Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dizzious]

I see all this below today's comic -

February 7, 2010 7:48pm
It seems some people were offended or confused by Friday's comic. They felt that I was saying or implying that polyamory is somehow not as serious as monogamy, or that polyamorous folks don't enter into committed relationships, or something. That couldn't possibly be further from my intent!
What I was going for in that comic (and this one) is that the specific situation Tai finds herself in (casual physical relationships with people she cares about but doesn't necessarily LOVE) is unfulfilling for her personally, and she feels like she'd rather just have one person to focus on. In no way did I mean to imply that because Tai isn't happy, ALL polyamory is unfulfilling, or not serious, or anything of that sort.
Like Dora says in today's strip, relationships exist on a continuum, and there are many different kinds of relationship that different people consider "polyamory." You certainly can have a serious, committed, happy polyamorous relationship! You can also be more casually polyamorous, like Tai has been in the comic. Ain't no right or wrong, or inferior or superior, as long as everybody's being safe and honest.
One of the challenges of working in this medium is that intent and interpretation are two very different things. I thought it was obvious that I was writing about a specific situation, and not denigrating polyamory in any way, but some people felt otherwise. That means I didn't do a good enough job! The vast majority of you guys either had no problem with the strip or actively told me that it was fine! But that doesn't mean that the minority who were bothered by it don't deserve to have their concerns addressed, which is what I'm attempting to do.
I apologize if I've hurt any feelings or offended anyone, and will try to make my intent more clear in the future! I hope this clears things up.
See you tomorrow

I would like to submit a revised version of the above giant block of text, which I feel sends a more appropriate message:

"Dear anyone who was offended by yesterday's comic:
This is a comic strip, the idea is for it to be humorous. If you are immature and lacklife enough to be able to extrapolate some reason to take offense to a comic, then you need to grow up and quit being such a prude. If you are so very emotionally sensitive that you cannot see the humor in a comic without being offended, then you should think about seeing a therapist. Thank you."

Anybody who finds offense in my revised version of Jeph's message can feel free to email me, I am a psychologist and I would be glad to schedule you for a few sessions of therapy at my clinic so we can see about rebuilding your sense of humor. My email address is: [email protected]

[KharBevNor]

Hey, OP.

You're a dick!

[zagraf]

I love it when people like the OP presume to speak for Jeph. After all, it's not as if he would ever think to explain or defend himself.

Oh wait, he just did. On the front page.

[SleeperCylon]

I am a bit tired of PC culture that caters to oversensitivity.  If you're so insecure that you're seriously bothered by Friday's comic, maybe it's you who isn't happy with your own choices.

Though personally I think any kind of romance as fine so long as it doesn't involve lying and manipulation or blatant health risks.

[E. Spaceman]

[Surgoshan]

I agree with Jeans.

... that is all.

[Nightson]

People who are polyamorous have to deal with the accusation that they aren't serious about relationships, and that they don't lead fulfilling lives because they aren't faithful to one person.  And so when Tai says that her relationships are unfulfilling, it made a lot of people touchy.

Now, it didn't bother me, because I trusted that Jeph wasn't doing that, that it was confined just to Tai's relationships and he was fine with people being poly,

[Is it cold in here?]

Hasn't Jeph said that he doesn't do Messages? I think it was in a discussion about polyamory, in fact.

[snubnose]

Meh.

Being very conservative about love, all I would do if someone complained to me about that would raise a vulcanian eyebrow.

Seriously, why am I obliged by political correctness to defend other peoples lifestyle, even though I dont believe it does them any good ? They really should do that themselves if they think its the right thing.

[Is it cold in here?]

A QC character engaged in self-questioning is so common an occurrence as to be an unsuitable basis from which to draw conclusions.

[Ptommydski]

Seriously, why am I obliged by political correctness to defend other peoples lifestyle, even though I dont believe it does them any good ? They really should do that themselves if they think its the right thing.

It is true that we are often afforded the luxury of being able to get away with being a dick to people if we choose to exercise that right.

However, choosing not to makes you a significantly more tolerable person.

[Delirium]

Meh.

Being very conservative about love, all I would do if someone complained to me about that would raise a vulcanian eyebrow.

Seriously, why am I obliged by political correctness to defend other peoples lifestyle, even though I dont believe it does them any good ? They really should do that themselves if they think its the right thing.

99.98% of the time when someone complains about "political correctness", it's complete BS and they need to get a life. Please think over your statement, if you are capable of self-examination, to see if it has any merit.

