>7 in the morning and this inconsiderate jerk [..] is trying to talk to him
Well, I’m pretty sure the only three possible reactions there are being depressed, being pissed off, and being homocidal, so even going off that it’s still possible that he’s depressed. We’ll know which it is depending on if Walky survives the next strip uninjured or not.
Mike’s the best character. If I had to pick 5 characters that this comic would solely focus on for, like, a decade, I’d pick Mike, Walky, Becky, Dina and Galasso.
Mike actually playing the long con here. Walky isn’t actually enrolled in math at all, and the reason we’ve never seen Professor Rees ourselves is because astute readers would recognize him as Mike with a fake mustache.
I mean, it makes perfect sense, right? In the previous continuity Alan Rees was an alien in disguise, but there are no aliens in this story, so he’s someone else in disguise instead.
And for those waiting to point out that Mike is IN Walky’s math class, I propose that what we’ve seen is just an inflatable Mike doll with a hidden speaker so it can say pre-recorded lines. Too elaborate for this scheme? Nah, Mike already had a line of such dolls made, when satisfying all those moms became too much a drain on his time.
Don’t tell Ethan about them, you’ll spoil his Christmas present.
Sometimes the truth is the best way to Mike, though. If Walky assumes it’s a lie and walks all the way to class only to discover it cancelled, he really can’t blame anyone but himself.
His grand scheme to woo Ethan didn’t last; he inspired Ethan to find OTHER people to make out with. For once, he made a giant miscalculation and lost something he badly wanted. The last time we saw him, he was despondent and bristled at Walky for suggesting he was depressed.
Mike isn’t as dead inside as he’d have you believe. Or maybe he’s more dastardly than we thought possible and he’s just trying to convince you his heart isn’t pitch black so you fall for his next insidious scheme. Or maybe that’s what he’s trying to convince himself of to further shield himself from the dangers of actually connecting with somebody emotionally. Or maybe this is just what Willis wants us to think so we keep arguing in the comments about Mike. Which is also definitely what Mike would want. Willis is Mike and Mike is Willis thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Is Mike depressed because he’s conflicted about his scheme with Ethan? Or because Ethan’s smooching on other guys now? If so, that is DELICIOUS.
Walky, go to class. If the prof isn’t there after fifteen minutes, you can leave. That way, if it’s cancelled, you didn’t lose much of your day. If it’s not, you’re not screwed over.
I’d argue if class isn’t cancelled he is screwed over. Well at least he would be if his grades hadn’t been altered. If he actually thinks his grade can’t be saved then it doesn’t matter if Mike is screwing with him.
Walky’s bad grades have been a handful of bad weekly quizzes. The class hasn’t even had a midterm yet. I find it highly unlikely his grade is unsalvageable. Maybe an A is unsalvageable and that might not be good enough for his shitty, shitty parents, but Walky can still do well. Heck, he can even start fresh with a TA who doesn’t hate him yet.
It hasn’t even been midterms yet? I really wish I knew exactly how much time has passed. I regularly feel like it’s been at least 3-4 months in my head but it might actually be a fraction of that.
Midterms should be coming up soonish then. At least based on the 2018 fall achedule I just looked up. Their first term is over or ending assuming it started sometime in August. Going by the color of the trees at the start versus now I would assume so. So I’m educated guessing it’s been about six weeks? That’s a lot of shit to happen in 2 and 1/2 months. Also yeah Walky could probably walk away with a D maybe a C if he applied himself right now. Possible an A since Amber altered his grade.
Yeah, midterms should be imminent around now. They got here at roughly August 29th, so not quite over yet, probably. And based on the fact Walky’s only (relatively) recently began having problems, he could probably still course correct to a B, maybe even an A-.
Does IU Bloomington have a uniform set schedule for midterms?
At my last school, most undergrad courses had either two midterms per semester or three midterms per semester. In the three-per classes, that first midterm snuck up on you real fast.
I just did a quick double check, Walky’s been struggling for three weeks. It shouldn’t be impossible to course correct off that, with only weekly quizzes.
Technically, if there’s more than one midterm, it’s not a midterm. Cause, y’know, middle of term.
As for the grades, I was under the impression that the guy who actually did the grading (until 24 hours ago or so) said Walky douldn’t possibly get a good grade. Though that doesn’t take Amber into account.
As for Mike: based on the first strips of this chapter, I’d like to point out it’s entirely possible that, like Billie, Mike’s just not a morning person.
At the time Jason said that, Walky had only done poorly on two quizzes. I sincerely doubt the quizzes count that much, since they happen every week. Basically, I call bullshit on what Jason was saying.
Suppose you have two (or three) exams during the term, of equal weight, but of lesser weight than the final. What do you call those exams? Technically, of course.
I assume Jason was extrapolating off his performance, not saying it wasn’t theoretically possible to recover. It does seem to be Jason’s basic approach to assume that anyone who needs help is going to fail.
Yeah, he seems 9/10 asleep here and still able to screw with Walkiy’s mind. I’m not seeing any sign of depression. He could be but not based on this. To me the speech bubble tails and dots indicate random neurons firing as he accesses his model of Walky and identifies the precise weaknesses to exploit, all without really waking up.
Basically, the theory is that he was being uncharacteristically helpful and sincere in panel 2, and is trying to cover for it now that he’s being called out on it.
Yeah, not exactly ironclad proof, but it does fit the panels and his recent character arc.
Aside from the possibility that he momentarily forgot to be a jerk… he’s lying in bed and doesn’t seem to be moving much. Granted it’s only two panels, but lying in bed isn’t something we see Mike doing a lot of. Lying in bed, apparently looking at a blank wall? It sets off some alarm bells.
The biggest evidence is that we haven’t seen him doing his thing at all lately, and last we saw him he was “off his game”, and what happened right before that? He had sex with Ethan right after Ethan said “you’re bad for me”, and after sex, Ethan moved on from him. That’s a pretty good reason to be down. If that was any other character, we would be blaming Ethan for being so cruel! The only reason we don’t is that we, along with Ethan believe Mike had a hidden agenda. Also we had a lot of flashbacks focused on Mike, so ofc from now on he will be given character depth.
Walky, just go to the flippin’ class. If there’s people there then class isn’t cancelled. If it is cancelled then you can use your freetime to go get some McNuggets or something.
You know what? At this point I’d welcome our Reptilian overlords back. They weren’t perfect, but they were a damn sight better than the mess we have now.
Now I understand the enabler mechanic Willis made for his characters. Walky’s laziness and Mike’s manipulative behavior are a bad combination that only further’s their own flaws… same for Sarah not caring about stopping Joyce or Dina not intervening in Amber’s shenanigans.
My thought is that Mike is tricking Walky into going to class. He told Walky that class was canceled and then admitted that it was a lie. Now Walky will worry about it and end up going to class to check and see if it is a lie. At this point, he will say “Aha! Mike tried to trick me, but I called his bluff and was right!” Then, he’ll have to go into the class because he is there. If Mike said nothing, Walky would have just stayed in bed out of indecision and ended up missing class. In this way, Mike did the one thing that would trick Walky into going to class. Why? Because he can.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell if Mike is lying or not. He’s said before that he can do more damage with the truth, so maybe he’s telling the truth and wants Walky to think he’s lying.
For those who know him, it really doesn’t matter if Mike is lying or not, because they have to assume that he might be lying, so they have to do whatever it is they would have done if he weren’t even there. The only difference is that now they’ll doubt themselves.
Walky, you probably don’t know it but I really don’t think Mike is in the mental and emotional state to be evil to anyone right now. That doesn’t in any way mean you shouldn’t double-check, though.
Oh God, it’s been almost four months since we last saw Mike. Time really flew by this semester IRL.
(Psst hey Walky you should get email notifications on your phone so you don’t wake up and go straight to class just to find out no one’s there like I did)
I really want Mike to be having himself an identity crisis over the feels he accidentally got for Ethan, and the realisation that of COURSE Ethan won’t stay with him because he’s an asshole to everyone – and he can no longer be down with that because, oops, feels. Y’know, like a worse Eleanor from The Good Place.
