My guess is it’s about the double standards associated with the different genders having sex. That and how siblings’ sex lives shouldn’t affect your own life.
AUGH. This is the first time a Wikipedia article with no pictures or anything has made me want to claw my eyes out in the same way as some of the pictures at Encyclopedia Dramatica. Right up there with reading about Human Centipede. Pass the brain bleach, please. O_o Do NOT Google this… unless, of course, you’re into that sort of thing…
Not sure what this has to do with WOMEN’s sexuality, since the case only involves two men engaging in a sexual act of their preference.
Does it count that Meiwes served as subject of a Rammstein song and stage show?
Exactly. There were no women involved, yet a country on the verge of legalizing assisted suicide extended an eight-year sentence to life on hearing it might have been a kink.
So your logic is that “society” can only try to control one thing at a time?
Here’s a way to reconcile the opposing claims. Society tries to control what it sees as “deviant” and then applies different standards for deviancy to men and women.
She’s raising her hand. Walky’s looking at someone to his right, I think. And Joe…Well, Joes just pissed he got his face covered with banner…
Normally he’s the one covering faces with banner, if you know what I mean.
Am I really going to be the first one to guess that Roz is Amazigirl? Fine then: maybe Roz is Amazigirl! (Now if it turns out to be true I can claim to be the first one to call it.)
Seriously though. It honestly was the only thing to pop into my mind both in this strip and the last one, however unlikely it is. It makes a lot of sense if you pretend it’s true and read both of them in order. ‘m just covering my bases here.
Also, I have a love/hate relationship with Roz. Sometimes she’s terrible, but other times, she can be really cool. I think she might be the latter right now, but it’s too soon to tell.
Well… to be fair, the major journalism trend is to twist everything and quote out of context. In order to make her large point, whatever it may be, she needs to find someone that *won’t* do that.
true, but im pretty sure she could find that person quite easily without sounding like a self-righteous know it all.
all im really saying is that she may have the purest intentions on the planet but theres a reason that no one in any of the verses, who hasnt had sex with her, seems to like her very much and i think it has much to do with that “better than you” attitude she seems to have
Right, but realize Roz’s behavior is as a reaction to Dorothy. Perhaps if Dorothy *didn’t* slut shame her, she would be singing a different tune. Peoples’ actions are very conditional.
I don’t think this qualifies as slut shaming. I personally would think a guy was a moron for this behavior too. I don’t resent someone for having sex, or even a whole lot of sex, but a sex video during election season from the relative of a politician sounds like a pretty stupid move until she tells you what her goals are.
It’s not gaybashing to look at Larry Craig and think “Dude, how hard is it to not go soliciting sex from strangers in airport bathrooms during your time as a senator?” I have no qualms with his sexual orientation, but it still wasn’t a smooth move.
Election season or not, it’s a stupid move. She knows she’s very closely related to an elected official, she knows that what she’s doing could easily hurt said official’s career, and yet she goes ahead and does it anyways just to further whatever her agenda might be. To be honest, it’s beyond stupid, it’s straight up selfish.
She wasn’t asked for her opinion, she was asked if she judged her right after Dorothy’s saying Roz can trust her. Dorothy quite clearly illustrated that she has a pre-existing agenda without knowing the facts. Yes, she knows the facts about *what* happened, but not why. It doesn’t surprise me that people don’t understand the principles of journalism when it’s been twisted so much as it has the past two decades but it does sadden me.
“so Dorothy has no right to her opinions about sexuality?” Uh. Right there? Your question makes it seem like by reacting to the opinion, Roz is saying Dorothy doesn’t have that right. If Dorothy’s just going to be a normal person, then yeah. Roz doesn’t care. However, Dorothy wants a story. It’s called journalistic integrity.
Dorothy (Just like you) is judging Roz based on one piece of evidence. Roz is simply standing up for herself by not doing that (She didn’t judge Dorothy simply for being part of the media, but waited to learn about her attitude).
your right, i am. though in my defense im momentarily judging her for how shes acting in the moment. right now shes acting like a bongo and im calling it as such
How is she doing that? She admitted to not trusting Dorothy. When told, “Try me,” she asked, “Did you judge me?” and got a snarky reply.
Her reply was basically “You’re not getting what you want because I’ve no reason to believe you’ll give me what I want in exchange for it.” Seems fair enough to me. Thus far, Dorothy’s treated Roz more like meat than Joe did.
My guess is she’s trying to make a point about how stupid it is that the media is suddenly all over her for doing something they wouldn’t care about if not for her being the sister of someone in the public eye.
This might sound crazy, but maybe the media isn’t all over it because her sister is in the public eye. Maybe, just maybe, it was because she had sex in the public eye. For a nickel.
You can actually prove that no camwhores are mothers since the introduction of any camwhothers makes the value of non-camwhother whores in the equation ’12 whores = 10 cents’ unstable, which isn’t allowed.
(At no camwhothers they’re worth 5/6 a cent each, at 1 camwhother the remaining 11 are worth 5/11 cents each, and at 2 or more camwhothers the remainder are paying you to play.)
Far be it for me to be labeled as a party girl when I’m not… but whatever someone decides to do, for their own reasons when they think it through, is empowering. Other people can interpret it another way, but the activity is supposed to be empowering for the person doing it, not for those around them.
Ok, so something are different this time around. We aren’t gonna change some things, like her being the sister of a Congresswoman. But other things are fair game, such as how successful said Congresswoman is. And how much time she has to have to hang out with her sister. Maybe they aren’t at each other’s throats this time around. And she figures if she can get her, well, not impeached but merely not reelected…
A reporter suddenly gloms onto Roz and declares that she will be writing an article about *THE* story. Why shouldn’t she distrust that person? Roz explained it pretty clearly. She distrusts the press in general, and that’s a pretty smart attitude for anyone to have, let alone someone in Roz’s position.
Also, she did give Dorothy a chance to actually answer for herself rather than just flat-out accuse her of being self-righteous and judgmental. At this point, Dorothy has quite fairly earned any distrust.
I don’t like the new banner that much! Walky doesn’t have his sucker face, Joyce is just kind of vacantly grabbing the air, and Joe is completely covered up!
Maybe because Roz is a crusading attention whore with a self-righteous personal agenda who is every bit as externally judgmental of everyone who doesn’t think like her no matter how much she denies it to herself?
It’s pretty on the mark, as far as I can tell. She pulled a publicity stunt and is looking down on people who don’t see her message. She IS pretty much in everyone’s face about her cause célèbre.
No, she displayed a low opinion of people who would seek to distort her message for their own gain. If that’s what they want to do, they can do it without her assistance.
Thus far, Roz has shown more consent for the spirit of consent than the letter. The press hasn’t had the best track record for that sort of thing, so she’s just being a little discerning. (Too soon to determine if she’s the same way for her partners. Joe’s the only one on tape at this time.)
It would be easier not to distort the message if she’d tell us what it is. Perhaps she could have released some footnotes, annotations, and maybe a description with the video. Any one of those would clear up ever so much, and then she wouldn’t even be reliant on reporters.
Interesting take. I’ll see how this progresses over the course of the proceeding updates. I suppose that works. I like it.
I’ll point out that she didn’t show any interest in spinning her words though. She didn’t show interest in understanding either admittedly, but that’s because she’s completely uninterested in everything about this. Quite likely would’ve been her best bet for unaltered transliteration of her her words lacking in spin.
Still, even with that what you’ve laid out works just fine. She’ll talk to those who want to understand, and those who don’t aren’t worth her time.
I don’t know if it’s mentioned in the previous pages but I’m still seeing the graphic blurs. The posters here don’t seem to notice. You says it’s cache issue, so why when new page that I haven’t seen yet is up and I see the blurs?
Is it a result of Google Reader? When I see the comic in Google Reader, the comic panels are crisp and clear. I click on the link to go here, and it’s blurry.
I’m guessing that the video is Roz’s weapon in a conflict between Roz and Robin, where this universe’s Roz is not happy being 1) in Robin’s shadow her whole life, and 2) ignored by her very busy sister.
The scary part of this hypothesis: This universe’s Robin is over-achieving and successful. If she hates skittles we are definitely not in Kansas anymore.
And the only acceptable reason to turn it into a publicity stunt is out of jealousy of her sister?
Not to make a social or political statement, or to make a statement on the very opinion of how sex is viewed? This is the same chick who is humble enough to go around wearing a condom hat to advocate safe sex, and she’s apparently not worth liking.
Sure it is, if your message is that people shouldn’t have so many hang ups about sex. Whether you think eliminating sex taboos is wise or terribly misguided, I think it’s fair to say that it’s mostly a *positive* motivation, as opposed to spite, jealousy, or inferiority.
We got artificial insemination now anyway. There’s no real excuse for sex to be anything but recreational fun for all involved.
That being said I personally do find spite and inferiority to be more relatable than a desire to change the world. Whether the motivation is positive or negative is a rather shallow and incomplete qualifier for what makes someone likable.
Most of us have at some point engaged in an act of spite or had someone who made us feel inferior. Many of us get driven crazy by the frikkin activists always trying to cram their messages down our throats. Some of us might even be made to feel inferior by people who’s sunny ideals lead them to be constantly off campaigning for a greater good. All and all despite being positive it might not actually be all that likable.
