The Book 8 Kickstarter funded yesterday morning! Hooray! And we’ve already blown through the first stretch goal, which unlocks new Dina and Carla character magnets! You can go pledge for them in addition to your book over at the Dumbin of Age: Eighth Book Collection Kickstarter campaign.
The next stretch goal renews weekend comic strip updates for the following year! Yeah, that’s right, Saturday and Sunday updates are because of the first Kickstarter campaign, and they’ve been perpetuated each Kickstarter since. Sometimes I forget that. Otherwise we’d be updating only weekdays.
Loading ...
De-escalation via Mortification
boy.
that de-escalated quickly.
i mean that really got back in hand fast!
De-escalation through conversational derailment.
Which, come to think of it, is a power I possess and could use for good, if only I could deploy it intentionally.
Intentionality requires practice.
I see it as a little shot of “I don’t see you any differently. I’m acting just like I always did, because you’re still Ruth, just MORE Ruth.” from Joyce.
I like this interpretation.
And so, Rachel did fuck off. And there was much rejoicing (yaaay). 😉
…but seriously, that was fairly mature of her, and such a relief. The less those two interact, the better.
Rachel has, like, no empathy. I’m kind of interested in seeing strips about her explaining why she became so bitter but I think I’d just be annoyed by her being mean to people that are trying to change for the better
I am kind of surprised at everyone’s surprise, having realized that I had surrounded myself with the same type of people a few years ago…they were everywhere (folks who won’t allow people to be in their process and make mistakes and learn from them and constantly expect perfection).
I had a weird state of mind similar to this when I was depressed last summer. A few people I know who were depressed felt like they were simply burdens on everyone else, yet I felt a weird “Fight Club”-esqe attitude toward myself and my peers. Like “Yeah, I’m an asshole, and so is everyone else. That’s why I don’t want to be a part of this world. I don’t expect people to meet my expectations, and I don’t expect myself to meet theirs.”
DISCLAIMER: This is not a healthy attitude to have.
It is not…
I do hope you’re feeling better now!
I’ve realised in my life, sometimes people who seem like assholes actually can change a little. Have one of those in my family, and they themselves were assholes because they were suffering depression (next to some other mental things), but it got better nowadays. They finally got help, but kind of also are sometimes in that unhealthy mindset, while I personally am in the former mindset.
Well, anyways, hope you’re feeling much better now
Thanks CoMa, I am feeling better now. I just had a lot of things going on at once at the time.
Most people find it hard to empathize with people that are “bad”. Be it that they harmed them personally or simply have a character that directly opposes their own. Personally I give EVERYONE the benefit of the doubt, but that’s because I’m a people pleaser. So I can understand people who give people no 2nd chances, though I don’t exactly adhere to that philosophy.
Yeah, and I don’t think Rachel is arguing for not giving anyone 2nd chances – I think it is after they cross certain lines which Ruth did cross. I don’t see Rachel as having no empathy – more like being terrified of being manipulated by Ruth’s emotions – maybe some PTSD from previous emotional manipulation, and so running in the opposite direction and putting her guard up to avoid it happening again.
Was that oddly specific? No reason for that whatsoever…
To clarify, when I wrote “manipulated” I meant something like, “manipulated into forgiving Ruth only to be hurt by her again.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much my take too.
Her comment here is pretty much true. Ruth’s tears don’t erase her bullying. Much of what she said earlier is true as well – at least from the perspective that it’s not safe to trust an abusive bully’s apparent remorse and promises of change. She has the right not to forgive Ruth. She has the right to be upset that Ruth wasn’t punished, but was returned to the position that enabled her bullying.
Only the blanket “redemption isn’t possible, people can’t change” part went too far, imo. It will be interesting to see if we get a look at something in her past that pushed her that far.
I think pretty much any Rachel moral high ground is lost when the fact is that Ruth is mentally ill. You can’t blame people for that and if you do, you’re not following the code of the Batman. It’s why we toss Harley and Ivy in Arkham than Blackgate.
But we also don’t leave Harley and Ivy running around loose, which, from her perspective is what they’ve done with Ruth. Not just loose, but still in the position of power that she was abusing. You don’t want to blame people who are mentally ill, but it also shouldn’t be an excuse to carry on either.
Granted she isn’t aware that Ruth doesn’t want to be in said position of power.
Ruth straight up said she did not want the job anymore at the floor meeting.
I guess maybe Rachel doesn’t believe her?
But that wasn’t Ruth’s decision. Everyone on the floor knows the decision wasn’t up to her, as Chloe stated the “until… well until” when explaining the absence. Holding a lack of consequences received from bosses against Ruth is emotionally realistic, but using that as continuing proof of Ruth’s intent and lashing out is weak. She can seek her pound of flesh from up the ladder if that is her issue.
Chloe obviously didn’t get many complaints as she said Ruth was one of her good RAs. College froshies are loud and complain about injustice all the time. There is no way no one in an entire previous group didn’t report at least on move out day, unless she was perceived as just bluster. Which is annoying and offputting, but super down on the list of priorities for most students when compared to what would have happened if Billy hadn’t fixed the garbage shoot for example. People rate and grade their professors, tas, living conditions… If she had a reasonable complaint, Rachel wouldn’t have been kept in her care, even if it ended as a “she said/she said”, so she probably hadn’t sought corrective actions until the “rabid dog” was down. Rachel had no issues informing Chloe of suicidal ideation and fraternization of floormates with Ruth, so she knew who to call if things were her idea of BAD. Chloe also would have probably put together the door breaking a lot more quickly if threats of violence were reported. That she was completely clueless, and it wasn’t adding to at least a vague picture of wrongness shows a lack of information and reporting. Vindication and Righteous Anger from Rachel rings a little more hollow in that context of her not reporting those problems.
That’s not to say she’s less a victim – more that how she’s expressing her vitriol to Ruth is a lot less reasonable/personable and seemingly more railing about injustice of power structures and FAIRNESS (since that’s also why she didn’t like billy’s Relationship with her). That seems to be her main point of contention with Ruth despite her inserting the word “bully” occasionally. The acidic personality didn’t help her opinion of Ruth, but it isn’t considered her biggest FAULt by Rachel.
Now Chloe could have just kept not looking into it because her other TAs had “more urgent” issues… Rachel could have had classes with her and saw her temper in other areas… Rachel could have put in for a transfer that hasn’t come yet…but that’s more conjecture than using the information given. With what we have been given, if it isn’t about having that anger reaction to finally becoming aware of certain injustices in the world, Rachel is either being rearlitory when she feels safe or was merely a verbal defender who didn’t DO anything about the situation. Which, gross even if understandable. Two wrongs and all that.
As an aside – I was that person who, when I finally understood the missing pieces to some of the systemic problems in our country, reacted with absolute zero tolerance because I wanted it all to Be Done. I definitely ignored context, empathy, and the capacity for growth from time to time because it didn’t solve it NOW and I took it personally . So while Rachel is believable, that doesn’t make her or myself at that time, less a bongo even if we were in The Right.
Well, she said they were “still stuck with her and that blows”, which isn’t quite straight up. But yeah, I’d assume she didn’t actually believe her.
Who would actually believe she’d be pushed back into the position against her will, at least not without much more explanation than she gave?
It wasn’t up to her in that the University could have fired her, but that would be true even if she was fighting to keep the job.
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but there are a few people who I wouldn’t feel any empathy for if they were having a hard time. We can see both Ruth and Rachel’s perspectives as outside observers, so we can empathize with Ruth more easily, but in real life, in the first person perspective, we don’t have that luxury. Sorry for rambling lol
More or less this. There’s someone I know who came from a really rough background (lower socio-economic class, absentee father, mother was outright abusive, has health issues due to having to take rotten jobs etc.) I try to treat her fairly and with compassion based on her background, but she makes it REALLY hard at times. She has a hair-trigger temper, holds racist attitudes towards non-whites (she voted for Trump, for one thing), and tends to adopt a victimhood persona if anyone calls her out on her BS. Yes, you were dealt a really crappy hand in life, I understand. But that doesn’t give you carte blanch to be a a-hole to everybody else who you don’t like or doesn’t meet your standards.
I think it has something to do with Ruth constantly threatening and bullying her. Would you be particularly concerned if your bullies cry? I think most people wouldn’t be. That bridge was burnt by Ruth ages ago.
The problem is, from the reader’s point of view, that as far as I recall we’ve never seen Ruth target Rachel. (The worst thing I can remember is her yelling at both Rachels to empty their trash.) Of course, we have no idea what went on last year, but Rachel’s reactions come across as disproportionate because we have no evidence of Ruth bullying her beyond the general bullying her floor was subject to.
There’s little chance she never did. They both aren’t freshmen. And Ruth targeted pretty much everyone.
Edit, she wasn’t present when the first floor meeting officially started. So it’s safe to assume Rachel got a very unfriendly reminder of the meeting, like all who were missing. So that’s at least one almost – confirmed incident.
Well, almost all – Ruth couldn’t find Sal. Billie hadn’t seen her yet either. My guess is she was probably either helping Marcie move into her own apartment (with the dozen other roommates, god help that poor girl) or that was the night she went exploring and found the lake (which she also probably did with Marcie, if I’m being honest).
Did she? I can’t remember when that happened. Do you have some strip dates handy so I can refresh my memory?
She already harassed someone who just came off suicide watch to the point where it’d be reasonable to kick her out of the entire University, so this is relatively mellow.
Of course that person should have herself been kicked out of the entire University, but was instead put back into her position of authority, so it’s all relative.
I’m definitely wondering what caused Rachel to be so bitter and made her think people can’t be redeemed.
The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people can’t be redeemed. Most of the time, they don’t even acknowledge that they’re doing anything wrong. :/ It’s VERY hard for people to change their innate nature (after all, it feels so natural to act like that), and the human brain doesn’t make it any easier because you tend to think that you’re far better, more attractive, more skilled etc. than you really are. Therefore, if you make a mistake, it was just “bad luck”. If someone else messes up, they are clearly incompetent or deliberately trying to screw with you.
It isn’t that they can’t be redeemed if they actually listen or try to. It is that they don’t try. They don’t listen, don’t want to, don’t admit they were actually wrong and don’t try to change.
There is a difference between people being inherently irredeemable and people choosing to not change. Billie is not inherently irredeemable. But we doubt her because we know she is likely to choose to not change. That many people choose to not change even when they say they will.
Being an ex-Fundamentalist homophobe, I very strongly disagree anyone has an “innate nature.” I’m also inclined to think that its mostly you just have to break people out of patterns and associations.
For me it isn’t so much that people can’t be redeemed rather than the fact that very few people are. And when the few people that can do, it usually takes a long time. So I can understand why Rachel doesn’t want to take the time to get emotionally invested in a somewhat distant emotionally and physically abusive authority figure. Especially when you consider the fact that they still wield a good amount of authority over you, and its been established that they can abuse it with little consequence.
Rachel has no empathy towards bullies, that’s different than not having empathy towards people in general.
You’re not the only one
With Mixed Emotions…
I wish that I could truthfully say that I was never quite THAT awkward about nudity… except I can’t. ^_^’
Nudity is the natural state of human beings. And yet we spend more time clothed than we do naked. That’s pretty weird!
I don’t buy it. If our natural state is naked, why don’t I have fur?
Why aren’t I furry?
Why did I used to chase my invisible tail as a child because I could feel it?
You do have fur thought. A very thin coat of fur. Not all animals have thick fur y’know.
Ah for the state of nature!
because it’s cooooold outside
“What if I was naked too? Would that make it less weird?”
“More, actually.”
“What if you were clothed and I was naked?”
“Worse.”
“What if we go back to your room and hug there?”
“Are you naked for some reason in this scenario?”
“…”
“Joyce, when I’m not in tears anymore we’re having a talk.”
Joyce then realized that Joe’s talks about how girls comfort each other may have some manner of bias to them.
Joe’s and Becky’s, to be fair.
And I’m amazed you haven’t drawn it yet.
I’ve just been busy, working on an animation for a reanimate thing. But who knows, maybe I’ll be more horny than productive tonight
That going on your YouTube channel or is it going to be a 2 minute thing you post on your new twitter account?
It’s part of a reanimate collab. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out which one.
SU?
Nope.
I got confused there at the end…oh wait, figured it out.
A naked talk?
Mission accomplished! 100% of Ruths helped! Good job, Joyce!
Man I’d kill for a naked shower hug during my shower cries. Though I’d prefer a hug from behind for obvious reasons.
Maybe I’m just sleep deprived, but it isn’t obvious to me. I also haven’t slept in 49 hours so I can barely remember my own name atm though. Explain it to me like my brain is melting out my ears, which it feels like it is.
In my experience, sleep deprivation really peaks as a good time at your 52. Like, if you can get some sleep before then, you definitely should, but if you have to get to that point anyway…hopefully you too will be moved to tears over how much you love trees? Let me know.
Assuming I am crying in the shower I probably wouldn’t want someone’s body rubbing all up on my front parts. Heck even a safe distance hug would be a bit “uncomfortable”. Unless like…we’re dating. Or friends with benefits. Or friends without benefits but super comfy around each other. Or you’re just weirdly ok with the slim chance that my dong might brush up against you.
Y’know just to be safe, a hug from behind is optimal.
Um, maybe they aren’t quite so obvious. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
*cackles* . . . . . I don’t have anything to say about this other then expressing my extreme amusement,
Aw, Joyce is so sweet, and so going to accidentally stumble her way into the most hilarious Slipshine. Which of course will be where she pratfalls into her first orgasm. Banging half the town will probably have to be in a sequel Slipshine.
