Well it’s not like Robin KNOWS her interns’ names… or how to get them… or really cares that they exist as humans at all save that they help her achieve her objectives and stoke her ego by supporting and cheering her…
“…”
?
“…”
“Um…?”
“…!!!”
“yyyes, Congresswoman?”
“Jeez, finally! I’ve been calling you for the past half-minute! Are you deaf or something?”
“… or something, Congresswoman.”
Robin in Short Packed was not bi, until Leslie chased her all over the place and finally got her.
I’m not sure Robin felt any attraction to Leslie as all: after all it was her sisters idea for Robin to be invited there by Leslie for her class. Little sister knowing Leslie has the hots for Robin and hoping maybe she would rub off some common sense on Robin.
I think she might’ve been demi and assumed she was straight by default because she had never really felt drawn to women prior to Leslie, and her attempts at dating dudes were because media conditions us to think that’s what you do when you’re a twentysomething female.
It’s understandable, since she spent most of the strip denying it. The straight with an exception bit was pretty much her stance, once she finally admitted interest in Leslie. Only near the end did she really open up on it.
It was never alive here at all. It was just a temporary one-sided crush that was turning desperately passive-manipulative and would have been abusive in the other direction had it ever succeeded.
I’m hoping this continues to weigh on Robin’s mind until she needs to understand why and comes back and discovers that Leslie’s opinion matters to her.
Please Willis, in our fantasy world give us a politician who rises to the responsibility of her position.
“Ah, yes, Arch-Mage!”
“Oh, hey Listener!”
“Wassup, Harbinger?”
“Ah, Dragonborn, how can I help you?”
“Oh, Guildmaster, sorry, didn’t see you there.”
“MY NAME IS ALWYN, DAMN IT! SAY MY FUCKING NAME!”
“Say my name.”
“I’m sorry?”
“If you want me to go help that settlement, say my name.”
“Wha… General, this really isn’t the ti-”
“SAY MY NAME, PRESTON! JUST SAY IT DAMMIT!”
There was a PS1 RPG with a villainous organization called “Odessa”.
You could not only name all the playable characters, but also a bunch of NPCs as well.
…. I named them all Odessa.
“We must hurry to save Odessa from Odessa and regroup before Odessa attacks! Odessa and Odessa, you’re with me! Odessa, Odessa, and Odessa, stay here and guard the base! If Odessa calls, find out where Odessa is keeping her!”
It’s a good thing that Robin only has one Aide. Otherwise, she’d have to number them. Now she’ll have to number the “you”s in her life.
Back in the day, I wasted countless hours playing Hack, an ancient PC game where you explored a dungeon made of ASCII characters, fighting monsters (also ASCII characters) with your faithful (ASCII) dog. One of the fun features was the ability to name anything, including monsters. For instance, you could name an attacking goblin “yourself in the nuts”, creating the only context in the world where “You hit yourself in the nuts!” is good news.
Or I’d sometimes name my dog “your trousersnake”, leading to endlessley amusing results.
“The gnome missed your trousersnake!”
“your trousersnake hit the gnome!”
“your trousersnake killed a gnome!”
“your trousersnake ate a dead gnome!”
Yeah, my sense of humor can be incredibly juvenile at times.
But… does Robin really know her interns’ full names?
Does [s]Kyle[/s] [s]Aide[/s] you?
Would either of them care enough to follow up with Frieda?
That said, Dorothy should chase them out into the hall to follow up, just in case. Leslie would be super-understanding especially if Dorothy explained. (Also, she was a witness to most of it, not that Dorothy knows that.)
There’s an interesting issue whether this was the right decision or not for Leslie as a teacher. Robin certainly brings a lot of terrible hate-speech into the class but it’s also very clear that a lot of the members of the cast (Becky and Joyce aside) are unaware of the level of danger which is posed to gay citizens by their own government. Also, it doesn’t seem like Leslie is sending out Robin because she is worried about her students but because she’s ashamed of her crush. Really poor showing Leslie.
Well, she’s also responsible for their learning – is this really conducive? She might feel like she’s exposing them to harmful ideas – although, I’d argue that college is certainly the time.
Also, I think it’s clear that Joyce isn’t having fun with this, and she might think that takes precedence, given that her reaction happened directly after Joyce’s question.
Definitely not picking on this comment, but I really think this gets to the fundamental issue most people have when discussing student safety versus opportunities to learn.
And that’s that we always assume the students that matter are the ones with dominant group backgrounds and deep ignorances about the “other”. And that’s what’s usually gets employed to argue against “safe spaces” and the like, because the suffering and pain of those who’ve actually been through shit and have lived what the “education topic” of the moment is are treated as secondary in worth to teaching the dominant group an important empathy lesson.
And that’s what often frustrates me in conversations about safe spaces and stuff like this, because that valuation of education for the dominant group over mental health and safety of marginalized folks is a common trade-off and it’s deeply insulting to the marginalized group whose life experiences are treated as worthless.
And that’s important and even more important after what Robin said last comic. Like, Robin’s voting is entirely based on voting against the humanity and well-being of queer-identified folks because of the loosely defined feelings benefit of straight folks.
So to let her continue to antagonize her queer students (which as she said at the beginning of the semester, is likely most of the non-named characters) so that the few remaining straights could learn a valuable life lesson is pointless.
Even more pointless, because let’s look at her pool of straights. Joyce is deeply perturbed, Dorothy is getting her ethnic group maligned and treated like a throwaway and also does not need the object lesson, which leaves…
Roz. Who’s more focused on getting her sister outed so she can be free and has spent every day of the last 2+ years experiencing her sister’s bigoted politics and the cheering throngs that agree with it, so doesn’t really need an object lesson.
And then Joe and Walky… who are unlikely to pull any object lesson from the proceedings because they are still in a mode of resisting most everything in this class.
So, yeah, if Leslie was to let this go on, she’d be letting the congresswoman shit on her queer students, continue to speak ill and demeaningly of her own self (and no, no teacher should be forced to push through a deeply upsetting situation as a “teaching experience”), for no real purpose other than the vain hope that somehow Joe and Walky will draw a connection from the congresswoman’s statements and casually homophobic statements and attitudes.
So yeah, shut it down, move on to a new topic or analyze the context of those words and the violence they represent.
I don’t think that Walky’s “resisting” so much as going limp. Resistance is too much effort. =P
But that’s a great summary of reasons to shut it down. While there might be an argument to be made for exploring uncomfortable topics that have educational value (and I’d say there’s a sliding scale where one balances educational value with degree of discomfort) there is plenty of discomfort and active hostility here, including some low-to-mid-grade verbal abuse, for little to no educational value. And it’s getting worse. Robin’s blame-shifting her failure to answer difficult challenges to students, applying racial stereotypes and minimizing discrimination. The students are responding negatively, and tensions are escalating.
Balancing, or failing to balance, this negative situation: the only educational value her presence in this class has is what a bad example looks like, and dissecting her as a bad example with her in the classroom would just lead to more hostility and probably get Leslie into hot water.
Time and past time to step in and ask Robin to step out.
True. And of course the simple fact that Leslie complete has lost control. She went in to this class with the stupid idea of making it a seduction.
Now when she decided against that idea, and she just got shaken to the core, she doesn’t feel that she can monitor and manage the group dynamics in the class like she usually does.
The last time she lost control, Joyce left in tears, and that was without Robin in the room, and before Joyce got hunted with a gun. Things are already heating up, she has know idea what EITHER Roz or Robin will do and she has no idea how much Joyce can take. Playing it safe is a VERY good idea right now.
Trust me, I’m not ignorant of how most men in my region think of women. I’m not ignorant of how a lot of straight ppl think of LGB ppl. I’m not ignorant of how cis people think of trans people. I’m not ignorant of how abled people think of autistic asthmatics with stutters.
Assigned male put it really well:
Boy: Aren’t you worried that providing safe spaces to marginalized groups will just create ghettos?
Stephie: People keep saying that, but I never see them do anything to make the world outside of safe spaces actually safe. (Source)
Safe spaces and protection against hate speech is very important, Cerberus. You’re 100% correct and non-negotiable as something for people to have. However, I do fear people who have the potential to go through life without being made aware of the problem. I guess for me, the issue is Joe and Billie are two people (Billie who has thankfully been blinded to some dangers to HER like Robin is) who have been surrounded by privilege that allows them tp keep an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. No one here, I’m sure, wants to make gay students or traumatized students (like Joyce) hurt but dissecting someone like Robin felt like a valuable point. You’re right, there should at the very least be the option to bow out or be warned, though. Also, as an academic, it’s Leslie’s choice as teacher since SHE’S certainly being triggered here.
Its a gender studies class. Not a local politics class, Robin was brought to the class probably under the loose pretense of being a successful women in politics. When things started to go south (both in terms of Leslie’s crush and the discussion) Leslie was right to remove Robin. Besides, any conversation about the governments harmful effects* on LGBT+ populace can be held with out the congresswoman there.
It’s frankly an interesting situation to get the justifications from a person like Robin Drumph for why she does what she does. It seems an impressive opportunity to squander.
Do they look like they feel unsafe or threatened to you?
If Robin makes them feel unsafe, it’s because the curtain of ignorance has been lifted from just how their representatives vote, not because she poses any form of physical threat or verbal attack in person – her rallies and rhetoric may or may not, and in all likelihood do, vilify some of them, because that’s sadly how American politics work, but she’s not doing anything right there in person to make people feel unsafe. Disgusted, maybe, or just feeling unsafe as they realize what system they live in, but not a direct threat. The only dangerous thing about Robin is her vote. Which might be looking pretty scary to the class right about now, but that’s not going to go away just because she leaves the room.
There are plenty of reasons to eject her, but I don’t see that her making the class feel unsafe is one of them.
How they hell are we supposed to have constructive discussion if a person like Robin – who didn’t even suggest that gay people aren’t people – isn’t allowed to be part of the conversation.
Her perspective is essential to bringing both sides together on this issues since she is literally the other side of the debate.
There is no discussion to be had. She had no answer to give. No other side to offer.
And what you post is fantasy. There are rarely two sides that could work together if only they’d listen to one another. And this is not that rare situation.
I wish it were that simple. But, if it was, the 1960s would have been about people talking, not the great fight–which sometimes got physical–that it actually was.
And, yes, Robin did already indicate she didn’t think of gay people as people. Joyce pointed it out, and she had no counterargument.
Like, what ‘constructive discussion’ were you expecting here? I am baffled – Robin’s only defense for her actions has been “I need to get re-elected.” She’s not even the other side of a ‘debate’.
If Robin were more of a believer than an opportunist, at least a discussion is /nominally/ possible. It would be probably be fraught for anyone who isn’t straight (Including, I suspect, Joyce), but that’s the actual purpose of a content warning… which Leslie apparently fuckin’ forgot might be relevant? (Conceivably, it was mentioned offscreen). But it’s unlikely to be productive either, unless there’s folks in the /class/ who are on the fence. Discussion like that isn’t always about the person you’re talking to. Even less so with politicians.
