad with anticipation.

Poor Bubbles though! Am I the only one who noticed that the emergency coolant release in panel 5 only happened when Faye initiated physical contact on an already-flustered Bubbles? Poor thing! She's got to say something before she melts down!

Now, I'm thinking that Jeph basically has been waiting for an excuse to use this 'venting' joke for a while - The android equivalent of the fart jokes of days of yore.

Also... Does the scent of Bubbles's coolant mean that she's pineing for Faye? :wink: :lol:


[EDIT] - Just noticed that Akima ninja'd my pun by about six hours. Sorry about that. :-P
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: gopher on 31 Jan 2018, 23:49
No puns here, as for crumpets, try them with butter and a slice of good Cheddar.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Bad Superman on 01 Feb 2018, 00:21
50 creds say tomorrow Bubbles will – clumsily and shy – tell Faye that *IF* there would be someone she (Bubbles) is interested in, it'd be someone like her (Faye). Very, very much like her... The comic will end with Faye looking completely surprised and speechless, and we're left with a cliffhanger…
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: oeoek on 01 Feb 2018, 01:02
Like other noticed, again some great comic art in this one (panel 3 and 5 are just great). Somehow Jeph's art has taken another jump forward in the last few weeks.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: pwhodges on 01 Feb 2018, 01:51
Just a month? Oh my sweet summer child...

In comic time...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Skewbrow on 01 Feb 2018, 02:30
I've said it before, Bubbles main problem is that she doesn't communicate how she feels. She remains quiet and quiet and quiet, until its too late and she vents. By which time, the person who could actually use the information, in this case, Evie, has already left.
That remains her biggest obstacle and she needs to learn how to talk to people.

And I am still waiting on my damn scones!

Scones? Yes! For a longest time to me "scones" were a thing only enjoyed be characters in Agatha Christie mysteries. But, then came that night in Corcaigh. A friend and I came into our B&B (I guess it's needless to add it was pouring). The evening shift receptionist (or whatever) invited us to a side room for some tea and scones by the fireplace. That ... hit the spot.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 01 Feb 2018, 02:50
Poor Bubbles. This must be pineful.

I reed her reaction as a 'yes'.

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 01 Feb 2018, 02:58
It'll be a treet and a releaf to see Faye finally catching on.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 01 Feb 2018, 03:11

PLEASE stop these puns... in the name of all that's Holly...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TinPenguin on 01 Feb 2018, 03:35
Else you'll all be in for a tannin'.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 01 Feb 2018, 03:36
We're just pitching in on the discussion, is all.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Bollthorn on 01 Feb 2018, 03:59
Bubbles is just too adorable ^_^
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: blt on 01 Feb 2018, 04:32
Saying I like this arc would be redundant; I've opined about that enough
Title: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Zebediah on 01 Feb 2018, 06:04
Great. I make one simple comment that inadvertently sets off a pun war that lasts through the night and lumbers on into the next morning.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 01 Feb 2018, 06:17
Great. I make one simple comment that inadvertently sets off a pun war that lasts through the night and lumbers on into the next morning.

Yew didn't think it wood?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 Feb 2018, 06:20
Great. I make one simple comment that inadvertently sets off a pun war that lasts through the night and lumbers on into the next morning.

Hey, we didn't axe for this. Although I suppose we could kill the topic, but then we'd be left with a lot of deadwood.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Nycticoraci on 01 Feb 2018, 06:30
Good thing she didn't accidentally vent tear gas. Not that ex-military hardware should have any ordnance, but this is in a universe where a former missile sub retained launch codes.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: shanejayell on 01 Feb 2018, 07:08
Poor Bubbles.

GODS the PUNS!  :lol: :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: jeph on 01 Feb 2018, 07:19
Hey, if you're going to vent in public, it would be nice if you were releasing pleasant odors... Most humans don't after all. This question seriously got Bubble hot under the collar, that's fir sure. And you know, it's abough time some  progress was made here. It was beginning to feel like an Ent was telling this tale.

Don't be hasty!

Seriously though, I do hope there's some kind of resolution soon.

soon

hahahahah

hahahahahaahhahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaah
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TinPenguin on 01 Feb 2018, 07:27
I approve of the above maniacal laughter.

Wil and Penelope got a resolution, and Steve and Cosette, and Dale and Marigold, and look where that's got us.

I would much rather continue to see Faye and Bubbles interacting, than see them pushed into a pairing and bundled onto a bus.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 01 Feb 2018, 07:56
Wil and Penelope got a resolution, and Steve and Cosette, and Dale and Marigold, and look where that's got us.

I would much rather continue to see Faye and Bubbles interacting, than see them pushed into a pairing and bundled onto a bus.

Ah, but those were all heterosexual human couples, and pretty much any kind of drama you can get out of those is tired and cliched.

A romance Faye and Bubbles, on the other hand, would open the door to a whole new world of problems; coming to terms with one's own sexual identity, learning how consummating such a relationship works, facing bigotry from the outside world... Jeph has far more fuel to keep Faye and Bubbles' arcs going than he did with any of the human couples.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ckridge on 01 Feb 2018, 08:17
If Faye doesn't realise something is up after panel 3, she actually has issues with perception that may be medical in nature!

Faye does have psychological problems, and they make her selfish and obtuse much of the time. She is charming, vivacious, and sometimes sharply perceptive, but she is not the nicest person in the whole world. She wants continual company without physical intimacy and is careless about how she comes by it.  She kept Marten on a string for a long time. Now she has Bubbles with her almost 24/7 and has never once wondered what is up with this person sitting next to her bed all night every night. If she doesn't get a clue soon, she will be willfully ignoring what it would be inconvenient to know.