Would be hilarious if said first orgasm occurred with the person who predicted it. However, I believe Joyce is canonically straight?
Well, I didn’t mean at this moment, more that she will accidently Slipshine it up at some point in the future. However, I’m not sure how much a pratfall orgasm is dependent on the other person, or even there being another person.
Yeah, her prat-gasm will likely involve fanfiction and hands. Or if things get really wild, a sex toy that she somehow ends up with due to conspiring friends.
Did you misspell fiends?
Sarah won’t be happy to share other Jacob, tho… “pff, if it’s what it take to get you off my space”
Not sure ifI’d wanna read a slipshine where a straight girl just hugs a crying naked girl.
Ah who am I kidding, I’d DEFINITELY read a slipshine where a straight girl hugs a crying naked girl.
I am really starting to hate Rachel. =/
It’s a shame Rachel is leaving, it seemed a little unbelievable that after all of Ruth’s previous behaviour everyone was basically forgetting what she’d done so having Rachel around is a good way to balance that out
I appreciate this comment. While I don’t necessarily agree with the “people never change” sentiment, it is realistic to expect a diversity of responses to someone’s self-improvement journey (or the illusion thereof, as Rachel might describe it).
It’s not so much “people never change” as it is “she may have changed, but her actions then still have consequences now”
Well, Rachel would disagree with you. She was pretty adamant that people never change.
That’s how I remember it too. “You will always be the thing you were before.” That’s not about actions, it is about who someone *is*.
Oops, meant to add the link http://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/03-the-thing-i-was-before/redemption/
She also literally says, “Redemption is a story.“ That is a direct quote. She doesn’t believe it is POSSIBLE for Ruth to be a better person. She is opposed to the very idea of betterment.
To be fair, most people never get better.
Here’s a thought I had just now: maybe the abstract meaning of what Rachel is trying to say is that actions speak louder than words. Redemption is a story, in that it’s so easy for people, especially abusers, to say they’re sorry and say they’ll get better and that it won’t happen again, but nothing ever changes and the cycle continues. Apologies without the intent to change mean nothing, and forgiving someone and trusting them without any evidence can lead to you being taken advantage of again.
I don’t know if Rachel doesn’t believe in the idea of betterment. But I think she’s probably lived very close to the cycle of abuse, and knows that something abusers will always use is a pretty story. This doesn’t mean she’s right about Ruth, or about redemption, or even about abusers in general. People can change and redeem themselves, they can get better. But maybe what Rachel isn’t opposed to is that very idea, but that simply saying they’ll get better is the same as actually getting better, maybe Rachel’s dealt with someone who never got better. But that’s a lot of conjecture.
From a slightly different angle: Redemption is a story. Change is not. But even once you’ve changed, what you were before is still there. It doesn’t go away. All you can is stop doing it. Being a better person now doesn’t erase the bad things you’ve done in the past.
Outside of fictional arcs, I’m not even sure what “redemption” really means. 🙂
I doubt that was actually Rachel’s intent, but it’s a possible reading. That abusers often lie about changing and shouldn’t be trusted seems a lot closer to where she’s coming from, even if she goes to far with the never change aspect.
It makes me wonder how many actions will be considered “enough” though? Rachel has seen Ruth struggling and trying but every time she slips, Rachel’s reaction is “same ol’, same ol’” and she defaults into dismissing every other part as an act. Any negative removes all positives and leads to zero? Not a lot of time has passed, and people aren’t owed forgiveness, but I don’t think any amount of actions will ever earn it if Rachel’s words are any indication. I also find it odd that she would view actions as more important because her crying and seeking treatment would mean more than her non fullfilled threats. TheJeff’s idea makes me wonder how Rachel keeps any friend’s if any badness ever done is marring them for forever. If it’s just a part of one’s self, even if it existed, when does it become part of your journey/make up versus a continuing flaw of self?
I like your interpretation and thejeff’s though. This was just me musing on the consequences of it.
That is a fair thought, and it’s hard to say when it’ll be “enough”. Maybe not enough time has passed, since BBCC put it at maybe only being a few weeks, at the most. But maybe it’ll never be “enough”.
Something to consider: we don’t actually know if Rachel has any friends. She’s not often seen hanging out with anyone, and most of the times she is seen out and about, she’s heading to class. So.. she might not have any friends. That could make her an interesting foil to Sarah, if explored.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that any badness mars anyone forever or at least not beyond repair. You can still be friends with someone knowing they screw up sometimes.
But someone with a long established bullying pattern or someone who’s done something seriously bad? That’s going to stick.
It’s been 10 days.
How long has it been again? Because off it’s been 10 days and they’ve been in the dorms a total of 40 – that’s not an insignificant ratio.
Rachel sticking around would not lead to anything good happening
She’s got no obligation to forgive Ruth or be nice to her but being confrontational with her right now would just be shitty of Rachel
She already was shitty enough in the past. At the level of her harassment, she was basically actively trying to push Ruth into a second attempt.
Not really? She certainly hasn’t endeared herself to me but I don’t think she’s malicious. If she were she’d be sticking around instead of leaving to avoid Ruth entirely
Ruth’s depression does not negate the awful things she did, even if most of the floor is willing to let it go. Rachel went too far too soon, and I would have shut her the hell down at the floor meeting if I’d been there, but I can understand how someone might be too angry to be gentle with her
Remember how Ruth herself bullied and violently threatened her residents. I’m kinda surprised Rachel is the only one who still seems upset about it
I think the other residents didn’t care/ thought it was bluster/it didn’t functionally impact their day to day life. People were agitated when Ruth wasn’t around to solve floor problems like garbage, but besides that she just wasn’t fun to be around in the hallway. She did her job, tried to leave her door open, didn’t stand for bigotry or abusive dads, turned a blind eye to people staying the night/ let people have their romantic interests and basically ignored you unless you made her look bad/gave her work. So many would just kill for the TA who let the gf/bf stay let alone one that you witnessed eject a parent not on the visitor list.
And a lot of other people would have clapped if they witnessed her slap Mary, even though that was wrong and proved her capacity for violence.
Beat up Billie. Dragged or tossed other people around occasionally. Had that reputation as “Ruthless” even before the semester started.
I like Ruth and I’ve often defended her, but let’s not whitewash her either.
I’m not. I’m listing reasons other people in the dorm might not be reacting as strongly as Rachel and why I’m not surprised most residents aren’t as invested. if they saw those instances and not much of the others or at least THEIR needs were met or at least she’s a bully who could on their side, then that would be a big reason to not be as angry. They saw more than the bully. Or the fact that Billie was confrontational from moment one with Ruth and so they chalk it up to cats vs dogs because dumbing of age. Plus kids make up nicknames all the time. Ruthless is a good one and it would stick regardless of truth. Ruth is not all those without her detractions.
She dislike Ruth, but doesn’t want to escalate things, either
How has no one asked yet which two emotions she has at this moment? I’m trying to deduce them. It seemed a moment ago she had many more emotions. Now she is, what…disturbed and horny, but like horrified at the second due to her position relative to Joyce?
Anger and sad.
I thought it was “sad” and “about to crack up because Joyce is hilarious.” Maybe that’s just me though.
She mentioned two emotions and the only other one she’s consistently talked about feeling is anger.
I mean, she could be thinking about Billie now. How there is another resident queer lady (she thinks Joyce is questioning based on catching her with the phamplet) trying to get naked with her, but it’s not the one she wanted. It’s the healthy abstinence (including alcohol) and happy times fairy! That would make me sad and depressed too… but maybe she CAN lose her job if she does the time warp (and a resident) again!
Wonder if I should get Judgyface Carla to disapprove of me at work.
Is your grav a looming Momo from QC?
Because a judgyface Carla would go great with that.
Yes.
Ruth’s “upstairs parts”…are those the freckles on her shoulders and collarbone?
Those dots are actually depictions of the tiny spikes Ruth is covered in, which it what Joyce means about them poking into her face.
I could have had spikes instead of my freckles? I wish someone told me.
So she is like the mutant in X-men 3?
X-Men 3 didn’t exist along with Terminator 3. That’s my headcanon and I’m sticking with it.
Okay, that’s fair, but then some bits of The Wolverine didn’t quite happen, and while the third act tripped and fell on its face, acts one and two were pretty decent. =/
It does cause me to wonder if Ruth has enough of a height difference that a hug would cause her “upstairs parts” to poke Joyce in the face, especially with Joyce’s stilts. If anything Joyce should consciously be trying to keep HER upstairs parts from being in Ruth’s face.
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2018/comic/book-8/04-of-mike-and-men/need-2/ height comparison says probably not, but close enough for it to be a not entirely unreasonable thought.
Especially since Joyce is currently wearing her milk jug shower shoes. You’d think that would at least put Joyce’s face out of the boob zone.
Sidehug maybe?
I mean, yeah, even if Ruth WERE more open to hugs, it would probably be a bad idea to be found naked!hugging one of her charges after she’d already been in trouble for banging one (and doubly so since Ruth has a girlfriend this time).
And yeah, she’ll have to level up a little more before she unlocks more feelings.
Secretly, this is the first page of the Ruth-Joyce Slipshine story
Don’t tempt me. I can use my powers for evil.
Give the people what they want!
Co-sign
Do it! Give in to the Dark Side!
By the time this comic is over Joyce will have an entire suit of bathroom gear.
And it’ll come out of her wrist watch like an anime henshin sequence.
And becomes either AmaziGirl’s sidekick or nemesis.
Nah. Joyce ends up fighting in the streets once she masters her teleporting ability, with Amber/Amazigirl as Caitlin Snow/Killer Frost to Joyce’s CW!Flash.
I don’t exactly think Ruth has “redeemed” herself in her eyes. I mean we can feel bad for her and wish for the best for her but I’m not sure how she’s redeemed herself in Rachel’s eyes.
Joyce, your milkjug stilts would prevent Ruth’s jugs from poking out your eyes anyway.
They would, however, probably put you at risk of Ruth’s teeth. Okay, good call.
Excellent point.
Seriously. I get where she is coming from, but telling a mentally-ill and suicidal orphan and victim of abuse that she is and will always be irredeemable and terrible is NOT okay.
I mean it’s not like Rachel knows that. Or that it particularly excuses Ruth’s actions and warrants her some sympathy because she’s currently crying in a shower. She’s not saying she’s “irredeemable”. She’s saying her being sad doesn’t mean anything to someone who’s been on the receiving end of her foul personality.
I mean, Carla’s hardly kept her mouth shut about Ruth being suicidal. It wasn’t exactly a big secret on the floor, so she has to be at least partially aware of Ruth’s ongoing mental illness. Something Ruth herself references just two seconds ago along with the fact that she’s an orphan. So literally the only thing she doesn’t know is about the abuse.
And she already went on a long tirade about how people like Ruth are thugs who can’t make up for what they’ve done because redemption is just a story people tell themselves.
I’m not sure if public opinion would really change if someone who’s doing controversial things was revealed to be suicidal. I mean that sucks that they are, but it’s not like they’re not doing bad stuff. That is that and this is this, and such.
That’s something completely different. Ruth’s behavior is directly tied to her mental illness, the alcoholism stemming from that mental illness, and history of victimization. It’s more than a ‘sucks to be you’ moment. At very least, Ruth deserves the right to try to better herself, but Rachel doesn’t even allow her that.
Ruth can better herself all she wants. It has nothing to do with Rachel. That’s Ruth’s choice. Rachel’s not gonna stop her from bettering herself but she’s not obligated to give her positive reinforcement. That’s not her responsibility.
If you don’t think being belittled and attacked repeatedly by someone who says you are literally incapable of being a better person wouldn’t have a profound negative impact on someone with mental illness… I just don’t know what to say.
And that goes double for you, Savail. No one is saying Rachel should worship the ground Ruth walks on, but regularly attacking and harassing her is inappropriate and wrong. She DESERVES the chance to better herself without being bullied by someone who, ironically, believes herself to be against abuse and bullying.
She’s not attacking her. She’s just not entertaining her misery. I’m sorry if you feel like Ruth’s problems require Rachel to show some sympathy but Rachel’s backhanded comment hardly registers as abuse.
I’m sorry, can you point out where I said Ruth deserves Rachel’s sympathy? Point it out to me, because I just can’t seem to find where I wrote that!
PS: Telling someone who is suicidal that they are incapable of change is absolutely abusive.
So what should Rachel say here? Because what she says here is just “Some tears aren’t gonna erase her bullying”. Which is fair. That’s not bullying. She’s stating the facts in their most base form. She is crying. That’s sad. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t bully me. As such I am not going to console her. I’m going to leave and take my shower later.
Not. Abuse.
You guys are talking about two different events: now, and earlier at the meeting when Rachel said something to the effect of “people never change”
Which, regardless of any use in comic, is just kind of an awful and depressing belief, imo. I don’t like Rachel pretty much based on that alone.
I love Ruth; I want her to succeed. Hell, not just succeed, but thrive That being said? No. Ruth doesn’t deserve jack-diddledy shit from Rachel. She does not deserve people’s acceptance or sympathy. If people choose to give them, that’s fantastic–whether they do so out of kindness, naiveté or simple generosity doesn’t matter. On that same note, though, Rachel is also not automatically a terrible human being for withholding these.
Likewise, it bears reminding that abuse is not an excuse. A reason? Yes. Ofttimes, a strong one. But never an excuse.
Thinking Ruth doesn’t deserve to not be bullied, belittled, and harassed while actively trying to better herself is one of the coldest and grossest takes I could imagine out of this plotline. Yuck.