Sibling issues on the other hand, more than one form of media has built incredibly likable characters entirely around their sibling issues and the mean and spiteful things it leads them towards. You can go seasons without even developing two siblings beyond “They hate eachother for having/being what the other doesn’t/isn’t” if you do it right.
You must not have gone to school with many freshmen liberal arts majors (or political science majors). A desire to change the world is the entire reason they enrolled. Very rarely do the sunny ideals persist into grad school, but I find Roz to be one of the most relatable secondary characters so far.
Oh there are a lot of them at my school. I hate them all. Every day walking through campus is like traveling through the den of the beast. It looks me in the eyes and tries to infect me with its’ madness. I was a cynical child. I’m not suddenly gonna start getting passionate about orangutans today just because you asked me for three years straight on a near daily basis. There ain’t no orangutans for thousands of miles! Why won’t you let me study in peace?
But fair enough. I can appreciate that. What’s relatable is a little different for everybody.
Well when your motive is to damage someone, i can understand why you take actions that are going to damage someone. When your motive is do something positive, you should care a little bit more about the potential consequences.
…I don’t understand. Just because she’s doing something positive, why are you getting that she doesn’t care about the consequences? She was most likely counting on them happening.
That or they’re trying to point out that those consequences shouldn’t happen.
If she’s for sex, she would be of the opinion that a consensual sexual act, even if public, shouldn’t be an issue to injure others. It’s an opinion I can agree on.
Ughhh. In principle, I’m really against slut shaming. It’s not fair because as Definitely, Maybe deftly pointed out, there’s no boy word for “slut.” On the other hand, why did she put up the video, if not for appraisal? I mean, she’d probably be cool with someone praising her technique, and that’s clearly a form of “judging” her. So she’s laughably inconsistent and annoying to boot. Maybe the DoA version of her is more tolerable than the SP version, but I super doubt it.
Do we have any evidence that Roz knew the video would go viral? It’s possible she had a very specific audience in mind, but is now just trying to make the best of a bad situation after the video spread beyond /b/
So no one ever told her that the internet is a vast network of interconnected computers that covers the whole world? Poor girl. What were her parents thinking keeping her in the dark like that?
That’s the ticket, Roz. Everyone loves to be belittled! She’s sure to put forth the effort to decipher your motives that you’re too self-righteous to explain.
Well, Dorothy “wants” the story. Roz doesn’t want to give it to just anyone; only to people who are willing to be open-minded and not going into the interview with a label pre-made for her.
I’m kind of surprised at how many people are missing this. 😐
People aren’t missing that. People are ignoring that because she pulled a publicity stunt and then decided to try to be choosy about how it was interpreted. If the pre-made labels she’s made herself a target for are interfering with her agenda, she only has herself to blame.
No, you certainly are missing it. Roz does not have to cooperate with people who want something for her, with no regard for what she wants.
She doesn’t give a damn about who you think is to blame for the distortion of her message, and why should she? That’s a loser’s game, letting others dictate the game you have to play.
Really? How? She seems quite content to go without media attention, and shows no signs of suffering from the personal attention we’ve seen, so how exactly is she losing?
Media attention is gonna happen. It’s already happening. Going without media attention was never an option. If she doesn’t give her own story they’ll just make up their own spin without her.
The second she looked to control what people think or say about her after releasing a sex video she entered a losing game. It’s a losing game because the objective cannot be achieved. It has a final boss that doesn’t die.
We’re really gonna have to get a concrete answer on what her game is and what she’s trying to accomplish before we can take this discussion any further.
But you’re also disinterested in hearing said final answer because “It’s a sex video”. I bet you that if Dot had said “I don’t generally have a high opinion about people who put sex videos on the internet but I haven’t heard the full story yet.” then things would’ve gone down differently. Innocent until proven guilty, etc etc.
I’m disinterested because I’ve been given no reason to take interest as of yet. Roz could fix that if she actually has a case to make. We’ll see when we get there.
I don’t think Roz is a bad person, but it seriously ticks me off when people are needlessly cryptic and/or mysterious. That’s why I never liked Dumbledore.
He had a reason, yes. He did not have a GOOD reason. If he hadn’t put his personal issues in the middle of everyone else’s battle for survival, he wouldn’t have been so concerned with keeping his secrets. If he had been honest, especially with Harry,things would have been dealt with earlier and more effectively. For example, Dumbledore lied and omitted information from Harry, and still expected him to martyr himself.
TL;DR Dumbledore had no good reason for being cryptic.
Actually, until Dumbledore had a full understanding of Harry Potter, there’s no reason why he should have expected him to be okay with the decision. Hindsight is 20/20, and you’re using logic of how it turned out to judge that he made the wrong choice. He had to make an educated decision on how to handle the entire situation and chose what he thought would be the best.
I don’t really see personal matters coloring his choice either.
A man tells the waiter to take a sip of his soup for him. The waiter protests, because that’s ridiculous, and they yell at each other for several minutes. Eventually the waiter gives in and tries to take a sip. But the spoon is gone. “Where’s the spoon?”
“Exactly.”
The only time one should ever be cryptical is making fun of someone/being generally funny. It’s no use being this kind of clever when stuff is serious!
Why should Roz treat this as serious, when it’s clear that Dorothy takes neither her nor the story seriously? Walking away seems like the best approach to that.
You are aware that you can walk away in a non-cryptic fashion right? It’s as simple as not opening your mouth and spouting cryptic nonsense in the moments before you leave.
If she’d said that it would have been lovely. You do realize though you walked in to some people griping about a pet peeve and your rebuttal is “I do not share this pet peeve”.
No one here was claiming that she shouldn’t have walked away from this. The act of walking away wasn’t even being discussed.
I’m not sure how you have the right to deny me any ability to comment but okay, sure.
I’m also not sure what I need to think about. You said it pretty clearly there. You think she’s cryptic. I disagree with you and pointed out, like Zuche did, that she was just being less-than-completely-blunt. Quoting what Roz said doesn’t make her circumstances and this one comparable.
Mmmhm. That’s still not making this identical to what’s happening in the comic. If Dorothy is uninterested then she’ll leave Roz be, and Roz doesn’t waste her time with people that aren’t interested in hearing the actual version rather than a quote to distort into the perspective they’ve already imagined.
I called bullshit on you, and you came forth and said “I’m just being pointlessly cryptic, therefore anyone else being cryptic is being equally pointless!”
Being a fun person is not what Roz (or you) were interested in, you both just wanted to test someone.
Put yourself in Roz’s shoes. You upload a video of yourself and another consenting person to the internet with some purpose. You are a progressive sex-positive young woman, so people have already drawn a lot of conclusions about you. You are savvy enough to know that the media probably already has your story written without your view. And here is a fellow young female journalist, who insists that she’s trustworthy, and to ‘try’ her. What do you do to check this, other than taking her at her word?
I’m still wondering why so many people think that what Roz is saying is so very cryptic, while it may not be blunt and to the point, it’s not that hard to get what on about.
Because she asked Dorothy to ask herself a question that only Roz holds the answer to. Moreover a question pertaining to a subject that Dorothy blatantly and openly cares not about.
It’s a painfully obvious attempt to be mysterious and probably to get the only uninterested person on campus interested in her debacle. When your statement can be paraphrased by “All is not as it seems” then it’s safe to call it cryptic.
What question was that? She asked if Dorothy was excited and then asked if Dorothy judged her. Those are two questions where the only people qualified to answer would be Dot or Professor X.
@Invisiblemoose:
“Maybe you should think a little harder about what this all might be about”
1) only Roz knows what this is all about. Only she can tell anybody what the hell goes on in her head.
2) Dorothy doesn’t care about this sex video or what it might be about, and has already expressed this.
3)It can be paraphrased as “All is not as it seems” that’s all she did. Informing someone that they have misunderstood or lack a full understanding of the situation, and then leaving on that note before progressing further is pretty by the book cryptic nonsense.
“Hey Harry! You ever do something that no one else could? You ever make something happen just by wishing it? You should think about what that might mean, boy. See ya!”
1) Only Roz knows what this is all about, But Dot isn’t even interested in what it COULD be about. Roz isn’t saying ‘come back with a full 20-page essay entitled “Why Roz Put A Sex Tape On The Internet” and cite your sources’, she’s saying ‘Try to be a bit more open-minded about it.’ For all we know, the correct response to ‘do you judge me’ should be ‘I don’t have all the answers yet. Should I?’
2) Dorothy doesn’t care what the sex tape is about because she’s already drawn her own conclusions about sex tapes and the people that make them.
3) It could also be paraphrased as ‘All is not as YOU deem it to be’. Telling people the answer explicitly isn’t necessarily the best thing.
“Hey Steve Rogers, I have this serum that will turn someone into a buff badass and beat up anyone they wanted, even if there was a group of them, oh and chicks will seriously dig you. But I only want to give it to someone who isn’t going to be a douche with this as there are too many jerks in the world as it is. You’re a good guy, aren’t you? Because a good guy wouldn’t lie about a question where all the cards are clearly put on the table so there’s no need to see what kind of person you are!”
1)Dorothy is uninterested in what the sex tape is about it’s a completely unimportant piece of fluff that only maintains significance because people love to gossip.
2)Using your example Steve Rogers has a right to know what he’s being injected with. If I were him I wouldn’t participate in a program where they didn’t tell me what the program was about.
“Hey Steve, got an interesting syrum. Wanna try it?”
“What’s it do?”