I like Bubbles a great deal, and the sheer panic on her face in panel 3 wrings my heart, but she, too, is going to have to step up soon. She must find the courage to speak her heart.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 01 Feb 2018, 08:20
Wil and Penelope got a resolution, and Steve and Cosette, and Dale and Marigold, and look where that's got us.

I would much rather continue to see Faye and Bubbles interacting, than see them pushed into a pairing and bundled onto a bus.

Ah, but those were all heterosexual human couples, and pretty much any kind of drama you can get out of those is tired and cliched.

A romance Faye and Bubbles, on the other hand, would open the door to a whole new world of problems; coming to terms with one's own sexual identity, learning how consummating such a relationship works, facing bigotry from the outside world... Jeph has far more fuel to keep Faye and Bubbles' arcs going than he did with any of the human couples.
I don't know: the consequences of Marten and Dora's break up were interesting, and although the immediate consequences of Faye and Angus's breakup were in themselves creaky, they have driven much of the story since then. (Faye -> support group; Faye -> robot fighting ring; Faye + Bubbles: the friendship; Faye + Bublles II: Uniom[sic] Robotics; Faye + Bubbles III: The coupling...)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 01 Feb 2018, 08:40
If Faye doesn't realise something is up after panel 3, she actually has issues with perception that may be medical in nature!

Faye does have psychological problems, and they make her selfish and obtuse much of the time. She is charming, vivacious, and sometimes sharply perceptive, but she is not the nicest person in the whole world. She wants continual company without physical intimacy and is careless about how she comes by it.  She kept Marten on a string for a long time. Now she has Bubbles with her almost 24/7 and has never once wondered what is up with this person sitting next to her bed all night every night. If she doesn't get a clue soon, she will be willfully ignoring what it would be inconvenient to know.

I like Bubbles a great deal, and the sheer panic on her face in panel 3 wrings my heart, but she, too, is going to have to step up soon. She must find the courage to speak her heart.

What's wrong with wanting "continual (sic) company without physical intimacy" - most people do, which leads most people to seek out contact with their friends and family. And in what way is Faye "careless about how she comes by it"?

And quite a lot of people don't need any psychological problems for their being selfish and obtuse. I'm sure you know.

And guess what: I've kept somebody on a string and I have been kept on a string - in fact, lots of people have made both experiences at some point in their lives. Both are actually pretty shitty experiences, in their own shitty ways. I don't think that either, or both define me as a human being (beyond the learning experience of looking to avoid them).
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Feb 2018, 09:37
Jeph did say once that Faye is fun to write but he probably wouldn't like her in real life.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ckridge on 01 Feb 2018, 09:45
There is nothing wrong with wanting continual company, but you have to be aware that it is unusual to get it from one person, and that if you do, they may want something more. That is where the part about being careless about how you get it becomes problematic. If they have no hope, you have to let them know.

Keeping people on a string when they know they have no hope is OK, I guess, but it makes my skin crawl a little. You are going to wind up feeding that admiration and longing to your ego, and that won't do anyone any good. Anything consensual is permissible, but not everything permissible is a good idea.

It's not just Faye though. Bubbles has to speak her heart.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 01 Feb 2018, 10:10
Okay...
Let's get personal...

During my last years in what you guys and gals and others would call "High School" (16-18yrs) I had a friend, a guy, and we basically began to spend every waking hour in each other's company. We had the same classes, we hung out at each other's parents (He actually lived with his grandmother, and she basically lived in one room, so..) neither of us were drinkers, and we both played badminton with a couple of female friends and went to the gym together.
We lived in each other's pockets for about 3 years.

When it came to the gym thing, I stopped going for 'power', over fitness.
He went for power and became a version of Bubbles.
We were pals...
Then, out of the blue, he and one of our female friends -  just before I got married  - went to France for a weekend.

When they came back, he cut virtually everyone, previously in his life, out of it.
I found out eventually through one of his cousins (who I was friendly with) that he had "turned gay."
She never quite *said* he had been upset at me about to get married, but the ocnversation circled that particular area...

Now (the terminology aside) I knew NOTHING about this. Had NO idea of his sexuality. (He hid it bloody well... but again, hindsight)

Looking back, maybe some of the signs were there... but, we were virtually living the same life.
So people might have said the same about me... "How couldn't I tell? Wasn't it obvious?"
To which I'd have to say *no* because we were involved in all the same things... But nothing was ever spoken of us in that fashion.
And his coming out was a massive shock to all.

However... If during a night of blethering and stuff he had suddenly turned to me and said... "I think I'm gay, and I'm actually quite attracted to you!"
I dunno if an 18yr old me could have handled that.

NB: Nothing whatsoever against LGBT (i was an actor for over 30 yrs! Hell, I've flirted with guys for shits and giggles and mutual laughter), I've had men approach me in theatre bars because , you know, it's a theatre bar.. I must be gay! And have never sent one off with anything other than! "Wow! I'm kinda flattered, but sorry, I'm not gay!"

But, for my closest friend to (possibly) have been harbouring these feelings... I would have questioned if that was the only reason we ever hung out at all.

So - *I* think that Bubbles is quite right to be uncertain about blurting anything out.
Faye has shown NO leanings towards anything other than hetro relationships in a sexual sense.
And MY fear is that Bubbles might say something... and I dunno what Faye's reaction might be.
(But then, Faye's older than 18, and we're not in the early 80s!)

My other fear is that Bubble takes my friend's route, and decides that this change is too much for them to share with their closest friends and family.
(Not that Bubbles has too many of them) and decides it would be for the best to remove herself from that situation.

