And it’s a sure thing that Robin doesn’t know who they are since she had already indicated that aides and other underlings were just faceless, nameless minions.
That doesn’t matter; Robin must be smart enough to know that her re-election is toast if the local press start screaming “DeSanto Campaign Worker Accused of Date Rape” over a picture of Ryan’s ugly mug wearing a ‘Re-Elect DeSanto’ tee-shirt.
If Robin isn’t that smart, Frieda is and, I would expect, unscrupulous enough to throw Ryan and his buddies under the nearest available bus if things look bad. She’ll then get Congressional Aide to write Robin a speech about how she’s ‘horrified’ to learn of Ryan’s alleged activities (whilst implying that he’s as guilty as the Devil in her book just for going to a frat party) and how this emphasises the importance of her campaign theme of Family Values – modern society has become a breeding ground for deviants like them!
You’d think that, but that’s not true. Rape accusations don’t do that much damage to the accused, or those associated with them- they hurt the accuser. Hence all the rape that goes unreported.
Especially when the alleged attempted rape wasn’t reported to the police or even to the college – for perfectly good reasons and doing so wouldn’t likely have changed anything, but it makes it even easier to smear the accuser.
I do think BenRG has it right about Robin’s “best” response – admit nothing, downplay his connection to the campaign (easy enough, it’s tenuous at best), attack the campus party culture without ever quite saying anything about rape. Sail to victory.
Except in this case, the idea is to plaster his name and face all over the internet without naming any victims. When that happens, one of two things will happen: Amazi-Girl will get sued for slander (or would it be libel?) or a string of victims will turn up. Perhaps both.
That’s the wonderful thing about being a masked avenger – It’s difficult to bring legal action against you because you are an anonymous urban myth. The publication that repeats your accusations, on the other hand, you can sue but I’ve found that they have fairly flexible and yet pretty effective excuses that insulate them from personal responsibility for annihilating someone’s personal reputation.
I think the biggest thing to consider is that Ryan was capable of getting past the screenlock. He deleted the photo, but who knows what else he might know? Best case scenario, all he did was take care of the photo, but worst case? That “masked avenger” deal that would have protected Amazi-Girl might no longer apply.
Actually, in that case it still would apply. How is Ryan going to prove that Amber and Amazi-Girl are the same person? The only thing he can say is, “I assaulted her (remember who started the fight in front of a crowd of witnesses), stole her phone, and got her personal information before she caught up to me and took it back.”
Campaigns keep obsessive records of anyone who ever volunteered, donated money or even showed and interest. You can lie about your name, but they will ask for it and your contact information as a priority.
That is within your power.
We could all change our avatars to Leslie hiding behind a campaign sign, but with a limited number of panels featuring her it might get a little repetetive.
Sorry, I can’t access your Gravatar account, and I don’t want to anyway. But you should be able to access your own, or you can create one if you don’t have one. Swipe my avatar and upload it to your Gravatar if you want. (Or at least mine should be the pic you want…Gravatar sometimes takes a while to update with the new image.)
Ok, I didn’t expect Sal to do that at all.
…rather, it’s a really ironical that Sal of all thing could be that kind of beacon for Amazi-girl, right now.
Thankfully, Amazi-girl is totally stable, and healed of all mental or emotional problems, and will not do anything bad ever again! This ain’t ominous, is it?
…. Am I the only one who thinks the guy in the green shirt behind Robin is a bit too enthusiastic? Will he be like DOA’s version of foaming mouth guy from Avatar?
I so want Sal to become some kind of grudging sidekick to Amazi-Girl. Like Batman in the Justice League cartoon, where he would just drop “I’m not actually part of this team” and walk away whenever shit got stupid.
How outdated. They get their own social media show. Filming their vigilante actions and posting them online to make it easier for the police to track them down.
“Yo what’s up guys? Amazi-Girl here and today we’re gonna be hunting down Ryan! We don’t have a full name, but he’s an attempted racist!” Thing is, she accidentally posted it from her Amber O’Malley page.
I’m imagining a cop comedy where the protagonist goes undercover in a white supremacist group. He’s trying to establish his bona fides so he tries to spout an off-the-cuff racist rant and it’s…. well, hillariously ludicrous in how completely bizarre and pathetic it is.
Nonono. Secret lesbian cleavage is not cleavage that belongs to a lesbian and is also kept secret. Secret lesbian cleave is non-secret cleavage belonging to someone who’s secretly a lesbian.
If you had both — say a trans woman who is in the closet and is presenting as a straight man and thus has to hide whatever she uses to augment her rack on those rare occasions she can be herself, that would be secret secret lesbian cleavage.
No… I’m wondering if, in trying to keep Amazi-Girl from killing herself, Sal will (as Marcie very obviously fears) get the taste for the ‘burn’ again and may start her own superheroic career. At least for a short time until it blows up in her and Amber’s faces.
I’m not so sure, but I think we can all agree that the largest chunk there is those who’re never accused and get off scot-free. I’d suspect that the falsely accused are about even with the accused who still get away with it while those who’re actually brought to justice are the minority, but I’m not exactly running this against any data here, so I could just be talking out my ass.
Having an unfairly maimed and maligned Good Christian Boy could do wonders. Especially when he inevitably claims he was attacked and scarred for Standing Up For His Beliefs.
I mean, *being* an actual rapist hasn’t damaged some political careers, but then, Robin doesn’t have white male privilege to hide behind, so who knows?
Nah, I like the idea of her using the name ‘Nightmare’. Amazi-Girl said that she ‘hears your voice in my nightmares’ in the middle of a crowd; someone mishears and tells the press that the other vigilante with Amazi-Girl was ‘The Nightmare’.
Man, with all this extended Amazi-Girl and Sal interaction that isn’t them fighting each other, I’m kind of wondering how Amber’s gonna react once the mask and cape are off and Amazi-Girl isn’t needed to keep any potential lids from being flipped in public.
Since it hasn’t been noted yet, I’m going to say it.
This is the turning point for Amber.
Right there. That blank frame with her alone? That was it.
She gets it now. This whole thing isn’t about her. It’s about helping others, not about revenge. She could ONLY ever get it when confronted with someone she viewed as evil telling her she did good, even when she let the villain get away. She achieved something meaningful in a way that comic heroes rarely do. She got evidence. Enough to put a rapist in jail.
Uh. That photo isn’t going to be enough to put him in jail. At best they can use it to confirm that’s the guy against whom to allege an attempted crime, but even the close-up photo (that he deleted) wouldn’t be enough to do more than that considering the attempt happened a month ago and charges were never brought against him in a timely fashion while the drug was still in Joyce’s system. (Mind you, I do respect Joyce’s reasons for not wanting to go to the police. The whole situation is just shitty. As is often the case.)
Plus the track record of the justice system in regards to rapists and rape-attempters isn’t exactly encouraging anyway.
I don’t think there is a statue of limitations on rape or attempted rape, not sure.
But if they can get him into a police station: they have the testimony of not just Joyce that he attacked her. Sarah, and others saw him run. Sarah smacked him with the baseball bat.
In lots of these cases, once one person stands up and points the figure then others come out of the woodwork to state that they were attacked also. We can hope this happens.
Because he stated himself that drugs was the only way to cut thru the long boring stuff and get what he wanted: chances are good that Joyce wasn’t his first attempt.
In Indiana, “Class A” rape has none, but otherwise, its 5 years. I don’t especially feel like looking into the criteria for the different classifications.
What bothers me even more is that Joyce seems to have been his first failure after who knows how long a string of ‘successful’ drug-assisted seductions. As a guy it sickens me to know that there are scumbags like this out there, and if I ever found out that one of my so-called ‘bros’ was doing this I’d kick his ass from Bloomington to Baton Rouge and back.
It doesn’t matter. It was only attempted rape, and it was over a month ago. The police are not going to do it, because there won’t be enough evidence. The witnesses are all friends of the person involved, and most of them didn’t actually witness what he did.
Sal was right that they needed the drugs in her system for the police to pursue it. The solution is just to make sure every girl knows about him and/or to catch him in the act again.
Or find a full out rape victim, which might help. Maybe even get a bunch to come forward. Make it politically untenable to not do something–ala with Cosby.
And, note, “only attempted rape” is not saying that what happened to Joyce was not horrible. That’s in the legal sense of being considered less of a crime. It’s bad enough getting full out rape dealt with.
Okay, I know what I want. I want Amber and Sal (dressd up with a pair of spare AmberSpecs, her hair in a bun and one of Dorothy’s ‘cub reporter’ spare sets of neat office wear to approach Frieda under false pretences and claim that they need to look at their intern lists because of some entirely fictitious college bylaw. Sort of like Clark Kent and Lois Lane turning up at a Lexcorp office and pressuring the staff into giving them confidential information.
Batman has always needed Robin the same way Sherlock needs Watson, so Amazi-Girl needs a version of a moral compass (Gal Pal Sal? Yep, going with Gal Pal Sal) and it’s come in the form of a badassed, hotass biker chick clad in leather…..I DEMAND A COSTUME FOR SAL AS GAL PAL!!!!
Well, yeah. Back in the day when the groups were larger and the genders more mixed (and sterotypes said that the comely womenfolk weren’t allowed to kick any ass on account of them being womenfolk) the Doctor was usually an older man, so his companions tended to be the ones doing the physical violence on those rare occasions it was preferable over thinking your way out of a situation. Also, much later some of the companions were demolitions experts that caved in Dalek heads with super powered baseball bats but that’s kind of another story (god I love number 7).
I’m not sure he would have several names and address.
After all, he see’s nothing wrong with what he’s doing per his remarks when he’s getting ready to pound the crap out of AG while his buddies hold her down for him.
Seems as if it’s the only way he knows or approves of, to get women.
If I were an attempted rapist (back it up, fuck that, no way I’m making THAT hypothetical, nuh-uh)
If I were a criminal (muuuuuuch better) running away from a vigilante and her superman-punching friend, and I had her phone, I would not be looking through contact information while doing it. At the very least not until I got away. For starters, have you ever tried looking at a phone while running? It’s not easy. It’d be kind of impressive if he managed to type in his friend’s number while running. I’d assume that he stopped momentarily to do it.
It doesn’t make much sense to worry about Ryan knowing every little detail. Worst-case scenario, he saw a picture of Amber and Danny or something.
Man, if I were Willis, reading all the comments from the last few days, I’d be so annoyed that every good thing that’s happened has been guessed by my readership.
“Oh, well they DO still have the Dorothy photo”
“Oh, you know, they do know he was one of Robin’s interns”
“Oh, this’ll make such a good slipshine”
One of those pseudo-quotes may have been wishful thinking on my part, but I really can’t figure out which one.
What can I say. If you play chess with a master long enough anybody can start guessing his moves and strategies. Some of us have been following Willis for years. We can figure out some of the plot points fairly quickly.
No costumes for Sal, she’s cool as is, and seriously doubt she’d consent to it.
Lists? They are unpaid so how much info. could their ’employer’ have on them? or Would have on them?
Sal does seem to be the only one who can actually stop AG when she’s all in the hunt frenzy. Because Sal is treating her as if she’s in her right mind?
Also, I noted that Sal is saying “…WE got your phone back”. Etc.
That’s good. I hope she doesn’t live to regret it.
Not from an email. The IP of the mail server it came from, perhaps, but not his.
Even if they got his IP address, unless she actually worked for his internet provider, they’d be able to learn what city he was in, at most. Not terribly helpful.
Friggin’ playing Dragon Ball Raging Blast 2 at my friend’s house, tryin’ ta unlock all the characters because his sister deleted his save data and DAMMIT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT BARDOCK VERSUS PERFECT CELL REMATCH WHILE I’M STILL IN RHODE ISLAND
Friggin’ makes a bunch of TFS references while I’m doin’ Cooler’s galaxy mode
I hand him the controller, grab his phone, and put on “Cooler Than Me”
Later, while doing Meta-Cooler’s galaxy mode… “Cooler Than Me- Dubstep Remix”
Can’t even THINK about Cooler without that goddamned song playing on repeat in my BRAIN
At first I was like, “Why not say that he might know her identity?” but then I realized that 1) it doesn’t change the fact that they can’t catch up and 2) she doesn’t trust Sal like that (yet?). She also can’t really expect Sal to have sympathy over that given how she’s treated her.
