She’s Ana Chronistic. She posses powers the mortals of this century could convince.
(In all seriousness, I have been asking that question for years and nobody can satisfyingly answer it. She is the great final mystery of DoA, and yet deprived of the possibility of enlightenment the community has learned to ignore her. They go about their daily business, no longer stopping to fret or wonder that they do so in Ana’s Eldritch shadow).
Of she’s not. The bones of acceptable losses are a fantastic material for high-end furniture. My grandmother had a wonderful armoire made from the faded memory of civilian causalities – imported all the way from Laos.
…You know what, I’m just gonna go ahead and out myself here, and admit that I’ve put WAY too much thought into this in the past. I’ve long imagined Dorothy to be an Heir of Time in my personal classpecting of DoA characters, because of how important both responsibility and opportunism are for her personally.
I haven’t actually thought that much about Joceylne before, but I’d probably classify her as a Mage, since so much of her role in DoA has just revolved around being way more aware of certain things than her sister, but in such a way that she was the only one who could really do anything with that knowledge.
Amber’s Rage aspect I assume. Probably Knight (using her rage as a weapon) but I could see an argument for Prince (using her rage to destroy) or Maid (at least some of what she does as Amazi-girl can be interpreted as tidying up the results of other people’s rage and she uses Amazi-girl to keep her own rage neat and tidy.).
Here’s an even better idea for our Dorothy: support socialist revolution!
Cuz let’s face it — if the coercive power of capital can rival that of the “official” democratically elected state, we may as well not even have democracy at all.
Eat The Rich is the inevitable result of a capitalist social order which is intrinsically unstable and unsustainable.
For it is a social order in which there exist in-groups who are protected by the law but not bound to it, alongside out-groups who are bound to the law but not protected by it.
This is a great alternative, because it runs into basically all of the exact same ethical problems without solving or improving any of them while introducing a bunch of all new ones
You’re gonna compromise your morals either way. You might as well get that money while you’re bullshitting! At least the billionaire route means you’re not actively supporting genocidal status quos and laws that undermine the average person’s quality of life, bodily autonomy, or very existence. You’re just passively doing that! Carla seems to have found a work around that lets her live guilt free. I’m sure Dorothy can pull it off.
Carla’s work-around is that she was born into it and doesn’t have to think about any of it.
Dorothy has unfortunately missed her shot to be born an heiress and would have to actually build a fortune, which is extremely difficult and luck-dependant for a person of her socio-economic status
See, this is a trick “problem”, like the one with the fox and corn and chicken. Lie to an existing billionaire, fall into its good graces and gradually work yourself into its will or similar. Exploit its ego so you get increasing amounts of goodies for playing yes-man (it doesn’t need to know about the good stuff you’re doing with “its” money). Eventually, stage a hostile takeover and steal its entire whatever-the-fuck. Boom. You’re a billionaire now and you haven’t exploited, stolen from, or lied to a single human being. Redistribute that shit directly into the places that need it and everyone goes home happy.
It’s pretty much impossible to become a billionaire without being an incredibly terrible person who exploits lots of people, and/or being born to wealthy parents who exploited lots of people to get rich. Dorothy would be massively compromising her morals if she became president this way, and then she would find herself having to commit war crimes as president anyway.
Lmao “having to commit war crimes”
Having to. As if everyone doesn’t have a choice. You can always just simply not commit a war crime, it’s the easiest choice in the world. I’m doing it right now.
US president is a job where you take on personal responsibility for the crimes that make your entire society possible and maintain its global power. I find it useful to think of even the best possible president as a sin eater on some level, and we tend not to get the best possible presidents.
In many ways, the American military no longer being willing to do horrific shit would come with a drastic reduction in the goods and services cheaply available to the American public, and would likely endanger our position as global hegemon over the long term. The American public would never accept that even if it might be better for the world writ large (and to be clear–unless every other major actor also agrees to stop it would likely just shift who the war crimes are being done on behalf of). So. The president orders crimes committed on behalf of the public and the public gets mad and doesn’t have to take responsibility. It’s part of why our foreign policy tents to be pretty consistent unless there’s a wildcard crazy man in office.
Given that every other major power absolutely wouldn’t agree to stop, I think it would endanger our position basically immediately.
Probably collapse the existing world order and another one wouldn’t shake out until after a serious global conflict. Which, if the US hadn’t actually collapsed first, we’d inevitably be drawn into, so back to the horrific shit. 🙁
Things have also been getting a lot better w.r.t. the US military’s willingness to do horrific shit. It was like ten times worse, at least, in the 20th century. Now they at least have somebody checking where the bombs will land and the bombs are a lot better at landing on specific spots. People actually got in trouble for the Abu Ghraib torture case and the government actually apologized.
Not to say everything is fine and dandy now, but it’s good to look back on how much worse things could be.
It’s important to keep criticizing the US when we do bad and keep pushing us to do better, but pretending that the US is somehow uniquely evil is absurd.
We’re the most powerful and thus can do more damage than anyone else, but as imperial powers go, we’re not that bad. Awful as that might seem to our victims. Improvement is still improvement
Maybe, possibly, Warren Buffet (USA) and Azim Premji (India). Granted, both of them are controlling and hoarding more wealth than 99% of humanity. But by most accounts, they do seem to do the least harm with it all.
They played the game by the rules and didn’t directly hurt anybody, sure. If you look at mere millionaires there are plenty of people who got where they are just by being in the right place at the right time, or by developing a technology that’s objectively a good thing for humanity, like dishwashing machines. I think the notion that you *have* to be morally bad to accumulate wealth is just something we tell ourselves to convince us that the other class is all bad people that deserve anything bad that happens to them. A great way to motivate holy warriors, but probably not true in the strictest sense. Immoral/unethical behavior tends to lead to material success, therefore you will tend find more instances of immoral/unethical behavior the farther up the pyramid you go, but it’s far from an ironclad rule.
Dorothy is not perfect, no one is but that’s fine. She’s aware of the danger now of what she could become. That does make her more desirable than the version of her who could never consider herself corruptible or the version of herself who would be in flat out denial about it and thinks herself beyond reproach. No doubtedly Dorothy will find plenty like that who would be like a dark mirror to her.
Not to say if she still pursues this path she won’t step over a few people and ruin some lives, the greatest people out are still a villain to someone else.
The best path forward for her if she wants to make a good change in the world is to not wait till she gets into a seat of power to do it. Saround herself with those who share one or two virtues and goals, not to say they all have to be yes men just people who can keep her ankerd. Tear down the century old institutions that would pull her and many like her into making the sane mistakes we’ve been making for generations, and then build something new and better.
Not every choice made will be the best one, but if a person could manage to do more good than harm than it’s worth trying. Because the world needs as much good as it can get.
If Dorothy had gone to Yale without all the experiences she has gone through, it is very likely that she would have gone through a more serious crisis, rejecting Yale was for the best.
But, if she were willing to rethink her objective of seeking the common good, she must do so precisely step by step, learning things in greater detail and I dare say that she will find the way, yes, there will be failures, setbacks and errors, but Those will also be the keys to continue learning, at the end of the day, we are human and we will never stop learning.
It is very rare to find this kind of encouraging comments to Dorothy, it is great.
Dorothy also acts like the Presidency is not a compromised position beyond the violence element. She will have to make a large amount of deals, favors, and work in her party’s portfolio. Dorothy acts like being President won’t involve….well, politics.
It makes me think of the Hannah Montana episode where she told a group of young kids they won’t all grow up to be president, and in fact it’s likely none of them will be.
her hometown must’ve been pretty political active, other than like being in a huge city idk if i knew what a president was at that age, or very limited child knowledge of ‘what do i wanna be when i grow up’ and ppl just saying stuff like astronaut/fireman and such
This, 100% this. We cannot let the gulf between reality and our preferred alternatives blind us to the measurable changes within reach and possibility. It’s time to get real and get practical.
It’s still evil, though. You have the right to demand a not-evil option, rather than participating in the ratchet of allowing the lesser evil to normalise what was unthinkable a couple of decades ago.
it all comes down to understanding that Presidential races aren’t the only “real” source of political power
the Jim Crow south continued to exist for decades regardless of who was currently president, it largely perpetuated itself because it was drawing on a whole CULTURE long-established from the ground up to keep together a race-based social pyramid. The motivations and aspirations the commonwealth were raised to aspire to in this system such to reproduce the basic form meant that slavery being abolished in law did not automatically make it so in life.
Elections aren’t the only time politics happen, it also happens on the cultural frontier, on the streets, in the community and by mutually supporting each other. To turn the tides, we must be most conscious of this fact in our efforts.
For to counter the power of established systemic bigotry, we must make conscious effort towards establishing systemic anti-bigotry in all that we do, say, and think.
And even within electoral politics, the Presidential race isn’t the only source of political power. One of the huge problems with our system is how many people only vote in Presidential election years. They ignore state & local races that often have far more effect on their lives, Congressional races that aren’t individually as powerful as the President, but collectively at least as strong and especially the primaries that determine who runs in the other races.
Not only are these races important in their own right, but very often they determine who rises to the level where they have a chance to run for President. Anyone who ignores all the lower races, but complains about the choices for the general Presidential election as if they were handed down from on high shouldn’t be taken seriously.
are we demonstrably a nation run by 6-year-olds brought up to venerate ignorance and militarism, who can’t be bothered to think too deeply about anything besides football and furniture? Yes, yes we are. (-_-)
it’s just as Socrates warned us millennia ago, without adequate public education needed to wield shared power responsibly and with good intention, democracy is no better than Tyranny of the Majority.
And more specifically in response to your point, that bigotry exists in a feedback loop. The culture was long established, but Jim Crow politicians consciously worked to reinforce it. And when segregation was ended legally, Republican politicians consciously chose to court former Democratic segregationist voters, to great political advantage.
They couldn’t have done so, if the culture wasn’t already there, but they’ve definitely reinforced and spread it.
They spread it if only because it *worked* to stave off class resentment in post-reconstruction south resulting from let-them-eat-cake obliviousness of capital owners in the North.
The North being 50 years ahead of the south in industrial power meant that cheaply made northern products flooded the region and bankrupted individuals and businesses alike who stood no real chance at competing in the capitalism game without actual government help.
But of course why would a politician make genuine effort to lift people out of poverty when they could easily play on racist culture that’s been there for centuries to benefit those at the top of the social pyramid and keep the rest in place?
“If you can convince the poorest white man he’s better than the richest black man, then the former will not notice when you are picking his pocket.
Hell, give him someone to hate, berate, look down upon, war against, then he will gladly empty his pockets for you.”
Not buying it. Not everything reduces to class conflict. Reconstruction did not fail for economic reasons. “Class resentment” was a distant second to racism and to regional anger at being beaten and occupied.
it’s not really reduction, economic incentive plays a major role in the big picture
systemic racism flourishes well beyond hatred for it’s own sake, it continues to this day because it works to economically benefit the descendants and apologists of white people who built it in the first place for this very purpose, regardless of participants’ opinions on it.
in the Civil War south, the ones doing the actual physical fighting and being beaten the most were poor white folk who were seen as but disposable cannon-fodder by the slave-owning aristocracy,
the former stood to benefit their economic status even when beyond the powerful rhetoric apotheosizing the white supremacist social order they knew they were basically going on suicide missions for its defense
it is no coincidence that the Civil War is often cited by historians as “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight”.
no less than why people often join the army today even when they know fully what kinds of risks and horrors they’re in for — it’s because they were in a situation where better alternatives simply weren’t available for them to not wind up in (more) debt, homeless and/or starving, and thus was worth the risk from the get-go
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.
I don’t even disagree with most of that, just with pushing it to the point that Reconstruction would have worked fine except for “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness of capital owners in the North”. Maybe if they’d miraculously made everyone in the South rich, but even then the racial fault lines were there. As was the anger over being beaten and occupied.
The idea that all that just was inconsequential compared to class divides and economic incentives or only matter because of how capitalists use it is a constant flaw in socialist thinking.
There are other wars than the class war. They’re all intertwined, but they’re still there.
That sort of thing can be led from the top down. One failure I’ve seen, though, is the tendency for leaders to confuse policy with performance. We have a law against “that”, therefor “that” no longer happens — problem solved. Nope.
Love to pat myself on the back for doing nothing because I didn’t have a perfect option, then acting all smug like I have some kind of high ground. Add in a dash of telling people not to worry when the worst outcome happens, because hey, I’m not the target. Yeah, I didn’t forget how this little fence fucker treated people on and right after Election Day.
Meanwhile, the diehard voting fanatics all gleefully pull the “everybody else gets diarrhea forever” lever, too self-centered to remember we’re all “everybody else” to everybody else. But they won’t care if they shit themselves, as long as they’re told somebody they’ve been convinced is lesser than them shit themselves before they did.
Less evil means more good, or at least more neutral. You’d think people would grow up and quit pretending it’s a zero sum game where even the slightest hint of evil invalidates any good. My perfectly pristine white shirt got a drop of red on it, so it’s a red shirt now.
it’s always been a red shirt, america was founded on genocide after genocide, being the “less evil” mascot for that just means it gets to continue a while longer without being stopped, which is always going to happen from the bottom up, not the top down
I know the difference between white and red, silly. When I bought this shirt at the store, it was pure white, like it had never seen a bit of pigment since the day it was forged. It’s only red now because I had a nosebleed in the same room and the tiniest of flecks got on it.