I’m terribly sorry, I a) didn’t realize this was a formal political debate rather than a gender studies lesson on successful political women, b) that horse race “both sides” thinking somehow wasn’t a pile of rancid dog shit that always demands the powerless do most of the work in “healing the rifts” between them and the people who want them dead, and c) that as Fart Captor said, gay people’s rights to exist and not be fired and forced into homelessness and economic desperation for existing was somehow a “side” of equal and opposite import to its “opposing side”*.
*When the dust clears and our empire is finally stopped and they write the history books of this era, I hope they put a huge fucking pin in how we fetishized the “wisdom of the moderate” to the level that we treated literally everything as a debate between two “sides” who must be considered equally, leading to endless hate movements, denialist conspiracy theories, and eliminationist rhetoric to go unchecked and uncountered and allowed to be treated as equally valid to real knowledge and people’s very right to exist.
While I totally agree with you, I would venture that Robin doesn’t see ANYONE else as people, she seems to group people as “useful”, “potentially useful”, “ignorable”, or “enemies”.
Maybe I’m the only one getting an “cheerful functional sociopath” vibe from her.
Actually, Cerberus, my thought isn’t about the gay people in the class but the people who don’t realize just how much in danger the gay people in their class are. Gender studies for women is very very important but it’s also important for men. For the rights of gays to be protected, CIS and straight people need to be made aware of not only their humanity but just how dangerous and precarious their situation is. Case in point: Joyce has been informed but Joyce has had cold ice water of reality thrown at her by events–what about the other kids in class who haven’t?
I’m sure some are, but there are plenty of straight people in the class. I have a hard time believing that Walky, for example, pays enough attention to politics to realize what kind of bills get passed.
in general, “effect” is a noun, “affect” is a verb, but sometimes you can emphasize “effect” as a verb specifically in the sense of “bring about the desired effect”
It’s not really what I would call “emphasis.” They are basically different words–albeit from the same root.
Similarly, the noun “affect” is a different word, and refers to an conscious emotional response–especially as observed from outside. It’s mostly used in psychiatry/psychology, such as a “flat affect,” meaning very little emotional response to anything. (Often a symptom of depression, rather than actual sadness. They feel nothing.)
In the phrase “bring about the desired effect” the word “effect” is still a noun. You can tell because of the “the” in front of it. Desired is an adjective. Effect has to be a noun.
Actually, while the obvious word here is “effect”, “affect” can also apply.
“Effect” refers to something that’s created or produced. As a noun, it implies a consequence or impact that can be directly attributed to something — for example, “the effects of the housing crisis” refers to the consequences of whichever housing crisis we’re talking about. As a verb, it refers to the way in which things produce consequences. For example, “The housing crisis effects increased costs for renters” says that the crisis is producing, as a consequence, those increased rents. In other words, if A effects B, then B is an effect of A.
“Affect”, instead, refers to influence or change, with some (far from required) emphasis on emotional influence or communication. As a verb, it suggests a change from a partial cause, one of many factors, and it could just as easily refer to a reduction or elimination of those housing costs rather than something that increases them. To say that, “the housing crisis affects rental rates,” says that the crisis has a hand in changing rental rates, but suggests that there are other things involved as well. “Affecting” something could easily refer to dampening, reducing, or eliminating it… though probably not in this example. “Effect”, on the other hand, can only refer to production and not elimination.*
As a noun, “affect” has a very different but still-related meaning. It describes how one feels emotions, and presents and communicates emotions beyond language, and especially with their facial expressions or lack thereof. As one example, in autism, “affect” often describes the degree (or lack thereof) of facial and vocal emotional cues, and how this differs from the norm. From this root word we get things like “affection” and “affectation” and “disaffected”.
So, the word Melonge is probably seeking here is “effects”, meaning the consequences of government actions upon the LGBT+ community.
But we could also, with minimal poetic massaging, use the noun “affects” instead, as in, “the government’s harmful affects upon the LGBT+ populace”. This would convey the image of the government turning ugly facial expressions upon the LGBQ+ community, giving them scowls and the evil eye. It suggests that above and beyond the technical legal language and the practical [i]effects[/i] of government policy, there is also conveyed to the community a myriad of emotive subtexts such as disapproval, disavowal, dehumanization, and outright hatred, with an acknowledgement that such emotion conveyed by officialdom causes actual harm to the community.
*Okay, I lie, there are ways that “effect” can refer to an act of elimination. You can find examples on Walky’s Twitter feed listed under #Stool.
Robin was there because her little sister talked Leslie into inviting her, knowing Leslie was hot for Robin. Little sis wanted Leslie to help re-educate Robin.
From what we’ve seen Robin isn’t especially effective at or invested in the actual legislative end of her position, so there is little more insight she could possibly provide. Even outside of Leslie’s crush, bringing her in was probably a mistake.
Also I am unsure which members of the cast that are in this class are unaware of the danger posed by the gov. or what any such members could glean from Robin that hasn’t been covered.
Woooaaaah that wasn’t on purpose that leslie cut that line of questioning off was it? If anyone w a great memory can fill me in: how much does leslie know about the current…… Happenings?
She knows nothing. Really. She doesn’t know about Joyce being assaulted at a party. She doesn’t know it was by one of Robin’s interns. She isn’t someone anyone confides in.
She doesn’t know about the connection between Joyce and Robin’s interns, but she probably DID see the fight between the interns and Amazi-girl + Sal. She also probably knows that Dorothy writes for the paper, unless their school is one that doesn’t use bylines.
I really hope that Leslie isn’t covering for those assbags who got their asses beat at the rally.
At worst she’s thinking “the classroom is not the place to get your scoop. I can cut off this question.” In all likelihood, though, she wasn’t even aware of the question itself.
I think Leslie’s a bit too wrapped up in herself to even realize what Dorothy’s after. She was totally tuned out of the conversation last strip, and I think the first couple of panels of this strip are concurrent with the last few panels of yesterday’s.
I’d assumed she had noticed the question, but misinterpreted it as a question about “Jessica”. After all, she’d plentiful reason to keep her attendance at the rally secret, even before Robin’s explanation of her apathetically horrible politics.
The real test of courage is if Dorothy has the guts to walk out there and finish her question.
And escalate beyond the pretense of triviality, if necessary.
Eh, Robin wouldn’t even know the name of Joyce’s attacker because she hasn’t bothered to learn her Aide’s name let alone the intern slave labor she employs.
Yeah, it was going to be a dead end if Dorothy succeeded. Because a) Robin doesn’t remember anyone’s name. b) Her coordinator was the run who ran the army of interns and Robin didn’t even meet Ryan in person. c) Her coordinator already knows that the intern was involved in a sexual assault and so will not want to acknowledge he exists, much less give out information like his full name to the press.
Which… holy fuck, looking back at that comic, Leslie also saw that incident and so would have a very likely idea of why Dorothy was so insistent about asking about the intern, so… damn, bad form, Leslie, bad form.
Nnnot really, in sight of Kyle’s answer. It means they already had this same conversation, from possibly the same kind of situation and she didn’t learn anything from the past .
Haven’t seen ’em. Refusing to look. (They’re bad, aren’t they?)
I’m considering swearing off all US news for an extended period of time. Like maybe 4 years. Unless it involves very localized issues with no government bits in them.
Clinton doesn’t make Trump any less bad, but then Trump doesn’t make Clinton any less bad, either. I was delighted that Clinton lost, and I was also disgusted that Trump won. I was disgusted that neither of the two major parties could come up with a less horrible candidate. Most of all, I was disgusted that voters, confronted with two totally unacceptable choices, still insisted on choosing one of them.
What kind of argument is this? The USA has an election system that makes any presidential election a runof between two persons. Refusing to avoid an unstable guy access to atomic bombs alone should have been a reason to vote for Clinton (At least she won’t start an atomic bomb just because she’s pissed off). Ignoring that he is a danger much greater than Clinton in any direction and not voting to keep him out of office is an attitude that just makes me sick. Anyone who didn’t vote for Clinton in the actual election, when the situation was that those two were the only choice, is just as responsible for what he does now than all the people who actually voted for him.
And fucking go and do something to change the electoral system afterwards.
Well rather than trying to pick between Clinton and Trump, everyone could have collectively decided to pick between Stein and Johnson. But of course everyone insisted on voting two party because that is how our culture, society, and political system is set up.
I mean that the majority of R’s and D’s that I know are so entrenched that they will vote by party lines. They need not know a thing about the candidates other than what letter is by their name. And with how much each side fears the other crossing those lines is somewhat rare. Seriously you should have heard the fear in the voices of some of the R’s I know back when they thought Clinton had the edge. It was almost comical. Bernie got a bit of a pass from them because ‘he isn’t really a democrat, just an independent pretending to be one’. Not that they particularly liked his policy stances mind you, but when they spoke of him it wasn’t with fear and terror in their voice.
So yeah, the fear of the other party has gotten pretty ludicrous as of late. And this whole post was mainly me ranting to rant about the shock I had to learn that the Latino R’s I know fear the D’s just as much as most marginalized folks are of Trump. I just didn’t realize the R’s had literal voice shaking ‘I want to cry’ fear of the D’s. Seriously I nearly laughed, but it isn’t right to laugh in the face of someone who is truly afraid. Talk about crass.
I THINK Willis decided not to use Hooper because Hooper was based on a real person?
I know there were a lot of people that Willis didn’t use because they were based on real people, and I know Hooper was based on a real person, but I don’t know if Hooper was cut because of that.
After all, Willis retained both Danny and Walky, both of whom were insertions of a real person into the Walkyverse. At least, if their initials and protagonist roles are any clue.
Leslie, if your classroom “safe space” means shutting down uncomfortable discussion instead of providing an environment for those issues to be explored without violence or destruction of property, then I’ve lost a lot of respect for you and your class. 😐
“Allowing those issues to be explored” and “dedicating the class to a frankly counterproductive discussion led by the person who is oppressing a number of the students” are very different things. If uncomfortable discussions were the main problem Joe would never be allowed to speak.
how is it counterproductive? they are seeing the full blown failure of american politics. not just from the systemicc side, but from the population of idiots that vote for people like her.
leslie knew that robin would most likely butt heads and egos with a lot of people in that class. those students also knew it. it’s not right to just ask someone to leave when the entire conversation has been totally respectful (well, tried to be) thus far.
to converse respectfully with someone you disagree with (or even just watch it) is the best lesson leslie could have taught them right then.
Having the actual politician right there in there classroom hardly seems necessary to explain the worst elements of American politics. Everything that she introduces with Robin could just as easily be established by showing the class a video.
Allowing a teacher to waltz into there class and explain to the students why they don’t matter to her, especially after a man spouting the same bigotries she defends recently came to school with a gun hardly seems necessary.