I think that has changed, Sal has just proven she has sympathy, she didn’t treat her like an idiot for trying to skate him down.
And seems to have proven she’s with AG, by saying ‘WE” when discussing what’s going down.
Okay…is it just me or…are these two a massively good influence on each other when they have a common cause? Like, Amber’s behavior is obvious, but Sal is acting way smarter and less volatile than she can be in these situations.
Sal’s not being less volatile. But she is apparently more willing to act instead of distance herself. The last time she did this was with ToeDad, and only because Joyce got her to do it.
I’m glad that after all these years, Willis still remembers that the campus is uphill all ways. It’s details like these that makes me appreciate this comic.
I went to that school and have LG-MD. I more or less had mapped out the entire campus to determine the least hilly pathways to get from Point A to Point B. I imagine others probably did as well (though Walky might have done so out of laziness while mine was an attempt to keep from wearing myself out).
Having said that, the only direction that the car could have gone was steeply uphill through the parking lot for the main library. Amber could have had a shot of catching them at the other entrance for the parking lot if she had gone in the opposite direction, especially since it would be less steep that way.
Let me get this straight. You think that this quiet tech geek is secretly a vigilante who spends her nights beating criminals to a pulp with her bare hands; and your plan, is to *blackmail* this person? Good luck.
It looks like she’s being MUCH more discrete than the rest of the crowd. To me it looks a LOT like the three of the people whose faces we can see are all cheering Robin’s backside more than whatever it is she’s sayin’
DAMN YOU, I’M BROWSING TVTROPES TABBED AGAIN
THIS IS YOUR FAULT
Well, see y’all in like two hours when I come to my senses and close all my TVTropes tabs
DYW is putting the finishing touches of a story, and on Twitter, he said:
“I hope you guys like Becky and Dina being adorable dorks.”
Would you say that you are one of those people, Bagge?
(By the way, why can’t “gals” and “babes” be gender-neutral terms? Why is it always male terms that also becomes gender-neutral? [/very rhethorical question]?)
That’s actually a VERY good question if it weren’t very rhetorical. I suspect it comes from the tendency of gendered languages to use male personal nouns as neuter. I know Spanish and French use male gendered pronouns with groups of mixed gender or unknown gender composition. But why should that be?
It seems that male gendered nouns and pronouns are seen as “default” and that female nouns and pronouns are seen as the special case. The assumption that follows would be that the solution is to not use a special noun do denote that a doctor is a woman doctor (doctress), but to use the same noun as for men. This is largely what English did as we stopped using gendered nouns.
But we still have a few gendered nouns. A few odd professional titles (like actress/actor or Emperor/Empress) have hung on for whatever reason, but it’s mostly personal nouns that exist to specifically point out the gender of the person being addressed. Using a universal “guy” or “dude” feels like the appropriate gender neutral modification since that has been the historical norm. But the problems with that assumption become clear when you reverse the assertion. Men would generally find it at least odd if not bothersome to be called “gals” or “ladies” in the interest of neutrality.
So we can understand why the universal “doctor”replaced “doctress”. Male doctors were far more common than female doctors and the assumption that your doctor was male was a socially acceptable one. Now that we are no longer comfortable making that assumption, the switch may not have been such an easy one. What, then, do we do about dudes and dudettes? If the universal dude is unacceptable, do we abandon it entirely? Is such a linguistic evolution tenable?
That was kinda rambly. I might have had a glass or two of scotch tonight.
Only those terms that explicitly mention gender tend to become stigmatized. Doctor used to be only male, but now it’s both. Same with actor. Guy and dude used to be only male, but now it isn’t.
Policeman, on the other hand, references gender, so police officer became the term. Same for stewardess and flight attendant.
Why is it the male term that become neutral? Because usually, it was a modification to the original word to make it female. Guy/gal is an exception, but the pattern held anyways. Plus “gal” kept a very “cowboy” feel to it, that “guy” didn’t. (And, of course the old “guys and dolls” fell out of favor for comparing women to inanimate objects.)
In other cases, the male did not become the default. “He” is not generally acceptable now as a gender neutral pronoun. And “man” is rarely used in a gender neutral way, as we have “human” instead.
Teaching a course on a field in which women are in equal numbers and prominence: my syllabus is gender-balanced BECAUSE it’s gender neutral: I teach texts on scientific quality and women are there. AND the enrollment skews female, usually 2/3.
I’d never made a point about the gender of the authors — till last year. I thought that I was normalizing “see, girls can do it too” by NOT tagging it. But I got pulled up short last year. As I was reading student submissions on a book by a scholar who “just happened to be female” as well as an excellent scientist, the first four were from excellent students “who just happened to be female”. And all four tagged the author & her work as HE/HIS, despite the author’s name, which “just happened to be” Mildred, being on the first page of the reading.
Talk about being pulled up short!
I’ll save the story about how I responded for another time.
But I am more and more tempted to use she/her, etc., for everyone, rather than say “look here, this author is female … and this one … and thus one.
(Ps, I had forgotten that undergrads tend not to register authors’ names: some even ask if they need to learn them for the final ….)
About how our use of language is influenced by the fact that we live in a patriarchal society where men are regarded as the default: What Dandi_Andi and trlkly said.
I’ll add to this that “babe” is now gender-neutral (or, at least, I’ve heard it being said to men with no-one batting an eye), and that professions that add “man” to the descriptor might originate on the fact that, originally, “Man” just meant person – the term for human male was “were” (which… meant there were no woman therianthropes?).
Also, I’m always up for more Dina – I’m not particularly fond of Becky, but she gets me happier Dina so bring it on.
I dare, sir or madam, I dare and dare again! I dare forever!
I don’t really have anything actually bad to say about Becky, she is just too… expansive? loud? for me to truly enjoy her. There are people who like her exactly for that, I’d wager. And that’s okay – if we all enjoyed the same people’s company, the fact that people occupy volume would be problematic.
Were I truly committed, I’d use a Mary gravatar whenever I defended equal rights, a Joyce one whenever I talked about shitty things done by religious people, and, should I ever develop an inkling of faith in humanity I’d use a Sarah gravatar.
As it stands, my piss-people-off-ness is once again foiled by my lazyness! I’d rail against it, but that sounds like too much work, so eh.
Nah, I’m just pointing out the irony of the avatar/comment pairing, and also playing off my own avatar a little, since Becky would be VERY upset if Dina were to say that
Oh, carry on, then. Also, your gravatar doesn’t seem particularly upset. In fact, she looks positively giddy. Does she want Dina to break up with her so she can go hit on Joyce some more?
It amy also be possible that owing to gender role toxicity, the use of female-gendered words is considered an insult, while male is ranged positive to negative, depending on context and applied gender. Harking back (and up) to an earlier comment, calling a non-male “One of the Guys” could be attempted sexism.
So what the heck is up with Leslie? Is Robin really all THAT hot? Or is this a case of “Secret Republican Gay”? The former is really stupid, but the latter could potentially have a story behind it.
Too often people just take it for granted that gay people vote Democrat, however even before the present times, where many Republicans are largely indifferent about the whole gay thing (if for no other reason than PR after losing that battle), I’d met some republican gays who give the Some Like It Hot rebuttal to Republican stands on gay marriage, “Nobody’s perfect.” After all, who you want to have sex with has no real impact on immigration or economic beliefs.
The comic is already doing something interesting here with Joyce, in portraying a moderate Christian in a favorable light, showing virtues that are more characteristic of Christians than of non-believers (and I’m an atheist, so I’m not trying to big up Christianity). So it would be amusing to have Leslie ‘come out of the closet’ as a Republican, as in her current circle of friends and co-workers, that is far more likely to cause friction that who she wants to sleep with.
I think that Leslie is lonely; worse, I think she’s attracted to the idea of Robin rather than the woman herself (about whom she knows almost nothing). We’ll see how she responds to Robin’s rhetoric and her amoral view of the consequences of the same.
Back in 2002 in my home state of Wisconsin, Ed Thompson (the brother of former 4-term governor Tommy Thompson) ran for governor as a Libertarian against incumbent governor Scott McCallum and Democratic challenger James Doyle. He lost, as was more-or-less to be expected, but did amass over 11% of the popular vote. For years thereafter, one could find cars across the state of Wisconsin bearing “Don’t Blame Me; I Voted For Ed” bumper stickers.
I think we’ll see the opposite. Leslie is not the sort of person to be ashamed of her political views. That would be a serious “hail hydra” moment imho.
Dating a conservative would have the same story beats though. And Robin discovering she’s attracted to ladies would also be a good source of complications, considering her constituents. It would definitely be messy for her politically, since even if her own stance on certain issues changes, her constituents probably won’t change with her.
I’m super excited for the impending hot mess that’s going to be
Wait, what? You think Christians are more virtuous than atheists?
What virtues do Christians have that atheists have less of? Charity? Nope, it’s the other way around. “Turn the other cheek?” You’re talking about a character who turned someone else’s cheek into hamburger.
“Christians are more virtuous” is something I’d expect from a Christian who’d never met an atheist – not someone who is an atheist. Might be worth checking for self-hatred?
They didn’t say anything of the kind. “portraying a moderate Christian in a favorable light, showing virtues
that are more characteristic of Christians than of non-believers ”
Nothing about atheists not being virtuous. Just that Joyce is portrayed with clearly Christian virtues and as a virtuous person. Even while acknowledging the toxicity in bad forms of Christianity, he’s not writing them all off.
Counterpoint: If you say “showing virtues that are more characteristic of Christians than of non-believers” then you are, indeed, claiming that non-believers don’t have those virtues. You don’t say that “using oxygen for energy production” is characteristic of christians.
I think he speaking in reference to virtues that tend to be “Christian only”, which aren’t always virtuous. Though I read it as “Not trying to spread the Word of God here, folks; just trying to point out something.” After all, he’s Emperor, he can just go make his own form of Christianity if he wants.
No. It doesn’t, JBento. Not at all. For something to be “more characteristic” of one group, it must still be a characteristic found in another group.
If I say, for example, that Christians are more likely to believe in “hate the sin, not the sinner,” would that be a false statement? That’s a distinctly Christian virtue. Sure, not only Christians follow it, but it’s basically law for Christians. (Sure, some Christians do things that show they actually hate the sinner, but they still think they don’t. Because, to them, to do so is hellishly wrong.)
I don’t know how many times I’ve just assumed everyone thought this way, just to find out they think that hating the sinner is perfectly okay. They think a person is nothing more than their actions. And that hate is a relatively innocuous thing, instead of the horrible thing I think it is.
Leslie is not only a lesbian. She’s also a feminist and strong social justice advocate. And regardless of where Republicans might have been in the past, they are not the party for that in 2016. And Leslie has flat out said she finds DeSanto’s politics abhorrent.
I mean, DeSanto is very obviously standing in for Trump right now. There’s no chance Leslie is going to go with his policies. Sure, we hope that DeSanto will get better, but that’s a long way off.
I always found that confusing, assuming the political beliefs are as opposite as the current USAmerican crop. I mean, if you’re not a monster, how do you share your life with someone who thinks gays and muslims and transpeople are abominations upon the earth and should all be removed?
But that IS the platform the Republicans have been running on the past few elections – it certainly is the one they’re running on NOW. So, if they voted Republican…
I might be misusing terminology here: when I say “Republicans,” I mean it as a short-hand for “people who vote Republican,” not “people registered as Republicans.” I have no idea if there’s a term to differentiate the two.
This response has also made me google Clarence Thomas, and I’m not sure how I feel about having that man’s name in my search history. How much are POTUS expected to know about the people they nominate? Because Thomas thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, that gay people’s right to marry should be decided by states, that the EPA has too much power and that guns for everyone.
And I’m fully aware of the lack of homogeneity – I mean, Lincoln was a Republican (that man must be turning in his grave so much, we could use him as a dynamo to power the world for free).
Regardless, for the past elections, there was one party that catered to the religious right-wing fringe, and another that campaigned, at least partially, on solving social issues. Perhaps you can argue that people have different priorities on deciding how to cast their vote, and Republican promised tax cuts weighed more than Democrat promised addressing of social injustice. To which I answer, well, yes, that’s my point.
