Given that that phrase refers to an episode of the sitcom Happy Days that literally involved Fonzie waterski-jumping over an actual, honest-to-christ shark… no, I don’t think it applies. This isn’t anywhere near stupid enough.
Do I need to link the forbidden site? Jumping The Shark has a meaning beyond the original. Normally when a fictional story has gotten to the point where ridiculous things are done for no reason besides ratings and shock factor.
No, you don’t need to use TVTropes, because you are only emphasizing my point. There’s nothing ludicrous here. This isn’t over the top insanity. It’s just goofy teenager drama.
I don’t think “jumping the shark” can legitimately be used until the storyline has been ridiculous for some time — then you go back and find the point where things started to turn.
In other words, you don’t see the shark being jumped at the moment it’s being jumped.
It took me years to decide. For the most part I prefer Leo’s original, esp. the scatting and banjo, but I really like the backing vocals on 3DN’s version.
To each his own. I am fascinated that 3DN changed the last line and the entire outlook of the song. (Reminds me of how Mike Oldfield’s “Family Man” had a couple of lyric changes to the Hall & Oates versions which completely changed the outcome of the story.)
For an American I have a lot of Leo Sayer albums, so you can guess where I lean.
All is not lost. When Raidah finally gets there, we’ll get the reckoning that they both deserve. From Raidah, and from Harrisson.
Hopefully the takeaway for Jacob will be “trying too hard to make my brother/people proud of me backfires, better be truer to myself from the get-go”.
For Joyce, boundaries, obviously.
I think they need the uncomfortable moment to grow, though it’ll be super painful to watch.
Raidah shows up, and protests loudly that SHE is Jacob’s girlfriend, and Joyce is an interloper. Having gone all-in, Jacob and Joyce put up a united front that she’s insane, possibly painting her as a clingy ex who got a few dates, turned out to be horribly wrong despite/because of the fact she’s a checklist girlfriend, and now can’t accept the fact that she was dumped. Harrison has no reason to believe otherwise, and faced with a united front of scorn and derision, storms off angrily.
And thus the comment section becomes conflicted, for many of them wanted that outcome, but not that [i]way[/i].
I think they could fit romantically together, once they got to know each other even better (like, start with friendship, then possibly romance) – but that’s just my opinion, because in the last panel they look absolutely adorable together
Maybe. Assuming that Raidah goes supernova and after the dust settles Joyce and Jacob are a thing, how smooth will the sailing be. We know that Jacob has separated from girlfriends before because of their jealousy, which is a red flag that he may well have given them reason, intentionally or otherwise. He was perfectly willing to start flirting with Joyce while having a relationship with Raidah. How well will Joyce deal with it when he hangs around with the next cute girl and invites her to church. Can she trust him?
But damn, watching the two of them together is just so cute
She won’t have to trust him. She’ll trust God that Jacob (who is meant to be with her) won’t cheat on her. Or, if he does, that God will give him the strength to change.
…or having him be unaware that he is flirting with other women and hurting her could lead to the next crisis of faith, or the intensifying of the current one…
Me four. They have a pretty good dynamic and this proves they can work things out without it being a huge “reckoning”. Joyce’s upbringing hasn’t well equipped her for maximum maturity but she’s working on adapting.
I can’t tell how Raidah and Jacob are doing. If that ever melts down, it could open the door to Jacob and Joyce realizing they do like each other’s company and growing from there. (doesn’t hurt that Harrison sees good things about it).
This is… not what I expected. I don’t know how I feel about this except an overwhelming desire for Raidah to find out about this. Then this situation will get hairier than Bigfoot during winter.
How is everyone else feeling? I am still processing.
I am curious to see if Raidah would hold true to her claim of “meh, he wasn’t good enough for me then” or if she will go all Dynasty catfight on Joyce.
Raidah is expecting to meet the brother and be taken out to eat. If this does not happen, then she will want a good explanation. I’m not quite seeing the path where this ends without fireworks of some kind.
Raidah’s already shown her reaction with her lunchtime efforts to paint Joyce as not up to Jacob’s standards. Subtler than full on catfight, but still very much in the mean girl tradition.
Maybe it would be different in a full-on cheating scenario, but I think she’s already shown the “I don’t do jealousy” thing isn’t true.
Not 100% – but I knew that a big part of Jacob was tired of Raidah’s personality and wanting Joyce, and that would probably get them past any rough patches.
I’m a tad uncomfortable, and dissapointed in Jacob, that he’s deciding on keeping on the charade for the sake of keeping Joyce on Harrisons good side. I expected him to stay firm about the boundaries she just overstepped and how downright creepy it was.
I ship Jacob and Joyce, but I do think they should get together properly instead of what they’re doing right now where they’re pretending to be dating while Raidah is still Jacob’s actual girlfriend.
This is….a…a mature reaction from Joyce where she takes responsibility for her actions without needing to be browbeat into it? What comic am I reading again?
I mean she gets off the hook and doesn’t have to go THROUGH with it which definitely she would not have done with as much grace but like. Still.
It’s okay. A Joyce-Raidah confrontation is pretty much inevitable, at this point. What form it’ll take, I have no idea, but they’re definitely on some kind of collision course.
Yeah, I don’t get what everyone’s so pissed about.
Joyce offered to do the mature thing.
Jacob told her not to.
Jacob has now made his choice.
**shrug**
Because Joyce was, once again, given an out for her actions. She has blissfully ignored constructive criticism and bulldozed past opinions that she doesn’t want to hear.
Like yes, she’s gone through growth from times of crises, but everyday life Joyce is just a Terrible Person.
She’s an 18 year old. Having watched my niece and nephews grow up as well as friends’ children, I can attest to the fact that young adults make terrible decisions. And sometimes they get away with those bad choices with no consequences whatsoever. That doesn’t make them terrible people.
It may be realistic but it is incredibly irritating and doesn’t really make for compelling storytelling because it shoves out the opportunity for growth. I’m sure Willis is going to go somewhere with this, but yeah, right now I’m just hoping Raidah (at least verbally) knocks both of ’em senseless.
The really mature thing to do would be to tell Harrison the truth anyway.
Joyce offering isn’t because it’s the right thing to do, it’s to diffuse Jacob’s anger. She still doesn’t really feel that bad about the whole thing, because… she doesn’t like Raidah, and Joyce and Jacob are meant to be, so hey, all’s good, right?
Eh, honestly, I don’t think it’s quite that black and white. I think it’s also fair to let Jacob be the one in control of his relationship with his brother, instead of directly going against his stated wishes to tell him something Jacob doesn’t want him to know. Even if it would definitely be the most MORAL thing for Joyce to do in this situation, especially to Raidah.
Like even if Jacob’s choice is almost certainly a bad one–which it is, he’s being quite shitty to Raidah and this will almost certainly cause him further problems down the line with both her and Harrison–it’s his bad choice to make because Harrison is HIS brother and, heck, Raidah is HIS girlfriend, and Joyce shouldn’t try and make decisions for him regarding HIS relationships.
They got INTO this situation by Joyce making a decision on Jacob’s behalf she really really should not have, and she has admitted her fault on that front and then tried to do, in my opinion, the (mostly) right thing to correct that error in returning the decision to Jacob’s hands.
Jacob just then goes and…makes the bad choice…which also absolves Joyce of having to face actual consequences for her own bad choice. At least for now. SO. Cue frustrated audience.
This is fine, and the two seem to acknowledge their own problems. Honestly, I don’t care if they become a couple, but I hope they stay friends and Joyce learns not to do impulsive shit like this again. However, knowing Willis, Radiah will appear at any moment and reveal everything.
Meanwhile, Blaine and Toedad are doing villanous stuff, and Malaya is hating humanity.
I’m finding it just as interesting that many commentators seem to be disappointed that Joyce is being mature and accepting the responsibility and consequences, when many of them seemed to be wishing she WOULD be more mature and accept the responsibility and consequences. Or that the reason they disliked her or her actions were because of her usual immaturity, and when she does grow up a bit, they aren’t happy with her for growing up. it’s as fascinating to me as the comic/characterization itself. 🙂 (and definitely not meant negatively.)
I don’t know, following Jacob’s lead seems like the right thing to do right now. Even though he then participated in it, she created this mess for him in the first place. Let him sort it out on his own terms.
1) Not a Christian, so I don’t give a fuck what the Christian thing to do is.
2) Joyce hasn’t actually been mature yet. Being mature would require her to actually admit she did something wrong and face the consequences. She offered to, which is nice, but she’s given an out by the narrative that gives her no reason to stop trampling boundaries. AGAIN.
If you think the Christian thing to do is in favour of a single woman ANYTHING other than getting married (but just once, and forever, regardless of anything), have I got news for you.
They’re not good news. Jesus wasn’t really all that keen on women not belonging to a man, regardless of how bad (or dead) that man might be.
Maybe they should tell Harrison that they were joking and Joyce is not really the girlfriend… it would be awkward but easier and they wouldn’t need to drag the situation to bit them later.
I know what you mean, sorta. If you replace Ruth/Billie with Walky/Grades and remove those other two things you said, I’ve got a similar gripe. It’s gotta suck having that many simultaneous drags going at once.
I’ve been expecting Raidah to show up for several strips of this story arc now. I’m still assuming she will at some point, but I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already.
Raidah’s probably in class. Even if that’s not the case, there’s no non-narrative causality for her to show up. Harrison has arrived early and she’s expecting a meal at a “grown-up restaurant”, so there’s no reason for her to go to Galasso’s.
I will hold that Evangelion didn’t age well, but I don’t think I’d ever call it *bad*. Might as well bring out the unambiguous heavy guns and set them in front of <Musashi Gundoh.
Well, he didn’t say that he wanted her to continue, he said that he wants Harrison to keep liking her. Those are different things and, arguably, have different criteria to achieve.
I don’t see anywhere in what Jacob saying as a part of “I want to continue the charade”, although the lack of rejection on the last panel can be seen as such. It’s so easy for him to say, “No, let’s be honest about this and I can smooth this over with Harrison, no problem.”
I think he doesn’t want Harrison to ever find out Joyce wasn’t before the three of them met this morning. I smell an internal retcon coming on, and I am piiiiissed.
I’m actually fine with Joyce here. She’s offering to take personal responsibility for the mess she started, and when Jacob declines, she even goes so far as to poke at the flaws of his proposed solution. I’m even fine with Jacob declining Joyce’s offer… Except that it SHOULD be for Jacob to tell Harrison himself. Not for Joyce’s sake, but for Jacob’s, because that would be a valuable moment for him, to tell Harrison to his face that something he approves of isn’t so. But failing that, Joyce telling Harrison would be a close 2nd.
Continuing the lie is in 8th place, just behind both of them running for the border right now, assuming new identities, and never speaking of this again.
7th was already stated: both of them running for the border right now, assuming new identities, and never speaking of this again.
3rd would be Jacob calling Raidah -right now-, breaking up with her (with formal in-person apologies scheduled for soonest available time unless Raidah prefers not), and formally asking Joyce out all before Harrison comes back.
4th would be pretending none of this ever happened and going ahead with introducing Raidah as his girlfriend.
5th would be to ditch Harrison and go ask Carla to invent time travel.
6th: This space available for rent.
(9th is when we start getting into suicide pact territory)
To be honest, my first take on this was that Jacob was intending to come clean but didn’t want Joyce to just back out of his life entirely and wanted her to get to know Harrison on more honest terms. Only reading the comments gave me the idea that he was intending to continue with the lie.
Either way, a lot of people are upset that Joyce is essentially getting enabled here, but…people aren’t beholden to karmic retribution? Jacob has some complicated feelings about Joyce and he’s not obligated to be the universe’s vessel for teaching her right and wrong. Sometimes people feel or think things about people that cause us to forgive them for things we really shouldn’t be forgiving them for, and that’s…just part of being human? One way or another it’s pretty clear that Jacob considers Joyce an important part of his life and wouldn’t be quite satisfied with having her disappear from it, even for the most justified reasons. That’s a reasonable bit of characterization, I think. Besides, even if this lie goes on for now it’s clear that Jacob’s got a lot to think about now and more to talk about, and there’s no telling at this point what that conversation is going to look like once he’s had some time to process the kinda heavy shit that got dropped on him.
Just because it’s realistic doesn’t mean it makes for a satisfying story. I have had all my patience for Joyce’s boundary problems worn through over the years. Yes, I want her to have some fucking consequences for it because it’s clear nothing else will make her fucking stop.
Some people here are suuuuuper ready to rain damnation on these two.
Don’t @ me with Joyce and Jacob hate here, this is playing out very closely to some real experiences I’ve had with real people and your theoretical hatred for how this is playing out is a condemnation of those real people.
Right? I’m with you. What do people want, one of those old fashioned witch dunking chairs? Scarlet letter sewn onto her dree? Tattoo “alduturess” on her forehead? March her naked across campus ringing a bell saying “Shame! Shame! Shame!”
I see it closer to a joke than a evil atrocity, a little unusual perhaps, and talking it through with their indoor voices seems proportionate.
Some folks have a lot of anger and puritan brimstone in them, that’s my takeaway from the comments here.
Ah yes, because wanting a character to have negative consequences for a character trait you find supremely annoying that has been going on for nearly a decade now makes you the equivalent of a witch hunter ready to condemn real people. Sure.
Shhh! We had to cancel for tonight because they’re onto us, just keep it in the basement until we can reschedule. I trust you remember where to find the schedule.
To be fair, stakes work on witches as well. As do buckets of water, but possibly only if they’re wicked – more testing is necessary. Witches are actually quite fragile, now that I think of it.
Periodic remind that this is DUMBING of Age, not healthy rational sober adult actions of age. College kids do dumb, horny things, but guess what? So do adults. Just let them fuck up, and enjoy the shenanigans y’all.
More or less how the Bad Dads approach life, some people have more in common with them when it comes to dishing out righteous vengeance than they might have thought.
Joyce needs her well deserved commupance for being a Bad Woman? Congratulations, both Dads agree with you.
So if I’m uncomfortable with Jacob pretending Joyce is his girlfriend when he already has one, and wish Joyce’s boundary-issues weren’t constantly rewarded by the narrative, then that makes me similar to… *checks notes* an abusive mob stooge and a fundamentalist who intended to kidnap his daughter by bringing a gun to a college campus?
Godwin’s Law applies when you compare your opponent to Hitler to try and win an argument, Your Lordship. JBento was using a sarcastic comparison to show the shallowness of their opponent’s argument.
It’s definitely exactly the same thing to sometimes go “hey I wish the narrative didn’t reward this fictional character for doing something I personally feel is wrong”, and to kidnap a real person* at gunpoint.
*yes, from their point of view, in-universe, it’s a real person.
I mean, I still don’t agree with those who want to see her metaphorically crucified, and I tend to cut her a lot more slack – all while finding her behaviour wrong.
But if that’s their way of enjoying this…? I asked the question in jest, but it’s actually relevant. Hating on a fictional character can be cathartic, that’s the whole point of storytelling.
I think stories are enjoyable because/when they evoke strong emotions. Anger, disappointment, even envy, as ugly as it is, are all part of it.
Now you raise the very valid issue of wanting punishment. I think this is one of the many, many cases where what people say (write) and actually think is not entirely in sync. Mostly when the big disaster starts it would be all “ABOUT TIME” and then 5 seconds later “Well ok she’s got it now you can stop it no really I think it’s enough stop this Stop This STOP THIS”.
Because 1) we’re very bad at predicting what we will want 2 days from now and 2) empathy. Empathy makes a lot of people angry for Raidah right now but would people actually enjoy watching Joyce in pian? I hope not.
tl;dr Langage is a poor tool to represent complex, multilayered, quantum states of mind.