Also the tenor of the discussion yesterday hardly seemed “respectful” to me.
when do good lessons only do “what’s necessary”? solutions like “showing a video” is exactly why the education system is failing. it’s like gradeschools now not letting kids do chemistry experiments to mitigate liability. so they just have the teacher do a demonstration. they have to experience it. you can’t teach kids by telling them. they have to see it and see how these words can affect others.
it’s like one thing to see people on like /b/ make nazi jokes and truly believe horrid things. it’s another to actually hear that shit in real life. schools are best suited because it is a controlled environment where, if there was a true falling out and severe emotional distress, it can easily be addressed.
also, when was anyone willfully disrespectful? robin earnestly didn’t believe what she was saying was hurtful, as evidenced by this strip. joyce, leslie, and dorothy were also respectful. even roz was quiet.
your post highlights EXACTLY what the op was saying.
seriously.. i frequent funnyjunk, so i’m used to reading some baaaackward opinions.. but lord have mercy it was like a right hook to the temple watching some videos this week.
How are they experiencing gender studies right now, then?
Also, since when is “gay rights don’t matter” only disrespectful if it was intentionally so? Shit’s actually more awful if you don’t expect people to take offense to it.
because they are seeing how unwittingly ignorant some people are. and that those people are in power, keeping up a system that perpetuates the problems they’re studying.
because it is a debate they are having. when i say disrespectful, she could have been saying “shut up you stupid [expletive]” but she kept answering those questions. and joyce and dorothy and leslie were staying calm and asking more questions. that is what proper discourse looks like. when someone says something you don’t agree with, you keep a straight face and you keep that conversation going.
Nothing she has said suggests she is unwittingly ignorant. The apathy shines pretty clearly, but there isn’t much that suggests that she doesn’t see how her actions could be harmful. Thats why she backed out of Joyce’s question as soon as she saw it wasn’t going to go her way.
Also while cussing is certainly disrespectful, its not necessarily any more disrespectful than her behavior (re. eye rolling, question ducking, dismissiveness, the entire conversation with Dorothy) already is. And, its not really in her m.o. in any case. She is a guest politician here to curry favor, she starts cussing them out she would get booted even faster than she did. Also cussing implies she cares about what she’s doing or saying, which she clearly doesn’t.
Beyond her admission of pandering in response to the first question and to Joyce with regard to the bill, there isn’t much more of insight they could get out of Robin. She doesn’t seem to have any actual ideals or opinions, and it seems is going to lose her seat for that very reason. I don’t see how watching or listening to someone being evasive for however long is valuable to this class. I know you’re all for practical learning, but this could be better covered in a lecture or videos of politicians who are actually influential in a way directly connected to the class. Video is valuable because of the opportunities to rewind and pause for discussion and to focus on key events. This is an aimless waste of time which only serves to make students uncomfortable at best.
Ro be honest, I don’t get gender studies as a university subject, but US educationals system has other weirdness that doesn’t remotely compare to my (30 years old, German) experience.
Firstly yeah Robin was being pretty disrespectful to Dorothy in the last comic.
Secondly no bring a person to spew bigotry at the students is not a particularly valuable lesson plan. The only reason that this discussion has not been even worst is that Robin doesn’t actually buy the shit she says to other her base.
Further what specifically does Robin being physically in the room with them teach them the political system or its effects on others? Also how do make students experience a way of thinking about the world? Isn’t a honest discussion with there pears more useful then a discussion with someone who not only has the opposite goals then them, but due to her status as guest speaker is being given a position of authority? Especially in a 100 level class?
firstly, i think that’s up for interpretation so we’ll just agree to disagree.
secondly, i still don’t understand why hearing someone’s opposing viewpoints is bad? like in a gender studies class, you will be told that one of the ways to stop the injustice is to try and change how people see gender and gender roles. so robin is like an open book as to why people think or act or say the things they do. that is hugely valuable insight. no change happens without some level of empathy from both sides.
furthermore, are you saying that having a politician – the source of many injustices – right there to be questioned is unnecessary? i understand the value of peers, but debriefing with peers after an external source comes in is EXTREMELY valuable to the process of learning. if all you do is talk about hypotheticals and not discuss a collective experience, you’re just mentally masturbating, which leads nowhere. like at work, you can think and think and think and think. but if you never go out there and test out your ideas (read: strategies to educate the ignorant) against the market (the ignorant, aka Robin), how will you ever know if your ideas are useful or right? how would you know if all that posturing was for the wrong problem>?
also, what alarms me is that you’re implying discussion with a politician is useless and we should be spending those exremely critical formative years in what is essentially an echo chamber. politicians are out there. thye are the real world. they are part of the vehicle of change in the country yyou of which you are a citizen. it doesn’t matter what level class. that is extremely important to be in the real world. that is what college is about.
let’s think of it on the flip side, shall we? say these kids never get that opportunity. so now, they hear all the bigoted things Robin says on the media. they don’t hear it in person. that’s what you wanted, right? well now they don’t have a way to have a proper discourse with her. to dig deeper into their ideas and see the holes in both their and her logics. that’s more counterproductive than hearing someone “spew bigotry.”
You keep describing a discussion that was not happening.
There was no substantive discussion worth having, nor was Robin being an “open book”. Joyce got blown off with “your concerns are silly why are you so worried”, Dorothy was directly disrespected, and then Robin started asking for soft questions.
Nothing of value was happening, much less anything relevant to the course.
You don’t need Robin to bring in a new viewpoint. We already have Joyce, Joe and Walky three individuals who all come from viewpoints that are different then those taught in the class. However none of them have a position of power over there fellow students. And again: nothing that Robin has said here brings any further insight then a video would bring.
Whats been shown in previous classes is that they aren’t speaking in hypothetical. All of the discussions so far have brought very personnel experiences to the classroom. Further so far the class has not been “strategies to educate the ignorant” the only educating of the ignorant has been educating the students. To use one of your previous analogies would you have a 100 level student conduct a chemistry experiment on the level of a professional chemist?
I am not in fact implying that one can never have a useful discussion with a politicians. I am however saying that students who do not have all of the basics of gender studies down have a discussion with a someone who has no interest in an honest debate and who is going out of her way to pick the students she doesn’t think will challenge her ideas anyway is not particularly useful. Remember what Robin said to the first question went completely unchallenged and from Roz’s response to Leslie they had already covered what was wrong with her logic in the text.
You seem to be under the imprison that they are having an experience that will make them dig deeper. But the only person who was digging deeper was Joyce someone who would have been defending her earlier in the comic and whose changes have largely been the result of interactions outside of class. Peyton did not debate Robin’s points, and robin managed to sidetrack Dorothy from the question she planned to ask.
Leslie brought Robin in for her own personal reasons unrelated to the students needs or education. Hence why the “discussion” is lacks both moderation or any kind of agenda and Leslie is dressed for a hot date.
Also this is not debate club. Discussion, respectful or not, with a random politician on whatever you or they have their mind on is not a valuable or reasonable “lesson” for a 100 level gender studies class. If this was going to be a valuable experience for the class Leslie and Robin needed to have some kind of plan beyond showing up.
this is totally subjective educational philosophy, but i’ll throw it out there: i personally don’t think it’s so wrong to veer off if the discussion is emotionally vesting. with things like gender studies and how.. umm.. sensitive.. responses can get, it seems like a valuable lesson to see these girls hear legitimately upsetting/bigoted things but still respond with eloquence and respect.
seeing as i can’t reply to your other comment, i’ll paste it here and reply:
You keep describing a discussion that was not happening.
There was no substantive discussion worth having, nor was Robin being an “open book”. Joyce got blown off with “your concerns are silly why are you so worried”, Dorothy was directly disrespected, and then Robin started asking for soft questions.
Nothing of value was happening, much less anything relevant to the course.
i’ve already conceded that point.
we were talking about the lessons learned from experiencing the exhibition of bigotry. even if the conversation with robin failed, this is now perfect fodder for the class to have their peer-to-peer discussion that Zatar had suggested as a substitution.
Shammers, you seem to be the only person in that particular portion of this comment chain who was talking about that. Everyone else was talking about the experience the students were actually having/likely to have and whether Leslie should have shown Robin the door or even invited her in the first place. Spending a class period for one or two gaffes of potential value is silly. And if a bigoted politician with any actual convictions had shown up (given its a gender studies class that’s *not happening*) they still would be unlikely to get much more out of them than they could from videos. Probably less.
I agree that LGBT issues are relevant, but its kind of clear that Robin isn’t going to discuss those issues beyond what she said. Which boiled down to: I did it so I could have a chance at another term, and the effects don’t matter to me. Which while it holds some value, doesn’t to the point of being worth bringing her into the class for what is likely a 50min to 1hr 15min class period.
(I don’t really see how the Joe and Walky thing is related to LGBT issues specifically though.)
I have had the good fortune to have government people of various sorts as guest speakers in a couple of my classes, and they were all–in contrast to Robin–competent, coherent, and had interesting (non-insulting) perspectives.
Robin (aside from being obviously fictional) is contributing nothing of worth.
How is Robins conversation respectful? She just stated she doesn’t want to answer any more questions on actual politics as a response to someone’s statement she didn’t like.
She brought Robin in because she has the hots for her, not for its educational value. My respect was raised when she asked Robin to leave because this “discussion” seems rather aimless and largely unrelated to the subject matter of the class. Robyn has already stated that she only wants to take “softball” questions, and while I’m sure she’ll gaffe all over the place, this isn’t really an appropriate forum.
see, responses like this “discussion” seems rather aimless and largely unrelated to the subject matter of the class. is a much more valid reason than “it hurt their feelings.”
Not hurting people’s feelings is a perfectly valid reason. Only an asshole hurts people’s feelings when there is another way to get the idea across. (Well, sometimes we all act like assholes when angry, but the point is, we acted like assholes.)
Not that feelings is the issue. This was about bigotry, not feelings. Not having a bigot come speak bigoted things is a perfectly reasonable thing. You don’t see her letting Joe say bigoted things in class.
That’s not what she’s there for. That’s not the class. Unless the class is some sort of communications class, and the entire point is how to respond to someone who says vile and awful things, there is no reason to let the bigoted person peddle bigotry.
no it IS about hurting people’s feelings. why exactly should we not discuss bigotry in a class? at the base level? is it because it’s not true and shouldn’t be culturally accepted? well that’s for them to decide, now isn’t it? the point of arts classes is that we deal in little-t-truths. and those truths will butt heads with others’ truths.
but past that, you have to let them see it and show the consequences of it. only then will they be able to make a well-formed opinion.
so why else should we not show it? so we don’t cause emotional distress? or is there a third thing i’m not thinking about?
also,
you’re saying a gender studies class shouldn’t show you how to address a situation where someone is saying bigoted things?
nobody is peddling bigotry. it is a discussion. discussions are meant to show two opposing sides. they ask her about policy, she answers with her beliefs. they debate beliefs. that’s a natural chain of events in MANY humanities and social science classes i’ve had.
you would never discuss if it’s never exhibited. you can’t have a true debate with someone of opposing values if they were not exhibiting those values, no? you’d just be discussing with an actor.