However, I think it’s more likely that 1) Willis is messing with us again like he did in Mike’s storyline, or 2) that this will be a much longer storyline, where we just see Mike with his wobbly depressed ellipses occasionally until something gives. Probably about two years from now.
Check the time the e-mail was sent, Walky. Spoofing the sender is one thing, but it’s a lot harder to fake the actual delivery time of the e-mail. If the e-mail was sent at a suspicious hour, it’s probably fake.
I like a lot of characters unfortunately it’s been like over a year of just cycling through characters I don’t like being terrible (like an entire fucking Mike storyline) or characters I do normally like being terrible (Joyce) or characters I like getting shit all over (Lucy, Sal). I would perform a blood sacrifice for more Dina and Becky having a nice time content or Sal and Danny hanging out and being bros but it’s gotta be 98% drama all the time.
I am sympathetic to the Mike-hating for sure (and to the being angry over Lucy and Sal stuff, too). I am always surprised to what length people in these comments will go to defend Mike, when he is one of the most obviously harmful, gaslighting and manipulative people in this comic. In real life, everyone should get away from people like him. Reading how his behaviour is frequently normalised and laughed about here makes me… a bit nauseous, actually. Because in real life that happens, too, and it can have terrible consequences for the real, actual victims.
Like I’m actually baffled at the lengths people will go to to justify his behaviour as benevolent. It’s so fucking textbook for people to try and justify an abusers’ mistreatment of their victims and I struggle to wrap my head around how people can be so fucking clueless here.
Putting it this way makes me uncomfortable because I’ve literally been abused, heavily featuring manipulation and gaslighting. Mike doesn’t really bother me because the ways he does his thing don’t trigger any of that for me, don’t look anything like what I experienced, and he’s a cartoon character. I can enjoy Mike as a character without being a clueless asshole who would laugh off real life abuse from someone similar to him.
Those comments don’t, at this point, bother me nearly as much as the ferocity with which they are attacked when they appear. How we treat real people (those on the other side of a keyboard, expressing these sentiments) is more important to me than how fictional characters treat each other.
Like, yeah, I think some of those people are just wrong, and sometimes I wonder if they don’t mostly come from, like, trolls, who are aware of the hostility the comment section has for that kind of thing and can’t wait to poke the bear. Any long time commentator would not be so brazen in their love of his, as you put it, “asshole sagery”.
But any time when I feel like I have to actively preface what I’m about to say with a disclaimer about the abuse I’ve suffered is a time when I am Uncomfortable. :/ As if it isn’t exhausting enough having to preface every offhanded comment I make about liking a character like Malaya or Mike or whomever by reassuring folks that my enjoyment of a fictional jerk doesn’t mean I’m a jerk myself.
idk, it might be nice if this comment section became a place where folks don’t always assume the absolute worst all the time. 🙁
See my reply below to Charlotte, because Mike is a fictional character and I don’t actually have a problem with people trying to explain or even justify his behavior, and that does not make me an abuser or an enabler of abuse in real life, nor does it make anyone else either of those things.
Not sure what else I’m supposed to describe someone trying to justify abusive behaviour as in any context. If you try to justify a thing in fiction why should I think that that doesn’t reflect your feelings about that thing in reality? If someone tried to justify a character being racist would you say “Oh but it’s fiction so it’s not reflective of their real values”? Sorry, but the viewpoints you express are reflective of the viewpoints you hold and if you try to justify abusive behaviour I’m gonna take that to mean you think abusive behaviour is justifiable because media doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
I want you to look at your comment, and then look at Charlotte’s comment, and compare the two. Hopefully you’ll see the obvious difference: one doesn’t look like aggressively silencing an abuse victim who feels uncomfortable with black & white moralizing/borderline gatekeeping of abuse victims, and the other is yours.
Right, so. I was exactly correct in my interpretation of your comment. I’m… really sorry to hear that. I guess I’ll just try to avoid reading your comments in the future, and would hope you will do me the same courtesy.
Perpetuating a societal standard where abuse is normalized is bad. It’s still bad if you’re an abuse victim. Being an abuse victim doesn’t mean it’s okay to perpetuate an ideal that endangers other abuse victims and makes them believe their treatment is acceptable. Like I don’t even know how this is fucking debatable you feeling okay about your coping mechanism is not more important than dismantling a toxic social more that traps people in abusive situations. If you wanna like Mike as a character fine whatever but as soon as you start trying to pretend Mike gaslighting Walky or whatever is a good thing you can fucking fight me and I’m not gonna be guilt-tripped about it.
I mean, not all experiences of abuse are the same, you know? So just because yours weren’t like what Mike’s doing doesn’t meant that what he frequently does isn’t abusive. (I actually don’t know how anybody could want to deny that.)
That’s actually exactly my point: not all experiences of abuse are the same. Not all victims are the same. Not all people who like or even defend Mike are people who have never experienced abuse. The whole reason I am uncomfortable is this intense dichotomy where apparently the only real abuse victims are those who vocally hate Bad Characters. Abuse victims who instead find stuff to relate to in characters like Mike, or Kylo Ren, are treated as nonexistent at best; liars and abusers ourselves at worst.
Mike is an asshole, yes. He’s manipulative as hell, yes. At this point it also seems somewhat clear that he’s at a loss for how else to relate to people, even those he cares about.
There are a lot of different ways to react to being abused. Feeling disconnected from other people, lashing out at other people and not being sure how to stop lashing out, and trying to control your relationships with other people so as to avoid being hurt again and going overboard and even hurting people yourself (and regretting that, and trying to change, and going into therapy to try to change) — those aren’t uncommon reactions to abuse.
Mike’s parents have always been written as super nice. I think, as originally conceived, Mike was meant to be kind of a “Mary”: or rather, someone who’s an asshole for no real reason, who specifically lacks a tragic backstory or Freudian Excuse, as TV Tropes would put it.
I don’t know if that’s still going to be the case in DoA, or if the flashbacks we saw were meant to be the beginning of deeper insight into what makes this Mike tick.
But even if they weren’t, the things I mentioned above will still cause some people to relate to Mike, to want to think the best of him, and to want to see him get better; they’ll also cause other people to relate to Mike but hate him even more and want to see him punished.
Different stories resonate with different people. When you make blanket statements about, for example, what kind of sick bastards could possibly like X in fiction, you inevitably wind up hurting someone you didn’t mean to and wouldn’t have wanted to hurt.
There is a vast world of difference between ‘Maybe Mike’s manipulative and lashing out because he’s been hurt in the past’ and ‘Mike is manipulative and hurtful for his friend’s own good!’ though. I can understand one, though I disagree, but the other is explicitly trying to say that a harmful behaviour is okay because it somehow benefits the person being hurt. Can you see why that would cause other abuse survivors (or even people who aren’t abuse survivors but generally don’t think hurting others is okay) to get pissed off and snap at the people peddling it?
Also, yes, of course I can see why people would be frustrated or even angry about certain explanations / justifications for Mike’s behavior. I never said that Mike’s behavior couldn’t be triggering for someone else, and in the comment you’re replying to I specifically tried to acknowledge that it could be. All I have ever tried to do in this thread was offer a reminder that victims are not a monolith, and that writing off even the seemingly worst fans of Mike as themselves defenders of real-life abuse or even abusers is going to hurt people that you might not want to hurt.
Although again, I… prioritize actual people over fictional characters, and remain more concerned by some of the language I’m seeing here directed at actual other people. I am firmly against treating real people like garbage, and when I see real people being treated like garbage in the name of defending victims… it makes me, as a victim, deeply uncomfortable.
I thought it was an accident, borne of oversimplification, so I made myself speak up. It was already hard enough to do so as someone who is just capable of understanding why a victim might empathize with Mike, and the thread above? Made me cry in real life and reconsider commenting here ever again.
I hope you won’t mistake that for a guilt-trip. It’s just the truth.