What a curious pair these two are. I’m not sure if Jacob really is interested in Joyce romantically or if he’s just enjoying playing make-believe as much as Joyce has just said that she does.
If it is the latter, then I think that Raidah could be worried because her boyfriend is getting bored with her, even if only on a subconscious level. Worse, he’s getting bored and he doesn’t see any way (or alternately any need) to communicate this with her. That isn’t a good sign.
As mean as it is to do this to Harrison, I’m glad Jacob is giving Joyce a pass on her antics. If it weren’t for the fact that Blaine and the Legion of Christian Doom are gonna be upon her soon I would say this was a better ending result.
But this is merely the curtain rising.
*grabs popcorn and opera glasses* ok Willis hit us good!
Next Scene: Dexter appears in the middle of the restaurant sitting inside what appears to have once been blowjob cat.
Dexter: Joyce! You’ve got to come back with me!
Joyce: You’re real?!
Dexter: Back to the future… wait your not supposed to say that… er nevermind.
Dexter grabs a pizza from the next table and tosses it into blowjob cat machine.
Joyce: Whoa, wait a minute, you can’t just take their pizza.
Dexter: I’m hunger. Go ahead, quick. Get in the ship!
Joyce: No, no, no, no, no, no. We just got here, alright, Jacob’s here, I’m gonna have to help him keep up appearances.
Dexter: Well, bring him along. This concerns him to.
Joyce: Whoa wait a minute Dex. What are you talking about? What happens to us in the future? What, do we become assholes or something?
Dexter: No, no, no, no, no, Joyce. Both you and Jacob turn out fine. It’s your kids, Joyce. Something’s gotta be done about your kids!
Joyce is in the wrong. Jacob finds himself tempted to enable or at least downplay that wrong and give into temptation. Jacob ends up not doing the reliable, smart, wise, sensible thing we expect from him based on his demeanor, kind face and broad shoulders. We still end up putting all the blame on Joyce.
I’m beginning to realize that Jacob reveals a lot about us a lot more readily than he does about himself. He underreacts to adversity, and so we think he’s got it under control. He talks a good game with calm words, so we think he’ll follow through. He identifies the problem, so we think he has the capacity to enact the solution. Jacob is a flawed, insecure human being who makes bad choices sometimes, but we give him a pass because he acts mature and aware.
So…wait, is she going to explain what happened? Like, is asking her to sit down telling her not to or is it just saying it’s cool for a friend to hang out and meet his brother?
IMHO, they have exactly ONE honourable option to repair this. “Harrison, we lied to you. We did it because [insert complicated motivations here]. We are sorry.”
The problem is that I’m not sure that either Joyce or Jacob are entirely sure what said motivation is! They have their suspicions but nothing they’d be prepared to commit to the record by telling it to someone whose opinion of them they value.
There is only one lesson for Joyce to learn and it’s this: In real life, lying about something like this should never be ‘fun’. For that reason, if I were Jacob, I would ask her to explain to Harrison and apologise to him. In return for which, I’d take responsibility for not calling her out and tell Harrison that I cannot believe that there was any malign intent on her part.
You know. This MIGHT work Joyce. Maybe you keep your friend, maybe he even now realizes you hold feelings for him. And maybe deus ex Raidah will show up.
What actually happened: Joyce answered “yes” when she shouldn’t have in a moment of weakness and Jacob continued along with it out of his own weakness.
What people in the comments are acting like happened: Joyce personally invited Harrison down and deliberately waited for him to tell him she was Jacob’s girlfriend while also making sure Raidah was indisposed by holding her hostage so her fabrication couldn’t be unraveled by her or Jacob.
His Divinity sat at the center of the universe, the flow of countless systems flowing into being, billions of souls, entire civilizations worth of resentful, unsatisfied commenters. Occasionally, a ripple would emerge, a belch of protest from a minute stream of essence. It would travel to His ear as faint sound:
“…loser…strawman…Hitler…”
But as quickly as as such noise rose up, it was consumed. His Divinity could not help but feel a pang of guilt in his godly breast: were his victims truly deserving of such a fate? But this thought was swept aside by the realization that the commenters had brought their doom on themselves–their own inability to understand the nuance of human behavior had damned them.
And so, He reclined on his celestial throne and continued to feast.
And this malignant conflation does nothing but harm people who actually engage in casual, consensual, non-cheating sex or are in actual poly relationships.
It does not, it was just the first example that came to mind of people who share one stance while wildly differing in others. It’s why I took special care to identify neither of us with either group.
Well, I’m glad to know people who disagree with you about a webcomic aren’t automatically transphobics in your mind, but it still baffles me why you brought the subject up in the first place.
Dude, you’re being an asshole. You’re clearly not engaging in good faith. You’re frustrating a person and then blaming them for being frustrated. There are things about your stance I agree with, but when they’re presented in the way you choose to present them?
Yikes.
If that’s how it came across, then I apologise – it wasn’t my intent, as I have no indication of your position on those subjects.
The thing is, you’re not disagreeing with me about a webcomic. We’re not arguing about the quality of the art or plot or characterisation. You’re disagreeing with me in a moral/ethical subject that happens to be depicted in a webcomic, which is a totally different thing. Now, if your stance is “this would be a shitty thing to do in real life, but since these aren’t actually real people is ok” is one thing (this is my stance in most of Mike’s doings), but how you came across (to me) is “this is totally kosher, even if these were real people”, which is a stance I severely object to.
All I’ve done is chip away at a worldview that seems to paint in black and white and encourages harsh punishments. If losing ground there is frustrating: good. In my mind, it’s an untenable philosophy.
As far as being an asshole, I don’t know–our responses have been pretty evenly back and forth. In fact, it was my statement that was challenged first, when I contended that Raidah’s treatment of Dina constituted mockery, to which JBento (strenuously) objected. I think your assessment is a bit one-sided.
Also, again: “yikes.” Non-word. Should be thrown out with “oof,” “I can’t even,” and “interesting.”
@JBento
Apology accepted, and I appreciate it.
As for for the second paragraph, I’ll concede that I’m guilty of attempting to mischaracterize the conversation. For that, *I* apologize.
You’re right–we are arguing morality, and we obviously severely object to one another’s position.
I’m not inclined to punish people harshly for transgressions of the heart and believe that each case needs to be considered individually.
You seem to paint with a broad brush, think in absolutes, and demand retribution for mistakes made. This is dangerous thinking, and these ideas, wherever they originate, are what really hurt people.
So, yes, I’m not typing every word here with utmost seriousness, but my opposition to your line of thought is very strong, and will continue to be, as long as you espouse it. I won’t be surprised if you hold the same attitude towards me.
The saving grace for you is that I’m a very infrequent poster, and, if you hold out a few days, you’ll likely see the last of me for a while.
In my view, that’s really not what you’ve done. Because, see, I agree with you, I think, if I’m reading through how you’re presenting things correctly. But you’re making it REALLY HARD to agree with you with a lot of your posts. You’re right that you’re unlikely to actually change how JBento sees things, and the same in reverse. With that in mind, you could consider the way other people may read your exchanges.
JBento’s objection yesterday was very fair, in my opinion, even if further comments I was less on board with. Perhaps I care more about your tone because, again, I would like to agree with you. I would like others to agree with you, but I can’t support the mocking and condescending way you’ve presented your responses.
Also, yikes. I really hoped you would have been able that I chose that phrase because yesterday you established you were Like That in regards to phrases that other people use.
I do recognize that no one had to choose to engage with you, but this is certainly carryover from yesterday. Where, again, no one had to engage with you, but you chose to engage on JBento’s post pretty readily.
As for my own choice to engage with you, at first I held back yesterday because I thought, “This person is just being a jerk for the hell of it. Possible troll.” But it began to seem that was, in fact, not your purpose, which took me from considering suggesting to JBento to just not engage with you to this.
Fair enough. It’s not possible to please everyone with tone and delivery. Some people hate George Carlin–other love him. I agree with Richard Dawkins’ beliefs but can’t stand his personality. You have every right to dislike the way I put things–humor is not universal, and certainly, I have a lot of anger directed towards certain viewpoints, especially those that are strict and unforgiving. I’m not going to beat around the bush when expressing that. I’m not incapable of being civil, though.
I hate “yikes” because it’s shorthand for shutting people down, popularized by social media bullies. It can be used in literally any context:
“Fascism for the future.”
“Yikes!”
“Democratic socialism for a better tomorrow.”
“Yikes!
“I just bought new shoes.”
“Yikes!”
“Like my baby?”
“Yikes!”
It’s a non-word whose only abstract purpose is to insult, just as “interesting” has become a non-word to express generic approval.
You could replace it with “STFU!” and it would have the same meaning.
And yes, I hate it so much I will call it out when I see it.
Listen. Yall make this out like life never just happens? Does everyone actually weigh the pros and cons, morally, of EVERY decision? Sometimes you just do dumb things because its fun in the moment and deal with it later, and its either fine or it’s not.
College relationships are where you figure out what you want, neither of them are doing anything heinously wrong, not to mention how low the stakes are, honestly- jacob/raidah aren’t married and havent even been together very long, ffs
If it works out for them and they get into a good, stable relationship, great.
But it’s also just as well to call out crappy behaviour when it happens.
The ‘it’s okay, it’s justifiable!’ ideal is exactly what fuels the romcom trope that Joyce believes in. Sure, it might work out and it’s always contextual, but I wouldn’t recommend the whole ‘lying and going behind an existing girlfriend’s back’ move as a go-to option.
And, again, personally, as far as a narrative point of view goes, Joyce getting little to no blowback is also kind of frustrating. Yeah she’s young and the glacial pace of the comic also means character growth is gonna come slow, but it doesn’t make it any less aggravating to watch.
It’s mostly the narrative angle that leads to my frustration – We’re supposed to be seeing Joyce’s character growth, so if we see her rewarded for her bad choices here that’s counter to what we want. Mind you, I fully expect that blowback is still coming – there have been plenty of hints that Willis does consider this bad and thus it’s very likely to bite her in the long run. How else is she going to learn and grow?
I feel like this site’s comment section must be teeming with passionate, earnest virgins, based on the shocked and deeply felt replies. This thing between Joyce and Jacob? This happens every day. People, especially young people but even older people, fall in love and get infatuated with each other over little things. Yes, even over small deceptions. Physical attraction, romance, and libido don’t care at all for your “honorable” ways out or your fervent wish for a total baring of souls. People get the hots for each other and they rationalize it and sometimes people even get into serous, long-term, loving relationships after breaking up another couple by their flirting. It happens. It’s human. I hope it will happen to some of you some day. It’s actually kind of nice.
And then those people have the decency to either break up with or get permission from their existing girlfriend before introducing a different person as their girlfriend. Otherwise, they’re shitheels.
You mean, the part where people shouldn’t profit from choosing to do bad things to people? That part? Yeah, I’m good with it speaking volumes about me.
Punishing evil stances? Sure, full steam ahead. History has shown us that people who don’t suffer consequences for doing bad things are just going to keep doing bad things, and I’d really rather they didn’t.
Saying something is bad doesn’t equal moral fundamentalism. I’d say killing people is bad too. Sure, there are circumstances where I can understand the logic or emotional state driving it, and there are sympathetic or justifiable circumstances sometimes, but in general? Yeah, killing people’s bad.
Except that moral fundamentalism is the underlying theme of Mr. A. His calling card is black and white, and he openly states he does not see shades of gray. No extenuating circumstances. No appeals. Just the most literal, brutal application of the letter of the law.
It was a right-wing tract designed to combat liberal notions of compassionate justice, rapprochement with the Eastern Bloc, and the Civil Rights movement. As JBento pointed out, Ditko was a Ayn Rand devotee.
It seems to me like most (not all, but most) of the people objecting to the way things are playing out are objecting on an in-universe level– they don’t like this for Joyce, or this character development, this storytelling, just witnessing it. Many of the response posts, like this one, then go directly to critizing and insulting the people who hold these views.
The argument seems to be that by criticizing Joyce/Jacob, people are themselves criticizing real people who might not behave perfectly. For many of these comments, that’s a jump, and I don’t agree with using it to justify flat out insulting the commenters themselves.
When my parents first realized their attraction to each other, my dad was dating my mom’s best friend. Now, decades later, my parents are still married, and my mom is still best friends with the woman my dad was dating, so yay, happy ending. My point in this is that I am not necessarily opposed to people who meet in less than “ideal” ways, or think they’re bad people for it.
I still do not enjoy this storyline. I try to appreciate it strip by strip, but overall I don’t like what it’s doing for the characters and find it kind of stupid to witness. Maybe by the time it wraps up, it will feel more satisfying. In the meantime, I get people expressing their frustration with the characters.
That’s my problem right now with the comments section. My gripe with this plotline is purely with these two fictional characters and the narrative choices (and I like this comic! It’s just the way this storyline is developing that isn’t satisfying to me). Because of that I’ve been called puritanical, judgemental, irrational, bitter,
unreasonable and the other day I was told to “stay away from all forms of media if this triggers [me]”.
I don’t understand why we can’t say “I don’t like how these two characters are behaving” or “I don’t like that this character keeps getting rewarded for violating other’s boundaries” without being called names or being judged by other commenters. Also, saying “this fictional thing you don’t like also happens in real life” doesn’t really make it better or easier to read.
If you like this development, that’s fine. We clearly disagree. But it’s not fun to read these comments when I and others are being directly insulted or misinterpreted.
I’d expect “this fictional thing you don’t like also happens in real life” would make things HARDER to read, not easier. There’s people who’ve had to take breaks from the comic already, and that was because stuff was hitting too close to home not because they’d never heard of it.
If I recall the alt-text from the first Robin strip correctly, things happening in real life also makes it harder to WRITE. I’m sure Willis thought the whole shebang was funnier before Trump got elected. All of a sudden, a patently incompetent politician who’ll support any policy, no matter how vile, as long as it gets them applause getting into a position of power is a whole less appealing, even in fiction.
If it’s any consolation, I don’t think your viewpoint, nor the way you’ve expressed it, is unreasonable, and any vitriol, from me at least, hasn’t been directed at you (minus my criticism of your usage of “yikes”).
There are others who have it out for Joyce and Jacob that are much, much more uncompromising in their position than I’ve seen you be. That’s where my dumb words are aimed, at any rate.
Not for the people being cheated on, but then cheating wouldn’t happen in the first place if the cheaters were willing to have consideration for anyone but themselves.
Did anyone think Joyce knew how to be honest and respect boundaries? Just out of home schooling, she’s still on the upswing of that learning curve. And…
For anyone who thought Jacob was sort of a Mary Sue, well here you go. Happy now?
Technically, this doesn’t affect Mary Sue-status. Mary Sues aren’t the ones that don’t do bad things, they’re the ones who do bad things but their bad-doing gets defended in-universe because it’s them doing it.
Jacob was already not-perfect, what with his “non-christians are just silly buggers who worship the same god as me but do it in funny ways” thing.
Well, yes, it IS several seven-league boots’s steps ahead of “and then we beheaded the heathens for Jesus, the hippie who told us to love one another. Pass the loot”.
I’m pretty sure Jacob was attempting to explain religious tolerance to Joyce in a way she’d understand.
It does not read to me as someone being dismissive of other religions. In fact, all religions essentially pointing to the same truth is a major tenet of liberal/progressive theology–that is to say, finding common ground.
Jacob is literally arguing other religions count as ‘through’ the Christian god, which ignores what other religions actually teach about their own belief systems, many of which preclude the Christian god’s existence. Jacob doesn’t mean to be condescending or dismissive, but he is because that is the argument he is making.
But it’s also inherent to nearly any religion. If that other religion precludes the Christian God, then they have the same “You’re wrong and I’m right” problem.