“That’s for me to know and you to find out.”
“You have failed to pique my interest.”
Dorothy’s looking to write a story on a sex video here, not work her way through the 36 chambers of shoalin. It’s a sex video, not a corrupt politician dethroned. She’s looking for a quote here, not a bibliography. It’s incredibly grating to see what should be the most trivial matter on the planet right now treated with such significance, let alone to have her not even deign to enlighten us why this could possibly be a matter of importance.
If she doesn’t wanna give the story that’s fine, but don’t try and jerk Dorothy around as if she ever actually had anything significant to say. If she’s gonna posit that this is in fact a matter of importance, then she should back that shit up otherwise all I’m hearing is “There’s more to my bowel movements than you might otherwise think without an open mind”
Huh. Look at that. You have a high starch diet. I never knew.
1) I see you’ve drawn your own conclusions too.
2) That’s a flawed example and very little to do with mine. My example was an ethical one where the response from the potential recipient determines worthiness. Yours is just cryptic for the sake of cryptic, and also the assumption that Steve Rogers wasn’t informed about what he was signing up for. We also didn’t see him take a dump, but I’m pretty sure we can safely assumed he didn’t go through World War 2 without pooping.
She hasn’t even put forward that it WAS important. She’s just not gonna assist someone who has already made up their mind about her because there is nothing you can do for that person.
If you threw a rock in the window of the house belonging to a person who you knew was a physically abusive person would you want to tell your story to the reporter who asked “Are video games and rap music what drove you to disrespect people and their property” or who asked “Why did you throw the rock?”
1) That sex videos aren’t real news? Yes. I have. Not gonna lie about that. It’s two people fucking in front of a camera. Just sex. Nothing to stop the presses over.
2)You say that we can’t give the syrum just because Steve says he’s trustworthy, I say there are better ways to determine if someone’s trustworthy than yanking their chain and expecting them to jump through hoops to prove themselves in response to your mysterious ways.
3) If it’s not important then it’s not about anything. It’s just two people having sex on camera, and every bit as non-mysterious as that sounds.
4) Obviously the one that asks why I threw the rock. I don’t object to wanting another reporter, but if you don’t want to give Dorothy the story then just don’t give her the story. Don’t waste her time with this “Meditate upon my sex video” nonsense.
1 & 3) As a rule of thumb I’d agree with you but I’m not so jaded as to consider a sex video incapable of also being a statement about something as well. Just because most of them aren’t shameless attention grabs doesn’t rule them out of being something more, in principle.
2) Perhaps you haven’t seen the Captain America movie. In it Professor Erskine asks Steve if he wants to join the army so he can kill Nazis. Steve replies “I don’t wanna kill anyone. I just don’t like bullies.” THAT is what Erskine was looking for, the right answer. Ditto with Roz, who only asked the ~mysterious~ question of “Do you judge me” because Dot challenged her to prove her worthy of telling the story right. Roz took her up on it and had her view about journalists reaffirmed. If Dot has already made her mind up about the video, she shouldn’t waste Roz’s time by proving herself.
4) You’re too hung up over the sex video thing and ruling out all possibility of there being a reason why it happened. In my hypothetical situation the first reporter was doing the same thing. Neither you, Dot nor my biased reporter were interested in the possibility of a deeper (hurr hurr) meaning. Dorothy wanted to be tested, Roz is doing that. Otherwise she was doing quite well with the whole Not Telling Her Story thing that she’s been doing lately.
1)I do nonetheless maintain that the attitude that the sex lives of others are unworthy of our attention is an entirely valid mentality. If Roz wants me to view her sex life in particular as a significant matter to be thought about then she’s gonna have to explain why her sex video in particular is special.
2)You are correct. I have not seen the Captain America movie. My only experience with the character comes from a couple Avengers animated movies, and I think a few guest appearances in other works. Your reference was lost on me. Just going based on the scenario you laid out and a rough notion of the Captain America premise.
Asking someone what their motivations are is an entirely legitimate and non-aggrivating way to go about things. Reminding you of course of my inexperience with the character, it almost sounds to me like a more accurate comparison would be if Professor Erskine asked Steve what he thought of the Nazis. Knowing next to nothing about the guy, I wouldn’t be surprised if Steve replied with the snarkiness that a question like that warrants.
I suppose what we’re coming to though is that there’s a good way to be roundabout and a bad way.
4) I’ve ruled out no possibilities. I simply feel that possibilities that would normally be implausible need to be presented and validated before given any serious consideration. I’m not gonna sit here mulling over what the deeper significance of every sexual act that hits the public eye might be. A sexual act turns out to have deeper significance I’m all ears, but until then…
One point you brought forth that I actually must cede changes everything though is that Dorothy did in essence ask to be tested. She should have been more prepared for that. You don’t ask to be tested like that without giving the matter some consideration. Roz was every bit in her right to proceed like this after Dorothy initiated the process.
It might be frustrating to wait this out as the reader, but in point of fact Dorothy really did ask for this, and this was an entirely appropriate response on Roz’s part.
1) I agree with you that my default setting is that they are boring. As for if it’s up to Roz to determine whether or not HER video is relevant, well, Dorothy has gone and done that for her by wanting to know about her story. You don’t want to know about it? Don’t go asking Roz for her story.
2) I think poking holes in your reversion of the analogy is a bit much. Steve probably wouldn’t snark, because he wasn’t that kind of guy. And I guess there’s a good way to be roundabout and a bad way, but I’m not sure what a better way to this would look like. I asked this in my other post, the one you said painted a compelling picture. If you ever do have another version of events, let me know what you think. Also, go see Captain America. It’s awesome.
4) I’m not saying you’re a bad person for having those default assumptions for things like that. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t have that frame of mind if you’re going to be a covering this story as a journalist. I agree it’s frustrating that we don’t have the full story but to me that’s Dorothy’s fault, not Roz’s.
4b) Actually on consideration I know exactly whose fault it is: DAMN YOU WILLIS
1&4a) You are correct. I hadn’t really considered Dorothy’s actual job here as a reporter. It’s easy to forget because of how this was assigned, but at the end of the day when you’re reporting on something you really do owe it to the story to give it a proper consideration.
2)I genuinely don’t know Captain America’s personality type terribly well. I get that he’s supposed to be an all american symbol of patriotism and that he’s a 40’s gentleman, but beyond that I don’t have much to go on.
Until a couple weeks ago I didn’t know the guy could be killed with bullets. True story.
The movie does look pretty badass and I plan on seeing it.
Except it prevents it from happening in the future. This is the point of a lesson. It transitions from a selfish want to preventing it from happening to other people.
It’s a very small scale example the same action when people with a disease go out and educate other people.
I know it’s just an old joke, but seriously, as someone who knows retail, and service industries, do NOT pull that shit in real life. There are very few things more mind-bogglingly irritating than a customer who thinks they are being clever or funny.
… I’m almost certain that being a smartass to the waiter is not going to teach them a lesson. They would know the person needed a spoon. Waitstaff are usually incredibly overworked and underpaid. Making a mistake here and there happens.
There is no reason to be rude over a small simple mistake that can be quickly rectified by saying what it is they missed in a polite manner.
I agree, it’s a poor choice of metaphor. If we had a Waiter who thought that putting a spoon next to soup was wrong for ethical reasons and never considered how someone was going to eat their soup without one, it’d be more appropriate, but as the waiter probably just forgot, then yeah.
I’m pretty sure this situation isn’t “being a smartass”. As someone who has worked both retail AND in a call center, I hate customers just as much as you guys clearly do. The whole point is a lesson in humility which… seems everyone here could use.
Humility still doesn’t get me soup while it’s still hot. Why is everyone disregarding the constantly decreasing temperature of the soup? Consuming soup that’s merely warm? Not on my watch!
Ah, awesome. She’s aware that the sex tape is being used as a smear campaign against said senator, and knows that the situation is being blown out specifically to that end rather than it just being a relations between a guy and a girl that was made public.
It is a common thing. I mean, how many times do you usually hear about this person or that person’s daughter/son or ‘brother/sister’ fooling around. This would reflect badly all the time, even if it shouldn’t.
And then released a sex video onto the internet with the intention of avoiding judgement? Walk me through this please. I am at times dim, and have clearly missed either the logical or emotional piece that fits those two together.
A girl can dream… obviously, in Roz`s mind, having sex is a currency for happiness, so watching people have sex should be fun/ make you happy. It should have occured to her, the way everyone else behaved, that there’s more to it and having sex with somebody and telling others about it or showing it to others can get you into some trouble, but she’s only a kid and might not have learned the hard way yet.
So maybe she assumes the people who are offended by others having sex are a few and feeling that way because they’re ignorant to what’s obvious to her. What she doesn’t realise it things are quite the other way around (or are they?) and she’s trampling on people’s feelings with her thoughtless ways.
(She’s obviously been lucky with Joe, who doesn’t care about these things either.)
So yeah, I think she may have released the video hoping it would prove that people aren’t as hollow as they sometimes act and realising only afterwards that indeed they are even more hollow than she feared.
And apparently I don’t think she’s a “bongo”, she just didn’t find out about some of life’s emotional rules yet.
Also, why does everyone think she’s got a grudge on her sister? We haven’t even seen a lot of Robin in this timeline yet.
Interesting. The youthful naivete angle does pan out pretty well.