I would posit that it’s impossible to say that abusive behaviour in fiction is okay because it’s for someone’s own good and not have that treat other people terribly. It’s an inherently terrible argument. While I can understand why people might empathize with or see themselves in Mike, I draw the line at saying his behaviour is okay. I prioritize people too, but I’m not going to shame people for being angry with people making the same arguments their real abusers or real enablers of their abuse made, especially in defence of a fictional character. ‘Kylo Ren acts like this because of X, and I relate to Y method of coping’ is one thing. ‘It’s fine for Kylo Ren to behave this way because of X’ is not.
Another, more DoA related example – A few months ago, we got a lot of people arguing Linda Walkerton was a good mother, even while she was emotionally and financially abusing Sal, because they claimed it was done out of concern for her daughter. I lost my shit at those people and I will not apologize for it. That argument is vile and, imo, every single person who spouted it should be ashamed for it. Concern does not override everything else and it does not excuse all actions a parent could take. I’m not here for people making abuse apologist arguments, even when those people may have been abused themselves. That rot of society normalizing abuse is in everyone, and that can and does include survivors who may have coped differently or had experienced different kinds of abuse.
I shouldn’t have replied. I regretted it while I showered afterwards. Because there’s no way to continue this discussion without talking about someone I’ve asked not to talk to me anymore, and it’s not fair to talk about her under those circumstances.
All I will say is that, when it comes to normalizing abuse, I am still more concerned about the way we excuse mistreating other actual people in real life in defense of fictional characters.
Fair enough, but I’d still say it’s messed up to expect people not to argue when people are making the same arguments real abusers and real enablers make because they may be survivors, while apparently disregarding other survivors who those arguments hurt or anger. Especially when the ones making the said enabling arguments are doing so in the name of a fictional character, while the survivors affected by said arguments are very real.
I feel like this has gotten very tense and so I’d like to clarify that I’m not angry with you, Rain. I don’t think you’ve said anything offensive or that you’re a bad person. I’m not sure I agree with you, but you haven’t done anything super heinous here.
@Rain: I agree that this comment section can be hard sometimes. I’ve had one experience where I was very deeply hurt by it–though I admit that, while I found the triggering comment inconsiderate, my reaction was my own– and am finding myself more frequently being fearful of responses I might get to things I consider posting.
Sometimes there are stances I agree with that are voiced so cruelly that I want to avoid the whole place, and again, I’m in agreement with the idea that’s being conveyed. The main reason I haven’t taken a break recently is, frankly, I’m a very lonely person. If you don’t want to take a break from the comment section from whatever reason, that’s fair enough, but it seems like you’re having a really hard time with it currently, so I want to remind you that it’s okay to take some time away if you think that’d be best for you.
We’ll probably still be arguing about the same things when you get back.
Well, then, it’s a good thing that’s not what I expect. Or asked for. You seem to be confusing my attempt to remind folks that people like me exist (which, again, is not the same thing as claiming that people like me are the only ones who exist), and that _blanket_ statements about fans of Mike and other Bad Characters have potential splash-back… with some sort of ban on arguing with folks expressing crappy opinions.
Yes, people who are hurt by these arguments are real, but so are the people who get yelled and screamed at. There are victims of abuse on both sides, as well as in-between. I’d like to believe we would all be kinder to each other if we could keep in mind that there’s a human being on the other side of the screen, because the internet provides an illusion of distance that has a demonstrably dehumanizing effect. It’s easier to write someone else off as just being bad, awful, evil, and deserving of pain, when we can’t actually see them burst into stressed-out tears and hide from our comment box for an hour before they gather enough of themselves to formulate a coolheaded reply.
I don’t know. I guess I can see why you might think I’m telling you you’re not allowed to be angry, or aren’t allowed to argue against poor defenses of Mike. All I can do is say that I’m not; never was, never would.
@ Yumi: Thanks for sharing all of that, though I’m also really sorry. Honestly not checking on replies to something I’ve said when I’m worried it’s inflammatory gives me a lot of anxiety. Another thing that almost stopped me from saying anything before I convinced myself it might be helpful, might be productive, might echo fears that someone else couldn’t bring themselves to express.
@ BBCC: …I don’t know what else to say. I’m sure we’ve both worded things in ways we wouldn’t have if not for the aforementioned tension. I’m very tired. I will try to take a break, despite the anxiety.
@Rain: See, that’s why I said it makes ME (me, perseonally) nauseous how other people defend Mike’s actions or portray them as “for his victims’ own good”. Because I’ve seen the same happen in real life with actual abusers.
I, too, (like BBCC) do not understand how someone would defend behaviour of a fictional character (not say they like reading about that character, but actually defend their actions, as if they were actual humans) but find it abhorrent in real life. Like, how does that compute?
One can enjoy reading about a character who does terrible things without approving of their actions; that I understand.
(I happen to also not enjoy reading about Mike, but that is 100% a matter of taste and not what I was talking about.)
You also seem to have mistaken people talking about Mike fans who explicitly try to frame his actions as benevolent with all Mike fans. Nobody was talking about people who like Mike as a character or find things they have in common with him. And sure, the people who get yelled at for parroting abuse apologist rhetoric (whether they’ve been abused themselves or not is immaterial – again, this kind of rhetoric is everywhere in society and nobody is immune to it) are real. That doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to get yelled at when they say someone’s hurtful actions are okay because it’s for someone’s own good. Your argument seems more invested in defending people who are, in fact, arguing Mike’s actions are helpful or benevolent or a good thing than in the people who do get hurt by those arguments. Mike’s not real. The others are.
I’m sure we would interact differently face to face than online, but for me, it wouldn’t change how I felt about those people. I’d still be angry and want to yell at them. I just wouldn’t be able to get my words right because I don’t speak nearly as well as I write and I get incredibly frustrated trying to make my words coherent. So that wouldn’t result in more kind feelings, it’d just result in me not talking at all.
I get being stressed out by negative reactions to your comments and on being upset. I’ve been there too. I seriously considered not commenting for a long while – maybe not ever again – after all those comments about Linda being REALLY a good and caring mother, because I was tired of all the abuse apologism in the comments. Again, though, there’s a massive difference between saying ‘What the fuck is up with saying this abusive action is acceptable?’ and ‘What the fuck, how can you like/relate to this terrible fictional person?’
@Charlotte: I’ve tried very hard today to explain how it might compute. I don’t think I have any other words left, other than to just reiterate that fictional pain isn’t the same thing as real pain. To use a hopefully less-loaded comparison, I think it’s very possible to be opposed to murder in real life, but still enjoy first-person shooters or empathize with characters who commit murder. I’m against capital punishment in real life, but I’ve watched plenty of stories where a bad guy is killed and not been emotionally moved or morally-outraged. (Among many other issues, real application of capital punishment is fraught in part because of the risk of applying it to an innocent person. In fiction, we usually have omniscience: we know whether people are innocent or guilty with absolute certainty. It’s also rather more common for a fictional character to be a worthless pile of fetid garbage with no dimension, no depth, and no reason to regret their death.)
That’s all I’ve got, the last of my words on the subject. I hope they were useful or that, at least, you don’t regret having read them.
@ BBCC: My problem with “that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to [be treated badly]” is that I’ve seen entirely too much genuinely abusive behavior hurled at people for liking, again, Kylo Ren, not to remain concerned by the larger fandom trend.
The context, for me, extends beyond this comment section, to people who put actual needles into actual cookies intended for a fanartist, because that fanartist drew despicable ships. It extends to doxxing, death threats, anons telling abuse victims who ship “abusive” pairings that they must have enjoyed being abused themselves. All of this is being rationalized, actively, in these people’s own words, with “they deserve it” and “their ideas about fandom normalize abuse/racism/queerphobia/etc in real life” and the belief that there are fundamentally right and fundamentally wrong ways to cope with trauma through fiction.
I am not invested in Mike. I’m not invested in Kylo Ren or “Reylo” shippers, and I’ve long had little patience for people who defend characters like Snape at length, but there should very much be limits in how harsh we allow ourselves to be when we protest this stuff.