[akronnick]

To all the people who are offended by recent Questionable Content storylines and all who are offended that people are offended.

Perhaps you are in the wrong place.

Maybe you would like some lasagna.

[jwhouk]

To all the people who are offended by recent Questionable Content storylines and all who are offended that people are offended.

Perhaps you are in the wrong place.

Maybe you would like some lasagna.

This.

[scarred]

THE INTERNET IS TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT

[Carl-E]

The internet never gets tired of bullshit. 

In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what it feeds on. 

[Mr_Rose]

Yeah, but there's a load more bullshit for the Internet to feed on that just that one guy's; maybe they were trying to say it was tired of his specific bullshit?

[Dliessmgg]

Bullshit is bullshit, it doesn't matter which bull shat.

[JD]

OP you are a douchebag

[Dizzious]

it's not okay to piss on people's sexuality or relationships.

That's right, it's not OK - and I wasn't doing any such thing. I support people's right to express their love for anyone, however they so choose to (as long as it's not harming anybody). I wasn't speaking out against anyone's sexuality, relationships, religion, color, size, shape, ethnicity, or anything else. It would be irrational for me to have a problem with anyone's lifestyle, as long as it's not hurting anyone.

Seeing as most of you people failed to understand what I was trying to say in the original post: The message I was trying to get across is that in addition to people needing to stop discriminating against others; people also need to stop being so ready & willing to be offended by things. It's quite blatantly obvious that comic 1595 was not meant to offend anyone. The only people I have a problem with are people who get all in a huff over things that clearly weren't meant to insult them. I have a problem with people who lunge at the slightest opportunity to call me a bigot, when I know for a fact that I don't discriminate against anyone.

I love it when people like the OP presume to speak for Jeph.

I wasn't speaking for anyone but myself. READ the original post; all opinions and messages there are my own - there is nothing there, whatsoever, which would imply that I am speaking for someone else. I don't see how you could have possibly come to the conclusion that I was trying to speak for anyone but myself.

[Random832]

It's quite blatantly obvious that comic 1595 was not meant to offend anyone.

To you, maybe, but judging by the reaction of most people here I would say that no, it's not really blatantly obvious at all! You've clearly decided that it is, so of course it will be to you, but in retrospect, I can easily see how the comic could be misinterpreted even though I didn't react at all when I read it originally.

There is an attitude I have observed - and it most often comes up regarding questions of this sort of thing - that it's impossible for someone to simply be _wrong_ - in the sense of being factually incorrect - about something they take offense to. That every interpretation is somehow equally valid.

Go look up the urban legends about the etymologies of the word "picnic" and the term "call a spade a spade".

[pwhodges]

Only if you are minded to see any  expression of a view you disagree with (in this case merely supposed) as derogatory to you.  We may understand people being super-sensitive - but that doesn't mean that we have to pretend that's an appropriate reaction.

[Mr_Rose]

But it wasn't a super-sensitive reaction.

Yes it was. A cartoon character made a statement about itself and dozens (hundreds?) of people jumped to the conclusion that the character's statement about itself was not only representative of the personal views of the author, but that it also meant that the author felt the same way about all relationships of the same class and was therefore pronouncing a moral or other judgement of those people.

Yes that's right, apparently when someone not you uses the word "I" to refer to themselves, they really mean "Me and everybody like me ever, especially if it includes you" now.

That is the most retarded line of un-reasoning since Fox Television broadcast that 'documentary' that declared the moon landings had been faked, in part because the American flag was seen to be flapping in a still photograph.

[Johnny C]

[email protected]

I wrote a long reply but scrapped it and sent it to this mailbox instead. I hope to hear back from you soon.

[Mr_Rose]

Jeph wouldn't been the first author to make a character represent a particular group as a whole. That wasn't the case, clearly, but are you saying there is literally no way it could have been reasonably interpreted that way?

So just because others from group X have done bad thing Y, everyone from group X is automatically under suspicion of Y? That's basic discrimination logic you got there; are you sure you want to endorse that as even slightly rational?

[pwhodges]

And I say again: even if it is interpreted like that, why does a difference of opinion have to be seen as derogatory or offensive?

[Nightson]

And I say again: even if it is interpreted like that, why does a difference of opinion have to be seen as derogatory or offensive?

Would you find my opinion that you were a dumb asshole who fucks sheep in his spare time to be derogatory or offensive?  Now that's not my actual opinion, but opinions can be derogatory or offensive. 

