Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Gyrre on 31 Jan 2021, 15:13

Title: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 31 Jan 2021, 15:13
IDK it's the only poll I could think of tied to the comic atm.

Anyways.......
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 31 Jan 2021, 15:26
(https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/iris-400x400.jpg) (https://www.bioscripts.net/Mantodea/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/iris-oratoria-color-alas-no-tegmina-marcelo-4567.jpg)

EDIT: Too much useless trivia knowledge.
I was going to make a crack about her wearing rainbow underwear as a reference to the Greek goddess or rainbows, Iris (also called Iridion), but that seems like it'd be a really weird poll option. Even for me.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 31 Jan 2021, 18:21
Comic's up.

Willow looked like she was about to burst into song on panel 2. She almost had love hearts in her eyes.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: shanejayell on 31 Jan 2021, 18:27
I sorta agree with the one poster that Willow is kinda a author NPC pushing the plot along.

But eh. *shrug*

Re, the poll: Dude, are you okay? Really?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: SmilingCat on 31 Jan 2021, 18:30
I... I feel like Willow is using the phrase "toxic masculinity" wrong.

Like, Clinton suddenly having to come to terms with liking a guy for the first time is him learning something new about himself and still needing to figure out what that means, not an example of toxic behavior brought on by an unrealistic ideal of masculinity.

He's not lashing out at people because he thinks "(insert derogatory term for LGBT here)" makes him less of a man. It's more like. "Oh, so this is something new that I don't have a frame of reference to process". That's not toxic masculinity, that's friggin growing up.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 31 Jan 2021, 18:48
I agree that toxic masculinity doesn't really have much to do with figuring out your sexuality, but I don't think that's what Willow meant. I thought she was connecting toxic masculinity with a lack of self-acceptance and freedom in general, which in my experience is absolutely true.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: mneme on 31 Jan 2021, 19:00
Yay, new friend! (No, not you, spookybot/Yay Newfriend)
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 31 Jan 2021, 19:09
I sorta agree with the one poster that Willow is kinda a author NPC pushing the plot along.

But eh. *shrug*

Re, the poll: Dude, are you okay? Really?

Yeah, just weird sleep these past few weekends. It was this weird falling-asleep-thought poll or none at all. Story arc voting is kind of pointless, and some of the arcs are difficult to track.

I... I feel like Willow is using the phrase "toxic masculinity" wrong.

Like, Clinton suddenly having to come to terms with liking a guy for the first time is him learning something new about himself and still needing to figure out what that means, not an example of toxic behavior brought on by an unrealistic ideal of masculinity.

He's not lashing out at people because he thinks "(insert derogatory term for LGBT here)" makes him less of a man. It's more like. "Oh, so this is something new that I don't have a frame of reference to process". That's not toxic masculinity, that's friggin growing up.

I saw a good vid about toxic masculinity earlier today (no, seriously).
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: SmilingCat on 31 Jan 2021, 20:30
I agree that toxic masculinity doesn't really have much to do with figuring out your sexuality, but I don't think that's what Willow meant. I thought she was connecting toxic masculinity with a lack of self-acceptance and freedom in general, which in my experience is absolutely true.

A lack of self acceptance isn't an inherently masculine trait, though... Nor is the idea of feeling anxiety over having feelings for someone of the same gender.

Faye was in the exact same situation, suddenly having to come to terms with her attraction to another woman, to the point of having a panic attack. She ran to a friend for advice and had to work out what she was feeling and what to do about it. Clinton is actually handling it better than her, as his first response. For example, he didn't immediately try to convince himself that he wasn't feeling what he was feeling like Faye did.

I feel like the only reason the term "toxic masculinity" is even coming up now is that Clinton is male, and Willow has decided that toxic masculinity is therefore the issue, without... you know, actually knowing all that much about him.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 31 Jan 2021, 20:33
I agree that toxic masculinity doesn't really have much to do with figuring out your sexuality, but I don't think that's what Willow meant. I thought she was connecting toxic masculinity with a lack of self-acceptance and freedom in general, which in my experience is absolutely true.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 31 Jan 2021, 21:15
A lack of self acceptance isn't an inherently masculine trait, though... Nor is the idea of feeling anxiety over having feelings for someone of the same gender.

If I understand it correctly, toxic masculinity isn't "submitting to inherently masculine traits," it's more of a pressure to conform to the ideals of strength and solitude and whatnot that society views as traditionally masculine. It's true that conforming to the standards of others rather than accepting yourself isn't inherently masculine, but it is something that many men receive social pressure, whether conscious or unconscious, to do.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 31 Jan 2021, 21:33
A lack of self acceptance isn't an inherently masculine trait, though... Nor is the idea of feeling anxiety over having feelings for someone of the same gender.

If I understand it correctly, toxic masculinity isn't "submitting to inherently masculine traits," it's more of a pressure to conform to the ideals of strength and solitude and whatnot that society views as traditionally masculine. It's true that conforming to the standards of others rather than accepting yourself isn't inherently masculine, but it is something that many men receive social pressure, whether conscious or unconscious, to do.
Another, more descriptive, term for it is "limiting masculinity".
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: SmilingCat on 31 Jan 2021, 21:44
A lack of self acceptance isn't an inherently masculine trait, though... Nor is the idea of feeling anxiety over having feelings for someone of the same gender.

If I understand it correctly, toxic masculinity isn't "submitting to inherently masculine traits," it's more of a pressure to conform to the ideals of strength and solitude and whatnot that society views as traditionally masculine. It's true that conforming to the standards of others rather than accepting yourself isn't inherently masculine, but it is something that many men receive social pressure, whether conscious or unconscious, to do.

Which still doesn't seem to apply in this case. Once again, Willow seems to be assuming toxic masculinity is an issue purely because Clinton is male.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 31 Jan 2021, 21:52
Honest question: what makes you think it's not a factor? I didn't quite get your first argument.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: jiw7 on 31 Jan 2021, 22:28
Nice strip!  ... but 'embrade' in panel 3 is  :?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: SmilingCat on 31 Jan 2021, 22:36
Honest question: what makes you think it's not a factor? I didn't quite get your first argument.

Because we've seen no indication that he's felt any sort of pressure to maintain a perceived masculine ideal in this case, either internally or externally. Realizing he had feelings for Elliot wasn't treated as an identity challenging revelation. He acknowledged his feelings quickly and moved on to ineptly figuring out what to do about them. The central conflict of his relationship arc has been he's a monumental doofus and Elliot is a monumental ball of anxiety (with a side bit of trying to resolve their mutual feelings for Brun), not whether or not he has some built in hangups telling him his feelings for Elliot are wrong or weird. 

The only suggestion that he might be fighting against a perceived masculine identity at all has been Willow saying "toxic masculinity". Nothing actually in the story has suggested it. The story shows a guy with no relationship experience being about as far out of his depth as he could be and trying to doofus his way to some sort of conclusion.

It's... I don't know, the kinda thing you'd expect twentysomethings sticking their noses into the business of people they just met and know nothing about would say, I guess. I'm not saying it's bad writing or anything on Jeph's part. I think he's written a very believable College Student.

BUT...

A person's natural normal anxieties facing something new don't suddenly become toxic masculinity just because they're male. If we're going to have a thing about Clinton wrestling with his idea of manhood as it relates to his attraction to another guy, I feel like that sort of thing would need more setup than some stranger saying "toxic masculinity" without actually knowing anything about him.

So yeah, Willow's kinda annoying with that stuff. Come back to me when you learn some flippin nuance, kid.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Tova on 31 Jan 2021, 23:10
All this talk has actually made me check todayís comic out of sheer curiosity.

ďI should reassess those preconceptions...Ē

Is that not what heís been doing for the past million strips? Sheesh.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: BenRG on 31 Jan 2021, 23:29
I do think that the big revelation in this strip is the implication that, as much as he loves her, Clinton really doesn't like Claire. Given her tendency to ignore boundaries when she's excited, I can imagine that an introverted personality like his might resent how 'in your face' she can get about wanting details and wanting to 'help'.

Clinton is troubled and conflicted because Willow is basically the same personality type. Only she's a stranger. This means he has to sort out in his head whether Claire's behaviour is really annoying to him because she's his sister or whether it's just annoying. This will impact on what he decides to do with this person who has decided to be his friend irrespective of whether he wants her to be one.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 01 Feb 2021, 04:23
I do think that the big revelation in this strip is the implication that, as much as he loves her, Clinton really doesn't like Claire. Given her tendency to ignore boundaries when she's excited, I can imagine that an introverted personality like his might resent how 'in your face' she can get about wanting details and wanting to 'help'.

Clinton is troubled and conflicted because Willow is basically the same personality type. Only she's a stranger. This means he has to sort out in his head whether Claire's behaviour is really annoying to him because she's his sister or whether it's just annoying. This will impact on what he decides to do with this person who has decided to be his friend irrespective of whether he wants her to be one.

I can certainly relate to the feeling of 'solve your own glaring personal issues before trying to get involved with mine' wben it comes to siblings and family.
"Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remo e the speck of dust from your brother's" and all that
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: de_la_Nae on 01 Feb 2021, 05:59
*gestures at comic 4449*

y'all literally overlooking the fact that he literally says one of the reasons he's feeling anxious about this is because Eliot's a man, implying that this anxiety tastes different from the anxiety when he dated Emily.

it's not actually nearly as big a leap in logic as some of you are making it out to be, for reasons I can only guess/pattern match.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: cesium133 on 01 Feb 2021, 06:12
Hopefully this one doesnít lead up to Clinton being hit up for money again.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: HeavyP on 01 Feb 2021, 08:57
*gestures at comic 4449*

y'all literally overlooking the fact that he literally says one of the reasons he's feeling anxious about this is because Eliot's a man, implying that this anxiety tastes different from the anxiety when he dated Emily.

it's not actually nearly as big a leap in logic as some of you are making it out to be, for reasons I can only guess/pattern match.