My point was that the way two people with widely different political philosophies could have a loving relationship is simply by neither of then being buttholes. Being conservative does not necessitate that someone oppose LGBT rights, or otherwise support or tolerate shitty policies on social issues, no matter how much the Republican party platform insists otherwise.
I’m well aware that there are lots of republicans and conservatives out there who are horrible people, or voting for people who support terrible policies. They come out of the woodwork on Twitter to call me ”libtard” whenever I call someone out for being an lslamophobic bigot. Their conservatism is not the problem. The bigotry, paranoia, lack of empathy, moral laziness, and insistence that those who don’t share their views are subhuman morons are
Before we continue, I’d like to know what you understand as “conservatism,” seeing as I see too many people using terms that mean the exact opposite of what they mean. For instance, a “liberal” was, not long ago, someone who wanted little government intervention (think libertarian-lite), and now it appears to mean “someone who won’t let me oppress people I don’t like, that scum.”
I mean the dictionary definition. At the most basic level, a conservative is cautious of change, and unless a change is clearly an improvement, will usually favor the status quo. Whereas a liberal is more worried about stagnation, and more likely to be comfortable with any change that isn’t obviously harmful.
I’m not talking about any specific set of values, beliefs, or policies, but the political philosophy used to choose them.
The problem with this is that the status quo sucks for quite a few people, and if conservatives want to keep it (or change it slowly), they suck. You don’t slowly give equal rights to marginalised people, you give them all and if that hurts the little bigot’s feelings, well, tough. You don’t slowly extend reproductive rights and hope that the Bible Diaper states get on board eventually, you make it federal (is it federal? the one that applies to all states regardless of how they feel about it?) law and tell them to keep their religion out of other people’s healthcare.
Rolling things out slowly sounds nice and calm and proper for the people who are already doing at least ok, but to the ones getting screwed? Not so much.
@fogel: Pfft, any REAL conspiracy nut would say “sheeple.” Amateur. Also, needs a reference on how said conspiracy entailed Big Pharma putting chemicals in vaccines and chemtrails to weaken people’s minds so they vote Trump.
JBento: You’re taking an extremely general description and treating it like an absolute rule. A general tendency towards caution doesn’t mean you always reject change, fight it, or even drag your feet. It means that when a change does not seem clearly good or bad to you, you’re more likely to be skeptical.
How you judge what is good or bad, and which changes are worthwhile is a separate process. Deciding that gay people should be allowed to marry is not incompatible with conservatism.
And yet, “gays are bad and icky and gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry” is exactly what you USAmericans have been getting from the Republican side of the political spectrum since… far too long. I’m not saying that all people who vote republican think “gays are bad and icky and gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry,” I’m saying that people who vote republican either think that or have voted in support of people who espouse it.
For fuck’s sake, Tantrump is basically the bottom of the barrel and the majority of republicans are still voting for him – the man is winning on the polls! And you know the REALLY bad part? What Trump is saying isn’t new to the Republican platform, it’s just that he isn’t concealing it like the previous incumbents did.
Sure, no-one actually said they wanted to build a wall along the border with Mexico (because that’s not ever happening, and if it did it would tank the US economy would tank so bad my Beasts of the Mesozoic pledge could be paid with spare change), but damn if they haven’t been telling everyone how foreigners have been stealing jobs from hard-working americans.
Sure, no-one said that they were going to ban muslims from entering USA (because that just might be the most unenforceable idea I’ve ever heard), but damn if we haven’t been hearing how those brown people are dangerous, let’s bomb them.
On a side note, you’ve been talking about conservatives, I’ve been talking about people who vote republican – I have no idea how much those demographics overlap.
My mom’s conservative, being a Christian and all, and my dad’s borderline fundamentalist (when I told him this, he scoffed and said “Borderline?”). I was raised Christian, and for the first… ten? Mayhaps twelve? Years of my life I was downright homophobic.
I gradually evolved and within the past four or five years I’ve grown into a fairly stable set of views. My family tends to call me a liberal, but my views aren’t strictly liberal. For starters, I’m very much opposed to adding to gun control laws- although our enforcement of the ones we do have needs to improve.
Moot point, however.
I know both sides of the fence. (Politically and religiously, as it happens to be, ’cause vague Agnosticism for the win!) There are many levels of views on homosexuality from the conservative side of things. Liberals will view it as a black and white issue- gays should be able to marry, if you think otherwise you’re a fucking monster. That’s how I view things now, too. Conservatives, however…
On one hand, you’ve got Westborough Baptist Church. Evil pricks, KKK-level but less physically violent. Call themselves Christians, but they must skip over the “love thy neighbor” section during bible study because they’re fuckin’ assholes. They’d just as soon shout “hail Satan” from the rooftops as allow two dudes to get married. Would vote “yes” on Proposition GaFuqUrself, to bring back stoning as a justifiable punishment for homosexuality.
On the other, you’ve got the people who actually read the fuckin’ book they claim to study from- generous, kind people. These people, at worst, don’t want it to be called marriage and are completely fine with homosexuals getting all the rights ‘n shit that come with it. My mom falls in line with this group.
This shit’s a spectrum. My dad can say some bigoted things but he’s not a bad dude. He’s fine with “civil unions” or what have you, because he’s a “hate the sin, not the sinner” kinda guy. While from our perspective that is kind of offensive and rude, it’s the best way for someone who takes the Bible as gospel to view it. At least, until you manage to convince them that the Bible doesn’t actually have anything against gays because of the New Testament and translation questions and… well, that’s neither here nor there.
I mean, for the longest time I was a Grammar Nazi. During that period, I was of similar views to my mother- don’t call it marriage, but let it happen. The root word of “marriage” is “mar”, which means “motherhood”. Over time, I realized I just don’t fuckin’ care and wanted some gaddamn gay weddings already, but yeah.
Something funny I’ve noticed? Liberal views are the ones that want to go against prejudice and bias and make everyone equal, but if your views aren’t liberal you’ll be hard-pressed to find a liberal who will accept you*. The majority of outspoken liberals are just as bigoted as the majority of outspoken conservatives, but because they’re bigoted against people who they view as bigots they tend to go blind towards their own hypocrisy. (Keyword: outspoken in both cases) (*on the internet, mostly. Usually it doesn’t matter as much with the people you meet in real life.)
Essentially what I’m trying to say is conservatives aren’t the big-bad-motherfuckin’-wolf, ya know? While some of them are total douchebags- so are some liberals. On both sides there are idiotically extreme elements with no capacity for reasoning. It’s the reason why America can never come to a fuckin’ compromise, and it really pisses me off. The ones who can actually discuss things rationally like human beings oughta be able to do nowadays are never given the time of day because the media doesn’t find them interesting and the tiny group of people who read their posts tends to consist of trolls and idiotic extremes from both sides. When you eventually do find two people discussing it rationally, it tends to just be “Yeah, you’re right.” “Yeah, so are you.” “This is good.”
And now, to end off this annoyingly political pile of bullshit with a glorious story: My best friend is bi. He went to an LGBT rally. He came back in a straight relationship. The fucker.
Apparently it went something like this:
*him and his very strange group of friends discussing… a porno where there was a donut and the glaze was… why the fuck… sometimes I’m glad I’m not around for these conversations*
Logan (best friend): Man, why eat that when you can just have a nice maple frosted?
Matt (arguably weirdest of the group): So you want to fuck a Canadian?
Kaitlyn (spelling?): I’M A CANADIAN
@Lipke: False equivalency. The dude who refuses to hang around black people and the dude who refuses to hang around nazis are not the same, because only one of those things is bad.
Also, you seems to be confusing “marriage” with “matrimony” – matrimony derives from the latin mater, which means mother. I don’t know the etymology of “marriage” but wikipedia (for what it’s worth) says it comes from the latin “maritare”, meaning “provide with husband or wife.”
You also seem to think that “that’s best you can get from someone who views the bible as gospel” makes it acceptable. It doesn’t. If you’re a grown up making their own decisions, what’s written in a Big Book of Collected Fairytales (Revised and Edited) doesn’t excuse you from fucking over other people who just want to live their lives without hurting anyone. You say that that shit is a spectrum, but guess what? Shit in a spectrum is still shit.
You seem to think that compromise is inherently good. It isn’t. If one side wants gays stoned to death and the other wants them to have full rights, you don’t compromise by giving them half the rights; you give them full rights and anyone who wants otherwise gets pointed towards a fire they can go and die in, because nuking them from orbit to be sure causes collateral damage.
The hell are you calling false equivalency? Please, point out what you’re referring to.
Ah, got that bit mixed up did I? Probably should have double-checked instead of working from memory.
The “Big Book of Collected Fairytales” as you call it is a big deal to Christians. To them, it is the word of God. God gives them hope. Hope gives them strength. Etcetera.
You’re taking a single part of my quote while ignoring its context. What are you, the fucking media? My father isn’t going to say no to gay marriage and that is all you fucking need to pass it, so what’s the fucking problem? He’s not fucking over jack shit, but you’re still going to make a big deal out of it because of your prejudices.
Congratulations, you’re making yourself out to be one of the idiotic extremes that I was referring to in my previous reply.
You seem to think that compromise is inherently a fifty-fifty split. It isn’t.
You’re literally being the dictionary definition of a bigot with that comment, by the way. I get it, you feel like intolerance towards views you think are evil is okay. But that’s what leads to war, dude. That’s what leads to hatred. That is one of the number one reasons for human suffering on the entire fucking planet.
JBento, you are completely missing the point and equating ”conservative” with ”giant asshole who wants to vote for Trump and eat babies”. You’re looking at the worst members of a broad group, and ignoring the fact that individuals within the group aren’t all like that.
It is entirely possible to be both a conservative AND a good person! And I don’t mean ”good in spite of ___”, I mean good. I’m not using some bizarre definition of good that allows bigotry and intolerance, either. I have conservative friends who rarely vote for Republican (especially not in national elections) because of the very objections you’ve raised about the GOP platform.
There is more than one way to arrive at good moral decisions.
Ugh, I did say “conservatives” up there, didn’t I? Apologies on that: I meant republican voters.
Your false equivalency: That people who say that want you to not allowed to treat gay people like shit for being gay are just like the people who want gay to be treated like shit. Yes, being intolerant towards some views is not only perfectly okay, it’s actually desirable, which is why when some people wanted slavery over and others didn’t, the first group didn’t just go “oh, well, you do you and we’ll be good.”
Compromise CAN be a bad thing. It doesn’t have to be fifty-fifty. Sometimes, ninety-ten is still not something you compromise on. You don’t give marginalised groups 90% of their rights, you give them 100%. What compromise do you suggest here (as an aside, merely renaming it “civil unions” might be troubling when interacting with, say, tourists, because in some other countries “civil union” and “marriage” are legally different things)?
Furthermore, I don’t care if the Bible is important to Christians. I care about what Christians (and other people) actually do, not where they get their justifications. The fact remains that it was written over a long period of time by a bunch of different people, and then ANOTHER bunch of different people got together and decided what they wanted to keep in it. And they didn’t even do a very good job of it, because it has all the internal consistency of wet noodles. And THEN it got translated by people who, quite frankly, weren’t very good at it.
I… had another point to address, but I forget which. The shrinking line lengths are giving me a headache. Xp
Sudden realization: I can continue this meaningless discussion and likely end up blowing up on here, embarrassing myself and devaluing my arguments. OR, I could put you on the ridiculously small list of people in DoA’s comments who I don’t believe have the capacity for reason and then begin to ignore this thread.
Man, a year or two ago I wouldn’t have been able to have this epiphany.
But seriously, we’re dealing with old ways of thinking and ingrained cultures and such. “Get on board or drown” doesn’t work in a broad sense, because people are just not like that. Being different is good, it makes things interesting. Hating someone for their differences from you is not, it leads to strife.
Every day, I try to do a little good at least, try to make things better, if even by a infinitesimal margin. Because it can add up. While seeing things like racism/sexism/probably-other-things-I’m-leaving-outism is upsetting to me, I just remind myself that while the moral arc of the universe is long, it does bend towards justice.
Lipke, I’m afraid you already went off the rails, and your reply only takes you further. You’ve just done the very demonization you tell JBento is wrong. You’ve refused to “compromise” with them.