In general I am exhausted with the sheer surrender. And with the predictable SuprisedPikachu.jpg
“Power is corrupting and requires doing some bad stuff, therefore nobody with morals should ever try to get any power (also somehow revolution doesn’t count as seeking power)”
“Oh no why are all the people in power only assholes that never worry about morals and why don’t we have any ability to stop them”
I’d rather not support evil at all, especially when the ones we’re told are the “lesser” evil often go on to commit just as much evil as the “greater” evil. When you live in a system where the main choices are both evil, perhaps it’s time to replace that entire system.
“More good”?
I doubt it. I think she’d do much more good as President. Even if she had to make moral compromises along the way. It’s not like you don’t have to make those on a smaller scale, even in more local politics.
I’m thinking the numerous and powerful forces pulling on her to compromise, as the President, would far outnumber and outweigh the equivalents pulling on her at lower levels. Fewer negative influences from around the world; more focus on the local needs.
It’s just a matter of scale. Sure, there would be less and smaller things pulling on her to compromise, but there would also be less opportunity to do good and what good you could do might get overridden by people acting at higher levels.
Sure, you always get the overriding forces from around and above you. Yet I see her being less corrupted in that way, having to commit fewer warcrimes (if any) at such lower levels. And that’s what she’s opposed to.
“lesser evil = good” is how you get people arguing that shredding children in tent camps with bunker buster bombs and starving millions of people with intentional famine is just a minor dalliance.
Right after the people saw they could get the candidate to change (literally), too many people decided ethnic cleansing wasn’t a dealbreaker.
But that’s not what lost the election, at least not entirely. The democratic party doesn’t stand for anything. It’s vibes. And it tries to be two different vibes at the same time. They want to be for queers, but against queers. They want to be against fossil fuel, but for fossil fuel.
If you do think the anti-genocide vote was enough to tip the election, you should direct your anger at the DNC and Harris for not taking an anti-genocide position. And at all the people who were too busy patting themselves on the back for accepting genocide as “the lesser evil” to think strategically to get the voting bloc which didn’t.
Both parties need to split: far left|right vs. center left|right. Both have lost coherence.
I sometimes think the GOP’s “big tent” move was a clever ploy to get the Democrats to do the same thing, because they figured it would hurt the Dems worse.
I’m not sure what you’re imagining here. A 4-way split doesn’t work in the American system. US parties are inherently “big tent”, since you need outright majorities. Not even sure what Republican big tent move you’re thinking of.
I don’t think the basic party coalitions have changed in decades honestly.
at least a structural division.
but, uh, the Democratic party is not a leftwing party. It’s barely a centrist party. What people call “far left” in the US are mostly social democrats. The corporate democrats are the center right party, if one’s being charitable.
The notion of “good person” and “bad person” as ontological categories is the root of a lot of facile misunderstandings of morality and governance. Only actions can truly be judged. I’m here for that. At the same time, some people are still better options to occupy such a position of power because of their behavioral profiles and likelihood of taking actions that are, on the whole, more beneficial. I think we often lose sight of that as idealists. It’s not sexy or glamorous, but there’s tangible progress to be made from compromised people doing what they can in corrupt systems, and we ignore that at the risk of writing ourselves out of a position to accomplish anything.
BUT; that’s big picture — and on the personal level, if you don’t think you could handle being compromised by the concessions that are sometimes necessary to enact what change is possible, then yes, you’re not the right person for the job. Let someone else be your useful idiot and wring as much good work as you possibly fucking can from their imperiled moral carcass.
That’s my mission for 2025. Do whatever is possible for progress under horrible circumstances and oppressive systems, and don’t let yourself be paralyzed by despair at the fact that we’re not yet at your desired utopia. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. There is still so much good that we can, and will, accomplish.
The problem is perhaps not compromise, but which compromises one chooses. “I unfortunately have to do what the power brokers say” is quite different from “My traps are set, and I may have to destroy a few power brokers if they try to drag me off-mission. I’ve told them what the mission is.”
Jimmy Carter’s recent death is a perfectly timed example.
Probably one of the people to hold the office with the most integrity, and his work with Habitat For Humanity is laudable. He also did a good bit less unscrupulous shit than many of his fellow presidents.
He also was weak in applying pressure to South Africa mid-Apartheid, supported the South Korean military dictator Chun Doo-hwan while fully aware he’d had at least 60 killed, supported the Shah of Iran, etc. He tried with the Panama Canal to clean up some of the US’s bullshit, but engaged in plenty more. You cannot leave the office of President with clean hands, not as it currently exists. There is no ethical way to be a superpower of a nation.
I think Dorothy made that parallel herself earlier.
Honestly, it always surprises me that there’s a theory in the comments that Willis’s view of the Presidency, and therefore Dorothy’s character arc, has changed since the strip started due to … current events. Because it seems to me that … current events … would tend towards the exact opposite — it’s very easy to see your Future President as the alternative to “someone worse” when someone worse is right there. But if you look past him, and consider all the “someone betters” objectively…
The strip started early in the Obama presidency. A lot of leftish liberals had hope back then that they lost when Obama didn’t magically fix everything and did some bad things himself.
And there’s been a strong movement on the left blaming Dems for everything Republicans do, including winning elections.
Back when he decided no one needed to be tried for kidnapping people, holding them without trial or with rigged trials, and then torturing them.
Back when he ordered a drone strike on an American citizen.
Back when he ordered double tap drone strikes that were explicitly intended to target first responders trying to help the innocent people caught in the explosion along with the intended targets . . . assuming the intended targets actually got hit in the first place.
Sure, the problem was him not “magically solving everything”.
The thing that grinds my gears about the drone strikes is that postmortems from the people who worked in his administration suggest he only took such hawkish stances out of a misguided attempt to curry favor with Republicans — who were never gonna play ball with him to begin with. It was a horrendous and unnecessary concession to them, not even a compromise that got some good things in return. I wish we could get some candidates at the national level who understand the principle of burning political capital to get some actual progress done, not simply kowtowing to the default hegemony because you mistakenly believe you have to.
Instead of 1,000 innocent people dying for the sake of progress, isn’t it better for 2,000 to die for no progress at all?
And if you choose the second option, aren’t you saying that you are willing to let 1,000 die to achieve your goal (only the goal is instead feeling better about yourself)? Doesn’t that make you exactly what you were trying to run from?
Can we just not adjunct the hypothetical death of thousands of people to literally a 19 year old girl in her year if college? That has not been working great for her or for anyone ever for that matter.
Look, just don’t fucking drone strike civilians. Why is everyone acting like that’s so fucking hard? It’s actually extremely easy, and in fact most fucking people aren’t doing it. Every single day, billions upon billions of people are just not blowing any civilians up, and there’s no reason to pretend it’s something any job requires. It’s so fucking stupid and childish, and Dorothy needs to get the fuck over it and act like she’s got a fucking brain in her head.
I’m not blowing anyone up right this very moment. It’s unbelievably easy. Nobody talks about how easy it is to just simply not explode children, even though maybe a few dozen people on the planet are blowing up kids at any given moment. Just kill those guys and we’re golden, but everybody wants to act like that’s so difficult.
Were you watching the election debates in the UK when Jeremy Corbyn was monstered by the studio audience and then the press for suggesting that he would be reluctant to commit mass murder for no better reason than spite?
We live in a world where you have to appear ‘tough’ to get ahead in politics, and that includes nailing your colours to the mast as a bloodthirsty imperialist.
No, I wasn’t watching any election debate. Based on what people say about them while they’re happening, it’s nothing but allegedly grown adults saying “poo poo pee pee” at each other with increasing volume until somebody shrieks like an ejaculating gibbon and somehow that means they won. I have more important things to watch, like gifs of Princess Zelda getting railed by moblins.
this. you can never win nationalists and imperialists over, because you can only really do so by abiding by THEIR standards of politeness and respectability, which are designed to stripe away any actual political and antiestablishment parts of discourse
if you engage in a way THEY deem acceptable, you water down the message, and eventually if you want to stay in the picture you’ll become a nationalist yourself
and that’s when reactionaries will appeal to “being reasonable”, i.e. making the left seem more “extremist”, and that’s how the right wing wins (-_-)
I’ll be as extremist as they wanna pretend I am, sure. Not like I got much goin’ on these days anyway, may as well buy a box of matches and start lighting the fuse on that dynamite they shoved up their own asses.
You can’t win them over, the best I can manage is show there’s a better way. Let’s do some research on a .gov site to show that truth as a concept exists.
It is very easy to do for most people, but becomes much harder if you become commander-in-chief of the imperial superpower whose military loves to drone strike people
I really don’t buy that “becomes much harder” thing. What’s anyone gonna do if I don’t blow up a kindergarten, take away my drones? Good job, idiots, now I can’t explode those kids. Played yourselves.
Pleased to see the comments section grappling with the concept of self-replicating systemic incentives with alllllllll the intelligence and thoughtfulness I’ve come to expect from this community.
Right? We’ve got people expecting a guitarist to come up with the Perfect Solution™ in the comments section of a webcomic, and then acting like that’s not ridiculous to want from me.
So you’re entitled to complain mightily about the status quo, but articulating any practical alternatives is unfair to ask of you? You must be fun to coordinate logistics with.
Its strange you think that’s the only unscrupulous thing US presidents have done as part of being in and getting into office. Note the getting into office part, which often requires you playing ball with other politicians.
Or to bring it back to reality, is Zelinsky a war criminal if Russian civilians are killed by Ukrainian operations? Whether drone strikes/artillery/whatever.
War is hell and good politicians should go to great lengths to avoid it, because horrible things happen and civilians always pay the price, but of utopian world peace spontaneously breaking out, it’s going to be something a world leader will have to deal with.
It’s also something that Dorothy doesn’t necessarily agree with.
Like that movie of The American President, when the President bombs Syrian intelligence after a terrorist attack and it kills a bunch of cleaning staff to minimize casualties.
Sure it is easy not to drone strike civilians, but step one is not becoming president. i.e. as you say later, take away the drones except you do it to everyone. We’ve tried this whole “Supreme Overlord To Rule Over Us All” quite a few times in history and even with the best Supreme Overlord and the best possible circumstances, it never lasts a lot of generations. Maybe we should through a global refusal to be their soldiers try to pre-emptively disarm all powerful people for a while, see what that does.
It’s very very easy for any individual to not drone strike civilians. As you say, just keep away from the reins of power.
And while a “global refusal to be their soldiers” sounds like a great idea, how do you plan to bring that about? Starting on any local area just invites those who don’t start to exploit the opportunity.
“Let’s start by trying world peace” is charming, but hardly a plan.
It’s very easy for someone who has never had power to use, and is afraid of violence to just ‘never blow people up.’ I know you’re being facetious, and I know Obama shouldn’t have signed off on drone strikes as much as he did, but this kinda logic just kinda bothers me. I mean, don’t take me as trying to silence you, it’s good for you to say this, at least as much as it is for me voice that your logic is incomplete.
I love that Obama gets the blame for drone strikes as if drone strikes are uniquely horrific when Bush not only started two major occupations and the broad use of air strikes in the War on Terror. Drones are new and scary, so Obama’s especially bad. (Or that drone strikes usually do less civilian damage than boots on the ground do.)
Not to mention Trump loosening the standards for such strikes and Biden basically ending them, for which one gets no blame and the other no credit.
America aside surely tehre are some countries with presidents that wouldn’t necessarily have any big losses under their name unless it’s counting anyone with nukes/military or so
You could decide to try it anyway and see how far you can go before the moral compromise becomes unacceptable to you, right? But remember, Dorothy already did that. She didn’t want to leverage the “mildly heroic” image she got out of the hostage thing for an unfair ticket to Yale. She just doesn’t go in for profiting from anyone’s misery, so she’s never going to go very far in politics. It’ll have to be someone at least slightly worse than her.
I am firmly on the boat that Dorothy whole presidency thing was objectively bad for her mental health besides any complex ethical questions about the job. Even if it started her depressive spiral, she really did need to step away for that whole mindset for a while, examine it and hopefully arrive at a better place afterward.
Kinda glad she’s saying it’s actually an existential crisis she’s going through here instead of burnout. She was having burnout in the fall semester because she had put way too much on her plate – even if you do very well in high school, university is a completely different beast and you’re going to need some adjustment, and then she was doing a whole bunch of extracurriculars on top of it all.
Here she’s not burning out – she’s utterly lost her direction in life and is scrambling to find new meaning. Her usual source of meaning – helping Joyce move away from her fundie routes – is more and more no longer needing her help, leaving her floundering again for a purpose.
I would Dorothy should go into law and become a defence lawyer, as it allows her to do good and help people victimised by an unjust society… but you do also have to defend actually terrible people (as everyone deserves proper representation, no matter how horrible) so it might not be a great fit for her since I don’t think she could stomach that.