No, no it is not. Other religions beliefs matter and going ‘well, forget what they say about their own gods/creation stories/doctrine, it’s still worshipping my god in different ways’ is both condescending and dickish. If you can’t be a Christian (or another religion, whatever) and accept that other religions exist with no relation to yours, you need to re-evaluate how you approach other religions.
What’s the essential difference between other religions are just worshiping my god in a different way and my religion is just worshiping other religions gods in a different way?
@ thejeff – No, the better thing is to say ‘Other religions exist, they have no relation to mine, we believe different things and that’s okay’. Asking Christianity to respect other religions and not act like other religions are just different forms of Christianity is not saying Christianity is automatically false.
@ Clif – Very very few people are willing to say the latter.
I don’t even know what that means. I mean sure, other religions exist and people believe different things and that’s okay, but if you dig into the details of theology, as they were doing in that discussion (as far as basically untrained teens can go) you get pretty quickly to the point of “If mine is right, theirs must be wrong”, so how do you reconcile that?
If you’ve got two incompatible religions, then at least one of them must be false. If you believe yours, you must disbelieve theirs. You can kind of gloss over that most of time, but there’s no real way to confront it without reaching that conclusion.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see an alternative.
*Not all religions are necessarily incompatible, though even back in pagan days the same basic approach to reconciling them was common. “Jupiter and Zeus are really just the same God, even though we call them different things and have different ceremonies.”
The alternative is to accept your religion, even if you believe in it, is not universal and not try to shove other religions into your religion’s framework like Jacob was, or act like they’re hellbound sinners like Joyce’s church does. Plenty of religious people do it all the time, including theologians.
While that’s kind of true about Ancient religion, it’s also a bit simplistic view of ancient religion. Jupiter and Zeus have very similar roles, but they aren’t exactly the same. Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks had differing views on gods and what their relationship was like in society and while very similar, had a few traits and stories that differentiate them. It’s not a bad explanation, per se, but it’s not the entire thing.
I thought the “Mary Sue” was the incidental character who steps into an established fictional universe and saves the day while the regular cast, which is supposed to be competent at the problem in question, stands around with their thumbs in their, er, noses. And of course the Mary Sue is the avatar of the author creating the Mary Sue, even if that’s vehemently denied.
There’s a lot of bitterness in this comment section, and while some of it is totally valid, I feel like these two are actually handling this better than 80% of the comments section people would. Like, yes, this was an idiotic, rash decision of Joyce to even cause this to happen, but they’re actually handling this pretty maturely. Joyce offered to own up to her lie without it all breaking down, which is a lot better than I expected to happen and does show that she is aware of her mistake. Jacob doesn’t seem to think throwing Joyce under the bus for lying and hurting a friend when his brother is visiting is going to make it an enjoyable visit for Harrison, so he decides to just ride it out and keep things on the positive.
Also, Jacob definitely seems like the kind of person who, when someone tells them they like him, even when with a current partner, would be more flattered than annoyed by it, which is, imho, a far better and matured reaction. It hurts no one reacting that way, and Jacob definitely is someone who doesn’t want to hurt anyone.
All in all, I’m actually kinda proud of them for riding this storm out in probably the best case scenario it could be ridden.
This would be mature if there was no third person in this equation, but there is, unless you think Raidah won’t be hurt by this. I’m not entirely sure how Jacob sees this ending, though. He’s either going to introduce Raidah to Harrison today or Harrison leaves earlier (either at Jacob’s prompting or of his own accord) and he has to hide this whole episode from her (lies optional, but likely). The first is extensive pyrotechnics, the second doesn’t reflect well on him.
Aggravating matters is that Jacob is statedly looking for a long-term relationship, meaning he’s considering Raidah as a long term partner, so he’s… hoping this topic never ever comes up for years of family reunions? I dunno.
People can breathe easy–the monster is slipping back under the waves for now. Before I go, though, I’d like to offer some advice, to the younger liberals among us–take it or leave it.
Steer clear of authoritarianism. Promote political freedom in addition to social justice. It’s tempting to want to silence the opposition, but a strong public forum is the beating heart of a democracy. Barring anti-democratic or hateful rhetoric, listen to others, and defeat their ideas, if wrong, in debate.
(Put another way–Stalin was BAD. The Soviet Union was BAD. The Chinese Communist Party is BAD.)
See things in gray, not black and white.
People make mistakes–forgive them. Don’t castigate others or revoke their liberalism card for making simple errors in speech or judgment. Remember, not all liberals agree over common terminology, so don’t jump to the worst conclusions or epithets.
Work with other liberals. Be as one. The only way our tiny, vulnerable communities can overcome the immense forces arrayed against us is to unite. What do native groups, women, LGBT groups, the BLM movement, and environmentalists have in common? The need to beat a shared enemy.
Know the statistics, but see the people. Don’t adopt a top-down view of the world; it’ll make your vision screwy. For instance, statistically, incarceration of black people in America is a major problem. But don’t say that a black cop arresting a black criminal in a black neighborhood is enabling white supremacy. It sounds absurd, and you’ll only alienate allies.
Speaking of alienation, don’t use liberal words you learn in college on the street…or ever, actually. It makes you sound pompous. Try using direct, simple language that laymen will understand.
Finally, try to form original thoughts. Don’t let buzzwords and memes do the thinking for you.
That’s all for now. I’ll emerge from wallowing in misanthropy if something peaks my interest. Be warned.
Oh, the Chinese Communist Party is SO bad (and also not communist). I mean, the other two were too, but this is the one of three you mentioned that’s still around.
That’s a really bad example, just for the record. A cop disproportionately targeting black people for arrest is enabling white supremacy, regardless of the race of the cop or whether they intend to. You’re right that a lot of people wouldn’t immediately cotton on, but that doesn’t make it less true. This is something that anti-police brutality activists have talked about. The same is true for female pro-life activists and misogyny – sure, they might not think they’re furthering it and they’re definitely affected by it to. It’s still furthering systemic misogyny.
You have to ask yourself what you mean by that. Are you looking at national averages, nation-wide systems of oppression? Then, a black cop, working in an all-black town, even if he arrests only violent felons, has no chance of escaping the charge of furthering white supremacy.
I said before to look at individuals. You should also look at regions, cities, and districts, anything that gets closer to the people you’re advocating for. That’s what I meant about the danger of top-down analyses.
You can’t convince people to make initial change that way, but once they’re committed to combatting systemic racism/misogyny/whatever it is, you’re going to have to confront them about how their own actions further whatever it is they’re fighting eventually, otherwise the problem continues. This is something literally EVERYONE has to do because systemic issues are, well, systemic. But nobody likes doing it, as you said, which usually means problems continue down the line. But honestly, no matter how nicely you explain systemic inequality to individuals, if they aren’t ready to see it, they’re not going to change. Relating to people personally, one on one, can sometimes get them willing to see it, but honestly, a lot of it comes from within. And yeah, sometimes showing people how their actions further systemic issues does help – I’ve seen it before. But more often, it helps whoever is listening/reading/whatever see it, even if the other party doesn’t.
Second, I never said pro life women were manipulated into being pro life by misogyny. I said their actions further misogyny, which they do. Those are two different things. I brought them up as an example of someone furthering systemic harm that will negatively impact them, since it looked like you were arguing that isn’t possible.
Finally, disproportionate in these cases generally means things like ‘White people are more likely to use illegal drugs but black people are more likely to be arrested for it’. I.e. the percentage of people doing the crime and the percentage of those arrested for it do not even remotely match up. They’re not even close, so it’s not a margin of error issue. In a 100% black town or black neighbourhood, no shit everyone committing a crime will be black and so will everyone being arrested for it. That’s not disproportionate. It’s also not what’s happening in 99.99% of places (I’m being hyperbolic here, that’s not a real number). Bringing it up just makes you look like you’re trying to derail.
You’re right. Not all examples of black people being arrested are examples of white supremacy, whether it’s done by black or white cops (or hispanic or asian or any other kind).
In the context of the preceding sentence of your post, mentioning the statistical incarceration of black people as a problem, it’s easy to read that as “it’s not white supremacy because it’s a black cop” which is bullshit as BBCC said, instead of “this particular arrest might or might not be justified”.
You’re misunderstanding my point. Perhaps I’m not explaining it well enough.
I know systemic oppression is real. I know cops, of all colors, contribute to it. I know pro-lifers, of any gender, contribute to it.
My point is: beyond writing academic journals or teaching political science courses at liberal colleges, how does this truth reach people?
The average person just does NOT think in terms of systemic oppression. Sure, I agree, it would be nice if we could just explain it to them–but most reject it, either as a form of determinism, or because of the “egg-head” stereotype conservatives have been very successful in pushing.
Obviously, you’ve learnt political theory. But what was the point if you can’t put it into practice? How do you translate a professor’s lecture into a speech, conversation, or article that electrifies people into understanding and doesn’t just preach to the choir, dying on social media and not doing a damn to effect real change.
I’m not trying to trick you into betraying what you’ve been taught. You say if people aren’t ready to see it, they won’t change. Well, most people aren’t ready to see it yet. How does that get fixed?
You seem to have missed where I said no, this won’t draw the person you’re talking to in most of the time but it can draw in others who are listening or reading the exchange – that’s how I learned 90% of this stuff, listening to people who experience these problems talk about it or watching them argue with someone else. They may not have persuaded the person they were talking to (though it has happened often enough I’m not willing to rule it out entirely) but it did work for me. I also said that while it isn’t the best persuasive tool for those just starting out, you need to confront that problem eventually or they’ll only get so far.
Honestly, there is no fixing it if people aren’t ready to see. The most you can do is make cracks in what they see, particularly if you’re talking about their lived experiences. Translating stats into real life examples or pointing them to people talking about their lived experiences. Eventually they’ll either be willing to consider it or they won’t. It’s the same with any other form of determinism. What works to break the mould for one person won’t for another. It’s incredibly tiring and frustrating, but that’s often how it goes, especially because if you try to explain it systemically it gets rejected because determinism, but if you try to relate it individually or with other life experiences, they reject it because it’s only an anecdote or because it doesn’t line up with their own experiences. There is no one size fits all answer here.
Fair enough–you’ve explained your position well, and I didn’t miss that part of your post; my own was just becoming too long as it was.
You acknowledge the frustrations of the fight. My contention is that changing our methods–our approach–can reach more people, quickly.
A personal anecdote: an in-law of mine is a born-again Christian, suspicious of Eastern religion and its practices. She thought meditation was blasphemous. Ideally, I would have quoted the Buddha, inspired her with his doctrine, and opened her heart to tolerance.
But we knew that wouldn’t work. We explained meditation in a way she understood–it’s a form a knowing oneself, which is similar to prayer. That she got. Maybe one day she’ll search out more, but in the short term, she now accepts that people who meditate are not evil.
That’s how reach people. Resisting the urge to recite statistics, jargon, and the college-educated liberal Gospel. There’s not one thing we can say to everyone, but the “shoe,” so to speak is listening–easing off the attack and being able to connect genuinely with those we would enlighten.
The goal then, is to do this on a large scale, to move people who would never come to us. The alternative is to progress at a snail’s pace, and, ultimately, risk failing outright. Trump’s election represented, after all, a failure of the left as much as a victory for the right.
Yeah, that works for some people. Others would respond better to hearing the doctrine, or rhetorical questions (“Who else gets hurt by me meditating?”), etc. that’s my point – there’s not a one size fits all. And that anecdote may very well have been what I called making a crack.
My experience is people are different and what works to talk to one person may not work for another. You need to decide based on who you’re talking to and what you’re trying to convince them of.
You’re hypersensitive to a certain culture in parts of the left and convinced you know they should behave. You demonstrate this by phrasing your critique in a way designed to mislead, so that you can then patronizingly correct us once we point at the apparent problems. As I described in your “black cop” example. Then you get to say “See, that’s not what I said.
You’re not trying to “trick you into betraying what you’ve been taught.” You’re trying to trick us into responding like the liberals you’re criticizing to show how bad we are and how superior you are.
You’re also doing so using rhetoric that echoes a lot of alt-lite discussion – without using the common terminology (cancel culture, sjw, etc), you’re painting basically the same picture of liberals.
And frankly, if you’re such an expert that we should pay any attention to your advice on persuasion, why aren’t you applying any of that around here? Why did you stumble into a whole bunch of flame wars on what seem to be your first steps into the discussion here? Can’t you show your methods work by example, rather than lecture?
“It’s just semantics!”, the age-old outraged cry of people who persist on using long words they don’t know the meaning of to sound smart. “Clear communication is baaaaad!”
It’s actually a Bad Thing to have multiple words for descriptive purposes. Just look at owls, for example. Barn owls, snowy owls, owlbears? They’re all just owls, so why bother being specific? All we’re doing is derailing conversations about the feathery thing eating Anthony’s leg, which prevents us from getting anything done about it.
1.) I’m a big dumdum who doesn’t know words and thinks we should all adopt a double-plus good dictionary of reduced complexity.
2.) Some people nitpick the definitions to words or phrases for lack of a meaningful counter-argument, deliberately stalling or muddling the opposing thesis–either to stroke the speaker’s ego or merely to be contrary.
“All Lives Matter” sound familiar?
The truth is that I didn’t conflate “liberal” and “leftist.” I’m specifically talking to “liberals” in the modern-use, traditional democratic sense.
If you subscribe to a non-democratic form of leftism, I would direct you to my very first point about maintaining political freedom.
@Yumi
Yes, I have two rules: don’t fall back on semantics, and avoid buzzwords. The walls are closing in.
I mean that your posts on this page make you out as an arrogant git who thinks that you, and you alone, get to define what other people mean when they speak (i.e., claiming that a sarcastic comment from JBento was a violation of Godwin’s Law). You also respond to an opinion of Sephiroth being a “loser” with a one-act play describing yourself as a god, and have spent most of your time pompously lecturing everyone else about how they should act/think/speak; these lead me to believe that you’re so far up your own ass that you can see daylight between your teeth. That’s what I meant.
Thank you for explaining. I apologize for my tone and for causing any offense.
I appreciate your clarifying Godwin’s law. My only defense is that I was reacting to JBento’s calling another person’s argument “stupid.” Bringing up Hitler in that context, while not the law per se, was, I’d argue, parallel. Nonetheless, I could have gone about it much more tactfully and without condescension.
My one-act play was intended to be tongue-in-cheek–JBento and I had been baring our teeth at each other since the previous day–though, I fully admit I let things spiral out of control, especially once I lost my temper and brought politics into the conversation.
My name, since you’ve mentioned it, is merely a Homestar Runner reference (Strong Bad Email #50). I don’t consider myself the lord (or lady) of anything.
Apologies again for taking an aggressive tone and allowing a disagreement to spill over into a flame war and general unpleasantness.
I know most of you think I’m an arrogant jerk. That’s fine. I wanted to pass along some experience, not make friends.
I’ve been around the activist circuit. I’m tired and frustrated by its bullshit. So yes, I can be short, and impolite, and I don’t have much patience left for nonsense.
The suggestions I posted above weren’t just blown out of my ass. They’re, in brief, a list of behaviors that keeps the left, in popular imagination, a trivial movement. They’re what we did to put Trump in the Oval Office. They’re why centrist, bought-out, status quo representatives are the best we can generally hope for.
I’m so sick…
…of professors who never leave their ivory towers and theorize about a world they rarely interact with.
…of “professional activists” making a meal out of coming up with mission statements–who have a vested interest in making sure the fight continues but is never won.
…of students who’d rather form committees and debate doctrine and terminology than pull their heads from their asses to face the disaster right in front of them. Put the guitars away, and get serious.
…of our precious divisions. Natives who won’t speak to socialists. Environmentalists who won’t work with gay people. Blacks who won’t cooperate with Latinos. I’ve seen so many idiots divided and conquered by conservatives who barely passed high school, all because our labels are more important than our survival.