But, more importantly, you’ve pushed that canard about how it’s wrong to be intolerant towards the intolerant. When, in fact, it’s a requirement of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerance, you’re right back where you started. You’ve just said “intolerance is bad, but I’m gonna let people be intolerant anyways.”
Thing is, this has nothing to do with where JBento went wrong. JBento is apparently bigoted against Christians. They have decided to apply something that applies to some Christians to all of them. That’s textbook bigotry. If JBento doesn’t want people treating them badly for not being a Christian, then they need to respect Christians, too. That doesn’t mean accepting their intolerance–but you don’t get to assume that every Christian is intolerant.
I am a Christian. I fully believe in gay rights. I made the same discovery Joyce made, albeit because of seeing multiple gay people, rather than just one best friend. Once I realized that homosexuality wasn’t a choice, I knew that God wouldn’t punish people for it. So I went and looked to find out why people thought He did. Turns out, bigotry had been informing the translation of the Bible for millennia.
I do have some sympathy for people who think that God is against homosexuality. But I am not tolerant of their intolerance. If they treat a gay person badly, I will not “compromise” with them about it. And, yes, I have lost friends over it–albeit not close ones, as I’m picky about who I become friends with. People like Carol, John, or Mary are not friend material.
There is no reason for you and JBento to be at odds. Both of you have said some bad things. Both of you have some points to make. You need to actually look for the good in what they say instead of dismissing it.
And, JBento, you need to not be bigoted towards Christians, and possibly conservatives and Republicans. You cannot assign the position of some to the whole. Doing that is textbook bigotry. There’s a reason why it’s liberals who are pro-PC–what conservatives call PC, we just call “being accurate and avoiding bigotry”
@jbento: what!? It’s true, dang it. That’s why Lincoln wouldn’t let the southern states secede: his plan required that they be in the Union, in order for Nixon to play his “Southern Strategy”, etc.! Just think what the USA would be like if it weren’t burdened by the Confederate States! Dear Lord, if it weren’t for Lincoln, the USA would have progressive politics, while the CSA would be … Anyway, it’s all a cording to the plan that Lincoln mapped out in 1858. Do you really think that anything as messed up as US politics since the Civil War, especially what’s going down now, could have come about by chance? No way: next thing you’ll tell me that you believe in evolution, not intelligent design!
Oh, shit, I hadn’t realized how close I was to blowin’ my top when I last posted. Dammit, this is just the kind of thing I try to avoid.
I’d sit here and explain away what I had meant versus what I actually said, but it really doesn’t matter. I try my hardest to stay out of politics for a reason.
…I’m actually kind of impressed with myself. I haven’t fit that many “fuck”s into a paragraph since I was, what, fifteen?
Anyway, yeah, sorry Bento. I was a bit out of line. I’ve got some issues with my temper, and the closer I get to completely going mental, the less rational I become. I tend to use harsher language (replacing “friggin'” with “fuckin'”), leave out more of my reasoning, the like. Because the majority of controversial topics anger me in one way or another I try my best to avoid them altogether, but I always get dragged back into something. :/
I don’t think that Sal ever expected to be the ‘Alfred’, the keeper and sanity anchor, for Amazi-Girl but that looks like what she is going to have to do. It might just keep Amazi-Girl… and Amber… alive. I’m just wondering how Amber will react in the morning when she realises just how totally the role of Sal has changed in her life!
I’m wondering about that last panel and Sal’s voice-over. Is it possible that Amazi-Girl and Sal might start harassing Robin and her re-election campaigners just because of their association with Ryan?
Ethan bursts into the room, his hair a frazzled mess, clothes damp with sweat from the furious run he beat towards Danny’s room. He tightly grabs Danny’s hand, gazes deeply into his eyes, and says the words that have been lingering in his mind for too long.
Loading ...
until we find out Frieda figured, “Well, we’re not PAYING them, so why bother keep a record of their internships??”
“LOL I CAN’T FIND THEIR PAPERWORK I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY’RE FREE”
Still got a name and a face, though. Internet’s pretty good at that sort of thing.
to google!
Frieda might know who Dawson, Taylor, and Tyler are — they were at the airport earlier in the morning when Robin’s plane landed — and they might know who Ryan is, but I think it’s a safe bet that Frieda herself doesn’t know Ryan from Adam’s cat.
And it’s a sure thing that Robin doesn’t know who they are since she had already indicated that aides and other underlings were just faceless, nameless minions.
Does Ryan even work for the campaign? I thought he was just attending the rally.
He was wearing the same shirt as the other interns and passing stuff out to attendees.
That doesn’t matter; Robin must be smart enough to know that her re-election is toast if the local press start screaming “DeSanto Campaign Worker Accused of Date Rape” over a picture of Ryan’s ugly mug wearing a ‘Re-Elect DeSanto’ tee-shirt.
If Robin isn’t that smart, Frieda is and, I would expect, unscrupulous enough to throw Ryan and his buddies under the nearest available bus if things look bad. She’ll then get Congressional Aide to write Robin a speech about how she’s ‘horrified’ to learn of Ryan’s alleged activities (whilst implying that he’s as guilty as the Devil in her book just for going to a frat party) and how this emphasises the importance of her campaign theme of Family Values – modern society has become a breeding ground for deviants like them!
You’d think that, but that’s not true. Rape accusations don’t do that much damage to the accused, or those associated with them- they hurt the accuser. Hence all the rape that goes unreported.
Especially when the alleged attempted rape wasn’t reported to the police or even to the college – for perfectly good reasons and doing so wouldn’t likely have changed anything, but it makes it even easier to smear the accuser.
I do think BenRG has it right about Robin’s “best” response – admit nothing, downplay his connection to the campaign (easy enough, it’s tenuous at best), attack the campus party culture without ever quite saying anything about rape. Sail to victory.
Except in this case, the idea is to plaster his name and face all over the internet without naming any victims. When that happens, one of two things will happen: Amazi-Girl will get sued for slander (or would it be libel?) or a string of victims will turn up. Perhaps both.
That’s the wonderful thing about being a masked avenger – It’s difficult to bring legal action against you because you are an anonymous urban myth. The publication that repeats your accusations, on the other hand, you can sue but I’ve found that they have fairly flexible and yet pretty effective excuses that insulate them from personal responsibility for annihilating someone’s personal reputation.
I think the biggest thing to consider is that Ryan was capable of getting past the screenlock. He deleted the photo, but who knows what else he might know? Best case scenario, all he did was take care of the photo, but worst case? That “masked avenger” deal that would have protected Amazi-Girl might no longer apply.
Actually, in that case it still would apply. How is Ryan going to prove that Amber and Amazi-Girl are the same person? The only thing he can say is, “I assaulted her (remember who started the fight in front of a crowd of witnesses), stole her phone, and got her personal information before she caught up to me and took it back.”
Neither of them really need to operate within the law here… He doesn’t need to turn her in to get revenge.
Campaigns keep obsessive records of anyone who ever volunteered, donated money or even showed and interest. You can lie about your name, but they will ask for it and your contact information as a priority.
yeah I suppose it’s a good idea to keep a list of suckers
(speaking from Frieda’s point of view, not remotely saying donating time and money is for chumps)
WOO YEAH PARTY OVER HERE
“Let’s ignore the fact there was a fight over here!”
well that’s the norm in american politics
your avatar and name make your comment confusing
butts party is best party
Leslie is the campaign sign now, they are one.
Hoist by her own placard.
*snerk*
+1 internet to you, sir.
get out
Yes, “get out”, with our admiration in tow.
I think I laughed for like 30 seconds there. Good show.
Never assume a woman doesn’t have superheroines at her disposal.
For Amazi-girls’ next mission… she must seduce this information out of Robin de Santo…
Waht, you want to turn Leslie into a supervillain ?
“Does. She have. A chest window.”
So Amazi-Girl seduces representative DeSanto, then a lesbian supervillain shows up and they fight over her?
Not only is that the story Daisy’s been dying to write, but she’s already got several drafts out on the fanfic sites.
I think if you examine the rightmost placard in the last panal, you’ll find that she does.
Beyond that, only the Willis knows.
She is super hero with a branded protection, so Robin’s siblings will like her. they should also check their family tree for… well..
family?
Change my avatar to Leslie hiding behind a campaign sign.
That is within your power.
We could all change our avatars to Leslie hiding behind a campaign sign, but with a limited number of panels featuring her it might get a little repetetive.
Unless the art of fans is called upon.
*Scrambles to the roof and turns on the Yotomoe Signal*
*A shilouette of a butt flickers to life in the sky*
Sorry, I can’t access your Gravatar account, and I don’t want to anyway. But you should be able to access your own, or you can create one if you don’t have one. Swipe my avatar and upload it to your Gravatar if you want. (Or at least mine should be the pic you want…Gravatar sometimes takes a while to update with the new image.)
I think they mean they need someone to make such a photo into a gravatar for them. They’ll actually upload it to their gravatar account.
I read it as Woobie wanting the comment moderator to go and change their Malaya Avatar into a Jessica one.
Thanks, all, but I was sort of responding to the alt-text.
I don’t always make sense, especially in live conversations; sorry!
Sal’s melted down everything Amazi-Girl’s created in her head, and turned them into Truth Bullets!
Truth Bullets?
Oh god.
Oh God, the bodies. What convoluted reason led you to kill Dina, Walky? Why is the stuffed bear making puns?
Ok, I didn’t expect Sal to do that at all.
…rather, it’s a really ironical that Sal of all thing could be that kind of beacon for Amazi-girl, right now.
nb : server time is drifting again~
“We”????
They teamed up after a confrontation. That means they’re friends now. Just like in superhero comics!
NOW KICK!
Bahahahaha!!
NOT HARD ENOUGH!
Robin is happy because instead of confetti, at her rallies they drop sprinkles.
Sprinkles fall too quickly. In the future, she’ll look into those sugary disks that go onto cupcakes, or maybe strands of cotton candy.
Cadbury creme eggs?
Those could be painful.
Thankfully, Amazi-girl is totally stable, and healed of all mental or emotional problems, and will not do anything bad ever again! This ain’t ominous, is it?
For being so tech savy, she forgot about the sent one. Just wait, he will get his…
I think it was more about that the close up was a far better shot, and wondering what he might have seen on her phone.
Hey Sal, looks like you might end up being pals after this after all.
…. Am I the only one who thinks the guy in the green shirt behind Robin is a bit too enthusiastic? Will he be like DOA’s version of foaming mouth guy from Avatar?
His jaw is open pretty wide, but hey, it is a midnight rally.
I so want Sal to become some kind of grudging sidekick to Amazi-Girl. Like Batman in the Justice League cartoon, where he would just drop “I’m not actually part of this team” and walk away whenever shit got stupid.
“I couldn’t have done this without you.”
“I’m aware of that.”
“Wait, how did you know his weakness? We just found out about him a few hours ago.”
“Research, try it.”
Amazi-Girl and Sal should have their own TV Show.
How outdated. They get their own social media show. Filming their vigilante actions and posting them online to make it easier for the police to track them down.
… but not as easy as a tv show would.
“Yo what’s up guys? Amazi-Girl here and today we’re gonna be hunting down Ryan! We don’t have a full name, but he’s an attempted racist!” Thing is, she accidentally posted it from her Amber O’Malley page.
*Rapist, I don’t think you can be an ATTEMPTED RACIST
Well, I can think of a few ways.
“Racist, or racist not. There is no try.”
I’m imagining a cop comedy where the protagonist goes undercover in a white supremacist group. He’s trying to establish his bona fides so he tries to spout an off-the-cuff racist rant and it’s…. well, hillariously ludicrous in how completely bizarre and pathetic it is.
Not seeing how that’s different than a real racist rant.
You, you should get a job with Brooklyn-Nine-Nine. I could totes see Adam Samberg doing exactly this!
Humans rarely just attempt racism. Its something we are very good at.
“Man those blacks, they get a poor shakedown, am I right”?
Anyways, I’m calling it now: Amazi-Girl is going to stab Ryan in the hand for whatever reason, and then Sal finds out who she is.
Surprise twist. Sal stabs Ryan in the hand and suddenly realizes who Amazigirl is.
Double-twist: Sal goes to stab Ryan, and ends up stabbing AG in the hand.
“What cruel irony has been visited upon me!”
Triple-twist: Amazi-Girl goes to stab Ryan, accidentally stabs herself.
