Sadly it wouldn’t since it’s mass isnt that great and the tidal forces on it would spread the debris field ever wider. Mind you depending where in it’s orbit you deconstruct it you could be adding some of its remains to one of the planetary rings or a new source of meteor showers.
Depending on how energetically you blew it up, it could well fall back together again. It DOES have enough mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, after all.
At the very least, a good deal of the mass would accrete onto Charon.
(This is also the first comment I ever made from my phone…and it’s a scientific post. Figures.)
Christianity goes with the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”.
Judaism has “what is hateful to you, do not do unto others”, which is a surprisingly potent difference.
… it is much, much, much more complicated than that. Both the positive and negative formulations are found in the Old Testament. The reason Christianity goes with the positive form is because it is one expression of “The Greatest Commandment”… ” ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”
I strongly suspect the contemporary projection of one’s own wants/needs onto one’s neighbor was not implied by the New Testament formulation. Instead, it’s a contemporary perversion, likely due to translation into Romance languages. Much like love shifted from “philia” and “agape” in Greek to “caritas” in Latin… the former entails empathy and unconditionality, the latter simple forbearance and charity. The division of the positive and negative formulations doesn’t even make sense in Greek, and I suspect also Aramaic, because the kind of love for neighbor being discussed entails an understanding of their needs, rather than a projection of your own onto them.
True. I more meant which is stressed more in modern teachings, like the story of standing on one’s foot.
(Judaism gets to skip Greek and Latin altogether. I can discuss Hebrew or Aramaic straight to English, but I don’t know how going through those extra iterations surely shifts things.)
Well, this did make me chuckle, but technically, the as long as the bomb that destroys the universe is not the thing you touch, it would still be a remote you use.
I guess you would be using a remote detonator, but not doing remote detonation.
This reminds me of a button I taped to the ceiling of the room I’m currently in when I was in middle school. The button is accompanied by a sigh that says, “Evil button to the evil machine of DOOM. Except we don’t have the machine. It doesn’t exist. But we have the button. And this is it.”
And both those things are still taped to the ceiling.
Like many clueless highly-sexual dudes, Joe thinks it would be super fun to be treated as a sexual object. If it actually happened on a regular basis, I’m sure he’d see the downside.
He’s not cluing into the essential differences between himself and just about everyone else. Starting with how he’s very large, very strong, and presents as the gender people tend to believe when a woman lodges an accusation of a sexual crime.
I once had a girlfriend who this happened to all the time, and after a particularly bad incident, she asked me if I could please please PLEASE never sing “Wonderwall” in her presence again.
Heh, confirmation that at least part of Joe’s script for “how to be a man” is “not to be like Danny”. When he tries to pull back from the toxic bullshit, Danny is his goto for something else.
So, in order of most to least likely, We now present a list of DoA characters that, should they have access to a remote detonation button that destroys the universe, would have used it at some point or other.
1: Almost all of them.
…
…
…
…
…
2: Sierra and Dina.
This extensive list was made after a lot of intense research (it took me about nine years), and thus represents nothing but the objective truth. And anyone who disagrees will be thrown in the imperial dungeons.
…. wait, wasn’t DINA the one who ended up triggering the end of the Walkyverse? How is she at the BOTTOM of the list when she’s the only one with a track record?
Yeah, that was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
ADMISSION: I thought Reltzik was alluding to some weird event near the end of the It’s Walky (and they still might be for all I know), and since I never bought the package of strips that would explain everything, I just assumed she was intentionally doing something bad there.
Honestly? I started with “Shortpacked!” and binged through the original “Roomies!,” but that’s mostly the extent of my knowledge of the Walkyverse.*
I equated “the end of Shortpacked!” with “the end of the Walkyverse,” but with a few moments of reflection I would have realized that those two things are not necessarily identical.
*Dina being basically a Rule 63 me, I do occasionally binge the “It’s Walky!” dina-sarazu tag.
… and also picked up a degree in dental hygenics, aged about 10 years, changed her eye color, and got in an unrequited-love-roommate backstory with a somehow-lovable jerk.
What about Mindy? It isn’t fair,
She had a date with Leslie, but she didn’t care,
Can’t you see? She wants some love,
But Anna is someone she can’t be free of.
(The scansion is terrible on that. I’ll never be a songwriter.)
The scansion isn’t regular, but I could see it being set to music. The last four words of the last line each get emphasis, as it builds to a rousing chorus…
Or from the well-ordering principle: if you consider the set of numbers that correspond to the goodness (potential for redemption? not-Hitler-ness?) of a person, there must be a least element corresponding to the worst person. And there is no worst person than the worst person.
Of course, this is assuming that there’s a well-defined scale to measure this. If not, “there’s always a worse person” is essentially meaningless anyway. And in that case, it may be subjective; in any case, it’s certainly not true.
We could imagine that the same person has the capacity to be worse in some future version of themselves. Like, Hitler when he was an art student versus Hitler when he was famous.
Holy hell, after a toxic game of League of Legends (mind you, what game of League isn’t toxic, amiright), Sarah’s reaction was just what I needed. Thank you Willis lol
but seriously, LoL apparently does care about that stuff and did experiments to try and encourage decent behaviour. You can report assholes and stuff, and there’s actual consequences. I don’t know how well it worked; I hear about all this stuff second-hand.
Oh so it’s toxic the same way other online multiplayers are toxic, because of assholes in chat? I don’t think my brother does chatting much, so I don’t really know about it.
Plus the fact that League is cooperative so it’s a lot harder to avoid, yeah. I would guess having a regular group of folks to play with might help avoid that though.