I mean, it can be both. She can say it isn’t burn out, that doesn’t make it not burn out. Usually the people going through it aren’t really aware of it, they just think they need to work harder.
Yeah, and sometimes it’s true. Look, there’s no version of politics where anyone can please everyone and only ever help everyone with no downsides for anyone who doesn’t deserve it. That’s not cynicism, that’s life. It is, in fact, possible to commit no mistakes and still end up with a loser.
That doesn’t mean all the good you CAN do isn’t good. Look at the ACA – it certainly wasn’t as expansive as anyone wanted it to be. Some of the people who it’s there to help really struggle with premiums it costs. It still made a difference to a lot of people. Was it not worth doing because it put some people in a worse position and it couldn’t do it all?
I’m over this take on going into politics. All it does is clear the way for the worst possible people to sweep in. Yeah, you’re not gonna be able to keep squeaky clean hands, but someone is going to be doing this job, whether you like it or not, and it’s way better for people who are TRYING to take the least harmful option than someone who’s going to go full speed ahead on as much harm as possible.
Thankfully, I’m hopeful Dorothy will eventually get her inspiration back. Happy New Year, everyone! Let’s do our best to make 2025 a better year.
I am very tired so please forgive me because I don’t recall when/where we’ve talked about this. If it’s about the burnout you’ve posted about here, I do think that’s an important part of this issue but at the same time I think that it’s important people don’t disengage from politics completely because of it because that is where worse people creep in. I talk about it with Dorothy in particular because A) She was the most politically engaged person in the main cast, B) Her storyline is the one hitting those feelings going around right now, and C) I’ve had other issues with this storyline (assuming she actually gives up) so it’s another point that sticks to me about it.
But even if Dorothy does decide to give up becoming President, or even goes into another industry to do good there, this will still be an issue. It isn’t possible to engage politically and make everyone happy with no downsides, that’ll be true regardless of what level she engages in it (even if it’s just as a voter) but there are always going to be better and worse options and it’s not a good idea to let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Literally none of that matter to me. I just want her to do whatever it is best for her and doesn’t end up destroying her mental health. She is a 19 yo girl in her first year if colleges she literally does not need to be thinking about any of this right now.
She needs to be thinking this because she set herself the goal of becoming President. That was her thing.
She’s got to grapple with what that means and whether she really wants it. That’s her character growth. That’s how she grows and comes out of this a better person.
Whatever she decides.
The point is that she shouldn’t be aiming to become president ar this age at all in the first place! It is really not that complicated. It is just not a very good way to lead your life.
Yes, and?
She’s got that goal. It’s an established character trait.
Even if she gives it up, as she seems to be do doing, she’s going to have to go through some soul searching about it.
She’s not just going to drop it and forget it completely without at least addressing it.
She gave up that goal a long time ago but people in the comments keep arguing that she should still have it and should also still go to Yale despite the fact that it’s pretty clear by now that all that pressure would lead to her having a breakdown.
True, but she also hasn’t finished sorting through it herself, as we see here.
Pressure hasn’t really been part of her rationale for giving up the goal or really part of the debate. The argument here is far more whether the goal itself is evil.
And in BBCC’s case (and mine as well) the thematic and narrative consequences. Her breaking down is an authorial choice, a characterization decision, not an innate consequence. When considering the story, we can bear that choice in mind as well.
If that’s her objective then she certainly should be taking aim, because there are a lot of goals between here and there and a lot of assets to be accumulated. Anyone who wants to Change The System had better start early and work like bees to be ready to take the objective and hold it.
I get that and if Dorothy were a real person, I’d agree 100% that whatever makes her happy is what’s important. As a CHARACTER though, I find this storyline, if it were to end in her giving up, would reflect real life sentiments that are unhelpful when it comes to preventing the political harms we complain about.
If you want to fight against things you care about, you need to stay engaged, even if your only engagement is paying even a modicum of attention to news and voting when you can. Regardless of what you care about or what industry you go into, that’s going to be true. Let’s say Dorothy decides to become a teacher instead – she’s gonna need to keep on top of proposed cuts to education and vote against them if she cares about that job – and also recognize that, say, unionizing might not get everyone in her workplace everything they want or might, say, get her boss in trouble with their boss for failing to prevent it. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable, unhelpful mindset to say you need to care about your reality.
The thing is that this isn’t about supporting the lesser evil, it’s about becoming the lesser evil, which is a much greater thing to ask.
Have you been willing to pursue that sort of goal? Sacrifice all your principles on the altar of raw ambition and become whatever the power brokers whose support you need want you to be.
I don’t think it’s quite the same.
I think there’s a difference between wanting to be President but deciding not to try because you couldn’t maintain your moral purity, thus relinquishing it to only the already evil and just not having that ambition in the first place.
I’d argue there isn’t a moral necessity to seize power to prevent other worse people from holding it, but at the same time it isn’t necessarily a moral failing to do so.
But that life just isn’t for everyone or most people in fact. Most don’t want to be any kind of evil, lesser or otherwise , and that is completely understandable, that is not giving up the fight or whatever or letting evil win, it’s just making a choice of what you are willing to do in order to archive power. There are a lot of things you can do to good for yourself and others that doesn’t involve any of this we are discussing. It isn’t and an either/or thing where not going into the president mean completely abandoning any notion of social justice or trying to help people in need.
No, but any involvement in social justice is going to require you to acknowledge the same political reality I was talking about – that you’re not going to be able to get everything for everyone with no downsides for anyone who doesn’t deserve them and that that doesn’t mean you can’t get any good done anyway.
If you’re not willing to compromise your principles, you’re not going to get anywhere in politics. Even outside of electoral politics in political activism or social justice, sticking hard to your principles screws everyone over.
It depends what’s going on. Most everyone (including most politicians) have something or other they won’t back down on. They might not be able to get everything they set out for but most people have some things they stick to. Otherwise, no politician would EVER fight for anything even remotely controversial.
The key is knowing when, how, and why to be flexible.
Sure, but a lot of people watching politics count any of that flexibility as “selling out your principles”.
Compromise is anathema on both the left and the right, but it’s the basis of politics.
It takes a certain strength of willpower to gain power and for it to not tarnish you. It is even more difficult to realize when it has done so. I believe Dorothy, at her core, would wield it better than most, and would try to surround herself with those who would keep her true.
But there is wisdom beyond her years to look at herself and that path, and say that she’s not capable of walking it. I hope Jocelyn recognizes that as well, and reminds her why she wanted that position to begin with.
If power is left untouched by those who fear corruption, it is destined to fall kmto the hands of those who do not care. One is not better because they are afraid. They are better because they confront that fear and surpass it.
I don’t believe it’s impossible, but it won’t be possible if only people who are ready to commit awful action are running for the position.
Go as far as you can without compromising your core values and see where it get you. It might not end you in the Presidency position, but it might still result in good being done.
In X-men 97, there’s a fascinating bit where Cyclops is talking to President Kelly (former villain) about how Kelly can’t be seen sending too much aid to Genosha despite the recent genocide by Sentinels because it will cost him the election.
Cyclops calls him out.
Kelly says that if he doesn’t get re-elected then an actively hostile mutant hating Graydon Creed will get elected (and does).
It was the most cynical but honest thing I’ve ever seen in a cartoon.
My take on it is that you don’t half-ass it. If you think something is just, you fucking own it and spin it as a positive in your electoral campaign and use the media to openly attack your opponents for not supporting it.
Well, Dotty’s read the literature then.
For what it’s worth, it’s true though. If people have to vote for the lesser of two evils, there’s *some* virtue in being the lesser evil. Sucks to be that, not as much as sucks to do that, but better than not even having that option.
Dorothy has witnessed multiple murders and wants nothing more to do with violence. Which the President will be called upon to engage in. I think this is a fine and believable choice.
I’m glad Dorothy has realized this about US presidents, and her old dream of becoming president. Even the former presidents who lots of people consider decent men, for example the recently-deceased Jimmy Carter, still committed a lot of war crimes while in office. The current US political system pretty much requires that anyone who becomes president support doing terrible things while in office, especially to civilians in other countries. I sincerely hope that we can replace this system with one that isn’t so evil soon.
The current US political system pretty much requires that anyone who becomes president support doing terrible things while in office, especially to civilians in other countries.
I think it’s less about the System and more US’ position in the world. Because US is an Empire with business all around the world and they need to make sure all those other states support them so they can maintain their power and money flow.
This. The US is an empire supported by hundreds of military bases around the world, and our political leaders exist to do what US businesses and their wealthy owners want. So when another country goes against those business interests, US politicians, especially the president, are expected by the wealthy business owners to send in the military to enforce the US empire’s business interests.
Indeed. And while I do not condone the abuses and atrocities the US has committed to remain at the top, their only saving grace is that the other contenders for the throne would all be far worse. >.< Right now, to those of us viewing it from the outside, America looks very much like a cantankerous old lion that just wants to lie down in its den and bask in the memory of its past glories. We're afraid to get close in case it mauls us, but at the same time, if we don't entreat the lion to get up and fight, its rivals are slowly going to bleed it to death and/or strike when it's asleep, and the new pride leadership (namely, China) that would get ushered in would be many times worse.
“communism” is strictly speaking a *goal*, not necessarily any specific set of policies to achieve it
militarism and absolutism have been the norm for civics and politics in the region now known as Russia since the days of the Mongolian Empire, centuries before Marx or Engels were even born.
From the tyrannical Tsars who executed any opposition to their dynasty, to the Bolsheviks and their purge of peasants and all other socialist parties who were their former allies, to Stalin’s cult of the personality, to the Putin’s brutal war against the Ukraine now, at no point in Russia’s history do we see anything even close to resembling a liberal democracy.
As far as modern China’s policies go, centralized standardized public education and command economy have been norms of the Chinese Empire for MILLENIA, heckin the only thing they needed to change politically to be “communist” was to get rid of rule by royal birthright.
also @Buck Ripsnort to further clear up the confusion,
ardent self-identified “capitalists” in the United States very often tend to dumb down “communism” to mean “backwards” or “failure”.
China, being a real world nation full of real people who seek to improve life for themselves, refuse to fail at doing so just to make die-hard capitalists in the United States and elsewhere feel better
thus when calling China a “failure” isn’t an option, the only other route is to claim somehow that China isn’t “communist” 9-9
Uh, NGPZ, I don’t care if China qualifies as communist. It’s a surveillance state – the most extreme one that ever existed – ruled by an imperialist dictator-for-life with exceptionlessly thoroughly corrupt underlings.
Basically this, have you got any idea how nervous Trump is making me with his actions regarding NATO, Putin and Ukraine? From my perspective he’ll basically just pull the rug from under us, Central Europeans and we’ll be left at the mercy of Russia.
Welcome to basic foreign policy. As it has ever been. The Great Game goes on.
The US currently does horrible things around the world on a greater scale than other nations because the US is the sole superpower. Other nations can only do terrible things on local or regional scales.
For some people, this apparently makes them better.
But in reality, it’s like the discussion about Dorothy having to compromise her morals to become President or if she became President. The realities of foreign policy demand a lot of shit. To some extent more so when you’re a smaller power, because you’ve got less room for error. Different countries, different leaders can take different approaches. Better or worse ones. But no one’s hands are clean.
[tangent] People talk like it’s the President alone who’s responsible. Congress can bring a rogue President to heel if they have the will to do so, by a variety of means. For that matter, Congress can declare war when the President passionately wants and works to avoid it, and then the President is stuck with the job of leading the war.
It ain’t the System’s fault; it’s the rascal quality of the components we’ve been acquiring for it.
To an extent – and certainly with the current crop on one side here.
One factor of course is the “we” that’ve acquired those components. This isn’t exactly a pacifist country. We tire of war quickly when things aren’t going well, but we’re eagerly fired up for it when the circumstances are right. Attacking Afghanistan and even Iraq was popular when it started.
Or more recently, leaving Afghanistan was always going to be messy and no one wanted to deal with the political fallout from it. Biden did it and it hurt him politically and bought him no credit from the anti-war left. Things like that are why Congress hesitates to take that kind of drastic action.
A lot of foreign policy stuff has that kind of systemic issues going on. Short term thinking for immediate advantage, either for domestic politics or in the geopolitical arena and then once things have started, you just have to keep doubling down to push the fallout off awhile longer.
Someday she’ll decide to run for president, fully qualified with sensible policies, and the electorate will vote for a madman by a slight margin because her voice was annoying or something.
The 2024 campaign was totally winnable despite the misogyny and racism. Biden fucked it up by refusing to drop out until after one of the worst debate performances in history, and the democrats have had a long-term problem with committing to stances that would give voters some reason to want them aside from “we are the less bad option”. Because, you know, their financial backers wouldn’t like those stances.
I strongly disagree with that. It might have been winnable and Biden and the debate certainly didn’t help, but the idea that Democrats would win if they just shifted far enough left and the only reason they don’t do so is “financial backers” is absurd.
Have you seen this country? Do you live here? It fucking sucks, but this isn’t a country where left stances win elections.
I didn’t say left, I said stances that would give people a reason to vote for them. Most of it would be changing the way they market themselves. Making it clear what path they’re offering forward, if any. Trump offers fascism, Harris offers…?