If Amazi-Girl+Sal isn’t going to be a superhero combo thing, I’m quitting this comic.
Okay, we all know I’m not gonna do that.
RIGHT
They make such a good team, I hope they keep it up!
Secret lesbian cleavage forever?
Secret lesbian cleavage forever.
SECRET LESBIAN CLEAVAGE FOREVER!
……. this is going to be this year’s meme, isn’t it?
And next years hit band.
Who wants to be the drummer?
Are only secret lesbians allowed to apply?
But the whole point of cleavage is lost …if you KEEP IT A SECRET!
Well, you know, there’s cleavage, and then there’s CLEAVAGE.
Snicker.
Every comment is better with your Avatar.
Nonono. Secret lesbian cleavage is not cleavage that belongs to a lesbian and is also kept secret. Secret lesbian cleave is non-secret cleavage belonging to someone who’s secretly a lesbian.
If you had both — say a trans woman who is in the closet and is presenting as a straight man and thus has to hide whatever she uses to augment her rack on those rare occasions she can be herself, that would be secret secret lesbian cleavage.
Just keeping you abreast of the definitions.
You sure it wouldn’t be “Secret lesbian secret cleavage”?
I think both are correct, but while yours is more clear, Reltzik’s seems more humorous.
Gaah! It’s as bad as “const” in C++!
… Was that entire explanation a set-up for the pun at the end?
No, it was funny in its own right, but it did provide the ending pun with a good deal of support.
….
… man, I’m just racking them up tonight, aren’t I?
Man, you’re a hoot. Er…
If your cleavage has a whole point, then you’re doing it wrong.
Or you’re cold?
I was referencing a quote about doomsday machines from Dr Strangelove, though it looks like it went unnoticed
So you carried the ball but no one noticed it?
Am I smelling collaboration for the greater good? Teaming up to fuck Ryan’s shit up?
:D????
No… I’m wondering if, in trying to keep Amazi-Girl from killing herself, Sal will (as Marcie very obviously fears) get the taste for the ‘burn’ again and may start her own superheroic career. At least for a short time until it blows up in her and Amber’s faces.
YES MORE ROBIN
Unlike Clinton, her ‘elect me’ suit has a skirt. And pockets!
(Unless they’re girl pockets.)
Which is horrifying.
#AllPocketsAreEqual
Having a rapist for an employee cannot be good for your political career.
I’m sure there have been “alleged” attempted rapists before.
Probably dropped as soon as the word was out.
I’m sure there have.
I’m also sure there have been more than a few alleged ones who didn’t actually do what they were punished for.
And much, much more who didn’t get punished at all, laughed at the allegations, and did do it.
I’m not so sure, but I think we can all agree that the largest chunk there is those who’re never accused and get off scot-free. I’d suspect that the falsely accused are about even with the accused who still get away with it while those who’re actually brought to justice are the minority, but I’m not exactly running this against any data here, so I could just be talking out my ass.
…what does that have to do with anything here? Unless I’m badly misreading this comment.
I just took exception to the quotation marks on “alleged.” Probably overreaction on my part.
Having an unfairly maimed and maligned Good Christian Boy could do wonders. Especially when he inevitably claims he was attacked and scarred for Standing Up For His Beliefs.
especially now that joyce is a lover of gays
I mean, *being* an actual rapist hasn’t damaged some political careers, but then, Robin doesn’t have white male privilege to hide behind, so who knows?
And yet, oddly enough, it’s not as bad as having an undocumented immigrant as an employee.
…..
…. oh, wait, Trump’s figured it out. They’re the same thing.
Transfer them to another campaign.
Here come the Adventures of Amazi-Girl and Super-Sal!
Nah, I like the idea of her using the name ‘Nightmare’. Amazi-Girl said that she ‘hears your voice in my nightmares’ in the middle of a crowd; someone mishears and tells the press that the other vigilante with Amazi-Girl was ‘The Nightmare’.
Sal’s not a horse!
Night Terror?
Man, with all this extended Amazi-Girl and Sal interaction that isn’t them fighting each other, I’m kind of wondering how Amber’s gonna react once the mask and cape are off and Amazi-Girl isn’t needed to keep any potential lids from being flipped in public.
…. react to Sal in person, or just react to realizing who Amazi-girl was running around with?
Does the phrase ‘melt-down’ mean anything to you in terms of mental health? Amber is going to have a hard, hard mountain to climb tomorrow morning.
Since it hasn’t been noted yet, I’m going to say it.
This is the turning point for Amber.
Right there. That blank frame with her alone? That was it.
She gets it now. This whole thing isn’t about her. It’s about helping others, not about revenge. She could ONLY ever get it when confronted with someone she viewed as evil telling her she did good, even when she let the villain get away. She achieved something meaningful in a way that comic heroes rarely do. She got evidence. Enough to put a rapist in jail.
I like the way you think, and I really hope you’re right about Amber’s turning point. Or one of them, at least.
Uh. That photo isn’t going to be enough to put him in jail. At best they can use it to confirm that’s the guy against whom to allege an attempted crime, but even the close-up photo (that he deleted) wouldn’t be enough to do more than that considering the attempt happened a month ago and charges were never brought against him in a timely fashion while the drug was still in Joyce’s system. (Mind you, I do respect Joyce’s reasons for not wanting to go to the police. The whole situation is just shitty. As is often the case.)
Plus the track record of the justice system in regards to rapists and rape-attempters isn’t exactly encouraging anyway.
I don’t think there is a statue of limitations on rape or attempted rape, not sure.
But if they can get him into a police station: they have the testimony of not just Joyce that he attacked her. Sarah, and others saw him run. Sarah smacked him with the baseball bat.
In lots of these cases, once one person stands up and points the figure then others come out of the woodwork to state that they were attacked also. We can hope this happens.
Because he stated himself that drugs was the only way to cut thru the long boring stuff and get what he wanted: chances are good that Joyce wasn’t his first attempt.
34 states have a statute of limitations for rape.
In Indiana, “Class A” rape has none, but otherwise, its 5 years. I don’t especially feel like looking into the criteria for the different classifications.
Did anyone keep the broken glass? Drug residue *and* Ryan blood (poss) on it? Billie had it, last, I think… when questioning Joyce.
Oooo, I hope so.
The sweater Joyce was wearing at the party still has blood stains on it, but we don’t know whose blood they are.
The only person whose blood it could possibly be, as far as I recall, is Ryan’s.
Joyce’s hand was also cut by the broken glass.
What bothers me even more is that Joyce seems to have been his first failure after who knows how long a string of ‘successful’ drug-assisted seductions. As a guy it sickens me to know that there are scumbags like this out there, and if I ever found out that one of my so-called ‘bros’ was doing this I’d kick his ass from Bloomington to Baton Rouge and back.
It doesn’t matter. It was only attempted rape, and it was over a month ago. The police are not going to do it, because there won’t be enough evidence. The witnesses are all friends of the person involved, and most of them didn’t actually witness what he did.
Sal was right that they needed the drugs in her system for the police to pursue it. The solution is just to make sure every girl knows about him and/or to catch him in the act again.
Or find a full out rape victim, which might help. Maybe even get a bunch to come forward. Make it politically untenable to not do something–ala with Cosby.
And, note, “only attempted rape” is not saying that what happened to Joyce was not horrible. That’s in the legal sense of being considered less of a crime. It’s bad enough getting full out rape dealt with.
Good thoughts, I hope you’re right.
It looks like it could be right.
What’s better than this? Just Sals bein’ pals…
Nothing. Nothing is better.
And a ham sandwich is better than nothing. So, therefore, a ham sandwich is better than this comic.
Nothing at all? How about a mountain of Energon, an unstoppable superweapon and a free warp gate to the heart of cybertron?
You make a compelling argument…
Employer, as in they can go through the campaign list and fish out more of Ryan’s info?
At the very least, they know they’ll be able to find him at the next event, or ask his coworkers (ones they didn’t beat up) about him.
Okay, I know what I want. I want Amber and Sal (dressd up with a pair of spare AmberSpecs, her hair in a bun and one of Dorothy’s ‘cub reporter’ spare sets of neat office wear to approach Frieda under false pretences and claim that they need to look at their intern lists because of some entirely fictitious college bylaw. Sort of like Clark Kent and Lois Lane turning up at a Lexcorp office and pressuring the staff into giving them confidential information.
The Ocean’s Ocho I’d pay to see.
Batman has always needed Robin the same way Sherlock needs Watson, so Amazi-Girl needs a version of a moral compass (Gal Pal Sal? Yep, going with Gal Pal Sal) and it’s come in the form of a badassed, hotass biker chick clad in leather…..I DEMAND A COSTUME FOR SAL AS GAL PAL!!!!
…the way the Doctor needs a Companion….
They aren’t always his moral compass, though. There’ve been a few who he had to rein in.
Well, yeah. Back in the day when the groups were larger and the genders more mixed (and sterotypes said that the comely womenfolk weren’t allowed to kick any ass on account of them being womenfolk) the Doctor was usually an older man, so his companions tended to be the ones doing the physical violence on those rare occasions it was preferable over thinking your way out of a situation. Also, much later some of the companions were demolitions experts that caved in Dalek heads with super powered baseball bats but that’s kind of another story (god I love number 7).
To be fair, Barbara ran over Daleks with a truck as well.
And a classmate with a direct line to said employer.
Or indirect.
There’s a line.
I’d say, oh, no, this won’t go well at all, going to the authorities…
… but Robin’s just wacky enough to break the mold.
He also likely has a name, several names and phone numbers, and with them, addresses.
I’m not sure he would have several names and address.
After all, he see’s nothing wrong with what he’s doing per his remarks when he’s getting ready to pound the crap out of AG while his buddies hold her down for him.
Seems as if it’s the only way he knows or approves of, to get women.
I think VoT meant several names, phone numbers, and addresses of Amazi-Girl/Amber’s friends.
Which is unlikely. I doubt he memorized many of them at all before Amazi-girl’s boot impacted his short term memory, aka skull.
Yeah, its part of the fundamental injustice of it. He doesn’t need to hide, because people don’t want to see what he is.
Assume the worst unless you enjoy being surprised. Sure, most of the time the worst is worse than you can imagine, but you can try to prepare.
If I were an attempted rapist (back it up, fuck that, no way I’m making THAT hypothetical, nuh-uh)
If I were a criminal (muuuuuuch better) running away from a vigilante and her superman-punching friend, and I had her phone, I would not be looking through contact information while doing it. At the very least not until I got away. For starters, have you ever tried looking at a phone while running? It’s not easy. It’d be kind of impressive if he managed to type in his friend’s number while running. I’d assume that he stopped momentarily to do it.
It doesn’t make much sense to worry about Ryan knowing every little detail. Worst-case scenario, he saw a picture of Amber and Danny or something.
Man, if I were Willis, reading all the comments from the last few days, I’d be so annoyed that every good thing that’s happened has been guessed by my readership.
“Oh, well they DO still have the Dorothy photo”
“Oh, you know, they do know he was one of Robin’s interns”
“Oh, this’ll make such a good slipshine”
One of those pseudo-quotes may have been wishful thinking on my part, but I really can’t figure out which one.
have been saying this
for WEEKS
most sapphic of hatefucks let’s go go go
Missed the chance. Now it would be only low-grade hatefuck, which would leave Sal feeling greatly underhated and drive her back into Jason’s arms.
….. and they’d both wonder wtf that was about, because they’re both straight.
Please. In the Dumbiverse, no one is straight.
…Except Joe.
Not even Joe.
Oh, shit, forgot about that. Well played, Willis.
Eh, none of those are really surprising; they were pretty logical conclusions, and his twists tend to blindside most of us.
Fair enough.
What can I say. If you play chess with a master long enough anybody can start guessing his moves and strategies. Some of us have been following Willis for years. We can figure out some of the plot points fairly quickly.
Nice try.
No costumes for Sal, she’s cool as is, and seriously doubt she’d consent to it.
Lists? They are unpaid so how much info. could their ’employer’ have on them? or Would have on them?
Sal does seem to be the only one who can actually stop AG when she’s all in the hunt frenzy. Because Sal is treating her as if she’s in her right mind?
Also, I noted that Sal is saying “…WE got your phone back”. Etc.
That’s good. I hope she doesn’t live to regret it.