... does that make sense? I dunno it's been a long day.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 01 Feb 2018, 10:21
There is nothing wrong with wanting continual company, but you have to be aware that it is unusual to get it from one person, and that if you do, they may want something more. That is where the part about being careless about how you get it becomes problematic. If they have no hope, you have to let them know.

Keeping people on a string when they know they have no hope is OK, I guess, but it makes my skin crawl a little. You are going to wind up feeding that admiration and longing to your ego, and that won't do anyone any good. Anything consensual is permissible, but not everything permissible is a good idea.

It's not just Faye though. Bubbles has to speak her heart.

Hmmmh - This is oddly specific. People could be undecided about their feelings, feel that the other is progressing too fast, feel they're not ready (yet), hundreds of thousands of reasons. Humans are allowed to change their minds & hearts, or to be wrong about them. Tricky things, hearts & minds. And they always, under all circumstances, decide about their time, company and body alone. They. Alone. Nobody else.

And who said anything about keeping close company and bathing in the glory of your friend's pain? What kind of sick fantasy is that?  Some people just carry on being friends, others play it a little slower for a while to give themselves time to decompress (I often feel the need) - and yet others invent idiotic 'rules' to justify resenting their alleged friend that they allegedly 'fell in love with' for making an autonomous decision about their time, mind and body - it's called The Church of the Nice GuyTM, and it's a place that nobody past their puberty has a good excuse spending any length of time in.

P.S.: Knowing someone wants more than you are sure you can give, or want to give to them, and not knowing which way to jump, and knowing that every day you try to make up your mind hurts them? Feels shite. Fucking up is bad enough when you pay the bill. Fucking up and knowing another gets the pain while you 'go free' - that doesn't feel good. It certainly didn't feed my ego and didn't make me feel admired. What you're talking about is not ordinary people making ordinary, stupid mistakes that hurt others - that's malignant Narcissism. If that's how you believe you would feel in that situation ... stay the fuck away from me. If you know somebody who feels like that in that situation: Get the fuck out of Dodge, yesterday, or be glad you got away if you did already - people like that certainly don't give a hoot about your 'rules'.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: osaka on 01 Feb 2018, 10:29
Why is it that all I can think of right now is The Last Smashtion.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TinPenguin on 01 Feb 2018, 10:34
Joe, thank you for that personal anecdote. I think the situation indeed bears a lot of similarity to Faye and Bubbles. And it's a good demonstration of why sometimes, in a situation where feelings aren't likely to be reciprocated, it doesn't seem like there are any options that end well. Bubbles is definitely caught between wanting to say something and not daring to speak.

My other fear is that Bubble takes my friend's route, and decides that this change is too much for them to share with their closest friends and family.
(Not that Bubbles has too many of them) and decides it would be for the best to remove herself from that situation.

This would be heartbreakingly in character for Bubbles, but also derail so much of the progress that's she's made. Which is something that hits home for me too.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 01 Feb 2018, 11:11
Okay...
Let's get personal...

When I heard shortly after Gymnasium (about '94, 20ish) that one of my classmates/acquaintances had come out, I also had an "Oh? Oooooh!"-moment. The early 90s were probably a lot more relaxed than the 80s, but I guess LGBT-people were still playing it fairly safe (otoh, I'm not exactly Mr. Observant even at 44, so ymmv).
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ckridge on 01 Feb 2018, 11:46
First off, yes, it totally makes sense.

However... If during a night of blethering and stuff he had suddenly turned to me and said... "I think I'm gay, and I'm actually quite attracted to you!"
I dunno if an 18yr old me could have handled that.

The obvious response here is that Faye is a grown woman, and that Bubbles has options other than blurting out her feelings suddenly. Bubbles is a very controlled, precise speaker, and she could figure out just how and when she wanted to have the conversation, and just how she wanted to state her case.

That said, it is the sort of task one would want to think about carefully for a long time beforehand, and that would be catastrophic to do wrong. I still think that if Bubbles doesn't do it she will be succumbing to fear in a way that she will regret for the rest of her life, and denying Faye a chance to make a choice that might turn out well for her. Your post, though, makes me realize how fraught her situation is. She has to say it just right, at the right time, even though she will be scared to death about what the answer might be.

The other thing that you have brought to mind is that the very same damage that makes Faye something of a self-centered lout makes her fragile. She really could use someone to stick around for a while. It would be bad if Bubbles were to get sad and go away. It would be disastrous if she tried to love Bubbles without any heat behind it, just to keep Bubbles from being sad and going away.

Jeph has a really good story going here.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ckridge on 01 Feb 2018, 12:21
Hmmmh - This is oddly specific. People could be undecided about their feelings, feel that the other is progressing too fast, feel they're not ready (yet), hundreds of thousands of reasons. Humans are allowed to change their minds & hearts, or to be wrong about them. Tricky things, hearts & minds. And they always, under all circumstances, decide about their time, company and body alone. They. Alone. Nobody else.

And who said anything about keeping close company and bathing in the glory of your friend's pain? What kind of sick fantasy is that?  Some people just carry on being friends, others play it a little slower for a while to give themselves time to decompress (I often feel the need) - and yet others invent idiotic 'rules' to justify resenting their alleged friend that they allegedly 'fell in love with' for making an autonomous decision about their time, mind and body - it's called The Church of the Nice GuyTM, and it's a place that nobody past their puberty has a good excuse spending any length of time in.