Which is what they’re doing. Its been made clear at several points that Robin doesn’t actually have any values, or even much social awareness. She does and says whatever she thinks will win her votes. Which in this case is parroting whatever her constituents believe.
There’s nothing to debate. Bigotry is wrong. The class would discuss bigotry by explaining how to recognize it in yourself and why it is wrong. There would be no advocate for the other side.
The only reason you might call in someone to argue for bigotry is if you were doing some sort of debate/rhetoric class. It’s like asking someone to come in and debate how 2+2=5.
You almost got there. No, bigotry isn’t wrong because it hurts people’s feelings. It is indeed untrue and should not be culturally accepted. It is harmful to society as a whole, and causes a lot more hurt than just feelings. It was just pointed out how bigotry allowed a law that left LGBT people homeless. (Don’t know if that’s a real law or not.)
It is sorta up to a culture, but not really. I mean, if a culture allowed rape and murder, would you say “it’s their culture,” or would you try to stop it?
But, ultimately, the culture does make the final decision. But how in the world do you think that is done? It is done like this, by people saying “This is unacceptable” and kicking these people out. Enough people do that, then that becomes the culture.
You can’t say it’s up to the culture and then get upset when the people in that culture are trying to change it.
the culture does make the final decision. But how in the world do you think that is done? It is done like this, by people saying “This is unacceptable” and kicking these people out.
ah, and here it is. the core difference in all the arguments i’ve been making against several people here.
i would disagree that kicking people out is what needs to be done. let me preface by saying that i’ve conceded that dorothy’s conversation was going nowhere, so leslie asking robin to leave was a good idea for that reason.
on the issue of someone saying bigoted things: i think that person can say all those things as long as they are not personally attacking anyone. the discussion ends in two ways: amicably, where they just agree to disagree; or emotionally, where they end up with personal attacks. the latter is when i think forcing someone to leave is warranted.
either way, the class then has a debrief discussion amongst themselves where they talk about things like holes in either side’s arguments, the logic behind the bigoted thoughts. and maybe even why did it get so emotionally intense? why did that force such a break in the intellectual flow?
it’s like going to the gym: you don’t build muscle there. you tear up muscle there. you build muscle in repairing the tears.
i think my entire opinion comes down to this: anyone can think what they want to think, but they can’t suppress the actions and thoughts and speech of others by acting on those opinions.
i think we’ve hit the natural endpoint of our debate, and it’s like 2:30 in the morning here. we’ll have to agree to disagree
thanks for the great discussion and pointing out that thing about veering off! i guess i was a bit blind to it because i do that all the time, lol. have a good night y’all
I dunno. I think encouraging discussion of opposing views is a good ideal, but it doesn’t hold up in practice. Leslie’s job is to teach a curriculum. It wouldn’t make sense for a history teacher to bring in a historical revisionist as a guest speaker, or a chemistry teacher to bring in a homeopath. This isn’t the setup for a fair and balanced discussion; this is a teacher allowing a stranger into her classroom and letting them give lessons to her students that she knows are incorrect.
Bigotry is not a mere opinion. Safe spaces aren’t about freedom of speech. That exists everywhere. Safe spaces are about banning bigotry, as a respite from the rest of the world.
It is perfectly acceptable to ban bigotry, not act like it’s something you can learn from. You can’t. It’s bigotry. It’s evil.
you can learn a lot from bigotry. if you don’t try to understand where the other guy is coming from – why they act and think and say the things they do – how are you any less willfully ignorant than they are?
my understanding of the social sciences and humanities – esp those like gender studies – is to educate and empower people to stop injustice. the first step is educating what the injustices are. the second is to educate why the oppressors think their oppression is justified.
if you know only first, congrats. you can point out flaws. if you know only the second, well you’re probably a bigot. if you know both, well now you have a real means for change.
They very much can be safe spaces, and often are. That doesn’t mean that bigotry and such won’t be discussed when it’s appropriate to the lesson, but most teachers do not allow bigotry in their classroom.
Your idea of what a humanities class is is not accurate. It is the study of human culture. It is not some recruiting drive for an organization. Like most classes, is a place where knowledge that others have acquired is disseminated to others.
What is taught in a gender studies class is the research that has been done on gender. Yes, some of that may include actually talking with actual sexists and finding out what they think–but that’s going to be done by surveys and not in an attempt to convert anyone. And it’s quite unlikely that the students will need to do that research.
It’s possible they would have a project about asking other people what it means to be a man/woman/etc and then discuss it in class.
This is a weird tangent for people to go on when Robin’s been dodging meaningful questions and is currently fielding one that, as far as anyone else knows, is trivial.
It’s unlikely in that a speaker would be better vetted in the first place, but there’s politicians that would flounder almost this badly (except for the part where they nakedly admit they don’t care and just want votes).
Does it count if you then ignore the research and just use the aide to give direction because you can’t be bothered to figure out how to interact with the public on your own?
I should clarify that this is meant as a joke in good humor. Sometimes that doesn’t translate well and sometimes that’s my fault for saying something stupid.
Oh my god, you’re right. I’ve completely failed to carry out the implied mission statement of my screenname. I am shamed. This is a dark day. Have I forgotten my original purpose? I need to go on a vision quest.
Given Robin’s general cluelessness, Dorothy would probably be better off talking to congressional aide Kyle, who might at least be able to point to Frieda as being the local contact, and who might be sufficiently on the ball to have contact information for the interns.
Here are my thoughts so far about the safe space argument:
Safe spaces in and of themselves aren’t inherently a terrible idea. There is definitely a reason why there are all-women college, historically black colleges, etc. That exist. It’s important to be able to be freely exist in a space with people like you, so you can let your guard down and discuss things you might not be able to with other people. If you couldn’t, it would definitely be detrimental to your health.
That being said, having recently graduated from such a liberal college, I think that the idea of trigger warnings and the like have become bastardized to the point where people use it so often for every single context, that it has lost its true meaning. The original intent was for people who actually are capable of being triggered, like people with PTSD and other forms of actual trauma.
However, I noticed over my time there that it eventually became synonymous with “I don’t like what you have to say/I’m not interested in your opinion.” It became an easy way to explain what in reality is being narrow minded, while people who actually could use trigger warnings and safe spaces were worse off because now no one takes them seriously now. There should be no tolerance for students hurting their classmates or professors being hurtful as well, have rules for respect.
I have read a great article that also pointed out that mental health services are lacking, so students turn to school structure (they shouldn’t – professors are not trained to deal with a lot of these problems, the schools need more mental health professionals, and the structure is not conductive to well-being, but that’s a 20 page paper for later) to help them deal with their issues. I might sound callous there, but the reality is that these students (like myself at the time) will need to learn to cope in college, and they’ll likely be needing to cope with these issues when they leave (like me right now) – hold the school accountable for exacerbating these issues (like not punishing rapists and abusers) and hold the school accountable for providing services and safe spaces.
But in terms of academics, we can’t change what the Nazis did or what the Civil Rights Movement actually was like. We can and should never re-write history to make people more comfortable with it. No one should have to take the class if they really don’t want to, but they should know the importance of these things. I took several classes about Nazism, and there were definitely times I had to step out the classroom.
I have read that some students have even called for censorship of material taught in class, which is utterly ridiculous and backwards for a number of reasons. One of the pros of going to college on a liberal campus is being exposed to different ideals. You are supposed to debate. You are going to be reading things that might not immediately interest you or make you feel great. You are supposed to disagree with people – and there will definitely be people in life that you’ll disagree with at best.
You cannot expand your mind if you never have new experiences, like meeting people or reading books or media and the like. It has always worked that way, and it won’t change. If you surround yourself with people who think like you 24/7, then you’re not actually learning much, since it’s the same thing every time.
Practically speaking, how can you claim yourself to be a champion for justice and the like without actually exposing yourself to it, if you won’t read about it or listen or talk to someone or experience it for yourself? This is how you get people posting inaccurate information on Facebook and things like that, speaking in generalized terms and without context – there is a context for everything. And when you lack that information and don’t want to learn more about it, what do you do? You make assumptions, and assumptions breed uninformed decisions and opinions that affect people.
Example:
Myth: White slave-owning women in America were nice to their slaves because they knew what it was like to be oppressed by their white male counterparts.
Fact: It was utterly and completely normal for whites to think of blacks as cattle. Women participated in the punishment of slaves as well, and used slaves to run their households. The relationship between white women and black women was even more interesting and complex, because many white women saw black women, who were in reality often sexual slaves as well, as competition for the attention of their husbands, just one example. Totally fucked, but it’s the truth.
Source: Narratives like incidents in the life of a slave girl, 12 years a slave, diaries of slave-owning women, etc.
This is why history is important to learn. We are doomed to repeat the past if we can’t even talk about it. This is why people should learn current events and discuss it- and read it from all angles, read a biography of the same person from more than one author – don’t just read one version of it and assume it to be completely true, absolutely. This absolutism has also contributed to past election because rather than dealing in realities, we steeped ourselves in intellectualism so pure that in truth, no candidate could have met the standards that a lot of people really couldn’t even put into words. “not bigoted” is legitimate, but plain “likability” has nothing to do with doing a job. It’s about WHY you don’t like someone. Get down to the bottom of it, and then create a PRACTICAL and reasonable solution. This is what it means to research, to investigate, and practice critical thinking.
This “liberal bubble” is what I think in part what contributed to the election of Trump – we as a group surrounded ourselves with the same kind of people, we eventually began to think everywhere is like where we were, and in addition we forgot the history. We forgot it – better put, many of us didn’t want to hear and see the truth – and we fell asleep and bickered amongst ourselves which candidate was better or would have won or whatever as if the alternative was a decent opponent, and we let that opportunity slip through our fingers. Not all of us, but a lot of us did. And we’re still bickering about it. This is why the right prevailed – they had massive turnout, while we basically fell apart after the primaries.
It is also the “conservative bubble” that allows people in that group to remain close minded and ignorant, and react violently to any sign of change. People are so steeped in their world, they don’t know or want any other way to live. It happens on both sides, really.
We can’t have these kids going to college and not learning anything else. It’s not even just about exposure to a world outside of 22 years of schooling. It’s about learning about what you really care about, getting closer to who you are as a person. it’s about teaching people to really work their brains and use them. It’s about cooperative living and mutual respect, it’s about realizing that people are complex, and it’s about learning to recognize the signs that things are not right and being quick enough to nip it in the bud. The most the classroom can do to achieve that is provide the kids with information and foster honest and respectful discussion.