League is pretty legendarily bad even by online shittalk standards. Your team will be demanding that you literally kill yourself two minutes in, it will escalate to Mel Gibson Rant levels by the time you hit halfway, and at the end you’ll be marveling at the ability of the players to construct complex sentences consisting entirely of ethnic slurs.
Panel 1: This is the subtle brutality of that casual bigotry. That it becomes so easy to dehumanize and construct a mythology surrounding the idea that in same way they are not quite the same level as someone of a dominant identity.
We see it in a million ways, but one of them is definitely misogyny and women. The way men are very intentionally trained to see women as prizes and objects. As antagonists guarding the access to the sex that will earn praise from the other guys. As toasters whose job is to fulfill very narrow roles.
And that’s one of the things Joe is going to struggle with getting better. He’s spent so long deliberately dehumanizing women into body parts he must trick onto his sack, spent so long deliberately creating alternate social rules that “allow” him to harass.
That at this point, it’s become second nature. And that’s going to be his greatest antagonist getting better. That bitter creature of habit whose always going to argue that he should take the easier path and that Joyce was just trying to manipulate him or lie to him or something that allows him to blame her.
But I want to believe that Joe can defeat that. In a world where so many guys like him have been unmasked destroying lives for decades from positions of power, that he can avoid the backslide so many faux-feminist men have undergone when they were no longer celebrated for clearing the lowest bar ever or when they felt snubbed by a woman.
Panel 2: Oh, this. I have so much to say about this.
This is one of the most common self-deceptions that gets run in toxic nerd spaces and other spaces rife with bitter misogyny. The idea that women “actually” like being harassed in public or at least they should if they weren’t so “uptight”.
It’s a central part of their shitty defenses. That they somehow are incapable of interacting with a woman without being a massive invasive creep without evil feminazi death stares and that they’d be so grateful to be told they are beautiful, etc…
And it’s bullshit. There have been studies after studies demonstrating that the motivations of street harassers is rarely to pay a genuine compliment that can withstand rejection and is instead an active means of creating unsafe public spaces and thus “claiming” those areas for dude-only spaces.
It’s an active war against the idea that women are allowed a public life. That they are allowed to be equal members in sports or video games or comics or computers. That they are “allowed” to be outside on their own, thinking that they have full ownership over their body and the right to be treated with basic decency.
So toxic men build this lie that harassment isn’t that. That it’s just a compliment and that they’d love to be harassed.
And sure, to their mind, I imagine it is very easy to conjure a porn fantasy idea of that interaction. Certainly it is a hook that shows up in actual porn. A beautiful woman they’d want to get with anyways approaching them with genuine interest and no air of menace and creating an open invitation they could accept or refuse.
But that’s because they are lying to themselves about what harassment is. If you ask a Joe-type if they’d be “cool” with being hit on by someone they found repellent or by someone reminiscent of someone who did something very wrong to them, the tune changes. Especially also when there is menace.
There was a tweeted thread from a dating site from a guy aggressively leaving creepy threatening messages to a girl asking for her address so he could leave things there and so on.
So the woman just flipped it around and asked for his address so she could leave him a present. All of a sudden, the dude flipped out and accused her of trying to attack him because once he was in the target position of his bullshit excuse, he no longer needed to pretend like that is not a disconcerting thing.
Being approached in an environment where you do not feel safe giving a clear no or where you are physically trapped, having weird sexual comments made about ones body, having your day ruined by someone who wants to dump all their horny on you and may very well attack you if you go off on them. These things suck.
And it’s easy to get it on an instinctual level. But it gets to his issue. He’s still struggling with the many cobwebs that have infested his brain over the years. All the tired rationalizations to blame women for his personal failures and to justify getting angry at folks that “ruin” the game by revealing its twisted white heart.
Joe would not want someone doing what he does to him and I’d make a joke about how he would react to how he’d respond to a gay man he found repulsive doing his shtick to him, but the sad reality is that that is usually the exact reason that Joe-types work hard against queer rights. Because they are terrified that gay people are agents of karma who’ll do everything they do to women to their sad creepy straight ass.
And it’s that self-obsession and those habits that are going to try their damndest to self-sabotage.
I think Joe might be saying something slightly different in panel 2.
Joe has certainly been following a toxic script, and he has been harassing women. I’m just not sure that’s his deepest motivation.
A while ago said something that shows he believes if he gets emotionally entangled with a woman, he will hurt her.
I think Joe does not realize the difference between entanglement-free sex and objectifying. In trying not to hurt women the way he sees his dad hurting his mom, he has chosen a bad strategy that hurts them a different way.
So I read his comment not as “I’m telling myself I want to be objectified so I can justify objectifying and harassing and oppressing women” – but rather “I wish women would treat me as emotionlessly as I treat them.”
I don’t know much about the woman-haters, but I suspect they would see Roz as a foe. Joe didn’t. I get the sense that if the world were full of Rozzes, Joe would be happy, while the GamerGaters would be shitting themselves.
That’s not enough to make Joe positive-but-misguided. Three questions remain for him:
1) Joe, would you be totally happy with a woman just like Roz except she didn’t want to sleep with you?
2) Joe, would you be totally happy if men, and women you considered 1’s and 2’s, were hitting on you all the time?
3) Joe, if you found out you’d been hurting women because you were clueless, would you work to grow a clue?
Maybe I’m idealizing, but I think Joe’s answers might be
1) Sure, if she says no, that’s cool. I ask, she answers, no harm, no foul. (There are problems here, of course – he’s still fooling himself with this answer – but it’s not malevolent.)
2) Hey, I’ll sleep with a 2 occasionally. Can’t blame them for trying. And if a guy’s attracted I’ll just tell him no thanks. (If these things actually happened all the time, with the degree of pushiness Joe uses, he might gain some self-knowledge; but I don’t see Joe feeling threatened by someone he’s not attracted to expressing interest.)