…and of the growing support for extremist movements. People who, in reaction to Neo-Nazi dickheads, begin using terms like “counter-revolutionary” and “re-education” unironically.
The world is going to shit. You can learn from someone who’s been around the block once, or you can repeat the mistakes I’ve witnessed time and time again. They’re why we keep getting hurt. Why what we care for is taken away.
So yes, I am angry, and I don’t try particularly hard to be nice anymore. Silly, maybe, to launch into all this when a few hours ago I was weighing the merits of a fictional romance–but I read this comment section and social media, and I think–is this the best the next generation can offer?
I hope not.
That’s the end of my rant. I’ll catch you all later.
For what it’s worth (so, nothing, probably), I’m not set on defining you as a jerk, though your actions on here the past couple days have seemed, largely, jerkish. Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of you; your advice here is so different from the actions you’ve shown within this same comment section. And I guess it’s human nature to be at least somewhat hypocritical. Lord knows I am. I do think many people here agree with your stance, at least in part, but I see from you the same “can’t see the forest for the trees” that you accuse others of.
Ultimately, white America is responsible for Trump–but a very vocal segment of the Left sure as hell didn’t help. I heard entirely too many people who should have known better say things like “you can’t blackmail me with the Supreme Court” or “Clinton is worse than Trump.” Brooklyn hipsters that think “Leftism” means using slurs and laughing at Winemoms.
Did such people make the difference? Probably not. But I’ll remember them while SCOTUS is deciding whether or not employers can fire me for being gay.
Yeah, but that’s not what he’s saying. Some of the left not being willing to support Clinton is a thing, though I think it was massively outweighed by other factors.
He’s talking about people turning to Trump in reaction to the left calling out racism and sexism and the like. “SJWs called me a racist and that’s why I’m voting for the Nazi.”
I think he’s wrong about that, but he’s not wrong about a tendency of the left to prioritize semantics over building coalitions with those that largely agree with them.
This is old news now, and, as I’ve since said, I regret and apologize for this outburst.
But for the sake of my conscious, it is important that I step in here. thejeff misunderstood, or I miscommunicated, what I was trying to say about the left’s culpability.
I don’t believe the left’s principles are to blame. Standing up for the disenfranchised should always be the left’s motivation. If that drives people to support reactionaries, well, they weren’t going to vote for us anyway.
I blame the left for Trump’s victory because of its tactics, or lack of them. Instead of taking its core values of equality and justice and building a mass-action, populist movement capable of carrying elections (like the right), it retreated into academia and split itself into special interest groups. It rested, satisfied, knowing that the truth was with it, while surrendering the actual decision-making to those that understood the realities of power and politics.
Who’s more to blame? A hate-spewing orange that built its following on the fringe Internet, or the SITTING Secretary of State, with decades of political influence that couldn’t stop him from seizing power? Clinton was out-of-touch to the point she could neither read the mood of the nation, nor sufficiently inspire even her own base, and those who knew what was at stake were too busy arguing amongst themselves to sufficiently mobilize. Sometimes, the inability to stand up to evil is as contemptible as the evil itself.
I didn’t realize this Jacob and Joyce fake dating thing would be so polarizing. For my two cents worth, I don’t like Raidah. She treated Dina like she had a mental disability when they first met in the worst most condescending way and she cared more about hanging out with her supposed friend struggling with depression than actually getting her the help she needed. All that being said….She doesn’t really deserve this. It is rather shady on both of them.
Given how polarizing the entire “Joyce wants to break up Jacob and Raidah” plot has been, I’m not at all surprised this part of it is as well.
One thing I kind of like about it is that no one in it is coming off well. Joyce’s instigation is just wrong. Raidah being concerned is understandable, but her manipulation in response was pretty ugly. Until now Jacob just came across as oblivious, but now we see flaws in him.
My two cents for what it’s worth. I’m disappointed in this arc.
When Joyce lied and said she was Jacobs girlfriend it was dumb but I figured Joyce could get out of it. And she did when the two of them were alone and Joyce and Jacob had a chance to talk she started admitting it as a mistake in the moment and if she had followed that and left it there it would be fine. But instead she took a chance and started trying to manipulate Jacob even if the relationship is bad it’s not her business to get involved like that.
Jacob covering for her seemed weird but yeah I can see him do it. But to not be mad when he sees the mistake and to not tell Joyce to leave and he would make something up is pretty bad.
And it seemed like Willis was setting it up to go that way then at the last minute decided he didn’t want to go all the way with this and just stopped it. I hope there is more fall out or some form of punishment for Joyce and her actions
This is a really bad arc if that’s the actual point of it. It’s been set up badly, framed badly and contradicts basically Joyce’s entire character arc. All the hints that set this up as something tied to Joyce’s unrealistic view of romance and life and to the boundaries that she needs to learn are reversed when it turns out it was actually good after all.
Which to me suggests that’s not the actual story arc.
Possibly “Jacob is just not that into his girlfriend and is into Joyce,” but Joyce’s approach has screwed up any chance of them getting together. That would be a nasty little bow to tie it all up in.
Why is everyone so bloodthirsty? What happened didn’t injure anyone, and he had a choice to forgive her.
Besides she is as close as an angel as possible.
Cancel culture now even goes into what you read, apparently, people…sheesh hope you guys never make any mistake, like lying to someone once.
Nobody is actually acting bloodthirsty. It only seems that way because a couple of loudmouths won’t shut the fuck up about everybody being on a witch hunt, and it’s tainting your view of regular disgruntled comments.
For every person saying “Wow, the behavior of these characters sucks,” there’s another person accusing them of everything from puritanical crusades to being a repressed virgin.
And even most of the “behavior of these characters suck” posters more want them not to be rewarded for their behavior and only “punished” to the extent that they learn not to do it again.
Seriously people. Consequences =/= punishment. For instance, Ruth’s not punishing Billie by refusing to speak to her after Billie lied to her about quitting before freshman family weekend – she was upset and hurt and so chose not to speak to Billie. That’s a consequence.
I appreciate that joyce was willing to deal with the consequences- that she was willing despite her unhappiness and own wants, to be not part of jacob’s life anymore. Maybe she is learning boundaries a bit in the few weeks she’s had to.
As for Raidah showing up, and/or finding out… I don’t know. Willis has already buffered quite a ways, and he’s not always a conventional storyteller. I’m interested to see how he has decided to play this out. 🙂 (BTW-that was meant as a compliment, and a ty for keeping me interested in all these storylines 🙂 )
Arrgh! No, no NO, Jacob! Joyce was right, in the first panel; she needed to go tell Harrison the truth before this went any further. And now you’re doubling-down on the stupidity by deciding to take this well past the point when you could tell your brother the whole thing was a joke!
Okay, look, this is exactly the kind of story that makes me hate sitcoms. Besides the fact that Jacob and Joyce are lying to Jacob’s brother, does Jacob not think this will get back to Raidah somehow? Especially since, IIRC, he was supposed to be meeting Harrison with Raidah?
When (not if) Raidah finds out about this, she will rightfully blame Joyce, but she will also blame Jacob for not straightening things out immediately. Plus, she will most likely assume that Jacob is ashamed of her, and that’s why he didn’t correct Harrison’s incorrect belief that Joyce was his girlfriend. Worst case scenario: She’ll think that Jacob was in on the deception from the beginning.
But, yeah, stories like this are what caused me to stop watching sitcoms over 20 years ago. Unlike a sitcom, though, maybe the consequences of these “shenanigans” will stick around and affect these characters for some time to come.
Loading ...
Next comic:
Jaime: Lie poo-poo head!
Harrison: No foolin’? Ah, you’ve become such a good actor, Jake! So proud of you!
Long suffering, tired sigh
Sympathy via light internet contact.
Jacob is being *very* Dannish right now.
Dan in this situation blew up at the one who put him in this situation once they were alone.
Yeah, Dan was actually kinda more sensible. So point Dan, I guess.
Wait. Now we’re disappointed Jacob didn’t Dan it up?
Way to Joyce it up, Jacob
Can’t we just say he’s Jakeing it up?
Jac’ing?
I dunno how it’d be pronounced…
Dammit Jacob, be angrier. She doesn’t deserve this.
Don’t make him angry. You won’t like him when he’s angry.
Given his build and fitness level, he could do a lot of damage if he ever lost his temper.
I’m not sure this cliche applies, but I think this storyline just jumped the shark.
Given that that phrase refers to an episode of the sitcom Happy Days that literally involved Fonzie waterski-jumping over an actual, honest-to-christ shark… no, I don’t think it applies. This isn’t anywhere near stupid enough.
Do I need to link the forbidden site? Jumping The Shark has a meaning beyond the original. Normally when a fictional story has gotten to the point where ridiculous things are done for no reason besides ratings and shock factor.
There is a fundamental difference between evil and forbidden.
No, you don’t need to use TVTropes, because you are only emphasizing my point. There’s nothing ludicrous here. This isn’t over the top insanity. It’s just goofy teenager drama.
Yeah, this isn’t shark-jumping. It’s barely goldfish-hopping. On the other hand, the League of Evil Dads is leaping all over SeaWorld.
Not so much ‘jumped the shark’ as it is jumping up and down on the shark, yelling “look at me I’m Mr. Jumpysharko”?
I don’t think “jumping the shark” can legitimately be used until the storyline has been ridiculous for some time — then you go back and find the point where things started to turn.
In other words, you don’t see the shark being jumped at the moment it’s being jumped.
Scandalous, truly scandalous.
I came here today expecting Billie Lips.
I am disappoint.
Why, oh why is there no “like” button in this comment section?
I was cuing up Leo Sayer’s Won’t Let the Show Go On on the hacked Muzak, and these two made me change it to Queen.
…or Three Dog Night.
It took me years to decide. For the most part I prefer Leo’s original, esp. the scatting and banjo, but I really like the backing vocals on 3DN’s version.
To each his own. I am fascinated that 3DN changed the last line and the entire outlook of the song. (Reminds me of how Mike Oldfield’s “Family Man” had a couple of lyric changes to the Hall & Oates versions which completely changed the outcome of the story.)
For an American I have a lot of Leo Sayer albums, so you can guess where I lean.
Do we tell the truth?
Do we live a lie?
Is the feeling good?
Is that what makes you cry
When you say these words and look me in the eye…
Be sure it’s true when you say ‘I love you’;
It’s a sin to tell a lie…
Different song, same meaning.
Don’t you love it when your life turns out to be exactly like a rom-com?
I’d rather be back with Mary and Malaya, honestly.
All is not lost. When Raidah finally gets there, we’ll get the reckoning that they both deserve. From Raidah, and from Harrisson.
Hopefully the takeaway for Jacob will be “trying too hard to make my brother/people proud of me backfires, better be truer to myself from the get-go”.
For Joyce, boundaries, obviously.
I think they need the uncomfortable moment to grow, though it’ll be super painful to watch.
Raidah shows up, and protests loudly that SHE is Jacob’s girlfriend, and Joyce is an interloper. Having gone all-in, Jacob and Joyce put up a united front that she’s insane, possibly painting her as a clingy ex who got a few dates, turned out to be horribly wrong despite/because of the fact she’s a checklist girlfriend, and now can’t accept the fact that she was dumped. Harrison has no reason to believe otherwise, and faced with a united front of scorn and derision, storms off angrily.
And thus the comment section becomes conflicted, for many of them wanted that outcome, but not that [i]way[/i].
Yeah, gaslighting is the opposite of how this needs to end.
Please no, I like liking them. If they do they I’ll have to start disliking them instead of just going “aren’t you two sweet idiots”.
Big Brown eyes and a gust of wind
And the cherry burns the corner of the page that says
“The end is coming soon,” not soon enough
what is that from?
I think someone like Jacob would be good for Joyce, but I am not so certain how good Joyce would be for him
Joyce is still immature. Jacob less so, but obviously has much to learn.
They should NOT get together romantically, though they are good friends and a Platonic relationship could work well.
I think they could fit romantically together, once they got to know each other even better (like, start with friendship, then possibly romance) – but that’s just my opinion, because in the last panel they look absolutely adorable together
“This was where everything started to go wrong…”
Maybe. Assuming that Raidah goes supernova and after the dust settles Joyce and Jacob are a thing, how smooth will the sailing be. We know that Jacob has separated from girlfriends before because of their jealousy, which is a red flag that he may well have given them reason, intentionally or otherwise. He was perfectly willing to start flirting with Joyce while having a relationship with Raidah. How well will Joyce deal with it when he hangs around with the next cute girl and invites her to church. Can she trust him?
But damn, watching the two of them together is just so cute
She won’t have to trust him. She’ll trust God that Jacob (who is meant to be with her) won’t cheat on her. Or, if he does, that God will give him the strength to change.
…or having him be unaware that he is flirting with other women and hurting her could lead to the next crisis of faith, or the intensifying of the current one…
I think it’s cute.
Me too.
Me Three!=)
Me four. They have a pretty good dynamic and this proves they can work things out without it being a huge “reckoning”. Joyce’s upbringing hasn’t well equipped her for maximum maturity but she’s working on adapting.
I can’t tell how Raidah and Jacob are doing. If that ever melts down, it could open the door to Jacob and Joyce realizing they do like each other’s company and growing from there. (doesn’t hurt that Harrison sees good things about it).
Me five.
*insert seven foot long text why here*
<3
Me Six 😀
This is… not what I expected. I don’t know how I feel about this except an overwhelming desire for Raidah to find out about this. Then this situation will get hairier than Bigfoot during winter.
How is everyone else feeling? I am still processing.
DOOM!
I don’t like this. I’ve been in relationships where little excuses like these lead to outright cheating.
I am curious to see if Raidah would hold true to her claim of “meh, he wasn’t good enough for me then” or if she will go all Dynasty catfight on Joyce.
Raidah is expecting to meet the brother and be taken out to eat. If this does not happen, then she will want a good explanation. I’m not quite seeing the path where this ends without fireworks of some kind.
Raidah’s already shown her reaction with her lunchtime efforts to paint Joyce as not up to Jacob’s standards. Subtler than full on catfight, but still very much in the mean girl tradition.
Maybe it would be different in a full-on cheating scenario, but I think she’s already shown the “I don’t do jealousy” thing isn’t true.
CALLED IT
Not 100% – but I knew that a big part of Jacob was tired of Raidah’s personality and wanting Joyce, and that would probably get them past any rough patches.
I’m a tad uncomfortable, and dissapointed in Jacob, that he’s deciding on keeping on the charade for the sake of keeping Joyce on Harrisons good side. I expected him to stay firm about the boundaries she just overstepped and how downright creepy it was.
Does he think it’s creepy though?
I ship Jacob and Joyce, but I do think they should get together properly instead of what they’re doing right now where they’re pretending to be dating while Raidah is still Jacob’s actual girlfriend.
However we currently feel about Raidah…this is not cool still.
This is….a…a mature reaction from Joyce where she takes responsibility for her actions without needing to be browbeat into it? What comic am I reading again?
I mean she gets off the hook and doesn’t have to go THROUGH with it which definitely she would not have done with as much grace but like. Still.
It’s okay. A Joyce-Raidah confrontation is pretty much inevitable, at this point. What form it’ll take, I have no idea, but they’re definitely on some kind of collision course.
It is their Destiny.
In the end, there can be only One.
*Cue Princes of the Universe*
See, THAT (the Joyce-Raidah confrontation) I am looking forward to.
I like the effect Raidah has on Joyce (ie, Evil Joyce Smile).
Yeah, I don’t get what everyone’s so pissed about.
Joyce offered to do the mature thing.
Jacob told her not to.
Jacob has now made his choice.
**shrug**
Because Joyce was, once again, given an out for her actions. She has blissfully ignored constructive criticism and bulldozed past opinions that she doesn’t want to hear.