P.S.: Knowing someone wants more than you are sure you can give, or want to give to them, and not knowing which way to jump, and knowing that every day you try to make up your mind hurts them? Feels shite. Fucking up is bad enough when you pay the bill. Fucking up and knowing another gets the pain while you 'go free' - that doesn't feel good. It certainly didn't feed my ego and didn't make me feel admired. What you're talking about is not ordinary people making ordinary, stupid mistakes that hurt others - that's malignant Narcissism. If that's how you believe you would feel in that situation ... stay the fuck away from me. If you know somebody who feels like that in that situation: Get the fuck out of Dodge, yesterday, or be glad you got away if you did already - people like that certainly don't give a hoot about your 'rules'.

I am not sure what you mean by "specific," but gather that you think I am laying down moral rules where none can exist. It seems to me that the rule that if you know someone wants you to love them, then you should if possible say whether you can or not, is part of a more general rule that if you know something that someone needs to know, and there is no pressing moral reason not to tell them, you should tell them.

As to feeding on admiration and longing, one can do it while feeling pain for the other's suffering and guilt for causing it. People have layers, and most of them are not conscious. The unconscious parts can be happily soaking up admiration while the conscious parts deplore any such impulse. This is not pathological, only human. It is permissible if the other person knows the situation, but I would neither do it nor suffer it.

[An afterthought: being new to the forum and somewhat addlepated besides, I did not realize that the you were the same person in your first and second responses, and therefore that you were the person who had mentioned that you had both been kept on a string and kept someone on a string. Therefore, I did not realize that my comment about garnering admiration from someone kept on a string might sound like a personal slight. I intended no personal slight, only to note what I take to be a universal human tendency. I am sorry for my clumsiness.]
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: UmberGryphon on 01 Feb 2018, 12:38
No one's commented on "asbtract" instead of "abstract"?  Did Jeph typo, or is Bubbles tripping over her own tongue?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 01 Feb 2018, 13:07
Quick question though; does this mean Faybles would be a steam ship? If ever it gets launched, that is.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Roborat on 01 Feb 2018, 13:42
Oh my, Bubbles is so very cute in this page, I love it, nice work on the expressions.  Good thing she vents there and not somewhere else  :-D.  And please stop with the puns, I can't take any more, leaf it alone already. 

I am wondering how this will resolve, will Faye finally put things together, or will Bubbles finally put on her big girl pants and deploy the clue bat?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tormuse on 01 Feb 2018, 14:02
Whoa, Faye, whoa!  I was not prepared for that level of bluntness!   :-o  Still, I'm eager to see where this goes;  maybe it will finally spur some development in their relationship.

Also, I'd like to log a complaint about all the puns in this thread.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Feb 2018, 14:15
Faye, by her own standards, considered herself to have been unfair to Marten in how she treated him in the first 500 strips.

How will that memory affect her reaction if she finds out Bubbles has been admiring her? The situations are different but some emotions might be the same.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ckridge on 01 Feb 2018, 15:24
How will that memory affect her reaction if she finds out Bubbles has been admiring her? The situations are different but some emotions might be the same.

That is quite the question. I could see her going anywhere from "I am not going to fuck it up this time" determination to "I just can't do this" despair. She is remarkably opaque considering that she is pretty much the central character now.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 01 Feb 2018, 18:02
Hey, if you're going to vent in public, it would be nice if you were releasing pleasant odors...

Benjamin Franklin wrote an essay about this very topic. (see 'Fart Proudly')
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Feb 2018, 19:16
I thought about whether I could stop the puns but got stumped.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: OldGoat on 01 Feb 2018, 19:21
Someone needs to root this pun business out, it's getting sappy.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Phoenixette on 01 Feb 2018, 19:44
It's interesting to see just how varied the reads on Fayes emotions in this arc are. From my personal experience she reads as clearly attracted to Bubbles but oblivious, shes acting exactly like I have in the past, first with my inability to recognize my own attraction to women because I had believed myself straight, then with my PTSD making it difficult for me to admit to myself just how deeply and romantically I cared about my current partner before we started dating. I had practically the same conversation Evie and Faye has at dinner with my therapist about it. But I totally see how someone elses experience would show it in the complete opposite light, its just really interesting.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 01 Feb 2018, 20:18
Oh man, tonight's comic is taking a lot longer to come out than the rest of this week's. Maybe Jeph wants to make sure that this page is perfect when it's published? Which means that this page deserves the extra care?? Which means that something big is about to happen?! OKAY STAY CALM EVERYONE!! I SAID STAY FUCKING CALM!!!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 01 Feb 2018, 20:30
Or y'know.. He's just tormenting us because he knows people are hitting F5 on his page about this time.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 01 Feb 2018, 20:31
I'M NOT PANICKING YOU'RE PANICKING!!!!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 Feb 2018, 21:28
Little known fact, today is the start of Jeph's three month vacation exploring the wilder places of Canada.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 01 Feb 2018, 21:51
Someone needs to root this pun business out, it's getting sappy.

Let's be resinable: before we go on a punitive expedition, I suggest some verbal sparring. It wood get it out of our system. Then again, it just might lead us to branch out to other kinds of puns.

Oh, and the comic's up!

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 01 Feb 2018, 21:59
Bubbles' comment reminds me of Schlock Mercenary, specifically Maxim Number 5 of The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries: "Close air support and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart ."
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 01 Feb 2018, 22:03
To be honest, with Faye, though well intended, friendly fire does seem the more likely option.

Then again, perhaps a little more fire from that quarter could fan that contentment into happiness.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 01 Feb 2018, 22:50
Aaaand another resolution tease shot down. The status quo continues ever onward. *headdesk*
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 01 Feb 2018, 22:59
Aaaand another resolution tease shot down. The status quo continues ever onward. *headdesk*

I am angry and sleep deprived and have many nasty things I wish to say to Jeph but won't because I am incapable of forming coherent thoughts anymore.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Feb 2018, 22:59
Quote from: Phoenixette
From my personal experience she reads as clearly attracted to Bubbles but oblivious

Welcome, new person!