3) …I think we’re about to find out the answer to this one (over the next IRL year or three). If Joe is really truly treating women this way as a misguided strategy to avoid hurting them with his (as he sees it) toxic relationship curse, then he will change his behavior.
Oh, I could totally see that. But even then, I think there’s an element of the toxic PUAness that runs through it. Even when he got exactly what he said he wanted in a sexual partner, who was down with emotionally detached but regular sex and an open polyamory, he still needled it with his bullshit and chose his persona over keeping that healthy.
Like, his harassment of her while she was teaching, his harassment of others even in circumstances where it was clear there was never going to be a good end and where the individuals had given a clear indication in body language and statements that his advances were unwanted, and so on… paint a picture of a guy who desperately wants to be the easy going polyamorous sex positive dude, but who is drowning in Harvey Weinstein/Hugh Hefner messages of what that looks like.
But I think you’re right that he doesn’t want to be that. He doesn’t want to be a predator or someone women avoid or speak ill of.
And I think you might be right that he also thinks he wants to be objectified, because he objectifies himself a lot in the persona he insists on creating, frequently putting himself down in a way genuinely happy-go-lucky sex-positive aromantics he wants to seem like don’t.
Panels 3-4: I like this beat, because you can see in his eyebrows that temptation to attempt to retreat into ignorance through deliberate lying to himself. That life would be easier if he just convinced himself that Joyce was somehow wronging him and was making a “big deal” out of “nothing”.
But the second he recognizes it, he looks away from himself and his eyebrows relax as he thinks of someone he considers to be a positive model of masculinity.
If he’s going to win this, this instinct is going to have to win nearly every time until it becomes just as much a habit to treat humans as humans as it was to be a misogynist douchemonster serial harasser.
Panel 5: That all said, this is so the most common mistake of people seeking to “atone” for being complete pricks. They get in their head that a superficial change to the behavior is enough, even though it has the same blind spots and dehumanizations.
Joe is not asking Sarah about her feelings because Sarah is a person who would like to talk about feelings or looked in any way open to an in-depth chat with a former misogynist likely involving unpaid emotional work.
Joe is intruding on her space as if he is owed women’s responses. He’s just being less of a douche as he does it.
And the thing is, that can be a growing pain. As I said, it’s a very easy pattern to fall into among harassers and stalkers because there’s some growth but little actually digging up of the worldviews enabling the awful behavior and insuring they’ll out themselves in another way (see faux-feminist men actively aiding a neo-nazi anti-women harassment machine because they never got over viewing the time and bodies of women as something that was theirs for the taking).
And the best part is Sarah is best suited to give the smackdown that this type of unwanted advance may be “better” than his old shit, but has the same old crap and entitlement driving it.
“Behind the black” refers to the black borders of the screen or panel, in a visual work of fiction. A character being behind the black allows the artist/cameraman to have them on-hand, often for a gag or jump-scare, even if the characters in-view would logically have been able to see them. Conservation of detail, and all.
Man, all the time dudes tell me “I’ve love to be objectified,” except they think that means being offered sex all the time, when ACTUALLY what it means is being reduced to a barely-animate fuckdoll with no thoughts, ideas, emotions, or value outside of being used sexually. Like I’d never wish that on anyone, but I’d kind of like them to know what that entails, you know?
Male culture pretty much requires men to say they’d love to be objectified because the downside to that is an emotional one, and men are not allowed to show emotion.
That’s not entirely true. We’re allowed to be moderately happy*, any level of angry, bored, and uh… Is horny an emotion? I’ve never been clear on that.
*Too much happiness is a sign of The Gay, though, and that’s A Bad Thing, which we’re supposed to avoid at all costs.
Yup, they imagine it (or need to pretend to imagine it as in order to justify their behavior) as people they are sexually interested in coming up and offering them no strings attached sex with no air of menace in an environment where they are open to being approached.
The don’t imagine what actually happens in objectification, the weird creepy edge to the comments that imply that something very bad might happen to you because you are being seen as “attractive’ in a public space, the way it openly dismisses your humanity or consent, the way aggressive people you are not interested in refuse to accept a “no thank you”, or the way it pops up when you’re just living your life existing in spaces and are in no way interested in being creeped on.
As you note, if they actually experienced it, if they actually knew what that felt like, they wouldn’t be able to cling to that argument any more and it’d shut up that bullshit a little.
And the sick irony is a lot of them do know their bullshit isn’t objectification, because many of them live in terror of being treated by a gay man the way they treat all women and those read as women and use that fear to justify violence or bigotry against queer men and those read as men by them.
I would say it’s not so much that men need to justify their behavior as they need to demonstrate loud and clear that they are absolutely not emotionally vulnerable, because society requires men to put up that facade even if it’s not true. “It would make me feel terrible to be treated as an object” is not something a man can publicly admit to. Because I know exactly what the response to that will be. “Awww, did the mean lady’s hurty words blemish your precious fee-fees? Seriously dude, clean the sand out of there and try fucking growing a pair, this is pathetic.”
Willis retweeted the therapy strip a few days ago and it’s just a perfect example. Dorothy, being a woman, is allowed to admit that “crying is healthy, it helps you process emotions.” That is not a phrase you will hear a man admit to in public ever, not if he doesn’t want the entire room to laugh at him for about 15 minutes followed by everyone occasionally using, “Well, why don’t you cry to your therapist about it, you pussy?” as a sarcastic rejoinder in conversations for the next DECADE.
Exactly. It’s all about enforcing this idea that showing vulnerabilities is for girls and thus leads to the absurd claims they’d be just fine being abused.
It’s why it is so important to teach young boys that it’s ok to be emotional, to cry, to care.