Like yes, she’s gone through growth from times of crises, but everyday life Joyce is just a Terrible Person.
She’s an 18 year old. Having watched my niece and nephews grow up as well as friends’ children, I can attest to the fact that young adults make terrible decisions. And sometimes they get away with those bad choices with no consequences whatsoever. That doesn’t make them terrible people.
Not unless they learn from lack of consequences.
On the other hand, I’m not seeing Joyce here as a terrible person.
It may be realistic but it is incredibly irritating and doesn’t really make for compelling storytelling because it shoves out the opportunity for growth. I’m sure Willis is going to go somewhere with this, but yeah, right now I’m just hoping Raidah (at least verbally) knocks both of ’em senseless.
especially given we’ve seen joyce grow a lot over this comic, and offered to do the mature thing now.
this isn’t an ‘out’. They came to an understanding and Jacob chose to, in a sense, forgive the mistake, and they can figure out what to do later.
The really mature thing to do would be to tell Harrison the truth anyway.
Joyce offering isn’t because it’s the right thing to do, it’s to diffuse Jacob’s anger. She still doesn’t really feel that bad about the whole thing, because… she doesn’t like Raidah, and Joyce and Jacob are meant to be, so hey, all’s good, right?
Eh, honestly, I don’t think it’s quite that black and white. I think it’s also fair to let Jacob be the one in control of his relationship with his brother, instead of directly going against his stated wishes to tell him something Jacob doesn’t want him to know. Even if it would definitely be the most MORAL thing for Joyce to do in this situation, especially to Raidah.
Like even if Jacob’s choice is almost certainly a bad one–which it is, he’s being quite shitty to Raidah and this will almost certainly cause him further problems down the line with both her and Harrison–it’s his bad choice to make because Harrison is HIS brother and, heck, Raidah is HIS girlfriend, and Joyce shouldn’t try and make decisions for him regarding HIS relationships.
They got INTO this situation by Joyce making a decision on Jacob’s behalf she really really should not have, and she has admitted her fault on that front and then tried to do, in my opinion, the (mostly) right thing to correct that error in returning the decision to Jacob’s hands.
Jacob just then goes and…makes the bad choice…which also absolves Joyce of having to face actual consequences for her own bad choice. At least for now. SO. Cue frustrated audience.
This is the very definition of an out.
Yeah, plus I doubt Joyce will do this again, she aknowledges that this was a bad idea.
“Making Moderately Mature Decisions While Growing Up” by Will Davis?
This is fine, and the two seem to acknowledge their own problems. Honestly, I don’t care if they become a couple, but I hope they stay friends and Joyce learns not to do impulsive shit like this again. However, knowing Willis, Radiah will appear at any moment and reveal everything.
Meanwhile, Blaine and Toedad are doing villanous stuff, and Malaya is hating humanity.
This is……… weird
I’m finding it just as interesting that many commentators seem to be disappointed that Joyce is being mature and accepting the responsibility and consequences, when many of them seemed to be wishing she WOULD be more mature and accept the responsibility and consequences. Or that the reason they disliked her or her actions were because of her usual immaturity, and when she does grow up a bit, they aren’t happy with her for growing up. it’s as fascinating to me as the comic/characterization itself. 🙂 (and definitely not meant negatively.)
Not disappointed that Joyce is offering to take responsibility.
More disappointed that when she was given an out, she took it.
If she actually really felt bad about it, she would decline Jacob’s offer and just tell the truth anyway.
I don’t know, following Jacob’s lead seems like the right thing to do right now. Even though he then participated in it, she created this mess for him in the first place. Let him sort it out on his own terms.
They sidn’t want to see her be mature. They wanted to see her be punished.
It’s the Christian thing to do.
Oh, wait.
1) Not a Christian, so I don’t give a fuck what the Christian thing to do is.
2) Joyce hasn’t actually been mature yet. Being mature would require her to actually admit she did something wrong and face the consequences. She offered to, which is nice, but she’s given an out by the narrative that gives her no reason to stop trampling boundaries. AGAIN.
If you think the Christian thing to do is in favour of a single woman ANYTHING other than getting married (but just once, and forever, regardless of anything), have I got news for you.
They’re not good news. Jesus wasn’t really all that keen on women not belonging to a man, regardless of how bad (or dead) that man might be.
^ this
…that makes sense. :/
Maybe they should tell Harrison that they were joking and Joyce is not really the girlfriend… it would be awkward but easier and they wouldn’t need to drag the situation to bit them later.
Cool, okay, so now at least they’re in the deception together??
This will be interesting.
“Interesting” is an interesting way to spell “train wreck.”
Maybe it’s just me, but between Ruth/Billie, Joyce/Jacob, and Blaine/Toeded, Dumbing of Age isn’t very fun to go through at the moment.
When Malaya/Mary is one of the more enjoyable storylines, it’s a bit depressing.
There are plenty of boring comics out there if you’re into that sort of thing.
You can have conflict in a comic without having to cringe and wade uncomfortably through it, you know
if you’re into that sort of thing.
I know what you mean, sorta. If you replace Ruth/Billie with Walky/Grades and remove those other two things you said, I’ve got a similar gripe. It’s gotta suck having that many simultaneous drags going at once.
Well, we could start speculating on which one will resolve first, make it a drag race.
That would be an extremely unfair race. Everyone else would be driving normal cars, while Walky and his math grades are in a Formula One supercar.
Does my hybrid math/racing joke work? I don’t know much about either subject.
So when I read “drag race,” I did not think “cars” and as such was confused by your response regardless of whether the hybrid math/racing joke worked.
Personally, I’m cool with anything right now as long as the parents aren’t involved. They’re the only stories that are completely unpleasant to me.
Cue Raidah entering stage left…
Too soon.
Sarah is in class and it’s her birthday.
I’ve been expecting Raidah to show up for several strips of this story arc now. I’m still assuming she will at some point, but I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already.
I predict that it will happen once Harrison comes back, and Joyce and Jacob have just settled into the groove of their ruse.
Raidah’s probably in class. Even if that’s not the case, there’s no non-narrative causality for her to show up. Harrison has arrived early and she’s expecting a meal at a “grown-up restaurant”, so there’s no reason for her to go to Galasso’s.
Mother. Fucker.
Almost anything Raidah does to you two, you deserve.
What if she makes them watch really bad, boring anime for a week? Seven days of Code Geass, .hack//SIGN, and Evangelion oughtta set ’em straight.
Prometheus screenings, back to back.
I will hold that Evangelion didn’t age well, but I don’t think I’d ever call it *bad*. Might as well bring out the unambiguous heavy guns and set them in front of <Musashi Gundoh.
Nonono. We’re talking boring? Give them the Endless Eight.
Nooooooooooooo
The point is to teach them a lesson, not deliberately encourage autoexsanguination.
Evangelion was brilliant except for the muddled ending.
I’ve never seen Evangelion, but I’ve seen enough movies that are great and then completely ruined in the last, say, 5-10 minutes to believe this.
Watch episodes 1-24, they’re (mostly) great. Episodes 25 and 26 are just weird.
Also, just to be clear, Asuka is the best. This is another hill I will die on.
Asuka is Shakespearean tragedy at its finest and I’ll leave it at that.
Noooooo!
Well then, I’m glad that’s sorted out.
I’m so very surprised Jacob asked her to continue the charade. Hey, Jacob, if you never stop it will almost be like she is your girlfriend for real.
Well, he didn’t say that he wanted her to continue, he said that he wants Harrison to keep liking her. Those are different things and, arguably, have different criteria to achieve.
True.
I think he wants to continue to pretend that Joyce is his girlfriend. Time will tell if I’m right.
You are obviously right.
I mean, yeah, obviously.
I don’t see anywhere in what Jacob saying as a part of “I want to continue the charade”, although the lack of rejection on the last panel can be seen as such. It’s so easy for him to say, “No, let’s be honest about this and I can smooth this over with Harrison, no problem.”
What he actually said was that he still wanted Harrison to like her. Joyce missed the opportunity to ask him why.
Sure, he MIGHT say to Harrison that “actually, Joyce is not my girlfriend. haha, wacky missunderstanding, ‘mIright?”
I just don’t think he will do it. I think he will want to continue playacting boyfriend to Joyce.
I think he doesn’t want Harrison to ever find out Joyce wasn’t before the three of them met this morning. I smell an internal retcon coming on, and I am piiiiissed.
well fuck. guess shitty manipualtion’s and damaging lies are OK if your joyce…
can we have blaine and ross back, please? I never liked those two so they can’t make me feel this annoyed
she’s gonna masturbate to this fantasy at the end of the storyline, isn’t she
Happy Birthday, Sarah. :/
I’m actually fine with Joyce here. She’s offering to take personal responsibility for the mess she started, and when Jacob declines, she even goes so far as to poke at the flaws of his proposed solution. I’m even fine with Jacob declining Joyce’s offer… Except that it SHOULD be for Jacob to tell Harrison himself. Not for Joyce’s sake, but for Jacob’s, because that would be a valuable moment for him, to tell Harrison to his face that something he approves of isn’t so. But failing that, Joyce telling Harrison would be a close 2nd.
Continuing the lie is in 8th place, just behind both of them running for the border right now, assuming new identities, and never speaking of this again.
Out of curiosity, what’s in 3rd and 7th place?
7th was already stated: both of them running for the border right now, assuming new identities, and never speaking of this again.
3rd would be Jacob calling Raidah -right now-, breaking up with her (with formal in-person apologies scheduled for soonest available time unless Raidah prefers not), and formally asking Joyce out all before Harrison comes back.
4th would be pretending none of this ever happened and going ahead with introducing Raidah as his girlfriend.
5th would be to ditch Harrison and go ask Carla to invent time travel.
6th: This space available for rent.
(9th is when we start getting into suicide pact territory)
So, Ruth and Billie jumped straight to 9th, huh?
Thank you.
Joyce’s grin, seen from the side, is terrifying.
Now it’s time to sing the doom song!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowVkIzBixc
Or you could dump Raidah……Uh! I mean! Putting one over Harrison I guess..uh…nah dump Raidah.
Honestly can’t tell if Joyce just guilted Jacob into going along or if Jacob realized he’s enjoying it
Either way even if Raidah doesn’t catch them he’ll probably have to tell her
To be honest, my first take on this was that Jacob was intending to come clean but didn’t want Joyce to just back out of his life entirely and wanted her to get to know Harrison on more honest terms. Only reading the comments gave me the idea that he was intending to continue with the lie.
Either way, a lot of people are upset that Joyce is essentially getting enabled here, but…people aren’t beholden to karmic retribution? Jacob has some complicated feelings about Joyce and he’s not obligated to be the universe’s vessel for teaching her right and wrong. Sometimes people feel or think things about people that cause us to forgive them for things we really shouldn’t be forgiving them for, and that’s…just part of being human? One way or another it’s pretty clear that Jacob considers Joyce an important part of his life and wouldn’t be quite satisfied with having her disappear from it, even for the most justified reasons. That’s a reasonable bit of characterization, I think. Besides, even if this lie goes on for now it’s clear that Jacob’s got a lot to think about now and more to talk about, and there’s no telling at this point what that conversation is going to look like once he’s had some time to process the kinda heavy shit that got dropped on him.
Thank you! It’s very refreshing to read a commenter who doesn’t take an extreme morally-freighted position on this storyline!
Holy crap, a reasonable comment!
He DOES have an obligation to not be a shitheel to Raidah, which, guess whaaaat
Just because it’s realistic doesn’t mean it makes for a satisfying story. I have had all my patience for Joyce’s boundary problems worn through over the years. Yes, I want her to have some fucking consequences for it because it’s clear nothing else will make her fucking stop.
So true. 🙂
Some people here are suuuuuper ready to rain damnation on these two.
Don’t @ me with Joyce and Jacob hate here, this is playing out very closely to some real experiences I’ve had with real people and your theoretical hatred for how this is playing out is a condemnation of those real people.
Right? I’m with you. What do people want, one of those old fashioned witch dunking chairs? Scarlet letter sewn onto her dree? Tattoo “alduturess” on her forehead? March her naked across campus ringing a bell saying “Shame! Shame! Shame!”
I see it closer to a joke than a evil atrocity, a little unusual perhaps, and talking it through with their indoor voices seems proportionate.
Some folks have a lot of anger and puritan brimstone in them, that’s my takeaway from the comments here.
Right? I feel like there should be a lot more Mary gravitars floating around given some of these comments.
Ah yes, because wanting a character to have negative consequences for a character trait you find supremely annoying that has been going on for nearly a decade now makes you the equivalent of a witch hunter ready to condemn real people. Sure.
Are we not doing the witch hunt anymore? Because that’s fine, but I need to know where to take these stakes and bundles of garlic.
Shhh! We had to cancel for tonight because they’re onto us, just keep it in the basement until we can reschedule. I trust you remember where to find the schedule.
Silly. Stakes and garlic are for vampires.
Witches you burn or drown.
Though if you had some steaks to go with that garlic …
To be fair, stakes work on witches as well. As do buckets of water, but possibly only if they’re wicked – more testing is necessary. Witches are actually quite fragile, now that I think of it.
True. In fact, I find a stake through the heart works on most creatures.
Embarrassingly useless as a method of identifying vampires.
Well, until you pull the stake back out.
Hey, thejeff, I could use the garlic for some pasta scampi. If you bring those steaks you’re talking about, pretty sure that’s a party.
@ thejeff – Did I not put that we were trying a new method out in the newsletter?
Sorry, my bad. Library school’s kicking my ass lately. XD
I’m totally cool condemning real people for being shitheels.
Periodic remind that this is DUMBING of Age, not healthy rational sober adult actions of age. College kids do dumb, horny things, but guess what? So do adults. Just let them fuck up, and enjoy the shenanigans y’all.
Well maybe being super judgmental is our way of enjoying this/anything. Who are you to judge? 😀
More or less how the Bad Dads approach life, some people have more in common with them when it comes to dishing out righteous vengeance than they might have thought.
Joyce needs her well deserved commupance for being a Bad Woman? Congratulations, both Dads agree with you.
So if I’m uncomfortable with Jacob pretending Joyce is his girlfriend when he already has one, and wish Joyce’s boundary-issues weren’t constantly rewarded by the narrative, then that makes me similar to… *checks notes* an abusive mob stooge and a fundamentalist who intended to kidnap his daughter by bringing a gun to a college campus?
Do you know who breathed oxygen? Hitler. Why are you acting like Hitler?
See how stupid your argument is?
Aaand there’s the anticipated reference to Hitler.
You do not disappoint!
You mean, when I specifically say they’re NOT like Hitler, even though they share something in common?
Doesn’t matter. You brought up Hitler where he had no relevance.
You fulfilled Godwin’s law.
That’s not actually how Godwin’s Law works.
Care to explain?
Godwin’s Law applies when you compare your opponent to Hitler to try and win an argument, Your Lordship. JBento was using a sarcastic comparison to show the shallowness of their opponent’s argument.
Godwin’s Law does not apply to Hitler Ate Sugar. It’s in the Bible and everything (Euthanasians 69:420).
I did not realize that.
“Most people rejected His message.
They hated Jesus because He told them the truth.”
I don’t care for memes, but I think this one rings true.
It’s definitely exactly the same thing to sometimes go “hey I wish the narrative didn’t reward this fictional character for doing something I personally feel is wrong”, and to kidnap a real person* at gunpoint.
*yes, from their point of view, in-universe, it’s a real person.
I mean, I still don’t agree with those who want to see her metaphorically crucified, and I tend to cut her a lot more slack – all while finding her behaviour wrong.
But if that’s their way of enjoying this…? I asked the question in jest, but it’s actually relevant. Hating on a fictional character can be cathartic, that’s the whole point of storytelling.