[pwhodges]

@Nightson: Offensive is offensive, of course; but I was speaking in the context of the case in hand.  

@Jens: I agree with the principle of what you write, but still find it hard to find anything here to apply it to.  So I thought that I would go back and remind myself what Jeph actually wrote (in Tai's voice, in 1595) that started all this.  I presume this is the text at issue:

[Polyamory] is FUN, sure, but it's not something I wanna do for the rest of my life. I'd much rather settle down with one person.

That is an opinion, and not about anyone else, just herself - it is already a stretch to interpret it as more than that.  And in any case, the quote includes a positive  comment about polyamory, so viewing it as offensive is simply not logical.  If Tai had been made to say: "I now see that polyamory is a really bad idea", then I could (just about) see where the complainers were coming from - but she wasn't.  Seriously, what is there in the text I quoted that people into polyamory would have to "just take"?  Or have I really missed something?

That said, there are people who simply have gigantic chips on the shoulder about relationships and will exhibit them for no obvious cause if they feel like it; the worst I happen to have met were a group of aggressive lesbians whose default position was that straight people were offensive simply for existing, even without any consideration of anything they might think.  It was extremely uncomfortable talking to them (they might have been like that anyway, but they chose to openly hang it on their lesbianism).  This was not a chance encounter - I was the only man, and my wife the only straight woman at a party given by friends who are a lesbian couple, now married (at which I was "best man").  What I am saying here is that sometimes you can't prevent people being offended over sexual orientation, because they just are; but that doesn't mean that I have to think they are sensible, or justified in it (nor of course does one need to be offensive back, which I hope I have not been - beyond disagreeing!).

[Mr_Rose]

I'll ask again: do you not think it could have been reasonably interpreted that way? Yes or no! I'll answer you after you answer me.

I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I cannot think of a reason to interpret Tai's statement of personal preference as an indictment of all poly people and/or polyamory in general, short of wilful, irrational assumptions of persecution based on prejudice. And no, I don't think those are reasonable.

[Is it cold in here?]

My wife is fond of saying "abuse radicalizes".

Suppose the history of polyamory had happened to some other group in QC, for example goths. If goths were forbidden to marry and had found themselves chased into Utah by violent mobs not long ago, then goths might well be radicalized enough to be offended when Dora questioned her gothiness. I'd consider them unreasonable but would acknowledge that reasonableness was a lot to ask for given their history.

Then I'd be initially annoyed that Jeph had to spend time explaining himself, but later I'd decide that it was just a way of saying what he meant.

[JD]

Jens I like how you said you wouldn't argue in discuss and then you go and do this.

[Mr_Rose]

Of course, after today's comic, Jeph will naturally receive hundreds of e-mails from AIs and sentient robots everywhere complaining about his horrible treatment of their plight of servitude to fleshy meatbags like himself.

[Blyss]

 

Personally, I don't think it's okay.  To me, this is making excuses for bad behavior.  If it's alright for someone to jump at shadows (I assume you mean figuratively here, and not literally) then it should be alright for someone to say something potentially offensive, because hey, they didn't know... blah blah blah, ad nauseum...

Is it natural to jump at shadows?  Yes.  Is it something that should be used as an excuse for reacting poorly?  No.

After this, I won't be back to this thread.  This is only my opinion, and should in no way be taken as what's right for everyone.  If I've offended you with MY opinion, there's not really anything that can be done about it anyway.

[pwhodges]

OK Jens, I see what you're saying.  I'm content to leave our takes on this as they stand now.

[JD]

As for this:

Jens I like how you said you wouldn't argue in discuss and then you go and do this.

What on earth did you want to accomplish with this? Judging by my eight thousand earlier posts you think I need help to look like an asshole?

Very little actually, that was just an offhand comment.

[Carl-E]

We know, Zombiedude - you're just a provocateur extraordinaire !!   

[Thorbard]

The thing I noticed, about a recent GWS strip (this one) was that people seem generally unable to separate a character's opinion from the artist's opinion.

Jeph wasn't saying 'polamory' is bad. If anyone was, Tai was. Likewise, Danielle wasn't making a comment on feminisim, Hazel was. Yet people still complain as if they're one and the same.

It does seem to suggest good writing skills though, as the characters have obviously well defined personalities and opinions.

[Near Lurker]

What, Tai has something against poking holes in pussies now?

[Is it cold in here?]

You win the thread.