Questionable Content XV: I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS! I Told You This Thread Was Weird

[Iruka]

thanks to youtube delivering a George Carlin video on ‚soft language‘ just two days ago I know what ‚bathroom tissue‘ really is...

I googled to make sure I understood correctly. Is that a thing? Are we back to not calling it toilet paper?

[Wraith]

Bubbles has not yet succumbed to the Bostonian accent. While the rest of the cast are grunting, mumbling, banging rocks together and proverbially dragging their knuckles through the dictionary like savages, she alone knows an adjective other than 'wicked'. Please do not mock her, she has precious little time left.

The dialogue in which I am in two minds, however, is between Claire and Faye. On the one hand, look at Claire's growth - she used to be afraid to tell anyone that she was trans in case they reacted in shock or disgust and it was big event for her to tell Marten. Now it's just casual conversation, and that's awesome.

On the other hand... Man, that was clunky. It reads less like a real conversation, and more like Jeph had suddenly realised that he had never established it between Claire and Faye so he just kind of threw it in there. Making transgenderism open, accepted and unremarkable is great, but at least give it a little more gravitas than a poop/butts joke?

[SaintRidley]

Wonder if Jeph knows that trans women often have period symptoms. As a few of my friends have described it, they get everything but the bleeding.

[Agi Hammerthief]

I googled to make sure I understood correctly. Is that a thing? Are we back to not calling it toilet paper?

have you read yesterday’s comic?

[Iruka]

have you read yesterday’s comic?

Yes, that is why I am asking.

[AvatarVecna]

If you can't see any threads outside your subscriptions that have updates, that's because the forum doesn't display threads for you that haven't gotten activity in...however long you set it for. The forum default is something like 50 days, or so, but you can set it anywhere from "1 day" to "forever". I have it set to "forever" cuz I like trawling through the archives several hundred pages back to find stuff I replied to way back when.

At least temporarily, I'd probably recommend to most people that they go into their settings and change that paticular setting to something a bit higher than the forum default. Path is "Settings-->General Settings-->Default Thread Age Cut Off".

[Cikomyr2]

The comic has been remarkably without any controversy in the past weeks; nobody whined about anything.

EVEN WHEN RENE WAS THERE

[John Cribati]

The comic has been remarkably without any controversy in the past weeks; nobody whined about anything.

EVEN WHEN RENE WAS THERE

Oh there was an attempt to bash Renee on another forum I frequent, but logic prevailed by the next post.

[Yana]

I still don't quite understand how it's logical to empathize with someone who admits to stealing from her parents for cig money.

[Traab]

I still don't quite understand how it's logical to empathize with someone who admits to stealing from her parents for cig money.

So you were an utter saint as a child/teen who never did anything wrong? Or are you confusing empathy with approval? The point was fairly clear, she was sharing behavior she had done as a teen that wasnt exactly good, to show that he wasnt anything unusual for having events in his past he wasnt proud of as everyone does messed up stuff, and that it doesnt make you a jerk now automatically.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm not a fan of Renee, but the only thing she's done in the forum down-time that even remotely ruffled my feathers was bringing up that she has a crush on Elliot. But that's part of an ongoing thing with them, and honestly it's one of the subtler anvils in the strip so definitely don't wanna discourage that.

[Kish]

So you were an utter saint as a child/teen who never did anything wrong?

Yes, this. Super "Wait, what?" moment there. When someone starts with "I still don't quite understand how it's logical to empathize with someone who" I expect rape or murder to follow, not "stole from parents to buy clove cigarettes, as a teenager."

[Yana]

So you were an utter saint as a child/teen who never did anything wrong? Or are you confusing empathy with approval? The point was fairly clear, she was sharing behavior she had done as a teen that wasnt exactly good, to show that he wasnt anything unusual for having events in his past he wasnt proud of as everyone does messed up stuff, and that it doesnt make you a jerk now automatically.

Of course I wasn't a perfect kid growing up, don't muddle the conversation here. I find it difficult to compare Elliot's apparent "misdeeds" to Renee's thievery. Also, the concept of "Even if you were a jerk in the past doesn't make you one in the present" is certainly undercut by the history of Renee... being exactly that over the course of the comic.

[Agi Hammerthief]

[...] , the concept of "Even if you were a jerk in the past doesn't make you one in the present" is certainly undercut by the history of Renee... being exactly that over the course of the comic.

her words are „bad person“, which is a bit different.
also: wishful thinking and self awareness don’t mix well.