No one said anything about sympathy. Just, you know, maybe don’t regularly verbally abuse her and tell her that she’ll never be capable of being a better person?
This is the first time Rachel and Ruth have been seen tangentially interacting since Rachel confronted her at the dorm meeting. Rachel has not verbally abused, bullied, or harassed her since that meeting, let alone on a regular basis. Rachel said her piece at the meeting, and then has seemingly left Ruth alone since then. But, like I said yesterday, sometimes that doesn’t work out when one of the parties is the RA for the dorm you both live in and you have to share common spaces like the shower room sometimes.
You’re right, Ruth doesn’t deserve shit. She definitely doesn’t deserve someone going after her so heavily that it could be considered an attempt to push Rachel past the point of no return.
Two out of the two times that Ruth and Rachel have been together since Ruth’s diagnosis have involved Rachel disregarding Ruth’s personal well-being and belittling her. Once to her face in a, frankly, inappropriate way. And once while clearly in earshot. It’s been a long time for us, the readers, between these events, but it’s only been a number of days in canon. That, at least to me, is rather regular.
Funny enough, when I search Rachel+Ruth, I don’t see any comics with the two of them together since the dorm meeting before this scene. Which is what I had said. The only scenes Rachel’s been in since then have involve Joe, mainly. So, the only time Rachel has belittled Ruth has been this scene, where she said Ruth “doesn’t have feelings.” The only other interactions they’ve had is prior to the dorm meeting, where Rachel expressed her frustration that Ruth kept her job and tried to call her a piece of shit (something she’s well-entitled to do), and pointing out the uneven power dynamic between Ruth and Billie. Rachel’s entitled to her anger and frustration. And considering that all of those scenes I mentioned happened the same night as the dorm meeting, no, I wouldn’t say that’s rather regular at all. I’d say that’s Rachel lashing out on the same day repeatedly and then backing off.
Rachel was definitely wrong in what she said at the meeting, but it really hasn’t been that short since the meeting. It’s been nearly two weeks. Unlike Raidah, who we know harassed Sarah for nearly a year, we haven’t seen Rachel going out of her way to say anything to Ruth since the meeting or heard of her doing so.
Rachel’s harsh, but she’s not going out of her way to find Ruth just to get digs in.
Funny enough, I said the two times Ruth and Rachel have been together since Ruth’s diagnosis. Which would be the dorm meeting and this strip. So… I don’t know what you think you’re proving?
Also, you are grossly misrepresenting what Rachel said, in order to make her seem less abusive. She wasn’t just upset over Ruth keeping her job or dating Billy. She went to Ruth, called her a “thing” and said that “things” like her are incapable of change. That her trying to better herself was a lie and there’s nothing she can do to change herself.
She said that to someone she knew full well was suicidal.
That isn’t lashing out, that is calculated CRUELTY.
What I said, in italics if you noticed, that the majority of the scenes you’re talking about all happened on the same night. So, since then, the absolute only time Rachel has ever interacted with Ruth has been this scene, in which she makes a single comment about Ruth’s lack of feelings before bailing out.
I’m not talking about the confrontation in the dorm meeting. That was never once a part of my post. I am talking about the two separate interactions Rachel had with Ruth prior to the dorm meeting, where Ruth was present with Howard and when Ruth and Billie held hands in front of the whole dorm. Here, for reference: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/03-the-thing-i-was-before/keeping-2/
I fail to see how the majority of the scenes happening around the same time changes what she said. I feel as though you and others are fixating on me erroneously saying the word ‘regularly’ one time, and completely ignoring the larger complaint about WHAT Rachel said.
My original point was that Rachel has left Ruth alone as much as she can since the dorm meeting, when she said what she said. That goes in the face of repeated assertions of this comment section that Rachel has regularly harassed Ruth when in fact, she very clearly wants nothing to do with her, if she can. You extended the time frame to Ruth’s initial diagnosis, which went against my original point of since the dorm meeting and seemingly makes the time span of Rachel and Ruth’s interactions artificially longer. You also said that Rachel has attacked Ruth repeatedly, which.. isn’t true either. She came at her the one time at the dorm meeting, and has left her alone since, until bumping into her in the shower room and making a singular comment before bailing.
I’ve addressed WHAT Rachel said several times already. That was never a point of this particularly thread, though. The point of this thread was that Rachel never repeatedly went after Ruth. She, as evidenced by this strip, wants nothing more to do with her.
Repeatedly was a poor choice of words, I admit. I meant it as, ‘On more than one occasion’ and then tried to express how she’s done it more than once within a fairly short amount of time. Specifically since Ruth’s admission into the psyche ward, since that was the point at which the dorm (And Rachel) would have become aware of Ruth’s mental health. That as opposed to any possible conflicts from before Rachel was aware of Ruth’s suicidal tendencies.
And, honestly, I found the idea of her doing it more than one more tangential. My point was far, far less about whether this was incidental or repeated and more about how grossly inappropriate it was to do even once. Much less more than once.
Literally nobody is saying that Ruth deserves for Rachel to drop everything and be nice to her. All she had to say was “I don’t want to get involved.” She didn’t have to, within earshot of a person sobbing about being an orphan, take the moment to remind them that oh, they’re still a horrible bully and nobody should care about them. She could just LEAVE.
I agree with joyfulldreams and tilt, Rachel didn’t need to say anything at all here, it was unnecessary and mean to say she has no feelings while she’s crying. Her speech in the meeting was beyond wrong and abusive. Someone having bullied you doesn’t give you the right to be nasty to them back. If Rachel was just avoiding Ruth entirely, I could see it, but she just had to say something here and that makes her in the wrong.
It’s not about public opinion. Rachel is entitled to think whatever she wants. She’s also entitled to, for instance, give her “redemption is a story” speech to Billie, or Joyce, or anyone else trying to help Ruth through this. But getting in Ruth’s face telling her that she’ll always be a shitty person was not acceptable.
I agree 100%.
And perhaps at some point in the future when Ruth has got her shit together and done anything other than just talk about being a better person Rachel might be inclined to care that she said something shitty to her. As things stand Ruth spent over a month threatening her dorm with violence, following through on that violence in some cases, roughly handling anyone anytime it was convenient for her and just genuinely being shitty. Honestly, I wouldn’t give the slightest shit about her emotional wellbeing after all that either if I’d been the one to go through it.
Wow. So because Ruth, who AGAIN was suffering from untreated mental illnesses, was abusive towards her charges, that gives Rachel the right to emotionally manipulate and abuse her while Ruth is actively struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts? That’s a weird stance to take on bullying.
Ruth is the bully, Rachel was a victim of said bullying. Ruth’s circumstances explain her behaviour, they do no excuse her behaviour. Ruth abused her charges and there are consequences for her actions.
As I said, perhaps at somepoint down the line Rachel will care she said something extremely shitty. but we’re not at that point now.
With ‘extremely shitty’ you mean ‘Oh shit I tried to push her into a second attempt, I should have been kicked out of University’, right?
Rachel did not try to push Ruth into a second suicidal attempt and that’s a gross misrepresentation of what happened at the meeting. Rachel has been a victim of Ruth’s abuse for an unknown period of time and expressed her frustration at how Ruth’s actions got swept under the rug. Rachel also expressed unhealthy and harsh beliefs towards the cycle of abuse and the story of redemption and let it be known that she didn’t think Ruth saying sorry was going to fix anything, but she did not actively push Ruth towards a second attempt and Ruth did not make a second attempt.
You don’t think telling someone who is suicidal that there’s no hope of them ever being a better person because they’ll always be the same abusive “thing” they were before isn’t psychologically damaging? That it isn’t a triggering thing to tell someone who wants to kill themselves?
“Hey, I know you want to die but let me just tell you real quick how you’ll never ever be a better person and will always be abusive and there’s nothing you can ever do to change that.”
So what do you want Rachel to do? Take the abusive person at their word that they’ll change and get better? When she pretty clearly has been burned by that before?
A reinterpretation of what Rachel said could be: Words are nice, but where’s the proof? Ruth can say she’ll get better all she wants and apologize, but that doesn’t mean anything unless she puts her money where her mouth is. And Ruth being suicidal doesn’t mean that she’s no longer abusive or capable of being abusive. Rachel has no reason or means to believe that Ruth is actually going to change.
Now something I’ve said repeatedly but that y’all are intent on missing: that doesn’t mean Rachel is in the right, or that what she did was right or appropriate. But you’re consistently dismissing Rachel’s own status of an abuse victim at the hands of Ruth because she violently rejected her abuser’s claims to changing for the better when she hasn’t seen any proof yet and somehow that puts her on the same level as Mary, the bigot that actively harassed and blackmailed Ruth to the point of suicide in the first place.
I have not ONCE even come close to dismissing Rachel’s victimhood. Not once have I said what Ruth did was right, either. But being a victim of abuse doesn’t give you the right to abuse others – if it did then Ruth would be in the clear. She’s ALSO a victim of abuse.
ALSO: you are using your pretty conjecture on what Rachel could possibly mean (If you squint) over what she actually said. Maaaybe she means that Ruth needs to prove herself, but that isn’t what she said. She said Ruth is an abusive “thing” and no matter how many lies she tells herself and others, that abusive will ALWAYS be there. Those were her words.
Lastly: I never put her on the same level as Mary. This isn’t a battle royale of shittiness, for the love of fuck. Two people are capable of being wrong. What Mary did was deliberate and malicious and inexcusable and clearly more abusive than what Rachel did, but that doesn’t erase Rachel’s actions. Rachel is responsible for Rachel.
But you are much more harsh on Rachel’s one moment of abuse than you are on Ruth’s repeated abusive behavior. Ruth abused her residents for a time span of up to a year, but Rachel saying something cruel and hurtful to her with unintended splashback on others is on the same level as that unknown time span of repeated emotional, mental, and physical abuse, because Ruth is suicidal. That’s.. not fair. Rachel is not responsible for Ruth, and Rachel is allowed to express her frustration that Ruth’s abuse gets swept under the rug. That’s something I’ve said repeatedly.
Before leading into her spiel on redemption, Rachel talked about how abusers work. Which gives way to the interpretation that she’s had experience with them before. She said, “Tell me how everything will be different now. How you’ve changed.” before pointing out how things hadn’t changed. With that in mind, and how Rachel focuses on stories and lies specifically, there is a point in that words are meaningless. Ruth can’t wallpaper over the abuse she inflicted on her residents by saying ‘sorry’. She can’t hide or change the past. Rachel is wrong. Redemption can be so much more than a story or a lie, it can be a truth. But maybe she’s not seen that in action yet. She’s wrong that Ruth will always be an abusive thing, but Ruth will have been abusive in the past. She can’t change that.
I never said you did, but if you’re going to generalize and lump me in with other people in other comments, I can do the same. And other people have alleged that Rachel is on the same level or worse than Mary, which is the only thing I had said in regards to that. I never said it erased Rachel’s actions or anything. In fact, I’ve repeatedly said Rachel’s actions were wrong.
I am NOT dismissing Ruth’s actions, it’s just not what we’re discussing right now. Absolutely no one is talking about whether what Ruth did was right or wrong, excusable or inexcusable. Everyone is in agreement – Ruth was a bully. It’s something that I have said repeatedly, both to other people and to you, over the course of the argument. But, as I have also said, Ruth’s actions do not excuse Rachel’s. Ruth’s bullying does not give Rachel the right to bully Ruth. To kick her when she’s down. To say things that are triggering and cruel.
Rachel can be frustrated that Ruth is put back in a position of authority. She can be angry. She can be upset. She does not get to express that by being abusive in response – and if you agree that her reply was inappropriate then I don’t know what the hell you’re arguing about. It feels like you’re just lashing out at me and putting words in my mouth for the sake of arguing.
This particular thread started with the idea of “Rachel, as a victim of Ruth’s abuse, would not particularly care about Ruth’s emotional well-being”- and you’re the one that immediately turned it into it being about Rachel having the right to bully Ruth. No one said that. No one argued that. This thread started as an explanation of Rachel’s behavior, but not an excuse but you treated it like the latter anyways.
Rachel’s a victim of abuse lashing out at her abuser claiming to change for the better. That’s it. That’s the concept. As a victim, she is not going to particularly care about Ruth’s well-being, because she’s on the defensive. No one ever said this was right of Rachel or that she was in the right to do so. But this whole time, you have been arguing as if that was the case. You came in, guns a-blazing, to make sure we all knew Rachel was a cruel, heartless bully in response to the concept of: Rachel might not apologize to Ruth until she sees her actually changing. Rachel clearly has very strong feelings about abuse and the abuse cycle and abusers. She might not believe change is actually a thing abusers can do, because it’s not happened yet in her life. Or maybe she’s only read about abuse on tumblr and developed these strong opinions regardless.
No one ever said Rachel had the right to be cruel to Ruth. But this thread started with the idea that Rachel might not ever change her mind about Ruth and regret her cruelty once she’s been proven wrong about Ruth not being able to change.
Yeah, the problem is that too often in this discussion we’re acknowledging the Ruth was a bully, and then putting it aside as if we can judge Rachel’s words while ignoring that she’s one of the victims, who’s basically been told by the system here that it doesn’t matter and they’re going to back Ruth regardless.
We call also think what Rachel said was wrong and inappropriate, but doesn’t rise to the level of bullying.
