Print

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

Claire

Brun

Hannelore

Renee

Marigold

Dora Rae Jepsen

Dale

[TinPenguin]

It's that kind of contrary mood where you continue with a mistake to punish yourself for the mistake...

The last time Faye fell off the wagon, it was in a positive mood, feeling like she'd earned it. This time, she knows full well she's about to fuck up, but she's too angry to care, and making her angrier won't fix that.

[Mr. Skawronska]

This is the self-absorbed, thoroughly unpleasant Faye of yore.

:: Happily munches popcorn ::

However this turns out, one thing is clear; it's going to suck to be Faye for awhile.

:: Munches more popcorn ::

This might warrant its own thread, but I'm not dedicated enough to the moment of insight for that.

The general behavior of Bubbles makes me believe that Our Benevolent Comic Overlord is good friends with a veteran.  The character is a little too accurate.  The loss of idealism, the slightly jaded view of the world, the oddly on-the-nose absence of humor, and the blend of fatalism and stoicism is all way too familiar.

Not all veterans are like this.  Some are, but others have different coping mechanisms, like contrariness and dark humor.

My mom's a doctor.  She has a lot of elderly patients.  Some of whom have the oxygen tank under one hand and the cigarette in the other.

This is more common than anyone outside of the medical profession realizes.  To the point where it's part of certain training curriculums to illustrate that your patient may not be the only one at the scene:

"You arrive at the scene for shortness of breath.  The lady answers the door with a cigarette and an oxygen cannula in her nose.  As you begin your assessment, she croaks, 'Oh, it's not for me...it's for Irving...' and points to her husband, also on oxygen, on the couch."

Anyway, it looks like Faye is headed down her dark path.  Let's see where it goes THIS time.

[gopher]

There is only a certain number of times people will be there for you after a fuck up. Eventually there is no one left.

[Kugai]

Faye might not like it, but I think Bubbles being there and not backing down and leaving her to her own devises is exactly the right thing to happen.

[themacnut]

There is only a certain number of times people will be there for you after a fuck up. Eventually there is no one left.

Which is why addicts' most steadfast "friends" tend to be the people they get drunk or high with regularly. In other words, other addicts.

Marten and Dora used to drink with Faye, but couldn't keep up with her, and probably won't even try anymore since she almost killed herself with alcohol. Not to mention the disapproving looks (and comments) she'll get from them. So if Faye goes back to hard drinking, she'll have to join another social circle of hard drinkers for "friendship".

Faye might not like it, but I think Bubbles being there and not backing down and leaving her to her own devises is exactly the right thing to happen.

Whether Bubble's presence puts her off drinking depends on how determined Faye is to jump off the wagon. She seems pretty determined right now...

[Kugai]

She does, and she may or may not go through with it even with Bubbles watching.  At best, Bubbles can be there for her if she does go ahead with it.

I'm hoping her conscience gets the better of her (as rare as that is with Faye) and, whille she may buy the booze, she'll eventually not go through with it.

[Zebediah]

It just occurred to me that I find nothing at all odd or remarkable about a large red robot wearing a trenchcoat having an argument with someone in the streets of Northampton.

Marten and Dora used to drink with Faye, but couldn't keep up with her, and probably won't even try anymore since she almost killed herself with alcohol. Not to mention the disapproving looks (and comments) she'll get from them. So if Faye goes back to hard drinking, she'll have to join another social circle of hard drinkers for "friendship".

Helloooo Barry!

Or Jimbo, I suppose. But Barry would be funnier.

[Zebediah]

Comic!

Actually it is nothing at all like fuck, but that's just my opinion.

[Is it cold in here?]

Bubbles, either by accident or cunning, may have switched Faye to a different track.

[Welu]

Good job, Bubbles, and Faye too. At least Faye can articulate her feelings beyond, "Feel shitty so gonna drink." Hopefully having a non-judgemental ear will help.

[chaospersonified]

Actually it is nothing at all like fuck, but that's just my opinion.

I've used that argument myself, to point out how a friends' argument is baseless.

I've got hopes, now. That argument has worked on my friends, who admittedly, didn't have the 'alcoholic' issue, but may still have some effect on Faye. The argument's just as stupid, regardless of whose mouth it comes from...

[TheEvilDog]

And Faye has just realised that the mark she leaves on this world will, like all man made ventures, crumble into dust.

Unfortunately, she still hasn't realised that the most important mark is actually who she interacts with. Yeah, she doesn't work at CoD anymore, but she has her friendships which have grown and developed there.