[Morquard]

Of course I wasn't a perfect kid growing up, don't muddle the conversation here. I find it difficult to compare Elliot's apparent "misdeeds" to Renee's thievery. Also, the concept of "Even if you were a jerk in the past doesn't make you one in the present" is certainly undercut by the history of Renee... being exactly that over the course of the comic.

In fact you can argue that being a bully is in the long run much worse than stealing some money from your mother in the long run. Since it can severely impact someone's self esteem for years to come.

[Kish]

Of course I wasn't a perfect kid growing up, don't muddle the conversation here. I find it difficult to compare Elliot's apparent "misdeeds" to Renee's thievery. Also, the concept of "Even if you were a jerk in the past doesn't make you one in the present" is certainly undercut by the history of Renee... being exactly that over the course of the comic.

Okay, at this point, I think what's going on is that you hate Renee enough that any evidence against her might as well be evidence of rape or murder. Which doesn't really make the letter of what you said any less horrific, but it does at least make it less likely that you actually apply those Javertesque standards.

[Yana]

How did we come up with the comparison that "thievery" = "RAPE AND/OR MURDER" in my mind in the first place? I was looking for an actual answer instead of a strawman argument that put words into my mouth. I'm willing to concede that my original rhetorical question was poorly worded, but did it really warrant the followup statements calling my character into question?

Cmon, guys/girls. Aren't we supposed to be better than this?

[Felius]

In fact you can argue that being a bully is in the long run much worse than stealing some money from your mother in the long run. Since it can severely impact someone's self esteem for years to come.

But he was not a bully. Just at the very worst an unwilling accomplice, and more reasonably, a random background person who didn't interact either way. Renee and Brun seem to subscribe to the idea of "you must always rise up and stand against injustice whenever you see it, despite whatever the cost may be", which is not something we can realistically expect of people in general, let alone teens. They don't seem to feel about it so strongly as to become an actual problem, but still, the expectations of what they believe should be expected is rather above what I feel to be reasonable to demand and expect of anyone.

Back on the latest comic though: Beeps really needs someone to take charge already. Roko, seriously, actually usurp her already, it'll be easier and happier for everyone.

[John Cribati]

I started to think to myself "How did Beeps get anything done before Roko and Winslow got here" and about 7.5 words in I interrupted myself and said "she didnt."

[Ibrinar]

I found the prejudice against people engaging in sport in high school weird. I know that it is an US thing I have seen enough US media and I have no comparison (because my school didn't have such stuff) to judge its veracity but it still sounds like there is a significant amount of stereotyping.

[Rodin]

I found the prejudice against people engaging in sport in high school weird. I know that it is an US thing I have seen enough US media and I have no comparison (because my school didn't have such stuff) to judge its veracity but it still sounds like there is a significant amount of stereotyping.

Partially it's because the social cliques already existed. Athletes hang out with each other and become friends, and nerdy types hang out with each other and become friends. The two come into conflict because teenagers are all some degree of horrible. Even if members of the two groups shared interests, they would never know it because the groups didn't interact.

That was certainly the case at my school, anyway. The football players and cheerleaders had their own group. The geeks (proud member) had theirs. On the periphery of both groups were the goths. I assume there were other groups that I didn't interact with at all, but those were the three biggest ones at my high school.

[John Cribati]

Additionally, most fictional high schools, depending on the overall quality of their offered education (as judged through standardized testing and whatnot), may only be funded (and thus, remaining open) based on its sports programmes and the performance of its student athletes. As such, it isn't uncommon, at least as far as various media are concerned (I'm really hoping it doesn't actually work like this in real life), for an academically underperforming but athletically well-off high school to "subtly" allow the jocks more academic or disciplinary leeway.

Ergo, the jocks act out more because they don't really get in trouble for it so long as they keep running field goals in football or shooting all them home runs in basketball or however the frick they score them sportsball things.

[Keltest]

Partially it's because the social cliques already existed. Athletes hang out with each other and become friends, and nerdy types hang out with each other and become friends. The two come into conflict because teenagers are all some degree of horrible. Even if members of the two groups shared interests, they would never know it because the groups didn't interact.

That was certainly the case at my school, anyway. The football players and cheerleaders had their own group. The geeks (proud member) had theirs. On the periphery of both groups were the goths. I assume there were other groups that I didn't interact with at all, but those were the three biggest ones at my high school.