Pam, you *WILL* watch your tone. This is not the first time that you have edged into being downright rude and aggressive towards me personally. You have insulted my reading comprehension, openly lied about my behavior, and are now presenting me as the sole force driving this conversation off the rails and I do *NOT* appreciate it. I’ve acknowledged once that I chose my words poorly and that only muddied this discussion but I absolutely will *NOT* sit here as you and pile on the blame and act superior to me.
Secondly, the thread is still intact and it started by a user expressing relief that Rachel was leaving because her holier-than-thou attitude was irking them. To which I agreed. You jumped (On this particular thread) when someone (Mockingly/with hyperbole) said Rachel was trying to make Ruth commit suicide, with your point being that it wasn’t her intent. I then replied with a post which boiled down to, “It might not have been her intent, but saying these things to someone who is suicidal could still lead them to self-harm or suicide.” At which point you accused me of putting Rachel on the same level of blame as Mary.
At every point in this discussion, you’ve escalated by deliberately misrepresenting my point, fixating on details in order to ignore my larger statements, have accused me of saying things I have absolutely never said, and just downright becoming insulting towards me.
My point was never, ever that I don’t understand Rachel’s frustration. For fuck’s sake I’m the victim of childhood abuse! I’ve had my assaulter go on about how he’s “better now” seconds after assaulting me, I know the anger that is tied to being told that your abuser will change. That you owe them that change. I also know the frustration of being called a bully by my abusers for standing my ground.
But I also know what personal responsibility is. Rachel doesn’t owe Ruth anything. Not forgiveness, not a chance to prove herself, not acceptable, concern, or worry. Ruth doesn’t deserve any of those things for doing something she should have been doing from the start (Not being abusive). But that is a world away from saying Rachel has the right to say things which could be catastrophic to Ruth’s mental health. There’s a difference between not caring and being deliberately cruel.
And thejeff, I see where you’re coming from but I do disagree. Given the severity of the situation, Rachel’s words carry a particular amount of weight. Ruth was fresh out of the suicide ward when Rachel said things that suicidal people struggle with. For someone who hates themselves so much that they want to die, being told that there’s no hope for change is an incredibly depressing and upsetting prospect. It’s the voice in the back of your head, telling you to give up because in the end there’s nothing you can do to change. Rachel hit directly on that. And then here, she’s saying within earshot of someone crying about being an orphan that it still doesn’t make up for her bullying. Which Ruth wasn’t trying to do! This wasn’t a staged event, with her trying to gain sympathy. It’s her medicine triggering a depressed episode and making her realize how fucked up her life is, and Rachel has to dig the heel in just because she can. No one is saying Rachel had to be supportive, but there was no reason why she needed to do that outside of just cruelty.
That isn’t just bullying, that’s abusive.
Yeah, no. You’re not going to talk to me like a child. I was not intending to be rude in this post but rather try to break things down enough so you fully understand what I’m trying to say, since you’ve been arguing with me all day. I was rude and snippish when I made the comment regarding your reading comprehension, and I apologize for that, but it’s also incredibly frustrating that regardless of making clear that Rachel was wrong and inappropriate with her comments, the mere act of explaining why she would act a certain way is met with outrage and demand to know where she had the right. No one was saying she did. No one said Rachel was right. The only thing anyone ever tried to say was why Rachel would react a certain way.
Look at your very first reply to timemonkey. That is what I am talking about. Everything I am talking about in this post goes back to that first reply.
And again, I never accused you of comparing Rachel to Mary. Could I have phrased that point better? Sure. But I was referring to the general trend in the comment section of comparing whichever female character of the week they hate unfavorably to Mary, and referencing how several comments have alluded to Rachel somehow being worse. Never once said you had anything to do with that!
When did I lie about your behavior? When I said you dismissed Rachel’s victimhood? That’s how it read to me. When repeatedly the fact that Ruth was an abusive figure that is still in charge of Rachel and has faced no repercussions or consequences for her abusive actions was brought up, that would be immediately pushed to the side as if it’s irrelevant to the discussion. But it’s not. If Ruth’s mental illness and history of an abuse victim explains her behavior and abuse to her residents, then Rachel’s abuse and witness of abuse at the hands of Ruth explains her behavior and reaction to Ruth. It doesn’t make right. It doesn’t make her right. It doesn’t give her the right to act toward Ruth the way that she did. I never said that. No one ever said that.
But you have repeatedly argued that Rachel does not have the right to be abusive to Ruth and that was never a point in contention. No one once ever said Rachel had a right to be cruel to Ruth. Do you still think I am deliberately misrepresenting your point by saying that? Do you think yourself immune to deliberately misrepresenting my point?
This entire time we’ve been arguing two completely different points and I have tried to explain myself as best as I can, but you keep bringing it back to whether Rachel has the right to act the way she does to Ruth. Which is never once something I was arguing. Every single post I have made, I have made a point to say that Rachel was in the wrong and inappropriate with how she acted (even bolding it at times!!) and you continue to argue that point.
You don’t think an abuse victim with strong opinions on the cycle of abuse would lash out at her abuser apologizing and claiming to make things better, refusing to give her the benefit of the doubt, without thinking whether the words she says are cruel and hurtful? Or that she might not intentionally be trying to hurt Ruth with her words, but rather instead being a young adult with very strong opinions growing up in the midst of cancel and callout culture, has been taught not to care about people that are “bad”? That the argument about Rachel pushing Ruth to suicide was conducted with leading statements about whether it would be triggering to tell a suicidal person this, when the point being made was that Rachel was not intentionally trying to push Ruth into suicide but lashing out as a victim? That’s what I mean about going in guns a-blazing. Just trying to explain why Rachel would be less inclined to be thinking about Ruth at that moment, but that did not mean she was actively trying to get Ruth to attempt suicide again, and I’m met with: “You don’t think telling someone who is suicidal that there’s no hope of them ever being a better person because they’ll always be the same abusive “thing” they were before isn’t psychologically damaging? That it isn’t a triggering thing to tell someone who wants to kill themselves?”
That was never once what I was saying, and is a pretty intentionally misleading of my point and portrayal of my character, and you know what? At this point, I don’t really care. Keep going in a circle.
If you don’t want to be talked to like a child, then stop behaving like one. You disagreeing with me does not give you the right to be aggressive or rude multiple times in the course of this and other discussions. You can believe I’m not being clear in my points without dipping into personal attacks. It’s not my responsibility to sit here and smile as you insult my intelligence and reading comprehension on more than one occasion. Either you act like one adult disagreeing with another, or this discussion is over. Have I made myself perfectly clear?
I also find it very unlikely that you believed I was minimizing Rachel’s trauma. On multiple occasions I went out of my way to make it perfectly clear that Ruth’s actions were inappropriate and wrong.
Now, since it seems our disagreement is centered on whether or not Rachel was aware that her actions were abusive and to that I say: IT DOESN’T MATTER.
You can do shitty and abusive things without intending to cause harm. If you make a racist remark, it’s racist regardless of whether you INTENDED for the other person to be offended. If you make a sexist remark, it’s still sexist regardless of if you actively consider it to be or not. A bully can be a bully and an abuser can be an abuser without consciously being aware that what they’re doing. If they do know and continue to do it anyway, that adds a layer of shittiness but their acknowledgement of their actions isn’t what makes them a bully.
Whether Rachel was acting abusively isn’t dependent on whether she actively wanted to cause Ruth to kill herself. That could very well have been the result, regardless of her intention. And she would have been held to blame because she actively attacked an emotionally vulnerable and suicidal woman.
Now, if you want to argue that point then go ahead. But if you are rude to me one more time then consider this discussion over.
hey, they did apologize for being rude. imho both of you could stand to be more careful about assuming the other’s intentions.
maybe this discussion *should* be over.
Someone threatebing violence and creating an unsafe living environment for a bunch of students who live on their own for the first time in their lives, many without a support system, ma,y with their own mental health issues, is a lot more likely to put someone in a dangerous position and mental state than not accepting an apology.
What Ruth has done is objectively much worse than what Rachel did, we’ve just had a lot more time seeing Ruth’s perspective.
LITERALLY no one has denied that what Ruth has done is wrong. No one. Certainly not me. We’re not arguing over whether Ruth’s behavior was toxic, abusive, or inappropriate.
But that doesn’t give Rachel the right to tell someone who is suicidal that they are a “thing” that is abusive and incapable of change.
It does give her the right to push Ruth away, actually. It does give her the right to let an abusive person know people don’t trust her and she might not be able to fix what she did with them. If Ruth does better it is to make sure that she doesn’t abuse other people in the future. That she becomes someone she can live with and someone who doesn’t hurt other people in the same way in the future.
But none of the people she’s abused have to help her with that or forgive her. That is not their responsibility. The abuser is not entitled to their victims. Fuck that.
Rachel isn’t following around threatening Ruth. She was called to a meeting by Ruth and was blunt and harsh to her there. She came across Ruth in a public area and was callous and walked away. Considering everything Ruth has done and said and the fact that it appears she’s suffered no actual consequences for that, she still gets to be in charge, yea. People get to be pissed and tell her where she cam shove her apology. Ruth being in a bad place herself doesn’t change any of that. At all.
I don’t know how else I can say this. I am running out of ways to restate my point.
Literally, I am not saying Ruth is owed Rachel’s forgiveness. I’m not saying Rachel doesn’t have the right to be mad. I’m not saying that Rachel owes Ruth a second chance. I’m not even saying Rachel needs to be nice to Ruth. Rachel can tell Ruth to fuck off and that she doesn’t accept her apology, and that’s fine. Rachel’s forgiveness is not a given. She may never give it and that’s fine.
But you don’t tell someone who is suicidal that they will never be able to be a better person. You just don’t do that. It is an abusive, cruel, hateful thing to say to someone who is struggling with their mental health. For someone who hates themselves and wants to die, hearing ‘You’ll never be a better person’ is a triggering statement.
The problem isn’t how you are saying your point. Your problem is your point isn’t a good one. The argument is flawed from the start and you aren’t going to find the right words to explain it well because of that.
Rachel told that to Ruth after Ruth called the floor to a meeting and explained that despite her abusive behavior and actions she was still going to be in a position of power over the people she abused. Her apology came across as a bandaid over a wound that needed stitches, and it would be very easy to see as insincere and pointless. Rachel told her off then in a very harsh but not unwarranted manner. Considering abusive people often use personal problems and mental health issues as an excuse for their mistreatment of others and they often apologize to try and get people off of their back, it isn’t hard to believe that people wouldn’t take her seriously and would tell her that her apology is worthless.
Here Rachel is now, making a callous comment and walking away. That’s nothing. Rachel isn’t being a bully. She isn’t stalking or harassing Ruth. She isn’t creating a hostile or violent environment for everyone.
She just isn’t letting Ruth off the hook, and she has every right to do that.
No, the problem is that you’re excusing abusive and cruel behavior because you think that Rachel has the right to these behaviors. Rachel has a right to be as cruel, as hateful, as inappropriate as she can possibly be because of… reasons.
Which isn’t how the world works.
Rachel has ever right to not accept Ruth’s apology, but she doesn’t have the right to say things that could damage Ruth’s mental health or recovery. She doesn’t get to be the voice in the back of Ruth’s head, telling her that nothing she ever does will make her a better person. She doesn’t get to try to tell someone who is mentally ill and suicidal that redemption is a story – because to someone who is mentally ill that is one of the worst things you could possibly say.
She isn’t going out of her way to be abusive, but when you have someone who is crying and talking about the moment they were orphaned, you don’t respond (within earshot) that they’re still a bully. That’s shitty behavior. No one forced Rachel to say that. Rachel could have “not let Ruth off the hook” while recognizing that there was someone who was hurting and she probably shouldn’t try to make it worse. But she did, because she values her moral righteousness and pain over that of Ruth’s and feels it gives her the right to be as shitty and cruel as she can possibly be.
It’s not a zero-sum game, friend. Just because one thing is worse than another thing doesn’t make the less bad thing not still horrible.
Ruth is/was a bully. That does NOT excuse Rachel’s behavior. And attacking someone who is mentally ill and suicidal is not appropriate. That is gross and abusive behavior, regardless of the context.
I agree 1000% with you and joyfuldreams above. As the old saying goes, ” two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Yeah, it always confuses me when people go ‘well, bully did X, so we’re allowed to retaliate three times as badly and kick them so hard when they’re down that hopefully they’ll never get up again’, yet pretend they’re the good guys here.
Holy shit. She just said “I don’t care that she’s crying let’s leave” She didn’t say “Kill yourself, Ruth Nobody loves you”
Not quite. She said that tears don’t erase her bullying, which is very similar in tone to her rant about redemption being a lie.
I don’t get why basic empathy is such a struggle for you people. Don’t try to trigger people who are suicidal isn’t exactly a high moral bar to pass.
I don’t get why people are repeatedly getting facts wrong on both sides of this and using jerky flamebait arguments.
It’s like half of you *want* to be arguing, more than you want to be persuasive.
Because empathy means a lot of different things to different people. And not everyone’s going to mince words just because it makes you “feel better” You can interpret her words however you want but she’s justified in her opinion. Ruth treated her poorly so she’s distancing herself from her. If you choose to choose this as an extension of her redemption conversation that’s fine. And she never states then that her opinions on redemption are even specific to Ruth. Honestly that’s probably just her philosophy on life. Rachel might have trust issues and been burned this way before. She’s allowed to be jaded and distrustful. She’s allowed to not forgive her and she’s allowed to let her feelings known. Rachel has no obligation to be polite or accommodating. That’s not abuse. That’s simply her drawing a line in the sand.
It’s more that I am frustrated, honestly. I don’t know how else to express my position and have legitimately tried to keep the facts straight.