For example, the Biden administration has been remarkably pro-union, right around the time when unions are making a big comeback. Democrats absolutely could have capitalized on this, campaigned harder on how well their policies are working to improve the status of the working man — emphasis on man. In many ways this would mean going right, since unions in the U.S. aren’t really tightly associated with socialism or social justice movements (however much lefties might wish they were). They’d need to walk back on a lot of the ‘green new deal’ ideas, for instance.
It’s always the Democrats fault, no matter what happens. They always could have done better than they did or somehow stopped Republicans or something. Republicans are just like a natural force. Only Dems have agency.
It’s on Biden, I guess. In a sense.
But I don’t know what the options were.
He’s far from Senile. Slowing down, but still one of the sharpest politicians around.
He just doesn’t look it or sound it, which doesn’t really hurt running the country, but can be fatal campaigning. And the debate performance sealed. There was no coming back from that.
A year before that though? I’m not at all sure that an open primary looked like a better choice.
They voted for someone who committed 34 felonies against the government and has known ties to the Saudi Royal Family, a sponsor of terrorism and the biggest reason why the Middle East became the desolate war zone it is today.
Even the straightest, whitest men among them have reason to be worried
Damn near every incumbent across the globe has struggled in the last few years. In the US, somehow we treated the best economic performance in the world as a disaster and blamed it on Biden.
And we have a habit of treating Republicans as the default regardless.
The race might have been winnable, but it was far from a given.
I don’t think so. I think what’s needed is something currently unthinkable: go talk to the other side’s voters, find out what they actually want when they aren’t parroting what the party bosses tell them to want, and show how your candidates and your policies can give them that, better than the other guys’. (That and boot your own parrot-trainers.)
I think that’s not the case. A strong voting group for the orange guy was the too many men who are under-educated, under-employed, and under-earning. The country’s economic gains over the last 30+ years have been increasingly leaving those men behind. As the country’s wealthiest have been taking more and more of the economy for themselves, the men have been worse off by comparison. So they did what voters usually do during such worsening economic times: they vote for change, regardless of it being good or bad change.
Yes, that’s a very popular and pithy statement/sentiment. But the logical conclusion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that someone has to be – that the position is necessary) is that someone who doesn’t want it but is otherwise competent gets drafted to do it, and it’s very hard to get top-quality work out of the unwilling (conscripts, slaves, etc).
Do you really want someone for that job who hates it and wants, more than anything, to be out of it? And do you think it’s moral to compel someone to do it, despite their wishes, to make your life better/easier?
I really fell that with this storyline some of you care more about an answer that will aliviate your disillusionment with the current political climate rather what is actually best for the character development.
Definitely an interesting ethical problem. If being in power inevitably leads to moral compromises, then how could a moral person want to be in power? But then, if only amoral or immoral people achieve power, isn’t society worse off?
The error here, I think, is in the premise. A person in power must make immoral choices. I think that this is false for a lot of reasons. It isn’t just one assumption, either, as there are further assumptions or logical steps before getting to a conclusion that being President means being complicit in war crimes and other immoral actions.
One problem is that it is a black-and-white fallacy. It assumes that at least some of the decisions a person with authority makes will be either moral or immoral with no in between. It also assumes that at least some decisions will have to be just different degrees of immoral. It also assumes, for a liberal democracy, that appealing to a majority of voters necessarily involves making immoral choices or deceiving voters about one’s intentions.
It could be a goal for Dorothy to run for President as a completely ethical candidate advocating for completely ethical policies. She might not have a realistic chance of winning and then an even smaller chance of being able to live up to her promises, but that could still be a worthy goal. It could move the needle, Overton Window, or whatever in a good direction. If nothing else, this character arc could be an important part of developing critical thinking skills and coming to understand that her choice is whether to hold to strict ideals or become more pragmatic. Taken to an extreme, holding to strict ideals leaves one paralyzed and unable to accomplish much in the real world where the vast majority of people are pragmatic.
I might argue that, if I’m too dainty to risk moral contamination by serving in a position that I could execute well, and abandon it to the amoral or immoral, that in itself is an immoral act.
Being president was always a stretch goal in the wider aim of “be an influential politician”, which I think is a totally valid thing to want. You can’t remain ideologically and morally pure while doing so, obviously, but you definitely don’t have to completely sell out and you definitely can effect good, worthwhile change.
Anyway, if you just let political institutions be completely dominated by the worst scumbags in the world because nobody else wants to sully themselves with it, you’re not doing anybody any favors.
Jocelyn: You should get over yourself, Dorothy, and embrace that activist mindset. What turned you off being President anything?
Dorothy: I mean, it wasn’t just Raidah pointing out you have to be a war criminal. I also saw Amber stab Joyce’s attempted rapist and then your neighbor beaten to death with a hammer.
The question is and shpuld always be, what are my acceptable losses.
And no publicly accountable way.
You need to look at yourself TRULY look at yourself and examine what and WHO you are willing to hurt. Because that’s how these will be.
Hurt old people or Hurt sick people
Hurt the poor or further shrink the middle class
You need to see for yourself how much harm you’re willing to do.
Hurt the vast majority of the voters, or hurt a handful of the people who helped you attain office for reasons that have little to do with your reasons and may work against your reasons.
For some reason people almost never talk about this one.
I dunno; to me having “becoming President” as your only career goal is up there with “becoming the #1 NBA draft pick”—-it’s fine to work toward that but there’s a million-to-one chance of it actually happening. Plus, while hard work is important, there’s also all these preexisting factors that go into it that you have no control over—like being born 7 feet tall.
She’s going to be a lawyer, which sorta means working within the legal system of the US (unless I missed her being from elsewhere), and the memorable words out of her mouth are “You are going to be a war criminal if you get the power of the Presidency”.
(Having a hard time thinking Dorothy, an ambitious girl, now woman, in a small Indiana city for eighteen years, also hasn’t faced trolls and bigots.)
What’s Raidah’s endgame? Simply use her connections to work for the biggest defense contractor, tech company, or TransGloboCorp she can get into?
Yeah, I mistyped. I meant “getting a pass” in the sense that a Clarence Thomas is treated better, considered better, because of his political allegiance by a swath of the American public.
No, I understood that. I’m just saying that if she’s taking the “mob lawyer” route, she’s not expecting to get the “one of the good ones” treatment.
She’s expecting to be rich
Loading ...
it’s also not even a step, these days, you can almost do it by default
HNY
Dumbing of Age Book 15: It’s Everything I’ve Ever Worked and Strived For
…wait, that sounds inspirational or something, PASS
How are you so fast? I saw 0 comments, posted mine, and suddenly I’m not even second; I’m fourth.
She’s Ana Chronistic. She posses powers the mortals of this century could convince.
(In all seriousness, I have been asking that question for years and nobody can satisfyingly answer it. She is the great final mystery of DoA, and yet deprived of the possibility of enlightenment the community has learned to ignore her. They go about their daily business, no longer stopping to fret or wonder that they do so in Ana’s Eldritch shadow).
I fret when she’s not first.
the immense panik I feel when she elects not to post on a page and I’m hitting ctrl+F when I’ve scrolled 5 comments down
Maybe she bots it, but we know that she’s on the patreon $5 tier, so she might just be fast at copy and pasting.
Anna is secretly Maggie and the comic refuses to upload without her comment.
I accept this headcanon.
And here Ana, are your bones of acceptable losses. Do you see the grief and sorrow? Do you?!
(It’s beautiful. Please keep it up, and Happy New Year to all, and to all a timezone relevant blessing for a period of roughly eight to twelve hours.)
Whereas I cannot post comments at all because Willis never reads these and approves new commenters for posting.
Well I feel stupid now.
Finally. Thank you Willis.
Welcome, and may $DEITY have mercy on your soul.
Stealing “$DEITY”. Thank you for your service.
Dumbing of Age Book 15: The Bones of Acceptable Losses
oops I didn’t even read the alt-text until after I scrolled down the comments
Happy New Year, for Auld Lang Syne, et cetera.
TWF you realize you can’t possibly be the only one who’s thought of trying that. :/
also Happy Year Year everyone!
Happy New Year! \o/
Happy new year! You are one of the few people here I actually kind of like, hope you have a good one.
Of she’s not. The bones of acceptable losses are a fantastic material for high-end furniture. My grandmother had a wonderful armoire made from the faded memory of civilian causalities – imported all the way from Laos.
And Happy New Year!!!
I hear they are great for your posture!
> The bones of acceptable losses are a fantastic material for high-end furniture.
Well, they used to be. Now they’re mostly plastic from things like “the dignity of the office of preseident.”
This thread is starting to remind me of a Laundry Files novel….
Happy new year!!! ❤️
Is this Jocelyne solving problems just by being chill?
What a fucking hero; please never leave.
Oh man gotta love the skilled void players. Sylve of Void perhaps?
[insert Homestuck police image]
I agree with you tho. I think Dorothy would be more of a sylph than Joss bc she’s more of a meddling meddler. Maid maybe?
…You know what, I’m just gonna go ahead and out myself here, and admit that I’ve put WAY too much thought into this in the past. I’ve long imagined Dorothy to be an Heir of Time in my personal classpecting of DoA characters, because of how important both responsibility and opportunism are for her personally.
I haven’t actually thought that much about Joceylne before, but I’d probably classify her as a Mage, since so much of her role in DoA has just revolved around being way more aware of certain things than her sister, but in such a way that she was the only one who could really do anything with that knowledge.
Amber’s Rage aspect I assume. Probably Knight (using her rage as a weapon) but I could see an argument for Prince (using her rage to destroy) or Maid (at least some of what she does as Amazi-girl can be interpreted as tidying up the results of other people’s rage and she uses Amazi-girl to keep her own rage neat and tidy.).
Jocelyne: “Ok, suppose you become President, and I’ll be your Vice Prez. Deal?”
Dorothy. Just become a billionaire and buy your way into the white house.
I don’t know if that is a safe option; people are planning more, and more to eat the rich. So maybe hold off on the fortune making until after that.
Please don’t eat the rich; they’re at the top of the food chain and full of toxins.
Compost the rich.
Here’s an even better idea for our Dorothy: support socialist revolution!
Cuz let’s face it — if the coercive power of capital can rival that of the “official” democratically elected state, we may as well not even have democracy at all.
Eat The Rich is the inevitable result of a capitalist social order which is intrinsically unstable and unsustainable.
For it is a social order in which there exist in-groups who are protected by the law but not bound to it, alongside out-groups who are bound to the law but not protected by it.
This is a great alternative, because it runs into basically all of the exact same ethical problems without solving or improving any of them while introducing a bunch of all new ones
You know, the American way!
You’re gonna compromise your morals either way. You might as well get that money while you’re bullshitting! At least the billionaire route means you’re not actively supporting genocidal status quos and laws that undermine the average person’s quality of life, bodily autonomy, or very existence. You’re just passively doing that! Carla seems to have found a work around that lets her live guilt free. I’m sure Dorothy can pull it off.
Carla’s work-around is that she was born into it and doesn’t have to think about any of it.
Dorothy has unfortunately missed her shot to be born an heiress and would have to actually build a fortune, which is extremely difficult and luck-dependant for a person of her socio-economic status
Sadly most of us are born with a pre existing of condition of not being Beyonce. (Last week tonight reference)
Hmm. A ticket with Dorothy for Prez and Carla for Prez-of-Vice. (that’s what vice prez means, right?) Yeah, I’d vote for that.
Slogan: We Could Do A Lot Worse
Or buy someone ELSE’s way into the white house and be the unofficial co president.
That works too. But the problem with buying politicians is that they don’t stay bought.
That is easy, just have practically infinite money to continue to buy them. Problem solved!
And yet, everyone stays dead when killed.
You’re telling me people die when they are killed? Preposterous.
Someone else is always trying to buy them, too. Those durn poly-ticians.
Buy one dumb enough to be shoved aside. The parties pre-select them for you!
That’s a great idea, now all Dorothy has to do is figure out a way to become a billionaire that doesn’t involve exploiting, stealing, and lying
See, this is a trick “problem”, like the one with the fox and corn and chicken. Lie to an existing billionaire, fall into its good graces and gradually work yourself into its will or similar. Exploit its ego so you get increasing amounts of goodies for playing yes-man (it doesn’t need to know about the good stuff you’re doing with “its” money). Eventually, stage a hostile takeover and steal its entire whatever-the-fuck. Boom. You’re a billionaire now and you haven’t exploited, stolen from, or lied to a single human being. Redistribute that shit directly into the places that need it and everyone goes home happy.
I am considering your solution while being distracted by the displayed cleavage. Not ideal conditions for this Microeconomics exam, lemme tell ya.
Well, you have exploited, stolen from and lied to one human being: your billionaire mark.
But billionaires aren’t people so nobody will care.
I admire your ability to avoid anthropomorphizing billionaires.
It’s pretty much impossible to become a billionaire without being an incredibly terrible person who exploits lots of people, and/or being born to wealthy parents who exploited lots of people to get rich. Dorothy would be massively compromising her morals if she became president this way, and then she would find herself having to commit war crimes as president anyway.