I haven’t been on campus in a minute, so I wasn’t going to comment on current implementation, but yes, at the end of the day this shit needs to be discussed. There’s nothing wrong with students stepping out. It might cost them points, but they’re allowed to make that trade for their mental health. Going much further actually is eroding part of the value. As absurd as it was to hear stupid shit like “O.J. Simpson manipulated a tiny legal loophole to go free”, or ‘reverse racism is why you’re here.’, there is little way to avert that and still keep the often-inflammatory truth available for students.
Like, a warning doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It’s rather the point of the warning, in this case.
I agree. This is why actual safe spaces, like Black student unions and women’s clubs are necessary – in the cases like you described, these spaces allow students to mentor each other and process the world they learn about outside in a supportive environment.
I will point out, though, that it’s extremely unlikely any of this had strongly to do with Trump’s election. It’s barely been what, 5 years? Since the concept was codified? Not a whole lot of 23 year olds vote in the best of times. And I doubt the implementation is that bad as a rule.
Further, the ‘conservative bubble’ is maintained by geography. check the maps – it was the rural places that voted Trump in like this, for the most part. It’s a lot easier to think of latin@s as rapists or sex weirdoes as horribly immoral when you can drive down the street for a few minutes and get cheerfully served good (cheap) food by someone who looks like me but has just as much (or more, given my slight southern drawl) of a midwestern accent as I do. It’s a lot harder when Castro is a 10 minute drive and you can see the sex weirdoes in their habitat.
The bubble conservatives live in is geographical, first and foremost. They may still be assholes if they’re in a city, but they’re not as removed from the ‘other side’ when they basically have to confront us to get gas. I think you’re really misattributing a /lot/ to college, based purely off of your experience at one. These aren’t long standing policies that have had time to produce that kind of broad reach. They /could/ contribute, but they wouldn’t be driving it primarily at all.
I should have been more specific – I don’t believe the concept of bubbling ourselves in started at college, I was just speaking to the discussion of today’s comic at first cause it takes place at a university and other people in the comments were speaking to the college context.
When I move on to speak about the bubble, I realize the concept of bubbling ourselves in with people who look and think exactly like us and rejecting all else existed long before there was a name to it. Additionally, safe spaces have also existed long before people put a name to it, the same way feminism wasn’t invented in the 19th century.
The bubble that conservatives live in is geographical, but remember that that is not entirely on accident. POC, for a very long time and even now, were not allowed to live in those areas and/or were driven away from them, because whites wanted to surround themselves with other whites who were just like them. Another name for the rise of suburbia is “the white flight”. Cities have long been places where poor of all colors and POC congregated to live.
And yet, POCs have historically taken on subservient roles, gone out to these places to work as maids or butlers or nannies. Even if POCs interact as workers, it’s still very easy to think less of them when that’s literally the only way you interact with them. When I think about the bubble I emphasize the willfulness of it, the inability to see the reality of the world around you – even if you’re surrounded by it everyday.
I do think that the inability to see the reality around us caused people to underestimate the potential of a Trump win. A lot of people didn’t want to hear that he should be taken seriously as a threat, a lot didn’t want to hear that a presidency underneath him and his cronies would ultimately be worse than a Clinton presidency, and a lot of folks still haven’t accepted that Sanders had lost the primaries. And then of course, there was the dreaded, “I live around tolerant people, why should we worry at all about the millions of intolerant white people who want to take our rights away? I’m staying at home, cause Clinton’ll win anyway.” Meanwhile these white folk were collectively mobilizing for their candidate. As it relates to the “bubble” concept – if you surround yourself with people who think like you and refuse to see the truth or anything different from what you want to see, you’ll miss a lot of things. I agree with you that a lot more had to do with it, but I think this is a relevant issue. This is just my experience, but especially now that he’s released his plans for the first 100 days in office, I’ve seen that it’s really beginning to sink in for a lot of the people I know who chose not to vote or voted 3rd party basically they didn’t think to care enough about the alternative. And people are still claiming that the outcome had nothing to do with race – as they live in liberal areas, why should they have thought the larger US was any different? But they lost sight of the bigger picture.
I don’t really see how that the unwillingness to hear about uncomfortable topics that leads to “safe spaces” as a concept becoming a hinderance has much to do with what you’re referring to. There’s a difference between avoiding anything that makes you anxious or stressed and being blind to the existence of troubling situations or their effects on you. To avoid something you have to know it exists, and to avoid something to the point that you aren’t willing to learn about it even where appropriate you have to see it as a threat. I avoid listening to bigots at all because it makes me angry and depressed and I already am prepared to act against them. I avoid concepts and situations that disturb me because there is either little I can or little I am willing to do about them, but being exposed to the zaps me of the energy I need to do what I can about other issues.
Being too comfortable and fleeing things that you know make you uncomfortable can go hand in hand, but aren’t married situations. Maybe your experience is different, but when I see people complain of being “triggered” or promoting a “safe space” from certain subjects or images its usually in an attempt to manage their own adverse emotional response (rage, fear, anxiety, etc.). They don’t want to talk about it because they know it exists and feel like they have no control over it, which is concerning but doesn’t generally lead to voting Green Party. Naivety does. People who don’t realize that the world outside of them contains lots of people who are dangerous don’t tend to spend a lot of time hiding from it. As for those who don’t vote, that apathy can come from one of two places: belief that their vote won’t count (saw a lot of that on both sides of the color wheel), or not caring enough about the outcome. The people who believe their vote won’t count tend to be cynical, which comes from awareness of their situation. The people who don’t care are comfortable enough to let others fight instead for a reason, the scariest parts of the results don’t directly effect them. The house across the street is on fire, and while that might be sad they (presumably) will still have a place to live. NTM the people who just couldn’t vote for various reasons.
I’m definitely not saying you have to put yourself in traumatic situations, I said specifically in my experience people were using it to shut others down and not listen to other’s opinions beside their own. Like they would participate, and then give their opinion, and then if somebody else’s opinion was different it was like they didnt want to hear it and used it as an excuse – not evryone of course, but like I said it became bastardized. People used it for every reason. There were many classroom sessions where basically all everyone did was agree with each other while anyone with contrary opinions just kept their mouths shut to avoid being jumped on. Let me be clear – someone having a different opinion than you is not the same as them dehumanizing you or being a bigot or a jerk, but a lot of these same kids thought so.
It’s my experience that people who I knew who voted third party didn’t care who Trump was. They knew – and everyone knew – just listen to a single sound bite, he wasnt this elusive character – and just didn’t care
They underestimated him, and maybe some people really were naive, but they underestimated him nonetheless. Cynicism comes froma sort of awareness you are correct, but that relates to what I was saying in that sometimes it can be half-baked because you don’t completely understand what’s at stake. Same for the people who dont care. That’s why I said it’s important to learn history, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Regardless of the reason, half of voters decided to stay home. We have a problem of people not participating . And the end result is kinda the same, not matter the reasoning people wanna give. A lot of people are totally fucked because not enough people cared enough to include them in their bubble, their sphere of thinking.
I guess that was my roundabout way of trying to relate why it’s detrimental to stick your head in the sand, which like you said is very different from protecting yourself. After all, most kids who come to college are a reflection of their geographical environment most of the time.
I think that people tend to keep people alike themselves round them has no bearing at all on the discussion of safe spaces. It is a general human condition to want to be validated and not in constant strife with the people around you, to have people with whom you cooperate to win goals you cannot reach on your own (even simple things like giving a hand at putting heavy furniture in a different room).
To my mind, a “safe space” is a space that people create on purpose to create a respite for people who are harressed in a lot of ways on a daily basis. A space where the people who create it make the rules that certain common but harassing behavior is not accepted and people acting that way are warned and (if they continue) excluded.
Women’s spaces were created for just that purpose: to have spaces were you’d get a respite from everyday sexism in all its forms and power up again. To gain energy for the fight to change the society which accepted it, to try and create groups that worked differently.
I just read a study that most people simple assume that the people they like have similar attitudes to life (and politics) than they do, and are often quite disturbed when they find out differently.
We all deserve to be validated and safe in our lives. Danger is part of life, but if you are permanently threatened and or devaluated (they go hand in hand) this takes a heavy toll on body and mind.
We need to create spaces where we feel safe and at home AND we need to keep the ability to look and relate to what is happening outside of the places and groups where we feel at home.
That last part is what I was getting at- I said in my first comment that safe spaces are absolutely necessary.a nd I agree – I do think it’s human nature to want to be around people who are like you. However, there’s a difference between that and actively segregating yourself from others – as we’ve seen in the history of a lot these geographical places people were referring to. Yeah, they’re geographical, but marginalized groups have been harassed and killed because they’ve wanted to exist in places like that and the dominant culture said no. The dominant culture has placed itself in a bubble and won’t tolerate anyone elses existence – and now they want to expand that bubble and take away people’s rights.
Yeah, it’s hard to talk about them just being “geographical” when you look into the history of sunset towns and later white flight. It’s geographical, but so much of the demographic geography of this country is driven by racism, historical and to this very day.
I also wouldn’t put is so much as “expand that bubble and take away people’s rights”, as now they’re seeing that bubble encroached on and they just want to go back to the way things were. Which seems normal because of the bubble, but does involved taking away rights or not expanding rights that were never really there in the first place.
Congressional aide, thank you for your time and for coming. Good luck with his campaign. He might become a half-hearted gesture to Robin, but to Leslie she’s the one who isn’t there any more.
DOTTY YOU GO AFTER THAT CONGRESSWOMAN RIGHT NOW AND GET THE SWEET DEETS
But yeah, when the prospective booty call goes way off rails it’s best to shut it down. This being Leslie though, I’m sure she’s learned a thing or two about it now.
I wouldn’t be too fast to discard any future endeavors between her and Robin though. Might take time.
Actually, I think Leslie probably saw what Dorothy was getting at and shut it down before she could inadvertently trigger Joyce and/or out Joyce as being a rape victim to Robin, Aide/You, and anyone in the class who didn’t already know about it.
Oh, I thought she knew. Still, Leslie is the one who pointed out where Ryan slipped out of the building to Sal and Amazi-Girl, so I’m pretty sure she still got the gist of what was Dorothy was getting at and stopped her before she did something well-intentioned, but rash or ill-timed.
Is this the end of us seeing Robin, for the moment?
If so… I’m kind of glad… but… kind of sad. :/ TBH, the last few pages have been painfully real for me. They’ve hurt like hell.
But right now, surrounded by people who want to smooth things over, sweep things under the rug, pretend things won’t be so bad and try to ignore the *actual* danger I and others are in? I really think we all need more painfuly real things to remind us of what we’re facing. :/
…But fun happy comics are also good, and sometimes needed, if we’re moving on to less serious things. DX
It’s like she is… unconsciously awful. It’s like she is going through life waving her fists around, punching people at random and asking “What? Did I do something?”
All you peeps getting on Leslie’s case for interrupting Dorothy’s investigation should probably keep in mind that this is Robin we’re talking about.