Costumes? No. But I could see Sal going with a hockey mask.
’cause we’re all Jonesing for a Case(y) of hockey mask vigilantism.
“Whoops”
What about a Kato outfit?
Contact info for volunteers to … do what they are volunteering for. (when/where to meet)
Even if it is just email info, Amber could get IP, I’d bet.
Not from an email. The IP of the mail server it came from, perhaps, but not his.
Even if they got his IP address, unless she actually worked for his internet provider, they’d be able to learn what city he was in, at most. Not terribly helpful.
ah, true.
Sal and Amazigirl are the new top BFFs of this comic… until Amber ruins it
this is basically how I feel today after everyone said Amber could catch Ryan on skates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsqmU3v0hVA
Friggin’ playing Dragon Ball Raging Blast 2 at my friend’s house, tryin’ ta unlock all the characters because his sister deleted his save data and DAMMIT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT BARDOCK VERSUS PERFECT CELL REMATCH WHILE I’M STILL IN RHODE ISLAND
Friggin’ makes a bunch of TFS references while I’m doin’ Cooler’s galaxy mode
I hand him the controller, grab his phone, and put on “Cooler Than Me”
Later, while doing Meta-Cooler’s galaxy mode… “Cooler Than Me- Dubstep Remix”
Can’t even THINK about Cooler without that goddamned song playing on repeat in my BRAIN
Wait, why isn’t everyone’s new favorite character tagged? What is this nonsense?
Who, Jessica?
Maybe revealing the true identity of ‘everyone’s new favorite character’ right now would be a massive spoiler.
The really happy guy behind Robin’s right side?
At first I was like, “Why not say that he might know her identity?” but then I realized that 1) it doesn’t change the fact that they can’t catch up and 2) she doesn’t trust Sal like that (yet?). She also can’t really expect Sal to have sympathy over that given how she’s treated her.
I think that has changed, Sal has just proven she has sympathy, she didn’t treat her like an idiot for trying to skate him down.
And seems to have proven she’s with AG, by saying ‘WE” when discussing what’s going down.
Okay…is it just me or…are these two a massively good influence on each other when they have a common cause? Like, Amber’s behavior is obvious, but Sal is acting way smarter and less volatile than she can be in these situations.
No? This is how Sal usually is when not being harassed by a vigilante or forced to spend time with Malaya.
Sal’s not being less volatile. But she is apparently more willing to act instead of distance herself. The last time she did this was with ToeDad, and only because Joyce got her to do it.
Can they be a dynamic duo now? Can they solve mysteries together? This will be my new favorite show.
I, for one, welcome the new team-up of Sal and Amazi-girl.
I, too, welcome our new overlordsimeanteam-up.
Are people really still riffing on the Richard Nixon pose?
Well, clue-less people like Robin, certainly.
I’m glad that after all these years, Willis still remembers that the campus is uphill all ways. It’s details like these that makes me appreciate this comic.
Is there ever a campus anywhere that isn’t?
Probably Community level. Even when they’re statewide they tend to be in one giant building.
I went to that school and have LG-MD. I more or less had mapped out the entire campus to determine the least hilly pathways to get from Point A to Point B. I imagine others probably did as well (though Walky might have done so out of laziness while mine was an attempt to keep from wearing myself out).
Having said that, the only direction that the car could have gone was steeply uphill through the parking lot for the main library. Amber could have had a shot of catching them at the other entrance for the parking lot if she had gone in the opposite direction, especially since it would be less steep that way.
Who wants to guess that Ryan will start blackmailing Amber.
I’m a dark person…
For some reason I don’t think it would work out that well…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z6o1GIEsQE&ab_channel=PumaProductionsZF
Let me get this straight. You think that this quiet tech geek is secretly a vigilante who spends her nights beating criminals to a pulp with her bare hands; and your plan, is to *blackmail* this person? Good luck.
Jessica does NOT hide behind signs.
Jessica DOES secretly ogle the congress woman’s butt.
It looks like she’s being MUCH more discrete than the rest of the crowd. To me it looks a LOT like the three of the people whose faces we can see are all cheering Robin’s backside more than whatever it is she’s sayin’
If Leslie ever works up the courage to make the move she will be in for some stiff competition.
The overall amount of hidden stiffness in that panel is overwhelming.
Damn straight.
Well…. to a point.
Not quite a point. More a set of curves, really.
I’m also counting hidden stiff nipples, so not very straight at all, really.
Ogling her butt, or her Zettai Ryouiki?
(Grade B)
[Runs away to hide shame.]
DAMN YOU, I’M BROWSING TVTROPES TABBED AGAIN
THIS IS YOUR FAULT
Well, see y’all in like two hours when I come to my senses and close all my TVTropes tabs
GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!
Since Our Willis is Eternally Damned, does this mean I have now unlocked the “DAMN YOU!” achievement here?
“Damn you, Slartibeast!”
Seconded.
thirded-ededed…
45 simultaneous tabs and one browser crash later…
“We”
Sal and Amazi-girl are a “we” now?
They really HAVE moved forward.
By the way, Bagge…
DYW is putting the finishing touches of a story, and on Twitter, he said:
“I hope you guys like Becky and Dina being adorable dorks.”
Would you say that you are one of those people, Bagge?
(By the way, why can’t “gals” and “babes” be gender-neutral terms? Why is it always male terms that also becomes gender-neutral? [/very rhethorical question]?)
There can never be too much Becky and Dina being dorks.
Seconded, or perhaps thirded, naturally.
That’s actually a VERY good question if it weren’t very rhetorical. I suspect it comes from the tendency of gendered languages to use male personal nouns as neuter. I know Spanish and French use male gendered pronouns with groups of mixed gender or unknown gender composition. But why should that be?
It seems that male gendered nouns and pronouns are seen as “default” and that female nouns and pronouns are seen as the special case. The assumption that follows would be that the solution is to not use a special noun do denote that a doctor is a woman doctor (doctress), but to use the same noun as for men. This is largely what English did as we stopped using gendered nouns.
But we still have a few gendered nouns. A few odd professional titles (like actress/actor or Emperor/Empress) have hung on for whatever reason, but it’s mostly personal nouns that exist to specifically point out the gender of the person being addressed. Using a universal “guy” or “dude” feels like the appropriate gender neutral modification since that has been the historical norm. But the problems with that assumption become clear when you reverse the assertion. Men would generally find it at least odd if not bothersome to be called “gals” or “ladies” in the interest of neutrality.
So we can understand why the universal “doctor”replaced “doctress”. Male doctors were far more common than female doctors and the assumption that your doctor was male was a socially acceptable one. Now that we are no longer comfortable making that assumption, the switch may not have been such an easy one. What, then, do we do about dudes and dudettes? If the universal dude is unacceptable, do we abandon it entirely? Is such a linguistic evolution tenable?
That was kinda rambly. I might have had a glass or two of scotch tonight.
Only those terms that explicitly mention gender tend to become stigmatized. Doctor used to be only male, but now it’s both. Same with actor. Guy and dude used to be only male, but now it isn’t.
Policeman, on the other hand, references gender, so police officer became the term. Same for stewardess and flight attendant.
Why is it the male term that become neutral? Because usually, it was a modification to the original word to make it female. Guy/gal is an exception, but the pattern held anyways. Plus “gal” kept a very “cowboy” feel to it, that “guy” didn’t. (And, of course the old “guys and dolls” fell out of favor for comparing women to inanimate objects.)
In other cases, the male did not become the default. “He” is not generally acceptable now as a gender neutral pronoun. And “man” is rarely used in a gender neutral way, as we have “human” instead.
Teaching a course on a field in which women are in equal numbers and prominence: my syllabus is gender-balanced BECAUSE it’s gender neutral: I teach texts on scientific quality and women are there. AND the enrollment skews female, usually 2/3.
I’d never made a point about the gender of the authors — till last year. I thought that I was normalizing “see, girls can do it too” by NOT tagging it. But I got pulled up short last year. As I was reading student submissions on a book by a scholar who “just happened to be female” as well as an excellent scientist, the first four were from excellent students “who just happened to be female”. And all four tagged the author & her work as HE/HIS, despite the author’s name, which “just happened to be” Mildred, being on the first page of the reading.
Talk about being pulled up short!
I’ll save the story about how I responded for another time.
But I am more and more tempted to use she/her, etc., for everyone, rather than say “look here, this author is female … and this one … and thus one.
(Ps, I had forgotten that undergrads tend not to register authors’ names: some even ask if they need to learn them for the final ….)
About Dina and Becky: Doooooooooooooofuses 🙂
About how our use of language is influenced by the fact that we live in a patriarchal society where men are regarded as the default: What Dandi_Andi and trlkly said.
Doofi?
YES!!!!
Plural of Doofus is Doofi! That is the hill I die on!!! (Or talk about grammar on, whichever)
doofudes…doofodes…doofipodes…wait where was I going with this…
I’ll add to this that “babe” is now gender-neutral (or, at least, I’ve heard it being said to men with no-one batting an eye), and that professions that add “man” to the descriptor might originate on the fact that, originally, “Man” just meant person – the term for human male was “were” (which… meant there were no woman therianthropes?).
Also, I’m always up for more Dina – I’m not particularly fond of Becky, but she gets me happier Dina so bring it on.
’m not particularly fond of Becky,
how dare
I dare, sir or madam, I dare and dare again! I dare forever!
I don’t really have anything actually bad to say about Becky, she is just too… expansive? loud? for me to truly enjoy her. There are people who like her exactly for that, I’d wager. And that’s okay – if we all enjoyed the same people’s company, the fact that people occupy volume would be problematic.
Your avatar makes these statements particularly upsetting to me :I
Were I truly committed, I’d use a Mary gravatar whenever I defended equal rights, a Joyce one whenever I talked about shitty things done by religious people, and, should I ever develop an inkling of faith in humanity I’d use a Sarah gravatar.
As it stands, my piss-people-off-ness is once again foiled by my lazyness! I’d rail against it, but that sounds like too much work, so eh.
Wait, unless you’re actually upset?
Nah, I’m just pointing out the irony of the avatar/comment pairing, and also playing off my own avatar a little, since Becky would be VERY upset if Dina were to say that
Oh, carry on, then. Also, your gravatar doesn’t seem particularly upset. In fact, she looks positively giddy. Does she want Dina to break up with her so she can go hit on Joyce some more?
Um. On re-reading, that last line might sound somewhat hostile. I apologise, and assure you it was not.
It amy also be possible that owing to gender role toxicity, the use of female-gendered words is considered an insult, while male is ranged positive to negative, depending on context and applied gender. Harking back (and up) to an earlier comment, calling a non-male “One of the Guys” could be attempted sexism.
Leslie is so cute. I love her.
I like the way you think, Sal, because that’s how I thought yesterday, too, and I like the way I think.
I’d like to think that Sal interrupted Amazi-girl while she was in the middle of humming the Batman theme
Which one?
Mayhap this one?
So what the heck is up with Leslie? Is Robin really all THAT hot? Or is this a case of “Secret Republican Gay”? The former is really stupid, but the latter could potentially have a story behind it.
Too often people just take it for granted that gay people vote Democrat, however even before the present times, where many Republicans are largely indifferent about the whole gay thing (if for no other reason than PR after losing that battle), I’d met some republican gays who give the Some Like It Hot rebuttal to Republican stands on gay marriage, “Nobody’s perfect.” After all, who you want to have sex with has no real impact on immigration or economic beliefs.
The comic is already doing something interesting here with Joyce, in portraying a moderate Christian in a favorable light, showing virtues that are more characteristic of Christians than of non-believers (and I’m an atheist, so I’m not trying to big up Christianity). So it would be amusing to have Leslie ‘come out of the closet’ as a Republican, as in her current circle of friends and co-workers, that is far more likely to cause friction that who she wants to sleep with.
I think that Leslie is lonely; worse, I think she’s attracted to the idea of Robin rather than the woman herself (about whom she knows almost nothing). We’ll see how she responds to Robin’s rhetoric and her amoral view of the consequences of the same.
I think this answers your question: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2011/comic/book-1/06-yesterday-was-thursday/knock/
😀
? Could that be a meme? “I voted for the white guy”. (The [straight, cis, X] white guy.) Or is it WAY too specific to that arc of DOA?