That is one of the interpretations that fits.

I notice you went for "clearly attracted" where it looked ambiguous to me. Do you figure that the booty admiration is conclusive?

After that dinner with Amanda and Evie "oblivious" is established fact.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Wagimawr on 01 Feb 2018, 23:01
Aaaand another resolution tease shot down. The status quo continues ever onward. *headdesk*

To be fair, we were warned.  :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 01 Feb 2018, 23:16
One thing that this week's comics has reminded me is how good Jeph has got at presenting a lot of subtle meaning in expression and body language. I particularly like how he's done Bubbles's reactions. It is frustrating that Faye doesn't seem to be able to interpret them but I am suddenly caused to remember the old phrase about: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Y'see, like Bubbles, I think that Faye is content with the way things are. Because of that, she subconsciously has chosen not to think about these things.

That said, Faye's expression in panel 3 doesn't convince me that she's 'content' with the current state of affairs. I'm sticking with my prediction that she's going to rope Marten and the others into trying to find who it is Bubbles is attracted to and get them together. A lot of extremely painful romantic comedy arcs are awaiting us here, people!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 02 Feb 2018, 00:41
Ok, that's the point where the stretching goes too far to my liking. Bubbles chooses to let things like they are, and Faye is still completly oblivious, to the point it's not realistic anymore. That arc will obviously become some kind of running-gag, at that point, with hints from reality to Faye every now and then, which she will, of course, not understand. I don't think I will care for it much longer...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: gopher on 02 Feb 2018, 00:58
Sometimes I worry that QC will suffer the same fate as Friednds. Starts off as a story about people finding their place and way in the world, ends with people being coupled off and dull.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 02 Feb 2018, 01:17
FWIW, the key is to determine when the characters' story has ended and you don't need to spend time focussing on them anymore. The fate of Marten and Dora in terms of being protagonists indicates that Jeph does understand this distinction.

In the meantime, there are many other stories and different characters on which Jeph can focus. There's Hannelore's search for self-knowledge, Emily's attempts to navigate this alien world in which everyone else lives so effortlessly, Elliott's attempt to overcome his enormous anxiety issues to approach Clinton on Brun (or both) and, potentially, Sam's experience of the strangest and most terrifying journey anyone can go through: The journey to adulthood and adult identity.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 02 Feb 2018, 01:43
That said, Faye's expression in panel 3 doesn't convince me that she's 'content' with the current state of affairs.

I think she is genuinely content. Maybe not delighted. But quite content.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 02 Feb 2018, 01:53
Sometimes I worry that QC will suffer the same fate as Friednds. Starts off as a story about people finding their place and way in the world, ends with people being coupled off and dull.

I understand what you mean. But that story arc is going on for months, now. And JJ is actually avoiding any kind of climax since last november. So now, it will just go on like that for the foreseeable future. And that's infuriating. The only suspens left is: will they beat the bush forever? Make SOMETHING happen, already!!!!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 02 Feb 2018, 02:16
Ah, the perils of shipping.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 02 Feb 2018, 02:22
Ah, the perils of shipping.

No.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 02 Feb 2018, 02:46
Ah, the perils of shipping.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-UP!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 02 Feb 2018, 03:00
Perils of obsessing over shipping-inducement strategies (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillTheyOrWontThey)?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 02 Feb 2018, 03:02

To those feeling in some way let down today...

Life is like this... quite often.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Zebediah on 02 Feb 2018, 03:30
Anyone here remember how long Jeph teased us with Marten &amp; Claire before it finally happened?

And then when it did happen people complained that they were boring.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ChipNoir on 02 Feb 2018, 04:04
*Calmly walks over to window*
...
*Carefully opens window*
...
*Punches out the bug screen.*
...
*Shoves head out the window*


NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 02 Feb 2018, 04:12
I think there *is* a resolution here, of a sort.

Wow, that's a lot of pitchforks. Just, hear me out for a second.

So, before this week we had a whole bundle of hints that launched a thousand ships. It got to the point that even a stuffed Marmoset could see that Bubbles had *some* kind of feelings for Faye, but nothing concrete about what either of them actually wanted. What this arc has drawn out is that both characters deeply appreciate the relationship as it is now, and are, as the comic says content with that stability after what has been for both of them a long period of turmoil. Things aren't perfect, but Bubbles at least has a picture of what a life she wants would look like, one that she can see herself living. Given everything she's been through, that's pretty huge. The arc has also established that Faye is deeply invested in this relationship, to the point where she's willing to examine her own default positions (casual threats of violence and flippant sarcasm) and change them when that's what the person she's with needs (I'm not saying that Faye's character traits were wrong in themselves, they're just not what Bubbles needs at this point).
So the emotional pay off for the reader is seeing Bubbles and Faye stable and content.

Here's the thing though. 'Content' is not the same thing as 'happy'. Bubbles is 'content' with the status quo, but we know also she isn't happy with it- she wants more from Faye. There's still a tension in the relationship that will need resolving eventually, either with Bubbles 'fessing up to Faye or if Bubbles meets someone else who she finds attractive- in which case it's Faye who's going to have to do some soul searching.

But the point the arc has made is that that's not something the characters need to do *right now*. They have a really close friendship, and that's new and special for them both. It's good to see.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 02 Feb 2018, 05:02
Perils of obsessing over shipping-inducement strategies (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillTheyOrWontThey)?

You are mistaking the will to ship with growing boredom, and anger when I see a narrative arc ruined by the will to stretch it beyond its breaking point.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 02 Feb 2018, 05:06

To those feeling in some way let down today...