[brasca]

Maybe Bubbles is going to open up a little bit about her past.  It might keep Faye distracted long enough to not drink. 

[BenRG]

As I suspected, this is mostly about Faye beating herself up over her mistakes; some genuine and some which exist only in her low self-esteem psyche. She does make mistakes, of course, because she's human and humans tend to do that (irritating as that is). However, she's eventually going to have to learn that the best way to handle this is to try to change yourself rather than seek oblivion for a few hours and then carry right on doing it.

I'm pretty sure that trying to explain her thinking process to Bubbles is going to rip the blinders off for Faye and she's simply not going to be able to face getting drunk simply because she can't explain her feelings to her friend without sounding like an idiot. I'm still betting that this arc will end with her in tears and Bubbles hugging her.

From Jeph's notes on this comic, it appears that he thinks of Bubbles speaking in a firm, stentorian voice that makes profanity sound vaguely ridiculous. I'm glad that I'm not the only one whose mental voice for her is like that!

[Nycticoraci]

I couldn't help but read bubbles' last line in James Earl Jones's voice.

[mad hands murphy]

As I suspected, this is mostly about Faye beating herself up over her mistakes; some genuine and some which exist only in her low self-esteem psyche. She does make mistakes, of course, because she's human and humans tend to do that (irritating as that is). However, she's eventually going to have to learn that the best way to handle this is to try to change yourself rather than seek oblivion for a few hours and then carry right on doing it.

I'm pretty sure that trying to explain her thinking process to Bubbles is going to rip the blinders off for Faye and she's simply not going to be able to face getting drunk simply because she can't explain her feelings to her friend without sounding like an idiot. I'm still betting that this arc will end with her in tears and Bubbles hugging her.

From Jeph's notes on this comic, it appears that he thinks of Bubbles speaking in a firm, stentorian voice that makes profanity sound vaguely ridiculous. I'm glad that I'm not the only one whose mental voice for her is like that!

Nah she's just re-learning that you can't go home again.

It's not any mistake she made it's just like like she said, Mom turned her room into guest bedroom. That shit'll get you if you don't see it coming.

[swapna]

I hope Faye realises soon that while things are different, she profited from the change most of all. Her Job is so much better for her, more interesting and better paid; no need for emergency burbon when you're bored in the evening. CW might be manipulative and mean, but she's at least as good a boss as Dora - even better when one considers she has yet to do anything hilariously shitty like firing someone over hugging their boyfriend.

Also, Bubbles tactic is funny and effective at the same time. I wonder where she learned that

[St.Clair]

As I suspected, this is mostly about Faye beating herself up over her mistakes; some genuine and some which exist only in her low self-esteem psyche. She does make mistakes, of course, because she's human and humans tend to do that (irritating as that is). However, she's eventually going to have to learn that the best way to handle this is to try to change yourself rather than seek oblivion for a few hours and then carry right on doing it.

I'm pretty sure that trying to explain her thinking process to Bubbles is going to rip the blinders off for Faye and she's simply not going to be able to face getting drunk simply because she can't explain her feelings to her friend without sounding like an idiot. I'm still betting that this arc will end with her in tears and Bubbles hugging her.

From Jeph's notes on this comic, it appears that he thinks of Bubbles speaking in a firm, stentorian voice that makes profanity sound vaguely ridiculous. I'm glad that I'm not the only one whose mental voice for her is like that!

Nah she's just re-learning that you can't go home again.

It's not any mistake she made it's just like like she said, Mom turned her room into guest bedroom. That shit'll get you if you don't see it coming.

Well, she also seems to be questioning whether her influence was more negative than positive, and unhappy that, whichever it was, it's gone now - that she "matters" less, that the mark she's left (and perhaps her ability to affect the world going forward) has diminished. 
A really nasty cocktail of self-doubt and feeling insignificant and powerless.  Serve over ice in an highball glass straight from the bottle, glug glug glug.

I will also note that pointing out how ridiculously, selfishly, immaturely etc one is behaving - not by lecturing or moralizing, simply by holding up a mirror and letting them observe themselves - can be very effective, if one can withstand the blows that will likely come from the embarrassed person trying to get you to stop.

[Thrillho]

She should just stop her.

No she shouldn't. That'll make everything worse.

Quitting doesn't work if it's for someone else. You have to quit for you.

[gopher]

Kind of hoping Faye has a moment of clarity and realises what a terrible person she is and then strives to improve.