And I say this as someone who has, myself, been called out by a good friend for becoming a bully in the name of high ideals. I know it’s easy to do. I know there’s a seductive and slippery slope here, once we convince ourselves that another human being deserves to be treated poorly. That’s why I’ve been trying to “hold the line”, so to speak, and why I seem so invested in Mike’s worst fans.
Let me now be very clear: I am not accusing you of being willing to put needles in a cookie. Just as, I would hope, you aren’t actually accusing me of real-life abuse apologism. For both of us, we’re upset because of what we see as the increasingly pervasive normalization of abuse; what the words we’re hearing remind us of.
I’m glad you’re feeling better, but frankly, I still don’t agree that that’s what’s happening here. There’s a world of difference between telling someone they’re parroting abuse apologist rhetoric and/or speaking harshly to someone to do tell them so and telling them to kill themselves or doing actual violence to them. I agree with you that fandom is incredibly abusive in that regard and I’ve seen the things you’re talking about as well (and you’re right, it is concerning,and anyone involved can fuck right off) but that’s not what is happening when people say ‘What the fuck is wrong with you? ‘X abusive behaviour is totally fine because Y argument commonly used to excuse abusive behaviour IRL’. I fail to see why the feelings of abuse survivors who parrot abuse apologist rhetoric should be prioritized over the feelings of abuse survivors watching them parrot said rhetoric. Maybe I’m missing something you’re trying to say here, and if I am, feel free to say so.
And no, I don’t think you’re an abuse apologist. I don’t even think users who routinely defend Mike as benevolent are abuse apologists IRL, but I do think they use the same rhetoric as RL abuse apologists and that does concern me.
Upon thinking about it further, I think I understand your position better. Correct me if I’m wrong:
– You’re not primarily concerned with those defending Mike’s abuse as benevolent, because Mike’s abuse is done to fictional characters, whereas the people defending it are real.
– My concern isn’t with the characters Mike is abusing, but rather with the arguments real people make to claim it is good for those he’s abusing. Those arguments are made by real people, yes, but they frequently parrot abuse apologist rhetoric. These arguments aren’t made in a vacuum. They’re made in an environment filled with abuse survivors and, quite often, made to survivors. Even if they weren’t, the fact it does echo abuse apologist rhetoric is concerning to me and, imo, merits the individual making it being called on it, even if it’s done forcefully (though, of course, I’d draw the line at harassment, threats, bigotry, etc. That’s never acceptable when dealing with fandom), the same as it would if the argument weren’t being used in a fandom context.
For example, when Mary called Carla a boy, there were several individuals who said it was okay because Carla was being noisy when Mary wanted to study. They were quickly, and forcefully called out for it. In my opinion, calling them out was deserved because their argument rested on saying transphobia is acceptable if the target’s not respectable enough. That argument was made about a fictional character abusing another, but it is a real argument that gets used against real trans women, many of whom are on this site. It’s similar with Mike (although Mike doesn’t typically involve a ton of bigotry). Does that make sense?
So Lucy is trash because she spoke to Billie, but it’s OK for Walky to just talk out loud to himself. I expect all the “morning people” to dump on Walky now for his crime of being awake.
Also, Mike hasn’t in any way indicated anything about being upset about being talked to early in the morning.
I also assume it’s significantly later, since Walky and Billie share this class and Billie’s had time to walk over to Ruth’s and go back to sleep and probably still intends to get up for class.
I very much admire your seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of this stuff. I’m sure there have been comics that mentioned what time math is, but you’re like a wizard. Possibly with spreadsheets?
Loading ...
“DO I EVEN EXIST?? If I think, am I, therefore???”
“no, you can totally doubt your own existence”
*Walky vanishes in a philosophical self-negation*
*Walky reappears out of spite*
“fuck you Mike, I’m gettin’ McNuggs”
I McNugg, therefore I McAm.
One can easily fake Mcnuggets.
Presumably by using parts of the chicken besides the gizzards, eyeballs, and unmentionables?
Bleaching – don’t forget the judicious application of Peroxide to that it all ends up as “white meat” chicken.
That is how the zero sum happens in The Elder Scrolls.
Walky has achieved CHIM. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Thank you both so much for this
He’s going to have to solve his identity crisis. #mathjoke
Oh gee, Mike
There’s the Mike we know and love.
is it ? He’s clearly depressed
He’s tired. It’s 7 in the morning and this inconsiderate jerk Walky is trying to talk to him.
>7 in the morning and this inconsiderate jerk [..] is trying to talk to him
Well, I’m pretty sure the only three possible reactions there are being depressed, being pissed off, and being homocidal, so even going off that it’s still possible that he’s depressed. We’ll know which it is depending on if Walky survives the next strip uninjured or not.
The only kind of Mike I want to see.
Tell me lies, tell me sweet Little Lies…
Oh, no, you can’t disguise
Lies, lies, lies lies, yeah
(Collected from around the world!)
Mike’s the best character. If I had to pick 5 characters that this comic would solely focus on for, like, a decade, I’d pick Mike, Walky, Becky, Dina and Galasso.
I would pick 4 mikes and a galasso
How? The only ship I see there is Dina/Mike. MAYBE Mike/Walky, but that would just be to watch a train wreck.
Let me whisper heresy in your ear:
Stories are possible without shipping!
Except pirate stories- and what ever stopped the DoA fandom from shipping a train wreck, anyways?
You know what, you make a real good point. I revise my original comment to say that I want those 5 characters as pirates
Not Dina/Becky?
How do you not know of the Galasso Galasso ship?
I’d do walky, amber, joyce, mike, and becky- hey wait, that’s basically already what’s happening. Heh, go me
That’s quite the orgy.
Mine is Sal, Malaya, Carla, Marcie and Danny.
Wait, shit, we just had that storyline!
…Look, okay, I might still be a little high on cloud 9 after a Sal arc, okay?
Insidious as always.
If you weren’t such a wimp and just went to class you’d find out.
Mike actually playing the long con here. Walky isn’t actually enrolled in math at all, and the reason we’ve never seen Professor Rees ourselves is because astute readers would recognize him as Mike with a fake mustache.
I mean, it makes perfect sense, right? In the previous continuity Alan Rees was an alien in disguise, but there are no aliens in this story, so he’s someone else in disguise instead.
And for those waiting to point out that Mike is IN Walky’s math class, I propose that what we’ve seen is just an inflatable Mike doll with a hidden speaker so it can say pre-recorded lines. Too elaborate for this scheme? Nah, Mike already had a line of such dolls made, when satisfying all those moms became too much a drain on his time.
Don’t tell Ethan about them, you’ll spoil his Christmas present.
Professor Rees is actually tagged, albeit from a distance or only partly on-panel.
So is Amazigirl.
Inb4 That makes 3 Mike tags.
Yo I hadn’t realised after all these years that Professor Rees was dumbiverse Alan. I’m so glad he made it, I liked Alan!!!
for the first time ever, I think I am worried about mike
Yeah, Mike told the truth, and then realized he wasn’t Miking like his old self.
Sometimes the truth is the best way to Mike, though. If Walky assumes it’s a lie and walks all the way to class only to discover it cancelled, he really can’t blame anyone but himself.
I could tell something was wrong from here: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2018/comic/book-8/04-of-mike-and-men/hmph/
His grand scheme to woo Ethan didn’t last; he inspired Ethan to find OTHER people to make out with. For once, he made a giant miscalculation and lost something he badly wanted. The last time we saw him, he was despondent and bristled at Walky for suggesting he was depressed.
Glad I’m not the only one who thought that.
The ellipses make me think that half-awake Mike was accidentally helpful and had to cover up with paranoia inducing comments.
Even Mike doesn’t know if he’s fucking with people at this point
I took it as more like he might’ve been impressed Walky didn’t just take him at face value, but that’s also a possibility.
OR, Mike is so good at being an asshole, he can sleep-asshole.
Panel 4 Walky is such a relatable emotion for me
The emotion of “what, why would you come onto this internet and tell lies?”
Hmmm, is Mike down now that Ethan is not needing him for for makeouts? Are we going to have a Mike arc?