Lmao “having to commit war crimes”
Having to. As if everyone doesn’t have a choice. You can always just simply not commit a war crime, it’s the easiest choice in the world. I’m doing it right now.
Ordinary people don’t usually commit war crimes. US presidents do.
If you splash water on somebody, they’ll probably get wet
US president is a job where you take on personal responsibility for the crimes that make your entire society possible and maintain its global power. I find it useful to think of even the best possible president as a sin eater on some level, and we tend not to get the best possible presidents.
In many ways, the American military no longer being willing to do horrific shit would come with a drastic reduction in the goods and services cheaply available to the American public, and would likely endanger our position as global hegemon over the long term. The American public would never accept that even if it might be better for the world writ large (and to be clear–unless every other major actor also agrees to stop it would likely just shift who the war crimes are being done on behalf of). So. The president orders crimes committed on behalf of the public and the public gets mad and doesn’t have to take responsibility. It’s part of why our foreign policy tents to be pretty consistent unless there’s a wildcard crazy man in office.
Given that every other major power absolutely wouldn’t agree to stop, I think it would endanger our position basically immediately.
Probably collapse the existing world order and another one wouldn’t shake out until after a serious global conflict. Which, if the US hadn’t actually collapsed first, we’d inevitably be drawn into, so back to the horrific shit. 🙁
Things have also been getting a lot better w.r.t. the US military’s willingness to do horrific shit. It was like ten times worse, at least, in the 20th century. Now they at least have somebody checking where the bombs will land and the bombs are a lot better at landing on specific spots. People actually got in trouble for the Abu Ghraib torture case and the government actually apologized.
Not to say everything is fine and dandy now, but it’s good to look back on how much worse things could be.
This is important too.
It’s important to keep criticizing the US when we do bad and keep pushing us to do better, but pretending that the US is somehow uniquely evil is absurd.
We’re the most powerful and thus can do more damage than anyone else, but as imperial powers go, we’re not that bad. Awful as that might seem to our victims. Improvement is still improvement
Maybe, possibly, Warren Buffet (USA) and Azim Premji (India). Granted, both of them are controlling and hoarding more wealth than 99% of humanity. But by most accounts, they do seem to do the least harm with it all.
They played the game by the rules and didn’t directly hurt anybody, sure. If you look at mere millionaires there are plenty of people who got where they are just by being in the right place at the right time, or by developing a technology that’s objectively a good thing for humanity, like dishwashing machines. I think the notion that you *have* to be morally bad to accumulate wealth is just something we tell ourselves to convince us that the other class is all bad people that deserve anything bad that happens to them. A great way to motivate holy warriors, but probably not true in the strictest sense. Immoral/unethical behavior tends to lead to material success, therefore you will tend find more instances of immoral/unethical behavior the farther up the pyramid you go, but it’s far from an ironclad rule.
Becoming a billionaire involves doing terrible things to people on a larger scale than becoming president. Just much more economic.
I would love to see the alt-text made real.
When has the alt-text ever lied about the title?
Happy New Years!
Every future president should listen to transwomen. Every current one too
pfft, that’d be the day, the day they listen to us is the day I’ve been dead for 267 years. ~<3
I say the more just thing is for transwomen altogether to have even more power and influence than the president. We must build strength in numbers
Happy New Year! \o/
Happy 2025!
(Love your icon OMG)
Happy new year!
This comic is almost completely unrivaled in terms of flipping between depression and silly antics, and it’s incredible.
You gotta admit: that would be a badass book tittle.
Dorothy is not perfect, no one is but that’s fine. She’s aware of the danger now of what she could become. That does make her more desirable than the version of her who could never consider herself corruptible or the version of herself who would be in flat out denial about it and thinks herself beyond reproach. No doubtedly Dorothy will find plenty like that who would be like a dark mirror to her.
Not to say if she still pursues this path she won’t step over a few people and ruin some lives, the greatest people out are still a villain to someone else.
The best path forward for her if she wants to make a good change in the world is to not wait till she gets into a seat of power to do it. Saround herself with those who share one or two virtues and goals, not to say they all have to be yes men just people who can keep her ankerd. Tear down the century old institutions that would pull her and many like her into making the sane mistakes we’ve been making for generations, and then build something new and better.
Not every choice made will be the best one, but if a person could manage to do more good than harm than it’s worth trying. Because the world needs as much good as it can get.
If Dorothy had gone to Yale without all the experiences she has gone through, it is very likely that she would have gone through a more serious crisis, rejecting Yale was for the best.
But, if she were willing to rethink her objective of seeking the common good, she must do so precisely step by step, learning things in greater detail and I dare say that she will find the way, yes, there will be failures, setbacks and errors, but Those will also be the keys to continue learning, at the end of the day, we are human and we will never stop learning.
It is very rare to find this kind of encouraging comments to Dorothy, it is great.
Dorothy also acts like the Presidency is not a compromised position beyond the violence element. She will have to make a large amount of deals, favors, and work in her party’s portfolio. Dorothy acts like being President won’t involve….well, politics.
Politics is compromising between the needs of the many and the greeds of the few.
That’s a good idea. Dorothy as a Buddha figure, applying adult wisdom to problems most of us learned to deal with poorly, as children.
since she was five. that’s earlier than I guessed.
It makes me think of the Hannah Montana episode where she told a group of young kids they won’t all grow up to be president, and in fact it’s likely none of them will be.
It is the kind of career path a five year old gifted kid would think of isn’t it? Though it usually doesn’t last this long.
It is a very “five year old” goal, yes. To be the one who solves everyone’s problems without ever having to do anything bad.
The thing is, that’s not the job description of the President. That’s Superman.
her hometown must’ve been pretty political active, other than like being in a huge city idk if i knew what a president was at that age, or very limited child knowledge of ‘what do i wanna be when i grow up’ and ppl just saying stuff like astronaut/fireman and such
*plays the theme song for THE WEST WING from a nearby TV set*
yo long time no see Stephen! ^^
how’ve things been going since your last time runnin the hacked muzak?
Working a lousy job that takes so many of my spoons I can’t stay up to midnight most nights anymore. :\
T_T *offers hugs* <3
really sorry to hear bruh that sucks 😭
I shall do my very best to run the muzak in your place ;-;
And as cornily perfect, too!
Hi Stephen! I’ve missed you around these parts.
Chefs kiss for the “from a nearby TV set.”
Less evil is less evil, kids. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
Happy 2025, for some desperate version of happy.
This, 100% this. We cannot let the gulf between reality and our preferred alternatives blind us to the measurable changes within reach and possibility. It’s time to get real and get practical.
also at the same time, don’t frame your problems too tightly 😉
It’s still evil, though. You have the right to demand a not-evil option, rather than participating in the ratchet of allowing the lesser evil to normalise what was unthinkable a couple of decades ago.
so much this.
it all comes down to understanding that Presidential races aren’t the only “real” source of political power
the Jim Crow south continued to exist for decades regardless of who was currently president, it largely perpetuated itself because it was drawing on a whole CULTURE long-established from the ground up to keep together a race-based social pyramid. The motivations and aspirations the commonwealth were raised to aspire to in this system such to reproduce the basic form meant that slavery being abolished in law did not automatically make it so in life.
Elections aren’t the only time politics happen, it also happens on the cultural frontier, on the streets, in the community and by mutually supporting each other. To turn the tides, we must be most conscious of this fact in our efforts.
For to counter the power of established systemic bigotry, we must make conscious effort towards establishing systemic anti-bigotry in all that we do, say, and think.
And even within electoral politics, the Presidential race isn’t the only source of political power. One of the huge problems with our system is how many people only vote in Presidential election years. They ignore state & local races that often have far more effect on their lives, Congressional races that aren’t individually as powerful as the President, but collectively at least as strong and especially the primaries that determine who runs in the other races.
Not only are these races important in their own right, but very often they determine who rises to the level where they have a chance to run for President. Anyone who ignores all the lower races, but complains about the choices for the general Presidential election as if they were handed down from on high shouldn’t be taken seriously.
are we demonstrably a nation run by 6-year-olds brought up to venerate ignorance and militarism, who can’t be bothered to think too deeply about anything besides football and furniture? Yes, yes we are. (-_-)
it’s just as Socrates warned us millennia ago, without adequate public education needed to wield shared power responsibly and with good intention, democracy is no better than Tyranny of the Majority.
And more specifically in response to your point, that bigotry exists in a feedback loop. The culture was long established, but Jim Crow politicians consciously worked to reinforce it. And when segregation was ended legally, Republican politicians consciously chose to court former Democratic segregationist voters, to great political advantage.
They couldn’t have done so, if the culture wasn’t already there, but they’ve definitely reinforced and spread it.
They spread it if only because it *worked* to stave off class resentment in post-reconstruction south resulting from let-them-eat-cake obliviousness of capital owners in the North.
The North being 50 years ahead of the south in industrial power meant that cheaply made northern products flooded the region and bankrupted individuals and businesses alike who stood no real chance at competing in the capitalism game without actual government help.
But of course why would a politician make genuine effort to lift people out of poverty when they could easily play on racist culture that’s been there for centuries to benefit those at the top of the social pyramid and keep the rest in place?
“If you can convince the poorest white man he’s better than the richest black man, then the former will not notice when you are picking his pocket.
Hell, give him someone to hate, berate, look down upon, war against, then he will gladly empty his pockets for you.”
— Lyndon B Johnson
Not buying it. Not everything reduces to class conflict. Reconstruction did not fail for economic reasons. “Class resentment” was a distant second to racism and to regional anger at being beaten and occupied.
it’s not really reduction, economic incentive plays a major role in the big picture
systemic racism flourishes well beyond hatred for it’s own sake, it continues to this day because it works to economically benefit the descendants and apologists of white people who built it in the first place for this very purpose, regardless of participants’ opinions on it.
in the Civil War south, the ones doing the actual physical fighting and being beaten the most were poor white folk who were seen as but disposable cannon-fodder by the slave-owning aristocracy,
the former stood to benefit their economic status even when beyond the powerful rhetoric apotheosizing the white supremacist social order they knew they were basically going on suicide missions for its defense
it is no coincidence that the Civil War is often cited by historians as “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight”.
no less than why people often join the army today even when they know fully what kinds of risks and horrors they’re in for — it’s because they were in a situation where better alternatives simply weren’t available for them to not wind up in (more) debt, homeless and/or starving, and thus was worth the risk from the get-go
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.
I don’t even disagree with most of that, just with pushing it to the point that Reconstruction would have worked fine except for “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness of capital owners in the North”. Maybe if they’d miraculously made everyone in the South rich, but even then the racial fault lines were there. As was the anger over being beaten and occupied.
The idea that all that just was inconsequential compared to class divides and economic incentives or only matter because of how capitalists use it is a constant flaw in socialist thinking.
There are other wars than the class war. They’re all intertwined, but they’re still there.
That sort of thing can be led from the top down. One failure I’ve seen, though, is the tendency for leaders to confuse policy with performance. We have a law against “that”, therefor “that” no longer happens — problem solved. Nope.
Then again, protest voting (or not voting at all) because “less evil” isn’t perfect has helped drive us in our current direction.
Love to pat myself on the back for doing nothing because I didn’t have a perfect option, then acting all smug like I have some kind of high ground. Add in a dash of telling people not to worry when the worst outcome happens, because hey, I’m not the target. Yeah, I didn’t forget how this little fence fucker treated people on and right after Election Day.
Meanwhile, the diehard voting fanatics all gleefully pull the “everybody else gets diarrhea forever” lever, too self-centered to remember we’re all “everybody else” to everybody else. But they won’t care if they shit themselves, as long as they’re told somebody they’ve been convinced is lesser than them shit themselves before they did.
“What was unthinkable a couple decades ago”?
What’s become normalized that was unthinkable a couple decades ago? Same-sex marriage? The federal government having a responsibility for healthcare?
Okay, Trump’s been normalized, but his elections were mostly backlash to elected a black President. (and to running women for the office).
Turn it over. If you choose less-evil-than-now, every time the ratchet clicks up rather than down, and evils that were normal become unthinkable.
Less evil means more good, or at least more neutral. You’d think people would grow up and quit pretending it’s a zero sum game where even the slightest hint of evil invalidates any good. My perfectly pristine white shirt got a drop of red on it, so it’s a red shirt now.
it’s always been a red shirt, america was founded on genocide after genocide, being the “less evil” mascot for that just means it gets to continue a while longer without being stopped, which is always going to happen from the bottom up, not the top down
I know the difference between white and red, silly. When I bought this shirt at the store, it was pure white, like it had never seen a bit of pigment since the day it was forged. It’s only red now because I had a nosebleed in the same room and the tiniest of flecks got on it.
In general I am exhausted with the sheer surrender. And with the predictable SuprisedPikachu.jpg
“Power is corrupting and requires doing some bad stuff, therefore nobody with morals should ever try to get any power (also somehow revolution doesn’t count as seeking power)”
“Oh no why are all the people in power only assholes that never worry about morals and why don’t we have any ability to stop them”
Gee, you think?!
I’d rather not support evil at all, especially when the ones we’re told are the “lesser” evil often go on to commit just as much evil as the “greater” evil. When you live in a system where the main choices are both evil, perhaps it’s time to replace that entire system.