I love that Joe here is on the cusp of the disconnect between mens’ actions towards women and their perception that they would like to be treated that way because then they’d have women chasing after them. He’s not there yet but this line of thought could help lead him to realizations about why his prior behavior actually wasn’t a sign of positive interest towards women, but an expression of aggression and power. Baby steps, but better than none!
Loading ...
“There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Ka-BOOM!”
“The illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator!”
“It obstructs my view of Venus.”
“This makes me very angry, very angry indeed.”
Let’s blow up Pluto while we’re at it. Causes too many arguments.
What did Mickey’s dog ever do to you!
For starters, he took up cutscene time in Kingdom Hearts.
Leave Goofy out of this!
Goofy wears clothes and talks, but Pluto is just a dog. What’s up with that?
Humans wear clothes and talk, but chimpanzees don’t. What’s up with that?
Presumably Goofy is the same species (Canis familiaris) as Pluto. Albeit Goofy seems to be of an unusually intelligible breed.
Blowing up Pluto would be heartbreaking.
Nice
Reco’nise
No thanks. We would then be able to see Uranus.
I Hades to say it, but I don’t think you could blow up Pluto.
It’d just fall back together again.
Sadly it wouldn’t since it’s mass isnt that great and the tidal forces on it would spread the debris field ever wider. Mind you depending where in it’s orbit you deconstruct it you could be adding some of its remains to one of the planetary rings or a new source of meteor showers.
Depending on how energetically you blew it up, it could well fall back together again. It DOES have enough mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, after all.
At the very least, a good deal of the mass would accrete onto Charon.
(This is also the first comment I ever made from my phone…and it’s a scientific post. Figures.)
The EARTH creature has stolen the modulator!
Delays… delays…
I was going with “the jolly, candy-like button!”
That’s the history eraser button, you fool!
That’s why Sarah didn’t bring it – she could not resist the urge that EVEN NOW BECKONS HER EVER CLOSER!!
Oh good, was wondering where I left that. Glad to see it’s in good hands.
Well, that saves me the trouble of asking whose bright idea it was to put Sarah in charge of that thing.
That would still be preferable to the person who is *actually* in charge of it.
But in his defense, he’s less crabby and angry than Sarah!
…but it’s not in her hands. For all you know, it could be in my hands!
…
…
…
*Click.*
No, wait… This is just somebody’s Amazon Dash button…
I need to make myself one of those things.
Actually, Danny would break out the ukelele and dapper hat first.
Jeez, get with the program Joe.
Yeah, kinda disappointed the last panel doesn’t have Joe in the hat, offering to serenade her.
Nope, that’s NEW Danny. Get them right!
Yeah don’t you just hate it when you forget your doomsday device somewhere?
I always leave mine in the car’s ignition.
… I can never remember why I put it there in the first place, and it takes me so long to find it because I’ve got a keyless ignition.
Treat others how THEY want to be treated, Joe (you know, within reason)
I always have so much trouble with that rule, because I have a lot of trouble figuring out how people want to be treated.
Stupidsocialcuesoughttobeacheatsheet….
Be dina 🙂
I was hoping wwdd was what would dina do. I was sorely danny-sapointed.
Simple, give people free food, works every time.
If while driving a car, you find yourself tempted to cut someone off, consider how they’d want to be treated, and throw a pie at their windshield!
This fits to perfectly not to post! xD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjVy2pMZiY
Part of the problem is that Joe has not yet learned to empathize to the degree that would allow him to understand other people’s needs.
Yup. or even – in a pinch – DON’T treat others how they DON’T want to be treated.
Strictly speaking, the quote IS typically “do to others as you would have them do to you.”
He’s not wrong.
No, the quote is.
I mean, yeah, I think we all know that. But it’s not advice that’s working for him.
Christianity goes with the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”.
Judaism has “what is hateful to you, do not do unto others”, which is a surprisingly potent difference.
… it is much, much, much more complicated than that. Both the positive and negative formulations are found in the Old Testament. The reason Christianity goes with the positive form is because it is one expression of “The Greatest Commandment”… ” ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”
I strongly suspect the contemporary projection of one’s own wants/needs onto one’s neighbor was not implied by the New Testament formulation. Instead, it’s a contemporary perversion, likely due to translation into Romance languages. Much like love shifted from “philia” and “agape” in Greek to “caritas” in Latin… the former entails empathy and unconditionality, the latter simple forbearance and charity. The division of the positive and negative formulations doesn’t even make sense in Greek, and I suspect also Aramaic, because the kind of love for neighbor being discussed entails an understanding of their needs, rather than a projection of your own onto them.
True. I more meant which is stressed more in modern teachings, like the story of standing on one’s foot.
(Judaism gets to skip Greek and Latin altogether. I can discuss Hebrew or Aramaic straight to English, but I don’t know how going through those extra iterations surely shifts things.)
Someone was not expecting that to happen.
It’s not remote detonation if you’re in the universe, Sarah.
What do you think she is, some kind of explosives expert?
CURSE YOU, POST-STEALER!
Well, this did make me chuckle, but technically, the as long as the bomb that destroys the universe is not the thing you touch, it would still be a remote you use.
I guess you would be using a remote detonator, but not doing remote detonation.
“You can’t destroy the universe. Where would you sit?”
Good effort, Joe. Good effort.
Execution could use a little work though.
That’s why Sarah needs the detonator.
Yeah, he was…almost there?
Now he just needs to ask that question to someone he is actually friends with.
And who won’t want to murder him immediately.
This reminds me of a button I taped to the ceiling of the room I’m currently in when I was in middle school. The button is accompanied by a sigh that says, “Evil button to the evil machine of DOOM. Except we don’t have the machine. It doesn’t exist. But we have the button. And this is it.”