That's a valid point, but I still really don't see that as toxic masculinity.  There's no indication whatsoever that Clinton buys into what toxic masculinity is selling in terms of relationships.  He presumably always liked women, and now he's been presented with a situation where he likes a man, and it's a new dimension that he's having to figure out how to navigate.  He's not fighting his attraction to Elliot, he shows no signs of thinking that being bisexual or gay is "bad", and overall he seems very comfortable with an identity and life outlook that doesn't fit the stereotypical "manly man" that toxic masculinity preaches.  His big sister is a transwoman, and while he seems irritated at aspects of her overly-helpful personality, it's clear that he really loves her without question.  I just really see someone who is just a bit overwhelmed at a major paradigm shift in his personal lovemap, but in a "a whole bunch of new options and feelings opened up and I need time to sift through them" way and not a "THE ONLY ROAD THAT'S RIGHT IS STRAIGHT!" way.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 01 Feb 2021, 09:33
In response to SmilingCat: I see what you mean, but I still disagree. I think that with the situation with the Augustus dad combined with Clinton's excuses in the Emily relationship, there's a lot of early evidence for toxic masculinity being a factor in Clinton's life, at least at some point. That said, I absolutely understand why you think Willow's jumping to conclusions, because the last time we did see any conclusive evidence was over a thousand strips ago.

In response to HeavyP: That all makes sense, but I just want to point out that you don't necessarily need to buy into toxic masculinity to be influenced by it. Being aware of it isn't a free escape from it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: HeavyP on 01 Feb 2021, 10:48
In response to HeavyP: That all makes sense, but I just want to point out that you don't necessarily need to buy into toxic masculinity to be influenced by it. Being aware of it isn't a free escape from it.

100% agree, and that's a good personal reminder.  I'm a cis-dude and I can completely attest that it'll get you all sneaky-like if you're not paying attention, even when you know what it is and how it affects you.  The human mind is a mess that's simultaneously horrible and wonderful.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Guairdegan on 01 Feb 2021, 12:06
Today is the second mention of "toxic masculinity" in the comic. It's very disheartening to hear that I'm poison simply for having the audacity to be born male. I fear for the mental health of boys being constantly told that they're poison because they act the way their nature compels them to act. Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys without the fear of being told they're defective. Contrary to current opinion, little boys aren't defective little girls that don't know how to behave. Given love and respect, boys will learn love and respect. Given a little guidance, boys will learn when to be physical and when to be quiet. As an example: My wife and I enjoyed little day trips in pre-covid times. One of our trips found us in a small restaurant in a small Texas town. As we were leaving, there was a few people waiting for tables. Between us and the door was a family of five. Mom, Dad, and three boys of roughly 5 to 7 years old. The boys were playing, but not being loud or rude, just burning a little energy. As we approached, Dad spoke one simple word. All he said was "Boys" in a low tone that meant "pay attention". At that one word the three boys looked around, saw my wife, an older gray haired Grandma, and immediately stepped aside and stood still. They weren't toxic, they weren't poison, they were boys. Mom and Dad knew they needed to play like boys, but some would have them think that their need to be slightly boisterous somehow made them defective. I'm sure I'll get blasted for my opinion, but just once I'd like to see someone refer to "toxic femininity" when referencing the way girls act (I raised two daughters, don't try to tell me little girls are all angels) to see how quickly the torches and pitchforks would appear.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 01 Feb 2021, 12:25
I think you might misunderstand what the term 'toxic masculinity' refers to. Have you watched the video that Gyrre posted earlier in the thread? It explains the concept very well (and it will also make you adore Aragorn).

If you would like to discuss this topic some more, it might be a good idea to start a separate thread.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wingy on 01 Feb 2021, 12:35
Nice strip!  ... but 'embrade' in panel 3 is  :?
Should have been embraCe.  These kinds of things happen.  Sometimes Jeph fixes them, sometimes he doesn't.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 01 Feb 2021, 14:15
Yeah.  Heís much more likely to catch stuff when people on Patreon comment on it.  But I donít think that he reads those comments all that much.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Thrillho on 01 Feb 2021, 15:42
Today is the second mention of "toxic masculinity" in the comic. It's very disheartening to hear that I'm poison simply for having the audacity to be born male. I fear for the mental health of boys being constantly told that they're poison because they act the way their nature compels them to act. Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys without the fear of being told they're defective. Contrary to current opinion, little boys aren't defective little girls that don't know how to behave. Given love and respect, boys will learn love and respect. Given a little guidance, boys will learn when to be physical and when to be quiet. As an example: My wife and I enjoyed little day trips in pre-covid times. One of our trips found us in a small restaurant in a small Texas town. As we were leaving, there was a few people waiting for tables. Between us and the door was a family of five. Mom, Dad, and three boys of roughly 5 to 7 years old. The boys were playing, but not being loud or rude, just burning a little energy. As we approached, Dad spoke one simple word. All he said was "Boys" in a low tone that meant "pay attention". At that one word the three boys looked around, saw my wife, an older gray haired Grandma, and immediately stepped aside and stood still. They weren't toxic, they weren't poison, they were boys. Mom and Dad knew they needed to play like boys, but some would have them think that their need to be slightly boisterous somehow made them defective. I'm sure I'll get blasted for my opinion, but just once I'd like to see someone refer to "toxic femininity" when referencing the way girls act (I raised two daughters, don't try to tell me little girls are all angels) to see how quickly the torches and pitchforks would appear.

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure you really comprehend what the term 'toxic masculinity' means, and we have quite extensive discussion of it all over this forum.

It seems like you're feeling quite attacked by the concept, though, which is fine - I felt quite attacked by it too at first, because it does feel like inherently an attack on maleness. But that isn't what it is. We can go into this in much detail if you'd actually like to, albeit in a different thread.

It'd also be a bit nonsensical if 'being male is inherently poison' that was what the term meant given that the strip doesn't demonstrate that in any way, the entire recent plot we're following is about a relationship between two men possibly forming, the comic is written by a man, the comic is not saying 'burn men at the stake' and much of the worst behaviour in the comic has come from female characters, so...
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: badbum61 on 01 Feb 2021, 17:53
Yay, new friend!

Mmmm. And they just met.
Presumptuous much, Willow?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: badbum61 on 01 Feb 2021, 18:10
Pareidolia: a subset of apophenia, a term coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia.

o-KAY then...
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 01 Feb 2021, 18:22
Quote from: Wikipedia
Pareidolia (/pɛraɪˈdoʊliə/, /pɛriː-/) is the tendency for incorrect perception of a stimulus as an object, pattern or meaning known to the observer, such as seeing shapes in clouds, seeing faces in inanimate objects or abstract patterns, or hearing hidden messages in music.


So Willow sees patterns in seemingly unrelated events.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: shanejayell on 01 Feb 2021, 18:51
Willow will probably get along with Clinton & Claire's Mom at least...
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Mordhaus on 01 Feb 2021, 19:40
I'm a firm believer that toxic femininity exists as well, they just are better at covering their tracks/hiding the bodies.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 01 Feb 2021, 20:06
What do you mean by 'hiding their tracks'? Yes, toxic femininity exists even if it isn't named such. Just like toxic/limiting masculinity restricts men ('men don't cry/feel emotions beside anger/love children/hug other men'), toxic/limiting femininity restricts women ('women belong in the house/suck at math/deserve to be paid less than men/only exist to bear children'). Women have been fighting that for centuries, though, whereas the realization that men are also harmed by stereotypes around their gender is a more recent one (hence the more 'modern' name for it).
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gus_Smedstad on 01 Feb 2021, 22:01
The object in the background of panel 3 is Messier 51, in case you're curious. Almost certainly NASA's posted image (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/messier-51-the-whirlpool-galaxy).

I've photographed (https://www.flickr.com/photos/gus_smedstad/3480199990/in/album-72157605348435242/) it myself, though obviously not to the same quality.

Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: BenRG on 01 Feb 2021, 23:24
No, Willow, that wasn't the 'universe' telling you to do anything. That was the writer of this comic assigning you to get Clintelliot off of the sandbank that he'd sailed it onto because of the fact that the two characters just didn't work together in the way that he'd hoped.

BTW, in panel 5, Clinton was responding to Willow's question with a resounding and highly-sarcastic 'no'.

EDIT-P.S.:
I've been looking at the strip's footer text. Now that Jeph has brought it up, am I the only one getting strong Tilly mk2 vibes from Willow? An essentially good-natured person with no sense of personal boundaries who believes that the solution for someone not liking you is to push harder?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 02 Feb 2021, 05:37
Tilly is highly focused and very good at what she does. It remains to be seen if this is true of Willow. ("One! Get one order wrong and they rag you about it forever!")

Tilly was designed to be annoying, so that Hannelore's forbearance would stand out. I'd like to see more of Willow. Especially if we also see more of Iris.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: WAYF on 02 Feb 2021, 07:16
Today is the second mention of "toxic masculinity" in the comic. It's very disheartening to hear that I'm poison simply for having the audacity to be born male. I fear for the mental health of boys being constantly told that they're poison because they act the way their nature compels them to act. Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys without the fear of being told they're defective. Contrary to current opinion, little boys aren't defective little girls that don't know how to behave. Given love and respect, boys will learn love and respect. Given a little guidance, boys will learn when to be physical and when to be quiet. As an example: My wife and I enjoyed little day trips in pre-covid times. One of our trips found us in a small restaurant in a small Texas town. As we were leaving, there was a few people waiting for tables. Between us and the door was a family of five. Mom, Dad, and three boys of roughly 5 to 7 years old. The boys were playing, but not being loud or rude, just burning a little energy. As we approached, Dad spoke one simple word. All he said was "Boys" in a low tone that meant "pay attention". At that one word the three boys looked around, saw my wife, an older gray haired Grandma, and immediately stepped aside and stood still. They weren't toxic, they weren't poison, they were boys. Mom and Dad knew they needed to play like boys, but some would have them think that their need to be slightly boisterous somehow made them defective. I'm sure I'll get blasted for my opinion, but just once I'd like to see someone refer to "toxic femininity" when referencing the way girls act (I raised two daughters, don't try to tell me little girls are all angels) to see how quickly the torches and pitchforks would appear.

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure you really comprehend what the term 'toxic masculinity' means, and we have quite extensive discussion of it all over this forum.

It seems like you're feeling quite attacked by the concept, though, which is fine - I felt quite attacked by it too at first, because it does feel like inherently an attack on maleness. But that isn't what it is. We can go into this in much detail if you'd actually like to, albeit in a different thread.