I’m in agreement that we have no indication of sister issues yet. bongo would also be an improper word. She has an annoying way of going about her business, and has chosen a weird moment to get all cryptic, and pretty genuinely does seem to be drawn towards the spotlight, but none of these things make her a bongo.
Including whether or not she was in cahoots, whether it was her idea, whatever. Roz had a sister in congress that made her own sex tape in another world, if memory serves, among other madcap ideas. Nope, there’s no way this Congresswoman DeSanto person is in any way involved!
She’s right, though. Modern media is a farce. It’s basically a not-so-subtle way of brainwashing people who don’t bother to do a little research into what they watch. It’s working, too.
yeah… theres nothing modern about that. the only difference now is that theres so much communication in the world that people can find all the different sides to the story
Yeah, that’s totally a reasonable outlook. Let’s all choose to be completely ignorant of the world around us just because we might be exposed to the horror of opinions!
That’s because the Freedom of the Press has dropped all over the world despite the internet, for instance, USA is only 20th in ranking for the FotP. Finland has the freest Press in the world, while New Zealand has the freest English speaking press ranked 8th in the world.
It’s about fricking politics, even if Roz kill herself no one would care if she wasnt related to a politician. Besides no one care about morals anymore, everybody is free to do what the hell they want if they are quiet and dont get in other’s bussines.
She was the one wearing a condom hat, right? And she was passing out free condoms? Maybe the sex tape has nothing to do with her sister, or joe per se, and it’s just related to that somehow.
IMHO, Roz has no right to belittle those she perceives as judgmental when she is the kind of person to release a sex tape without explicit prior permission from the other party. She’s lucky it’s Joe and he doesn’t give a damn, but not everybody is a Joe.
That and obviously she doesn’t care or even thought about how this would affect her family, namely her sister. All that gives anybody enough to think her arrogant and selfish without even getting into slut shaming.
That reminds me: Comics actually showing Roz and Joe interacting (preferably, talking about sex) would be totally friggin’ awesome. Just as a, um, criticism.
Dot’s after that story the same way I was after green tea for nine months. The boss-man says he wants something so you make a trip, do a retrieval. This is a proverbial coffee run.
The conversation even resembled a coffee run conversation. “Hey, Dorothy, new girl. I’m feeling horny. Run out and fetch me something stimulating will you?”
The reason behind the “desire” for the story isn’t important. It’s called journalism. You don’t get to only write about things you’re interested in. If you can’t write a good article on something else and can only do an article on that which you’re passionate about, you may need to just do a personal blog online.
Right. But if we’re talking about getting judgemental of Dorothy because she’s after a story with shock value and no content that’s not a legitimate line of thought. That wasn’t Dorothy’s call. You judge her for how she seeks this story, but the fact that this story in particular is being sought is someone else’s department.
It’s like getting upset at the writer because the art’s sloppy, or getting upset at the waiter because of the prices on the menu. Choosing what stories get sought isn’t Dorothy’s job.
Gee, no shit. You don’t need to look at the comments for that. She refused to tell her story after hearing that she had been judged based on her political sex video. Dorothy is hardly the only person in the multiverse that’s gonna be ruled out by that requisite.
I fail to see why its unfair to judge someone for stuff they do…still at least now I know it was consensual on the reread. Thinking that it wasn’t had me disliking Roz even more than I already did.
Loading ...
Well, that answers my question.
That she wants it harder?
No, what Roz really wanted to hear.
Roz wants to hear that Dorothy wants it harder?
Trying to fuel a Dotty/Roz ship are we?
In Soviet Russia, Roz comes for Dorothy.
Wants it harder? That doesn’t come wrong, doesn’t it?
No it comes alright. 😛
Didn’t Abbott and Costello have this conversation?
I don’t think two Australian politicians have ever had a conversation like that. XD
Not that Abbot and Costello.
With her penis.
ah, i think i got it, Roz you little mastermind you. I see the point your trying to make
It was for Science! wasn’t it.
Clearly.
It’s about Joe penis.
Yes. And 50 McNuggets hang in the balance.
I need a hint.
I will give you 2 vowels and 3 consonants, will that help? 😀
Scissor?
Outstanding answer!! 😀
Wow, that was a good one!
Mom + Nick-El did I win?
No.
Give me a W, give me an H, give me an ore?
But what are you planning to do with tungsten, helium, and iron?
Hydrogen, darn it, not helium. Sorry.
(S)He’s going to make sex.
So chemists do have a chance to reproduce.
Somebody needs to make periodic table condoms.
My guess is it’s about the double standards associated with the different genders having sex. That and how siblings’ sex lives shouldn’t affect your own life.
Again my archive binge means I comment on something that is 2 years + out of date, yet I have to say you totally nailed both aspects of this situation
If society were really trying to “control women’s sexuality,” Armin Miewes wouldn’t be serving LWP.
AUGH. This is the first time a Wikipedia article with no pictures or anything has made me want to claw my eyes out in the same way as some of the pictures at Encyclopedia Dramatica. Right up there with reading about Human Centipede. Pass the brain bleach, please. O_o Do NOT Google this… unless, of course, you’re into that sort of thing…
EncycDrama’s dead, mate, didn’t you know? It’s “Oh Internet”, now.
It is not: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.ch .
Yes. It is. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13052997940A69358100&page=0
Not sure what this has to do with WOMEN’s sexuality, since the case only involves two men engaging in a sexual act of their preference.
Does it count that Meiwes served as subject of a Rammstein song and stage show?
(See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE8EMWxuZB0 and other sources.)
Exactly. There were no women involved, yet a country on the verge of legalizing assisted suicide extended an eight-year sentence to life on hearing it might have been a kink.
So your logic is that “society” can only try to control one thing at a time?
Here’s a way to reconcile the opposing claims. Society tries to control what it sees as “deviant” and then applies different standards for deviancy to men and women.
Hey, a new banner and who’s Joyce waving to?
Leslie Bean?
The logo.
Jebus?
Bingo.
And cue the Moral Orel theme music!
Also, what is Walky looking at? Because he isn’t wearing his “Dotty face.”
He wasn’t staring at her ass.
Must have spotted an ad for the new Hot & Spicy McNuggets.
Is that what we’re calling Joe’s balls now?
She’s not waving. She’s raising her hand to answer a question.
I think the less amusing -but probably more accurate- answer is that she raising her hand.
Us, behind the Fourth Wall.
She’s not waving. She’s petty Harvey.
“Petting.” Gah. Joke ruined by a typo.
She’s raising her hand. Walky’s looking at someone to his right, I think. And Joe…Well, Joes just pissed he got his face covered with banner…
Normally he’s the one covering faces with banner, if you know what I mean.
He’s not pissed; look for the grin. That’s a cocky leer.
(Hur hur hur, ‘cocky’.)
You can imagine the DoA intro music playing to scenes like that.
Wait, now _I’m_ confused.
We’re gonna be like that for a few days. >_<
i believe that roz is acting out against her father.. roz reeks of daddy issues.
Strike him down, Roz, and take your place by my side. Or on top…you know, whatever you find most comfortable.
Am I really going to be the first one to guess that Roz is Amazigirl? Fine then: maybe Roz is Amazigirl! (Now if it turns out to be true I can claim to be the first one to call it.)
That stop being funny two months ago.
Like that has ever stopped anyone ever.
Seriously though. It honestly was the only thing to pop into my mind both in this strip and the last one, however unlikely it is. It makes a lot of sense if you pretend it’s true and read both of them in order. ‘m just covering my bases here.
Beating dead jokes is a difficult art form. Like your mom’s nickel femurs.
Beating dead jokes is so babies, it’s Babies McIntyre.
…dead Babies McIntyre?
Oh, you’re good…
I like the new banner.
Also, I have a love/hate relationship with Roz. Sometimes she’s terrible, but other times, she can be really cool. I think she might be the latter right now, but it’s too soon to tell.
Oh and I have another thing to say!
I love Dorothy’s outfit right now. White, button-up shirts are my favorite article of clothing for either gender.
i dunno… she may make an incredibly intelligent and well crafted point in a comic or two, but right now shes coming off as a bit of a bongo
Well… to be fair, the major journalism trend is to twist everything and quote out of context. In order to make her large point, whatever it may be, she needs to find someone that *won’t* do that.
true, but im pretty sure she could find that person quite easily without sounding like a self-righteous know it all.
all im really saying is that she may have the purest intentions on the planet but theres a reason that no one in any of the verses, who hasnt had sex with her, seems to like her very much and i think it has much to do with that “better than you” attitude she seems to have
Dorothy’s first thought is to slut-shame Roz. Who’s being self-righteous again?
I guess it is to be expected. She used to date Danny, after all.
i never said that dorothy was in the right. the comment was about roz so i replied about roz
Right, but realize Roz’s behavior is as a reaction to Dorothy. Perhaps if Dorothy *didn’t* slut shame her, she would be singing a different tune. Peoples’ actions are very conditional.
I don’t think this qualifies as slut shaming. I personally would think a guy was a moron for this behavior too. I don’t resent someone for having sex, or even a whole lot of sex, but a sex video during election season from the relative of a politician sounds like a pretty stupid move until she tells you what her goals are.
It’s not gaybashing to look at Larry Craig and think “Dude, how hard is it to not go soliciting sex from strangers in airport bathrooms during your time as a senator?” I have no qualms with his sexual orientation, but it still wasn’t a smooth move.