And both those things are still taped to the ceiling.
Dammit Sarah, you can’t leave these things to chance!
Treat other’s how he wanted to be treated. Yikes man, I just can’t believe how low Joe sees himself.
The premise is probably more or less he doesn’t feel like seeing himself in any particular way if he can help it.
Like many clueless highly-sexual dudes, Joe thinks it would be super fun to be treated as a sexual object. If it actually happened on a regular basis, I’m sure he’d see the downside.
WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER.
He’s not cluing into the essential differences between himself and just about everyone else. Starting with how he’s very large, very strong, and presents as the gender people tend to believe when a woman lodges an accusation of a sexual crime.
Fortunately Sarah doesn’t actually have such a device. We all know she’d be tempted to use it.
I disagree.
We all know she would have used it ages ago.
True.
“Whoops, here it is, I always forget to check there. Now, what were you saying?”
“Talking about feel-”
*world explodes*
That wasn’t Sarah, it’s those damn Vogons again.
At least we didn’t have to listen to their poetry.
It’s only the third worst in the universe, and I’m partial to the phrase: “No thanks, I choose life.”
So, yeah, I’ma risk it with the poetry.
Given some of the poetry I’ve heard that wasn’t even the third worst, I choose universal destruction. It’s a mercy kill, really.
I’d call this heavy handed, but even the giant sentient hands from Smash Bros. would think this is a bit much.
In fairness WWDD (what would Danny do) is, at this point a fairly good thing to ask yourself before you do something.
You know, if I reacted to more situations by playing the Steven Universe theme on a ukulele, that actually might improve things.
Weeeee… are the Crystal Gems! We always save the day! And if you think we can’t, we always find a way!
Why does everyone here insist on putting songs in my head? This is, like, some sort of cyberbullying/gangstalking combination.
I once had a girlfriend who this happened to all the time, and after a particularly bad incident, she asked me if I could please please PLEASE never sing “Wonderwall” in her presence again.
I said maybe…
…
Red Dwarf is a better show than Doctor Who.
No biggie, I’m used to dealing with criticism.
SomeBODY once told me, the world is gonna roll me.
I heard you on the wireless back in 52
Laying awake intent on tuning in on you
If I was young it didn’t stop you coming though
(this can be the worst earworm I know.)
Nice one Mephron, on of my favourite songs ever.
It’s cold outside, there’s no kind of atmosphere. . .
I’m all alone, more or less…
Let me fly, far away from here…
Fun, fun, fun…
In the sun, sun, sun…
Nothing can bridge our souls’ devotion…
I initially misread the ‘pat! pat!’ and facepalmed at Joe (given his hand being below the panel)…
My first thought (before reading the dialogue) was that her heart was suddenly beating loudly.
I’m pretty sure Joe and Sarah are two characters in this comic least likely to want to talk about feelings.
And Amber.
Ruth is also not a big fan. And Walky. And Sal. It’s a thing.
Heh, confirmation that at least part of Joe’s script for “how to be a man” is “not to be like Danny”. When he tries to pull back from the toxic bullshit, Danny is his goto for something else.
There is only one thing to do, Joe.
Start playing the ukulele.
And get a hat.
…. and talk to DANNY about your feelings, you putz-friend! Sheesh!
I know, right! Perfect solution, right there.
So, in order of most to least likely, We now present a list of DoA characters that, should they have access to a remote detonation button that destroys the universe, would have used it at some point or other.
1: Almost all of them.
…
…
…
…
…
2: Sierra and Dina.
This extensive list was made after a lot of intense research (it took me about nine years), and thus represents nothing but the objective truth. And anyone who disagrees will be thrown in the imperial dungeons.
…. wait, wasn’t DINA the one who ended up triggering the end of the Walkyverse? How is she at the BOTTOM of the list when she’s the only one with a track record?
Because in that universe, she had a relationship with Mike.
In this universe, she has a relationship with Becky.
Dina was the proximate cause of the ending event, but she didn’t intentionally pull the trigger.
And we don’t know that the Walkyverse ended. It’s “Soggies may rule,” not “Soggies did rule.”
Yeah, that was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
ADMISSION: I thought Reltzik was alluding to some weird event near the end of the It’s Walky (and they still might be for all I know), and since I never bought the package of strips that would explain everything, I just assumed she was intentionally doing something bad there.
Honestly? I started with “Shortpacked!” and binged through the original “Roomies!,” but that’s mostly the extent of my knowledge of the Walkyverse.*
I equated “the end of Shortpacked!” with “the end of the Walkyverse,” but with a few moments of reflection I would have realized that those two things are not necessarily identical.
*Dina being basically a Rule 63 me, I do occasionally binge the “It’s Walky!” dina-sarazu tag.
With me it was
1) Shortpacked
2) Dumbing of Age
3) Roomies
4) I THINK I bought Joyce and Walky?
5) It’s Walky.
She wasn’t the end, she merely triggered the period of history where Soggies invaded and ruled.
Which may have been more benevolent than expected.
*raises hand bravely* What about Mindy?
There was that time she had a spat with Grace.
That roommate agreement thing nearly tore them apart.
That was Mandy.
Mandy changed her name to Mindy after that incident to make a fresh start.
… and also picked up a degree in dental hygenics, aged about 10 years, changed her eye color, and got in an unrequited-love-roommate backstory with a somehow-lovable jerk.
And let’s be honest, someone who goes that far is someone who’s willing to destroy the universe.
…. you win again.
What about Mindy? It isn’t fair,
She had a date with Leslie, but she didn’t care,
Can’t you see? She wants some love,
But Anna is someone she can’t be free of.
(The scansion is terrible on that. I’ll never be a songwriter.)