It'd also be a bit nonsensical if 'being male is inherently poison' that was what the term meant given that the strip doesn't demonstrate that in any way, the entire recent plot we're following is about a relationship between two men possibly forming, the comic is written by a man, the comic is not saying 'burn men at the stake' and much of the worst behaviour in the comic has come from female characters, so...
*creaks limbs*
*brushes the dust off this account*
I think the problem some people are having with this concept, now having been introduced to this discussion twice in the space of the four most recent comics, is that of all the people it could apply to, it arguably applies to Clinton the least.
I think it is quite reasonable to say that Clinton doesn't have any problems with shrugging off conformity to a set masculine ideal. He is noticeably comfortable with himself, his perceptions of gender, his physical prowess or lack thereof, and various other things that would be encompassed by rigid masculine gender roles. I also get the sense, from a once-over reading of his character, that he is fairly well aware of the concept of toxic masculinity and has already done his time combating it to become assured of himself as an adult - to such an extent as was needed given his social circles. So, for it to be introduced now by someone he has only just met feels more than a little insulting to his character. This is not the real problem, although it certainly doesn't help.

The real problem with it is that, as a concept, it is completely unapproachable for Clinton. It is not actionable. Introducing the concept of toxic masculinity into this discussion adds absolutely nothing to his understanding of his own confused feelings for Elliott, and provide him no potential new avenues to consider. It is in every respect a nothing statement, both times it is used.
Sure, "throwing off the shackles of toxic masculinity" sounds good on paper, but it doesn't actually inform anything that he could do or would do from this situation. Freedom and self-acceptance are not nearly as much his problem as figuring out how to actually apply his feelings to a (potential) relationship - those are two very different issues. Accepting that you are attracted to someone and interested in them romantically is very different from figuring out how to date them and otherwise interact with them, even once those feelings become plainly known.
Clinton didn't screw things up with Elliott because he was too closeted or too entrenched in toxic masculinity to accept his feelings, he screwed things up because his idea of how to handle interacting with Elliott in social or romantic contexts was... erm... fundamentally flawed. That is not a problem that Clinton can solve by coming to terms with toxic masculinity.

The most charitable interpretation of Willow's advice is that she means well but is tackling entirely the wrong problem. Less charitable interpretations might note that to bring up toxic masculinity once in advice to a stranger could be interpreted as a suggestion of a potential contributing factor; to bring it up twice indicates that she has now, for want of better terms, doubled down and accepted this as her headcanon, of a man she has only just met. Which, in turn, seems very uncharitable of her.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Guairdegan on 02 Feb 2021, 11:46
Today is the second mention of "toxic masculinity" in the comic. It's very disheartening to hear that I'm poison simply for having the audacity to be born male. I fear for the mental health of boys being constantly told that they're poison because they act the way their nature compels them to act. Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys without the fear of being told they're defective. Contrary to current opinion, little boys aren't defective little girls that don't know how to behave. Given love and respect, boys will learn love and respect. Given a little guidance, boys will learn when to be physical and when to be quiet. As an example: My wife and I enjoyed little day trips in pre-covid times. One of our trips found us in a small restaurant in a small Texas town. As we were leaving, there was a few people waiting for tables. Between us and the door was a family of five. Mom, Dad, and three boys of roughly 5 to 7 years old. The boys were playing, but not being loud or rude, just burning a little energy. As we approached, Dad spoke one simple word. All he said was "Boys" in a low tone that meant "pay attention". At that one word the three boys looked around, saw my wife, an older gray haired Grandma, and immediately stepped aside and stood still. They weren't toxic, they weren't poison, they were boys. Mom and Dad knew they needed to play like boys, but some would have them think that their need to be slightly boisterous somehow made them defective. I'm sure I'll get blasted for my opinion, but just once I'd like to see someone refer to "toxic femininity" when referencing the way girls act (I raised two daughters, don't try to tell me little girls are all angels) to see how quickly the torches and pitchforks would appear.

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure you really comprehend what the term 'toxic masculinity' means, and we have quite extensive discussion of it all over this forum.

It seems like you're feeling quite attacked by the concept, though, which is fine - I felt quite attacked by it too at first, because it does feel like inherently an attack on maleness. But that isn't what it is. We can go into this in much detail if you'd actually like to, albeit in a different thread.

It'd also be a bit nonsensical if 'being male is inherently poison' that was what the term meant given that the strip doesn't demonstrate that in any way, the entire recent plot we're following is about a relationship between two men possibly forming, the comic is written by a man, the comic is not saying 'burn men at the stake' and much of the worst behaviour in the comic has come from female characters, so...

I don't feel attacked by the concept, that's easily laughed off. The problem is the execution, and persistent accusation. I've been griped at for holding the door open for a woman (yes, lady, I know your arm isn't broken), griped at for standing when a woman enters the room (if I didn't I'd feel my mother and grandmother slapping me on the back of the head), and for offering to help a woman with some physical task. I don't do these things because I feel that women are weak or inferior,  I do these things because I feel I should help someone when I can, and I was taught to treat women with respect. Today, those actions are considered to be toxic.
 
I watched the video linked in an earlier message, and the ideas expressed are correct in some points but quite wrong in others. I've heard Aragorn used as a prime example of toxic masculinity. The movie softened his character and introduced the idea that he was afraid to become king, but the book shows him in a harsher, more "manly" light. If the two that recorded the video ever read the book, it'll be interesting to see if their opinion changes.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Thrillho on 02 Feb 2021, 12:02
I don't feel attacked by the concept, that's easily laughed off.

It being brought up in the comic motivated you enough to register on the forum just to criticise it. Is that laughing it off?

Quote
The problem is the execution, and persistent accusation. I've been griped at for holding the door open for a woman (yes, lady, I know your arm isn't broken), griped at for standing when a woman enters the room (if I didn't I'd feel my mother and grandmother slapping me on the back of the head), and for offering to help a woman with some physical task. I don't do these things because I feel that women are weak or inferior,  I do these things because I feel I should help someone when I can, and I was taught to treat women with respect. Today, those actions are considered to be toxic.

Why is your feeling of doing what you think is respectful more important than what someone is telling you is a respectful way to behave towards them?

It sucks that your mother and grandmother hit you. Parents shouldn't hit their kids.

Do you hold the door for men? Do you rise when men enter the room? Is rising when a woman enters a room helping them? Should men not be treated with respect?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: bright on 02 Feb 2021, 12:03
At this point I'd have to say a Willow and Clinton match up seems much more interesting than anything more happening between Elliot and Clinton.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 02 Feb 2021, 12:16
I watched the video linked in an earlier message, and the ideas expressed are correct in some points but quite wrong in others. I've heard Aragorn used as a prime example of toxic masculinity. The movie softened his character and introduced the idea that he was afraid to become king, but the book shows him in a harsher, more "manly" light. If the two that recorded the video ever read the book, it'll be interesting to see if their opinion changes.


They might have read the books, but that's besides the point. The YouTube channel is called 'Cinema Therapy', and thus they discuss how Aragorn is portrayed in the movies.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 02 Feb 2021, 13:11
Do you hold the door for men? Do you rise when men enter the room? Is rising when a woman enters a room helping them? Should men not be treated with respect?

I donít do the rise thing, unless itís a friend, and Iíll open/hold doors for anyone, or offer to help them with any task that Iím for which Iím well-suited.  And I live in one of the archetypal California University towns.  I must be doing something wrong, because no one has said anything negative.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Mordhaus on 02 Feb 2021, 13:45
What do you mean by 'hiding their tracks'? Yes, toxic femininity exists even if it isn't named such. Just like toxic/limiting masculinity restricts men ('men don't cry/feel emotions beside anger/love children/hug other men'), toxic/limiting femininity restricts women ('women belong in the house/suck at math/deserve to be paid less than men/only exist to bear children'). Women have been fighting that for centuries, though, whereas the realization that men are also harmed by stereotypes around their gender is a more recent one (hence the more 'modern' name for it).

It was a humorous reference that women are better at covering up evidence, inferring that they are better with long term plots than men. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: badbum61 on 02 Feb 2021, 18:11
Iris appears to have a bad case of Resting B*tch Face...
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wingy on 02 Feb 2021, 18:12
Do you hold the door for men?
Yes, especially if I'm at the head of the herd (I often was when I still worked in an office between being the Lead and walking faster than almost everyone else) or when that man had a handful/armful/cart-full and was trying to navigate the door.  I consider it ordinary politeness/helpfulness and haven't had a woman lash out at my "sexism".  And since doorways are usually in pairs in my state (because of the weather), I've held them for women and then immediately sailed through the next door held open by the woman I just held one for without anyone caring.  But then, I work in IT and women in IT often fit in with the guys just to get along.  So, if I'm sexist, it's on some unconscious level I don't really access unless someone says something.  My current boss is a fine woman, we're direct with each other, and she's never complained about anything related to sexism, so maybe I've learned something by this advanced age.  Now, where's my cane and warm milk?   :-D :angel: :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wingy on 02 Feb 2021, 18:14
Iris appears to have a bad case of Resting B*tch Face...
Iris has a bad attitude, and RBF to go with it.  I've worked with a few Iris's and they're a real drag.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wombt on 02 Feb 2021, 18:15
Very hung up on "she doesn't have a cell phone." Even though I feel like I shouldn't be phased by it, it seems like the quirkiest thing about Willow yet.
(Even though I know there are non-"quirky" reasons to not have a cell phone.)
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 02 Feb 2021, 18:38
I love getting lost in yarn stores. So much to see and touch!
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: shanejayell on 02 Feb 2021, 18:49
*raises hand*  I've gotten lost in stores. It's not THAT weird. :D
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: awkwardness on 02 Feb 2021, 19:04
*raises hand*  I've gotten lost in stores. It's not THAT weird. :D

...at least you didn't get lost in the same store TWICE in a span of an hour :(
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: awkwardness on 02 Feb 2021, 19:05
Hmm...Iris really wants to try to look stoic but the more she tries to act stoic the more concerned she actually appears.

Gotta love an apathy paradox!
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 02 Feb 2021, 19:12
I can't tell if the Willow/Iris/Yemisi friend group is really well balanced or really unstable.