Election season or not, it’s a stupid move. She knows she’s very closely related to an elected official, she knows that what she’s doing could easily hurt said official’s career, and yet she goes ahead and does it anyways just to further whatever her agenda might be. To be honest, it’s beyond stupid, it’s straight up selfish.
You can be intelligently selfish. We just don’t know that she has been yet.
so Dorothy has no right to her opinions about sexuality?
No one said she didn’t have that right. Roz has a right to react to it just as much as Dorothy has a right to express her opinions.
However, as a journalist you’re supposed to be unbiased and report what happened, not paint your opinion.
She wouldn’t have painted her opinion. She’s completely uncaring. She was very specifically asked for her opinion and she gave it.
She wasn’t asked for her opinion, she was asked if she judged her right after Dorothy’s saying Roz can trust her. Dorothy quite clearly illustrated that she has a pre-existing agenda without knowing the facts. Yes, she knows the facts about *what* happened, but not why. It doesn’t surprise me that people don’t understand the principles of journalism when it’s been twisted so much as it has the past two decades but it does sadden me.
When did I ever say she didn’t have that right?
“so Dorothy has no right to her opinions about sexuality?” Uh. Right there? Your question makes it seem like by reacting to the opinion, Roz is saying Dorothy doesn’t have that right. If Dorothy’s just going to be a normal person, then yeah. Roz doesn’t care. However, Dorothy wants a story. It’s called journalistic integrity.
Uh.
That was a different poster with my same Gravatar. I was responding TO that person, who said that question to me.
Dorothy (Just like you) is judging Roz based on one piece of evidence. Roz is simply standing up for herself by not doing that (She didn’t judge Dorothy simply for being part of the media, but waited to learn about her attitude).
your right, i am. though in my defense im momentarily judging her for how shes acting in the moment. right now shes acting like a bongo and im calling it as such
How is she doing that? She admitted to not trusting Dorothy. When told, “Try me,” she asked, “Did you judge me?” and got a snarky reply.
Her reply was basically “You’re not getting what you want because I’ve no reason to believe you’ll give me what I want in exchange for it.” Seems fair enough to me. Thus far, Dorothy’s treated Roz more like meat than Joe did.
I like you.
My guess is she’s trying to make a point about how stupid it is that the media is suddenly all over her for doing something they wouldn’t care about if not for her being the sister of someone in the public eye.
This might sound crazy, but maybe the media isn’t all over it because her sister is in the public eye. Maybe, just maybe, it was because she had sex in the public eye. For a nickel.
When the story came out, she was specifically billed as the sister of the congresswoman.
Nobody would give a damn if that connection wasn’t there.
Exactly, camwhores are a dime a dozen, mothers are worth a nickel each, therefore:
6 camwhores = 1 mother
Shouldn’t it be 1.2 camwhores =1 mother? 6 camwhores = 5 mothers?
No no no!
A dime(10c) a dozen(12) camwhores
A nickle(5c) a mother(1)
Therefore:
A nickel only gets you 6 camwhores
Thus:
6 camwhores = 1 mother.
See, its basic maths. 😀
I had mistaken a penny for a nickel.
The more you know…
Are you implying a variant of the Pidgeonhole Principle that out one out of six camwhores is a mother as well as a camwhore, or that 6/5 = 1?
I’m working on the basic assumption that camwhores and mothers are mutually exclusive beings.
You can actually prove that no camwhores are mothers since the introduction of any camwhothers makes the value of non-camwhother whores in the equation ’12 whores = 10 cents’ unstable, which isn’t allowed.
(At no camwhothers they’re worth 5/6 a cent each, at 1 camwhother the remaining 11 are worth 5/11 cents each, and at 2 or more camwhothers the remainder are paying you to play.)
That answer feels like it belongs in an xkcd forum.
*applauds*
It disturbs me to discover someone’s worked out the formula for that.
It’s not disturbing, it’s SCIENCE! 😛
If those are humanity’s last words, I will haunt you for eternity and a half.
Oddly enough, my ego swelled up a bit when you said that.
It could also be that she’s sort of taking a stand, trying to get out from under the shadow of just being the sister of “Robin DeSanto, congresswoman”
Like that’s going to work when all the buzz on this non-news item is that some congresswoman’s sister is a waste on the gene pool.
Funny how party girl logic, especially when applied to women’s suffrage, invents concepts like pole dancing as an empowering exercise.
Far be it for me to be labeled as a party girl when I’m not… but whatever someone decides to do, for their own reasons when they think it through, is empowering. Other people can interpret it another way, but the activity is supposed to be empowering for the person doing it, not for those around them.
Agreed. What’s the point of a self-empowering activity that requires social approval?
<3
Ok, so something are different this time around. We aren’t gonna change some things, like her being the sister of a Congresswoman. But other things are fair game, such as how successful said Congresswoman is. And how much time she has to have to hang out with her sister. Maybe they aren’t at each other’s throats this time around. And she figures if she can get her, well, not impeached but merely not reelected…
Maybe Roz just wants her sister back.
Do we yet know for certain that Robin is the Congressperson in question? Has Dave actually referred to the Congressperson by name yet?
I’m more confused by why Roz doesn’t trust Dorothy in particular. What did Dorothy ever do?
She doesn’t trust Dotty as a journalist.
A reporter suddenly gloms onto Roz and declares that she will be writing an article about *THE* story. Why shouldn’t she distrust that person? Roz explained it pretty clearly. She distrusts the press in general, and that’s a pretty smart attitude for anyone to have, let alone someone in Roz’s position.
Also, she did give Dorothy a chance to actually answer for herself rather than just flat-out accuse her of being self-righteous and judgmental. At this point, Dorothy has quite fairly earned any distrust.
Yeah, your response + the conversation that developed above clarified for me. Thanks.
My eyebrow is cocked in apprehension of you, Roz. You and your reasons. Do you see it? Marginally higher than the other!
You chose the word ‘coked’ on purpose, didn’t you.
‘Cocked’ even.
Does that mean that Daeva’s eye could shoot bullets?
That did nothing to clear things up. Is this whole thing a commentary on the media, a shot at her sister, a battle cry for sexual openness… No idea.
D. All of the above?
what about all of the below?
I think we’ll have to ask Joe about that.
Depends on your position.
There is a special platform for my position
Do you think that has something to do with Roz’s terms not being met yet for coming forward with her side of the story?
If only Roz knew this is really just about the fact Daisy needs a girlfriend.
I don’t like the new banner that much! Walky doesn’t have his sucker face, Joyce is just kind of vacantly grabbing the air, and Joe is completely covered up!
She’s raising her hand…
Maybe because Roz is a crusading attention whore with a self-righteous personal agenda who is every bit as externally judgmental of everyone who doesn’t think like her no matter how much she denies it to herself?
That comment is going to fester.
That’s how it is.
It’s pretty on the mark, as far as I can tell. She pulled a publicity stunt and is looking down on people who don’t see her message. She IS pretty much in everyone’s face about her cause célèbre.
No, she displayed a low opinion of people who would seek to distort her message for their own gain. If that’s what they want to do, they can do it without her assistance.
Thus far, Roz has shown more consent for the spirit of consent than the letter. The press hasn’t had the best track record for that sort of thing, so she’s just being a little discerning. (Too soon to determine if she’s the same way for her partners. Joe’s the only one on tape at this time.)
It would be easier not to distort the message if she’d tell us what it is. Perhaps she could have released some footnotes, annotations, and maybe a description with the video. Any one of those would clear up ever so much, and then she wouldn’t even be reliant on reporters.
Reliant? How? Let the work speak for itself. She seems perfectly comfortable with answering questions, as long as the goal is understanding.
Dorothy isn’t interested in understanding. Case closed.
Interesting take. I’ll see how this progresses over the course of the proceeding updates. I suppose that works. I like it.
I’ll point out that she didn’t show any interest in spinning her words though. She didn’t show interest in understanding either admittedly, but that’s because she’s completely uninterested in everything about this. Quite likely would’ve been her best bet for unaltered transliteration of her her words lacking in spin.
Still, even with that what you’ve laid out works just fine. She’ll talk to those who want to understand, and those who don’t aren’t worth her time.
Just because the press is evil/lazy, doesn’t mean that’s she’s not an attention-whore with very strong opinions to judge other people by.
(Admittedly, I may be a little biased by how awful and selfish of a person Roz is in the Walky-verse.)
I thought it was about sex and Roz getting railed by Joe. Is it really about bunnies?
MUST… RESIST… URGE… TO LAUGH…. AT… “Little Harder”
GAAAAAAAAAAH D:
also nice new banner :O
I don’t know if it’s mentioned in the previous pages but I’m still seeing the graphic blurs. The posters here don’t seem to notice. You says it’s cache issue, so why when new page that I haven’t seen yet is up and I see the blurs?
Is it a result of Google Reader? When I see the comic in Google Reader, the comic panels are crisp and clear. I click on the link to go here, and it’s blurry.
I’m guessing that the video is Roz’s weapon in a conflict between Roz and Robin, where this universe’s Roz is not happy being 1) in Robin’s shadow her whole life, and 2) ignored by her very busy sister.
The scary part of this hypothesis: This universe’s Robin is over-achieving and successful. If she hates skittles we are definitely not in Kansas anymore.
i suppose this would be the only way i would see Roz as having any remotely redeeming feature… which would indeed mean we weren’t in kansas anymore.