Storyline title:
Of Mike and Men II: Mike Harder
Uhh…maybe not.
I’m guessing, by the title, this will be Lucy’s arc.
Is Mike………….sulking? Do you think he liked Ethan…..a lot?
I knew it!!!
I choose to believe he’s totally pouting because of that.
I need a mug that says ‘Mike Tears’.
Mike isn’t as dead inside as he’d have you believe. Or maybe he’s more dastardly than we thought possible and he’s just trying to convince you his heart isn’t pitch black so you fall for his next insidious scheme. Or maybe that’s what he’s trying to convince himself of to further shield himself from the dangers of actually connecting with somebody emotionally. Or maybe this is just what Willis wants us to think so we keep arguing in the comments about Mike. Which is also definitely what Mike would want. Willis is Mike and Mike is Willis thank you for coming to my TED talk.
For a while I’ve thought that he accidentally caught feels during that last plot, this seems like maybe a point in the theory’s favor
Either he’s sulking or he’s realized that he’s had a moment of actual sincerity and is now questioning everything about himself
Careful. Thinking Mike has any redeeming qualities brings ’em out of the woodworks. They’ll descend on this comment like mosquitoes.
If your idea of a redeeming quality is “the capacity for human emotion” then your bar is so low you’d have to dig to get under it.
So, Trump’s got access to heavy machinery, is what you’re saying.
“Monolithic pride” and “rage” are still human emotions.
I agree nonsarcastically.
Some people talk about him like he’s a literal demon lord, so yeah, that’s where the bar’s been. 😛
Only Mike becomes more helpful when depressed.
Is Mike depressed because he’s conflicted about his scheme with Ethan? Or because Ethan’s smooching on other guys now? If so, that is DELICIOUS.
Walky, go to class. If the prof isn’t there after fifteen minutes, you can leave. That way, if it’s cancelled, you didn’t lose much of your day. If it’s not, you’re not screwed over.
About Mike: Why not both?
I’d argue if class isn’t cancelled he is screwed over. Well at least he would be if his grades hadn’t been altered. If he actually thinks his grade can’t be saved then it doesn’t matter if Mike is screwing with him.
Walky’s bad grades have been a handful of bad weekly quizzes. The class hasn’t even had a midterm yet. I find it highly unlikely his grade is unsalvageable. Maybe an A is unsalvageable and that might not be good enough for his shitty, shitty parents, but Walky can still do well. Heck, he can even start fresh with a TA who doesn’t hate him yet.
It hasn’t even been midterms yet? I really wish I knew exactly how much time has passed. I regularly feel like it’s been at least 3-4 months in my head but it might actually be a fraction of that.
It’s roughly October 15th.
Midterms should be coming up soonish then. At least based on the 2018 fall achedule I just looked up. Their first term is over or ending assuming it started sometime in August. Going by the color of the trees at the start versus now I would assume so. So I’m educated guessing it’s been about six weeks? That’s a lot of shit to happen in 2 and 1/2 months. Also yeah Walky could probably walk away with a D maybe a C if he applied himself right now. Possible an A since Amber altered his grade.
Yeah, midterms should be imminent around now. They got here at roughly August 29th, so not quite over yet, probably. And based on the fact Walky’s only (relatively) recently began having problems, he could probably still course correct to a B, maybe even an A-.
Does IU Bloomington have a uniform set schedule for midterms?
At my last school, most undergrad courses had either two midterms per semester or three midterms per semester. In the three-per classes, that first midterm snuck up on you real fast.
I just did a quick double check, Walky’s been struggling for three weeks. It shouldn’t be impossible to course correct off that, with only weekly quizzes.
@Marsh – In my experience, most classes only have one midterm. Granted, I’m nowhere near IU.
That said, nobody’s mentioned anything about major tests, assignments, midterms, etc. Only the weekly quizzes.
Technically, if there’s more than one midterm, it’s not a midterm. Cause, y’know, middle of term.
As for the grades, I was under the impression that the guy who actually did the grading (until 24 hours ago or so) said Walky douldn’t possibly get a good grade. Though that doesn’t take Amber into account.
As for Mike: based on the first strips of this chapter, I’d like to point out it’s entirely possible that, like Billie, Mike’s just not a morning person.
At the time Jason said that, Walky had only done poorly on two quizzes. I sincerely doubt the quizzes count that much, since they happen every week. Basically, I call bullshit on what Jason was saying.
Rabid Rabbit:
Suppose you have two (or three) exams during the term, of equal weight, but of lesser weight than the final. What do you call those exams? Technically, of course.
Tests. Exams.
I assume Jason was extrapolating off his performance, not saying it wasn’t theoretically possible to recover. It does seem to be Jason’s basic approach to assume that anyone who needs help is going to fail.
That would make more sense, although considering Jason’s go to move is telling people to drop, I have less than no confidence in him.
Yup. It is Friday, October 15, assuming there hasn’t been a time skip. Both gender studies and calculus are today.
Didn’t realize Gender Studies was MWF as well. Hope we see it, I like that class.
Where’s everyone getting “Mike is depressed” from?
The ellipses and specific shape of The speech bubble tails and he seemed off the last time we saw him
Yeah, he seems 9/10 asleep here and still able to screw with Walkiy’s mind. I’m not seeing any sign of depression. He could be but not based on this. To me the speech bubble tails and dots indicate random neurons firing as he accesses his model of Walky and identifies the precise weaknesses to exploit, all without really waking up.
Basically, the theory is that he was being uncharacteristically helpful and sincere in panel 2, and is trying to cover for it now that he’s being called out on it.
Yeah, not exactly ironclad proof, but it does fit the panels and his recent character arc.
Aside from the possibility that he momentarily forgot to be a jerk… he’s lying in bed and doesn’t seem to be moving much. Granted it’s only two panels, but lying in bed isn’t something we see Mike doing a lot of. Lying in bed, apparently looking at a blank wall? It sets off some alarm bells.
The biggest evidence is that we haven’t seen him doing his thing at all lately, and last we saw him he was “off his game”, and what happened right before that? He had sex with Ethan right after Ethan said “you’re bad for me”, and after sex, Ethan moved on from him. That’s a pretty good reason to be down. If that was any other character, we would be blaming Ethan for being so cruel! The only reason we don’t is that we, along with Ethan believe Mike had a hidden agenda. Also we had a lot of flashbacks focused on Mike, so ofc from now on he will be given character depth.
Aw, man, I wanted more Billie and Ruth. I love Billie and Ruth.
It’ll be forthcoming, probably. Safe to assume they’re sleeping or boning right now. Sloning, if you will.
Billie’s in Walky’s same math class, though, should she be choosing to attend.
“Your class, should you choose to attend it…”
If the “or” in “sleeping or boning” is an exclusive or, then that’s Schroedinger’s boning, or schroning.
If it’s an inclusive or, then forget I said anything.
I prefer “beeping.”
Stay strong, Walky. If Mike sinks just a little lower, you might actually be able to ignore his stupid mind games!
Walky, just go to the flippin’ class. If there’s people there then class isn’t cancelled. If it is cancelled then you can use your freetime to go get some McNuggets or something.
Walky, if you want to sleep in just watch the panapto later
Girlfriend wants to “talk”, math class… poor little mouse boy has the BEST day
Math class stole Mike’s face.
That is a better conspiracy theory than reptilian people (antisemtic slur) taking over the world.
What an interesting definition of the word better.
You know what? At this point I’d welcome our Reptilian overlords back. They weren’t perfect, but they were a damn sight better than the mess we have now.
No fair. You made me laugh.
Koh decided to become a math teacher?
Now I understand the enabler mechanic Willis made for his characters. Walky’s laziness and Mike’s manipulative behavior are a bad combination that only further’s their own flaws… same for Sarah not caring about stopping Joyce or Dina not intervening in Amber’s shenanigans.
Honestly I’m convinced that Mike is sulking just because of how little effort he’s putting into this mind game.
I think Mike might be thinking some thinks.