The only people she’s called by name in the entire comic are her opponent, her sister, and, once, the Dean. Leslie has continued to be “Teach”, even after inviting Robin to call her “Leslie”. Robin’s 24×7 handler has just been demoted from “aide” to “you”. And her introduction to her army of unpaid interns did not actually include being, y’know, introduced to them. There is no way that she actually knows Ryan’s name.
Robin might manage to get access to personnel records, though. But that’s all moot. Leslie has no idea of the particulars of the situation – with what she knows, the likely conclusion she draws is that Dorothy is romantically/sexually interested in one of Robin’s campaigners, so she cut the whole situation short.
Or Kyle might just know, especially once he figures out which intern Dorothy’s talking about. Mind you, he probably shouldn’t answer in that case.
But yeah, there really aren’t a lot of contexts in which Dorothy’s question is acceptable and the actual truth is one of the least likely. Not that I think Leslie is focused enough to be interrupting Dorothy’s question specifically rather than just finally giving up enough to boot Robin out the door.
The thing with Dumbingverse Robin is that she’s a complete and total narcissist. Self-centered, filtering the people she allows around her for people who will praise her and cheer her, trying to filter what the people around her say so that it’s only praise and approval or invitations for her to earn that praise and approval. We’ve seen it all along, but this particular scene in this particular classroom has put it more clearly on display than ever.
Is it WRONG that she wants that kind of affirmation? No. It’s not greatly laudable, but it’s not intrinsically wrong in its own right. I even sympathize a bit.
What she does to get it, and how she shuts down and dehumanizes both the people around her and large swathes of society in general in order to get it? That IS wrong.
I feel like there could be a great villain origin story here, about how she came to seek validation through those particular means.
she probably thought, “Freshman fresh out of highschool. should be easy enough with no hard questions because people in this area at this age haven’t likely had any hard times.”
little did she expect a world by willis. yay willis!
“It’s not related to politics, I promise” – because that is of course a promise that has to be made when you ask a politician a question in the middle of a campaign.
Of course, Dorothy is more goal oriented than me, but I still regret we didn’t get to see more of Keener awesomeness.
I’ve got a feeling that the class will be cut short today so Leslie can possibly have a long shower or maybe even sit in a corner and mourn her broken heart. I can’t honestly say that I blame her.
It really seems like she didn’t plan the classroom sessions itself out at all. I’m not sure why she thought Robin would be any different than she is – perhaps because she was infatuated with her.
And that’s another partial answer to the discussion above: With proper setup and with Leslie actually focused and leading the discussion, there could have been something to learn from talking to even a politician like Robin. With her ceding control and letting things flounder there was nothing worthwhile to be gained.
We’ve learned that some politicians will pander and throw LGBTQ people under the bus for political gain. What a revelation.
See, the first question Robin got was on point and interesting and worth discussing in class.
Robin’s reaction to it was “can I have a question NOT from someone who seems to know how local law protection works?”
Then she stated that she wanted to hear out Dorothy explicitly because Dorothy is not one of the minorities she’s hurting with her platform, and when Dorothy pointed out that she still experiences racism, started complaining that the conversation failed to meet a treschold of not being about Nazis, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS THE ONE TO BRING UP RACE IN THE FIRST PLACE
this ‘discussion’ was already a trainwreck, and from observable trends it was only going to get worse, owing exclusively to Robin putting her foot in her mouth in ways that are not appropriate / expected of a congresswoman
Leslie was completely right to shut it down, even though her timing – in the middle of someone asking a question – was not impeccable.
That said, Leslie was still the one who brought Robin in, which was probably a bad idea from the beginning. Yeah, that first question was interesting, but considering who Robin is it should be obvious it would eventually degenerate into some nonsense sooner or latter. Leslie was right to shut the thing down at that point, but she was wrong in starting it to begin with.
That’s harsh and unfair, Leslie is/was completely besotted by Robin to such an extent that she could ignore her policies and voting record. I mean you could check every panel but specifically the first panel to see how bad it was: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-7/01-glower-vacuum/phresh/
She invited Robin to see if she could get it on with her but it would/should have provided an informative lesson for everyone in the class so its not a bad thing on Leslies part
Once Leslie saw that it was going to only go downhill and do nothing but upset people she shut it down, theres still a lot the class can discuss after all
Leslie was obviously wasn’t thinking with her brain at the start but she’ll probably learn form the experience and maybe the class will as well
Her opponent has been namechecked as Jake Manley, and her aide’s name (according to intrepid archive-divers) is Kyle. Jake Manley has yet to show up onscreen in this comic.
Loading ...
GREAT TIMING Les, gotta keep the Dumbiverse dramatic tension taut )=|
still doing better than if Trump were there tho
It’s a shame, because with the knowledge that Leslie has at the moment, it’s the right move.
Well it’s not like Robin KNOWS her interns’ names… or how to get them… or really cares that they exist as humans at all save that they help her achieve her objectives and stoke her ego by supporting and cheering her…
now i am curious how their political figures on the high end works or if they wont be revealed due to having no relevance to the story.
hfkjdfshkjfdhlfkjsfh i was SO HYPED
was
Congressional Aide is my vote for DoA’s Hottest Lady
you mean “you”
you mean “congressional you”
You mean “Congressional *Half-hearted Gesture*”
congressional snap or whistle sound
“…”
?
“…”
“Um…?”
“…!!!”
“yyyes, Congresswoman?”
“Jeez, finally! I’ve been calling you for the past half-minute! Are you deaf or something?”
“… or something, Congresswoman.”
Congressional you sounds like a proposition.
…or another sequel to Despicable Me.
More like a weird variant on the “royal we”.
Impress me, my sweet congressional you,
Depress me, you irrepressible you…
I don’t think congressional aide has been stated to be trans, though.
Why would you vote a guy hottest lady?
Free country?
Fair warning. It now costs you a dollar every time you say that.
It’s like you can’t even be mad at her. She really doesn’t know…
Like a puppy, the ability to destroy people’s lives.
*with the
Oh, I most certainly can.
The Stoopid is strong in this one.
Man, the pity here is real. Robin x Leslie is only alive in Shortpacked D=
I choose to believe Robin is sad because she’s been rejected by the hot teacher.
Robin in Short Packed was not bi, until Leslie chased her all over the place and finally got her.
I’m not sure Robin felt any attraction to Leslie as all: after all it was her sisters idea for Robin to be invited there by Leslie for her class. Little sister knowing Leslie has the hots for Robin and hoping maybe she would rub off some common sense on Robin.
Robin was pretty enthusiastic about sex with Leslie towards the end, so I’ve no clue where you’re getting this.
I think she might’ve been demi and assumed she was straight by default because she had never really felt drawn to women prior to Leslie, and her attempts at dating dudes were because media conditions us to think that’s what you do when you’re a twentysomething female.
Didn’t she canonically crush on Amber first?
She totally did. Briefly.
Robin spent ages with an unrequited crush on Amber, dude. Robin was always bi (IC. OOC, no, not so much.)
My mistake! Been way too long since I reread Shortpacked.
It’s understandable, since she spent most of the strip denying it. The straight with an exception bit was pretty much her stance, once she finally admitted interest in Leslie. Only near the end did she really open up on it.
It was never alive here at all. It was just a temporary one-sided crush that was turning desperately passive-manipulative and would have been abusive in the other direction had it ever succeeded.
I’m hoping this continues to weigh on Robin’s mind until she needs to understand why and comes back and discovers that Leslie’s opinion matters to her.
Please Willis, in our fantasy world give us a politician who rises to the responsibility of her position.
YOU IS THE LOWEST LEVEL
AIDE IS THE HIGHEST
YOU DONE FUCKED UP YOU
“I used to address him as, ‘Hey, you!’, but that seemed too personal. Now it’s just ‘Hey!'”
Is she supposed to be a sexy lesbian Michelle Bachman?
No, she doesn’t look enough like an alien wearing a human husk
She’s Palin Trump Pence.
She’s also got some Cruz in her.
Wait a minute, meant Rubio. Dammit, picked the wrong one.
Robin’s a not very bright opportunist. Bachmann honest believes her nonsense.
Yes the mind can vomit.
Surprised the tags don’t say “You” now.
Ah, the indignity of being a nameable protagonist in a fully voiced video game.
funny, first “You” that comes to mind is Lone Survivor
Nowhere near as bad as being a Pokemon rival.
“Why did my parents name me ‘Poop?’ Who does that? Is 10 years old old enough to legally change it?”
No wonder he was always such a jerk. He was just fighting back.
“Ah, yes, Arch-Mage!”
“Oh, hey Listener!”
“Wassup, Harbinger?”
“Ah, Dragonborn, how can I help you?”
“Oh, Guildmaster, sorry, didn’t see you there.”
“MY NAME IS ALWYN, DAMN IT! SAY MY FUCKING NAME!”
Codsworth will!
PROGRESS IS BEING MADE
“Oh yes, look how Codsworth will say your name! It’s great!”
…
“Did I mention that only Codsworth says your name?”
It’s one greater than none. INFINITE PROGRESS, GENERAL.
But while you wait for further developments, another settlement needs your help.
“Say my name.”
“I’m sorry?”
“If you want me to go help that settlement, say my name.”
“Wha… General, this really isn’t the ti-”
“SAY MY NAME, PRESTON! JUST SAY IT DAMMIT!”
“Li- Little gre- green”
Dammit Krillin
My character’s last name isn’t even a name, it’s a verb. I think I giggled when I heard him say it.
There was a PS1 RPG with a villainous organization called “Odessa”.
You could not only name all the playable characters, but also a bunch of NPCs as well.
…. I named them all Odessa.
“We must hurry to save Odessa from Odessa and regroup before Odessa attacks! Odessa and Odessa, you’re with me! Odessa, Odessa, and Odessa, stay here and guard the base! If Odessa calls, find out where Odessa is keeping her!”
It’s a good thing that Robin only has one Aide. Otherwise, she’d have to number them. Now she’ll have to number the “you”s in her life.
Wild Arms? or something like that? I haven’t played it, but I’ve looked up shit-tons of old RPGs recently.
Close. Wild Arms 2.
Back in the day, I wasted countless hours playing Hack, an ancient PC game where you explored a dungeon made of ASCII characters, fighting monsters (also ASCII characters) with your faithful (ASCII) dog. One of the fun features was the ability to name anything, including monsters. For instance, you could name an attacking goblin “yourself in the nuts”, creating the only context in the world where “You hit yourself in the nuts!” is good news.
Or I’d sometimes name my dog “your trousersnake”, leading to endlessley amusing results.
“The gnome missed your trousersnake!”
“your trousersnake hit the gnome!”
“your trousersnake killed a gnome!”
“your trousersnake ate a dead gnome!”
Yeah, my sense of humor can be incredibly juvenile at times.
I like the idea of naming them all I Say so that everybody sounds like Foghorn Leghorn.