Well I suppose with this gravatar I’m obligated to see two or three redeeming features, depending on how you want to group things.
The only way…? Really? O_o
Uh. Okay.
You mean, you’d only like her if she was doing everything out of jealous spite instead of because sex is pretty awesome?
“Sex is awesome” is a reason to HAVE sex, not to turn it into a publicity stunt.
And the only acceptable reason to turn it into a publicity stunt is out of jealousy of her sister?
Not to make a social or political statement, or to make a statement on the very opinion of how sex is viewed? This is the same chick who is humble enough to go around wearing a condom hat to advocate safe sex, and she’s apparently not worth liking.
Sure it is, if your message is that people shouldn’t have so many hang ups about sex. Whether you think eliminating sex taboos is wise or terribly misguided, I think it’s fair to say that it’s mostly a *positive* motivation, as opposed to spite, jealousy, or inferiority.
We got artificial insemination now anyway. There’s no real excuse for sex to be anything but recreational fun for all involved.
That being said I personally do find spite and inferiority to be more relatable than a desire to change the world. Whether the motivation is positive or negative is a rather shallow and incomplete qualifier for what makes someone likable.
Most of us have at some point engaged in an act of spite or had someone who made us feel inferior. Many of us get driven crazy by the frikkin activists always trying to cram their messages down our throats. Some of us might even be made to feel inferior by people who’s sunny ideals lead them to be constantly off campaigning for a greater good. All and all despite being positive it might not actually be all that likable.
Sibling issues on the other hand, more than one form of media has built incredibly likable characters entirely around their sibling issues and the mean and spiteful things it leads them towards. You can go seasons without even developing two siblings beyond “They hate eachother for having/being what the other doesn’t/isn’t” if you do it right.
You must not have gone to school with many freshmen liberal arts majors (or political science majors). A desire to change the world is the entire reason they enrolled. Very rarely do the sunny ideals persist into grad school, but I find Roz to be one of the most relatable secondary characters so far.
Oh there are a lot of them at my school. I hate them all. Every day walking through campus is like traveling through the den of the beast. It looks me in the eyes and tries to infect me with its’ madness. I was a cynical child. I’m not suddenly gonna start getting passionate about orangutans today just because you asked me for three years straight on a near daily basis. There ain’t no orangutans for thousands of miles! Why won’t you let me study in peace?
But fair enough. I can appreciate that. What’s relatable is a little different for everybody.
Well when your motive is to damage someone, i can understand why you take actions that are going to damage someone. When your motive is do something positive, you should care a little bit more about the potential consequences.
…I don’t understand. Just because she’s doing something positive, why are you getting that she doesn’t care about the consequences? She was most likely counting on them happening.
There is no good reason to deliberately bring consequences down on other people if you are not trying to hurt them.
That or they’re trying to point out that those consequences shouldn’t happen.
If she’s for sex, she would be of the opinion that a consensual sexual act, even if public, shouldn’t be an issue to injure others. It’s an opinion I can agree on.
Ughhh. In principle, I’m really against slut shaming. It’s not fair because as Definitely, Maybe deftly pointed out, there’s no boy word for “slut.” On the other hand, why did she put up the video, if not for appraisal? I mean, she’d probably be cool with someone praising her technique, and that’s clearly a form of “judging” her. So she’s laughably inconsistent and annoying to boot. Maybe the DoA version of her is more tolerable than the SP version, but I super doubt it.
Judging a person’s work, art, or technique is one thing. Judging the person is another thing entirely. No, this is not a display of inconsistency.
Do we have any evidence that Roz knew the video would go viral? It’s possible she had a very specific audience in mind, but is now just trying to make the best of a bad situation after the video spread beyond /b/
So no one ever told her that the internet is a vast network of interconnected computers that covers the whole world? Poor girl. What were her parents thinking keeping her in the dark like that?
That’s the ticket, Roz. Everyone loves to be belittled! She’s sure to put forth the effort to decipher your motives that you’re too self-righteous to explain.
…I say hypocritically.
Well, Dorothy “wants” the story. Roz doesn’t want to give it to just anyone; only to people who are willing to be open-minded and not going into the interview with a label pre-made for her.
I’m kind of surprised at how many people are missing this. 😐
People aren’t missing that. People are ignoring that because she pulled a publicity stunt and then decided to try to be choosy about how it was interpreted. If the pre-made labels she’s made herself a target for are interfering with her agenda, she only has herself to blame.
No, you certainly are missing it. Roz does not have to cooperate with people who want something for her, with no regard for what she wants.
She doesn’t give a damn about who you think is to blame for the distortion of her message, and why should she? That’s a loser’s game, letting others dictate the game you have to play.
She doesn’t have to let anyone dictate the game she’s playing. She already chose a losing game all on her own.
Really? How? She seems quite content to go without media attention, and shows no signs of suffering from the personal attention we’ve seen, so how exactly is she losing?
Wishing doesn’t make it so, Gangler.
Media attention is gonna happen. It’s already happening. Going without media attention was never an option. If she doesn’t give her own story they’ll just make up their own spin without her.
The second she looked to control what people think or say about her after releasing a sex video she entered a losing game. It’s a losing game because the objective cannot be achieved. It has a final boss that doesn’t die.
So what? Rain falls, not matter what I will.
The neighbours will tell whatever story they want. You can choose whether or not that matters to you.
Roz does not care. Since she doesn’t care, she’s not playing that game. The only ones who are are playing are the ones that do care.
The only ones that stand to lose are those who play.
We’re really gonna have to get a concrete answer on what her game is and what she’s trying to accomplish before we can take this discussion any further.
That is the point right there, Gangler. We know everything that Dot knows. You agree we do not know enough to pass final judgement. Ergo…
Ain’t nothing final about the judgement. If she’d give us new information the judgement would be altered accordingly.
But you’re also disinterested in hearing said final answer because “It’s a sex video”. I bet you that if Dot had said “I don’t generally have a high opinion about people who put sex videos on the internet but I haven’t heard the full story yet.” then things would’ve gone down differently. Innocent until proven guilty, etc etc.
I’m disinterested because I’ve been given no reason to take interest as of yet. Roz could fix that if she actually has a case to make. We’ll see when we get there.
Uh. The pre-made labels people are creating for her are probably going to be used as examples for whatever point she’s trying to make.
Duh?
I don’t think Roz is a bad person, but it seriously ticks me off when people are needlessly cryptic and/or mysterious. That’s why I never liked Dumbledore.
Except he had a reason for doing it it turns out the end, thus it wasn’t “needlessly”.
He had a reason, yes. He did not have a GOOD reason. If he hadn’t put his personal issues in the middle of everyone else’s battle for survival, he wouldn’t have been so concerned with keeping his secrets. If he had been honest, especially with Harry,things would have been dealt with earlier and more effectively. For example, Dumbledore lied and omitted information from Harry, and still expected him to martyr himself.
TL;DR Dumbledore had no good reason for being cryptic.
Actually, until Dumbledore had a full understanding of Harry Potter, there’s no reason why he should have expected him to be okay with the decision. Hindsight is 20/20, and you’re using logic of how it turned out to judge that he made the wrong choice. He had to make an educated decision on how to handle the entire situation and chose what he thought would be the best.
I don’t really see personal matters coloring his choice either.
A man tells the waiter to take a sip of his soup for him. The waiter protests, because that’s ridiculous, and they yell at each other for several minutes. Eventually the waiter gives in and tries to take a sip. But the spoon is gone. “Where’s the spoon?”
“Exactly.”
“Yo waiter. I ain’t got no spoon over here! Looking for a hookup!”
The only time one should ever be cryptical is making fun of someone/being generally funny. It’s no use being this kind of clever when stuff is serious!
Why should Roz treat this as serious, when it’s clear that Dorothy takes neither her nor the story seriously? Walking away seems like the best approach to that.
You are aware that you can walk away in a non-cryptic fashion right? It’s as simple as not opening your mouth and spouting cryptic nonsense in the moments before you leave.
Aware? Certainly. Caring? No reason I should.
Here, let me translate for you: “Since you’re going to take that stance, you’re going to have to work harder for what you want.”
Was that so hard?
If she’d said that it would have been lovely. You do realize though you walked in to some people griping about a pet peeve and your rebuttal is “I do not share this pet peeve”.
No one here was claiming that she shouldn’t have walked away from this. The act of walking away wasn’t even being discussed.
Then my pet peeve is people who complain about things being cryptic when they are just choosing to be less explicit than they could be.
When you’re not commenting maybe you should think a little harder about what this all might be about.
I’m not sure how you have the right to deny me any ability to comment but okay, sure.
I’m also not sure what I need to think about. You said it pretty clearly there. You think she’s cryptic. I disagree with you and pointed out, like Zuche did, that she was just being less-than-completely-blunt. Quoting what Roz said doesn’t make her circumstances and this one comparable.
I implied that my complaints actually had hidden profundity. You are understandably skeptical, and no more interested than you were beforehand.
Mmmhm. That’s still not making this identical to what’s happening in the comic. If Dorothy is uninterested then she’ll leave Roz be, and Roz doesn’t waste her time with people that aren’t interested in hearing the actual version rather than a quote to distort into the perspective they’ve already imagined.
I called bullshit on you, and you came forth and said “I’m just being pointlessly cryptic, therefore anyone else being cryptic is being equally pointless!”