You have Willow, who is impulsive, slightly spacey, and a relentless optimist. You have Iris, who is caustic, coldly real, and a relentless pessimist. Then you have Yemisi, who seems like she never strongly agrees or disagrees with either of them and (I'm assuming) acts as a mediator. Is it the perfect friend group, or is it a disaster waiting to happen?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Sorflakne on 02 Feb 2021, 19:14
Can't speak for yarn stores, but one can get turned around in an SR Harris.

The Mega Mall (it will always be the Mega Mall, just like it'll always be Camp Snoopy.  fight me) is like this as well, but that's mainly due to the building's gargantuan size rather than an individual store within it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Stoon on 02 Feb 2021, 19:15
What is it Yemisi is eating?  Didn't they go in for bagels?  That doesn't look like a bagel.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 02 Feb 2021, 19:35
It's a Purse Bagel, of course.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gus_Smedstad on 02 Feb 2021, 20:06
Do you hold the door for men?

I frequently hold doors for other humans, regardless of gender. Letting a door slam in the face of the person immediately behind me just seems rude.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: SeattleCrochetWoman on 02 Feb 2021, 22:35
I think she mustíve been at the WEBS yarn store in Northampton, or the in-universe equivalent. Iíve never been there, but I hear itís huge.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: BenRG on 02 Feb 2021, 23:23
I doubt that Willow really got lost. I think that she just kept on finding new things on which to focus her thoughts and kept on forgetting where she was going or was supposed to be doing!

I think that we can now expand our understanding the Three Fates to show that they are actually the three supports of a stable structure where, individually, their perceptions are too extreme to be entirely stable or even sensible or reasonable:
None of them exactly address reality full-on, so all three need to address any given problem to be sure that they're addressing it properly. In other words, they're three people who have found out that their friends help them cover their own blind-spots. Act together and things generally turn out well. Act apart and, as with Willow right now, things have a tendency to slide into extremes and, sometimes, problems!
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 02 Feb 2021, 23:32
Am I the only one who took Willow's comment in tbe 3rd panel of 4451 as a "go you" affirmation?

Anyone else getting a worried big sister vibe from Iris in today's strip?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: St.Clair on 03 Feb 2021, 00:23
Very hung up on "she doesn't have a cell phone." Even though I feel like I shouldn't be phased by it, it seems like the quirkiest thing about Willow yet.
(Even though I know there are non-"quirky" reasons to not have a cell phone.)

I didn't until a couple of years ago.  My main reasons: 
That said, I have since discovered the utility (and sometimes near-necessity) of having such a device, far beyond merely being able to make and receive telephone calls.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 03 Feb 2021, 01:44
Very hung up on "she doesn't have a cell phone." Even though I feel like I shouldn't be phased by it, it seems like the quirkiest thing about Willow yet.
(Even though I know there are non-"quirky" reasons to not have a cell phone.)

I didn't until a couple of years ago.  My main reasons: 
  • my employment has been (and remains) fairly uncertain, and minimizing monthly charges/obligations was a good thing.
  • I'm not really the "roaming" type; I'm usually either at home (where I still have a landline, as I'm from the 20th century), at work, or (briefly) at a store.
That said, I have since discovered the utility (and sometimes near-necessity) of having such a device, far beyond merely being able to make and receive telephone calls.

I used to move around a bit so I had a Nokia brick and moved to a standard flip phone after the brick wasn't available. The main two reasons I bumped up to a smart phone were the crew transport job I had gotten at the time (that didn't have any GPS equipped vehicles when I started) and because I found out I could tether my laptop to its internet instead of having to choose between the crap local ISP and Satan's anus (Comcast).
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wingy on 03 Feb 2021, 04:22
it will always be the Mega Mall, just like it'll always be Camp Snoopy.  fight me
Yah, youbetcha.  I can't 'cause you're correct.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 03 Feb 2021, 07:03
At this point I'd have to say a Willow and Clinton match up seems much more interesting than anything more happening between Elliot and Clinton.

This... ALLLLL the way this.
(And I say that as a nevershipper!)

Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gus_Smedstad on 03 Feb 2021, 08:43
I didn't until a couple of years ago.

I resisted getting a cell phone for a long time. I didn't want people expecting they could call me anywhere, I didn't want to pay another monthly fee, and in the 90's, I thought the attachment many of my co-workers had to their flip-phones was almost cultish.

Eventually, I relented. Cell phone service got cheap, and having a phone for emergencies seemed useful. Having one proved to be really handy for the "we got separated at the mall, where are you?" case. Also handy if you get lost in a yarn store.

These days, my phone is surgically attached to my hip, but not because it's a phone. I always have it because I use it to read books, and I can't be without a book. Or, to be more accurate, the 20+ I currently have downloaded and patiently waiting for me.

I'm still pathologically cheap about phone service, though. I only have a data plan because I can get it for $7.50 / month. Otherwise I'd stick with wifi only.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Feb 2021, 08:56
Quote from: Guairdegan
Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys

Welcome, new person!

You went straight to having common ground with me.

They should also be free to cry without being beaten for it (happened to me) and free to accept a "No" from a woman graciously without losing face. When they're not, that's the cultural attitude set that is (my understanding of) "toxic masculinity".

Why Willow brought it up I can't figure out unless she has an idea that the only reason a man would hesitate to acknowledge feelings toward another man is traditional homophobia.

EDIT:

I've gotten lost in my shower.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: sitnspin on 03 Feb 2021, 10:11
I, on the other hand, have not had a landline in a decade. I don't generally get any services to the place I am living, save electricity, as I don't tend to stay in one place very long and I prefer to minimise the steps needed to leave.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 03 Feb 2021, 10:17
Almost two decades for me, without. at least for having no phone plugged into one.  I do live in an area for decent services, but I want to avoid phone calls as much as possible anyway.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: pwhodges on 03 Feb 2021, 11:07
My phone line gets used less and less, EXCEPT it carries my Internet connection (and hence my mobile/cell calls when at home, because I have crap phone service in and around the house so they get routed via the wifi).
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 03 Feb 2021, 11:45
I haven't had a landline in years. The only calls we got on our landline when we still had one was from charities wanting money, and they ALWAYS call during dinner.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gus_Smedstad on 03 Feb 2021, 11:54
97.8% of the calls I get on my landline are scams. [robot voice] THE IRS HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST YOU [/robot voice]. Because, as you know, the IRS always wants payment in Amazon gift cards.

I can't quite bring myself to get rid of my landline, though. Just old habits at this point, I guess.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: pwhodges on 03 Feb 2021, 12:13
97.8% of the calls I get on my landline are scams. [robot voice] THE IRS HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST YOU [/robot voice]

I get those on my mobile, too.  In fact only this morning I had a robot from the Inland Revenue call to say I was suspected of fraud, and if I didn't press "1" to connect to them they would get a warrant and I would be arrested shortly.  Then at lunchtime my wife heard a feature on this exact call on a radio magazine program.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 03 Feb 2021, 12:42
Pleased to see a new side of Iris. And we know more about Willow. Yemisi has a wonderful name.

Agree that Clinton/Willow looks more interesting than whatever is happening between Clinton and Elliot.

Toxic masculinity needs to move to DISCUSS.

I have been made to feel like a pariah for not having a cell phone. I will cheerfully slam a door in the face of anyone who chirps 'Get the app!'
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 03 Feb 2021, 13:27
97.8% of the calls I get on my landline are scams. [robot voice] THE IRS HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST YOU [/robot voice]. Because, as you know, the IRS always wants payment in Amazon gift cards.

I can't quite bring myself to get rid of my landline, though. Just old habits at this point, I guess.


For a while I got a lot of calls on my cellphone to inform me that 'my Windows computer has been hacked'. Interesting, considering I have a Macbook at home, and my work laptop is well protected. I used to hand off my phone to my coworker at that point, who likes baiting those people, to see how long he could keep them on the line :D
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 03 Feb 2021, 13:41
Iím pretty strictly Mac or Linux, myself.  Okay, technically, thereís a Windows partition on my laptop, but I havenít booted into it for a couple of years now.  Then again, these scammers seem to be about as competent at tech stuff as my ISPís support line.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Stoon on 03 Feb 2021, 14:39
I haven't had a landline in over a decade.  Not since I looked on my phone company's web site and I realized a basic mobile plan costs less than a landline.

As for computers, I have a Windows/Linux triple boot.  2 different flavours of Linux.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 03 Feb 2021, 15:11
Lemme guess: Mint and either Debian, or Mint and Arch*?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: cesium133 on 03 Feb 2021, 15:23
Back in college, when I had way too much spare time on my hands, I made an 11-boot (at least I think that was the number) monstrosity of a setup. Windows XP, Windows 3.1, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Syllable, Solaris, and as many Linux distros as I had hard drive space for. The most challenging part was coming up with a partition layout that all of the OSes would be happy with.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 03 Feb 2021, 16:23
Yeah, thatís pretty insane.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 03 Feb 2021, 18:23
Comic's up.

What Willow is talking about reminds me of something that was mentioned in one of the Hitchhiker's books:


Quote from: Mostly Harmless (Douglas Adams)
In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing the indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people.


The patterns are what is important, not what you use to find them.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: shanejayell on 03 Feb 2021, 18:34
Well, whatever floats your boat, Willow....
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 03 Feb 2021, 18:56
We are slowly learning that Willow is much wiser than we were originally led to believe.


Second thing: the debate inside the comic right now reminds me a lot of Wil and Penelope.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Elder Sign on 03 Feb 2021, 19:03
I'm glad Clinton appears to have a high tolerance for this line of discussion, because heavily-introverted and Elliot-level-anxious me would have been all "please back off and get TF out of my face" a long time ago.  And I'm not really sure about the "please" bit.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gus_Smedstad on 03 Feb 2021, 19:49
I strongly, strongly disagree with Willow's reasoning here.

The problem with using made-up things to "make sense of the world" is that it's almost never "constructive." Rather than "making sense of the world," people make things up that aren't true because it fits what they want to be true.

There's a phrase for people who take patterns that aren't really there seriously. It's "conspiracy theorist." That leads to people like Marjorie Taylor Greene in Congress, and hundreds of people storming the US Capitol building.

There are lots of people who use religion to "make sense of the world," and the end result is that lots of them insist on dictating the actions of others, by restricting things like birth control or abortion. Or insisting that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. In parts of the world where religion is more extreme, it means things like the death penalty for "disrespecting Islam."