That sounds about one egg short of a dozen.
Interns? What intern? Robin’s never even heard of interns!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I’ll second this. Damnit, so close!
Please let Dorothy follow up on this. 🙁
But… does Robin really know her interns’ full names?
Does [s]Kyle[/s] [s]Aide[/s] you?
Would either of them care enough to follow up with Frieda?
That said, Dorothy should chase them out into the hall to follow up, just in case. Leslie would be super-understanding especially if Dorothy explained. (Also, she was a witness to most of it, not that Dorothy knows that.)
DAMN YOU HTML BRACKETS FOR NOT BEING BB-CODE BRACKETS!
You even get a reminder every time you post about which one to use.
And that’s the problem! I should only get a reminder when I try to use them, not all the time so that I learn to ignore the reminder!
It’s all someone-other-than-me’s fault!
Of course Robin doesn’t. Her campaign manager does.
I thought
KyleAideYou was her campaign manager.Nope, he’s her administrative assistant.
There’s an interesting issue whether this was the right decision or not for Leslie as a teacher. Robin certainly brings a lot of terrible hate-speech into the class but it’s also very clear that a lot of the members of the cast (Becky and Joyce aside) are unaware of the level of danger which is posed to gay citizens by their own government. Also, it doesn’t seem like Leslie is sending out Robin because she is worried about her students but because she’s ashamed of her crush. Really poor showing Leslie.
Well, she’s also responsible for their learning – is this really conducive? She might feel like she’s exposing them to harmful ideas – although, I’d argue that college is certainly the time.
Also, I think it’s clear that Joyce isn’t having fun with this, and she might think that takes precedence, given that her reaction happened directly after Joyce’s question.
Definitely not picking on this comment, but I really think this gets to the fundamental issue most people have when discussing student safety versus opportunities to learn.
And that’s that we always assume the students that matter are the ones with dominant group backgrounds and deep ignorances about the “other”. And that’s what’s usually gets employed to argue against “safe spaces” and the like, because the suffering and pain of those who’ve actually been through shit and have lived what the “education topic” of the moment is are treated as secondary in worth to teaching the dominant group an important empathy lesson.
And that’s what often frustrates me in conversations about safe spaces and stuff like this, because that valuation of education for the dominant group over mental health and safety of marginalized folks is a common trade-off and it’s deeply insulting to the marginalized group whose life experiences are treated as worthless.
And that’s important and even more important after what Robin said last comic. Like, Robin’s voting is entirely based on voting against the humanity and well-being of queer-identified folks because of the loosely defined feelings benefit of straight folks.
So to let her continue to antagonize her queer students (which as she said at the beginning of the semester, is likely most of the non-named characters) so that the few remaining straights could learn a valuable life lesson is pointless.
Even more pointless, because let’s look at her pool of straights. Joyce is deeply perturbed, Dorothy is getting her ethnic group maligned and treated like a throwaway and also does not need the object lesson, which leaves…
Roz. Who’s more focused on getting her sister outed so she can be free and has spent every day of the last 2+ years experiencing her sister’s bigoted politics and the cheering throngs that agree with it, so doesn’t really need an object lesson.
And then Joe and Walky… who are unlikely to pull any object lesson from the proceedings because they are still in a mode of resisting most everything in this class.
So, yeah, if Leslie was to let this go on, she’d be letting the congresswoman shit on her queer students, continue to speak ill and demeaningly of her own self (and no, no teacher should be forced to push through a deeply upsetting situation as a “teaching experience”), for no real purpose other than the vain hope that somehow Joe and Walky will draw a connection from the congresswoman’s statements and casually homophobic statements and attitudes.
So yeah, shut it down, move on to a new topic or analyze the context of those words and the violence they represent.
I don’t think that Walky’s “resisting” so much as going limp. Resistance is too much effort. =P
But that’s a great summary of reasons to shut it down. While there might be an argument to be made for exploring uncomfortable topics that have educational value (and I’d say there’s a sliding scale where one balances educational value with degree of discomfort) there is plenty of discomfort and active hostility here, including some low-to-mid-grade verbal abuse, for little to no educational value. And it’s getting worse. Robin’s blame-shifting her failure to answer difficult challenges to students, applying racial stereotypes and minimizing discrimination. The students are responding negatively, and tensions are escalating.
Balancing, or failing to balance, this negative situation: the only educational value her presence in this class has is what a bad example looks like, and dissecting her as a bad example with her in the classroom would just lead to more hostility and probably get Leslie into hot water.
Time and past time to step in and ask Robin to step out.
True. And of course the simple fact that Leslie complete has lost control. She went in to this class with the stupid idea of making it a seduction.
Now when she decided against that idea, and she just got shaken to the core, she doesn’t feel that she can monitor and manage the group dynamics in the class like she usually does.
The last time she lost control, Joyce left in tears, and that was without Robin in the room, and before Joyce got hunted with a gun. Things are already heating up, she has know idea what EITHER Roz or Robin will do and she has no idea how much Joyce can take. Playing it safe is a VERY good idea right now.
Yeah this.
Trust me, I’m not ignorant of how most men in my region think of women. I’m not ignorant of how a lot of straight ppl think of LGB ppl. I’m not ignorant of how cis people think of trans people. I’m not ignorant of how abled people think of autistic asthmatics with stutters.
Assigned male put it really well:
All spaces should be safe.
Safe spaces and protection against hate speech is very important, Cerberus. You’re 100% correct and non-negotiable as something for people to have. However, I do fear people who have the potential to go through life without being made aware of the problem. I guess for me, the issue is Joe and Billie are two people (Billie who has thankfully been blinded to some dangers to HER like Robin is) who have been surrounded by privilege that allows them tp keep an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. No one here, I’m sure, wants to make gay students or traumatized students (like Joyce) hurt but dissecting someone like Robin felt like a valuable point. You’re right, there should at the very least be the option to bow out or be warned, though. Also, as an academic, it’s Leslie’s choice as teacher since SHE’S certainly being triggered here.
To the best of my knowledge Billie is not in the Gender Studies class.
Its a gender studies class. Not a local politics class, Robin was brought to the class probably under the loose pretense of being a successful women in politics. When things started to go south (both in terms of Leslie’s crush and the discussion) Leslie was right to remove Robin. Besides, any conversation about the governments harmful effects* on LGBT+ populace can be held with out the congresswoman there.
*(affects?)
It’s frankly an interesting situation to get the justifications from a person like Robin Drumph for why she does what she does. It seems an impressive opportunity to squander.
Allowing her to stay and make the class feel unsafe is an “interesting situation” to you?
Do they look like they feel unsafe or threatened to you?
If Robin makes them feel unsafe, it’s because the curtain of ignorance has been lifted from just how their representatives vote, not because she poses any form of physical threat or verbal attack in person – her rallies and rhetoric may or may not, and in all likelihood do, vilify some of them, because that’s sadly how American politics work, but she’s not doing anything right there in person to make people feel unsafe. Disgusted, maybe, or just feeling unsafe as they realize what system they live in, but not a direct threat. The only dangerous thing about Robin is her vote. Which might be looking pretty scary to the class right about now, but that’s not going to go away just because she leaves the room.
There are plenty of reasons to eject her, but I don’t see that her making the class feel unsafe is one of them.
Yes. Gay people should not feel safe around her after what she said. She doesn’t see them as people.
How they hell are we supposed to have constructive discussion if a person like Robin – who didn’t even suggest that gay people aren’t people – isn’t allowed to be part of the conversation.
Her perspective is essential to bringing both sides together on this issues since she is literally the other side of the debate.
“Gay people deserve rights” is not up for fucking debate.
There is no discussion to be had. She had no answer to give. No other side to offer.
And what you post is fantasy. There are rarely two sides that could work together if only they’d listen to one another. And this is not that rare situation.
I wish it were that simple. But, if it was, the 1960s would have been about people talking, not the great fight–which sometimes got physical–that it actually was.
And, yes, Robin did already indicate she didn’t think of gay people as people. Joyce pointed it out, and she had no counterargument.
Like, what ‘constructive discussion’ were you expecting here? I am baffled – Robin’s only defense for her actions has been “I need to get re-elected.” She’s not even the other side of a ‘debate’.
If Robin were more of a believer than an opportunist, at least a discussion is /nominally/ possible. It would be probably be fraught for anyone who isn’t straight (Including, I suspect, Joyce), but that’s the actual purpose of a content warning… which Leslie apparently fuckin’ forgot might be relevant? (Conceivably, it was mentioned offscreen). But it’s unlikely to be productive either, unless there’s folks in the /class/ who are on the fence. Discussion like that isn’t always about the person you’re talking to. Even less so with politicians.
I’m terribly sorry, I a) didn’t realize this was a formal political debate rather than a gender studies lesson on successful political women, b) that horse race “both sides” thinking somehow wasn’t a pile of rancid dog shit that always demands the powerless do most of the work in “healing the rifts” between them and the people who want them dead, and c) that as Fart Captor said, gay people’s rights to exist and not be fired and forced into homelessness and economic desperation for existing was somehow a “side” of equal and opposite import to its “opposing side”*.
*When the dust clears and our empire is finally stopped and they write the history books of this era, I hope they put a huge fucking pin in how we fetishized the “wisdom of the moderate” to the level that we treated literally everything as a debate between two “sides” who must be considered equally, leading to endless hate movements, denialist conspiracy theories, and eliminationist rhetoric to go unchecked and uncountered and allowed to be treated as equally valid to real knowledge and people’s very right to exist.
While I totally agree with you, I would venture that Robin doesn’t see ANYONE else as people, she seems to group people as “useful”, “potentially useful”, “ignorable”, or “enemies”.
Maybe I’m the only one getting an “cheerful functional sociopath” vibe from her.
I like how you somehow believe that gay people are in ignorance to how little anti-gay politicians regard them.
Actually, Cerberus, my thought isn’t about the gay people in the class but the people who don’t realize just how much in danger the gay people in their class are. Gender studies for women is very very important but it’s also important for men. For the rights of gays to be protected, CIS and straight people need to be made aware of not only their humanity but just how dangerous and precarious their situation is. Case in point: Joyce has been informed but Joyce has had cold ice water of reality thrown at her by events–what about the other kids in class who haven’t?
I’m sure some are, but there are plenty of straight people in the class. I have a hard time believing that Walky, for example, pays enough attention to politics to realize what kind of bills get passed.
Why would allowing her to justify herself in front of them be a remotely valuable exercise?
Given the amount of squirming and obfuscating she’s doing, I think they could grill her all day and not get a single genuine justification out of her.
I’m not sure they could have gotten an indication she really understood the question.
Is she even breathing? Have we seen her outside during the day?
Wait, wrong universe. Confused this with Walkyverse-235.