[WareWolf]

Bubbles, either by accident or cunning, may have switched Faye to a different track.

Bubbles' tactic of saying, in essence, "I'm not judging you or trying to challenge you with this question, but I don't always understand human behavior, so help me out" is brilliant. Perhaps unconsciously so, but brilliant nonetheless.

[themacnut]

I will also note that pointing out how ridiculously, selfishly, immaturely etc one is behaving - not by lecturing or moralizing, simply by holding up a mirror and letting them observe themselves - can be very effective, if one can withstand the blows that will likely come from the embarrassed person trying to get you to stop.

It may depend on if Faye is ready to face such an epiphany. If she isn't she may be driven to drink even faster; "Oh god the feels. THE FEELS. MUST DROWN THEM!!!" I've always thought that the reason many addicts continue chasing that high even though the chase has imploded the rest of their lives is because the high is the one remaining good feeling. The rest of their life is hell, getting high relieves the pain for awhile; for all too many addicts, that may be all they think they have left.

[WareWolf]

I will also note that pointing out how ridiculously, selfishly, immaturely etc one is behaving - not by lecturing or moralizing, simply by holding up a mirror and letting them observe themselves - can be very effective, if one can withstand the blows that will likely come from the embarrassed person trying to get you to stop.

It may depend on if Faye is ready to face such an epiphany. If she isn't she may be driven to drink even faster; "Oh god the feels. THE FEELS. MUST DROWN THEM!!!" I've always thought that the reason many addicts continue chasing that high even though the chase has imploded the rest of their lives is because the high is the one remaining good feeling. The rest of their life is hell, getting high relieves the pain for awhile; for all too many addicts, that may be all they think they have left.

Fairly often, it's not even a matter of feeling good anymore. You do it to keep from feeling bad, because the drugs or alcohol have burned out all the pleasure receptors in the brain.

[themacnut]

Damn. That's...so much worse than I thought.

[Gyrre]

I will also note that pointing out how ridiculously, selfishly, immaturely etc one is behaving - not by lecturing or moralizing, simply by holding up a mirror and letting them observe themselves - can be very effective, if one can withstand the blows that will likely come from the embarrassed person trying to get you to stop.

It may depend on if Faye is ready to face such an epiphany. If she isn't she may be driven to drink even faster; "Oh god the feels. THE FEELS. MUST DROWN THEM!!!" I've always thought that the reason many addicts continue chasing that high even though the chase has imploded the rest of their lives is because the high is the one remaining good feeling. The rest of their life is hell, getting high relieves the pain for awhile; for all too many addicts, that may be all they think they have left.

I don't recall the name of the experiment or those that performed it, but the experimenter(s) had put a lone rat in a standard cave with just some bedding, bland food pellets,  and two water bottles. One was plan water, the other was drugged (crack, if I'm not mistaken). The rat always chose the drugged water. Said rat was transferred to a much larger cage with other rats, a running wheel, plenty of toys, a more varied diet, and two water bottles -- one of which contained the same drug. The rat went for the normal water.  The conclusion was that when the rat's needs were met, it didn't take drugs. And it's also suggested that our current model of addiction is wrong.

Mind you, this is something I read on tumblr, so take it with a grain of salt.

[oddtail]

I will also note that pointing out how ridiculously, selfishly, immaturely etc one is behaving - not by lecturing or moralizing, simply by holding up a mirror and letting them observe themselves - can be very effective, if one can withstand the blows that will likely come from the embarrassed person trying to get you to stop.

It may depend on if Faye is ready to face such an epiphany. If she isn't she may be driven to drink even faster; "Oh god the feels. THE FEELS. MUST DROWN THEM!!!" I've always thought that the reason many addicts continue chasing that high even though the chase has imploded the rest of their lives is because the high is the one remaining good feeling. The rest of their life is hell, getting high relieves the pain for awhile; for all too many addicts, that may be all they think they have left.

I don't recall the name of the experiment or those that performed it, but the experimenter(s) had put a lone rat in a standard cave with just some bedding, bland food pellets,  and two water bottles. One was plan water, the other was drugged (crack, if I'm not mistaken). The rat always chose the drugged water. Said rat was transferred to a much larger cage with other rats, a running wheel, plenty of toys, a more varied diet, and two water bottles -- one of which contained the same drug. The rat went for the normal water.  The conclusion was that when the rat's needs were met, it didn't take drugs. And it's also suggested that our current model of addiction is wrong.

Mind you, this is something I read on tumblr, so take it with a grain of salt.