Astrology isn't so obviously toxic, but if you take it seriously, you're still making decisions based on things that are imaginary.

In a broader sense, believing in patterns that aren't real generally prevents you from delving deeper and actually understanding what's going on. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxiLnC7ikw8) about the number of great minds throughout history who gave up lines of inquiry because they already had a pat answer: the gods did it.

So, no. Willow's completely wrong. It does matter, and her argument is specious.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 03 Feb 2021, 20:29
I dunno. She specifically said "if you use them constructively," and conspiracy theories and discrimination obviously are just the opposite of constructive. Of course, the people who believe in them will tell you they're being constructive by following these nonexistent patterns, but nothing they do is constructive, by any compassionate standard.

Also, a huge difference between Willow and the Capitol mob is that Willow recognizes that these things aren't real. Trump supporters hung on every one of his words because they thought he was telling the truth. Willow knows that her feeling of connection with the universe likely doesn't exist, and she realizes that following through on them is extremely unlikely to cause any serious harm.

Third point: the book Sapiens (good read, would recommend) mentions, several times, that the only reason humanity was able to reach the place we are today was because of belief in fiction. We first established actual societies because of belief in religion, hierarchy, law, etc. Even now, one of the most connective (and dangerous) things in the world is money, which doesn't actually exist outside of our imaginations. The way I see it, the phrase for people who take patterns that aren't really there is "society."

Final thing: I want to make it very clear that none of this is an attempt to excuse people who discriminate on the basis of religion, members of the Capitol mob, wannabe dictators, or anyone else of the sort. As I said before, none of that is constructive and none of that is harmless.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 03 Feb 2021, 20:53
97.8% of the calls I get on my landline are scams. [robot voice] THE IRS HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST YOU [/robot voice]. Because, as you know, the IRS always wants payment in Amazon gift cards.

I can't quite bring myself to get rid of my landline, though. Just old habits at this point, I guess.


For a while I got a lot of calls on my cellphone to inform me that 'my Windows computer has been hacked'. Interesting, considering I have a Macbook at home, and my work laptop is well protected. I used to hand off my phone to my coworker at that point, who likes baiting those people, to see how long he could keep them on the line :D
"Your car's warranty is about to expire."
"This is cardholder services..."
"Your [I think it was Comcast?] account's bill is overdue."
"Your Bank of America account has had unusual activity" [the number wasn't affiliated with BoA, I checked]

Back around 2014 I actually got a live human trying to do the cardholder services one. Dude was completely blindsided when I started asking questions like "which card company are you calling on behalf of"  and "can you tell me what company the credit card account is with?" He had the gall to actually ask for my credit card number so he 'could look up my account information'! I hung up and blocked the number.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 03 Feb 2021, 21:01
I dunno. She specifically said "if you use them constructively," and conspiracy theories and discrimination obviously are just the opposite of constructive. Of course, the people who believe in them will tell you they're being constructive by following these nonexistent patterns, but nothing they do is constructive, by any compassionate standard.

[Snip]

That depends on two key things;
1) Are we talking about true conspiracies (i.e. the crime)
   *Operation Seaspray, the Pentagon trying to weaponize ticks, several unethical medical experiments carried out by our government, Jerry Epstein's murder, etc.

2) Are we talking about conspiracy theorists trying to warn people, or conspiracy nuts getting lead around by the nose?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Oenone on 03 Feb 2021, 21:25
Yeah, tbh this interaction made me dislike Clinton a little more. Itís rude to tell people that a tool they use to get through the world is not real. Tarot, at least, fits into some of my Wiccans friendsí spiritual practice, and astrology has some beautiful symbolism to it. I donít see why heíd be so dismissive of it to someone he just met.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: BenRG on 03 Feb 2021, 23:20
This strip fits into my post yesterday of Willow being the believer of the trio. What's interesting is that she chooses to believe (or at least act as if she does) irrespective of evidence because that belief enriches her life. It's worth remembering that humans always have a spiritual aspect to us and it's been proven that we need to address that in order to maintain our mental and emotional health.

On the other hand, Willow is actually strangely cynical in panel 5. She knows that a lot of hucksters have made a racket out of spirituality and actually doesn't seem to have a problem with that, which is kind of weird and makes me wonder what her moral compass is like.

In answer to Clinton's question in panel 5, I (who actually have known professional diviners and witches - yes, they used the term 'witch' and not 'wiccan', it was the 1970s and 1980s) can hear a snappy patter abut the crossing of his power and index data lines indicate that he's going to find his destiny in a new standardised cabling protocol soon...
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: QuestionableIntentions on 03 Feb 2021, 23:26
Yeah, tbh this interaction made me dislike Clinton a little more. Itís rude to tell people that a tool they use to get through the world is not real. Tarot, at least, fits into some of my Wiccans friendsí spiritual practice, and astrology has some beautiful symbolism to it. I donít see why heíd be so dismissive of it to someone he just met.

It maybe rude, but it is also correct.

The problem with such made up, arbitrary, untested systems is thst their results are also arbitrary and made up.

If you roll a dice to decide between six options than onc in a while that option may be the correct one, but mostly it will be wrong.

Willow is absolutely wrong in beleieving the process doesn't matter. It means you can get whatever results you want. That's how get results like "my god says I have to kill you"
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 03 Feb 2021, 23:36
I don't know that my first post said what I wanted it to.

I'm seeing people post a lot of examples of really extreme religion, to the point of discrimination and violence. Obviously, if you're using religion or a similar belief to do that and excuse yourself from the consequences, of course that's wrong. But if you choose to believe in, say, astrology because it makes you feel good, what reason is there to stop you? You're not hurting anyone, your beliefs aren't offensive by definition, both your process and your end product are basically completely harmless...if all it does is give you an extra sense of security and belonging, no one should stand in your way.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: QuestionableIntentions on 03 Feb 2021, 23:56
I don't know that my first post said what I wanted it to.

I'm seeing people post a lot of examples of really extreme religion, to the point of discrimination and violence. Obviously, if you're using religion or a similar belief to do that and excuse yourself from the consequences, of course that's wrong. But if you choose to believe in, say, astrology because it makes you feel good, what reason is there to stop you? You're not hurting anyone, your beliefs aren't offensive by definition, both your process and your end product are basically completely harmless...if all it does is give you an extra sense of security and belonging, no one should stand in your way.

There are plenty of examples online of people refusing to date people of the wrong astrology sign.

And the problem is that these "harmless" believes are symptoms of a larger problem: The refusal of the scientific method.

Choosing comfort over truth.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: sitnspin on 04 Feb 2021, 00:20
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

It's not necessarily the specific beliefs one has that are dangerous or harmful, it is the mindset that let one believe those things that is dangerous. The beliefs are a symptom, not the disease.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Cornelius on 04 Feb 2021, 01:07
To be fair, I sometimes use tarot to make sense of the world, in a way. But it's not because I believe the cards in themselves are telling me something. It's more of an exercise to take the images that turn up as a prompt to think of the issue in another way. And that could be done with any set of pictures, really.

The other way I use tarot, is to play cards, which annoys my few wiccan friends to no end.

But well, as to being harmless... I know someone who took a set of  tarot cards on board, when working as a sailor. Once the crew saw him laying them out in a game of patience, a lot of them did treat him with another kind of deference. If your belief in these things influences how you look at people, and who to take as an authority, it can make a big difference. And these people can be led, then, by nothing more than some esoteric patter. Which anyone can pick up in about 15 minutes. And that is dangerous.

Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: oddtail on 04 Feb 2021, 02:11
To be fair, I sometimes use tarot to make sense of the world, in a way. But it's not because I believe the cards in themselves are telling me something. It's more of an exercise to take the images that turn up as a prompt to think of the issue in another way. And that could be done with any set of pictures, really.

I've heard a lot of people over the years have the same attitude towards Tarot. Essentially "I don't believe cards have any predictive power, but I use them to sort of amateur-psychoanalyse myself".
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Y on 04 Feb 2021, 05:05
Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so? Another student in high school read my palm once (who might have read up on that subject) and predicted that I'll have 2 relationships, and so I did. But no more after that, yes I'm asexual, though not aro I think. Which are I guess reasons why I'm not actively looking for relationships.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 04 Feb 2021, 08:01
Again, if you're sacrificing your use of the scientific method in order to make important decisions (whether you should wear a mask or date someone, for example), your beliefs aren't harmless or casual. You're threatening the mental and physical health of others.

But that's not at all the vibe I'm getting off Willow. If someone came up to her and was like "the alignment of the planets is telling you to punch Clinton in the face" and she looked up and was like "huh, that's actually true," I really doubt she'd do it, because her common sense outweighs her blind belief. Her use of logic, in that case, told her that it was a bad idea.

If your mindset is that you'll agree with completely and follow to the ends of the earth whatever your belief is, yes, it's unhealthy, no matter your belief. But if you're using it to act quickly and decisively on decisions that are both harmless and arbitrary, I still see no reason to stop you.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: sitnspin on 04 Feb 2021, 08:25
Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so?

Ask Oedipus and MacBeth about that one.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 04 Feb 2021, 08:32
Oedipus was just a boy who loved his mother.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Case on 04 Feb 2021, 08:44
Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so?

Ask Oedipus and MacBeth about that one.

Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 04 Feb 2021, 09:00
Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so?

Ask Oedipus and MacBeth about that one.
Yeah, never trust an Oracle. Or Oracle. It never works out like you first imagined it would.

Oddly, the MoM had the right idea in HP; record the prophecy, then lock it in a room somewhere and ignore it because eff that noise. Two powerful individuals conspired to ruin Harryís life over one line of one because they bypassed the system.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Cornelius on 04 Feb 2021, 09:17
Is it dangerous knowing "your future" if you're going to unconsciously make it so? Another student in high school read my palm once (who might have read up on that subject) and predicted that I'll have 2 relationships, and so I did.

Don't forget to ask yourself this question: if you had had more relationships, would you even remember the prediction?

One thing most people making predictions for a living do, is make many predictions, and make them often. Because people will remember the one that came true, and forget about the rest.