My thought is that Mike is tricking Walky into going to class. He told Walky that class was canceled and then admitted that it was a lie. Now Walky will worry about it and end up going to class to check and see if it is a lie. At this point, he will say “Aha! Mike tried to trick me, but I called his bluff and was right!” Then, he’ll have to go into the class because he is there. If Mike said nothing, Walky would have just stayed in bed out of indecision and ended up missing class. In this way, Mike did the one thing that would trick Walky into going to class. Why? Because he can.
Someone who understands Mike. We should worry.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell if Mike is lying or not. He’s said before that he can do more damage with the truth, so maybe he’s telling the truth and wants Walky to think he’s lying.
On the other hand, Mike has also made fake internet pages about Dexter and Monkey Master comics being cancelled, so maybe he actually is lying. Who knows?
For those who know him, it really doesn’t matter if Mike is lying or not, because they have to assume that he might be lying, so they have to do whatever it is they would have done if he weren’t even there. The only difference is that now they’ll doubt themselves.
Mike is lying. In a bed.
Actually, Mike’s your new maths teacher
Walky, you probably don’t know it but I really don’t think Mike is in the mental and emotional state to be evil to anyone right now. That doesn’t in any way mean you shouldn’t double-check, though.
Oh God, it’s been almost four months since we last saw Mike. Time really flew by this semester IRL.
(Psst hey Walky you should get email notifications on your phone so you don’t wake up and go straight to class just to find out no one’s there like I did)
Mike, Panel 2: Troll.
Mike, Panel 5: Asshole.
Mike, Panel 7: Supreme Asshole Deluxe.
I never thought I’d ask this but is Mike……… okay?
The only reason I’d care is to start planning the parade if he’s not.
I really want Mike to be having himself an identity crisis over the feels he accidentally got for Ethan, and the realisation that of COURSE Ethan won’t stay with him because he’s an asshole to everyone – and he can no longer be down with that because, oops, feels. Y’know, like a worse Eleanor from The Good Place.
However, I think it’s more likely that 1) Willis is messing with us again like he did in Mike’s storyline, or 2) that this will be a much longer storyline, where we just see Mike with his wobbly depressed ellipses occasionally until something gives. Probably about two years from now.
Check the time the e-mail was sent, Walky. Spoofing the sender is one thing, but it’s a lot harder to fake the actual delivery time of the e-mail. If the e-mail was sent at a suspicious hour, it’s probably fake.
I guess we’re just gonna cycle through all the characters I hate while they exemplify why I hate them.
Do you actually like anyone in this comic? I swear I’ve never seen you speak positively about anyone
Why even keep reading at this point
I like a lot of characters unfortunately it’s been like over a year of just cycling through characters I don’t like being terrible (like an entire fucking Mike storyline) or characters I do normally like being terrible (Joyce) or characters I like getting shit all over (Lucy, Sal). I would perform a blood sacrifice for more Dina and Becky having a nice time content or Sal and Danny hanging out and being bros but it’s gotta be 98% drama all the time.
I am sympathetic to the Mike-hating for sure (and to the being angry over Lucy and Sal stuff, too). I am always surprised to what length people in these comments will go to defend Mike, when he is one of the most obviously harmful, gaslighting and manipulative people in this comic. In real life, everyone should get away from people like him. Reading how his behaviour is frequently normalised and laughed about here makes me… a bit nauseous, actually. Because in real life that happens, too, and it can have terrible consequences for the real, actual victims.
Like I’m actually baffled at the lengths people will go to to justify his behaviour as benevolent. It’s so fucking textbook for people to try and justify an abusers’ mistreatment of their victims and I struggle to wrap my head around how people can be so fucking clueless here.
It’s an art form that requires constant practice. We have classes in it for credit.
Could we just not interact because it’s a complete waste of time and energy.
Seriously, dude, get off your hate boner for Emily. It’s getting sad.
Was that a reply to me or did someone’s comment get deleted
Putting it this way makes me uncomfortable because I’ve literally been abused, heavily featuring manipulation and gaslighting. Mike doesn’t really bother me because the ways he does his thing don’t trigger any of that for me, don’t look anything like what I experienced, and he’s a cartoon character. I can enjoy Mike as a character without being a clueless asshole who would laugh off real life abuse from someone similar to him.
I can enjoy Mike as a character as well. I just get irritated with the commenters who try to turn him into the benevolent “asshole sage”.
Stories need bad guys. Even not full-on villain bad guys.
Those comments don’t, at this point, bother me nearly as much as the ferocity with which they are attacked when they appear. How we treat real people (those on the other side of a keyboard, expressing these sentiments) is more important to me than how fictional characters treat each other.
Like, yeah, I think some of those people are just wrong, and sometimes I wonder if they don’t mostly come from, like, trolls, who are aware of the hostility the comment section has for that kind of thing and can’t wait to poke the bear. Any long time commentator would not be so brazen in their love of his, as you put it, “asshole sagery”.
But any time when I feel like I have to actively preface what I’m about to say with a disclaimer about the abuse I’ve suffered is a time when I am Uncomfortable. :/ As if it isn’t exhausting enough having to preface every offhanded comment I make about liking a character like Malaya or Mike or whomever by reassuring folks that my enjoyment of a fictional jerk doesn’t mean I’m a jerk myself.
idk, it might be nice if this comment section became a place where folks don’t always assume the absolute worst all the time. 🙁
Are you trying to pretend Mike’s mistreatment of others is for their own good? No? Then I’m not talking about you.
See my reply below to Charlotte, because Mike is a fictional character and I don’t actually have a problem with people trying to explain or even justify his behavior, and that does not make me an abuser or an enabler of abuse in real life, nor does it make anyone else either of those things.
Not sure what else I’m supposed to describe someone trying to justify abusive behaviour as in any context. If you try to justify a thing in fiction why should I think that that doesn’t reflect your feelings about that thing in reality? If someone tried to justify a character being racist would you say “Oh but it’s fiction so it’s not reflective of their real values”? Sorry, but the viewpoints you express are reflective of the viewpoints you hold and if you try to justify abusive behaviour I’m gonna take that to mean you think abusive behaviour is justifiable because media doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
I want you to look at your comment, and then look at Charlotte’s comment, and compare the two. Hopefully you’ll see the obvious difference: one doesn’t look like aggressively silencing an abuse victim who feels uncomfortable with black & white moralizing/borderline gatekeeping of abuse victims, and the other is yours.
@Emily
Right, so. I was exactly correct in my interpretation of your comment. I’m… really sorry to hear that. I guess I’ll just try to avoid reading your comments in the future, and would hope you will do me the same courtesy.
@dethtolldotmid
Thank you for this.
Perpetuating a societal standard where abuse is normalized is bad. It’s still bad if you’re an abuse victim. Being an abuse victim doesn’t mean it’s okay to perpetuate an ideal that endangers other abuse victims and makes them believe their treatment is acceptable. Like I don’t even know how this is fucking debatable you feeling okay about your coping mechanism is not more important than dismantling a toxic social more that traps people in abusive situations. If you wanna like Mike as a character fine whatever but as soon as you start trying to pretend Mike gaslighting Walky or whatever is a good thing you can fucking fight me and I’m not gonna be guilt-tripped about it.
I don’t want to fight you.
I have asked you to leave me alone. Please?
K.
I mean, not all experiences of abuse are the same, you know? So just because yours weren’t like what Mike’s doing doesn’t meant that what he frequently does isn’t abusive. (I actually don’t know how anybody could want to deny that.)
That’s actually exactly my point: not all experiences of abuse are the same. Not all victims are the same. Not all people who like or even defend Mike are people who have never experienced abuse. The whole reason I am uncomfortable is this intense dichotomy where apparently the only real abuse victims are those who vocally hate Bad Characters. Abuse victims who instead find stuff to relate to in characters like Mike, or Kylo Ren, are treated as nonexistent at best; liars and abusers ourselves at worst.
like.
Mike is an asshole, yes. He’s manipulative as hell, yes. At this point it also seems somewhat clear that he’s at a loss for how else to relate to people, even those he cares about.