The scansion isn’t regular, but I could see it being set to music. The last four words of the last line each get emphasis, as it builds to a rousing chorus…
I thought she married Mork.
After being rescued by Button?
HA!
Glorious
Nice shirt, Joe. (Not sure if I’m being sarcastic or not.)
It IS my favorite color. I think bright colors work better with Joe’s skin tone, though.
So Neon-Pink would work?
… Touché.
Awwwww. It’s really sweet that Danny is the first person he thought of. <3
Also ngl, still ship these two a little.
Of all the people to pick, Joe. *facepalm*
But this will be fun nevertheless. Where’s the popcorn?
I know. He should have picked Mary.
>:]
Bwaah?! There’s always someone worse.
So who’s worse than Mary?
Rapist Guy or Abusive Father Of The Year?
(not gonna dignify either with a name)
There’s not always someone worse, unless there are infinite persons to choose from. It’s probably not too hard to prove that inductively.
Or from the well-ordering principle: if you consider the set of numbers that correspond to the goodness (potential for redemption? not-Hitler-ness?) of a person, there must be a least element corresponding to the worst person. And there is no worst person than the worst person.
Of course, this is assuming that there’s a well-defined scale to measure this. If not, “there’s always a worse person” is essentially meaningless anyway. And in that case, it may be subjective; in any case, it’s certainly not true.
I’m very much overthinking this.
We could imagine that the same person has the capacity to be worse in some future version of themselves. Like, Hitler when he was an art student versus Hitler when he was famous.
I had to reread this several times before I realised Joe wasn’t patting her ass.
Well, that’s one way to greet somebody.
“Wanna talk about our feelings?” *PAT PAT PAT*
I think it’d be more confusing than anything.
I take it you don’t have sisters? 😛
As someone who does have sisters, I’d just like to say: …What?!
Yeah, I’m gonna have to back Wade up, here. What does the gender of my sibling have to do with being confused about something like this?
Sister on sister butt tapping/grabbing is part of the norm for me at least. (Is this a case of my family being to close?) 😛
You’re not the only one. *points upward*
Same here. I took several looks at her eyes, the PAT!PAT! sound effect, and her startled hands.
Without “the wisdom of the crowds” I still might be wondering.
Holy hell, after a toxic game of League of Legends (mind you, what game of League isn’t toxic, amiright), Sarah’s reaction was just what I needed. Thank you Willis lol
What is toxic about League of Legends? My brother plays it so I’m curious.
the gamers. 😛
but seriously, LoL apparently does care about that stuff and did experiments to try and encourage decent behaviour. You can report assholes and stuff, and there’s actual consequences. I don’t know how well it worked; I hear about all this stuff second-hand.
Oh so it’s toxic the same way other online multiplayers are toxic, because of assholes in chat? I don’t think my brother does chatting much, so I don’t really know about it.
Plus the fact that League is cooperative so it’s a lot harder to avoid, yeah. I would guess having a regular group of folks to play with might help avoid that though.
League is pretty legendarily bad even by online shittalk standards. Your team will be demanding that you literally kill yourself two minutes in, it will escalate to Mel Gibson Rant levels by the time you hit halfway, and at the end you’ll be marveling at the ability of the players to construct complex sentences consisting entirely of ethnic slurs.
All I can say is… Guilty as charged, we’ll never change! xD
That’s not something to be proud of, to state the blindingly obvious
But being immune to insults is a point of pride. (From my point of view anyway)
Danny is a good non-toxic masculinity role model. Jacob is another one.
Excellent choice, Joe. I approve.
“Look, Joyce, I tried. I really did. But the first person I talked to literally threatened to blow up the entire universe. I take that as a sign.”
I predicted the alt-text!! I said “oh THERE she is” just before I clicked to read it! I feel smart!
Comic Reactions:
Panel 1: This is the subtle brutality of that casual bigotry. That it becomes so easy to dehumanize and construct a mythology surrounding the idea that in same way they are not quite the same level as someone of a dominant identity.
We see it in a million ways, but one of them is definitely misogyny and women. The way men are very intentionally trained to see women as prizes and objects. As antagonists guarding the access to the sex that will earn praise from the other guys. As toasters whose job is to fulfill very narrow roles.
And that’s one of the things Joe is going to struggle with getting better. He’s spent so long deliberately dehumanizing women into body parts he must trick onto his sack, spent so long deliberately creating alternate social rules that “allow” him to harass.
That at this point, it’s become second nature. And that’s going to be his greatest antagonist getting better. That bitter creature of habit whose always going to argue that he should take the easier path and that Joyce was just trying to manipulate him or lie to him or something that allows him to blame her.
But I want to believe that Joe can defeat that. In a world where so many guys like him have been unmasked destroying lives for decades from positions of power, that he can avoid the backslide so many faux-feminist men have undergone when they were no longer celebrated for clearing the lowest bar ever or when they felt snubbed by a woman.
Panel 2: Oh, this. I have so much to say about this.
This is one of the most common self-deceptions that gets run in toxic nerd spaces and other spaces rife with bitter misogyny. The idea that women “actually” like being harassed in public or at least they should if they weren’t so “uptight”.
It’s a central part of their shitty defenses. That they somehow are incapable of interacting with a woman without being a massive invasive creep without evil feminazi death stares and that they’d be so grateful to be told they are beautiful, etc…
And it’s bullshit. There have been studies after studies demonstrating that the motivations of street harassers is rarely to pay a genuine compliment that can withstand rejection and is instead an active means of creating unsafe public spaces and thus “claiming” those areas for dude-only spaces.
It’s an active war against the idea that women are allowed a public life. That they are allowed to be equal members in sports or video games or comics or computers. That they are “allowed” to be outside on their own, thinking that they have full ownership over their body and the right to be treated with basic decency.