Inahc – may I ask which facts I’ve gotten wrong? I am not trying to rope you in or start an argument with you, I have tried to keep the facts straight and I’m just clearly not doing a very good job at either that or expressing my points well.
Well, you kinda came in guns blazing with a fallacious argument, and I think you missed that people were taking issue with the fallacies, not your conclusion. I don’t think anyone here actually thinks Rachel’s redemption spiel was okay, but not everyone is expressing that well. (It took me some arguing a couple of days ago to figure that out)
Saying what you actually mean is a learned skill, and one that’s never perfect. 🙂 But it’s easier to practice when people are willing to back up and double-check whether people meant what they think they meant. .. which is itself a skill too :p
Which facts? Tbh I’ve lost track and I’m too tired to reread tonight, but were you the one who thought Rachel had repeatedly gone after Ruth? Or… Meh, I don’t even remember what else was said *yawn* it’ll have to wait until morning
I think I had misused the word repeatedly. =/ I meant it as more than once, not as on a reoccurring basis, but it was the wrong word to use.
It’s late here too and probably not the best time to try to get in a protracted argument.
Btw, thanks for trying to de-escalate a bit. 🙂
Yotomoe – I’m not saying Rachel doesn’t deserve a line in the sand or that she owes Ruth forgiveness. All I’m saying is that for someone who is supposedly against abusive behavior, her statement about Ruth being incapable of change was poorly timed, inappropriate, and in itself abusive. You don’t kick mentally ill people when they’re down. You don’t tell someone who is fresh out of a psyche ward that there’s nothing they can do to redeem themselves. That’s not appropriate behavior. Those kinds of statements could lead someone who is already in a delicate emotional state to self-harm or suicide.
Rachel can be mad, but she can’t say or do things for the purpose of damaging Ruth’s mental health or recovery.
Fair Point. Fair Point. But here’s my counterpoint. None of this matters to what’s going on in this strip. Like almost your entire argument is about this thing she said FOREVER ago. It doesn’t seem like you’re at all reacting to what she said here. This feels more like a belated way of complaining about that previous strip than any response to what she did here. Which is frustrating for me, because it forced me to literally go back and reread those strips despite the fact that I was defending what she said here.
It’s connected to what she said in the previous strip, at least in my mind. When Rachel says, ‘Tears don’t erase Ruth’s bullying,’ that rings very similarly to her statement about not being able to change. It’s also not something I’d say within earshot of someone who is having an emotional meltdown, seconds after crying about their parent’s deaths.
That’s not to say Rachel has to give Ruth sympathy, understand, but in context it feels like Rachel is pushing the same points as before. Nothing Ruth does will change her past indiscretions and even when she’s at her lowest, Rachel will remind her of that. She could be literally sobbing in the shower, talking about the time she became an orphan, and Rachel will still announce that she’s still a bully.
She could have just walked away. A simple, ‘Yeah, I’m not dealing with this. I’ll shower later.’ but she made an active choice to add that dig in and it rubs me the wrong way.
This^ Rachel didn’t need to say ANYTHING, she could have just left. Feeling the need to add that last dig, wad just mean and not okay.
No one said Rachel had the right to do so. But you acknowledged yourself that Ruth abused her charges, for at least the past month, but maybe even extending to the entirety of last year. If Ruth’s behavior extended that long, then yeah, just saying sorry isn’t going to be good enough for most of the residents. That’s why most of them didn’t show up to the meeting. Rachel was wrong when she said that redemption was a story and that Ruth will always be the same violent thug, but she also doesn’t know any better. And… yeah, she might not ever change her mind unless she sees actual proof that Ruth is getting better, otherwise it is just a ‘story’.
Ruth having depression and suicidal thoughts also does not negate the abuse she enacted upon her charges. She is not exempt from having that brought up, or to have her past behavior be held against her. All she can do is try to better herself and make amends for what she did in the past.
And ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!! no one is saying that forgiveness should be delivered on a silver platter. Y’all are acting like I’m saying Rachel should become Ruth’s new BFF and handhold her through this process, when literally all I’m saying is I feel like bullying Ruth is just as wrong and disgusting as anything Ruth did. Ruth is fucking SUICIDAL, for fuck’s sake, and Rachel is over here getting in her face telling her that she’ll never be anything but the absolute worst version of herself.
That is also abuse, but while Ruth is trying to be a better person, Rachel believes she is morally in the right. She believes that verbally harassing the mentally ill woman makes her a good person. And that is insufferable and wrong.
This isn’t bullying though. This is not giving someone who bullied you the time of day.
Point me where I said any of that. Please. I would love to know.
Rachel got into Ruth’s face one time the night she found out that Ruth would not face any consequences for any of the abuse she inflicted upon her residents and that everything would go back to business as normal and she was understandably frustrated by that, and like I said if you can read she was wrong when she was talking about redemption. Rachel believes that mental illness is an explanation, not an excuse. Ruth’s mental illness may be the cause behind her actions and behavior, but it does not excuse or negate anything that she did. And simply saying ‘sorry’ is not going to do that either.
Is aid y’all are acting like. Not that you literally said, so please hop off your high horse.
Additionally, do not insult me again. I am doing my very best to remain respectful but I will NOT have my intelligence insulted during this debate. You are free to disagree with me until we’re both blue in the face, but direct attacks about my reading comprehension are neither welcome nor appreciated. Have I made myself clear?
Welp, I’m starting to see why Willis with-held our commenting priviledges.
The thing is. Ruth has been abusive. She threatened physical violence, and showed she was entirely willing to make good on those threats. Every person in the dorm, even the ones she didn’t use physical threats on them, were thus a target. Some people might feel less bothered by that. Some more. Rachel clearly is bothered a good deal about that, and that’s valid for her.
Because circumstances that Rachel is not privy to, and cannot be reasonably expected to assume, Rachel is forced to remain in a position where her one time abuser had power over her. Which is of course, a very toxic situation. It is toxic to expect a depressed person to remain near someone they abused. And it is toxic to expect an abuse victim to put her own feelings on hold for the sake of the mental health of their abuser. This whole situation is toxic, that’s why it’s so absolutely terrible that asshole grampa forced Ruth to be here.
It is not toxic to expect someone to not be verbally abusive to someone who is mentally ill and suicidal.
I am in no way excusing Ruth’s behavior, understand, or minimizing Rachel’s trauma. But, a victim can become an abuser – something Ruth’s character exemplifies. When Rachel made the decision to tell Ruth, a recovering alcoholic with depression and suicidal tendencies (Something the entire floor was made aware of) that she will always be an abusive “thing,” she crossed the line between abused to abuser.
Regardless of Rachel’s trauma, she does not have the right to say triggering things to a woman who is suicidal.
This isn’t saying that Rachel should put aside her anger for Ruth. She has every right to be angry and tell Ruth to fuck off. She has every right to not be invested in Ruth’s recover. She does not have the right to attack and be cruel to her.
I agree Tilt, Rachel doesn’t get to kick Ruth while she’s sobbing because Ruth abused her in the past. Just avoiding her would be fair.
I don’t think the problem is about dismissing Ruth’s Wrongs. It’s that Rachel is not in the right in how she’s behaving now, which also feels hypocritical because she is railing against Ruth’s wrongs. Bullying is wrong,and Rachel is a victim, but dismissing someone in distress is also wrong, and Rachel was only in the right by walking away in this instance. It sucks that the medication is kicking in for Ruth in a public space but that is a magnitude more urgent than having a shower at that exact second for Rachel. It’s not even about empathy. One can be rescheduled and controlled. Rachel has the right to say something, that doesn’t mean she was right to say something like she did during the reveal. Avoiding antagonistic behavior is not tied to forgiveness. Verbally dismissing someone’s capacity to feel isn’t being on a defensive, it’s an offensive making them less than human, and I think that was worse than her snark as she left. Her snark that was in response to an emotionally vulnerable Ruth, who revealed these things when told by Rachel that she wasn’t allowed privacy.
Emotions and past hurt often don’t listen to Rightness though, and Rachel is understandable in her anger even if how she is expressing it is less than desirable and it comes across as more vindictive than skeptical and disinvested.
I agree with this assessment. Whatever Ruth did in the past doesn’t make what Rachel is doing right.
The term “abuse” is being thrown around far too easily here. Hitting someone back when they go after you isn’t physical abuse, it’s self defense – and the exact same dynamic absolutely applies Ruth, in her role as an authority in the place where Rachel lives, has spent over a year repeatedly threatening, harassing, and yes, abusing people just trying to live in their homes, including Rachel.
Rachel has every right to retaliate, and Ruth’s mental health is irrelevant to that. Depression is not a license to abuse free from retaliation. Being suicidal isn’t a license to abuse free from retaliation. Instead Rachel has been remarkably restrained, and her “retaliation” has been to accurately describe Ruth to her face a couple of times, and then say that she doesn’t believe in Ruth’s claims of being better now.
*sigh* Rachel said far worse than that, and I’m pretty sure there are laws about retaliation (hence the big debate about whether amber had gone overboard enough on gash-face to face charges). It sounds like you’re saying that any amount of retaliation is okay (that or eye-for-an-eye), and it’s not. There are limits, and Rachel’s redemption rant went too far.
That said, calling it abuse… I’m not sure what I think about that. One bout of excessive cruelty probably doesn’t count as abuse?
Abuse is defined as intentionally hurting someone physically, sexually, verbally, or in any other way. It doesn’t have to happen more than once to be abuse. To use a common situation, think about it this way, if a husband hits his wife even once that is spousal abuse period. The problem is a lot of people don’t see verbal abuse as “as bad” as other types, when the reality is all abuse is bad, whether it happens once or a hundred times.
https://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/abuse-information/what-is-abuse-abuse-definition
Huh. That is a very broad definition, so much that I’m skeptical of how useful it is.
Abuse is broad, that’s the thing, it’s a spectrum of types and severity. There’s a difference between the abusive behavior of going off on someone to hurt them and an established pattern of abuse, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t both wrong.
It seems to put most bad behaviour in the category of abuse, whereas I think when most people hear “abuse” they think of a very special category of bad behaviour that is extra-bad. Hmm. There are definitely downsides to using a more narrow definition; it lends itself to the idea that people who do abusive things are special evil monsters and not regular people you might know.
Exactly, by making it too specific it allows people to think it’s rare or that they’re not capable of abusive behavior, which isn’t true.
Abuse is not being used casually in this case, Knayt. Because when you act in a targeted way to attack a person’s mental health just hours or days after they were released from the psychiatric ward, that is downright abusive. Rachel didn’t just say that Ruth was wrong or a shitty person, she told Ruth to her face that she can never change. That everything she is working for to try to be a better person is pointless and she’s ultimately lying to herself an others. She hit on something that suicidal people struggle with, the concept that the future can be better. That they are capable of changing and being happy.
Rachel has every right to be angry and even to retaliate, but not in that way. She could have reported Ruth to the dorm authorities. She could create a petition to have Ruth removed from her position. She could speak with the school personally about the way Ruth treated her and others. Maybe she’s done all of the above off screen, I honestly don’t know.
But she doesn’t have the right to say things that could drive another human being to suicide when they’re already in a fragile emotional state. And when a woman is crying in the shower and talking about her parent’s funeral, she doesn’t have the right to bring up Ruth’s past indiscretions as a way to show that she doesn’t deserve pity.
Exactly Tilt, verbal abuse is just as bad as other types.
Everthing you say. Everything is a way to effect someone mentally. If I say I hate your shirt, THAT is a way to attack your mental health, if your opinion of your shirt is something you give great importance to. Not everyone is gonna censor themselves of their feelings and emotions just because it might hurt someone else’s feelings. Especially someone who has made their life a living hell.
ANYTHING could drive a suicidal human to suicide. Now she has to walk on eggshells around this chick she hates because it turns out she’s actually fragile? Like that makes up for how she was treated. She gets to have her cake and eat it too. She’s not punished and now she has to be pitied and accommodated. You can’t say anything that might upset her because now you’re “driving her to suicide” MAYBE RUTH WAS DRIVING RACHEL TO SUICIDE. But because Rachel’s never made an attempt on her life, she’s the bad guy.
I’m sorry. As someone who’s self harmed before I can totally sympathize with Ruth, but I still have to say that Rachel is well within her rights to say what she said.
Anything can be a trigger too, but that doesn’t make trigger warnings useless.
People can be allergic to anything, but we don’t throw up our hands and go “oh well let’s ban all food” *or* “oh well let’s not bother with allergy warnings”.
That’s not a useful argument.
No, you’re correct and maybe I’m being a bit extreme with my choice of words. My issue is when something like mental health is used as a way to basically silence all non-positive conversation. Sure Rachel was definitely harsh in her previous tirade, but here she’s being taken to task for a slight barb at Ruth. I’m not saying NOTHING is off limits obviously, but what I’m saying is that calling Ruth’s treatment “abuse” feels like it not only undermines Ruth’s own struggles but also undermines the use of “abuse”. This mostly benign statement about how she doesn’t care about ruth’s crying because she’s caused her torment before is such a low level dig that I’m shocked it even garnered such an extreme discussion. It’s rude, certainly but not malicious.
That’s a discussion I’m more interested in 🙂 where do people think the line should be, and why? Part of me wants to be mad at Rachel for the shower comments,but the majority of me thinks it’s not worth it, and that expecting Rachel to be *perfectly* civil is unrealistic. How bad are those little barbs, really? Are they a molehill, a mountain or something in between?