Life is like this... quite often.

Maybe that's the point? Maybe the comic is coming too close to reality to stay really enjoyable?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ChipNoir on 02 Feb 2018, 05:08
I think the "Kiss of Death" curse wouldn't really apply here. A normal couple has been done to death. Even LGBT relationships are pretty familiar to those with the willingness to enjoy them.

An AI and Human relationship would offer a lot to explore. Jeph as clearly thought long and hard about Ai's and we've only scratched the surface of what their lives are like. To see this new horizon would be a year's worth of material, and I JUST WANT TO GET THERE ALREADY DAMNIT.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Feb 2018, 06:35
There could be a whole arc just on the reaction of Faye's mother, who wants with all her soul for her eldest daughter to be safe and happy, but who has some traditional ideas about relationships. And who did not grow up with synthetic citizens.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 02 Feb 2018, 06:45

To those feeling in some way let down today...

Life is like this... quite often.

Maybe that's the point? Maybe the comic is coming too close to reality to stay really enjoyable?

If reality isn't enjoyable to you, maybe that's not Jeph's fault?

P.S.: It's a 'slice of life webcomic'. We can't really claim fraudulent labelling.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 02 Feb 2018, 06:53
Ah, the perils of shipping.

If taken too far, Wolfgang Peterson gets involved?

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ckridge on 02 Feb 2018, 06:58
Bubbles is avoiding eye contact so as not to show her feelings. That is a poor way to live with a friend.

Bubbles is visibly physically aware of Faye's proximity all the time, and visibly moved every time Faye touches her. Faye, by contrast, handles Bubbles with the easy familiarity with which one would handle a beloved dog. I don't remember Faye ever being this physically familiar with anyone before, male or female, not even with Angus. It looks like Bubbles not only doesn't register as a possible object of desire for Faye, Bubbles doesn't even register as human for her. Bubbles has gotten all the way inside Faye's defenses precisely because she does not register as a possible lover, and thus as a possible danger.

This could all go very badly. Any responsible adult can live with someone they love who doesn't love them. You wall the love up, starve it to death, and get into the habit of ignoring its ghost. Doing that when the person you loved had their hands all over you all the time would be hard though. Maybe someone could manage it. 

Faye could be terrified if she finds out that this person who she has let so far into her life is also a potential lover, and thus also someone who could potentially abandon her. It could feel like seeing soldiers coming out of the Trojan horse.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 02 Feb 2018, 07:06
Quick question though; does this mean Faybles would be a steam ship? If ever it gets launched, that is.

If it were a 'steam ship', it'd probably look something like this:

(https://orig00.deviantart.net/dacb/f/2014/129/3/0/hms_dreadnought_in_color__fixed__by_pudgemountain-d6tf4s1.png)


Tangent: IIRC, all US super-carriers use steam-turbines for propulsion, just like the above HMS Dreadnought. Difference is the heat-source used to generate steam.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 02 Feb 2018, 07:10
I do believe that the turbines provide electricity to electric engines, rather than power a steam engine.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: shanejayell on 02 Feb 2018, 07:20
Well, I was not expecting a resolution. Was cute tho.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Case on 02 Feb 2018, 07:22
I do believe that the turbines provide electricity to electric engines, rather than power a steam engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#Propulsion

I could be wrong, but I don't think so - energy conversion  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transformation)methods are typically way below 100% efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency) (except for those that convert into thermal energy, but not vice versa), so to convert thermal energy first into mechanical energy, that, in turn, into some other form of energy, only to then convert that form again into the form you actually want (mechanical energy) literally means wasting energy - you'd only do that if there's other pressing design concerns (storage, safety, whatever).

That doesn't mean that a small fraction of the mechanical kinetic energy generated by the steam turbines cannot be bled off & fed into a dynamo - your car does just that to power its onboard electrical systems.



Edit: Some modern nuclear submarines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion) apparently do exactly what you proposed - though in submarines, noise generation is a vital design concern and has been at least since WW-II. A loud sub is a dead sub. Carrier Battle groups, otoh, are pretty hard to hide from anyone to begin with, even at the best of times.

ZoeB should be able to provide a reality-check to my ramblings.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 02 Feb 2018, 07:53
You are right, my mistake. But then, I'm more familiar with civilian systems and only as am amateur at that.

It would surprise me greatly if there were no way of generating electricity on board. There's probably a shaft generator on there as well.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: traroth on 02 Feb 2018, 07:56

To those feeling in some way let down today...

Life is like this... quite often.

Maybe that's the point? Maybe the comic is coming too close to reality to stay really enjoyable?

If reality isn't enjoyable to you, maybe that's not Jeph's fault?

P.S.: It's a 'slice of life webcomic'. We can't really claim fraudulent labelling.

Please stop twisting what I'm saying.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: War Sparrow on 02 Feb 2018, 08:00
QC forums: Come for the shipping, stay for the (battle) ships.

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 02 Feb 2018, 08:18
QC Forums, come for the battleships, stay for the ship sinking. Then watch the forum burn. From a safe distance. Like Mars. Or GN-z11...
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 02 Feb 2018, 08:21

To those feeling in some way let down today...

Life is like this... quite often.

Maybe that's the point? Maybe the comic is coming too close to reality to stay really enjoyable?

I guess it depends what you are looking for?
I actually like the way this comic plays out, and think Bubbles is one of *the* best written web-comic characters I've read.
And, other than the 'Tilly Incident' (and, I must say... Claire) I generally have nothing but praise for Jeph's work.

And QC, as a whole... well... it kinda is real-life-esque...

... but with slightly more yuks...