At my school the three major groups were the Jocks, Nerds and the Farmers Kids. The first two groups actually coexisted mostly peacefully, since the jocks were largely marshmallows at heart like Elliot and the nerds didn't really want to antagonize people who didn't do anything wrong and who could defenestrate us if we made them angry enough, but the farm kids tended to be exceptionally dumb and bad at following directions, which made them really unpopular outside their own social circle. I don't really know how it ended up being that the farmers were all the ones who were like that, since ive known plenty of intelligent farmers and come from farmer stock myself, but they were the ones hanging out behind the school doing drugs, cursing in the hallways when no teachers were present, and generally not restraining themselves from being maximally awful teenagers. A lot of them ended up repeating years or dropping out entirely, and ive seen more than a few of them get arrested since then for various petty crimes, so I don't think this is just leftover teenage bias clouding my memories either.

And as far as jocks being given greater leeway because they make the school look good if they perform well in sports, some of that is made up and some of it isn't. People who are legitimately dumb and cant follow directions don't do well in sports, so you rarely have that kind of awful person being given special treatment. On the other hand, you go around telling a bunch of kids that theyre special and important, and they'll start to believe it, and since theyre mostly intelligent and coordinated people, they'll be good at being subtle if they really want to.

[Morquard]

I just watched the third episode (or was it the fourth?) of Traveller on Netflix. In there one of the protagonist's parents (a football player at his high school) get called in to "talk about his grades", and the father just said "As long as he plays football he doesn't need grades".
Ok, I'm sure that's exaggerated for TV, and make the dad look like a bit of a douche, but considering how often this or similar examples (like one of the straight A students is being bullied by the principal to tutor dumb-as-bread-football-quarterback, and threatened that if the latter doesn't pass his tests, they'll both be expelled, and the football star of course taking advantage of that by having nerd-guy do all his homework - again likely an exaggeration) show up, I can't help but think that there has to be some truth to it.

But he was not a bully. Just at the very worst an unwilling accomplice, and more reasonably, a random background person who didn't interact either way.

Trust me to the one being bullied it doesn't matter too much if you're the active bully, or just the guys standing behind the bully, laughing at what he does and says. I get why they do it, they don't wanna end on the ****-list themselves, so I'm not blaming him even.
But my point was "What Elliot did, was likely worse for a lot of people at his school, because they saw him as one of the bad guys. Not actively bullying but enabling the bullies. While what Renee did maybe shocked her mom, if she even found out."
Which, may I remind you was a response to someone essentially saying "Renee is the worst for stealing cig money from her mom, while Elliot didn't do anything wrong"

[Willie the Duck]

How did we come up with the comparison that "thievery" = "RAPE AND/OR MURDER" in my mind in the first place? I was looking for an actual answer instead of a strawman argument that put words into my mouth. I'm willing to concede that my original rhetorical question was poorly worded, but did it really warrant the followup statements calling my character into question?

Cmon, guys/girls. Aren't we supposed to be better than this?

Calling others 'guys/girls,' does not help your case. Nor does suggesting that people are strawmanning, nor muddling the issue. Kish did kind of go from 'When someone starts with "I still don't quite understand how it's logical to empathize with someone who" I expect rape or murder to follow,' to imputing an 'any evidence against her might as well be evidence of rape or murder' opinion upon you, and that's pretty definitely putting words in your mouth. However, Straab, Vecna, Morguard, and Agi made very reasonable arguments that were not muddling any issues or strawmanning and deserve better treatment than 'Aren't we supposed to be better than this?' (they are being better). And I think generalizing Kish's statement without the hyperbole turns it into a reasonable point -- is it possibly you are interpreting this (in-comic) interaction more harshly towards Renee because you already have a negative opinion of her? In these actual comics, she is quite clearly confessing a wrongdoing to suggest that the other person's transgressions weren't so unusual, so the question of why we are to "empathize with someone who admits to stealing from her parents for cig money" seems... I don't know, missing the point? Rejecting it? Something like that.

I found the prejudice against people engaging in sport in high school weird. I know that it is an US thing I have seen enough US media and I have no comparison (because my school didn't have such stuff) to judge its veracity but it still sounds like there is a significant amount of stereotyping.

US media does a very good job of reducing life to clichés. Jocks or the jocks vs. nerds stereotypes may or may not exist IRL in any given US high school, and may or may not be the primary social dynamics of a given high school -- in my own case, I'm sure we did have jocks and cheerleaders and such, but I sure didn't know any of them. As for who picked on the nerds, well predominantly it was other nerds jockeying for power (because, as others have stated, teens can be all kinds of horrible). Regardless, my main point is that US media loves itself some stereotypes* and one should take them with a grain of salt.
[size]*along with teens, there's always the sassy black woman, the effeminate/artsy gay male, and the plus-sized individual who isn't so because they have a sedentary job but because they are always eating cake/donuts[/size]

I started to think to myself "How did Beeps get anything done before Roko and Winslow got here" and about 7.5 words in I interrupted myself and said "she didnt."