I've heard about this outside of Tumblr, for what  it's worth. I think I saw a TED Talk video about just this.

Still not an excellent and reliable source, but better'n nothing

[MooskiNet]

I don't recall the name of the experiment or those that performed it, but the experimenter(s) had put a lone rat in a standard cave with just some bedding, bland food pellets,  and two water bottles. One was plan water, the other was drugged (crack, if I'm not mistaken). The rat always chose the drugged water. Said rat was transferred to a much larger cage with other rats, a running wheel, plenty of toys, a more varied diet, and two water bottles -- one of which contained the same drug. The rat went for the normal water.  The conclusion was that when the rat's needs were met, it didn't take drugs. And it's also suggested that our current model of addiction is wrong.

Mind you, this is something I read on tumblr, so take it with a grain of salt.

I've heard about this outside of Tumblr, for what  it's worth. I think I saw a TED Talk video about just this.

Still not an excellent and reliable source, but better'n nothing

I think you folks are talking about Rat Park.

The problem for humans, of course, is our tendency to overthink a plate of beans - even if all our basic needs are being met, we'll go ahead and question whether we deserve it.

[alanari]

I've heard about this experiment too and I don't like it. We are not rats. We are a bit more complicated than rats. Yes, being unhappy surely contributes, it's called self-medication, but that's not all.
I mean, a huge portion of smokers started smoking because "everyone does it". There are even some who started to smoke to lose weight, since nicotine reduces appetite.

But the  main reason I dislike it is the implication "he's just unhappy". Which immediately leads to the conclusion "he only needs to be happy and he'll stop". This hasn't worked for a single addict ever, but many relatives have ruined their own life and soul trying to make it work. This is an encouragement they don't need.

It's an interesting result but transferring it to humans could lead to a lot of suffering.
A human addict needs to reach a point where living with the drug is scarier than living without the one thing that seems to be what keeps him running.

[BenRG]

FWIW, I think that a lot of  the transferrence problem is because making a human 'happy' is fantastically more complex an endeavour than with a rat. For some reason, we have an instinctive drive to find 'meaning' in our lives; this has at least as strong an impact on our mental and emotional balance as any purely physical issue.

[oddtail]

I've heard about this experiment too and I don't like it. We are not rats. We are a bit more complicated than rats. Yes, being unhappy surely contributes, it's called self-medication, but that's not all.
I mean, a huge portion of smokers started smoking because "everyone does it". There are even some who started to smoke to lose weight, since nicotine reduces appetite.

But the  main reason I dislike it is the implication "he's just unhappy". Which immediately leads to the conclusion "he only needs to be happy and he'll stop". This hasn't worked for a single addict ever, but many relatives have ruined their own life and soul trying to make it work. This is an encouragement they don't need.

It's an interesting result but transferring it to humans could lead to a lot of suffering.
A human addict needs to reach a point where living with the drug is scarier than living without the one thing that seems to be what keeps him running.

I don't think there's a one-on-one correspondence, but I think humans do act on some pretty basic and simple instincts, much of the time. Certainly more often than we tend to think. And understanding certain simple processes in rats may shed some light on how humans behave, too. Yes, it has to be taken with a grain of salt, but as complex an animal as I am, I am still an animal. I am subject to many dynamics, both as an individual and as a part of group, as any other mammal. And a rat is a relatively smart mammal, too.

Does the experiment explain all human behaviour regarding addiction? I highly doubt that. Does it have *relevance* for humans? I believe it does.

[St.Clair]

FWIW, I think that a lot of  the transferrence problem is because making a human 'happy' is fantastically more complex an endeavour than with a rat. For some reason, we have an instinctive drive to find 'meaning' in our lives; this has at least as strong an impact on our mental and emotional balance as any purely physical issue.

Also, getting what we (thought we) want(ed) does not always make us happier, at least not for long; a lot of humans, probably most of us, seem to be wired to never be really content with what we have, always desiring more.  Once we get something, we move our goalposts.  It's one of the more messed-up aspects of our cognition, IMO, that we can't ever just be happy with what we've got, though it's allowed us as a species to accomplish some amazing things (that we look at first with pride, then with ambivalence, and finally with scorn - it wasn't really that great/why haven't we done anything else that cool?).

There's a wiki article on this (the hedonic treadmill), if anyone's interested.

[Gyrre]

I've heard about this experiment too and I don't like it. We are not rats. We are a bit more complicated than rats. Yes, being unhappy surely contributes, it's called self-medication, but that's not all.
I mean, a huge portion of smokers started smoking because "everyone does it". There are even some who started to smoke to lose weight, since nicotine reduces appetite.