Therefore nothing. It’s shitpoor conversation no matter the point. You do not make yourself a fun person to talk to by speaking in such a manner.
Being a fun person is not what Roz (or you) were interested in, you both just wanted to test someone.
Put yourself in Roz’s shoes. You upload a video of yourself and another consenting person to the internet with some purpose. You are a progressive sex-positive young woman, so people have already drawn a lot of conclusions about you. You are savvy enough to know that the media probably already has your story written without your view. And here is a fellow young female journalist, who insists that she’s trustworthy, and to ‘try’ her. What do you do to check this, other than taking her at her word?
Legitimate. You’ve actually painted a very compelling situation there.
My Aunt once asked me if I would like a coffee. I said, “That would be lovely. Yes, thanks.”
I then got teased because I cannot give a straight yes/no answer to something.
Some people are gonna deem stuff as cryptic no matter what you do.
“Do you want a coffee?”
“Why don’t you meditate upon the possible answers to that question. An open mind is important.”
Now you’re just stretching.
I’m still wondering why so many people think that what Roz is saying is so very cryptic, while it may not be blunt and to the point, it’s not that hard to get what on about.
Because she asked Dorothy to ask herself a question that only Roz holds the answer to. Moreover a question pertaining to a subject that Dorothy blatantly and openly cares not about.
It’s a painfully obvious attempt to be mysterious and probably to get the only uninterested person on campus interested in her debacle. When your statement can be paraphrased by “All is not as it seems” then it’s safe to call it cryptic.
Thanks gangler. Roz seems quite disingenuous doesn’t she? Does she have a master plan? 😉
What question was that? She asked if Dorothy was excited and then asked if Dorothy judged her. Those are two questions where the only people qualified to answer would be Dot or Professor X.
@Invisiblemoose:
“Maybe you should think a little harder about what this all might be about”
1) only Roz knows what this is all about. Only she can tell anybody what the hell goes on in her head.
2) Dorothy doesn’t care about this sex video or what it might be about, and has already expressed this.
3)It can be paraphrased as “All is not as it seems” that’s all she did. Informing someone that they have misunderstood or lack a full understanding of the situation, and then leaving on that note before progressing further is pretty by the book cryptic nonsense.
“Hey Harry! You ever do something that no one else could? You ever make something happen just by wishing it? You should think about what that might mean, boy. See ya!”
1) Only Roz knows what this is all about, But Dot isn’t even interested in what it COULD be about. Roz isn’t saying ‘come back with a full 20-page essay entitled “Why Roz Put A Sex Tape On The Internet” and cite your sources’, she’s saying ‘Try to be a bit more open-minded about it.’ For all we know, the correct response to ‘do you judge me’ should be ‘I don’t have all the answers yet. Should I?’
2) Dorothy doesn’t care what the sex tape is about because she’s already drawn her own conclusions about sex tapes and the people that make them.
3) It could also be paraphrased as ‘All is not as YOU deem it to be’. Telling people the answer explicitly isn’t necessarily the best thing.
“Hey Steve Rogers, I have this serum that will turn someone into a buff badass and beat up anyone they wanted, even if there was a group of them, oh and chicks will seriously dig you. But I only want to give it to someone who isn’t going to be a douche with this as there are too many jerks in the world as it is. You’re a good guy, aren’t you? Because a good guy wouldn’t lie about a question where all the cards are clearly put on the table so there’s no need to see what kind of person you are!”
1)Dorothy is uninterested in what the sex tape is about it’s a completely unimportant piece of fluff that only maintains significance because people love to gossip.
2)Using your example Steve Rogers has a right to know what he’s being injected with. If I were him I wouldn’t participate in a program where they didn’t tell me what the program was about.
“Hey Steve, got an interesting syrum. Wanna try it?”
“What’s it do?”
“That’s for me to know and you to find out.”
“You have failed to pique my interest.”
Dorothy’s looking to write a story on a sex video here, not work her way through the 36 chambers of shoalin. It’s a sex video, not a corrupt politician dethroned. She’s looking for a quote here, not a bibliography. It’s incredibly grating to see what should be the most trivial matter on the planet right now treated with such significance, let alone to have her not even deign to enlighten us why this could possibly be a matter of importance.
If she doesn’t wanna give the story that’s fine, but don’t try and jerk Dorothy around as if she ever actually had anything significant to say. If she’s gonna posit that this is in fact a matter of importance, then she should back that shit up otherwise all I’m hearing is “There’s more to my bowel movements than you might otherwise think without an open mind”
Huh. Look at that. You have a high starch diet. I never knew.
1) I see you’ve drawn your own conclusions too.
2) That’s a flawed example and very little to do with mine. My example was an ethical one where the response from the potential recipient determines worthiness. Yours is just cryptic for the sake of cryptic, and also the assumption that Steve Rogers wasn’t informed about what he was signing up for. We also didn’t see him take a dump, but I’m pretty sure we can safely assumed he didn’t go through World War 2 without pooping.
She hasn’t even put forward that it WAS important. She’s just not gonna assist someone who has already made up their mind about her because there is nothing you can do for that person.
If you threw a rock in the window of the house belonging to a person who you knew was a physically abusive person would you want to tell your story to the reporter who asked “Are video games and rap music what drove you to disrespect people and their property” or who asked “Why did you throw the rock?”
1) That sex videos aren’t real news? Yes. I have. Not gonna lie about that. It’s two people fucking in front of a camera. Just sex. Nothing to stop the presses over.
2)You say that we can’t give the syrum just because Steve says he’s trustworthy, I say there are better ways to determine if someone’s trustworthy than yanking their chain and expecting them to jump through hoops to prove themselves in response to your mysterious ways.
3) If it’s not important then it’s not about anything. It’s just two people having sex on camera, and every bit as non-mysterious as that sounds.
4) Obviously the one that asks why I threw the rock. I don’t object to wanting another reporter, but if you don’t want to give Dorothy the story then just don’t give her the story. Don’t waste her time with this “Meditate upon my sex video” nonsense.
1 & 3) As a rule of thumb I’d agree with you but I’m not so jaded as to consider a sex video incapable of also being a statement about something as well. Just because most of them aren’t shameless attention grabs doesn’t rule them out of being something more, in principle.
2) Perhaps you haven’t seen the Captain America movie. In it Professor Erskine asks Steve if he wants to join the army so he can kill Nazis. Steve replies “I don’t wanna kill anyone. I just don’t like bullies.” THAT is what Erskine was looking for, the right answer. Ditto with Roz, who only asked the ~mysterious~ question of “Do you judge me” because Dot challenged her to prove her worthy of telling the story right. Roz took her up on it and had her view about journalists reaffirmed. If Dot has already made her mind up about the video, she shouldn’t waste Roz’s time by proving herself.
4) You’re too hung up over the sex video thing and ruling out all possibility of there being a reason why it happened. In my hypothetical situation the first reporter was doing the same thing. Neither you, Dot nor my biased reporter were interested in the possibility of a deeper (hurr hurr) meaning. Dorothy wanted to be tested, Roz is doing that. Otherwise she was doing quite well with the whole Not Telling Her Story thing that she’s been doing lately.
1)I do nonetheless maintain that the attitude that the sex lives of others are unworthy of our attention is an entirely valid mentality. If Roz wants me to view her sex life in particular as a significant matter to be thought about then she’s gonna have to explain why her sex video in particular is special.
2)You are correct. I have not seen the Captain America movie. My only experience with the character comes from a couple Avengers animated movies, and I think a few guest appearances in other works. Your reference was lost on me. Just going based on the scenario you laid out and a rough notion of the Captain America premise.
Asking someone what their motivations are is an entirely legitimate and non-aggrivating way to go about things. Reminding you of course of my inexperience with the character, it almost sounds to me like a more accurate comparison would be if Professor Erskine asked Steve what he thought of the Nazis. Knowing next to nothing about the guy, I wouldn’t be surprised if Steve replied with the snarkiness that a question like that warrants.
I suppose what we’re coming to though is that there’s a good way to be roundabout and a bad way.
4) I’ve ruled out no possibilities. I simply feel that possibilities that would normally be implausible need to be presented and validated before given any serious consideration. I’m not gonna sit here mulling over what the deeper significance of every sexual act that hits the public eye might be. A sexual act turns out to have deeper significance I’m all ears, but until then…
One point you brought forth that I actually must cede changes everything though is that Dorothy did in essence ask to be tested. She should have been more prepared for that. You don’t ask to be tested like that without giving the matter some consideration. Roz was every bit in her right to proceed like this after Dorothy initiated the process.
It might be frustrating to wait this out as the reader, but in point of fact Dorothy really did ask for this, and this was an entirely appropriate response on Roz’s part.
1) I agree with you that my default setting is that they are boring. As for if it’s up to Roz to determine whether or not HER video is relevant, well, Dorothy has gone and done that for her by wanting to know about her story. You don’t want to know about it? Don’t go asking Roz for her story.
2) I think poking holes in your reversion of the analogy is a bit much. Steve probably wouldn’t snark, because he wasn’t that kind of guy. And I guess there’s a good way to be roundabout and a bad way, but I’m not sure what a better way to this would look like. I asked this in my other post, the one you said painted a compelling picture. If you ever do have another version of events, let me know what you think. Also, go see Captain America. It’s awesome.