I think stories are enjoyable because/when they evoke strong emotions. Anger, disappointment, even envy, as ugly as it is, are all part of it.
Now you raise the very valid issue of wanting punishment. I think this is one of the many, many cases where what people say (write) and actually think is not entirely in sync. Mostly when the big disaster starts it would be all “ABOUT TIME” and then 5 seconds later “Well ok she’s got it now you can stop it no really I think it’s enough stop this Stop This STOP THIS”.
Because 1) we’re very bad at predicting what we will want 2 days from now and 2) empathy. Empathy makes a lot of people angry for Raidah right now but would people actually enjoy watching Joyce in pian? I hope not.
tl;dr Langage is a poor tool to represent complex, multilayered, quantum states of mind.
This is total romcom material.
This is totally
babiesromcoms.What a curious pair these two are. I’m not sure if Jacob really is interested in Joyce romantically or if he’s just enjoying playing make-believe as much as Joyce has just said that she does.
If it is the latter, then I think that Raidah could be worried because her boyfriend is getting bored with her, even if only on a subconscious level. Worse, he’s getting bored and he doesn’t see any way (or alternately any need) to communicate this with her. That isn’t a good sign.
As mean as it is to do this to Harrison, I’m glad Jacob is giving Joyce a pass on her antics. If it weren’t for the fact that Blaine and the Legion of Christian Doom are gonna be upon her soon I would say this was a better ending result.
But this is merely the curtain rising.
*grabs popcorn and opera glasses* ok Willis hit us good!
Next Scene: Dexter appears in the middle of the restaurant sitting inside what appears to have once been blowjob cat.
Dexter: Joyce! You’ve got to come back with me!
Joyce: You’re real?!
Dexter: Back to the future… wait your not supposed to say that… er nevermind.
Dexter grabs a pizza from the next table and tosses it into blowjob cat machine.
Joyce: Whoa, wait a minute, you can’t just take their pizza.
Dexter: I’m hunger. Go ahead, quick. Get in the ship!
Joyce: No, no, no, no, no, no. We just got here, alright, Jacob’s here, I’m gonna have to help him keep up appearances.
Dexter: Well, bring him along. This concerns him to.
Joyce: Whoa wait a minute Dex. What are you talking about? What happens to us in the future? What, do we become assholes or something?
Dexter: No, no, no, no, no, Joyce. Both you and Jacob turn out fine. It’s your kids, Joyce. Something’s gotta be done about your kids!
Joyce is in the wrong. Jacob finds himself tempted to enable or at least downplay that wrong and give into temptation. Jacob ends up not doing the reliable, smart, wise, sensible thing we expect from him based on his demeanor, kind face and broad shoulders. We still end up putting all the blame on Joyce.
I’m beginning to realize that Jacob reveals a lot about us a lot more readily than he does about himself. He underreacts to adversity, and so we think he’s got it under control. He talks a good game with calm words, so we think he’ll follow through. He identifies the problem, so we think he has the capacity to enact the solution. Jacob is a flawed, insecure human being who makes bad choices sometimes, but we give him a pass because he acts mature and aware.
Well, Joyce is the driver for this whole fiasco and has been for a long time. It is good that she did offer to explain things to Harrison though.
I’ve still been harsh on Jacob throughout this scene, partly because he’s seemed motivated all along by playing to his brother’s approval.
So…wait, is she going to explain what happened? Like, is asking her to sit down telling her not to or is it just saying it’s cool for a friend to hang out and meet his brother?
Wow, Joyce is handling this a lot better than I expected.
IMHO, they have exactly ONE honourable option to repair this. “Harrison, we lied to you. We did it because [insert complicated motivations here]. We are sorry.”
The problem is that I’m not sure that either Joyce or Jacob are entirely sure what said motivation is! They have their suspicions but nothing they’d be prepared to commit to the record by telling it to someone whose opinion of them they value.
Joyce already said why she lied: She really likes Jacob. Jacob is the one with the big soul-searching to do today.
Ooh, you know what’d be awesome? If Dorothy found out Joyce did this.
There is only one lesson for Joyce to learn and it’s this: In real life, lying about something like this should never be ‘fun’. For that reason, if I were Jacob, I would ask her to explain to Harrison and apologise to him. In return for which, I’d take responsibility for not calling her out and tell Harrison that I cannot believe that there was any malign intent on her part.
I’m not sure if I should be disappointed that this is the strip for my birthday or not.
Meh, it’s not the Legion of Doomed. I’ll take it.
Sometimes the comments here get so relentlessly bitter.
You know. This MIGHT work Joyce. Maybe you keep your friend, maybe he even now realizes you hold feelings for him. And maybe deus ex Raidah will show up.
What actually happened: Joyce answered “yes” when she shouldn’t have in a moment of weakness and Jacob continued along with it out of his own weakness.
What people in the comments are acting like happened: Joyce personally invited Harrison down and deliberately waited for him to tell him she was Jacob’s girlfriend while also making sure Raidah was indisposed by holding her hostage so her fabrication couldn’t be unraveled by her or Jacob.
Jacob forgiving Joyce is as Meteor impacting the Planet.
The cries of Raidah fans are as the Lifestream, rushing to fill the wound.
And I am as Sephiroth, at the center of it all, becoming unto a God.
Free Love Will Prevail.
Identifying with an omnicidal megalomaniac loser seems an odd thing to be proud of.
His Divinity sat at the center of the universe, the flow of countless systems flowing into being, billions of souls, entire civilizations worth of resentful, unsatisfied commenters. Occasionally, a ripple would emerge, a belch of protest from a minute stream of essence. It would travel to His ear as faint sound:
“…loser…strawman…Hitler…”
But as quickly as as such noise rose up, it was consumed. His Divinity could not help but feel a pang of guilt in his godly breast: were his victims truly deserving of such a fate? But this thought was swept aside by the realization that the commenters had brought their doom on themselves–their own inability to understand the nuance of human behavior had damned them.
And so, He reclined on his celestial throne and continued to feast.
Wait, hold on, are you a libertarian?
It’s an incredibly sad commentary on the world that people read “free love” and think right-wing nutcase.
When did my peers on the left become such squares?
Cheating =/= free love.
And this malignant conflation does nothing but harm people who actually engage in casual, consensual, non-cheating sex or are in actual poly relationships.
(additionally, I’m not your peer anymore than someone being a feminist makes them peers to TERFS and SWERFS)
You’re right. Cheating is bad–categorically, unequivocally.
I’m grateful, then, we have stern judges to sort the black from the white, to administer the firm 17th-century justice these adulterers deserve.
(Let’s see…Strawman accusation: check. Godwin’s law: check. And now ad hominem attacks! You’re on a roll. Truly, one with the web.
How does not agreeing with your reactionary social views warrant a comparison to a transphobic fringe hate group?)
It does not, it was just the first example that came to mind of people who share one stance while wildly differing in others. It’s why I took special care to identify neither of us with either group.
Well, I’m glad to know people who disagree with you about a webcomic aren’t automatically transphobics in your mind, but it still baffles me why you brought the subject up in the first place.
Also, that’s not how rhetoric works. Comparing two separate pairs as you did suggests a relation between them.
You’ve clearly tried to implicate me, twice, in right-wing/hate groups, once again, because I disagree with you…about a webcomic.
Is THIS how one fails an Internet argument? Question marks abound.
Dude, you’re being an asshole. You’re clearly not engaging in good faith. You’re frustrating a person and then blaming them for being frustrated. There are things about your stance I agree with, but when they’re presented in the way you choose to present them?
Yikes.
If that’s how it came across, then I apologise – it wasn’t my intent, as I have no indication of your position on those subjects.
The thing is, you’re not disagreeing with me about a webcomic. We’re not arguing about the quality of the art or plot or characterisation. You’re disagreeing with me in a moral/ethical subject that happens to be depicted in a webcomic, which is a totally different thing. Now, if your stance is “this would be a shitty thing to do in real life, but since these aren’t actually real people is ok” is one thing (this is my stance in most of Mike’s doings), but how you came across (to me) is “this is totally kosher, even if these were real people”, which is a stance I severely object to.
@Yumi
All I’ve done is chip away at a worldview that seems to paint in black and white and encourages harsh punishments. If losing ground there is frustrating: good. In my mind, it’s an untenable philosophy.
As far as being an asshole, I don’t know–our responses have been pretty evenly back and forth. In fact, it was my statement that was challenged first, when I contended that Raidah’s treatment of Dina constituted mockery, to which JBento (strenuously) objected. I think your assessment is a bit one-sided.
Also, again: “yikes.” Non-word. Should be thrown out with “oof,” “I can’t even,” and “interesting.”
@JBento
Apology accepted, and I appreciate it.
As for for the second paragraph, I’ll concede that I’m guilty of attempting to mischaracterize the conversation. For that, *I* apologize.
You’re right–we are arguing morality, and we obviously severely object to one another’s position.
I’m not inclined to punish people harshly for transgressions of the heart and believe that each case needs to be considered individually.
You seem to paint with a broad brush, think in absolutes, and demand retribution for mistakes made. This is dangerous thinking, and these ideas, wherever they originate, are what really hurt people.
So, yes, I’m not typing every word here with utmost seriousness, but my opposition to your line of thought is very strong, and will continue to be, as long as you espouse it. I won’t be surprised if you hold the same attitude towards me.
The saving grace for you is that I’m a very infrequent poster, and, if you hold out a few days, you’ll likely see the last of me for a while.
Also, I forgot: this is my thread! No one had to step into it to engage me.
That’s on anyone who chooses to post.
In my view, that’s really not what you’ve done. Because, see, I agree with you, I think, if I’m reading through how you’re presenting things correctly. But you’re making it REALLY HARD to agree with you with a lot of your posts. You’re right that you’re unlikely to actually change how JBento sees things, and the same in reverse. With that in mind, you could consider the way other people may read your exchanges.
JBento’s objection yesterday was very fair, in my opinion, even if further comments I was less on board with. Perhaps I care more about your tone because, again, I would like to agree with you. I would like others to agree with you, but I can’t support the mocking and condescending way you’ve presented your responses.
Also, yikes. I really hoped you would have been able that I chose that phrase because yesterday you established you were Like That in regards to phrases that other people use.
I do recognize that no one had to choose to engage with you, but this is certainly carryover from yesterday. Where, again, no one had to engage with you, but you chose to engage on JBento’s post pretty readily.
As for my own choice to engage with you, at first I held back yesterday because I thought, “This person is just being a jerk for the hell of it. Possible troll.” But it began to seem that was, in fact, not your purpose, which took me from considering suggesting to JBento to just not engage with you to this.
@Yumi
Fair enough. It’s not possible to please everyone with tone and delivery. Some people hate George Carlin–other love him. I agree with Richard Dawkins’ beliefs but can’t stand his personality. You have every right to dislike the way I put things–humor is not universal, and certainly, I have a lot of anger directed towards certain viewpoints, especially those that are strict and unforgiving. I’m not going to beat around the bush when expressing that. I’m not incapable of being civil, though.
I hate “yikes” because it’s shorthand for shutting people down, popularized by social media bullies. It can be used in literally any context:
“Fascism for the future.”
“Yikes!”
“Democratic socialism for a better tomorrow.”
“Yikes!
“I just bought new shoes.”
“Yikes!”
“Like my baby?”
“Yikes!”
It’s a non-word whose only abstract purpose is to insult, just as “interesting” has become a non-word to express generic approval.
You could replace it with “STFU!” and it would have the same meaning.
And yes, I hate it so much I will call it out when I see it.
“I just bought new shoes.” is “Nikes!”, not “Yikes!”. Jeepers.
Are you seriously arguing that consent shouldn’t be a bright-line metric?
Listen. Yall make this out like life never just happens? Does everyone actually weigh the pros and cons, morally, of EVERY decision? Sometimes you just do dumb things because its fun in the moment and deal with it later, and its either fine or it’s not.
College relationships are where you figure out what you want, neither of them are doing anything heinously wrong, not to mention how low the stakes are, honestly- jacob/raidah aren’t married and havent even been together very long, ffs
Can’t speak for everyone, just me.
If it works out for them and they get into a good, stable relationship, great.
But it’s also just as well to call out crappy behaviour when it happens.
The ‘it’s okay, it’s justifiable!’ ideal is exactly what fuels the romcom trope that Joyce believes in. Sure, it might work out and it’s always contextual, but I wouldn’t recommend the whole ‘lying and going behind an existing girlfriend’s back’ move as a go-to option.
And, again, personally, as far as a narrative point of view goes, Joyce getting little to no blowback is also kind of frustrating. Yeah she’s young and the glacial pace of the comic also means character growth is gonna come slow, but it doesn’t make it any less aggravating to watch.
It’s mostly the narrative angle that leads to my frustration – We’re supposed to be seeing Joyce’s character growth, so if we see her rewarded for her bad choices here that’s counter to what we want. Mind you, I fully expect that blowback is still coming – there have been plenty of hints that Willis does consider this bad and thus it’s very likely to bite her in the long run. How else is she going to learn and grow?
They are such a cute couple. And they want to be a couple.
I feel like this site’s comment section must be teeming with passionate, earnest virgins, based on the shocked and deeply felt replies. This thing between Joyce and Jacob? This happens every day. People, especially young people but even older people, fall in love and get infatuated with each other over little things. Yes, even over small deceptions. Physical attraction, romance, and libido don’t care at all for your “honorable” ways out or your fervent wish for a total baring of souls. People get the hots for each other and they rationalize it and sometimes people even get into serous, long-term, loving relationships after breaking up another couple by their flirting. It happens. It’s human. I hope it will happen to some of you some day. It’s actually kind of nice.
I think you’d be surprised by the diversity of this commenting group
So would ‘Is Lordship that’s posted on this page a lot. Sad that they’re both too far up themselves to realize that.
@ensiform
I get the exact same impression. An articulate and mature perspective on sex.
And then those people have the decency to either break up with or get permission from their existing girlfriend before introducing a different person as their girlfriend. Otherwise, they’re shitheels.
Have you read Mr. A? I think you’d really enjoy it.
*googles Mr. A, sees first image, reads first speech ballon*
That’s not a bad foundation.
*sees that is written by Steve Ditko, the dude who wanted to make Spider-Man an Ayn Rand fan*
I’m sure he’ll fuck it up soon enough.
*reads second speech balloon*
I expected to be right, but not THIS FAST.
The fact you agreed with even the first balloon speaks volumes.
You mean, the part where people shouldn’t profit from choosing to do bad things to people? That part? Yeah, I’m good with it speaking volumes about me.
“Justice demands that man’s principles be fixed in terms of good and evil, black and white! …an evil act will be so judged and treated accordingly!”
That’s the type of moral philosophy you want to be associated with?
*crosses legs, folds hands in front of mouth*
Punishing evil stances? Sure, full steam ahead. History has shown us that people who don’t suffer consequences for doing bad things are just going to keep doing bad things, and I’d really rather they didn’t.
That’s your stance to take, but it strikes me as moral fundamentalism, especially considering the source.
Saying something is bad doesn’t equal moral fundamentalism. I’d say killing people is bad too. Sure, there are circumstances where I can understand the logic or emotional state driving it, and there are sympathetic or justifiable circumstances sometimes, but in general? Yeah, killing people’s bad.
Same goes for shit like this.
Except that moral fundamentalism is the underlying theme of Mr. A. His calling card is black and white, and he openly states he does not see shades of gray. No extenuating circumstances. No appeals. Just the most literal, brutal application of the letter of the law.
It was a right-wing tract designed to combat liberal notions of compassionate justice, rapprochement with the Eastern Bloc, and the Civil Rights movement. As JBento pointed out, Ditko was a Ayn Rand devotee.