Re: HP: the persons involved in the prophecy could come and claim them, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: sitnspin on 04 Feb 2021, 09:35
The comic series "Destiny, NY" has an interesting take on prophecies and oracles and how to handle them, both as individuals and as a society. Plus it's an excellent series overall, so I highly recommend it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Oenone on 04 Feb 2021, 09:58
I don't know that my first post said what I wanted it to.

I'm seeing people post a lot of examples of really extreme religion, to the point of discrimination and violence. Obviously, if you're using religion or a similar belief to do that and excuse yourself from the consequences, of course that's wrong. But if you choose to believe in, say, astrology because it makes you feel good, what reason is there to stop you? You're not hurting anyone, your beliefs aren't offensive by definition, both your process and your end product are basically completely harmless...if all it does is give you an extra sense of security and belonging, no one should stand in your way.

There are plenty of examples online of people refusing to date people of the wrong astrology sign.

And the problem is that these "harmless" believes are symptoms of a larger problem: The refusal of the scientific method.

Choosing comfort over truth.

But theyíre not obligated to date anyone they donít want to.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: sitnspin on 04 Feb 2021, 10:29
True, no one is obligated to date anyone, but if your reason for not dating someone is because of when and where they were born then you're a douchebag.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Marco on 04 Feb 2021, 11:24
I didn't until a couple of years ago.

These days, my phone is surgically attached to my hip, but not because it's a phone. I always have it because I use it to read books, and I can't be without a book. Or, to be more accurate, the 20+ I currently have downloaded and patiently waiting for me.

I'm still pathologically cheap about phone service, though. I only have a data plan because I can get it for $7.50 / month. Otherwise I'd stick with wifi only.

You still can count your downloaded books? Impressive. I only read books in electronic media when there's absolutely no paper books around. Otherwise, e-ones keep on accumulating. They must be hundreds, now...

I think smart phone useful for organizing a list of phone contacts. I just search for the name, visualize the number in the screen and then dial it in my landline.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Roborat on 04 Feb 2021, 12:29
97.8% of the calls I get on my landline are scams. [robot voice] THE IRS HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST YOU [/robot voice]

I get those on my mobile, too.  In fact only this morning I had a robot from the Inland Revenue call to say I was suspected of fraud, and if I didn't press "1" to connect to them they would get a warrant and I would be arrested shortly.  Then at lunchtime my wife heard a feature on this exact call on a radio magazine program.

I get the Canadian version of that call, is from Service Canada.  If I am in the mood I will press 1 and mess with whoever answers.  Last time I pretended I was a civilian contractor with the police and couldn't figure out why I couldn't find him in the government database, I kept asking him for his service number and what office he was working from.  Kept it up for about 10 minutes before he hung up on me.


I have a question for the group.  That pose she is doing in the last panel, the walking with hands behind the head thing.  Is that a thing people do? I tried that pose and find it very uncomfortable, and have never seen it in real life, but it does appear often in manga/anime. 
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: BenRG on 04 Feb 2021, 12:56
About the time that Bubbles moved in with Faye, Jeph said on Twitter that he wanted to do a less-literal and more cartoony style of art and that, if he wanted to he could. The point is that the art style is meant to be sort of manga-ish.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Timemaster on 04 Feb 2021, 14:27
I have a question for the group.  That pose she is doing in the last panel, the walking with hands behind the head thing.  Is that a thing people do? I tried that pose and find it very uncomfortable, and have never seen it in real life, but it does appear often in manga/anime.
I sometimes do that, but only as a stretching move when I straighten my back. And only for a few seconds. I don't think Willow is actually walking around like this, it's just a short move.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: pwhodges on 04 Feb 2021, 14:51
About the time that Bubbles moved in with Faye, Jeph said on Twitter that he wanted to do a less-literal and more cartoony style of art and that, if he wanted to he could. The point is that the art style is meant to be sort of manga-ish.

We've always known that Jeph likes manga/anime.  Indeed, Emily's surname is that of a well-known mangaka (manga artist) - Kiyohiko Azuma, creator of Azumanga Daioh.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 04 Feb 2021, 16:44
I sometimes do that, but only as a stretching move when I straighten my back. And only for a few seconds. I don't think Willow is actually walking around like this, it's just a short move.


Ditto.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: PumpernickelRyeSourdough on 04 Feb 2021, 17:35
Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't get the punchline here at all. How would a palm reader make $75 - $150 an hour with Clinton's hand?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 04 Feb 2021, 17:53
Welcome, new person!

Clinton was asking "what would they make of it," as in "what would they think of it" and "how would they read my palm lines if I have no palm lines." Willow was making a play on words by mixing it up with an alternative meaning, as in "how much would Clinton pay them for their work." Hope that helps.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: shanejayell on 04 Feb 2021, 18:52
New comic up!

Other than her being big, I don't get the Bubbles-fear.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Morituri on 04 Feb 2021, 19:54
Being big is enough.  People are scared of me all the time even when I don't make so much as a single sudden move.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gnabberwocky on 04 Feb 2021, 20:19
Bubbles's line in the last panel makes me wonder how long UR has actually been open. It's been around for about a thousand strips, of course, but how much time has passed in-universe over that span?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 04 Feb 2021, 20:56
Less than 6 months, is my guess
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 04 Feb 2021, 21:18
This strip fits into my post yesterday of Willow being the believer of the trio. What's interesting is that she chooses to believe (or at least act as if she does) irrespective of evidence because that belief enriches her life. It's worth remembering that humans always have a spiritual aspect to us and it's been proven that we need to address that in order to maintain our mental and emotional health.

[snip]

At a guess, a lack of said spiritual aspect is likely why so many fandoms seem to have those incredibly extreme members that go way overboard.

It's definitely the reason for the technocrats[1] atheists that treat scientists like clergy and refuse to shift away from old paradigms no matter how much evidence suggests they should.

[1] and other self-proclaimed atheists that treat science like a religion

EDIT:
[snip]

And the problem is that these "harmless" believes are symptoms of a larger problem: The refusal of the scientific method.

Choosing comfort over truth.

Just want to reiterate my point about people who treat science like a religion. A lot of them do the 'I'm better than you because I believe in science' schtick. That's not what science is for or about.

Science helps us better understand the world around us and --when applied well-- helps improves our lives to some degree in some facet. It is a tool for understanding, not a scale for judging others.

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, postulates, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

Here, the point gets explained better by Dan Floyd and James Portnow

Also applicable; 'Religion in Games (part 2)'


EDIT: *derp* forgot to include postulates with imperical observations and 1+1=2
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: BenRG on 04 Feb 2021, 23:16
So we have another hairpin curve that makes it hard to set up a consistent characterisation in my head for Willow. At one time, Bubbles was scary, especially when she still wore her auxiliary armour. Right now, she's just the quiet and nice amazon lady who operates the robot repair shop with her girlfriend; she's about as intimidating in her mood as Elliot, with whom she shares the same general size and whom Willow thinks is cute. She doesn't even loom! I'm sure there's a reason but it isn't clear.

In any case, Willow is a woman with best friends from the BAME community and a Synthetic. She thinks that the strongly-celtic-looking bisexual guy is cute. Elliot is close to Bubbles' size and is also cute. This really makes no sense to me.

The lesson? It's difficult to introduce a new character in just a week or so from concentrated and disconnected incidents. At least not to do so without making them seem inconsistent and scattershot.

So, 'Time to Start Over' what? Bubbles's interaction with Willow? The long-foreseen soft reboot where all the main characters and their interactions all radiate out from the primary characters of Jim, Elliot and Renee? Or start over with Willow's characterisation (already) and the Clintelliot relationship given that they've both been steered so resolutely onto a sandbank?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Penquin47 on 05 Feb 2021, 00:06
Time to start over on Bubbles' count of Days Without Unintentionally Scaring Someone.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: chetoos8 on 05 Feb 2021, 07:09
Willow has been to UR before, I guess that she just didn't see bubs the last time she was there.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 05 Feb 2021, 08:00
BenRG; I'm way shorter than Bubbles at 5'5" (165cm)[1] and I don't wear armor. I still intimidate people when I stand up straight because I've got really broad shoulders, a barrel chest, and a generally robust build.[2]

[1] I might be shorter than Claire.
[2] That's not a euphemism. I wear a US men's 10 1/2 6E for my super wide feet.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

It's not necessarily the specific beliefs one has that are dangerous or harmful, it is the mindset that let one believe those things that is dangerous. The beliefs are a symptom, not the disease.

Is your point akin to "It's okay to have an open mind about things. Just not so open that your brain falls out." (Can't find the attribution. Possibly misquoted from History Channel.)

That sort of thing tends to be more complicated, and those pulling the strings usual rely on keying up fear and/or anger and manipulation.

EDIT: typo fix
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Case on 05 Feb 2021, 09:25
All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

That's ... not what Axioms are.


Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: notStanley on 05 Feb 2021, 10:00
Just to be completist:  if 2 weeks since "inadvertently" frightened someone, how long since "purposely"?  Blocking Roko in the trash can - that was more a prank?  The farewell to CorpseWitch - this was intent?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Feb 2021, 11:33
Former military people do carry themselves differently.

I once worked with a retired Marine captain. He was on a plane, long out of the service, obviously not in uniform, and when it landed and he stood up two Marines in the aisle halted themselves and said "After you, sir".

Muggers in experiments have been shown videos of people walking without getting other information, and interviewed about which they would pick as victims. Instinctively they avoid people who were trained fighters.

It's plausible that someone would have irrational fear of Bubbles while reacting appropriately to Elliott.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 05 Feb 2021, 11:39
Makes you wonder if the intimidation factor is also part of Bubbles' programming.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Thrillho on 05 Feb 2021, 13:21
Poor Bubbles.

It is hard being frightening to people.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Morituri on 05 Feb 2021, 14:28
Other people muggers avoid include dancers, gymnasts, cheerleaders, martial artists, rock climbers, professional sports players, and those who practice meditation. 

In my case I'm sure it's mainly sheer size and build (well over two meters tall, a bit over two hundred kilograms).  But I definitely see "muggable" and "un-muggable" (or "ready to cope with whatever happens" and "may need help in a crisis") when I look at people around me. It's definitely not *just* a matter of size and build.  Somebody can be tiny and still be someone it would be clearly be not worthwhile for a mugger to mess with. 