There are a lot of different ways to react to being abused. Feeling disconnected from other people, lashing out at other people and not being sure how to stop lashing out, and trying to control your relationships with other people so as to avoid being hurt again and going overboard and even hurting people yourself (and regretting that, and trying to change, and going into therapy to try to change) — those aren’t uncommon reactions to abuse.
Mike’s parents have always been written as super nice. I think, as originally conceived, Mike was meant to be kind of a “Mary”: or rather, someone who’s an asshole for no real reason, who specifically lacks a tragic backstory or Freudian Excuse, as TV Tropes would put it.
I don’t know if that’s still going to be the case in DoA, or if the flashbacks we saw were meant to be the beginning of deeper insight into what makes this Mike tick.
But even if they weren’t, the things I mentioned above will still cause some people to relate to Mike, to want to think the best of him, and to want to see him get better; they’ll also cause other people to relate to Mike but hate him even more and want to see him punished.
Different stories resonate with different people. When you make blanket statements about, for example, what kind of sick bastards could possibly like X in fiction, you inevitably wind up hurting someone you didn’t mean to and wouldn’t have wanted to hurt.
There is a vast world of difference between ‘Maybe Mike’s manipulative and lashing out because he’s been hurt in the past’ and ‘Mike is manipulative and hurtful for his friend’s own good!’ though. I can understand one, though I disagree, but the other is explicitly trying to say that a harmful behaviour is okay because it somehow benefits the person being hurt. Can you see why that would cause other abuse survivors (or even people who aren’t abuse survivors but generally don’t think hurting others is okay) to get pissed off and snap at the people peddling it?
“Peddling” is a pretty loaded word.
Also, yes, of course I can see why people would be frustrated or even angry about certain explanations / justifications for Mike’s behavior. I never said that Mike’s behavior couldn’t be triggering for someone else, and in the comment you’re replying to I specifically tried to acknowledge that it could be. All I have ever tried to do in this thread was offer a reminder that victims are not a monolith, and that writing off even the seemingly worst fans of Mike as themselves defenders of real-life abuse or even abusers is going to hurt people that you might not want to hurt.
Although again, I… prioritize actual people over fictional characters, and remain more concerned by some of the language I’m seeing here directed at actual other people. I am firmly against treating real people like garbage, and when I see real people being treated like garbage in the name of defending victims… it makes me, as a victim, deeply uncomfortable.
I thought it was an accident, borne of oversimplification, so I made myself speak up. It was already hard enough to do so as someone who is just capable of understanding why a victim might empathize with Mike, and the thread above? Made me cry in real life and reconsider commenting here ever again.
I hope you won’t mistake that for a guilt-trip. It’s just the truth.
I would posit that it’s impossible to say that abusive behaviour in fiction is okay because it’s for someone’s own good and not have that treat other people terribly. It’s an inherently terrible argument. While I can understand why people might empathize with or see themselves in Mike, I draw the line at saying his behaviour is okay. I prioritize people too, but I’m not going to shame people for being angry with people making the same arguments their real abusers or real enablers of their abuse made, especially in defence of a fictional character. ‘Kylo Ren acts like this because of X, and I relate to Y method of coping’ is one thing. ‘It’s fine for Kylo Ren to behave this way because of X’ is not.
Another, more DoA related example – A few months ago, we got a lot of people arguing Linda Walkerton was a good mother, even while she was emotionally and financially abusing Sal, because they claimed it was done out of concern for her daughter. I lost my shit at those people and I will not apologize for it. That argument is vile and, imo, every single person who spouted it should be ashamed for it. Concern does not override everything else and it does not excuse all actions a parent could take. I’m not here for people making abuse apologist arguments, even when those people may have been abused themselves. That rot of society normalizing abuse is in everyone, and that can and does include survivors who may have coped differently or had experienced different kinds of abuse.
I shouldn’t have replied. I regretted it while I showered afterwards. Because there’s no way to continue this discussion without talking about someone I’ve asked not to talk to me anymore, and it’s not fair to talk about her under those circumstances.
All I will say is that, when it comes to normalizing abuse, I am still more concerned about the way we excuse mistreating other actual people in real life in defense of fictional characters.
Fair enough, but I’d still say it’s messed up to expect people not to argue when people are making the same arguments real abusers and real enablers make because they may be survivors, while apparently disregarding other survivors who those arguments hurt or anger. Especially when the ones making the said enabling arguments are doing so in the name of a fictional character, while the survivors affected by said arguments are very real.
I feel like this has gotten very tense and so I’d like to clarify that I’m not angry with you, Rain. I don’t think you’ve said anything offensive or that you’re a bad person. I’m not sure I agree with you, but you haven’t done anything super heinous here.
@Rain: I agree that this comment section can be hard sometimes. I’ve had one experience where I was very deeply hurt by it–though I admit that, while I found the triggering comment inconsiderate, my reaction was my own– and am finding myself more frequently being fearful of responses I might get to things I consider posting.
Sometimes there are stances I agree with that are voiced so cruelly that I want to avoid the whole place, and again, I’m in agreement with the idea that’s being conveyed. The main reason I haven’t taken a break recently is, frankly, I’m a very lonely person. If you don’t want to take a break from the comment section from whatever reason, that’s fair enough, but it seems like you’re having a really hard time with it currently, so I want to remind you that it’s okay to take some time away if you think that’d be best for you.
We’ll probably still be arguing about the same things when you get back.
Well, then, it’s a good thing that’s not what I expect. Or asked for. You seem to be confusing my attempt to remind folks that people like me exist (which, again, is not the same thing as claiming that people like me are the only ones who exist), and that _blanket_ statements about fans of Mike and other Bad Characters have potential splash-back… with some sort of ban on arguing with folks expressing crappy opinions.
Yes, people who are hurt by these arguments are real, but so are the people who get yelled and screamed at. There are victims of abuse on both sides, as well as in-between. I’d like to believe we would all be kinder to each other if we could keep in mind that there’s a human being on the other side of the screen, because the internet provides an illusion of distance that has a demonstrably dehumanizing effect. It’s easier to write someone else off as just being bad, awful, evil, and deserving of pain, when we can’t actually see them burst into stressed-out tears and hide from our comment box for an hour before they gather enough of themselves to formulate a coolheaded reply.
I don’t know. I guess I can see why you might think I’m telling you you’re not allowed to be angry, or aren’t allowed to argue against poor defenses of Mike. All I can do is say that I’m not; never was, never would.
Should’ve reloaded before I replied.
@ Yumi: Thanks for sharing all of that, though I’m also really sorry. Honestly not checking on replies to something I’ve said when I’m worried it’s inflammatory gives me a lot of anxiety. Another thing that almost stopped me from saying anything before I convinced myself it might be helpful, might be productive, might echo fears that someone else couldn’t bring themselves to express.
@ BBCC: …I don’t know what else to say. I’m sure we’ve both worded things in ways we wouldn’t have if not for the aforementioned tension. I’m very tired. I will try to take a break, despite the anxiety.
@Rain: See, that’s why I said it makes ME (me, perseonally) nauseous how other people defend Mike’s actions or portray them as “for his victims’ own good”. Because I’ve seen the same happen in real life with actual abusers.
I, too, (like BBCC) do not understand how someone would defend behaviour of a fictional character (not say they like reading about that character, but actually defend their actions, as if they were actual humans) but find it abhorrent in real life. Like, how does that compute?
One can enjoy reading about a character who does terrible things without approving of their actions; that I understand.
(I happen to also not enjoy reading about Mike, but that is 100% a matter of taste and not what I was talking about.)
You also seem to have mistaken people talking about Mike fans who explicitly try to frame his actions as benevolent with all Mike fans. Nobody was talking about people who like Mike as a character or find things they have in common with him. And sure, the people who get yelled at for parroting abuse apologist rhetoric (whether they’ve been abused themselves or not is immaterial – again, this kind of rhetoric is everywhere in society and nobody is immune to it) are real. That doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to get yelled at when they say someone’s hurtful actions are okay because it’s for someone’s own good. Your argument seems more invested in defending people who are, in fact, arguing Mike’s actions are helpful or benevolent or a good thing than in the people who do get hurt by those arguments. Mike’s not real. The others are.