Back in 2002 in my home state of Wisconsin, Ed Thompson (the brother of former 4-term governor Tommy Thompson) ran for governor as a Libertarian against incumbent governor Scott McCallum and Democratic challenger James Doyle. He lost, as was more-or-less to be expected, but did amass over 11% of the popular vote. For years thereafter, one could find cars across the state of Wisconsin bearing “Don’t Blame Me; I Voted For Ed” bumper stickers.
I think we’ll see the opposite. Leslie is not the sort of person to be ashamed of her political views. That would be a serious “hail hydra” moment imho.
Dating a conservative would have the same story beats though. And Robin discovering she’s attracted to ladies would also be a good source of complications, considering her constituents. It would definitely be messy for her politically, since even if her own stance on certain issues changes, her constituents probably won’t change with her.
I’m super excited for the impending hot mess that’s going to be
Wait, what? You think Christians are more virtuous than atheists?
What virtues do Christians have that atheists have less of? Charity? Nope, it’s the other way around. “Turn the other cheek?” You’re talking about a character who turned someone else’s cheek into hamburger.
“Christians are more virtuous” is something I’d expect from a Christian who’d never met an atheist – not someone who is an atheist. Might be worth checking for self-hatred?
If you’re gonna put something in quote marks, maybe make sure it’s actually a quote and that you’re not replying to something you misread.
They didn’t say anything of the kind. “portraying a moderate Christian in a favorable light, showing virtues
that are more characteristic of Christians than of non-believers ”
Nothing about atheists not being virtuous. Just that Joyce is portrayed with clearly Christian virtues and as a virtuous person. Even while acknowledging the toxicity in bad forms of Christianity, he’s not writing them all off.
Counterpoint: If you say “showing virtues that are more characteristic of Christians than of non-believers” then you are, indeed, claiming that non-believers don’t have those virtues. You don’t say that “using oxygen for energy production” is characteristic of christians.
I think he speaking in reference to virtues that tend to be “Christian only”, which aren’t always virtuous. Though I read it as “Not trying to spread the Word of God here, folks; just trying to point out something.” After all, he’s Emperor, he can just go make his own form of Christianity if he wants.
What?… Emporer? Same gravatar, different person. Unless I’ve missed something.
No. It doesn’t, JBento. Not at all. For something to be “more characteristic” of one group, it must still be a characteristic found in another group.
If I say, for example, that Christians are more likely to believe in “hate the sin, not the sinner,” would that be a false statement? That’s a distinctly Christian virtue. Sure, not only Christians follow it, but it’s basically law for Christians. (Sure, some Christians do things that show they actually hate the sinner, but they still think they don’t. Because, to them, to do so is hellishly wrong.)
I don’t know how many times I’ve just assumed everyone thought this way, just to find out they think that hating the sinner is perfectly okay. They think a person is nothing more than their actions. And that hate is a relatively innocuous thing, instead of the horrible thing I think it is.
Leslie is not only a lesbian. She’s also a feminist and strong social justice advocate. And regardless of where Republicans might have been in the past, they are not the party for that in 2016. And Leslie has flat out said she finds DeSanto’s politics abhorrent.
I mean, DeSanto is very obviously standing in for Trump right now. There’s no chance Leslie is going to go with his policies. Sure, we hope that DeSanto will get better, but that’s a long way off.
> showing virtues that are more characteristic of Christians than of non-believers
What virtues are these?
Mary Matalan&James Carville. (Ie a couple need not share politics.)
I always found that confusing, assuming the political beliefs are as opposite as the current USAmerican crop. I mean, if you’re not a monster, how do you share your life with someone who thinks gays and muslims and transpeople are abominations upon the earth and should all be removed?
Not all conservatives believe that. Those aren’t conservative values. They’re bigoted asshole values.
But that IS the platform the Republicans have been running on the past few elections – it certainly is the one they’re running on NOW. So, if they voted Republican…
George H.W. Bush, former president, and Vice President to Ronald Reagan, has recently announced he’ll vote for Clinton.
Even republicans aren’t a completely homogeneous group
I might be misusing terminology here: when I say “Republicans,” I mean it as a short-hand for “people who vote Republican,” not “people registered as Republicans.” I have no idea if there’s a term to differentiate the two.
This response has also made me google Clarence Thomas, and I’m not sure how I feel about having that man’s name in my search history. How much are POTUS expected to know about the people they nominate? Because Thomas thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, that gay people’s right to marry should be decided by states, that the EPA has too much power and that guns for everyone.
And I’m fully aware of the lack of homogeneity – I mean, Lincoln was a Republican (that man must be turning in his grave so much, we could use him as a dynamo to power the world for free).
Regardless, for the past elections, there was one party that catered to the religious right-wing fringe, and another that campaigned, at least partially, on solving social issues. Perhaps you can argue that people have different priorities on deciding how to cast their vote, and Republican promised tax cuts weighed more than Democrat promised addressing of social injustice. To which I answer, well, yes, that’s my point.
My point was that the way two people with widely different political philosophies could have a loving relationship is simply by neither of then being buttholes. Being conservative does not necessitate that someone oppose LGBT rights, or otherwise support or tolerate shitty policies on social issues, no matter how much the Republican party platform insists otherwise.
I’m well aware that there are lots of republicans and conservatives out there who are horrible people, or voting for people who support terrible policies. They come out of the woodwork on Twitter to call me ”libtard” whenever I call someone out for being an lslamophobic bigot. Their conservatism is not the problem. The bigotry, paranoia, lack of empathy, moral laziness, and insistence that those who don’t share their views are subhuman morons are
(Chain replies have reached their limit, wheee)
Before we continue, I’d like to know what you understand as “conservatism,” seeing as I see too many people using terms that mean the exact opposite of what they mean. For instance, a “liberal” was, not long ago, someone who wanted little government intervention (think libertarian-lite), and now it appears to mean “someone who won’t let me oppress people I don’t like, that scum.”
I mean the dictionary definition. At the most basic level, a conservative is cautious of change, and unless a change is clearly an improvement, will usually favor the status quo. Whereas a liberal is more worried about stagnation, and more likely to be comfortable with any change that isn’t obviously harmful.
I’m not talking about any specific set of values, beliefs, or policies, but the political philosophy used to choose them.
LINCOLN! LINCOLN FOUNDED THE GREAT REPUBLI CAN CONSPIRACY WHICH CULMINATES THIS YEAR IN THE ELECTION OF TRUMP! WAKE UP PEOPLE!
The problem with this is that the status quo sucks for quite a few people, and if conservatives want to keep it (or change it slowly), they suck. You don’t slowly give equal rights to marginalised people, you give them all and if that hurts the little bigot’s feelings, well, tough. You don’t slowly extend reproductive rights and hope that the Bible Diaper states get on board eventually, you make it federal (is it federal? the one that applies to all states regardless of how they feel about it?) law and tell them to keep their religion out of other people’s healthcare.
Rolling things out slowly sounds nice and calm and proper for the people who are already doing at least ok, but to the ones getting screwed? Not so much.
@fogel: Pfft, any REAL conspiracy nut would say “sheeple.” Amateur. Also, needs a reference on how said conspiracy entailed Big Pharma putting chemicals in vaccines and chemtrails to weaken people’s minds so they vote Trump.
JBento: You’re taking an extremely general description and treating it like an absolute rule. A general tendency towards caution doesn’t mean you always reject change, fight it, or even drag your feet. It means that when a change does not seem clearly good or bad to you, you’re more likely to be skeptical.
How you judge what is good or bad, and which changes are worthwhile is a separate process. Deciding that gay people should be allowed to marry is not incompatible with conservatism.
And yet, “gays are bad and icky and gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry” is exactly what you USAmericans have been getting from the Republican side of the political spectrum since… far too long. I’m not saying that all people who vote republican think “gays are bad and icky and gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry,” I’m saying that people who vote republican either think that or have voted in support of people who espouse it.
For fuck’s sake, Tantrump is basically the bottom of the barrel and the majority of republicans are still voting for him – the man is winning on the polls! And you know the REALLY bad part? What Trump is saying isn’t new to the Republican platform, it’s just that he isn’t concealing it like the previous incumbents did.
Sure, no-one actually said they wanted to build a wall along the border with Mexico (because that’s not ever happening, and if it did it would tank the US economy would tank so bad my Beasts of the Mesozoic pledge could be paid with spare change), but damn if they haven’t been telling everyone how foreigners have been stealing jobs from hard-working americans.
Sure, no-one said that they were going to ban muslims from entering USA (because that just might be the most unenforceable idea I’ve ever heard), but damn if we haven’t been hearing how those brown people are dangerous, let’s bomb them.
On a side note, you’ve been talking about conservatives, I’ve been talking about people who vote republican – I have no idea how much those demographics overlap.
My mom’s conservative, being a Christian and all, and my dad’s borderline fundamentalist (when I told him this, he scoffed and said “Borderline?”). I was raised Christian, and for the first… ten? Mayhaps twelve? Years of my life I was downright homophobic.
I gradually evolved and within the past four or five years I’ve grown into a fairly stable set of views. My family tends to call me a liberal, but my views aren’t strictly liberal. For starters, I’m very much opposed to adding to gun control laws- although our enforcement of the ones we do have needs to improve.
Moot point, however.
I know both sides of the fence. (Politically and religiously, as it happens to be, ’cause vague Agnosticism for the win!) There are many levels of views on homosexuality from the conservative side of things. Liberals will view it as a black and white issue- gays should be able to marry, if you think otherwise you’re a fucking monster. That’s how I view things now, too. Conservatives, however…
On one hand, you’ve got Westborough Baptist Church. Evil pricks, KKK-level but less physically violent. Call themselves Christians, but they must skip over the “love thy neighbor” section during bible study because they’re fuckin’ assholes. They’d just as soon shout “hail Satan” from the rooftops as allow two dudes to get married. Would vote “yes” on Proposition GaFuqUrself, to bring back stoning as a justifiable punishment for homosexuality.
On the other, you’ve got the people who actually read the fuckin’ book they claim to study from- generous, kind people. These people, at worst, don’t want it to be called marriage and are completely fine with homosexuals getting all the rights ‘n shit that come with it. My mom falls in line with this group.
This shit’s a spectrum. My dad can say some bigoted things but he’s not a bad dude. He’s fine with “civil unions” or what have you, because he’s a “hate the sin, not the sinner” kinda guy. While from our perspective that is kind of offensive and rude, it’s the best way for someone who takes the Bible as gospel to view it. At least, until you manage to convince them that the Bible doesn’t actually have anything against gays because of the New Testament and translation questions and… well, that’s neither here nor there.
I mean, for the longest time I was a Grammar Nazi. During that period, I was of similar views to my mother- don’t call it marriage, but let it happen. The root word of “marriage” is “mar”, which means “motherhood”. Over time, I realized I just don’t fuckin’ care and wanted some gaddamn gay weddings already, but yeah.
Something funny I’ve noticed? Liberal views are the ones that want to go against prejudice and bias and make everyone equal, but if your views aren’t liberal you’ll be hard-pressed to find a liberal who will accept you*. The majority of outspoken liberals are just as bigoted as the majority of outspoken conservatives, but because they’re bigoted against people who they view as bigots they tend to go blind towards their own hypocrisy. (Keyword: outspoken in both cases) (*on the internet, mostly. Usually it doesn’t matter as much with the people you meet in real life.)
Essentially what I’m trying to say is conservatives aren’t the big-bad-motherfuckin’-wolf, ya know? While some of them are total douchebags- so are some liberals. On both sides there are idiotically extreme elements with no capacity for reasoning. It’s the reason why America can never come to a fuckin’ compromise, and it really pisses me off. The ones who can actually discuss things rationally like human beings oughta be able to do nowadays are never given the time of day because the media doesn’t find them interesting and the tiny group of people who read their posts tends to consist of trolls and idiotic extremes from both sides. When you eventually do find two people discussing it rationally, it tends to just be “Yeah, you’re right.” “Yeah, so are you.” “This is good.”
And now, to end off this annoyingly political pile of bullshit with a glorious story: My best friend is bi. He went to an LGBT rally. He came back in a straight relationship. The fucker.
Apparently it went something like this:
*him and his very strange group of friends discussing… a porno where there was a donut and the glaze was… why the fuck… sometimes I’m glad I’m not around for these conversations*
Logan (best friend): Man, why eat that when you can just have a nice maple frosted?