To me, it’s less about WHAT Rachel said and more about WHEN she said it. If she had said these things to Ruth while Ruth was being a bully, I would see them as rude, but understandable. The fact that she’s saying them while Ruth is sobbing in the shower and not doing anything to her, is what makes them abusive in my opinion. That’s being mad at someone and waiting to kick them when they’re vulnerable, it’s messed up and it’s bullying in my eyes. There’s no black and white in life situations, context matters.
All offense, both given and taken is a joining of perspective and intent. Ie. something with no malicious intent but taken very gravely can be seen as sympathetically offensive. Something incredibly malicious but with absolutely no affect on the parties will show what a jerk the person is but might be seen as less offensive because it didn’t affect anyone.
For me, I don’t think Rachel is meaning to “Attack” Ruth. She’s being overly frank. In her POV as far as I can tell, Ruth is not a “victim”. Or even if she is Ruth’s victimhood isn’t enough of an influence on her opinion of her for it to change her opinion. She doesn’t want Ruth to kill herself or anything but she wants to make it clear that she doesn’t forgive her and finds her attempts to apologize shallow. She’s got no sympathy for her and isn’t afraid to let people know it.
I think we just have very different perspectives on Rachel’s behavior. That’s fine, I just can’t agree with your assessment of things.
Rachel does have a point about being careful around Ruth, but from experience I know that what Ruth needs right now is to know that someone cares. It can be such a little thing, but go a long way.
That’s some rough Head Alien cosplay Joyce is attempting.
I don’t feel entirely comfortable shitting on Rachel without knowing her circumstances. You aren’t born that resolute, and I mean, is what she is saying any different from Roz when Joyce was repentant about her complicity in perpetuating homophobia? that, too, was ultimately wrong, but I get the reluctance to let people off the hook.
That said, yeah, I do hope Rachel can learn to move forward when it comes to evaluating people. There are many prodigal sons and daughters and enbies out there, and I’m not a fan of slamming the book shut on people when their story is still being written.
Right?
I’m annoyed at her at this point, but I’m wondering how did she get like this? It must’ve been something big and hurtful. 🙁
Rachel, like Malaya, happens to be on the right side of politics. So she tends to get that extra leap of empathy despite being a close-minded asshole looking for an excuse to judge.
This^
Yeah I mean we don’t know what Ruth did last year, we know Ruth is capable of stalking, of physical violence, of sexual assault, of mental abuse.
Maybe Ruth tried some of that on someone last year, maybe even on Rachel herself but what we do know is that Rachel saw Ruth do many nasty things over an extended period of time and, in Rachela eyes, maybe not enough time has passed for her to forgive Ruth
Not even “enough time has passed for her to forgive Ruth”, but not enough time or evidence to think Ruth won’t go back to her old ways. Certainly not enough at the dorm meeting, which was literally right after she was put back in charge of her victims.
thank you. I don’t like the dichotomous, good/evil thinking that goes on about these characters. they are all learning and healing. I do not agree with the hard line Rachel is taking about Ruth being unable to grow as a person, but I am sure she has a reason for doing it and that we will learn it eventually. I love all our characters and their journeys.
To me, in real life, you hardly ever meet people that are all good or all bad (I’m a corrections officer in NZ for background) so I like seeing characters that straddle both devides especially when we/if we earn their back story
Given Rachel’s insistence that people don’t become better, as far as she’s concerned there’s no journey so I’ll gladly judge her as a piece of shit here and now.
How often have we all heard abusers say something like sorry it’ll never happen again and then continue on with the behaviour
Maybe Rachel’s experienced more than her share of that
She could still so super duper easily just keep her feelings to herself. 🙂 It’s not that hard!
You mean when she wants to say something cruel, she could just… not? Sounds like fake news to me.
Exactly, she doesn’t have to talk to Ruth at all.
Wow. The evidence is really piling up against Joyce’s heterosexuality…
Everyone is a little gay (and a little straight). It’s just a case-by-case basis. Like I’m straight as an arrow and I’d probably let Reigen from Mob Psycho fuck me.
Yeah that means your arrow probably isn’t as straight as you think it is 🙂
Naw. I’m actually disappointingly straight.
TMI Below===================
Cannot even get into porn where the guy takes center stage or makes too much noise. Or really anything that isn’t purely female dominated lewd. Honestly I spend so much more time drawing girls than guys that I’m actually WAY worse at drawing men than women. I’m so straight it’s literally a hindrance. Which is why I try to force myself to appreciate the male form in at least some way so I can get past my own mental block with it.
Thanks for sharing. ^^
Uuuuh, I don’t like what you are implying with that.
I dont like that you think I’m implying something
*facepalm*
This comes across like you’re saying trans porn ( I’m assuming you mean trans women) would be closer to porn of male born men than female born women, is that what you meant?
Hmm so about Rachel, I don’t particularly have anything against her and up until recently she’s just been a character who’s kind just been around. But thing is with her I just find myself disagreeing with her on certain fronts.
From her take on how serious Ross’s school shooting and kidnapping too now I don’t see eye to eye with her. Even when she’s kind of right on certain things I find myself disagreeing with her, Ruth old way of handling her job by throwing her weight around was terrible and it’s fine that someone called her out on it but that infamous ” Redemption is a fairytale” speech just had me sitting there ” I don’t know who hurt is girl the past, but all that just sounds like a pour ads excuse not to try not improve.”
And that’s why I find Rachel…. intriguing, everything she says feels like a foil to how I see and feel about all the real life scenarios all the Characters here have been introduced to. You know I wouldn’t actually mind there being more of a focus on her if Willis wasn’t already juggling so many characters (how he manages to do it and still keep up good pacing is beyond me though)
More Joe and Rachel interactions
That was probably the time I liked Rachel the most.
Yeah I wonder how Willis does it, giving all these characters their time in the story spotlight.
As for Rachel, I’m just glad she skedaddled instead of continued to dump on Ruth. Like I get why she hates her (all valid reasons) but don’t kick her when she’s down.
is ruth tall or is joyce short? 🤔
I think it’s a little of both? Ruth is taller than average and Joyce is shorter than average
Joyce is in problem solving mode!
And it’s absolutely adorable that “don’t hug Ruth” is not a solution she entertains.
You can’t just “not hug” someone who is crying!
That whole Becky skewing her ideas of platonic female relationships paired with love being her moral center.
“No Billie” kinda reminds me of when Walky called the RA when Billie was low
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/04-the-whiteboard-dong-bandit/waitup/
I want to know more about Rachel. I want to find out what her deal is
Same. Surely there’s a story that begat her belief in irredeemability.
Joyce being unintentionally the support that Ruth needs right now is frickin’ adorable.
I mean, it *is* intentional support, the support she’s providing just isn’t happening via her suggested methods
I wonder whether Ruth ever directly bullied Rachel, or someone Rachel knew. She’s definitely too unforgiving in my opinion.
Also, I love Joyce’s non-hesitance to help out someone in need, regardless of her awkward/dorky appearance or situation.
I honestly kind of doubt it, but we can’t say. Rachel’s self-righteousness reeks of having the distance required to be as judgemental as she wants. But that might be a bit harsh on her, even for my standards. She has the right to be uncomfortable with Ruth whether she was directly targeted or not.
I know I’m super uncomfortable with the people who hurt others around me, especially people I care about. And we can presume Rachel probably cares about at least some of the people on her floor, but even then, she wouldn’t need to to be rightfully uncomfortable.
(Just…just don’t…openly talk shit about a person, within their earshot, who you know is at an extremely low moment…just realize it’s not appropriate right then and walk away…please.)
I agree with you, no matter the circumstances in the past, that doesn’t make Rachel’s behavior okay.
Joyce reinvented the Uggs! She’s wearing Milk J-uggs!
Bounce your eyes. She doesn’t need you staring at her Juggs.
Excuse you, Carla reinvented the Uggs, thank you very much.
Joyce reinvented them. Carla perfected that reinvention.
Oh Joyce. She’s always trying and that’s why we love her.
And Rachel is leaving. Because even though she hates Ruth, she isn’t the malicious cackling monster pushing Ruth to despair like the comment section pretends. Just didn’t forgive an abusive person or let them think anything they did was okay just because they also hurt. Ruth’s actions put a lot more mentally at risk people in danger. The way Ruth acted was objectively terrible and no one has to trust her or help her if they don’t want to. Rachel has been verbally cruel to Ruth twice, neither time seeking her out to do it she was just there. Not nearly as bad as intimidation tactics and creating a hostile and violent environment. Not even close.
The truly sad thing is if the next strip had Rachel kissing a girl then most of the comment section that dont like her behavior would suddenly forgive her of her sins
I’m gay too, but I’m never going to be happy about people always finding excuses to defend abusive people and then come down ten times as hard on their victims for not being… likable? Nice to the person who abused them? People love to shit on abuse victims in favor of their abusers and they’ll always find a “good reason” to do it.
Yep agreed, Ruth has shown contrition therefore all previous sins are forgiven whereas Rachel is, apparantly, an asshole
Hey, guess what?! Ruth is a victim of abuse too! In fact, her being placed in the position of RA *is itself an act of abuse*! Something that she already hinted at to Rachel and Rachel didn’t give a shit about! And the abuse Ruth gets from her grandfather is significantly worse and more targeted than what Ruth has dished out to her charges! But hey, you’ve got good reasons to shit on Ruth, the abuse victim, and can justify further cruel treatment from people like Rachel so keep it up! There’s nothing incredibly hypocritical about this at all!
She absolutely is. But Rachel knows at most hints of that and they’re hints that damn near anyone would just dismiss as self-justification, when coming from the bully. If they even picked up on them.
I like Ruth a lot. I’m happy to defend her, but I can also understand when one of the people she bullied goes too far in response. When the bully is put back in authority over her targets.
I don’t there’s anything hypocritical about it at all. It’s complicated and it involves looking at it from each characters perspective.
You’re right, there is nothing hypocritical about what I said. Ruth perpetuated a cycle of abusive behavior. Most abusers have been abused themselves. Everyone has a backstory. Almost all terrible behavior has an explanation.
Does not excuse any of it. At all.
This is why people aren’t excusing Rachel though, even if it’s understandable she’s reacting this way. Her espoused positions make her seem hypocritical in the right vs wrong department because she’s pointing out wrongs while verbally lashing and at an obviously Off Limits time. Retaliation might be expected, natural, understandable from a victim, but it isn’t RIGHT. If she wants to be the voice of Right, people will want her to dot her i’s and cross her t’s of her own, manners regardless of victimhood. Rights and wrongs a magnitude of order in difference but still there when one is dismissing a simple personhood thing like having feelings or not.
Sure. Remember how no ever criticized Becky once we found out she was gay? No one attacked her for wasting money on a haircut or mooching off Joyce or so many other things. There was even an argument that she was just exaggerating until Ross pulled out the gun.
This idea that we all instantly forgive anything gay characters do is just weird bullshit. The only case in this comic that seems even remotely applicable is that Danny saw a growth in popularity as we realized he was bi – and there
was other stuff going on in his development along with that.
It’s not a zero sum game, too wrongs don’t make a right period.
She is also well protected from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
The monster so mind-bogglingly stupid that it believes that if you can’t see i it can’t see you.
Daft as a brush, but very very ravenous.
And once again we learn the importance of knowing where your towel is.
Probably the single most useful thing in the universe!
Did, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, teach you nothing!?
Joyce may have Ruth laughing in no time, if she sees this.
what’s the Kickstarter goal to turn off comments forever
It’s implemented right now, just hit CTRL + Don’t Scroll Down and Read Them.
Ooh, thanks. I’ve been having to read them ever since I switched back to Windows and didn’t know the shortcut.
I’ve tried to be fair to Rachel but, frankly, her dogmatic and judgemental hatred is just pushing too far, even for me. One day, the shoe will be on the other foot and I think that she’ll wish she’d been a little kinder.
Meanwhile, I’m wondering if Ruth is having to restrain her giggles at the thought of a hug from a blindfolded Joyce. That’s emotion #3!
That gives me hopes for Rachel one day messing upand waiting for everyone to hate her, but everyone doesn’t hate her that much and move on, or some one forgives her, making her have a self hating epiphany like Javert and Envy from FMAB.
Didn’t at least one of those characters commit suicide the moment they had their epiphany?
Both did.
I feel the same way about Rachel, BenRG.
As someone with ten years of military experience, all I can feel for Rachel is “Bwoo hoo hoo, toughen up buttercup”. What’s the sum total of Ruth’s “bullying”? Slightly harsh language? Comical threats involving femurs? Rachel must be used to a lot of deference and flower language.
Well that and the goading Billie into fighting her knowing she could take her, stalking, sexually assault, harassment, breaking and entering, destruction of property, hows that for starters
Also this is a college, not a military institution so not really comparing apples with apples
(Former NZDF soldier, current Corrections Officer)
Yeah, considering that Ruth is supposed to act as a liaison between the residents and monitor how they’re doing, creating a hostile environment like she had where no one feels safe to go to their RA who’s supposed to be there for them is bad. Like, really bad. RAs shouldn’t even need to get physically involved with residents except for possibly cases of drunkenness or violence, but even then, they’re probably meant to refer to a different authority like a security guard.
Also consider what the Billie/Ruth relationship looks like from outside, especially since they continued staging fights to conceal it. Bullied Billie into sex really seems like an accurate description.
Joyce may be becoming an atheist/nihilist, but at least she is trying to be a good person, unlike Rachel who has spent every interaction with Ruth being a misanthropic jerkass. Yes, Ruth did wrong, but Rachel just complains about Ruth when Ruth is at her lowest and easy to punch.