I’m sure we would interact differently face to face than online, but for me, it wouldn’t change how I felt about those people. I’d still be angry and want to yell at them. I just wouldn’t be able to get my words right because I don’t speak nearly as well as I write and I get incredibly frustrated trying to make my words coherent. So that wouldn’t result in more kind feelings, it’d just result in me not talking at all.
I get being stressed out by negative reactions to your comments and on being upset. I’ve been there too. I seriously considered not commenting for a long while – maybe not ever again – after all those comments about Linda being REALLY a good and caring mother, because I was tired of all the abuse apologism in the comments. Again, though, there’s a massive difference between saying ‘What the fuck is up with saying this abusive action is acceptable?’ and ‘What the fuck, how can you like/relate to this terrible fictional person?’
OK, took a bit of a break. It helped a little.
@Charlotte: I’ve tried very hard today to explain how it might compute. I don’t think I have any other words left, other than to just reiterate that fictional pain isn’t the same thing as real pain. To use a hopefully less-loaded comparison, I think it’s very possible to be opposed to murder in real life, but still enjoy first-person shooters or empathize with characters who commit murder. I’m against capital punishment in real life, but I’ve watched plenty of stories where a bad guy is killed and not been emotionally moved or morally-outraged. (Among many other issues, real application of capital punishment is fraught in part because of the risk of applying it to an innocent person. In fiction, we usually have omniscience: we know whether people are innocent or guilty with absolute certainty. It’s also rather more common for a fictional character to be a worthless pile of fetid garbage with no dimension, no depth, and no reason to regret their death.)
That’s all I’ve got, the last of my words on the subject. I hope they were useful or that, at least, you don’t regret having read them.
@ BBCC: My problem with “that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to [be treated badly]” is that I’ve seen entirely too much genuinely abusive behavior hurled at people for liking, again, Kylo Ren, not to remain concerned by the larger fandom trend.
The context, for me, extends beyond this comment section, to people who put actual needles into actual cookies intended for a fanartist, because that fanartist drew despicable ships. It extends to doxxing, death threats, anons telling abuse victims who ship “abusive” pairings that they must have enjoyed being abused themselves. All of this is being rationalized, actively, in these people’s own words, with “they deserve it” and “their ideas about fandom normalize abuse/racism/queerphobia/etc in real life” and the belief that there are fundamentally right and fundamentally wrong ways to cope with trauma through fiction.
I am not invested in Mike. I’m not invested in Kylo Ren or “Reylo” shippers, and I’ve long had little patience for people who defend characters like Snape at length, but there should very much be limits in how harsh we allow ourselves to be when we protest this stuff.
And I say this as someone who has, myself, been called out by a good friend for becoming a bully in the name of high ideals. I know it’s easy to do. I know there’s a seductive and slippery slope here, once we convince ourselves that another human being deserves to be treated poorly. That’s why I’ve been trying to “hold the line”, so to speak, and why I seem so invested in Mike’s worst fans.
Let me now be very clear: I am not accusing you of being willing to put needles in a cookie. Just as, I would hope, you aren’t actually accusing me of real-life abuse apologism. For both of us, we’re upset because of what we see as the increasingly pervasive normalization of abuse; what the words we’re hearing remind us of.
I’m glad you’re feeling better, but frankly, I still don’t agree that that’s what’s happening here. There’s a world of difference between telling someone they’re parroting abuse apologist rhetoric and/or speaking harshly to someone to do tell them so and telling them to kill themselves or doing actual violence to them. I agree with you that fandom is incredibly abusive in that regard and I’ve seen the things you’re talking about as well (and you’re right, it is concerning,and anyone involved can fuck right off) but that’s not what is happening when people say ‘What the fuck is wrong with you? ‘X abusive behaviour is totally fine because Y argument commonly used to excuse abusive behaviour IRL’. I fail to see why the feelings of abuse survivors who parrot abuse apologist rhetoric should be prioritized over the feelings of abuse survivors watching them parrot said rhetoric. Maybe I’m missing something you’re trying to say here, and if I am, feel free to say so.
And no, I don’t think you’re an abuse apologist. I don’t even think users who routinely defend Mike as benevolent are abuse apologists IRL, but I do think they use the same rhetoric as RL abuse apologists and that does concern me.
Upon thinking about it further, I think I understand your position better. Correct me if I’m wrong:
– You’re not primarily concerned with those defending Mike’s abuse as benevolent, because Mike’s abuse is done to fictional characters, whereas the people defending it are real.
– My concern isn’t with the characters Mike is abusing, but rather with the arguments real people make to claim it is good for those he’s abusing. Those arguments are made by real people, yes, but they frequently parrot abuse apologist rhetoric. These arguments aren’t made in a vacuum. They’re made in an environment filled with abuse survivors and, quite often, made to survivors. Even if they weren’t, the fact it does echo abuse apologist rhetoric is concerning to me and, imo, merits the individual making it being called on it, even if it’s done forcefully (though, of course, I’d draw the line at harassment, threats, bigotry, etc. That’s never acceptable when dealing with fandom), the same as it would if the argument weren’t being used in a fandom context.
For example, when Mary called Carla a boy, there were several individuals who said it was okay because Carla was being noisy when Mary wanted to study. They were quickly, and forcefully called out for it. In my opinion, calling them out was deserved because their argument rested on saying transphobia is acceptable if the target’s not respectable enough. That argument was made about a fictional character abusing another, but it is a real argument that gets used against real trans women, many of whom are on this site. It’s similar with Mike (although Mike doesn’t typically involve a ton of bigotry). Does that make sense?
This is a drama comic. It sounds like you want to read a comic about good people doing good things and causing no drama.
I’d settle for that in the comments, to be honest.
After quitting Reddit I live for Dumbing of Age comment drama
You can have drama where everyone doesn’t suck.
Oh Walky, just text Joyce or another classmate to confirm Mike’s statement.
I would have suggested to talk to another dormie but that would mean getting out of bed (and presumably Mike locks the room or whatever).
Dorothy is a classmate.
Not for this class, she’s not.
It occurs to me that this is the point when Walky finds out that Amber changed his grades in an attempt to address her self-image issues.
My little devil boy is back! With depression!
Mike could make Walky doubt reality itself. Not that it’s hard to do.
So Lucy is trash because she spoke to Billie, but it’s OK for Walky to just talk out loud to himself. I expect all the “morning people” to dump on Walky now for his crime of being awake.
Walky is self admitted garbage so we don’t have to. Also concern for Mike vs concern for Billie
Also, Mike hasn’t in any way indicated anything about being upset about being talked to early in the morning.
I also assume it’s significantly later, since Walky and Billie share this class and Billie’s had time to walk over to Ruth’s and go back to sleep and probably still intends to get up for class.
Billie woke up at 7 AM.Math is at 10, so I assume it’s around 9 now.
I very much admire your seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of this stuff. I’m sure there have been comics that mentioned what time math is, but you’re like a wizard. Possibly with spreadsheets?
BBCC has CHARTS.
>_>
…
<_<
She's like Faz.
*runs for his life*
How dare
Er, er, er, er…
*points behind her*
Look, a three-headed monkey saying nice things about Linda!
I seriously don’t get how that would be possible.
There’s very few nice things one can say about Linda that don’t border on abuse apologism.
I just like to archive dive and I’ve reread the comic a bunch (though not for a while – it’s been a couple years since I read it all together).
For the record – http://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/02-i-was-a-teenage-churchmouse/missed-2/
What thejeff said, and also, I think you mean “not morning people”.
Trust nobody, believe nothing, all is suspect when Mike is involved, nowhere is safe XD
Well, now you have plausible deniability to do what you were going to do anyway.
I’m in the camp of, “I enjoy Mike as a character, but fuck him as a person.”
+1!!!!
My camp is also a camp of “kind of intrigued by what seems to be going on with him in this particular comic”.
I’m in the camp of “I enjoy Mike as a character, and I’d fuck him as a person”