Which will absolutely not require supporting anyone who commits any evil at all.
We should try one of those alternatives that’s never gone wrong, like… uh…
With a new system that’s evil in new ways.
Dorothy might do much more good as a local leader, municipal or county level. Possibly her state’s Congress.
“More good”?
I doubt it. I think she’d do much more good as President. Even if she had to make moral compromises along the way. It’s not like you don’t have to make those on a smaller scale, even in more local politics.
I’m thinking the numerous and powerful forces pulling on her to compromise, as the President, would far outnumber and outweigh the equivalents pulling on her at lower levels. Fewer negative influences from around the world; more focus on the local needs.
It’s just a matter of scale. Sure, there would be less and smaller things pulling on her to compromise, but there would also be less opportunity to do good and what good you could do might get overridden by people acting at higher levels.
Sure, you always get the overriding forces from around and above you. Yet I see her being less corrupted in that way, having to commit fewer warcrimes (if any) at such lower levels. And that’s what she’s opposed to.
Yeah, less war crimes.
You just have to back the police when they kill people.
Hear, hear! “Everybody’s step one” is also step one for the best person for the job.
Omelasian Motto.
“lesser evil = good” is how you get people arguing that shredding children in tent camps with bunker buster bombs and starving millions of people with intentional famine is just a minor dalliance.
Right after the people saw they could get the candidate to change (literally), too many people decided ethnic cleansing wasn’t a dealbreaker.
But that’s not what lost the election, at least not entirely. The democratic party doesn’t stand for anything. It’s vibes. And it tries to be two different vibes at the same time. They want to be for queers, but against queers. They want to be against fossil fuel, but for fossil fuel.
If you do think the anti-genocide vote was enough to tip the election, you should direct your anger at the DNC and Harris for not taking an anti-genocide position. And at all the people who were too busy patting themselves on the back for accepting genocide as “the lesser evil” to think strategically to get the voting bloc which didn’t.
Both parties need to split: far left|right vs. center left|right. Both have lost coherence.
I sometimes think the GOP’s “big tent” move was a clever ploy to get the Democrats to do the same thing, because they figured it would hurt the Dems worse.
I’m not sure what you’re imagining here. A 4-way split doesn’t work in the American system. US parties are inherently “big tent”, since you need outright majorities. Not even sure what Republican big tent move you’re thinking of.
I don’t think the basic party coalitions have changed in decades honestly.
at least a structural division.
but, uh, the Democratic party is not a leftwing party. It’s barely a centrist party. What people call “far left” in the US are mostly social democrats. The corporate democrats are the center right party, if one’s being charitable.
Ah man, DoA has the amazing ability to hit you deep after 20 strips of pure goofiness. It’s like the John Oliver of comics.
The notion of “good person” and “bad person” as ontological categories is the root of a lot of facile misunderstandings of morality and governance. Only actions can truly be judged. I’m here for that. At the same time, some people are still better options to occupy such a position of power because of their behavioral profiles and likelihood of taking actions that are, on the whole, more beneficial. I think we often lose sight of that as idealists. It’s not sexy or glamorous, but there’s tangible progress to be made from compromised people doing what they can in corrupt systems, and we ignore that at the risk of writing ourselves out of a position to accomplish anything.
BUT; that’s big picture — and on the personal level, if you don’t think you could handle being compromised by the concessions that are sometimes necessary to enact what change is possible, then yes, you’re not the right person for the job. Let someone else be your useful idiot and wring as much good work as you possibly fucking can from their imperiled moral carcass.
That’s my mission for 2025. Do whatever is possible for progress under horrible circumstances and oppressive systems, and don’t let yourself be paralyzed by despair at the fact that we’re not yet at your desired utopia. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. There is still so much good that we can, and will, accomplish.
The problem is perhaps not compromise, but which compromises one chooses. “I unfortunately have to do what the power brokers say” is quite different from “My traps are set, and I may have to destroy a few power brokers if they try to drag me off-mission. I’ve told them what the mission is.”
Well this is a cheery thought to ring in the New Year!
Jimmy Carter’s recent death is a perfectly timed example.
Probably one of the people to hold the office with the most integrity, and his work with Habitat For Humanity is laudable. He also did a good bit less unscrupulous shit than many of his fellow presidents.
He also was weak in applying pressure to South Africa mid-Apartheid, supported the South Korean military dictator Chun Doo-hwan while fully aware he’d had at least 60 killed, supported the Shah of Iran, etc. He tried with the Panama Canal to clean up some of the US’s bullshit, but engaged in plenty more. You cannot leave the office of President with clean hands, not as it currently exists. There is no ethical way to be a superpower of a nation.
Yeah. The fact that Jimmy Carter was a “bad President” should really be seen a damning indictment of the Presidency itself.
The timing is really uncanny, yeah.
I think Dorothy made that parallel herself earlier.
Honestly, it always surprises me that there’s a theory in the comments that Willis’s view of the Presidency, and therefore Dorothy’s character arc, has changed since the strip started due to … current events. Because it seems to me that … current events … would tend towards the exact opposite — it’s very easy to see your Future President as the alternative to “someone worse” when someone worse is right there. But if you look past him, and consider all the “someone betters” objectively…
The strip started early in the Obama presidency. A lot of leftish liberals had hope back then that they lost when Obama didn’t magically fix everything and did some bad things himself.
And there’s been a strong movement on the left blaming Dems for everything Republicans do, including winning elections.
lmao “some bad things”. that’s your deporter-in-chief! that’s the drone strike president! put some respect on his name!
Back when he decided no one needed to be tried for kidnapping people, holding them without trial or with rigged trials, and then torturing them.
Back when he ordered a drone strike on an American citizen.
Back when he ordered double tap drone strikes that were explicitly intended to target first responders trying to help the innocent people caught in the explosion along with the intended targets . . . assuming the intended targets actually got hit in the first place.
Sure, the problem was him not “magically solving everything”.
The thing that grinds my gears about the drone strikes is that postmortems from the people who worked in his administration suggest he only took such hawkish stances out of a misguided attempt to curry favor with Republicans — who were never gonna play ball with him to begin with. It was a horrendous and unnecessary concession to them, not even a compromise that got some good things in return. I wish we could get some candidates at the national level who understand the principle of burning political capital to get some actual progress done, not simply kowtowing to the default hegemony because you mistakenly believe you have to.
but what’s step two ?
Question marks.
Step 3 is “Profit”.
Instead of 1,000 innocent people dying for the sake of progress, isn’t it better for 2,000 to die for no progress at all?
And if you choose the second option, aren’t you saying that you are willing to let 1,000 die to achieve your goal (only the goal is instead feeling better about yourself)? Doesn’t that make you exactly what you were trying to run from?
Can we just not adjunct the hypothetical death of thousands of people to literally a 19 year old girl in her year if college? That has not been working great for her or for anyone ever for that matter.
Those hypothetical people are dead, Dorothy. Feel bad about killing them, which you definitely did.
But this sort of thing never manifests as clearly marked trolley problems, you’re operating in a world of unknowns and unforseen consequences
Also, somebunny actually solved the trolley problem.
That’s not really the point of the exercise
Best solution is rerouting the trolley to go over both groups.
If you’re the kind of person who kills 1000 people to spare 2000 then you are the kind of person to kill 2000 and say you’re saving 4000.
Is this an argument for absolute pacifism? Surrender is the only acceptable response to military aggression?
I mean, isn’t Dorothy one?
She witnessed slashing up a rapist and killing a kidnapper.
Both as close to “justified” violence as you can get and was horrified.
Even justified violence is traumatic.
Here’s her and Amber, next time they talked.
Look, just don’t fucking drone strike civilians. Why is everyone acting like that’s so fucking hard? It’s actually extremely easy, and in fact most fucking people aren’t doing it. Every single day, billions upon billions of people are just not blowing any civilians up, and there’s no reason to pretend it’s something any job requires. It’s so fucking stupid and childish, and Dorothy needs to get the fuck over it and act like she’s got a fucking brain in her head.
I mean…. *Look at a good chunk of america military history* that is debatable.
I’m not blowing anyone up right this very moment. It’s unbelievably easy. Nobody talks about how easy it is to just simply not explode children, even though maybe a few dozen people on the planet are blowing up kids at any given moment. Just kill those guys and we’re golden, but everybody wants to act like that’s so difficult.
Well those guys do have a lot of guns and explosives so that complicates it a bit
Then convince them to blow themselves up. I’m not here for Serious Business™ with a furrowed brow.
Plus they work for guys with a lot of money and influence
Were you watching the election debates in the UK when Jeremy Corbyn was monstered by the studio audience and then the press for suggesting that he would be reluctant to commit mass murder for no better reason than spite?
We live in a world where you have to appear ‘tough’ to get ahead in politics, and that includes nailing your colours to the mast as a bloodthirsty imperialist.
No, I wasn’t watching any election debate. Based on what people say about them while they’re happening, it’s nothing but allegedly grown adults saying “poo poo pee pee” at each other with increasing volume until somebody shrieks like an ejaculating gibbon and somehow that means they won. I have more important things to watch, like gifs of Princess Zelda getting railed by moblins.
I prefer gifs of Link getting railed by Ganondorf, personally.
As long as the good people of Hyrule are gettin’ some.
this. you can never win nationalists and imperialists over, because you can only really do so by abiding by THEIR standards of politeness and respectability, which are designed to stripe away any actual political and antiestablishment parts of discourse
if you engage in a way THEY deem acceptable, you water down the message, and eventually if you want to stay in the picture you’ll become a nationalist yourself
and that’s when reactionaries will appeal to “being reasonable”, i.e. making the left seem more “extremist”, and that’s how the right wing wins (-_-)
I’ll be as extremist as they wanna pretend I am, sure. Not like I got much goin’ on these days anyway, may as well buy a box of matches and start lighting the fuse on that dynamite they shoved up their own asses.
You can’t win them over, the best I can manage is show there’s a better way. Let’s do some research on a .gov site to show that truth as a concept exists.
It is very easy to do for most people, but becomes much harder if you become commander-in-chief of the imperial superpower whose military loves to drone strike people
Mmm, sounds sketchy at best.
It’s not great!
I really don’t buy that “becomes much harder” thing. What’s anyone gonna do if I don’t blow up a kindergarten, take away my drones? Good job, idiots, now I can’t explode those kids. Played yourselves.
Pleased to see the comments section grappling with the concept of self-replicating systemic incentives with alllllllll the intelligence and thoughtfulness I’ve come to expect from this community.
Right? We’ve got people expecting a guitarist to come up with the Perfect Solution™ in the comments section of a webcomic, and then acting like that’s not ridiculous to want from me.
So you’re entitled to complain mightily about the status quo, but articulating any practical alternatives is unfair to ask of you? You must be fun to coordinate logistics with.
I’m not here to coordinate logistics, I’m here to play music on a guitar. Stop being so goddamn whiny.
Its strange you think that’s the only unscrupulous thing US presidents have done as part of being in and getting into office. Note the getting into office part, which often requires you playing ball with other politicians.
Fuck yourself with a 5″x24″x72″ particle board door, I never said all that.
Let me argue the point:
* Dorothy not sending weapons to Bulmeria to support a genocide? Easy.
* But what about sending weapons to fight the Head Alien? Because there’s a lot of deaths that’s supporting as well.
And sometimes its not so clear cut.
eh, by then I’ll be inside the Head Alien’s head making a meal out of what used to be his brain sack
Yeah but those are like, Martian deaths or whatever. If it ain’t from my planet, I don’t care if it dies.
I don’t even know if my species comes from a “planet” 😛
Or to bring it back to reality, is Zelinsky a war criminal if Russian civilians are killed by Ukrainian operations? Whether drone strikes/artillery/whatever.
War is hell and good politicians should go to great lengths to avoid it, because horrible things happen and civilians always pay the price, but of utopian world peace spontaneously breaking out, it’s going to be something a world leader will have to deal with.
What makes a war criminal is quite well defined.
And regularly ignored in these comments.
Then fine. Strike “war criminal” and substitute “drone strike civilian”, since that was the original phrase.
It’s also something that Dorothy doesn’t necessarily agree with.
Like that movie of The American President, when the President bombs Syrian intelligence after a terrorist attack and it kills a bunch of cleaning staff to minimize casualties.
Sure it is easy not to drone strike civilians, but step one is not becoming president. i.e. as you say later, take away the drones except you do it to everyone. We’ve tried this whole “Supreme Overlord To Rule Over Us All” quite a few times in history and even with the best Supreme Overlord and the best possible circumstances, it never lasts a lot of generations. Maybe we should through a global refusal to be their soldiers try to pre-emptively disarm all powerful people for a while, see what that does.
It’s very very easy for any individual to not drone strike civilians. As you say, just keep away from the reins of power.
And while a “global refusal to be their soldiers” sounds like a great idea, how do you plan to bring that about? Starting on any local area just invites those who don’t start to exploit the opportunity.
“Let’s start by trying world peace” is charming, but hardly a plan.