And perhaps nonprofits for AIs are new enough, disadvantaged AIs rare enough, or simply the bar is set low enough that the nonprofit was still an ongoing thing. Have we heard anything about their funding?

[halfeye]

I started to think to myself "How did Beeps get anything done before Roko and Winslow got here" and about 7.5 words in I interrupted myself and said "she didnt."

In a romantic context her behaviour seems likely to be remarkably efficient if romance is what she wants, perhaps she's overgeneralising from a behaviour that results in activity in which she is an enthusiastic participant?

[Agi Hammerthief]

[...], but considering how often this or similar examples (...) show up, I can't help but think that there has to be some truth to it. [...]

a good observation on how subtle propaganda works.

[Traab]

My high school had cliques but no real bullying situation because there was lots of crossover. I lettered in sports (not the big ones but still sports) while also being in the chess club, half the basketball/football teams were in the knitting club, etc etc etc. As for the original argument, I didnt make a straw man so I think my response was apt. The entire point of the discussion in comic was to point out that every teen is an assbutt in some way so dont let it define you as an adult. And empathizing is easy because stealing a few bucks from your mom is bad, but hardly the action of an irredeemable madman.

[Kish]

How did we come up with the comparison that "thievery" = "RAPE AND/OR MURDER" in my mind in the first place?

Because you said, in so many words, that it rendered someone an inappropriate target for basic empathy.

If you didn't mean to say that, I'd suggest you scrap the finger-wagging about responses you don't like and start over. Ask a question you're actually willing to stand by.

If you still consider that a valid question, then the responses you're getting are warranted.

Also...

I was looking for an actual answer instead of a strawman argument that put words into my mouth. I'm willing to concede that my original rhetorical question was poorly worded,

A rhetorical question is, definitionally, one that doesn't call for or expect an answer, so...make up your mind? If it was a rhetorical question, then it amounts to, "I hate Renee, and look, she's a thief." No response really needed. If it was an actual question and you were looking for an actual answer...

...then, again, is it a question you wish to stand by having asked, or not?

Edited to add, prompted by Willie the Duck's post, that as soon as you got any level of pushback to your post, you went straight to finger-wagging about how everyone was responding wrong, with the closest you came to saying anything at all about what you'd said being a general negative statement about Renee, so I took a guess at what was going through your head when you posted that--as charitable a guess as I could think of. "The appalling thing you posted is motivated by super extreme hatred of Renee" is the kindest way I could read it; anything else I can think of would involve you actually meaning to state Inspector Javert's guiding principle.

[Yana]

Because you said, in so many words, that it rendered someone an inappropriate target for basic empathy.

If you didn't mean to say that, I'd suggest you scrap the finger-wagging about responses you don't like and start over. Ask a question you're actually willing to stand by.

If you still consider that a valid question, then the responses you're getting are warranted.

Also...

A rhetorical question is, definitionally, one that doesn't call for or expect an answer, so...make up your mind? If it was a rhetorical question, then it amounts to, "I hate Renee, and look, she's a thief." No response really needed. If it was an actual question and you were looking for an actual answer...

...then, again, is it a question you wish to stand by having asked, or not?

Edited to add, prompted by Willie the Duck's post, that as soon as you got any level of pushback to your post, you went straight to finger-wagging about how everyone was responding wrong, with the closest you came to saying anything at all about what you'd said being a general negative statement about Renee, so I took a guess at what was going through your head when you posted that--as charitable a guess as I could think of. "The appalling thing you posted is motivated by super extreme hatred of Renee" is the kindest way I could read it; anything else I can think of would involve you actually meaning to state Inspector Javert's guiding principle.

If this is how you view me, Kish, then I've clearly misrepresented myself. Not particularly surprising given that my "contributions" to this thread for the past few years have been mostly negative and directed towards plot developments I dislike. The question I guess I meant to ask was more akin to "how am I supposed to like Renee in light of her past instances of petty theft in addition to her general unpleasantness?"

I went to the so-called "finger-waggling" because I was hoping to have people treat my question with something other than the disdain that I felt it received. However, whatever my original intention for/what type of reception I might've hoped for said question is obviously moot at this point. Apparently the phrasing I used in an attempt to appeal to a more genteel discussion was patronizing, and for that, I apologize. I just wanted to try and have a civil discussion about it and see if someone could change my mind. It's my fault that I overreacted to the responses that I got and that my original reaction only escalated the matter. I'm sorry that the situation devolved into this.