People talk about confidence, and they talk about being physically intimidating, and I'm sure those things are part of it, but it's also about environmental awareness and complete mental presence in the situation, as well as about balance and coordination. 

If you want to attract muggers...  so I've been told anyway by a behavioral-sciences type trying to explain why the same relatively small fraction of the population tend to get mugged over and over while others live their entire lives on the same streets without ever getting even threatened .... do any two or three of the following: 

Adopt a gait most people find slightly unnatural where your left hand and left foot swing forward at the same time, followed by right hand and right foot.  Wear mismatched clothing.  Keep your eyes on the ground in front of your toes instead of on the people and environment around you.  Alternatively keep your eyes on enormous things that tower above or in the distance from the people and environment around you.  Carry something awkwardly, or have a bag or backpack heavy enough to affect your gait or balance.  Act surprised at everything.  Have something jammed in your pockets that breaks up the outline of your legs/hips/waist.  Fiddle with your clothes as if unaccustomed to wearing that kind of clothes.  Walk, not with an obvious limp, but as though one of your knees or ankles is slightly stiff.  And there were several other behavioral 'markers' I forget that emerged from a study of people who got mugged more than twice in the same year.

Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 05 Feb 2021, 18:10
All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

That's ... not what Axioms are.

Just watch the video. I said they explain it better for a reason.

"Science doesn't really need to be defended against the concept of faith. Only some of its misuses." Is the first point they make.
The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 
[The video is 8 years old]

EDIT: Moving away from Euclid's postulates when dealing with a 3 dimensional space is one of the things they bring up. Then there's Kurt GŲdel's work in regards to mathematic axioms.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Elder Sign on 05 Feb 2021, 23:07
Time to start over on Bubbles' count of Days Without Unintentionally Scaring Someone.

New sign for the wall:

"This Facility Has Gone ____0____ Days Without a Brown Pants Incident"
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: ihaveavoice on 06 Feb 2021, 03:12
True, no one is obligated to date anyone, but if your reason for not dating someone is because of when and where they were born then you're a douchebag.

I'm really tired and had missed that this was a response to the idea of people not dating certain astrological signs by sort of zoning out while still moving my eyes down the page, and this was such a record scratch of a comment removed from its context. I was like, wait, when they were born? I've seen sitnspin post here before, I don't think this is someone who'd deny the existence of inappropriate age dynamics??  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: hedgie on 06 Feb 2021, 07:48
When as in what month, presumably.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Feb 2021, 09:05
Makes you wonder if the intimidation factor is also part of Bubbles' programming.

At a guess, not. She would have been spending almost all her time around other people from her unit and bonding would be critically important there.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wingy on 06 Feb 2021, 09:36
Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...
Maud'Dib was a self-admitted coward.  And Einstein suffered from an inability to accept the consequences of his own results, which is also cowardice, just writ a bit larger.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Case on 06 Feb 2021, 09:42
All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

That's ... not what Axioms are.

Just watch the video. I said they explain it better for a reason.

"Science doesn't really need to be defended against the concept of faith. Only some of its misuses." Is the first point they make.
The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 
[The video is 8 years old]

EDIT: Moving away from Euclid's postulates when dealing with a 3 dimensional space is one of the things they bring up. Then there's Kurt GŲdel's work in regards to mathematic axioms.

Errrrh - you seriously want to explain my job to me?

I'd urge you again to revisit the concept of axioms.

Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...
Maud'Dib was a self-admitted coward.  And Einstein suffered from an inability to accept the consequences of his own results, which is also cowardice, just writ a bit larger.

What?  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Guairdegan on 06 Feb 2021, 11:14
Quote from: Guairdegan
Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys

Welcome, new person!

You went straight to having common ground with me.

They should also be free to cry without being beaten for it (happened to me) and free to accept a "No" from a woman graciously without losing face. When they're not, that's the cultural attitude set that is (my understanding of) "toxic masculinity".

Why Willow brought it up I can't figure out unless she has an idea that the only reason a man would hesitate to acknowledge feelings toward another man is traditional homophobia.
EDIT:

I've gotten lost in my shower.

Yes, I remember very well that any show of emotion from a boy resulted in punishment from teachers. Never physical, but being brought to the front of the class so everyone could "see the sissy" was the norm. At home it was "Shut up crying. Keep it up and I'll give you a reason to cry."
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Thrillho on 06 Feb 2021, 13:16
Quote from: Guairdegan
Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys

Welcome, new person!

You went straight to having common ground with me.

They should also be free to cry without being beaten for it (happened to me) and free to accept a "No" from a woman graciously without losing face. When they're not, that's the cultural attitude set that is (my understanding of) "toxic masculinity".

Why Willow brought it up I can't figure out unless she has an idea that the only reason a man would hesitate to acknowledge feelings toward another man is traditional homophobia.
EDIT:

I've gotten lost in my shower.

Yes, I remember very well that any show of emotion from a boy resulted in punishment from teachers. Never physical, but being brought to the front of the class so everyone could "see the sissy" was the norm. At home it was "Shut up crying. Keep it up and I'll give you a reason to cry."

This is the version of masculinity you're lamenting being out of style?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 06 Feb 2021, 23:35
[snip]

Errrrh - you seriously want to explain my job to me?

I'd urge you again to revisit the concept of axioms.

[snip]
[No smugness is intended in any of the following.]
I'm not. I'm citing the video.

I'm a biologist, not a mathematician. I work with basic arithmetics and some statistics more than anything else when it comes to math in my job.

Though, just for thoroughness' sake, I did look up the definitions for 'axiom (https://www.wiktionary.org/wiki/axiom)' and 'postulate (https://www.wiktionary.org/wiki/postulate#English)'. I had wondered whether there was a distiction between the two, but apparently that's only "sometimes".  Not sure how you'll feel about the descriptions, though.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 07 Feb 2021, 01:08
Yes, axioms are arbitrarily defined as true within a given paradigm; that is just for that paradigm though.
The cellular biology paradigm assumes MRS GREN holds true for all life but we know there are life forms where that s not 100% true 100% of the time (virii for a start) so we need to define a new paradigm.

Choosing a particular set of axioms (your paradigm) to work with when addressing a particular topic is a matter of convenience and convention, not faith, and changing the paradigm if the current one proves insufficient is the expected outcome, not heresy. 

Now, what was your actual point, please? Because Iím genuinely not sure and no, saying ďwatch the videoĒ again is not communicating that.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: cesium133 on 07 Feb 2021, 05:27
Axiom was the spaceship from WALL-E.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wingy on 07 Feb 2021, 05:39
Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...
Maud'Dib was a self-admitted coward.  And Einstein suffered from an inability to accept the consequences of his own results, which is also cowardice, just writ a bit larger.
What?  :psyduck:
Einstein came out with the general theory of relativity, and when it was shown it depended on quantum mechanics, refused to believe it and scrambled to find some way to force QM out of relativity - to keep the Newtonian universe.  He then invented the cosmological constant, and it wasn't until years later that he finally admitted publicly why he did that and confessed that it was a blind alley and a mistake.
In a parallel fashion, Maud'Dib saw the golden path and rejected it.  And in his cowardice, arranged that his decisions which brought evil only allowed for the evil to be revealed after the event had happened.  See Children of Dune, the final confrontation between the Preacher and Leto the second, pgs 338-350 in my paperback.  The relevant quote is on 349.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Feb 2021, 09:50
Quote from: Guairdegan
Yes, I remember very well that any show of emotion from a boy resulted in punishment from teachers. Never physical, but being brought to the front of the class so everyone could "see the sissy" was the norm. At home it was "Shut up crying. Keep it up and I'll give you a reason to cry."

This is the version of masculinity you're lamenting being out of style?

I can't speak for him, but since he started with
Quote
Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys
my first guess is that he's describing in that sentence his idea of non-toxic masculinity and pleading that it be accepted.

Reconnecting to the comic, Clinton seems to be self-accepting about every positive aspect of his masculinity.

EDIT:

I started a thread in DISCUSS titled "What is toxic masculinity?".
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Morituri on 07 Feb 2021, 15:34
The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 

The first principle of science is to refuse to accede to blind unquestioning faith.  If something affects your life, or if you care about it, test it in every conceivable way to see whether you're being lied to.  Or whether the people telling you are just wrong.  Or if the authoritative sources on the matter for the prior six hundred years have *ALL* been wrong. 

Your "body of scientific knowledge" is the set of things you're aware of that as far as you know nobody has been able to prove are wrong.

In my field, for a long time we worked on the basis of empirical methods and heuristics.  A lot of us still do.  We poke and prod and fiddle with meta-parameters and network architectures and I/O conventions, not necessarily knowing why certain adjustments have the effect they do or whether an adjustment gets us closer to our goal.  In a lot of ways it's been more art than science.  It became science because we can measure our success - we have benchmark datasets and we can tell when we find a way to improve our accuracy.  We've been meticulously recording our progress and the effect of each adjustment, whether we understood it or not.

And now real theories are finally starting to get traction.  People have proposed mathematics that explains most of our meticulous notes most of the time and other people have demonstrated counterexamples to those proposals and then new proposals have come forward and we take a look and say, "well if this is true then I should take it to this absurd extreme and try THIS" and then "THIS" actually works better, or actually doesn't, and we have a new methodology or a beautiful hypothesis is slain by an ugly fact. 

It's still pretty rough.  There's a huge amount yet to learn. If we were comparing it to physics I'd say we're at the point of trying to figure out whether we can predict simple things like how fast water flows downhill, and nowhere near being able to design internal-combustion engines.  But we're learning.  We're developing.  And it happens because we keep testing and we keep track of what *doesn't* work as well as what *does*.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 07 Feb 2021, 17:06
Yes, axioms are arbitrarily defined as true within a given paradigm; that is just for that paradigm though.
The cellular biology paradigm assumes MRS GREN holds true for all life but we know there are life forms where that s not 100% true 100% of the time (virii for a start) so we need to define a new paradigm.

Choosing a particular set of axioms (your paradigm) to work with when addressing a particular topic is a matter of convenience and convention, not faith, and changing the paradigm if the current one proves insufficient is the expected outcome, not heresy. 

Now, what was your actual point, please? Because Iím genuinely not sure and no, saying ďwatch the videoĒ again is not communicating that.