...and ROBOTS!!!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Morituri on 02 Feb 2018, 09:51
I'm not seeing Jeph avoiding anything.  I have no idea why any of you think that this has to resolve into a romance on some schedule.  You don't even know what story is being told.  This is not some kid's fairytale that the kid has heard a thousand times before and loves and wants to hear again, this is all new. 

For all you know, this might in fact be a story of years of UST and how Bubbles' character changes as she silently suffers through Faye's relationships with less-than-satisfactory boyfriends.  In comic time three or four years, that could take us a couple of decades.

So relax and enjoy your popcorn.  Let the movie play to find out what it's about.

Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: dutchrvl on 02 Feb 2018, 10:16
It's probably because I haven't been shipping them, but I for one am quite happy with how the storyline is being handled.

In a way today's comic is some kind of resolution (for now, at least).
I've almost always been impressed with JJ's writing, and I have to say that the current storyline really IS slice of life and very realistic in how it's handled. The obliviousness of 1 person, the silent resignation of another to not actively pursue a relationship due to believing it can't go anywhere, honestly how close to real life can you get?

I guess I really disagree with @Traroth on that point; how they both currently are handling things to me is not stretching things at all and actually rather realistic.

As far as Faye's feelings go, I still haven't seen any real indication that she has romantic feelings for the other sex (or in this case, a female-identifying AI). Sure, she has very strong feelings about Bubbles. But, personally, I have also had very strong feelings towards some of my male friends, but they have always been of a very close male-male bond, not romantic. That's where I currently judge Faye's feelings to be at.



Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ImVeryAngryItsNotButter on 02 Feb 2018, 10:42
You are mistaking the will to ship with growing boredom, and anger when I see a narrative arc ruined by the will to stretch it beyond its breaking point.

This. My sentiments exactly. I would much rather see a hard definitive "no" to the question of "do Faye and Bubbles want a romantic relationship", than have Faye continue to be a completely oblivious fucking moron and Bubbles keep chickening out every time the issue comes up. It's not funny anymore; it's just frustrating to watch two characters I otherwise love play Idiot Ball with each other.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: brasca on 02 Feb 2018, 10:47
Wonder if Faye will mistakenly try to match up Bubbles with Punchbot now.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: SpanielBear on 02 Feb 2018, 10:50

This. My sentiments exactly. I would much rather see a hard definitive "no" to the question of "do Faye and Bubbles want a romantic relationship", than have Faye continue to be a completely oblivious fucking moron and Bubbles keep chickening out every time the issue comes up. It's not funny anymore; it's just frustrating to watch two characters I otherwise love play Idiot Ball with each other.

It's not Idiot Ball. Given the two character's psyches, it's more like porcupines mating in a burning fire-works factory: dangerous, messy, someone's gonna to get hurt and "Are you sure you want to do this???".

Caution is to be expected.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: fayelovesbubbles on 02 Feb 2018, 14:38
Bubbles is avoiding eye contact so as not to show her feelings. That is a poor way to live with a friend.

Bubbles is visibly physically aware of Faye's proximity all the time, and visibly moved every time Faye touches her. Faye, by contrast, handles Bubbles with the easy familiarity with which one would handle a beloved dog. I don't remember Faye ever being this physically familiar with anyone before, male or female, not even with Angus. It looks like Bubbles not only doesn't register as a possible object of desire for Faye, Bubbles doesn't even register as human for her. Bubbles has gotten all the way inside Faye's defenses precisely because she does not register as a possible lover, and thus as a possible danger.

This could all go very badly. Any responsible adult can live with someone they love who doesn't love them. You wall the love up, starve it to death, and get into the habit of ignoring its ghost. Doing that when the person you loved had their hands all over you all the time would be hard though. Maybe someone could manage it. 

Faye could be terrified if she finds out that this person who she has let so far into her life is also a potential lover, and thus also someone who could potentially abandon her. It could feel like seeing soldiers coming out of the Trojan horse.


Uhhh, I'm gonna say this is more because Bubbles is a girl than because she's an AI. How many really close female friends has Faye honestly had in this comic? Maybe Bubbles is the first one. That serves to explain why she's so familiar with Bubbles. I wouldn't at all compare it to cuddling a dog. I don't think women in general register for Faye as potential lovers.

Faye interacts with Bubbles in very intimate ways. Maybe not romantically intimate, but intimate. Faye touches Bubbles a lot, is aware of her moods, and so on. And all of those things make a good girlfriend, but they also make a good friend.

Ah, crap. I guess Dora counts. Still, the fact that Faye felt comfortable cuddling with Bubbles and not with Dora may have nothing to do with Bubbles being an AI.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Feb 2018, 14:53
As Jeph has fleshed out (no pun intended) the place of synthetics in the QC world, one glaring open area for him to explore is organic/synthetic LTRs. Long ago he said he was avoiding anything that could lead to "HURR HURR ROBOT SEX", but he can soft-pedal the physical side as he has done before.

It doesn't have to be Faye and Bubbles and in fact might be better with different characters. It doesn't even have to be anyone we know. It could be a Union Robotics customer who casually mentions being in a mixed marriage, or someone Evie interviews for her dissertation.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 02 Feb 2018, 15:27
We are seeing an intimate AI/human relationship.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 02 Feb 2018, 17:16
We are seeing an intimate AI/human relationship.

Indeed. Faye and Bubbles have an incredibly close relationship. Its just not romantic (as much as one of them might like it to be).
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Jeemy on 02 Feb 2018, 17:38
Personally, I think its quite enjoyable. Thats why I read. I hope for more exposition, so I come to these forums. Sometimes I wonder if others are enjoying what they see and read, or using the comic as a springboard to discuss other issues - which is fine - but I still enjoy:

- the comic, for what it is;
- the delays/cliffhangers, for what they are; and
- the issues raised.