But the  main reason I dislike it is the implication "he's just unhappy". Which immediately leads to the conclusion "he only needs to be happy and he'll stop". This hasn't worked for a single addict ever, but many relatives have ruined their own life and soul trying to make it work. This is an encouragement they don't need.

It's an interesting result but transferring it to humans could lead to a lot of suffering.
A human addict needs to reach a point where living with the drug is scarier than living without the one thing that seems to be what keeps him running.

I don't think there's a one-on-one correspondence, but I think humans do act on some pretty basic and simple instincts, much of the time. Certainly more often than we tend to think. And understanding certain simple processes in rats may shed some light on how humans behave, too. Yes, it has to be taken with a grain of salt, but as complex an animal as I am, I am still an animal. I am subject to many dynamics, both as an individual and as a part of group, as any other mammal. And a rat is a relatively smart mammal, too.

Does the experiment explain all human behaviour regarding addiction? I highly doubt that. Does it have *relevance* for humans? I believe it does.

Definitely agree.

There's an entire field of study devoted to animal behavior; ethology (if memory serves). Animals and humans shouldn't be given a 1:1 correlation.


I know I brought up the rat park study, but only because it is relevant.

[Kugai]

Bubbles attitude here, whether intentional or simply by her lack of social understanding and interaction with Human Civilians, might be exactly the right tack for her to be taking even if she doesn't realise it.

[Atherea]

My mom's a doctor.  She has a lot of elderly patients.  Some of whom have the oxygen tank under one hand and the cigarette in the other.

This describes my mom perfectly. She chain-smokes all day long, between breathing treatments, in the middle of the night, just constantly. She's developed COPD and has been told she needs to be on oxygen all day long, but she won't because it interferes with her smoking. She's only in her 40s and she lives like she's in her 80s, complete with a walker because she can't go more than 10 steps without getting short of breath and dizzy. Since she was 12-years-old, the longest she's gone without a cigarette (outside of during hospital stays) is 12 hours. She nearly died a couple years ago (had to be taken by LifeFlight to the hospital) and it still didn't wake her up enough to get her to quit. We brought her home and she immediately lit up.

[Morituri]

I've heard about this experiment too and I don't like it. We are not rats. We are a bit more complicated than rats.

In fact that's the whole point of science.  Experimental results (at least in well-designed experiments) are reproducible whether you like them or not.  You don't HAVE to like it.

That said, the experimental results are about rats, not humans.  I don't know of any similar experiment being carried out to see if it works on humans, but I kinda think one ought to be.  When we find something that works on a problem humans have, even for a simpler organism, it's just plain good sense to see whether some version of it works on humans.

But the  main reason I dislike it is the implication "he's just unhappy". Which immediately leads to the conclusion "he only needs to be happy and he'll stop". This hasn't worked for a single addict ever, but many relatives have ruined their own life and soul trying to make it work. This is an encouragement they don't need.

Hmmm.  Like I said, I don't know of any well-designed studies on humans.  Anecdotally, I think I've seen similar things happening to humans with positive  results too.   Of addicts I've known who did quit, I can't think of a single one of them who quit while they were all alone in the world.  They all had a bunch of other people they were involved with at the time. 

But that's anecdotal, not a proper statistical study. Anecdotes are all we really have at this point, not solid results.  Especially not solid results that would indicate a proper way HOW to apply it to humans.  FWIW, while I've seen people successfully quit things (including my dad) I don't recall personally seeing a single one who quit as a result of any kind of intentional interaction by a family specifically aimed at reaching that result.  What I recall is people, usually without specific intent in doing it as a way of quitting, developing interests, becoming active members of communities, undertaking charitable causes, etc, and finally finding that they could quit.

In the most extreme cases, it really does happen like Faye's shown in the comic - realizing after a week or a month or whatever that they just haven't been thinking about the addiction.   Of course, this is unfortunate, because, like Faye, that thought often as not brings the "need" back to the surface.  I think that kind of specific memory bringing back a psychological need is probably something rats suffer from a bit less than humans.   

But if all we had on the other point was anecdotes, what I just said about rats is a mere untested theory. 

[Morituri]

Also, getting what we (thought we) want(ed) does not always make us happier, at least not for long; a lot of humans, probably most of us, seem to be wired to never be really content with what we have, always desiring more.  Once we get something, we move our goalposts.  It's one of the more messed-up aspects of our cognition, IMO, that we can't ever just be happy with what we've got.