It’s very easy for someone who has never had power to use, and is afraid of violence to just ‘never blow people up.’ I know you’re being facetious, and I know Obama shouldn’t have signed off on drone strikes as much as he did, but this kinda logic just kinda bothers me. I mean, don’t take me as trying to silence you, it’s good for you to say this, at least as much as it is for me voice that your logic is incomplete.
I love that Obama gets the blame for drone strikes as if drone strikes are uniquely horrific when Bush not only started two major occupations and the broad use of air strikes in the War on Terror. Drones are new and scary, so Obama’s especially bad. (Or that drone strikes usually do less civilian damage than boots on the ground do.)
Not to mention Trump loosening the standards for such strikes and Biden basically ending them, for which one gets no blame and the other no credit.
America aside surely tehre are some countries with presidents that wouldn’t necessarily have any big losses under their name unless it’s counting anyone with nukes/military or so
You could decide to try it anyway and see how far you can go before the moral compromise becomes unacceptable to you, right? But remember, Dorothy already did that. She didn’t want to leverage the “mildly heroic” image she got out of the hostage thing for an unfair ticket to Yale. She just doesn’t go in for profiting from anyone’s misery, so she’s never going to go very far in politics. It’ll have to be someone at least slightly worse than her.
Raidah sadly already drew her line at war crimes.
The Acceptable Losses Throne was one of the wordier pieces of furniture made available to Khorne’s favoured followers
I thought this would be topical enough to post this skit I found :
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTYWEV38j/
I am firmly on the boat that Dorothy whole presidency thing was objectively bad for her mental health besides any complex ethical questions about the job. Even if it started her depressive spiral, she really did need to step away for that whole mindset for a while, examine it and hopefully arrive at a better place afterward.
Now imagine if she had gone to Yale without the events she went through, it would have been more serious.
Well the justification for her working herself to death was to get to Yale. It’s hard to predict how achieving that goal could have changed things.
jocelyne i literally love you
“That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!”
Certainly gotta be better than what we’ve got for the next 4 years!
Dumbing of Age: no matter how wide the buffer, it’s always right on time. (RIP Harris/Walz 2024…)
In fact, RIP 2024 — full stop. Happy New Year, Willis & everybody! Here’s wishing (& working) for peace on Earth in 2025.
That’d be an interesting cover illustration for book 15.
I’m sick of the lesser of two evils is still evil copout especially when we have the Count of Monte Crisco days away from being sworn in.
girl your gas prices
damn website got me with the wrong comment reply on new years
Kinda glad she’s saying it’s actually an existential crisis she’s going through here instead of burnout. She was having burnout in the fall semester because she had put way too much on her plate – even if you do very well in high school, university is a completely different beast and you’re going to need some adjustment, and then she was doing a whole bunch of extracurriculars on top of it all.
Here she’s not burning out – she’s utterly lost her direction in life and is scrambling to find new meaning. Her usual source of meaning – helping Joyce move away from her fundie routes – is more and more no longer needing her help, leaving her floundering again for a purpose.
I would Dorothy should go into law and become a defence lawyer, as it allows her to do good and help people victimised by an unjust society… but you do also have to defend actually terrible people (as everyone deserves proper representation, no matter how horrible) so it might not be a great fit for her since I don’t think she could stomach that.
I mean, it can be both. She can say it isn’t burn out, that doesn’t make it not burn out. Usually the people going through it aren’t really aware of it, they just think they need to work harder.
I’m gonna be real “utterly lost her direction in life and is scrambling to find new meaning” sounds a lot like someone suffering from burnout
Yeah, and sometimes it’s true. Look, there’s no version of politics where anyone can please everyone and only ever help everyone with no downsides for anyone who doesn’t deserve it. That’s not cynicism, that’s life. It is, in fact, possible to commit no mistakes and still end up with a loser.
That doesn’t mean all the good you CAN do isn’t good. Look at the ACA – it certainly wasn’t as expansive as anyone wanted it to be. Some of the people who it’s there to help really struggle with premiums it costs. It still made a difference to a lot of people. Was it not worth doing because it put some people in a worse position and it couldn’t do it all?
I’m over this take on going into politics. All it does is clear the way for the worst possible people to sweep in. Yeah, you’re not gonna be able to keep squeaky clean hands, but someone is going to be doing this job, whether you like it or not, and it’s way better for people who are TRYING to take the least harmful option than someone who’s going to go full speed ahead on as much harm as possible.
Thankfully, I’m hopeful Dorothy will eventually get her inspiration back. Happy New Year, everyone! Let’s do our best to make 2025 a better year.
I already made my stance clear here and elsewhere so I won’t repeat myself but still I do hope you have a good year too.
I am very tired so please forgive me because I don’t recall when/where we’ve talked about this. If it’s about the burnout you’ve posted about here, I do think that’s an important part of this issue but at the same time I think that it’s important people don’t disengage from politics completely because of it because that is where worse people creep in. I talk about it with Dorothy in particular because A) She was the most politically engaged person in the main cast, B) Her storyline is the one hitting those feelings going around right now, and C) I’ve had other issues with this storyline (assuming she actually gives up) so it’s another point that sticks to me about it.
But even if Dorothy does decide to give up becoming President, or even goes into another industry to do good there, this will still be an issue. It isn’t possible to engage politically and make everyone happy with no downsides, that’ll be true regardless of what level she engages in it (even if it’s just as a voter) but there are always going to be better and worse options and it’s not a good idea to let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Literally none of that matter to me. I just want her to do whatever it is best for her and doesn’t end up destroying her mental health. She is a 19 yo girl in her first year if colleges she literally does not need to be thinking about any of this right now.
She needs to be thinking this because she set herself the goal of becoming President. That was her thing.
She’s got to grapple with what that means and whether she really wants it. That’s her character growth. That’s how she grows and comes out of this a better person.
Whatever she decides.
The point is that she shouldn’t be aiming to become president ar this age at all in the first place! It is really not that complicated. It is just not a very good way to lead your life.
Yes, and?
She’s got that goal. It’s an established character trait.
Even if she gives it up, as she seems to be do doing, she’s going to have to go through some soul searching about it.
She’s not just going to drop it and forget it completely without at least addressing it.
I fell like I just can’t make myself understood because I lack the words to really make clear what I mean.
She gave up that goal a long time ago but people in the comments keep arguing that she should still have it and should also still go to Yale despite the fact that it’s pretty clear by now that all that pressure would lead to her having a breakdown.
True, but she also hasn’t finished sorting through it herself, as we see here.
Pressure hasn’t really been part of her rationale for giving up the goal or really part of the debate. The argument here is far more whether the goal itself is evil.
And in BBCC’s case (and mine as well) the thematic and narrative consequences. Her breaking down is an authorial choice, a characterization decision, not an innate consequence. When considering the story, we can bear that choice in mind as well.
If that’s her objective then she certainly should be taking aim, because there are a lot of goals between here and there and a lot of assets to be accumulated. Anyone who wants to Change The System had better start early and work like bees to be ready to take the objective and hold it.
I get that and if Dorothy were a real person, I’d agree 100% that whatever makes her happy is what’s important. As a CHARACTER though, I find this storyline, if it were to end in her giving up, would reflect real life sentiments that are unhelpful when it comes to preventing the political harms we complain about.
The mindset you propose is also unhelpful to her as character and to real people.
If you want to fight against things you care about, you need to stay engaged, even if your only engagement is paying even a modicum of attention to news and voting when you can. Regardless of what you care about or what industry you go into, that’s going to be true. Let’s say Dorothy decides to become a teacher instead – she’s gonna need to keep on top of proposed cuts to education and vote against them if she cares about that job – and also recognize that, say, unionizing might not get everyone in her workplace everything they want or might, say, get her boss in trouble with their boss for failing to prevent it. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable, unhelpful mindset to say you need to care about your reality.
But but but but bad stuff also happen too if good stuff happen during bad stuff!!!!😱😱😱
The thing is that this isn’t about supporting the lesser evil, it’s about becoming the lesser evil, which is a much greater thing to ask.
Have you been willing to pursue that sort of goal? Sacrifice all your principles on the altar of raw ambition and become whatever the power brokers whose support you need want you to be.
I haven’t, but I don’t have those ambitions in the first place.
I’d also be a horrible President and even worse at campaigning to get the job.
Well, then I guess I should get to judge you for allowing evil people to raise to power through your inaction. At least according to some people here.
I don’t think it’s quite the same.
I think there’s a difference between wanting to be President but deciding not to try because you couldn’t maintain your moral purity, thus relinquishing it to only the already evil and just not having that ambition in the first place.
I’d argue there isn’t a moral necessity to seize power to prevent other worse people from holding it, but at the same time it isn’t necessarily a moral failing to do so.
The way to become the lesser evil is to hold on to as many principles as you can in the face of political reality.
But that life just isn’t for everyone or most people in fact. Most don’t want to be any kind of evil, lesser or otherwise , and that is completely understandable, that is not giving up the fight or whatever or letting evil win, it’s just making a choice of what you are willing to do in order to archive power. There are a lot of things you can do to good for yourself and others that doesn’t involve any of this we are discussing. It isn’t and an either/or thing where not going into the president mean completely abandoning any notion of social justice or trying to help people in need.
No, but any involvement in social justice is going to require you to acknowledge the same political reality I was talking about – that you’re not going to be able to get everything for everyone with no downsides for anyone who doesn’t deserve them and that that doesn’t mean you can’t get any good done anyway.
If you aren’t willing to sell out your principles when push comes to shove then you don’t get to be president.
Oh no.
If you’re not willing to compromise your principles, you’re not going to get anywhere in politics. Even outside of electoral politics in political activism or social justice, sticking hard to your principles screws everyone over.
It depends what’s going on. Most everyone (including most politicians) have something or other they won’t back down on. They might not be able to get everything they set out for but most people have some things they stick to. Otherwise, no politician would EVER fight for anything even remotely controversial.
The key is knowing when, how, and why to be flexible.
Sure, but a lot of people watching politics count any of that flexibility as “selling out your principles”.
Compromise is anathema on both the left and the right, but it’s the basis of politics.
It takes a certain strength of willpower to gain power and for it to not tarnish you. It is even more difficult to realize when it has done so. I believe Dorothy, at her core, would wield it better than most, and would try to surround herself with those who would keep her true.
But there is wisdom beyond her years to look at herself and that path, and say that she’s not capable of walking it. I hope Jocelyn recognizes that as well, and reminds her why she wanted that position to begin with.
If power is left untouched by those who fear corruption, it is destined to fall kmto the hands of those who do not care. One is not better because they are afraid. They are better because they confront that fear and surpass it.
I don’t believe it’s impossible, but it won’t be possible if only people who are ready to commit awful action are running for the position.
Go as far as you can without compromising your core values and see where it get you. It might not end you in the Presidency position, but it might still result in good being done.
In X-men 97, there’s a fascinating bit where Cyclops is talking to President Kelly (former villain) about how Kelly can’t be seen sending too much aid to Genosha despite the recent genocide by Sentinels because it will cost him the election.
Cyclops calls him out.
Kelly says that if he doesn’t get re-elected then an actively hostile mutant hating Graydon Creed will get elected (and does).
It was the most cynical but honest thing I’ve ever seen in a cartoon.
So, what I’m hearing you say is that Kelly didn’t send aid to Genosha but Creed STILL got elected? Sounds like he should’ve sent that aid regardless.
Other events happened sadly.
But it showed the political mindset even if I don’t agree with it.
My take on it is that you don’t half-ass it. If you think something is just, you fucking own it and spin it as a positive in your electoral campaign and use the media to openly attack your opponents for not supporting it.
Well, Dotty’s read the literature then.
For what it’s worth, it’s true though. If people have to vote for the lesser of two evils, there’s *some* virtue in being the lesser evil. Sucks to be that, not as much as sucks to do that, but better than not even having that option.
Dorothy has witnessed multiple murders and wants nothing more to do with violence. Which the President will be called upon to engage in. I think this is a fine and believable choice.
“Gifted Kid Burnout” is just a veiled way to say “This is gonna be Willis’ Book 15 title”
Also Book 15 title:”Sitting on a Throne Built out of the Bones of Acceptable Losses”
I mean… she isn’t wrong.
No, that’s Dorothy.
I’m glad Dorothy has realized this about US presidents, and her old dream of becoming president. Even the former presidents who lots of people consider decent men, for example the recently-deceased Jimmy Carter, still committed a lot of war crimes while in office. The current US political system pretty much requires that anyone who becomes president support doing terrible things while in office, especially to civilians in other countries. I sincerely hope that we can replace this system with one that isn’t so evil soon.
How does the US system require that?
I think it’s less about the System and more US’ position in the world. Because US is an Empire with business all around the world and they need to make sure all those other states support them so they can maintain their power and money flow.
This. The US is an empire supported by hundreds of military bases around the world, and our political leaders exist to do what US businesses and their wealthy owners want. So when another country goes against those business interests, US politicians, especially the president, are expected by the wealthy business owners to send in the military to enforce the US empire’s business interests.