As an ignoramus to these facets of life, where I know the author is not, what I see is that Bubbles faces two issues that dare not speak their names:

- an AI/human relationship; and
- a homosexual relationship (is that right? a girl-girl relationship?).

For an AI warbot, its no wonder she is blushing. These are complex issues. Who knows how far her <programming/why> goes. Its really fucking complex for her. Maybe the fact Faye is the same sex doesn't even figure amongst other, more micro-chippy issues?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Feb 2018, 18:57
Just a month? Oh my sweet summer child...

In comic time...

Which will be... what? 2020? Where's AprilArcus when you need her?
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: ckridge on 02 Feb 2018, 19:23
I guess Dora counts. Still, the fact that Faye felt comfortable cuddling with Bubbles and not with Dora may have nothing to do with Bubbles being an AI.

I seem to recall Dora putting her hands on Faye a lot, sometimes flirtatiously, and Faye not reciprocating, but looking mildly uncomfortable instead. Faye likes the little girl, Sam I think her name is, a good deal, but no contact there, either. She is standoffish with everyone she likes except Bubbles. She was even standoffish with the two guys she was sleeping with except for the sleeping with them part.

You are right though that Bubbles being an AI may not be the reason she is an exception. 

Faye may put her hands on Bubbles, not because Bubbles is an AI and therefore presumed safe, but rather because Faye is still actively working on opening her up, winning her trust, and drawing her out. If so, things might still go very badly, but they might also go well. Deciding that someone is your big safe friend machine is static. The longer you think of them that way, the easier it gets to keep thinking of them that way. Working on getting someone to like and trust you more and more is dynamic. The more you succeed in getting them to like and trust you, the more likely you are to like and trust them. Ever-growing trust and affection do not necessarily kindle into anything more, but they are more likely to do so than static trust and affection. 
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Sullivan on 02 Feb 2018, 22:59
Ok, that's the point where the stretching goes too far to my liking. Bubbles chooses to let things like they are, and Faye is still completly oblivious, to the point it's not realistic anymore.
I don't see this at all. I've been that oblivious to interest in me. Similarly for many people I know.

(Of course, I and all of those others are all losers and nerds. :) )

Seriously - it's indeed possible to be pretty oblivious to That Kind Of Attention. Especially if you believe you're not worthy of it, it'll never happen for you,  they couldn't possibly be interested in you, or etc.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Cornelius on 03 Feb 2018, 05:57
Having been on both sides of that situation, I can confirm that it is indeed far from unlikely.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Mr. Skawronska on 03 Feb 2018, 06:41
"If your love life requires close air support, something has gone very wrong."

Best.  Relationship.  Line.  Ever.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: shanejayell on 03 Feb 2018, 06:49
Ok, that's the point where the stretching goes too far to my liking. Bubbles chooses to let things like they are, and Faye is still completly oblivious, to the point it's not realistic anymore.
I don't see this at all. I've been that oblivious to interest in me. Similarly for many people I know.

(Of course, I and all of those others are all losers and nerds. :) )

Seriously - it's indeed possible to be pretty oblivious to That Kind Of Attention. Especially if you believe you're not worthy of it, it'll never happen for you,  they couldn't possibly be interested in you, or etc.

And Faye is a recovering alcoholic too. So, low self esteem is pretty likely.

(We really should see her visiting her therapist again, maybe...)
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Loki on 03 Feb 2018, 22:49
This last comic brought me out of the woods to say that I, too, am joining the "just get over with it" crowd.

Use your words, Bubbles!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 04 Feb 2018, 00:43
I'm not convinced that Bubbles "using her words" right now would be a great move, regardless of what kind of relationship you would like to see them have. It would almost certainly freak Faye out.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: BenRG on 04 Feb 2018, 14:17
Poll Results Post!
What will Faye say next to Bubbles?

1. "Bubbles? Bubbles, are... Are you lonely?" - 12 (21.8%)
2. "What did you say to Evie? She was really quizzing me on you!" - 9 (16.4%)
3. Other (please specify in a comment) - 7 (12.7%)
=4. "My sister is crazy! She thinks you want romance in your life!" - 6 (10.9%)
=4. "Um... Do... Do you want a boyfriend? I mean, I want you to know I'm cool with it if you do!" - 6 (10.9%)
=4. "So... Uh... Speakin' hypothetically, how does an AI go about gettin' a significant other?" - 6 (10.9%)
7. "My baby sis in a serious relationship! Everyone is pairing up except me! Oh Bubs! Will I ever get lucky?" - 4 (7.3%)
8. "So, I'm hearing that you want some robo-lovin'!" - 3 (5.5%)
=9, "So... I hear you guys can download pleasure programs! You got any of those installed?" - 1 (1.8%)
=9. "Imagine if the Skate Park was a Robot Sex Dungeon! What would have we done then?" - 1 (1.8%)

Here's an interesting note: The winning entry was more-or-less correct and most people who voted for it did so before it was seen in the strip. Obviously we forumites know the real Faye quite well! This is also the strongest showing for 'Other' that I've ever seen. So, we also clearly have strong ideas of our own on the subject!
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Tova on 04 Feb 2018, 14:29
Not forgetting, of course, that there was a strong "other" vote for her very first question (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3667). So we picked question #1 and question #2.
Title: Re: WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Post by: Gyrre on 10 Feb 2018, 19:12
Not forgetting, of course, that there was a strong "other" vote for her very first question (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3667). So we picked question #1 and question #2.
I like how expressive Bubbles is in panels 3 and 4.