And all of that is evident from the first speech balloon? Damn, Ditko clearly wasn’t messing around. XD
Although he rejected the economic perspective of the comic, JBento has already stated he saw no issue with the moral aspect.
Not much more to be said, really.
It seems to me like most (not all, but most) of the people objecting to the way things are playing out are objecting on an in-universe level– they don’t like this for Joyce, or this character development, this storytelling, just witnessing it. Many of the response posts, like this one, then go directly to critizing and insulting the people who hold these views.
The argument seems to be that by criticizing Joyce/Jacob, people are themselves criticizing real people who might not behave perfectly. For many of these comments, that’s a jump, and I don’t agree with using it to justify flat out insulting the commenters themselves.
When my parents first realized their attraction to each other, my dad was dating my mom’s best friend. Now, decades later, my parents are still married, and my mom is still best friends with the woman my dad was dating, so yay, happy ending. My point in this is that I am not necessarily opposed to people who meet in less than “ideal” ways, or think they’re bad people for it.
I still do not enjoy this storyline. I try to appreciate it strip by strip, but overall I don’t like what it’s doing for the characters and find it kind of stupid to witness. Maybe by the time it wraps up, it will feel more satisfying. In the meantime, I get people expressing their frustration with the characters.
That’s my problem right now with the comments section. My gripe with this plotline is purely with these two fictional characters and the narrative choices (and I like this comic! It’s just the way this storyline is developing that isn’t satisfying to me). Because of that I’ve been called puritanical, judgemental, irrational, bitter,
unreasonable and the other day I was told to “stay away from all forms of media if this triggers [me]”.
I don’t understand why we can’t say “I don’t like how these two characters are behaving” or “I don’t like that this character keeps getting rewarded for violating other’s boundaries” without being called names or being judged by other commenters. Also, saying “this fictional thing you don’t like also happens in real life” doesn’t really make it better or easier to read.
If you like this development, that’s fine. We clearly disagree. But it’s not fun to read these comments when I and others are being directly insulted or misinterpreted.
I’d expect “this fictional thing you don’t like also happens in real life” would make things HARDER to read, not easier. There’s people who’ve had to take breaks from the comic already, and that was because stuff was hitting too close to home not because they’d never heard of it.
If I recall the alt-text from the first Robin strip correctly, things happening in real life also makes it harder to WRITE. I’m sure Willis thought the whole shebang was funnier before Trump got elected. All of a sudden, a patently incompetent politician who’ll support any policy, no matter how vile, as long as it gets them applause getting into a position of power is a whole less appealing, even in fiction.
If it’s any consolation, I don’t think your viewpoint, nor the way you’ve expressed it, is unreasonable, and any vitriol, from me at least, hasn’t been directed at you (minus my criticism of your usage of “yikes”).
There are others who have it out for Joyce and Jacob that are much, much more uncompromising in their position than I’ve seen you be. That’s where my dumb words are aimed, at any rate.
Last post was @Deadjolras.
Well said!
“it’s actually kind of nice”
Not for the people being cheated on, but then cheating wouldn’t happen in the first place if the cheaters were willing to have consideration for anyone but themselves.
Jacob, NO!
Welp, I just heard that a bunch of Californians are about to go a long but indeterminate period without power. Take care, you lot.
Yeah, it’s a pretty outrageous situation.
Did anyone think Joyce knew how to be honest and respect boundaries? Just out of home schooling, she’s still on the upswing of that learning curve. And…
For anyone who thought Jacob was sort of a Mary Sue, well here you go. Happy now?
Technically, this doesn’t affect Mary Sue-status. Mary Sues aren’t the ones that don’t do bad things, they’re the ones who do bad things but their bad-doing gets defended in-universe because it’s them doing it.
Jacob was already not-perfect, what with his “non-christians are just silly buggers who worship the same god as me but do it in funny ways” thing.
I think I missed that one?
Imma track it down for you, just as soon as I find out how to get rid of this fucking undismissable ad covering the page list when I search for tags.
Found it, panels 2 and (especially) 4: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/02-everything-youve-ever-wanted/romans/
Well, I suppose, except without the “silly buggers” and “funny ways” parts.
Better than the opposing “they’re damned unless they follow Christ” approach.
It’s pretty much the best I can come up with without ditching Christianity entirely.
Well, yes, it IS several seven-league boots’s steps ahead of “and then we beheaded the heathens for Jesus, the hippie who told us to love one another. Pass the loot”.
Yeah, but now you’ve basically reached Christian is not-good (and presumably any other religion that thinks they have the real answer.)
Just because it’s better than ‘they’re damned’ doesn’t actually make it good.
I’m pretty sure Jacob was attempting to explain religious tolerance to Joyce in a way she’d understand.
It does not read to me as someone being dismissive of other religions. In fact, all religions essentially pointing to the same truth is a major tenet of liberal/progressive theology–that is to say, finding common ground.
The same truth does not equal the same god but not knowing it. One is a valid tenant of theology and one is being a condescending prick.
I think that’s holding the letter of the law over the spirit when it comes to understanding Jacob’s argument, though.
You’re combing his language for slip-ups rather than understanding his intent.
Jacob is literally arguing other religions count as ‘through’ the Christian god, which ignores what other religions actually teach about their own belief systems, many of which preclude the Christian god’s existence. Jacob doesn’t mean to be condescending or dismissive, but he is because that is the argument he is making.
But it’s also inherent to nearly any religion. If that other religion precludes the Christian God, then they have the same “You’re wrong and I’m right” problem.
No, no it is not. Other religions beliefs matter and going ‘well, forget what they say about their own gods/creation stories/doctrine, it’s still worshipping my god in different ways’ is both condescending and dickish. If you can’t be a Christian (or another religion, whatever) and accept that other religions exist with no relation to yours, you need to re-evaluate how you approach other religions.
So it’s actually better to say “Other religions exist, but they’re just wrong”?
I’m trying to follow here.
Because if you believe your religion and your religion precludes the other religions beliefs, that’s pretty much where you end up.
What’s the essential difference between other religions are just worshiping my god in a different way and my religion is just worshiping other religions gods in a different way?
@ thejeff – No, the better thing is to say ‘Other religions exist, they have no relation to mine, we believe different things and that’s okay’. Asking Christianity to respect other religions and not act like other religions are just different forms of Christianity is not saying Christianity is automatically false.
@ Clif – Very very few people are willing to say the latter.
I don’t even know what that means. I mean sure, other religions exist and people believe different things and that’s okay, but if you dig into the details of theology, as they were doing in that discussion (as far as basically untrained teens can go) you get pretty quickly to the point of “If mine is right, theirs must be wrong”, so how do you reconcile that?
If you’ve got two incompatible religions, then at least one of them must be false. If you believe yours, you must disbelieve theirs. You can kind of gloss over that most of time, but there’s no real way to confront it without reaching that conclusion.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see an alternative.
*Not all religions are necessarily incompatible, though even back in pagan days the same basic approach to reconciling them was common. “Jupiter and Zeus are really just the same God, even though we call them different things and have different ceremonies.”
The alternative is to accept your religion, even if you believe in it, is not universal and not try to shove other religions into your religion’s framework like Jacob was, or act like they’re hellbound sinners like Joyce’s church does. Plenty of religious people do it all the time, including theologians.
While that’s kind of true about Ancient religion, it’s also a bit simplistic view of ancient religion. Jupiter and Zeus have very similar roles, but they aren’t exactly the same. Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks had differing views on gods and what their relationship was like in society and while very similar, had a few traits and stories that differentiate them. It’s not a bad explanation, per se, but it’s not the entire thing.
I thought the “Mary Sue” was the incidental character who steps into an established fictional universe and saves the day while the regular cast, which is supposed to be competent at the problem in question, stands around with their thumbs in their, er, noses. And of course the Mary Sue is the avatar of the author creating the Mary Sue, even if that’s vehemently denied.
There’s a lot of bitterness in this comment section, and while some of it is totally valid, I feel like these two are actually handling this better than 80% of the comments section people would. Like, yes, this was an idiotic, rash decision of Joyce to even cause this to happen, but they’re actually handling this pretty maturely. Joyce offered to own up to her lie without it all breaking down, which is a lot better than I expected to happen and does show that she is aware of her mistake. Jacob doesn’t seem to think throwing Joyce under the bus for lying and hurting a friend when his brother is visiting is going to make it an enjoyable visit for Harrison, so he decides to just ride it out and keep things on the positive.
Also, Jacob definitely seems like the kind of person who, when someone tells them they like him, even when with a current partner, would be more flattered than annoyed by it, which is, imho, a far better and matured reaction. It hurts no one reacting that way, and Jacob definitely is someone who doesn’t want to hurt anyone.
All in all, I’m actually kinda proud of them for riding this storm out in probably the best case scenario it could be ridden.
This would be mature if there was no third person in this equation, but there is, unless you think Raidah won’t be hurt by this. I’m not entirely sure how Jacob sees this ending, though. He’s either going to introduce Raidah to Harrison today or Harrison leaves earlier (either at Jacob’s prompting or of his own accord) and he has to hide this whole episode from her (lies optional, but likely). The first is extensive pyrotechnics, the second doesn’t reflect well on him.
Aggravating matters is that Jacob is statedly looking for a long-term relationship, meaning he’s considering Raidah as a long term partner, so he’s… hoping this topic never ever comes up for years of family reunions? I dunno.
People can breathe easy–the monster is slipping back under the waves for now. Before I go, though, I’d like to offer some advice, to the younger liberals among us–take it or leave it.
Steer clear of authoritarianism. Promote political freedom in addition to social justice. It’s tempting to want to silence the opposition, but a strong public forum is the beating heart of a democracy. Barring anti-democratic or hateful rhetoric, listen to others, and defeat their ideas, if wrong, in debate.
(Put another way–Stalin was BAD. The Soviet Union was BAD. The Chinese Communist Party is BAD.)
See things in gray, not black and white.
People make mistakes–forgive them. Don’t castigate others or revoke their liberalism card for making simple errors in speech or judgment. Remember, not all liberals agree over common terminology, so don’t jump to the worst conclusions or epithets.
Work with other liberals. Be as one. The only way our tiny, vulnerable communities can overcome the immense forces arrayed against us is to unite. What do native groups, women, LGBT groups, the BLM movement, and environmentalists have in common? The need to beat a shared enemy.
Know the statistics, but see the people. Don’t adopt a top-down view of the world; it’ll make your vision screwy. For instance, statistically, incarceration of black people in America is a major problem. But don’t say that a black cop arresting a black criminal in a black neighborhood is enabling white supremacy. It sounds absurd, and you’ll only alienate allies.
Speaking of alienation, don’t use liberal words you learn in college on the street…or ever, actually. It makes you sound pompous. Try using direct, simple language that laymen will understand.
Finally, try to form original thoughts. Don’t let buzzwords and memes do the thinking for you.
That’s all for now. I’ll emerge from wallowing in misanthropy if something peaks my interest. Be warned.
Oh, the Chinese Communist Party is SO bad (and also not communist). I mean, the other two were too, but this is the one of three you mentioned that’s still around.
That’s a really bad example, just for the record. A cop disproportionately targeting black people for arrest is enabling white supremacy, regardless of the race of the cop or whether they intend to. You’re right that a lot of people wouldn’t immediately cotton on, but that doesn’t make it less true. This is something that anti-police brutality activists have talked about. The same is true for female pro-life activists and misogyny – sure, they might not think they’re furthering it and they’re definitely affected by it to. It’s still furthering systemic misogyny.
I was gonna say, but now I don’t have to. 🙂
“Disproportionately” is the key word. I’ve seen the argument made without it, which changes everything.
Bottom line, though, is you can’t explain to people they’re wrong about their life choices by quoting something you read in a textbook.
I guarantee you’ll lose them as soon as you do. Even if you’re right, you’ll convince no one. Know the bigger picture, but don’t lose the individual.
But don’t take my word for it.
Try telling a black police officer that he/she’s perpetuating racism by patrolling his/her neighborhood. Especially if you aren’t black yourself.
Tell a pro-life woman, face to face, that she only opposes abortion because men have manipulated her into unwittingly supporting misogyny.
Even if it’s true, people don’t like being told they they’re a cog in a system. They’ll tune you out.
And if that happens, you lose.
Finally, let’s go back to “disproportionate.”
You have to ask yourself what you mean by that. Are you looking at national averages, nation-wide systems of oppression? Then, a black cop, working in an all-black town, even if he arrests only violent felons, has no chance of escaping the charge of furthering white supremacy.
I said before to look at individuals. You should also look at regions, cities, and districts, anything that gets closer to the people you’re advocating for. That’s what I meant about the danger of top-down analyses.
You can’t convince people to make initial change that way, but once they’re committed to combatting systemic racism/misogyny/whatever it is, you’re going to have to confront them about how their own actions further whatever it is they’re fighting eventually, otherwise the problem continues. This is something literally EVERYONE has to do because systemic issues are, well, systemic. But nobody likes doing it, as you said, which usually means problems continue down the line. But honestly, no matter how nicely you explain systemic inequality to individuals, if they aren’t ready to see it, they’re not going to change. Relating to people personally, one on one, can sometimes get them willing to see it, but honestly, a lot of it comes from within. And yeah, sometimes showing people how their actions further systemic issues does help – I’ve seen it before. But more often, it helps whoever is listening/reading/whatever see it, even if the other party doesn’t.
Second, I never said pro life women were manipulated into being pro life by misogyny. I said their actions further misogyny, which they do. Those are two different things. I brought them up as an example of someone furthering systemic harm that will negatively impact them, since it looked like you were arguing that isn’t possible.
Finally, disproportionate in these cases generally means things like ‘White people are more likely to use illegal drugs but black people are more likely to be arrested for it’. I.e. the percentage of people doing the crime and the percentage of those arrested for it do not even remotely match up. They’re not even close, so it’s not a margin of error issue. In a 100% black town or black neighbourhood, no shit everyone committing a crime will be black and so will everyone being arrested for it. That’s not disproportionate. It’s also not what’s happening in 99.99% of places (I’m being hyperbolic here, that’s not a real number). Bringing it up just makes you look like you’re trying to derail.
Nice trap.
You’re right. Not all examples of black people being arrested are examples of white supremacy, whether it’s done by black or white cops (or hispanic or asian or any other kind).
In the context of the preceding sentence of your post, mentioning the statistical incarceration of black people as a problem, it’s easy to read that as “it’s not white supremacy because it’s a black cop” which is bullshit as BBCC said, instead of “this particular arrest might or might not be justified”.
Stop playing stupid games.
@BBCC and thejeff
You’re misunderstanding my point. Perhaps I’m not explaining it well enough.
I know systemic oppression is real. I know cops, of all colors, contribute to it. I know pro-lifers, of any gender, contribute to it.
My point is: beyond writing academic journals or teaching political science courses at liberal colleges, how does this truth reach people?
The average person just does NOT think in terms of systemic oppression. Sure, I agree, it would be nice if we could just explain it to them–but most reject it, either as a form of determinism, or because of the “egg-head” stereotype conservatives have been very successful in pushing.
Obviously, you’ve learnt political theory. But what was the point if you can’t put it into practice? How do you translate a professor’s lecture into a speech, conversation, or article that electrifies people into understanding and doesn’t just preach to the choir, dying on social media and not doing a damn to effect real change.
I’m not trying to trick you into betraying what you’ve been taught. You say if people aren’t ready to see it, they won’t change. Well, most people aren’t ready to see it yet. How does that get fixed?
“Well, most people aren’t ready to see it yet. How does that get fixed?”
According to Twitter, you fix it by living in Brooklyn, having a podcast constantly tweet out jokes making fun of Syrian refugees.