Matt (arguably weirdest of the group): So you want to fuck a Canadian?
Kaitlyn (spelling?): I’M A CANADIAN
And then they started dating
@Lipke: False equivalency. The dude who refuses to hang around black people and the dude who refuses to hang around nazis are not the same, because only one of those things is bad.
Also, you seems to be confusing “marriage” with “matrimony” – matrimony derives from the latin mater, which means mother. I don’t know the etymology of “marriage” but wikipedia (for what it’s worth) says it comes from the latin “maritare”, meaning “provide with husband or wife.”
You also seem to think that “that’s best you can get from someone who views the bible as gospel” makes it acceptable. It doesn’t. If you’re a grown up making their own decisions, what’s written in a Big Book of Collected Fairytales (Revised and Edited) doesn’t excuse you from fucking over other people who just want to live their lives without hurting anyone. You say that that shit is a spectrum, but guess what? Shit in a spectrum is still shit.
Damn the lack of edit function, I forgot this:
You seem to think that compromise is inherently good. It isn’t. If one side wants gays stoned to death and the other wants them to have full rights, you don’t compromise by giving them half the rights; you give them full rights and anyone who wants otherwise gets pointed towards a fire they can go and die in, because nuking them from orbit to be sure causes collateral damage.
The hell are you calling false equivalency? Please, point out what you’re referring to.
Ah, got that bit mixed up did I? Probably should have double-checked instead of working from memory.
The “Big Book of Collected Fairytales” as you call it is a big deal to Christians. To them, it is the word of God. God gives them hope. Hope gives them strength. Etcetera.
You’re taking a single part of my quote while ignoring its context. What are you, the fucking media? My father isn’t going to say no to gay marriage and that is all you fucking need to pass it, so what’s the fucking problem? He’s not fucking over jack shit, but you’re still going to make a big deal out of it because of your prejudices.
Congratulations, you’re making yourself out to be one of the idiotic extremes that I was referring to in my previous reply.
You seem to think that compromise is inherently a fifty-fifty split. It isn’t.
You’re literally being the dictionary definition of a bigot with that comment, by the way. I get it, you feel like intolerance towards views you think are evil is okay. But that’s what leads to war, dude. That’s what leads to hatred. That is one of the number one reasons for human suffering on the entire fucking planet.
JBento, you are completely missing the point and equating ”conservative” with ”giant asshole who wants to vote for Trump and eat babies”. You’re looking at the worst members of a broad group, and ignoring the fact that individuals within the group aren’t all like that.
It is entirely possible to be both a conservative AND a good person! And I don’t mean ”good in spite of ___”, I mean good. I’m not using some bizarre definition of good that allows bigotry and intolerance, either. I have conservative friends who rarely vote for Republican (especially not in national elections) because of the very objections you’ve raised about the GOP platform.
There is more than one way to arrive at good moral decisions.
Ugh, I did say “conservatives” up there, didn’t I? Apologies on that: I meant republican voters.
Your false equivalency: That people who say that want you to not allowed to treat gay people like shit for being gay are just like the people who want gay to be treated like shit. Yes, being intolerant towards some views is not only perfectly okay, it’s actually desirable, which is why when some people wanted slavery over and others didn’t, the first group didn’t just go “oh, well, you do you and we’ll be good.”
Compromise CAN be a bad thing. It doesn’t have to be fifty-fifty. Sometimes, ninety-ten is still not something you compromise on. You don’t give marginalised groups 90% of their rights, you give them 100%. What compromise do you suggest here (as an aside, merely renaming it “civil unions” might be troubling when interacting with, say, tourists, because in some other countries “civil union” and “marriage” are legally different things)?
Furthermore, I don’t care if the Bible is important to Christians. I care about what Christians (and other people) actually do, not where they get their justifications. The fact remains that it was written over a long period of time by a bunch of different people, and then ANOTHER bunch of different people got together and decided what they wanted to keep in it. And they didn’t even do a very good job of it, because it has all the internal consistency of wet noodles. And THEN it got translated by people who, quite frankly, weren’t very good at it.
I… had another point to address, but I forget which. The shrinking line lengths are giving me a headache. Xp
Sudden realization: I can continue this meaningless discussion and likely end up blowing up on here, embarrassing myself and devaluing my arguments. OR, I could put you on the ridiculously small list of people in DoA’s comments who I don’t believe have the capacity for reason and then begin to ignore this thread.
Man, a year or two ago I wouldn’t have been able to have this epiphany.
Weeee!
But seriously, we’re dealing with old ways of thinking and ingrained cultures and such. “Get on board or drown” doesn’t work in a broad sense, because people are just not like that. Being different is good, it makes things interesting. Hating someone for their differences from you is not, it leads to strife.
Every day, I try to do a little good at least, try to make things better, if even by a infinitesimal margin. Because it can add up. While seeing things like racism/sexism/probably-other-things-I’m-leaving-outism is upsetting to me, I just remind myself that while the moral arc of the universe is long, it does bend towards justice.
Lipke, I’m afraid you already went off the rails, and your reply only takes you further. You’ve just done the very demonization you tell JBento is wrong. You’ve refused to “compromise” with them.
But, more importantly, you’ve pushed that canard about how it’s wrong to be intolerant towards the intolerant. When, in fact, it’s a requirement of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerance, you’re right back where you started. You’ve just said “intolerance is bad, but I’m gonna let people be intolerant anyways.”
Thing is, this has nothing to do with where JBento went wrong. JBento is apparently bigoted against Christians. They have decided to apply something that applies to some Christians to all of them. That’s textbook bigotry. If JBento doesn’t want people treating them badly for not being a Christian, then they need to respect Christians, too. That doesn’t mean accepting their intolerance–but you don’t get to assume that every Christian is intolerant.
I am a Christian. I fully believe in gay rights. I made the same discovery Joyce made, albeit because of seeing multiple gay people, rather than just one best friend. Once I realized that homosexuality wasn’t a choice, I knew that God wouldn’t punish people for it. So I went and looked to find out why people thought He did. Turns out, bigotry had been informing the translation of the Bible for millennia.
I do have some sympathy for people who think that God is against homosexuality. But I am not tolerant of their intolerance. If they treat a gay person badly, I will not “compromise” with them about it. And, yes, I have lost friends over it–albeit not close ones, as I’m picky about who I become friends with. People like Carol, John, or Mary are not friend material.
There is no reason for you and JBento to be at odds. Both of you have said some bad things. Both of you have some points to make. You need to actually look for the good in what they say instead of dismissing it.
And, JBento, you need to not be bigoted towards Christians, and possibly conservatives and Republicans. You cannot assign the position of some to the whole. Doing that is textbook bigotry. There’s a reason why it’s liberals who are pro-PC–what conservatives call PC, we just call “being accurate and avoiding bigotry”
@jbento: what!? It’s true, dang it. That’s why Lincoln wouldn’t let the southern states secede: his plan required that they be in the Union, in order for Nixon to play his “Southern Strategy”, etc.! Just think what the USA would be like if it weren’t burdened by the Confederate States! Dear Lord, if it weren’t for Lincoln, the USA would have progressive politics, while the CSA would be … Anyway, it’s all a cording to the plan that Lincoln mapped out in 1858. Do you really think that anything as messed up as US politics since the Civil War, especially what’s going down now, could have come about by chance? No way: next thing you’ll tell me that you believe in evolution, not intelligent design!
Oh, shit, I hadn’t realized how close I was to blowin’ my top when I last posted. Dammit, this is just the kind of thing I try to avoid.
I’d sit here and explain away what I had meant versus what I actually said, but it really doesn’t matter. I try my hardest to stay out of politics for a reason.
…I’m actually kind of impressed with myself. I haven’t fit that many “fuck”s into a paragraph since I was, what, fifteen?
Anyway, yeah, sorry Bento. I was a bit out of line. I’ve got some issues with my temper, and the closer I get to completely going mental, the less rational I become. I tend to use harsher language (replacing “friggin'” with “fuckin'”), leave out more of my reasoning, the like. Because the majority of controversial topics anger me in one way or another I try my best to avoid them altogether, but I always get dragged back into something. :/
Thanks for calling me out, trlkly.
I don’t think that Sal ever expected to be the ‘Alfred’, the keeper and sanity anchor, for Amazi-Girl but that looks like what she is going to have to do. It might just keep Amazi-Girl… and Amber… alive. I’m just wondering how Amber will react in the morning when she realises just how totally the role of Sal has changed in her life!
I should have known Sal was Han Solo.
Not really – Amber stabbed first.
*slow clap*
Touche.
So I have a question, would one call a ship with the two of the the S.S. Falcon?
Sal’s being the voice of reason to Amazi-Girl’s hotheadedness, I like that.
Sal learned it from Marcie, no doubt.
I’m wondering about that last panel and Sal’s voice-over. Is it possible that Amazi-Girl and Sal might start harassing Robin and her re-election campaigners just because of their association with Ryan?
I feel a badass interrogation coming up. AG for bad cop!
Amber for really bad cop! Which leaves cool, detached cop for Sal!
Because I have a weird way of speed reading, I read that as Amazi-Girl for AxeCop.
Your “really weird way of speed reading” might not be working so well.
Normally it’s ok, but the odd words do sometimes bleed together. Hence conflagrations like the one above.
Huh. That actually went better than expected.
So this is going to be Tango and Cash, huh? I like it. I like it VERY much,
Good chuckle at the last panel once I noticed Leslie hiding her face.
Same.
This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship? It’s certainly turned hella positive! Sal should have been Amber’s father!
Right now Sal is being the friend AG needs, not the one she deserves…
Probably also saw pics of her danny sexy time
Or read one of her fanfics. I think that stuff scares Mike.
Sal is a lot more reasonable and level headed than people give her credit for. Pretty sure she’s secretly Batman.
I’m really liking the evolution happening here
And is Leslie Ms Bellum now? Can’t believe she used to be the same age as Amber (unless that age gap was always present)
Maybe Willis thought Jessica was a more common name than Sara. Perhaps he’ll draw one more panel with Leslie holding up a sign in class.
What, Leslie isn’t reaching out from under the sign to stroke Robin’s boot?
Yeah, uphill? Not even God answering lesbian prayers’ll help you with that one, AG. Sorry.
God is preoccupied with getting Leslie a front row seat to Robin’s butt.
Priorities. Doesn’t Law of Averages indicate that he has to get it right at least once?
Scene: the next morning:
Sal bursts into Danny’s room.
Danny: “What the?”
Sal: “Ah need yer game thingy.”
Danny: “My DS? Why do you…”
Sal (grabbing DS): “Me and miss tights gotta grudge match, and ah called the bug guy.”
Danny: “Wiggler?”
Sal (leaving): “Yeah, whatever.”
Joe: “A hot girl bursts into our room, and she just wants to borrow your VIDEO GAME?”
Danny: “Yeah…”
Joe smacks Danny on the back of the head.
END SCENE
You are a prophet.
This scene you describe will happen in the future.
hee hee
Ethan bursts into the room, his hair a frazzled mess, clothes damp with sweat from the furious run he beat towards Danny’s room. He tightly grabs Danny’s hand, gazes deeply into his eyes, and says the words that have been lingering in his mind for too long.
“Danny, can I borrow some issues of Robo-Vac?”
If I had any interest in shipper fics, I probably would have written another shipper tease here.
I don’t know how this is going to work.
Maybe my brain is thinking more about Roz than it should.
Is it just me, or did Amazi-Girl’s sworn enemy just become her sidekick?
It’s more of a Power Man/Iron Fist thing.
Closer to mentor. First person to give her constructive advice on superheroing.
But Amazi-Girl is immune to criticism!
We’ll call it guidance.
Do we really want Sal to be her mentor, though? The mentor like, always dies.
Glad that Sal has her wits well grounded. Amber/AG, learn.
Is anyone else getting issues where their mobile browser (iPhone for me) is redirecting from this site to some prize site?
I LIKE HOW THIS IS GOING.
Hopefully this B-story is over and we can get back to the adventures of Jessica \o/
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single candidate in possession of a campaign, must be in want of a good cleavage.”
“Babyskates” — LOL!
Sal: Actually pretty good at helping people ground themselves?