'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Perhaps you guys have too much baggage shackled to the word 'faith'?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 07 Feb 2021, 17:37
The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 

The first principle of science is to refuse to accede to blind unquestioning faith.  If something affects your life, or if you care about it, test it in every conceivable way to see whether you're being lied to.  Or whether the people telling you are just wrong.  Or if the authoritative sources on the matter for the prior six hundred years have *ALL* been wrong. 

[snip]
[dry sarcasm]Congratulations.
[flatly and sincerely] That's the one of the first points brought up in the video I recommended you guys watch.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 08 Feb 2021, 00:57
Yes, axioms are arbitrarily defined as true within a given paradigm; that is just for that paradigm though.
The cellular biology paradigm assumes MRS GREN holds true for all life but we know there are life forms where that s not 100% true 100% of the time (virii for a start) so we need to define a new paradigm.

Choosing a particular set of axioms (your paradigm) to work with when addressing a particular topic is a matter of convenience and convention, not faith, and changing the paradigm if the current one proves insufficient is the expected outcome, not heresy. 

Now, what was your actual point, please? Because Iím genuinely not sure and no, saying ďwatch the videoĒ again is not communicating that.

'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Perhaps you guys have too much baggage shackled to the word 'faith'?
Thatís just it; the whole point is to question what is presented. Perhaps youíre reading too much into people not understanding your unclear and contradictory presentation?
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 08 Feb 2021, 17:17
The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically. 

The first principle of science is to refuse to accede to blind unquestioning faith.  If something affects your life, or if you care about it, test it in every conceivable way to see whether you're being lied to.  Or whether the people telling you are just wrong.  Or if the authoritative sources on the matter for the prior six hundred years have *ALL* been wrong. 

[snip]
[dry sarcasm]Congratulations.
[flatly and sincerely] That's the one of the first points brought up in the video I recommended you guys watch.

[This time I'm being an ass about it.]
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Tova on 08 Feb 2021, 17:21
[This time I'm being an ass about it.]

Congratulations.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Morituri on 08 Feb 2021, 17:26
Sorry, it's just a
very

very

old

annoying

USELESS

argument.

I don't want anyone talking about "science accepted on blind faith" or "science is just another religion" in any venue that's supposed to remain civil.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Tova on 08 Feb 2021, 17:51
'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Gyrre, I think I can comprehend your frustration at apparently being misunderstood, but perhaps it's worth thinking about how those misapprehensions came about?

Just as a reminder, it was you yourself that introduced this very topic within the context of religious faith (bolding is mine):

Just want to reiterate my point about people who treat science like a religion. A lot of them do the 'I'm better than you because I believe in science' schtick. That's not what science is for or about.

Science helps us better understand the world around us and --when applied well-- helps improves our lives to some degree in some facet. It is a tool for understanding, not a scale for judging others.

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, postulates, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

It's unclear what you were comparing with when you said "the difference", but it's easy to interpret this as comparing science to religion.

Also, I personally found your point confusing because you attacked people "who treat science like religion" in your first paragraph above, then proceeded to do so yourself in the third. As far as I can tell, at least. That's a little perplexing. The only way I can parse this that makes sense is that you are posting all this in an attempt to defend religion -- which is fine, but it's not entirely clear.

I agree with Mori - the whole "science is just like religion" thing is tiresome.

I guess you're having trouble expressing the essence of the video that you link? In my experience, when I am having that kind of trouble, it's because I haven't internalised what it's saying as well as I thought I had.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Feb 2021, 11:30
People's ideas about science are contaminated by poor education that presents science as a body of dogma rather than a means to advance against the unknown, going to far as to completely suppress obvious questions when there isn't a ready-made answer.

It drove me up the wall as a child to read about lightning storms and get complete silence about how that charge separation even happened. (I believe nobody knows and it is contemptible for a science lesson not to acknowledge it.)

An honorable exception is the visitors center at the Green Bank observatory. The exhibits consistently say what the open questions are.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: dawolf on 09 Feb 2021, 13:15
How would "putting a design on a body part" be cultural appropriation? Clinton has a robot hand: he can design it however he wants.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Farideh on 09 Feb 2021, 13:39
Good comment, but you might want to put it in the correct WCDT :) https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,34821.0.html
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 10 Feb 2021, 05:33
'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Gyrre, I think I can comprehend your frustration at apparently being misunderstood, but perhaps it's worth thinking about how those misapprehensions came about?

Just as a reminder, it was you yourself that introduced this very topic within the context of religious faith (bolding is mine):

Just want to reiterate my point about people who treat science like a religion. A lot of them do the 'I'm better than you because I believe in science' schtick. That's not what science is for or about.

Science helps us better understand the world around us and --when applied well-- helps improves our lives to some degree in some facet. It is a tool for understanding, not a scale for judging others.

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, postulates, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

It's unclear what you were comparing with when you said "the difference", but it's easy to interpret this as comparing science to religion.

Also, I personally found your point confusing because you attacked people "who treat science like religion" in your first paragraph above, then proceeded to do so yourself in the third. As far as I can tell, at least. That's a little perplexing. The only way I can parse this that makes sense is that you are posting all this in an attempt to defend religion -- which is fine, but it's not entirely clear.

I agree with Mori - the whole "science is just like religion" thing is tiresome.

I guess you're having trouble expressing the essence of the video that you link? In my experience, when I am having that kind of trouble, it's because I haven't internalised what it's saying as well as I thought I had.

Sorry for the miscommunication. That is indeed why I posted the video with the request to watch it. I knew I wasn't in the right headspace to explain myself.
Science and religion are apples and oranges. But, as Is it cold in here? puts it, there's a bunch of dipshits[1] who get how each works pretty muddled thanks in part to our craptastic American education system (I won't speak for the UK).

People's ideas about science are contaminated by poor education that presents science as a body of dogma rather than a means to advance against the unknown, going to far as to completely suppress obvious questions when there isn't a ready-made answer.

It drove me up the wall as a child to read about lightning storms and get complete silence about how that charge separation even happened. (I believe nobody knows and it is contemptible for a science lesson not to acknowledge it.)

An honorable exception is the visitors center at the Green Bank observatory. The exhibits consistently say what the open questions are.

I'm honestly so just ready for a vacation at work. Thankfully we're FINALLY properly staffed on my shift and it's not just me and one (if we're lucky 2) techs and the night shift supervisor doing everything that a dayshift with 9 people on it whinging about being "shorthanded" and doing fuckall when it comes to their share of the same duties I have on my shift. I'm honestly on the verge of quitting.


[1]That's the nicest way I can put that. I've been dealing with seemingly more and more of them over the course of the last year and it makes me wish I could deck them through their computers.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Morituri on 10 Feb 2021, 09:50
For what it's worth, I've always seen Science and Religion as being about different things, and the so-called 'conflict' between them mostly a symptom of people who want to consider them to be about the same thing and subsequently misapply one or both.  Science is about the world and causality, and Religion is about values and volition.

Or, Science can help us figure out how to achieve what we value, and Religion can help us determine what it is that we value.

Neither practice considers those things to be their primary purpose - scientists are conducting pure inquiry about how the universe works, and religion is about philosophy, or devotion, or teaching, or stories to demonstrate exemplars of, a set of values and beliefs, in an effort to align us with greater purpose.  But those two things - how to achieve what we value and determining what it is that we value - are questions that firmly belong to one and not the other.

Pure logic is the most powerful tool of science, but will never give anyone any reason to do or refuse to do anything.  Logic may tell you that you will starve to death if you don't eat, or that if you put a bullet through someone's heart they will die, but there is no logic that says life has intrinsic value.  You have to accept the idea that life has value - an idea taught in almost all religious practice - before logical reasoning from that point will tell you that you should not do those things.

Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Feb 2021, 11:06
There might be a fascinating DISCUSS thread if this continues.

I'll just mention an overlap between science and religion. Nobel laureate Abdus Salam said his work in theoretical physics was motivated by his Muslim piety. He took very seriously a Quran verse commanding believers to reflect on the wonders of God's creation.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Wingy on 10 Feb 2021, 13:26
Logic may tell you that you will starve to death if you don't eat, or that if you put a bullet through someone's heart they will die, but there is no logic that says life has intrinsic value.  You have to accept the idea that life has value - an idea taught in almost all religious practice - before logical reasoning from that point will tell you that you should not do those things.
I think logic would suggest that final, unrecallable actions, taken against others, that you wouldn't want taken against yourself, are logically undesirable.  But that leads us right into ethics and the genesis of both logic and ethics.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Ravenswing on 16 Feb 2021, 03:35
I love getting lost in yarn stores. So much to see and touch!

Heh, just happening to live in Northampton, and my wife being an avid knitter, I've been in the yarn store they're talking about: it's about five minutes walk from my apartment.  WEBS is about the size of a FOOTBALL FIELD.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Ravenswing on 16 Feb 2021, 03:35
I think she mustíve been at the WEBS yarn store in Northampton, or the in-universe equivalent. Iíve never been there, but I hear itís huge.

It really, really is.
Title: Re: WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
Post by: Gyrre on 17 Feb 2021, 03:37
For what it's worth, I've always seen Science and Religion as being about different things, and the so-called 'conflict' between them mostly a symptom of people who want to consider them to be about the same thing and subsequently misapply one or both.  Science is about the world and causality, and Religion is about values and volition.

Or, Science can help us figure out how to achieve what we value, and Religion can help us determine what it is that we value.

Neither practice considers those things to be their primary purpose - scientists are conducting pure inquiry about how the universe works, and religion is about philosophy, or devotion, or teaching, or stories to demonstrate exemplars of, a set of values and beliefs, in an effort to align us with greater purpose.  But those two things - how to achieve what we value and determining what it is that we value - are questions that firmly belong to one and not the other.

Pure logic is the most powerful tool of science, but will never give anyone any reason to do or refuse to do anything.  Logic may tell you that you will starve to death if you don't eat, or that if you put a bullet through someone's heart they will die, but there is no logic that says life has intrinsic value.  You have to accept the idea that life has value - an idea taught in almost all religious practice - before logical reasoning from that point will tell you that you should not do those things.

That's how it should be.

Sadly, the greedy and the power-hungry have a long history of tainting both.

EDIT: typo fixing and slight rephrasing