4) I’m not saying you’re a bad person for having those default assumptions for things like that. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t have that frame of mind if you’re going to be a covering this story as a journalist. I agree it’s frustrating that we don’t have the full story but to me that’s Dorothy’s fault, not Roz’s.
4b) Actually on consideration I know exactly whose fault it is: DAMN YOU WILLIS
1&4a) You are correct. I hadn’t really considered Dorothy’s actual job here as a reporter. It’s easy to forget because of how this was assigned, but at the end of the day when you’re reporting on something you really do owe it to the story to give it a proper consideration.
2)I genuinely don’t know Captain America’s personality type terribly well. I get that he’s supposed to be an all american symbol of patriotism and that he’s a 40’s gentleman, but beyond that I don’t have much to go on.
Until a couple weeks ago I didn’t know the guy could be killed with bullets. True story.
The movie does look pretty badass and I plan on seeing it.
Except by doing that cryptically, it teaches a lesson as opposed to just saying, “I don’t have a spoon.”
Lessons don’t get you a spoon while your soup’s still hot.
You’re getting into ‘build a man a fire’ vs ‘set a man on fire’ there.
Except it prevents it from happening in the future. This is the point of a lesson. It transitions from a selfish want to preventing it from happening to other people.
It’s a very small scale example the same action when people with a disease go out and educate other people.
I don’t think you fully appreciate the value of hot soup.
Re: taekwondogirl
I know it’s just an old joke, but seriously, as someone who knows retail, and service industries, do NOT pull that shit in real life. There are very few things more mind-bogglingly irritating than a customer who thinks they are being clever or funny.
… I’m almost certain that being a smartass to the waiter is not going to teach them a lesson. They would know the person needed a spoon. Waitstaff are usually incredibly overworked and underpaid. Making a mistake here and there happens.
There is no reason to be rude over a small simple mistake that can be quickly rectified by saying what it is they missed in a polite manner.
I agree, it’s a poor choice of metaphor. If we had a Waiter who thought that putting a spoon next to soup was wrong for ethical reasons and never considered how someone was going to eat their soup without one, it’d be more appropriate, but as the waiter probably just forgot, then yeah.
I’m pretty sure this situation isn’t “being a smartass”. As someone who has worked both retail AND in a call center, I hate customers just as much as you guys clearly do. The whole point is a lesson in humility which… seems everyone here could use.
Humility still doesn’t get me soup while it’s still hot. Why is everyone disregarding the constantly decreasing temperature of the soup? Consuming soup that’s merely warm? Not on my watch!
“…don’t judge me!”
Ah, awesome. She’s aware that the sex tape is being used as a smear campaign against said senator, and knows that the situation is being blown out specifically to that end rather than it just being a relations between a guy and a girl that was made public.
The using Roz’s to attack the senator smear campaign will only work if people think on the lines of:
“I used to support the senator cos of her performance in politics, but the fact that her sister is a camwhore is enough to withdraw that support.”
Not as unlikely as it should be.
Sadly, you are very likely right now I think of it.
It is a common thing. I mean, how many times do you usually hear about this person or that person’s daughter/son or ‘brother/sister’ fooling around. This would reflect badly all the time, even if it shouldn’t.
What’s going on in Roz’s mind, and how it will eventually develop Dorothy’s character, is the most interesting thing in DoA right now.
Hmm… Crusader for sexual freedoms? Women’s liberation? Or just a terribly elaborate advertisement for Trojan condoms.
“The competition says they have you covered, but when you’re banging Joe, trust only Trojans.”
Someone who just enjoys sex and doesn’t want to be unfairly judged because of her relation to her sister?
And then released a sex video onto the internet with the intention of avoiding judgement? Walk me through this please. I am at times dim, and have clearly missed either the logical or emotional piece that fits those two together.
A girl can dream… obviously, in Roz`s mind, having sex is a currency for happiness, so watching people have sex should be fun/ make you happy. It should have occured to her, the way everyone else behaved, that there’s more to it and having sex with somebody and telling others about it or showing it to others can get you into some trouble, but she’s only a kid and might not have learned the hard way yet.
So maybe she assumes the people who are offended by others having sex are a few and feeling that way because they’re ignorant to what’s obvious to her. What she doesn’t realise it things are quite the other way around (or are they?) and she’s trampling on people’s feelings with her thoughtless ways.
(She’s obviously been lucky with Joe, who doesn’t care about these things either.)
So yeah, I think she may have released the video hoping it would prove that people aren’t as hollow as they sometimes act and realising only afterwards that indeed they are even more hollow than she feared.
And apparently I don’t think she’s a “bongo”, she just didn’t find out about some of life’s emotional rules yet.
Also, why does everyone think she’s got a grudge on her sister? We haven’t even seen a lot of Robin in this timeline yet.
Sorry about the rant.
TL;DR: Roz is still just a kid and means no ill will (I think).
Interesting. The youthful naivete angle does pan out pretty well.
I’m in agreement that we have no indication of sister issues yet. bongo would also be an improper word. She has an annoying way of going about her business, and has chosen a weird moment to get all cryptic, and pretty genuinely does seem to be drawn towards the spotlight, but none of these things make her a bongo.
Until Roz’s sister shows up in DoA, we lack sufficient information to truely know either way.
Including whether or not she was in cahoots, whether it was her idea, whatever. Roz had a sister in congress that made her own sex tape in another world, if memory serves, among other madcap ideas. Nope, there’s no way this Congresswoman DeSanto person is in any way involved!
She’s right, though. Modern media is a farce. It’s basically a not-so-subtle way of brainwashing people who don’t bother to do a little research into what they watch. It’s working, too.
yeah… theres nothing modern about that. the only difference now is that theres so much communication in the world that people can find all the different sides to the story
Yeah, that’s totally a reasonable outlook. Let’s all choose to be completely ignorant of the world around us just because we might be exposed to the horror of opinions!
That bears no resemblance to what Ash wrote.
That’s because the Freedom of the Press has dropped all over the world despite the internet, for instance, USA is only 20th in ranking for the FotP. Finland has the freest Press in the world, while New Zealand has the freest English speaking press ranked 8th in the world.
Reporters Without Borders
We do? Rad!
Groovy even! 😀
ooh, political
Damn, when did Roz become muthertrucking Dungeon Master?!
When she brought handcuffs and a riding crop to the party.
It’s about Video Cameras. She’s got a contract with Sony. Everyone wants a Sony Camera, now, so they too can have their own illicit sex tape.
It’s about fricking politics, even if Roz kill herself no one would care if she wasnt related to a politician. Besides no one care about morals anymore, everybody is free to do what the hell they want if they are quiet and dont get in other’s bussines.
She was the one wearing a condom hat, right? And she was passing out free condoms? Maybe the sex tape has nothing to do with her sister, or joe per se, and it’s just related to that somehow.
Man, I’m so glad I started looking into the social justice blogosphere _before_ this comic was launched.
IMHO, Roz has no right to belittle those she perceives as judgmental when she is the kind of person to release a sex tape without explicit prior permission from the other party. She’s lucky it’s Joe and he doesn’t give a damn, but not everybody is a Joe.
That and obviously she doesn’t care or even thought about how this would affect her family, namely her sister. All that gives anybody enough to think her arrogant and selfish without even getting into slut shaming.
I think you need to read this one again: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2011/comic/book-1/05-media-rumble/interview-2/
lol
That reminds me: Comics actually showing Roz and Joe interacting (preferably, talking about sex) would be totally friggin’ awesome. Just as a, um, criticism.
Well there is the comic of them giving the other sex eyes. That counts, right?
Roz does have a right to be judgmental. After all, Dot’s the reporter after a story with great shock value and no content.
Dot’s after that story the same way I was after green tea for nine months. The boss-man says he wants something so you make a trip, do a retrieval. This is a proverbial coffee run.
The conversation even resembled a coffee run conversation. “Hey, Dorothy, new girl. I’m feeling horny. Run out and fetch me something stimulating will you?”
The reason behind the “desire” for the story isn’t important. It’s called journalism. You don’t get to only write about things you’re interested in. If you can’t write a good article on something else and can only do an article on that which you’re passionate about, you may need to just do a personal blog online.
Right. But if we’re talking about getting judgemental of Dorothy because she’s after a story with shock value and no content that’s not a legitimate line of thought. That wasn’t Dorothy’s call. You judge her for how she seeks this story, but the fact that this story in particular is being sought is someone else’s department.
It’s like getting upset at the writer because the art’s sloppy, or getting upset at the waiter because of the prices on the menu. Choosing what stories get sought isn’t Dorothy’s job.
Roz stop trying to do the impossible! Stop trying to make the media…! Unbiased!!!
The problem isn’t that the media is biased. No. The problem is that the media doesn’t know how to properly report on things any more.
Wow, looking at a lot of these posts I can tell that Dorothy isn’t the only one Roz wouldn’t be telling her story to as well!
Gee, no shit. You don’t need to look at the comments for that. She refused to tell her story after hearing that she had been judged based on her political sex video. Dorothy is hardly the only person in the multiverse that’s gonna be ruled out by that requisite.
It’s not a political sex video, though. She herself isn’t in politics.
It’s only relevant because of it’s connection to a political figure. I think the label fits just fine.
I fail to see why its unfair to judge someone for stuff they do…still at least now I know it was consensual on the reread. Thinking that it wasn’t had me disliking Roz even more than I already did.