I think that might be a basic feature of consciousness, actually.  Conscious beings are always looking for the next thing.  No matter how powerfully we can affect our environment, no matter how easy we can make our own survival, no matter how much we discover we can do - we become diminished (and usually unhappy) unless we are always seeking to do, or become, or get, or learn, or communicate, or to love or to be loved, more than we are. 

Certainly most of the work of modeling real consciousness - for me anyway - has come down to trying to understand  the mechanisms behind motivation and desire - where does that come from and how does it work?  And the only place it seems possible for it to arise is in the context of thinking about, anticipating, the future - to whatever extent the system is capable - in relationship to maximizing the conditions under which the organism thrives.

Our brains in fact are organized in terms of those desires, plans, and aspirations and thinking about the future.  We don't even notice things that aren't 'understood' to be related to our futures.  We have such a detailed representation of the world in our heads, we perceive so much of what our senses take in, precisely because humans are in the business of making a HUGE range of details relevant to our futures.   If we couldn't ever find a way in which rocks were relevant to us - from not tripping over them, to looking for 'better' stuff among them, to picking them up and throwing them - we'd never even notice that rocks existed.

[Morituri]

Wow.  Three in a row.  I'll quit now, I promise.

At the risk of straying back on topic....

Today's comic brings up a question.  Bubbles clearly has no idea what fuck is actually like.  Who should enlighten her, and how? 

[Storel]

I couldn't help but read bubbles' last line in James Earl Jones's voice.

I imagined hearing it in Worf's voice. Hilarious!

[Penquin47]

I couldn't help but read bubbles' last line in James Earl Jones's voice.

I imagined hearing it in Worf's voice. Hilarious!

Morgan Freeman, here.

[Storel]

I couldn't help but read bubbles' last line in James Earl Jones's voice.

I imagined hearing it in Worf's voice. Hilarious!

Morgan Freeman, here.

All deep, solemn, male voices. Interesting.

Edit: Now, for fun, imagine Yoda's voice saying "Indeed... like fuck, it is."

[Penquin47]

I couldn't help but read bubbles' last line in James Earl Jones's voice.

I imagined hearing it in Worf's voice. Hilarious!

Morgan Freeman, here.

All deep, solemn, male voices. Interesting.

Edit: Now, for fun, imagine Yoda's voice saying "Indeed... like fuck, it is."

If it helps, the other voice in my head is Kathryn Janeway's.

[wlewisiii]

If it helps, the other voice in my head is Kathryn Janeway's.

Sigourney Weaver as Ripley for me.

[Method of Madness]

I envy those who have voices for the characters.

[Tova]

CW might be manipulative and mean, but she's at least as good a boss as Dora - even better when one considers she has yet to do anything hilariously shitty like firing someone over hugging their boyfriend.

Okay, while Dora was in the wrong, that is not a completely fair and accurate description of what happened.

[pwhodges]

Quitting doesn't work if it's for someone else. You have to quit for you.

Not that simple; sometimes the first step is what keeps someone alive to be taken towards the second.

[Near Lurker]

Honestly, if I were to give Bubbles a voice, she'd sound very similar to Data - a male character, yes, but very breathy for a male.

[Storel]

CW might be manipulative and mean, but she's at least as good a boss as Dora - even better when one considers she has yet to do anything hilariously shitty like firing someone over hugging their boyfriend.

Okay, while Dora was in the wrong, that is not a completely fair and accurate description of what happened.

If nothing else, I don't remember anyone getting fired over that incident.

[Penquin47]

CW might be manipulative and mean, but she's at least as good a boss as Dora - even better when one considers she has yet to do anything hilariously shitty like firing someone over hugging their boyfriend.

Okay, while Dora was in the wrong, that is not a completely fair and accurate description of what happened.

If nothing else, I don't remember anyone getting fired over that incident.

Dora told Faye not to come into work in the morning.  Whether that was a firing or a temporary "I can't look at you which means I don't want you in my coffee shop so don't come in" is up for debate, but either way, it's bad behavior on Dora's part.

[brasca]

Maybe Bubbles has the same sounding voice as Bubbles from the Powerpuff Girls which is why her squad gave her the name. 

[Zebediah]

If it helps, the other voice in my head is Kathryn Janeway's.

Sigourney Weaver as Ripley for me.

Sort of a cross between Sigourney Weaver and Gwendoline Christie for me.