You seem to have missed where I said no, this won’t draw the person you’re talking to in most of the time but it can draw in others who are listening or reading the exchange – that’s how I learned 90% of this stuff, listening to people who experience these problems talk about it or watching them argue with someone else. They may not have persuaded the person they were talking to (though it has happened often enough I’m not willing to rule it out entirely) but it did work for me. I also said that while it isn’t the best persuasive tool for those just starting out, you need to confront that problem eventually or they’ll only get so far.
Honestly, there is no fixing it if people aren’t ready to see. The most you can do is make cracks in what they see, particularly if you’re talking about their lived experiences. Translating stats into real life examples or pointing them to people talking about their lived experiences. Eventually they’ll either be willing to consider it or they won’t. It’s the same with any other form of determinism. What works to break the mould for one person won’t for another. It’s incredibly tiring and frustrating, but that’s often how it goes, especially because if you try to explain it systemically it gets rejected because determinism, but if you try to relate it individually or with other life experiences, they reject it because it’s only an anecdote or because it doesn’t line up with their own experiences. There is no one size fits all answer here.
Fair enough–you’ve explained your position well, and I didn’t miss that part of your post; my own was just becoming too long as it was.
You acknowledge the frustrations of the fight. My contention is that changing our methods–our approach–can reach more people, quickly.
A personal anecdote: an in-law of mine is a born-again Christian, suspicious of Eastern religion and its practices. She thought meditation was blasphemous. Ideally, I would have quoted the Buddha, inspired her with his doctrine, and opened her heart to tolerance.
But we knew that wouldn’t work. We explained meditation in a way she understood–it’s a form a knowing oneself, which is similar to prayer. That she got. Maybe one day she’ll search out more, but in the short term, she now accepts that people who meditate are not evil.
That’s how reach people. Resisting the urge to recite statistics, jargon, and the college-educated liberal Gospel. There’s not one thing we can say to everyone, but the “shoe,” so to speak is listening–easing off the attack and being able to connect genuinely with those we would enlighten.
The goal then, is to do this on a large scale, to move people who would never come to us. The alternative is to progress at a snail’s pace, and, ultimately, risk failing outright. Trump’s election represented, after all, a failure of the left as much as a victory for the right.
Yeah, that works for some people. Others would respond better to hearing the doctrine, or rhetorical questions (“Who else gets hurt by me meditating?”), etc. that’s my point – there’s not a one size fits all. And that anecdote may very well have been what I called making a crack.
Regarding making a crack–perhaps. Perhaps it’s better to make many small cracks than to aim for a few complete conversions.
You’re welcome to keep doing things your way. I hope it works for you. My experiences have been different. That’s all I can say.
My experience is people are different and what works to talk to one person may not work for another. You need to decide based on who you’re talking to and what you’re trying to convince them of.
Oh, don’t worry. I understand.
You’re hypersensitive to a certain culture in parts of the left and convinced you know they should behave. You demonstrate this by phrasing your critique in a way designed to mislead, so that you can then patronizingly correct us once we point at the apparent problems. As I described in your “black cop” example. Then you get to say “See, that’s not what I said.
You’re not trying to “trick you into betraying what you’ve been taught.” You’re trying to trick us into responding like the liberals you’re criticizing to show how bad we are and how superior you are.
You’re also doing so using rhetoric that echoes a lot of alt-lite discussion – without using the common terminology (cancel culture, sjw, etc), you’re painting basically the same picture of liberals.
And frankly, if you’re such an expert that we should pay any attention to your advice on persuasion, why aren’t you applying any of that around here? Why did you stumble into a whole bunch of flame wars on what seem to be your first steps into the discussion here? Can’t you show your methods work by example, rather than lecture?
Please don’t conflate liberalism and leftism.
Thank you for reminding me of another point:
Semantics does nothing but waste everyone’s time, derail the conversation, and prevent anything from getting done.
Academics love semantics.
“It’s just semantics!”, the age-old outraged cry of people who persist on using long words they don’t know the meaning of to sound smart. “Clear communication is baaaaad!”
It’s actually a Bad Thing to have multiple words for descriptive purposes. Just look at owls, for example. Barn owls, snowy owls, owlbears? They’re all just owls, so why bother being specific? All we’re doing is derailing conversations about the feathery thing eating Anthony’s leg, which prevents us from getting anything done about it.
I stand corrected. You can chase any of those away by waving your hands and going “shoo! shoo!” loudly.*
*Technically, that technique WILL, in fact, stop an owlbear from eating Anthony’s leg, because it’ll be clawing your face off instead.
You sure have a lot of rules about what words other people should use.
One of the following is true:
1.) I’m a big dumdum who doesn’t know words and thinks we should all adopt a double-plus good dictionary of reduced complexity.
2.) Some people nitpick the definitions to words or phrases for lack of a meaningful counter-argument, deliberately stalling or muddling the opposing thesis–either to stroke the speaker’s ego or merely to be contrary.
“All Lives Matter” sound familiar?
The truth is that I didn’t conflate “liberal” and “leftist.” I’m specifically talking to “liberals” in the modern-use, traditional democratic sense.
If you subscribe to a non-democratic form of leftism, I would direct you to my very first point about maintaining political freedom.
@Yumi
Yes, I have two rules: don’t fall back on semantics, and avoid buzzwords. The walls are closing in.
You seem to have a third rule of “I determine everyone else, lump it” as well. Judging by your more arrogant posts on this page, anyway.
Sorry–I’m not sure what you mean by that.
I’m not trying to be snide–I just don’t follow what you’re trying to say.
I mean that your posts on this page make you out as an arrogant git who thinks that you, and you alone, get to define what other people mean when they speak (i.e., claiming that a sarcastic comment from JBento was a violation of Godwin’s Law). You also respond to an opinion of Sephiroth being a “loser” with a one-act play describing yourself as a god, and have spent most of your time pompously lecturing everyone else about how they should act/think/speak; these lead me to believe that you’re so far up your own ass that you can see daylight between your teeth. That’s what I meant.
Thank you for explaining. I apologize for my tone and for causing any offense.
I appreciate your clarifying Godwin’s law. My only defense is that I was reacting to JBento’s calling another person’s argument “stupid.” Bringing up Hitler in that context, while not the law per se, was, I’d argue, parallel. Nonetheless, I could have gone about it much more tactfully and without condescension.
My one-act play was intended to be tongue-in-cheek–JBento and I had been baring our teeth at each other since the previous day–though, I fully admit I let things spiral out of control, especially once I lost my temper and brought politics into the conversation.
My name, since you’ve mentioned it, is merely a Homestar Runner reference (Strong Bad Email #50). I don’t consider myself the lord (or lady) of anything.
Apologies again for taking an aggressive tone and allowing a disagreement to spill over into a flame war and general unpleasantness.
Parting words.
I know most of you think I’m an arrogant jerk. That’s fine. I wanted to pass along some experience, not make friends.
I’ve been around the activist circuit. I’m tired and frustrated by its bullshit. So yes, I can be short, and impolite, and I don’t have much patience left for nonsense.
The suggestions I posted above weren’t just blown out of my ass. They’re, in brief, a list of behaviors that keeps the left, in popular imagination, a trivial movement. They’re what we did to put Trump in the Oval Office. They’re why centrist, bought-out, status quo representatives are the best we can generally hope for.
I’m so sick…
…of professors who never leave their ivory towers and theorize about a world they rarely interact with.
…of “professional activists” making a meal out of coming up with mission statements–who have a vested interest in making sure the fight continues but is never won.
…of students who’d rather form committees and debate doctrine and terminology than pull their heads from their asses to face the disaster right in front of them. Put the guitars away, and get serious.
…of our precious divisions. Natives who won’t speak to socialists. Environmentalists who won’t work with gay people. Blacks who won’t cooperate with Latinos. I’ve seen so many idiots divided and conquered by conservatives who barely passed high school, all because our labels are more important than our survival.
…and of the growing support for extremist movements. People who, in reaction to Neo-Nazi dickheads, begin using terms like “counter-revolutionary” and “re-education” unironically.
The world is going to shit. You can learn from someone who’s been around the block once, or you can repeat the mistakes I’ve witnessed time and time again. They’re why we keep getting hurt. Why what we care for is taken away.
So yes, I am angry, and I don’t try particularly hard to be nice anymore. Silly, maybe, to launch into all this when a few hours ago I was weighing the merits of a fictional romance–but I read this comment section and social media, and I think–is this the best the next generation can offer?
I hope not.
That’s the end of my rant. I’ll catch you all later.
For what it’s worth (so, nothing, probably), I’m not set on defining you as a jerk, though your actions on here the past couple days have seemed, largely, jerkish. Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of you; your advice here is so different from the actions you’ve shown within this same comment section. And I guess it’s human nature to be at least somewhat hypocritical. Lord knows I am. I do think many people here agree with your stance, at least in part, but I see from you the same “can’t see the forest for the trees” that you accuse others of.
I’m particularly fond of the “the left is responsible for Trump” nonsense.
Ultimately, white America is responsible for Trump–but a very vocal segment of the Left sure as hell didn’t help. I heard entirely too many people who should have known better say things like “you can’t blackmail me with the Supreme Court” or “Clinton is worse than Trump.” Brooklyn hipsters that think “Leftism” means using slurs and laughing at Winemoms.
Did such people make the difference? Probably not. But I’ll remember them while SCOTUS is deciding whether or not employers can fire me for being gay.
Yeah, but that’s not what he’s saying. Some of the left not being willing to support Clinton is a thing, though I think it was massively outweighed by other factors.
He’s talking about people turning to Trump in reaction to the left calling out racism and sexism and the like. “SJWs called me a racist and that’s why I’m voting for the Nazi.”
I think he’s wrong about that, but he’s not wrong about a tendency of the left to prioritize semantics over building coalitions with those that largely agree with them.
@thejeff @Matticus
This is old news now, and, as I’ve since said, I regret and apologize for this outburst.
But for the sake of my conscious, it is important that I step in here. thejeff misunderstood, or I miscommunicated, what I was trying to say about the left’s culpability.
I don’t believe the left’s principles are to blame. Standing up for the disenfranchised should always be the left’s motivation. If that drives people to support reactionaries, well, they weren’t going to vote for us anyway.
I blame the left for Trump’s victory because of its tactics, or lack of them. Instead of taking its core values of equality and justice and building a mass-action, populist movement capable of carrying elections (like the right), it retreated into academia and split itself into special interest groups. It rested, satisfied, knowing that the truth was with it, while surrendering the actual decision-making to those that understood the realities of power and politics.
Who’s more to blame? A hate-spewing orange that built its following on the fringe Internet, or the SITTING Secretary of State, with decades of political influence that couldn’t stop him from seizing power? Clinton was out-of-touch to the point she could neither read the mood of the nation, nor sufficiently inspire even her own base, and those who knew what was at stake were too busy arguing amongst themselves to sufficiently mobilize. Sometimes, the inability to stand up to evil is as contemptible as the evil itself.
Agree or disagree, I just needed to clarify that.
I didn’t realize this Jacob and Joyce fake dating thing would be so polarizing. For my two cents worth, I don’t like Raidah. She treated Dina like she had a mental disability when they first met in the worst most condescending way and she cared more about hanging out with her supposed friend struggling with depression than actually getting her the help she needed. All that being said….She doesn’t really deserve this. It is rather shady on both of them.
Given how polarizing the entire “Joyce wants to break up Jacob and Raidah” plot has been, I’m not at all surprised this part of it is as well.
One thing I kind of like about it is that no one in it is coming off well. Joyce’s instigation is just wrong. Raidah being concerned is understandable, but her manipulation in response was pretty ugly. Until now Jacob just came across as oblivious, but now we see flaws in him.
My two cents for what it’s worth. I’m disappointed in this arc.
When Joyce lied and said she was Jacobs girlfriend it was dumb but I figured Joyce could get out of it. And she did when the two of them were alone and Joyce and Jacob had a chance to talk she started admitting it as a mistake in the moment and if she had followed that and left it there it would be fine. But instead she took a chance and started trying to manipulate Jacob even if the relationship is bad it’s not her business to get involved like that.
Jacob covering for her seemed weird but yeah I can see him do it. But to not be mad when he sees the mistake and to not tell Joyce to leave and he would make something up is pretty bad.
And it seemed like Willis was setting it up to go that way then at the last minute decided he didn’t want to go all the way with this and just stopped it. I hope there is more fall out or some form of punishment for Joyce and her actions
Even if everything goes Joyce’s way Dorothy and joe were already against her trying to move in on Jacob, her succeeding is going to make that worse.
The answer to what this arc is all about is one that a lot of fans seemed to be unwilling to think, perhaps because it’s not what they expected.
“Jacob is just not that into his girlfriend and is into Joyce.”
This is a really bad arc if that’s the actual point of it. It’s been set up badly, framed badly and contradicts basically Joyce’s entire character arc. All the hints that set this up as something tied to Joyce’s unrealistic view of romance and life and to the boundaries that she needs to learn are reversed when it turns out it was actually good after all.
Which to me suggests that’s not the actual story arc.
Possibly “Jacob is just not that into his girlfriend and is into Joyce,” but Joyce’s approach has screwed up any chance of them getting together. That would be a nasty little bow to tie it all up in.
Yeah, I’m fairly sure that’s NOT the way it’s going.
Which is what’s throwing everyone.
Why is everyone so bloodthirsty? What happened didn’t injure anyone, and he had a choice to forgive her.
Besides she is as close as an angel as possible.
Cancel culture now even goes into what you read, apparently, people…sheesh hope you guys never make any mistake, like lying to someone once.
Nobody is actually acting bloodthirsty. It only seems that way because a couple of loudmouths won’t shut the fuck up about everybody being on a witch hunt, and it’s tainting your view of regular disgruntled comments.
For every person saying “Wow, the behavior of these characters sucks,” there’s another person accusing them of everything from puritanical crusades to being a repressed virgin.
The very last one really shocked me, because I forget that people that terrible (“people will cheat, grow up”) exist.
And even most of the “behavior of these characters suck” posters more want them not to be rewarded for their behavior and only “punished” to the extent that they learn not to do it again.
Seriously people. Consequences =/= punishment. For instance, Ruth’s not punishing Billie by refusing to speak to her after Billie lied to her about quitting before freshman family weekend – she was upset and hurt and so chose not to speak to Billie. That’s a consequence.
Which means Raidah is going to show up at some point in this lunch-with-brother.
I appreciate that joyce was willing to deal with the consequences- that she was willing despite her unhappiness and own wants, to be not part of jacob’s life anymore. Maybe she is learning boundaries a bit in the few weeks she’s had to.
As for Raidah showing up, and/or finding out… I don’t know. Willis has already buffered quite a ways, and he’s not always a conventional storyteller. I’m interested to see how he has decided to play this out. 🙂 (BTW-that was meant as a compliment, and a ty for keeping me interested in all these storylines 🙂 )
Arrgh! No, no NO, Jacob! Joyce was right, in the first panel; she needed to go tell Harrison the truth before this went any further. And now you’re doubling-down on the stupidity by deciding to take this well past the point when you could tell your brother the whole thing was a joke!
Okay, look, this is exactly the kind of story that makes me hate sitcoms. Besides the fact that Jacob and Joyce are lying to Jacob’s brother, does Jacob not think this will get back to Raidah somehow? Especially since, IIRC, he was supposed to be meeting Harrison with Raidah?
When (not if) Raidah finds out about this, she will rightfully blame Joyce, but she will also blame Jacob for not straightening things out immediately. Plus, she will most likely assume that Jacob is ashamed of her, and that’s why he didn’t correct Harrison’s incorrect belief that Joyce was his girlfriend. Worst case scenario: She’ll think that Jacob was in on the deception from the beginning.
But, yeah, stories like this are what caused me to stop watching sitcoms over 20 years ago. Unlike a sitcom, though, maybe the consequences of these “shenanigans” will stick around and affect these characters for some time to come.