So toxic men build this lie that harassment isn’t that. That it’s just a compliment and that they’d love to be harassed.
And sure, to their mind, I imagine it is very easy to conjure a porn fantasy idea of that interaction. Certainly it is a hook that shows up in actual porn. A beautiful woman they’d want to get with anyways approaching them with genuine interest and no air of menace and creating an open invitation they could accept or refuse.
But that’s because they are lying to themselves about what harassment is. If you ask a Joe-type if they’d be “cool” with being hit on by someone they found repellent or by someone reminiscent of someone who did something very wrong to them, the tune changes. Especially also when there is menace.
There was a tweeted thread from a dating site from a guy aggressively leaving creepy threatening messages to a girl asking for her address so he could leave things there and so on.
So the woman just flipped it around and asked for his address so she could leave him a present. All of a sudden, the dude flipped out and accused her of trying to attack him because once he was in the target position of his bullshit excuse, he no longer needed to pretend like that is not a disconcerting thing.
Being approached in an environment where you do not feel safe giving a clear no or where you are physically trapped, having weird sexual comments made about ones body, having your day ruined by someone who wants to dump all their horny on you and may very well attack you if you go off on them. These things suck.
And it’s easy to get it on an instinctual level. But it gets to his issue. He’s still struggling with the many cobwebs that have infested his brain over the years. All the tired rationalizations to blame women for his personal failures and to justify getting angry at folks that “ruin” the game by revealing its twisted white heart.
Joe would not want someone doing what he does to him and I’d make a joke about how he would react to how he’d respond to a gay man he found repulsive doing his shtick to him, but the sad reality is that that is usually the exact reason that Joe-types work hard against queer rights. Because they are terrified that gay people are agents of karma who’ll do everything they do to women to their sad creepy straight ass.
And it’s that self-obsession and those habits that are going to try their damndest to self-sabotage.
I think Joe might be saying something slightly different in panel 2.
Joe has certainly been following a toxic script, and he has been harassing women. I’m just not sure that’s his deepest motivation.
A while ago said something that shows he believes if he gets emotionally entangled with a woman, he will hurt her.
I think Joe does not realize the difference between entanglement-free sex and objectifying. In trying not to hurt women the way he sees his dad hurting his mom, he has chosen a bad strategy that hurts them a different way.
So I read his comment not as “I’m telling myself I want to be objectified so I can justify objectifying and harassing and oppressing women” – but rather “I wish women would treat me as emotionlessly as I treat them.”
I don’t know much about the woman-haters, but I suspect they would see Roz as a foe. Joe didn’t. I get the sense that if the world were full of Rozzes, Joe would be happy, while the GamerGaters would be shitting themselves.
That’s not enough to make Joe positive-but-misguided. Three questions remain for him:
1) Joe, would you be totally happy with a woman just like Roz except she didn’t want to sleep with you?
2) Joe, would you be totally happy if men, and women you considered 1’s and 2’s, were hitting on you all the time?
3) Joe, if you found out you’d been hurting women because you were clueless, would you work to grow a clue?
Maybe I’m idealizing, but I think Joe’s answers might be
1) Sure, if she says no, that’s cool. I ask, she answers, no harm, no foul. (There are problems here, of course – he’s still fooling himself with this answer – but it’s not malevolent.)
2) Hey, I’ll sleep with a 2 occasionally. Can’t blame them for trying. And if a guy’s attracted I’ll just tell him no thanks. (If these things actually happened all the time, with the degree of pushiness Joe uses, he might gain some self-knowledge; but I don’t see Joe feeling threatened by someone he’s not attracted to expressing interest.)
3) …I think we’re about to find out the answer to this one (over the next IRL year or three). If Joe is really truly treating women this way as a misguided strategy to avoid hurting them with his (as he sees it) toxic relationship curse, then he will change his behavior.
Oh, I could totally see that. But even then, I think there’s an element of the toxic PUAness that runs through it. Even when he got exactly what he said he wanted in a sexual partner, who was down with emotionally detached but regular sex and an open polyamory, he still needled it with his bullshit and chose his persona over keeping that healthy.
Like, his harassment of her while she was teaching, his harassment of others even in circumstances where it was clear there was never going to be a good end and where the individuals had given a clear indication in body language and statements that his advances were unwanted, and so on… paint a picture of a guy who desperately wants to be the easy going polyamorous sex positive dude, but who is drowning in Harvey Weinstein/Hugh Hefner messages of what that looks like.
But I think you’re right that he doesn’t want to be that. He doesn’t want to be a predator or someone women avoid or speak ill of.
And I think you might be right that he also thinks he wants to be objectified, because he objectifies himself a lot in the persona he insists on creating, frequently putting himself down in a way genuinely happy-go-lucky sex-positive aromantics he wants to seem like don’t.
Panels 3-4: I like this beat, because you can see in his eyebrows that temptation to attempt to retreat into ignorance through deliberate lying to himself. That life would be easier if he just convinced himself that Joyce was somehow wronging him and was making a “big deal” out of “nothing”.
But the second he recognizes it, he looks away from himself and his eyebrows relax as he thinks of someone he considers to be a positive model of masculinity.
If he’s going to win this, this instinct is going to have to win nearly every time until it becomes just as much a habit to treat humans as humans as it was to be a misogynist douchemonster serial harasser.
Panel 5: That all said, this is so the most common mistake of people seeking to “atone” for being complete pricks. They get in their head that a superficial change to the behavior is enough, even though it has the same blind spots and dehumanizations.
Joe is not asking Sarah about her feelings because Sarah is a person who would like to talk about feelings or looked in any way open to an in-depth chat with a former misogynist likely involving unpaid emotional work.