I agree Joyce is being awesome and Rachel could just ignore Ruth instead of being mean.
I think that all too often we in the comment section forget that although we as viewers know the things that motivate the characters actions becuase we see the moves they make and the motives behind it, those within the comic itself do not.
So from Rachel’s’ POV, : Ruth was a shitty RA and abusive of the power that she had, she was also someone who through unknown (to you) means is now in a relationship with someone she had power over. You know that she had a suicide attempt , was hospitalized, and yet is still in the same position of power and only now is sort of being a better R. A. Ruth is a person that while you may not wish them ill, you certainly aren’t going to pretend their actions didn’t happen especially so soon (becuase it’s only been a few what months? weeks? since she was in full iron fist mode in DOA time )
Now back in reality, we know a great deal more than Rachel does, and in because of that, feeling empathy towards Ruth or even anger towards Rachel makes sense, buuut I have to admit if I only knew what Rachel knew I’d probably feel the same way she does, might change up my thinking down the road, but right away? Nope I’d be just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk
Does Rachel know Ruth was suicidal? She knows she’ had a breakdown, but that’s not the same thing. Due to legal reasons a person’s mental health state can’t be disclosed unless Ruth told everyone and if she did why should Rachel believe her?
Yes, she knew, she told her boss that she was, Rachel knows, Rachel doesn’t care.
Still, being suicidal doesn’t make the bullying go away. Doesn’t mean it won’t start up again. Doesn’t she should have been left in charge of the people she’d been bullying.
Exactly. There are plenty of people who suffer from depression and prone to violence which is why I can’t blame her for not trusting Ruth especially if she’s dealt with someone like her before.
Ruth is on medication, doing counseling and therapy, she even tried to apologize for her behavior, Rachel told her to stuff it, because bad people never change.
Rachel is being trash, Ruth is trying to change, she knows her past won’t go away, but she’s in control of her future, Rachel thinks once something is bad, it’s always bad.
And Rachel knows this how? All of the wonderful comics that she wasn’t part of?
My abusive dad did all that shit and he’s still and unrepentant jerk and I’ll be damned if anyone tells me I have to give him a second chance ever.
My penultimate roommate in college had severe depression, to the point where he said he’d pondered how best to position himself to blow his brains out and get the most coverage of his previous roommate’s stuff.
He was also a worse version of Joe, in ways I didn’t fully appreciate until years later, up to and including initiating sex with a woman who was asleep, but had been abstaining for spiritual reasons.
He also betrayed a lot of people’s trust repeatedly, up to and including downloading porn to my computer without my knowledge and being insufficiently tidy about wanking there, borrowing someone else’s computer so he could pose as them online, and lying about someone breaking a circle of trust to get another party to speak about it.
(Dude had the unholy ability to make you forget you hated him while he was in the room)
If a third party is to be believed, he also had sex on my bed.
Also the motherfucker left town with my blender.
I can take note of the severe depression, which he was medicated for even as they upped his dosage, but it doesn’t negate what he did at all.
It doesn’t bring my blender back.
As much as we know Ruth is trying, and know Rachel is not being objectively fair, I can sympathize.
Frankly, if I were with a certain old ‘friend’ and she was in Ruth’s position and asked me to forgive her, I don’t think I could manage kinder than ‘You must be fucking joking.’
Why does everyone seem to think that the only two options are to pretend nothing ever happened and give complete forgiveness and sympathy or to be a huge dick to a depressed and suicidal person and talk shit about her at every possible opportunity? There is an in between! It’s called minding your own fucking business and keeping your feelings to yourself!!!
Rachel is perfectly within her rights to not like Ruth, and to not forgive her. Especially for all of those reasons you said. But she isn’t within her rights TO BE A HUGE DICK ABOUT IT. Why bring up the bullying here, Rachel? You could have just said you didn’t want to get involved. But nooo, you just have to make it so super clear to everyone that you think everyone else should be an unforgiving dick to Ruth too, instead of allowing them to have their own feelings about the situation.
How is being snarky comparable with being a huge dick? The fact that she still thinks of Ruth as a bully might be taken as a sign of respect especially after threatening to kill everyone who heard her weeping.
This isn’t being snarky. This is, within earshot of a person sobbing in the shower about being an orphan, deciding that this is an appropriate moment to bring up the fact that they are still a bully. Like? Could you maybe not?
How much of that confession did anyone hear over the sound of the shower spray? I’m sure they heard her subsequent death threats, but the sob story might have gotten muted by the sound of running water. “Ruth has no feelings” is snarky. And “Some tears aren’t going to erase Ruth’s bullying” is a statement that Rachel has every right to make. Being a massive dick would be to tell Ruth that hanging herself with her towel would be a more enviornmentally friendly way of committing suicide than slitting her wrists and bleeding out in the shower. Now that is kicking somebody when they are down.
Having the right to make it, versus being in the right to make it are different. Particularly when it doesn’t have a baring on what is occurring. Being vocally reductive of the situation and bringing it back to a need for redemption of past behavior is selfish. Ruth wasn’t asking for forgiveness for being horrible. Rachel wasn’t simply telling it how it is or exercising her right to withhold forgiveness. She was making digs before the decided to walk it off. Ruth’s behavior that makes that lash out understandable but that doesn’t make it RIGHT. It isn’t fixing anything, statingn anything new, or is even related. Just – blah. Ruth isn’t immune to facing the problems of her interactions with people, but that isn’t what this is.
I agree with you, Rachel didn’t NEED to say this, it was irrelevant to the entire situation and wasn’t necessary or okay.
Fuck that noise. Rachel goes waaaaay outta line with her redemption spiel, but she’s not out of line for not ‘keeping her feelings to her herself’. Ruth’s not entitled to never have anybody speak badly about her for her past actions. Whether Rachel’s going too far is a separate matter.
Her feelings in particular happen to be super duper horrible and inappropriate. Of course Rachel can criticize her. Maybe just don’t do it when person in particular has A. Just come back fresh from the goddamn hospital and B. Are currently sobbing in the shower.
Maybe she should pick more appropriate moments to express her misgivings, and more appropriate people to express them to. Like Chloe. The person who, from her perspective, might have actual power to do something about the things Rachel is so concerned about.
I’ll grant she needs to pick her moments better and that, yes, she goes way outta line with what she said at the meeting, but no. She doesn’t only need to talk to Chloe. Ruth’s not exempt from hearing backchat about terrible shit she actually did.
Chloe was merely an example, but yes, Rachel can absolutely hold Ruth accountable for her actions. But you know. When it’s actually appropriate.
TBH I’d find it more acceptable if she just complained about Ruth to friends or to other members of the floor when she isn’t around, or to bring this kind of stuff up at a floor meeting. Maybe even REQUEST a floor meeting so she can see how other people on the floor feel, encourage them to express their own concerns, and ask that Ruth respond and tell them how she plans to improve and how she’ll take responsibility for her actions from now on. And try to be like mature about it instead of using it as an excuse to just talk more shit about her to her face and with an audience.
If all of that is beyond her, and she thinks Ruth isn’t fit to have this position and that nothing she can ever do will make up for the bullying she did, then yes. She should go to Chloe and make her concerns known and ask her why Ruth is still in the position, put in a formal complaint.
Otherwise all she’s doing is standing on a high horse and doing absolutely nothing about this thing she thinks is so serious that she feels she’s justified in kicking a mentally ill person while they’re already down.
If it’s not important enough and serious enough for her to go out of her way to make a formal complaint, then it’s not serious enough for her to go out of her way to be horrible to Ruth when she’s at her lowest moments.
She can just not like her, not want anything to do with her, can even rightfully tell Ruth to fuck off if she tries to engage with her even in good faith, can go the rest of the year not forgiving her and disliking her and calling her out if/when she fucks up again. Ruth doesn’t inherently deserve for people to like her. She does deserve for people not to go out of their way to make her feel worse when she is at her weakest and when she is not currently doing anything bad to anyone.
Oooh, a formal complaint to the people who put Ruth back in charge despite everything. That’ll solve everything.
But you’re definitely right that Ruth doesn’t deserve it, but then there’s a lot people don’t deserve. Rachel didn’t deserve to get stuck with a bullying RA, for example.
I’m getting really sick of people arguing that the only time an abuse victim can say anything to the person abusing them is in formal, concise, perfectly mature and levelly laying out their problems. No. Fuck that noise. Rachel’s perfectly entitled to snark and talk back to an abusive RA. Ruth would be perfectly entitled to snark and talk back to her grandfather if she felt safe enough to do that. It’s not on the abuse victim to always be perfectly constructive in their anger and response to abusers.
That doesn’t mean Rachel’s not being harmful or toxic or going too far or picking bad times – she can be (and imo, is) doing all of the above. That doesn’t make having floor meetings and formal reports the only valid way to respond.
And seriously? ‘If it’s important enough to talk back, it’s important enough to report?’ That’s some serious victim blaming bullshit right there.
I think I’d put the line somewhere similar, like, I can ignore her insensitive comments in the shower, but the redemption rant was going way too far.
But omfg I’m also sick of the people who keep reframing this as “Rachel owes Ruth forgiveness” vs “Rachel can do no wrong”. Joyfuldreams was right that that’s a false dichotomy. We just disagree over where exactly the happy middle ground is. And it’s hard to discuss that sanely with all the other crap going on.
That I’d definitely agree with, though it’s sometimes hard to remember to put in all the disclaimers responding to comments about Rachel bullying and harassing.
The redemption rant was going too far, but a somewhat toned down version of it needed to be said – “You shouldn’t be back in the job. You shouldn’t have gotten to avoid the consequences. I’m not going to trust that you’ve changed, just because you’re saying it.”
Frankly, if Rachel had even just said ‘Oh, fuck off, you’re not really sorry. You’re just sorry you got caught and I am done with this meeting. Bye’ I would be hard pressed to be angry with her. Unfortunately, that’s not what she said so now we have yet another complicated situation short off Sal and Amber’s big storyline. And, well, complicated storylines means complicated feelings and a loooooooooot of arguments – not all of which, I’d say, are a huge deal, but I can get how people are getting tired.
I think that inclination is totally understandable and part of a process people use to reclaim power. Emotions don’t follow rules. But that still doesn’t make it right, even if it’s a disproportionately lesser retaliation than the actual abuse Rachel received. Degrees and shades. And timing. Doesn’t need to be perfect timing but taking any kind of stand when someone is emotionally volatile probably won’t work. At most it’s cathartic to get a bit of revenge destruction… which might actually sabotage any outecome you wanted to work towards unless it was a “fuck off, I’m done, disengage” like you proposed. I’m still thinking Rachel has more problems with the power structure, which isn’t Ruth’s doing and was already addressed, so pounding that in won’t do a thing. Rachel’s reactions don’t bother me from a victim/abuse perspective – it bothers me from the perspective she keeps talking about what’s right/power dynamics but can’t avoid being antogonistic at this moment, even when Ruth acknowledges she’s at the mercy of the communal shower audience, and hence vulnerable to her. It comes across as hypocritical rather than a reckoning or “now you know how it feels, so knock it off.”
No. Fuck that noise. Rachel snapping at Ruth because Ruth abused her is not wrong. The things she said go waaaaaay over the line and yeah, the timing was awful, but saying something mean to someone who abused you is not, in and of itself, morally wrong and I reject that argument entirely. If you’re gonna condemn Rachel for that (as opposed to ‘the things she said were awful/the timing is awful/etc.’) then you also have to condemn Amber for every time she calls her dad a piece of shit or a fucking gorilla. Ruth calling her grandpa a wrinkled goat nutsack is mean and nasty too, but there wouldn’t be a thing wrong with it, morally speaking. You do not owe niceness to your abusers.
Again, right vs wrong wasn’t towards the snapping or owing niceness. It’s that she’s singing about not using power over someone and that people can’t change… while taking a shot at someone who she has emotional power over in this moment and is displaying the emotions she stated she doesn’t have at the beginning of this scene… which is at least a change even if it doesn’t stay. Hipocracy being her doing what she said is her problem/not right, not whether or not it is actually morally right to be angry and lash out. I’m also not asking her to be nice to her abuser. Walking away, pouring more salt on it when Ruth isn’t trapped, reporting every single misstep, telling her she was a bongo and to stay in her lane is different than over the line as you said.
I agree, it’s not black and white it’s perfectly possible to hate someone and ignore them instead of saying mean things while they’re sobbing in the shower.
Joyce has been surprisingly good at this
This panel 5 Joyce should be a magnet for Book9. And the text “do you want me to come in and give you a hug?” should be visible somewhere. 😀
Tears won’t erase the fact that Ruth was a bully, but empathy goes a long way.
I think it’s time Mary was more involved so we can get off this Ruth vs Rachel conflict and back to someone universally loathed.
The last two panels really warmed my heart.
And made me realise that I also need a hug pretty bad, too. *sigh*
*Offers Internet hug*
Aw, thanks, that’s really thought- and helpful *accepts internet hug*
The big question that arises from this strip is: does Joyce shower with her socks on?
No, but it does reinforce that she still feels worried about other people’s germs and possibly being seen ‘naked’ in any way.
Sometimes Joyce is the best. Sometimes she’s the worst but also sometimes she’s the best
Oh what an unfortunate display pic for this particular comic
Ruth is in no fit state to be an RA (and was probably never suitable). The position, its duties, and its responsibilities put her in serious danger and may be doing ongoing harm. Her neglect and fucked-up discharge of those responsibilities and duties creates a dangerous and harmful environment for the students in her charge. She should not be RA, both for her sake and for the other residents’.