Indeed. And while I do not condone the abuses and atrocities the US has committed to remain at the top, their only saving grace is that the other contenders for the throne would all be far worse. >.< Right now, to those of us viewing it from the outside, America looks very much like a cantankerous old lion that just wants to lie down in its den and bask in the memory of its past glories. We're afraid to get close in case it mauls us, but at the same time, if we don't entreat the lion to get up and fight, its rivals are slowly going to bleed it to death and/or strike when it's asleep, and the new pride leadership (namely, China) that would get ushered in would be many times worse.
nah china would be way better
As someone whose country broke free of Communism 35 years ago all I can say is
LOL
You think China is actually Communist? It’s nothing but Stateist Authoritarianism.
Which is exactly what Communism in my country was, with a large helping of Russian Imperialism. That’s why I say LOL
“communism” is strictly speaking a *goal*, not necessarily any specific set of policies to achieve it
militarism and absolutism have been the norm for civics and politics in the region now known as Russia since the days of the Mongolian Empire, centuries before Marx or Engels were even born.
From the tyrannical Tsars who executed any opposition to their dynasty, to the Bolsheviks and their purge of peasants and all other socialist parties who were their former allies, to Stalin’s cult of the personality, to the Putin’s brutal war against the Ukraine now, at no point in Russia’s history do we see anything even close to resembling a liberal democracy.
As far as modern China’s policies go, centralized standardized public education and command economy have been norms of the Chinese Empire for MILLENIA, heckin the only thing they needed to change politically to be “communist” was to get rid of rule by royal birthright.
also @Buck Ripsnort to further clear up the confusion,
ardent self-identified “capitalists” in the United States very often tend to dumb down “communism” to mean “backwards” or “failure”.
China, being a real world nation full of real people who seek to improve life for themselves, refuse to fail at doing so just to make die-hard capitalists in the United States and elsewhere feel better
thus when calling China a “failure” isn’t an option, the only other route is to claim somehow that China isn’t “communist” 9-9
Uh, NGPZ, I don’t care if China qualifies as communist. It’s a surveillance state – the most extreme one that ever existed – ruled by an imperialist dictator-for-life with exceptionlessly thoroughly corrupt underlings.
Basically this, have you got any idea how nervous Trump is making me with his actions regarding NATO, Putin and Ukraine? From my perspective he’ll basically just pull the rug from under us, Central Europeans and we’ll be left at the mercy of Russia.
Welcome to basic foreign policy. As it has ever been. The Great Game goes on.
The US currently does horrible things around the world on a greater scale than other nations because the US is the sole superpower. Other nations can only do terrible things on local or regional scales.
For some people, this apparently makes them better.
But in reality, it’s like the discussion about Dorothy having to compromise her morals to become President or if she became President. The realities of foreign policy demand a lot of shit. To some extent more so when you’re a smaller power, because you’ve got less room for error. Different countries, different leaders can take different approaches. Better or worse ones. But no one’s hands are clean.
[tangent] People talk like it’s the President alone who’s responsible. Congress can bring a rogue President to heel if they have the will to do so, by a variety of means. For that matter, Congress can declare war when the President passionately wants and works to avoid it, and then the President is stuck with the job of leading the war.
It ain’t the System’s fault; it’s the rascal quality of the components we’ve been acquiring for it.
To an extent – and certainly with the current crop on one side here.
One factor of course is the “we” that’ve acquired those components. This isn’t exactly a pacifist country. We tire of war quickly when things aren’t going well, but we’re eagerly fired up for it when the circumstances are right. Attacking Afghanistan and even Iraq was popular when it started.
Or more recently, leaving Afghanistan was always going to be messy and no one wanted to deal with the political fallout from it. Biden did it and it hurt him politically and bought him no credit from the anti-war left. Things like that are why Congress hesitates to take that kind of drastic action.
A lot of foreign policy stuff has that kind of systemic issues going on. Short term thinking for immediate advantage, either for domestic politics or in the geopolitical arena and then once things have started, you just have to keep doubling down to push the fallout off awhile longer.
That makes more sense.
I mean, Dotty wouldn’t be so sad, at least she wouldn’t start antagonizing friends and allies before she is even sworn in XD
Someday she’ll decide to run for president, fully qualified with sensible policies, and the electorate will vote for a madman by a slight margin because her voice was annoying or something.
“But her emails!”
“But gas prices!”
There’s always some excuse upon which to hang the misogyny and/or racism.
The 2024 campaign was totally winnable despite the misogyny and racism. Biden fucked it up by refusing to drop out until after one of the worst debate performances in history, and the democrats have had a long-term problem with committing to stances that would give voters some reason to want them aside from “we are the less bad option”. Because, you know, their financial backers wouldn’t like those stances.
I strongly disagree with that. It might have been winnable and Biden and the debate certainly didn’t help, but the idea that Democrats would win if they just shifted far enough left and the only reason they don’t do so is “financial backers” is absurd.
Have you seen this country? Do you live here? It fucking sucks, but this isn’t a country where left stances win elections.
I didn’t say left, I said stances that would give people a reason to vote for them. Most of it would be changing the way they market themselves. Making it clear what path they’re offering forward, if any. Trump offers fascism, Harris offers…?
For example, the Biden administration has been remarkably pro-union, right around the time when unions are making a big comeback. Democrats absolutely could have capitalized on this, campaigned harder on how well their policies are working to improve the status of the working man — emphasis on man. In many ways this would mean going right, since unions in the U.S. aren’t really tightly associated with socialism or social justice movements (however much lefties might wish they were). They’d need to walk back on a lot of the ‘green new deal’ ideas, for instance.
Rather than blame Biden, who is the best President of my lifetime, I blame Republican voters.
Not even the people who didn’t vote for Harris.
It’s always the Democrats fault, no matter what happens. They always could have done better than they did or somehow stopped Republicans or something. Republicans are just like a natural force. Only Dems have agency.
Let’s be real, trying to push Senile Grandpa Joe until they woke up and realized it ain’t gonna work is completely on them.
It’s on Biden, I guess. In a sense.
But I don’t know what the options were.
He’s far from Senile. Slowing down, but still one of the sharpest politicians around.
He just doesn’t look it or sound it, which doesn’t really hurt running the country, but can be fatal campaigning. And the debate performance sealed. There was no coming back from that.
A year before that though? I’m not at all sure that an open primary looked like a better choice.
Republican voters are all complicit in the shitshow we’re about to experience, but they wouldn’t have won if the dems hadn’t fumbled the ball.
They voted for someone who committed 34 felonies against the government and has known ties to the Saudi Royal Family, a sponsor of terrorism and the biggest reason why the Middle East became the desolate war zone it is today.
Even the straightest, whitest men among them have reason to be worried
Damn near every incumbent across the globe has struggled in the last few years. In the US, somehow we treated the best economic performance in the world as a disaster and blamed it on Biden.
And we have a habit of treating Republicans as the default regardless.
The race might have been winnable, but it was far from a given.
Anti-establishment stances do, and since the RNC has the right locked down, left stances like healthcare and labour are the only open lane.
I don’t think so. I think what’s needed is something currently unthinkable: go talk to the other side’s voters, find out what they actually want when they aren’t parroting what the party bosses tell them to want, and show how your candidates and your policies can give them that, better than the other guys’. (That and boot your own parrot-trainers.)
What they want is incoherent. That’s the problem.
And they especially don’t want Dems because they know Dems are evil.
I think that’s not the case. A strong voting group for the orange guy was the too many men who are under-educated, under-employed, and under-earning. The country’s economic gains over the last 30+ years have been increasingly leaving those men behind. As the country’s wealthiest have been taking more and more of the economy for themselves, the men have been worse off by comparison. So they did what voters usually do during such worsening economic times: they vote for change, regardless of it being good or bad change.
My dad liked to joke that anyone that wanted to be President should be forbidden from entering office because they were obviously insane
Sortition! Or, taken to its logical limit, the Ruler Of The Universe from the Hitchiker’s Guide To The Galaxy.
Yes, that’s a very popular and pithy statement/sentiment. But the logical conclusion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that someone has to be – that the position is necessary) is that someone who doesn’t want it but is otherwise competent gets drafted to do it, and it’s very hard to get top-quality work out of the unwilling (conscripts, slaves, etc).
Do you really want someone for that job who hates it and wants, more than anything, to be out of it? And do you think it’s moral to compel someone to do it, despite their wishes, to make your life better/easier?
Actually I asked him that. He said that being President should be something someone is sentenced to and they get out if they do a good job.
Arthur C. Clarke used this in a lot of his SF, politicians were chosen randomly with any indication you wanted the job being a disqualification.
I really fell that with this storyline some of you care more about an answer that will aliviate your disillusionment with the current political climate rather what is actually best for the character development.
Definitely an interesting ethical problem. If being in power inevitably leads to moral compromises, then how could a moral person want to be in power? But then, if only amoral or immoral people achieve power, isn’t society worse off?
The error here, I think, is in the premise. A person in power must make immoral choices. I think that this is false for a lot of reasons. It isn’t just one assumption, either, as there are further assumptions or logical steps before getting to a conclusion that being President means being complicit in war crimes and other immoral actions.
One problem is that it is a black-and-white fallacy. It assumes that at least some of the decisions a person with authority makes will be either moral or immoral with no in between. It also assumes that at least some decisions will have to be just different degrees of immoral. It also assumes, for a liberal democracy, that appealing to a majority of voters necessarily involves making immoral choices or deceiving voters about one’s intentions.
It could be a goal for Dorothy to run for President as a completely ethical candidate advocating for completely ethical policies. She might not have a realistic chance of winning and then an even smaller chance of being able to live up to her promises, but that could still be a worthy goal. It could move the needle, Overton Window, or whatever in a good direction. If nothing else, this character arc could be an important part of developing critical thinking skills and coming to understand that her choice is whether to hold to strict ideals or become more pragmatic. Taken to an extreme, holding to strict ideals leaves one paralyzed and unable to accomplish much in the real world where the vast majority of people are pragmatic.
I might argue that, if I’m too dainty to risk moral contamination by serving in a position that I could execute well, and abandon it to the amoral or immoral, that in itself is an immoral act.
Being president was always a stretch goal in the wider aim of “be an influential politician”, which I think is a totally valid thing to want. You can’t remain ideologically and morally pure while doing so, obviously, but you definitely don’t have to completely sell out and you definitely can effect good, worthwhile change.
Anyway, if you just let political institutions be completely dominated by the worst scumbags in the world because nobody else wants to sully themselves with it, you’re not doing anybody any favors.
Jocelyn: You should get over yourself, Dorothy, and embrace that activist mindset. What turned you off being President anything?
Dorothy: I mean, it wasn’t just Raidah pointing out you have to be a war criminal. I also saw Amber stab Joyce’s attempted rapist and then your neighbor beaten to death with a hammer.
Jocelyn: What?
I wish. The ensuing talk would be interesting for us and salutary for the characters.
The question is and shpuld always be, what are my acceptable losses.
And no publicly accountable way.
You need to look at yourself TRULY look at yourself and examine what and WHO you are willing to hurt. Because that’s how these will be.
Hurt old people or Hurt sick people
Hurt the poor or further shrink the middle class
You need to see for yourself how much harm you’re willing to do.
Hurt the vast majority of the voters, or hurt a handful of the people who helped you attain office for reasons that have little to do with your reasons and may work against your reasons.
For some reason people almost never talk about this one.
just become governor, dorothy.
I dunno; to me having “becoming President” as your only career goal is up there with “becoming the #1 NBA draft pick”—-it’s fine to work toward that but there’s a million-to-one chance of it actually happening. Plus, while hard work is important, there’s also all these preexisting factors that go into it that you have no control over—like being born 7 feet tall.
IMO, in order for Dorothy to be who and what she really wants to be, she’d have to be from Krypton.
Dorothy would fit in well with the El family. Perhaps one of its cousin branches.
“I am Dor Oth-El. But I must keep my secret, to protect my loved ones, Joyce, and those others.”
Does Raidah actually believe anything?
She’s going to be a lawyer, which sorta means working within the legal system of the US (unless I missed her being from elsewhere), and the memorable words out of her mouth are “You are going to be a war criminal if you get the power of the Presidency”.
(Having a hard time thinking Dorothy, an ambitious girl, now woman, in a small Indiana city for eighteen years, also hasn’t faced trolls and bigots.)
What’s Raidah’s endgame? Simply use her connections to work for the biggest defense contractor, tech company, or TransGloboCorp she can get into?
She’s probably going to be happy lawyering for Asher’s grandpa, protecting her friends and burying her enemies while making millions under the table.
So she’s expecting to be given a pass because she’s “one of the good (sic) ones”.
If she’s working for Asher’s grandpa, she’s being a mob lawyer, not getting a pass.
Yeah, I mistyped. I meant “getting a pass” in the sense that a Clarence Thomas is treated better, considered better, because of his political allegiance by a swath of the American public.
No, I understood that. I’m just saying that if she’s taking the “mob lawyer” route, she’s not expecting to get the “one of the good ones” treatment.
She’s expecting to be rich
Oh, okay. I think either route can make her rich, but then again she does have connections as you mentioned.
Boy, I’m so glad Jacob kissed Joyce (for a number of reasons), else Raidah might still be with him.
I love how Joss is just everyone’s wise older sister <3