Joe is intruding on her space as if he is owed women’s responses. He’s just being less of a douche as he does it.
And the thing is, that can be a growing pain. As I said, it’s a very easy pattern to fall into among harassers and stalkers because there’s some growth but little actually digging up of the worldviews enabling the awful behavior and insuring they’ll out themselves in another way (see faux-feminist men actively aiding a neo-nazi anti-women harassment machine because they never got over viewing the time and bodies of women as something that was theirs for the taking).
And the best part is Sarah is best suited to give the smackdown that this type of unwanted advance may be “better” than his old shit, but has the same old crap and entitlement driving it.
shoot I wish there were like buttons because I can’t muster the energy for a response that properly expresses how much— thank you. 🙂
Yeah, like buttons would be great and Cerberus is also great. :3
how are your comments always so peeerflect *u*
Blurting that out to Sarah was stupid, but I don’t see his Dad paying for him to go to someone who gets paid for emotional labor, such as a therapist
I wonder if it would make things better or worse if Joe added two words to that question?
“Hey, do you want to talk about our feelings for Joyce?”
…I think feelings “about” Joyce would be a better way to say that. “Feelings for” sounds a bit too non-platonic.
ill talk about feelings over beer
She was behind the black.
could you not
“Behind the black” refers to the black borders of the screen or panel, in a visual work of fiction. A character being behind the black allows the artist/cameraman to have them on-hand, often for a gag or jump-scare, even if the characters in-view would logically have been able to see them. Conservation of detail, and all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BehindTheBlack
I dunno, Sarah. Can you maybe do it before Trump presses his
Middle ground Joe, middle ground.
oh my god Joe how cute can you be <3
Man, all the time dudes tell me “I’ve love to be objectified,” except they think that means being offered sex all the time, when ACTUALLY what it means is being reduced to a barely-animate fuckdoll with no thoughts, ideas, emotions, or value outside of being used sexually. Like I’d never wish that on anyone, but I’d kind of like them to know what that entails, you know?
Anyway shut up panel-two-Joe
Male culture pretty much requires men to say they’d love to be objectified because the downside to that is an emotional one, and men are not allowed to show emotion.
That’s not entirely true. We’re allowed to be moderately happy*, any level of angry, bored, and uh… Is horny an emotion? I’ve never been clear on that.
*Too much happiness is a sign of The Gay, though, and that’s A Bad Thing, which we’re supposed to avoid at all costs.
There is a third option: they COULD just not say anything about it at all. But since when can we expect men not to voice an opinion about something?
Yup, they imagine it (or need to pretend to imagine it as in order to justify their behavior) as people they are sexually interested in coming up and offering them no strings attached sex with no air of menace in an environment where they are open to being approached.
The don’t imagine what actually happens in objectification, the weird creepy edge to the comments that imply that something very bad might happen to you because you are being seen as “attractive’ in a public space, the way it openly dismisses your humanity or consent, the way aggressive people you are not interested in refuse to accept a “no thank you”, or the way it pops up when you’re just living your life existing in spaces and are in no way interested in being creeped on.
As you note, if they actually experienced it, if they actually knew what that felt like, they wouldn’t be able to cling to that argument any more and it’d shut up that bullshit a little.
And the sick irony is a lot of them do know their bullshit isn’t objectification, because many of them live in terror of being treated by a gay man the way they treat all women and those read as women and use that fear to justify violence or bigotry against queer men and those read as men by them.
I would say it’s not so much that men need to justify their behavior as they need to demonstrate loud and clear that they are absolutely not emotionally vulnerable, because society requires men to put up that facade even if it’s not true. “It would make me feel terrible to be treated as an object” is not something a man can publicly admit to. Because I know exactly what the response to that will be. “Awww, did the mean lady’s hurty words blemish your precious fee-fees? Seriously dude, clean the sand out of there and try fucking growing a pair, this is pathetic.”
Willis retweeted the therapy strip a few days ago and it’s just a perfect example. Dorothy, being a woman, is allowed to admit that “crying is healthy, it helps you process emotions.” That is not a phrase you will hear a man admit to in public ever, not if he doesn’t want the entire room to laugh at him for about 15 minutes followed by everyone occasionally using, “Well, why don’t you cry to your therapist about it, you pussy?” as a sarcastic rejoinder in conversations for the next DECADE.
Exactly. It’s all about enforcing this idea that showing vulnerabilities is for girls and thus leads to the absurd claims they’d be just fine being abused.
It’s why it is so important to teach young boys that it’s ok to be emotional, to cry, to care.
Joe, be a dear and go to the cafeteria to get Sarah a brown paper bag she can breathe into for a while?
That is no longer medically recommended for hyperventilation
She can still barf in it though, yes?
Joe, get a banjolele then you and Danny could serenade people.
Joe and Sarah talking about their feelings. This is going to be some awesome Emmerich level train wreck.
I love that Joe here is on the cusp of the disconnect between mens’ actions towards women and their perception that they would like to be treated that way because then they’d have women chasing after them. He’s not there yet but this line of thought could help lead him to realizations about why his prior behavior actually wasn’t a sign of positive interest towards women, but an expression of aggression and power. Baby steps, but better than none!
WWDD…what would Destro do?
When in doubt, Dan it up!
She’s talking about the Drama Tag…right?
Nah, drama tag comes pre-pulled in this universe. Though to be honest the alternative probably is a lot worse
I wanna talk about feelings with Joe!
(Joe is still one of my favorite characters… I just have so much hope for him!)
Joe it up up up!
no sarah someone else is supposed to say that, where’s amber
“But I was already treating people like I wanted to be treated. I want to have sex with them, so I treat them like they want to have sex with me.”