But Rachel should not have to tell her so.
Pudding-Head Chloe is being criminally negligent and possibly corrupt in leaving Ruth in this position, especially without a visible trace of support or supervision. It’s bad for all the residents, it is dangerous and bad for Ruth, and if Chloe doesn’t know that it is only because she is neglecting the substance of her job.
I suspect that Ruth’s grandfather has a lot of power, either over Chloe personally or over IU’s administration and leadership as a whole (a rich donor?). He wants Billie moved, so she’s moved. He wants Ruth kept on as an RA, then she’s kept on as RA.
IRL, powerful individuals like this exist and do corrupt organisations with ease. It happens more often than many imagine.
Yeah, despite Chloe’s failures she doesn’t really deserve all the blame for this. It’s made very clear in those strips that the decision would normally be made by her superiors and whatever influence she might have had was outweighed by Clint going over her head and throwing some kind of weight around.
That said, she did seem oblivious to the problems and was probably supporting Ruth keeping the job anyway – but it clearly wasn’t her call.
Yea, this. Ruth herself has even said that she doesn’t deserve the RA job and is ill-suited to it. At this point she’s trying to do her best in the situation, sometimes succeeding, sometimes not.
And Chloe certainly knows enough at this point to know that Ruth needs monitoring and support and that her charges need extra support. That she did not adequately supervise Ruth (and all the RAs) before the crisis was perhaps no worse than laziness and complacency. That she is not monitoring and supporting Ruth now is negligence and callous indifference.
Chloe has a duty of care towards Ruth, her subordinate. Chloe has a duty of care towards the residents in the hall. She is neglecting that duty. “It’s not my fault, the general bribed me” is perhaps some sort of weird excuse for allowing Ruth to be re-appointed after her crisis. But even that is not an excuse for lazing in her office shuffling paper and leaving Ruth hanging out to dry.
I think it’s more Chloe doesn’t care. She may not be the person doing the crime but is enabling Grandpa.
She seemed genuinely sad/compassionate when she came across Ruth in her bed with Billie, so I hope Chloe does care. Chloe did express she had other problem TAs though so her time availability or triage choices might make this more difficult. Ruth is on a treatment plan. I imagine Chloe would show up if Ruth wasn’t following it, minimally based on policy.
That’s part of the reason I think Rachel just needs to shut up and keep her feelings to herself. If she has misgivings about Ruth staying the RA, the thing to do is to go to the person who oversees said RA and complain!!! Or ask questions!! Instead of just being an asshole who just stews in resentment and makes it everyone else’s problem while pretending that does ANYTHING for ANYONE.
I think we know damn well at this point that going to the person who oversees the RA and complaining ain’t going to do a thing. That was made clear when Ruth got her job back.
No, we don’t! It seems Chloe knows Ruth was a) suicidal and b) sleeping with one of her charges. Rachel could bring up her violent tendencies, her verbal abuse, her drinking, her previous bullying of Billie, any number of things that could make a difference here, but it seems all she wants to do is keep sniping at Ruth whenever she gets the chance.
Well, we know Ruth mentioned some of the violence. Demanded it go in the report, in fact.
I suppose it’s possible they know nothing more, but that in itself is a bad sign, if they weren’t even interested in checking up.
Just so. It is Chloe’s duty, her literal job, to supervise Ruth (and the other RAs) in the discharge of their duties and to have a care for their welfare and the welfare of the residents under them. Anything that Chloe doesn’t know is because she isn’t doing her job.
WE know that sure. But Rachel doesn’t. And if Rachel really feels so strongly that Ruth shouldn’t get to still keep her job that she thinks she’s justified in kicking her when she’s already down, then she should also feel strongly enough to even make the most barebones attempt to actually do something about it, or to learn more about the situation.
This isn’t about whether or not it will actually change anything, it’s about Rachel using self-righteousness based on assumptions she’s made to justify being a dick at the most inappropriate of moments. If she had actually had some integrity and gone to Chloe already about her concerns and discovered that it really WAS some kind of corruption going on, then she might have more of a leg to stand on. At the moment, she doesn’t.
Otherwise she can just resolve to dislike her, not forgive her, hold her accountable for her actions, and call her out when she does something wrong. Or hell maybe even asked to be transferred to a different dorm if she hates Ruth so much and was so affected by her bullying she doesn’t want to even ever see her again. But clearly, it’s not THAT important to her.
I agree completely.
We have no idea if Rachel has done or not done anything you’ve mentioned. Maybe she has tried to talk to Chloe several times. Maybe she’s one of many who are on the transfer waiting list. We know barely anything about Rachel, so any of that could be possible. But Rachel not being transferred to another dorm doesn’t mean it’s not that important to her. There are other factors like if her application was rejected or if she’s on the giant waiting list.
Exactly!
On one hand I get where Rachel’s coming from but come on. Ruth’s clearly being hit with a lot all at once because of her meds. She deserves at least a little Empathy, right?
I don’t think she deserves even that. You don’t have to be empathetic to just choose to not be a dick in one moment where it’s super inappropriate to bring that stuff up. Just leave instead of deciding to aggravate things for no reason.
We’re all sure that Joyce is at least a 2 on the Kinsey Scale now, right?
Come on, Ruth. Maybe you can start livestreaming and then give up after two weeks because it’s an unfulfilling hassle. Y’know, like the rest of us.
This is one of the things I love about Joyce; that no matter what kind of personal life/faith crisis she’s having, that immediate impulse to help and care for others (no matter how awkwardly it comes out) is still there.
She pretty much is my favorite branch of Christianity. Needlessly uncomfortably loving to strangers.
She isn’t a perfect person, has boundary problems, and has some painful personal issues ahead of her, but she will set all of that aside when she sees someone in pain.
I hope Rachel can understand that she has to qualify what she said with, …”for me.” Otherwise she’s in a rut of “I think this is wrong therefore it is wrong at all times and for everybody and if you don’t think it’s wrong you are a wrong person.”
Thank you.
I second that thank you.
Despite Rachel being the worst bongo, thank you Joyce. You’re such a good egg. I’m so glad Joyce exists. Most people would feel too awkward but she’s so heartwarming and kind. ;_;
Seeing Joyce help Ruth (in an indirect, roundabout way) is so heartwarming. She’s such a cinnamon roll, I can’t help but love her.
Also “upstairs parts?”
Scuse me, I’m dying over here, don’t mind me.
Anyone else hoping Ruth goes back to terrorizing with a new love of life? Because we love terrorizing Ruth.
Anyone else notice Other Rachel in the background glaring at Rachel?
The face is small, but it doesn’t really look like a glare to me. Hard to read much out of it, honestly.
Agreed; I can’t tell much of anything–too few pixels.
And I’m always interested in more Other Rachel.
So, after like three days of this, I’m just gonna put down where I stand on this whole Ruth and Rachel mess.
– Rachel can have valid reason to be angry and no, she doesn’t have to be perfectly mature and on level about her anger. That said, she can (and imo is) also be petty, overly harsh and pick the exact worst moments and she doesn’t think about the splash back she causes on people she didn’t intend to hurt.
– Ruth can indeed change, but it’s good that she doesn’t expect or feel entitled to forgiveness. She has serious mental health issues, struggles with suicide and is an alcoholic under an abusive grandfather. While that doesn’t change she herself was abusive, she does still deserve support for all of those things from anyone is comfortable giving it. Like Joyce. Once she’s done showering and clothed, Joyce should absolutely give Ruth that hug.
I agree with everything you said.
Perfect
I agree, but also want to point out that she’s being relatively mature right now. Yes he is still angry at Ruth, but she clearly recognises that the best thing she can do right now is leave. She clearly isn’t convinced that Ruth has changed, and definitely isn’t ready to comfort her, so rather than standing there berating the crying shower lady, she’s leaving her with someone who will comfort her.
Good for you, Rachel👍
+3 internets to you for all of that!
Agreed to all!
Joyce with your special shower shoes I think you’re too tall for her upstairs parts to poke your face
No, Joyce, go in there, and give Ruth a hug. And just to make things less awkward, and also to not get your pjs soaked, you should also be naked. Naked hugs!
Is Commodore Jeep-Eep around? She’s the one who pointed me at Phoenix Point (for which I am grateful), and I find myself in need to rant about its recent developments.
Nevermind, found her.
Towel face milkjug stilts… Just in time for a new magnet!
Rachel, Ruth apologized to Mary. I’ll grant you that she was in a position of authority over Mary but consider what Mary did to Rachel, then tell me she deserved an apology. And she got one anyway.
What Mary did to Ruth*
Well, in all fairness, the slap was before Mary did anything more serious than try to call Ruth a misogynistic slur. Everything else came afterwards. So you could make an argument that while Ruth doesn’t owe Mary an apology on a personal level, she does on a professional level (which seemed to me what Ruth was thinking).
Besides, Ruth giving an undeserved apology doesn’t mean anyone else has to do the same. I don’t think an apology would be necessarily undeserved if Rachel offered one, but at the same time, Rachel still thinks all of Ruth’s apologies were lies – she seems to be thinking this is going to be like the classic cycle of abuse, with lovebombing, a honeymoon phase, build up of little incidents, big incident, (seeming) remorse and promises to change (maybe even doing things that should theoretically help like therapy) and then back to lovebombing.
Makes me curious about Rachel at least.
There isn’t a part of me that cares for Rachel and her sophomoric ideas about consequences and the meaningless of redemption.
Humanity is built on the idea of redemption: Of being better than you were. For someone who, quite frankly, lacks the life experience to really understand and appreciate the process and time that true change in character takes to be so vehement in her belief? It smacks of the middle school child that mistakes cruelty for humor. The high schooler who believes that contrarianism is good enough for a political belief system.
The part that bothers me the most is that this thin coat of cynicism, in my personal experience, is far more harmful than anything that Ruth did. People and the world we live in are hardy, and can withstand and resist a tyrant or bully, as long as they are recognized as such. We recognize that they possess traits we don’t wish to continue into our future, and teach our friends, children and whoever else said traits should be abhorred. Rachel and her ilk are the ones who did little to resist these easily labeled villains, until the clearcut adversaries are ousted. They are the ones who act like they were the champions of the weak the entire time, who decry all the actions the original antagonist committed. They refuse to entertain moderation, they reject ideas of compromise, and they decry any attempt of compassion or mercy as weak moral fiber.
Rachel is heartless for a human who is obviously in great emotional distress. If she was as opposed to Ruth as she pretends to be, she is a coward for never standing up to her. She is useless in that she never provided alternatives to Ruth’s bullying. She is cruel for recognizing the attempts of change that Ruth is going through and dismissing them as too little, too late. She is childish for doing this as soon as Ruth showed the first sign of weakness.
Anyone can try telling me that I should attempt to see things through Rachel’s point of view. I have. I believed much the same as she did. The difference is that I saw the evidence to the contrary in front of me and changed my views.
I think everything you said here is true, except that people can weather bullying as long as that person is a known bully, I think having a support system and help is how people survive bullying. I do agree though that Rachel has an immature, black and white view that is hostile, toxic, and hypocritical given her own behavior.
You are wrong. In a lot of ways.
A) We don’t know much of anything about Rachel, so assuming she’s not got any understanding of the time and effort it takes to change is a big assumption. For all we know, that’s why she thinks its impossible – either because she tried or because she watched someone who abused her try (or ‘try’) to change over and over to no avail.
B) No. People do not ‘withstand and resist bullies and tyrants as long as they are known as such’. Some do, some can’t, some won’t because those tyrants or bullies will get worse for the trying. Some, whether they resist or not, don’t make it and even most of the ones who do are worse for wear. This is not some bullshit ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’ nonsense. It may make you more resilient, but it also makes you more bitter, less trusting, less idealistic, etc. among other possibilities.
C) Well for one, Rachel DID do something to oust Ruth. She’s the one who alerted Chloe when Ruth was in her mental health crisis. For another, Ruth HASN’T been ousted. If that were what Rachel were waiting for she wouldn’t have said anything at all because RUTH IS STILL HERE. That is a very large part of what Rachel is angry about. That’s not anger after someone is ousted, that’s anger that they’re still around in the same position they abused.
D) Rachel’s never acted like she did shit to Ruth before her mental health crisis. She said it was bullshit she gets to stick around and yeah, she was outta line with her spiel about redemption, but she didn’t say she did things she didn’t.
E) And what, pray tell, would you propose as moderation or compromise for someone who’s abused their position being allowed to retain it? There’s no halfway there – you either fire them or don’t. And yeah, people do let abusers get away with things they do in the guise of compassion and mercy so there’s indeed damn good reason to be suspicious of it when people start talking about it. When compassion or mercy are used as reasons to give a rapist a 6 month sentence, of which he only has to serve 3, that is FUCKED UP.
F) Rachel doesn’t owe Ruth compassion. Nobody owes their abusers compassion. Rachel’s outta line spouting toxic world views that are almost certainly triggering to a suicidal person, but no, she doesn’t owe Ruth compassion.
G) Rachel IS standing up to her, now, so far as she can tell.
H) Again, what alternatives would you have her suggest? Ruth’s probably not taking suggestions, so that leaves her with the others on her floor, of which she seems to get along pretty well with most of them.
I) Bull. Rejecting someone trying to change is not cruel. Rachel doesn’t owe Ruth forgiveness and she doesn’t owe it to Ruth to believe at her word that she’s changed. That’s a toxic mindset that only serves to turn people into doormats.