“Effects” is the correct usage in that context.
in general, “effect” is a noun, “affect” is a verb, but sometimes you can emphasize “effect” as a verb specifically in the sense of “bring about the desired effect”
verbing weirds language
i always get them mixed up, but i tend to be correct on their, there, and they’re
Thank you both, effects versus affects was always confusing to me.
It’s not really what I would call “emphasis.” They are basically different words–albeit from the same root.
Similarly, the noun “affect” is a different word, and refers to an conscious emotional response–especially as observed from outside. It’s mostly used in psychiatry/psychology, such as a “flat affect,” meaning very little emotional response to anything. (Often a symptom of depression, rather than actual sadness. They feel nothing.)
In the phrase “bring about the desired effect” the word “effect” is still a noun. You can tell because of the “the” in front of it. Desired is an adjective. Effect has to be a noun.
Actually, while the obvious word here is “effect”, “affect” can also apply.
“Effect” refers to something that’s created or produced. As a noun, it implies a consequence or impact that can be directly attributed to something — for example, “the effects of the housing crisis” refers to the consequences of whichever housing crisis we’re talking about. As a verb, it refers to the way in which things produce consequences. For example, “The housing crisis effects increased costs for renters” says that the crisis is producing, as a consequence, those increased rents. In other words, if A effects B, then B is an effect of A.
“Affect”, instead, refers to influence or change, with some (far from required) emphasis on emotional influence or communication. As a verb, it suggests a change from a partial cause, one of many factors, and it could just as easily refer to a reduction or elimination of those housing costs rather than something that increases them. To say that, “the housing crisis affects rental rates,” says that the crisis has a hand in changing rental rates, but suggests that there are other things involved as well. “Affecting” something could easily refer to dampening, reducing, or eliminating it… though probably not in this example. “Effect”, on the other hand, can only refer to production and not elimination.*
As a noun, “affect” has a very different but still-related meaning. It describes how one feels emotions, and presents and communicates emotions beyond language, and especially with their facial expressions or lack thereof. As one example, in autism, “affect” often describes the degree (or lack thereof) of facial and vocal emotional cues, and how this differs from the norm. From this root word we get things like “affection” and “affectation” and “disaffected”.
So, the word Melonge is probably seeking here is “effects”, meaning the consequences of government actions upon the LGBT+ community.
But we could also, with minimal poetic massaging, use the noun “affects” instead, as in, “the government’s harmful affects upon the LGBT+ populace”. This would convey the image of the government turning ugly facial expressions upon the LGBQ+ community, giving them scowls and the evil eye. It suggests that above and beyond the technical legal language and the practical [i]effects[/i] of government policy, there is also conveyed to the community a myriad of emotive subtexts such as disapproval, disavowal, dehumanization, and outright hatred, with an acknowledgement that such emotion conveyed by officialdom causes actual harm to the community.
*Okay, I lie, there are ways that “effect” can refer to an act of elimination. You can find examples on Walky’s Twitter feed listed under #Stool.
Robin was there because her little sister talked Leslie into inviting her, knowing Leslie was hot for Robin. Little sis wanted Leslie to help re-educate Robin.
From what we’ve seen Robin isn’t especially effective at or invested in the actual legislative end of her position, so there is little more insight she could possibly provide. Even outside of Leslie’s crush, bringing her in was probably a mistake.
Also I am unsure which members of the cast that are in this class are unaware of the danger posed by the gov. or what any such members could glean from Robin that hasn’t been covered.
You don’t have to call me “Darling”, Darling
You Never Even Called Me By My Name!
Woooaaaah that wasn’t on purpose that leslie cut that line of questioning off was it? If anyone w a great memory can fill me in: how much does leslie know about the current…… Happenings?
She knows nothing. Really. She doesn’t know about Joyce being assaulted at a party. She doesn’t know it was by one of Robin’s interns. She isn’t someone anyone confides in.
She doesn’t know about the connection between Joyce and Robin’s interns, but she probably DID see the fight between the interns and Amazi-girl + Sal. She also probably knows that Dorothy writes for the paper, unless their school is one that doesn’t use bylines.
I really hope that Leslie isn’t covering for those assbags who got their asses beat at the rally.
They have bylines. We’ve seen Billie’s.
At worst she’s thinking “the classroom is not the place to get your scoop. I can cut off this question.” In all likelihood, though, she wasn’t even aware of the question itself.
I think Leslie’s a bit too wrapped up in herself to even realize what Dorothy’s after. She was totally tuned out of the conversation last strip, and I think the first couple of panels of this strip are concurrent with the last few panels of yesterday’s.
Seriously, I doubt she remembers little more of the indident than how cool AG’s cape looked.
I doubt she was even listening by that point. It was just unfortunate timing
I’d assumed she had noticed the question, but misinterpreted it as a question about “Jessica”. After all, she’d plentiful reason to keep her attendance at the rally secret, even before Robin’s explanation of her apathetically horrible politics.
Nothing. She is completely unrelated to that plotline.
The real test of courage is if Dorothy has the guts to walk out there and finish her question.
And escalate beyond the pretense of triviality, if necessary.
yeah I’d be surprised if Dorothy doesn’t go running after Robin
I’m hoping she does. She is a good journalist after all, so I feel like maybe she’ll try at least.
Eh, Robin wouldn’t even know the name of Joyce’s attacker because she hasn’t bothered to learn her Aide’s name let alone the intern slave labor she employs.
I’m guessing she knows her aide’s name and just can’t bring herself to use it, but it’s hard to say with herm
Yeah, it was going to be a dead end if Dorothy succeeded. Because a) Robin doesn’t remember anyone’s name. b) Her coordinator was the run who ran the army of interns and Robin didn’t even meet Ryan in person. c) Her coordinator already knows that the intern was involved in a sexual assault and so will not want to acknowledge he exists, much less give out information like his full name to the press.
Where did you get c) from?
I just though asking the aide for info on the interns was the most likely way to get results?
Panel 2 and Panel 3 of this comic:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-7/01-glower-vacuum/huff/
Which… holy fuck, looking back at that comic, Leslie also saw that incident and so would have a very likely idea of why Dorothy was so insistent about asking about the intern, so… damn, bad form, Leslie, bad form.
That’s what makes me think she wasn’t really listening by that point, or thinking beyond “No no no no SHUT IT DOWN! Get her out!”
Like, she’s so overwhelmed by shame that she can’t even look at Robin, and just talks to the aide while she rushes them out the door.
As long as he’s good in bed, his name doesn’t matter ?
Damn it, Leslie, you’re getting in the way of sweet, sweet vigilante justice.
sigh
just dont call me late for dinner.
Yes Robin, you’re awful and the platform you support us awful, please realize that
I’ve got like, three different flavors of sad from this 🙁
Maybe Robin’s disappointment is a good sign?
Nnnot really, in sight of Kyle’s answer. It means they already had this same conversation, from possibly the same kind of situation and she didn’t learn anything from the past .
But she’s sad about getting the boot! Maybe this time she’ll actually try to understand what was so wrong that made the cute teacher lady upset?
C’mon Robin, think with your genitals! You can do this!
Soooooo. About Clinton losing, sorry I didn’t come back to the US and do more than just vote for her.
So much of this crosses over into today’/ news headlines.
Haven’t seen ’em. Refusing to look. (They’re bad, aren’t they?)
I’m considering swearing off all US news for an extended period of time. Like maybe 4 years. Unless it involves very localized issues with no government bits in them.
Same here. It just sends my stress, anger levels up so I’m scaling back on politics for a bit.
Frankly, she was pretty scary too.
OK, there’s scary like a spider, and there’s scary like a rattlesnake. They are NOT in the same universe of scary.
Don’t even start pretending that Clinton somehow makes Trump less bad.
I can see the distinction between clinton and trump, but what are you classifying as scarier, a spider or a rattlesnake?
Clinton doesn’t make Trump any less bad, but then Trump doesn’t make Clinton any less bad, either. I was delighted that Clinton lost, and I was also disgusted that Trump won. I was disgusted that neither of the two major parties could come up with a less horrible candidate. Most of all, I was disgusted that voters, confronted with two totally unacceptable choices, still insisted on choosing one of them.
What kind of argument is this? The USA has an election system that makes any presidential election a runof between two persons. Refusing to avoid an unstable guy access to atomic bombs alone should have been a reason to vote for Clinton (At least she won’t start an atomic bomb just because she’s pissed off). Ignoring that he is a danger much greater than Clinton in any direction and not voting to keep him out of office is an attitude that just makes me sick. Anyone who didn’t vote for Clinton in the actual election, when the situation was that those two were the only choice, is just as responsible for what he does now than all the people who actually voted for him.
And fucking go and do something to change the electoral system afterwards.
Well rather than trying to pick between Clinton and Trump, everyone could have collectively decided to pick between Stein and Johnson. But of course everyone insisted on voting two party because that is how our culture, society, and political system is set up.
I mean that the majority of R’s and D’s that I know are so entrenched that they will vote by party lines. They need not know a thing about the candidates other than what letter is by their name. And with how much each side fears the other crossing those lines is somewhat rare. Seriously you should have heard the fear in the voices of some of the R’s I know back when they thought Clinton had the edge. It was almost comical. Bernie got a bit of a pass from them because ‘he isn’t really a democrat, just an independent pretending to be one’. Not that they particularly liked his policy stances mind you, but when they spoke of him it wasn’t with fear and terror in their voice.
So yeah, the fear of the other party has gotten pretty ludicrous as of late. And this whole post was mainly me ranting to rant about the shock I had to learn that the Latino R’s I know fear the D’s just as much as most marginalized folks are of Trump. I just didn’t realize the R’s had literal voice shaking ‘I want to cry’ fear of the D’s. Seriously I nearly laughed, but it isn’t right to laugh in the face of someone who is truly afraid. Talk about crass.
No.
Is that congressional aide Hooper?
I THINK Willis decided not to use Hooper because Hooper was based on a real person?
I know there were a lot of people that Willis didn’t use because they were based on real people, and I know Hooper was based on a real person, but I don’t know if Hooper was cut because of that.
After all, Willis retained both Danny and Walky, both of whom were insertions of a real person into the Walkyverse. At least, if their initials and protagonist roles are any clue.
I’ve read about a couple of others as well. Some from the Roomies/Walky side, I believe Ninja Rick from Shortpack.
One more mistake will see him demoted to ‘point and snap fingers’.
or a shrill whistle sound
I question how much
KyleAideYou is getting paid.godDAMMIT leslie
From the makers of “Damn You, Willis!”
Leslie, if your classroom “safe space” means shutting down uncomfortable discussion instead of providing an environment for those issues to be explored without violence or destruction of property, then I’ve lost a lot of respect for you and your class. 😐
“Allowing those issues to be explored” and “dedicating the class to a frankly counterproductive discussion led by the person who is oppressing a number of the students” are very different things. If uncomfortable discussions were the main problem Joe would never be allowed to speak.
how is it counterproductive? they are seeing the full blown failure of american politics. not just from the systemicc side, but from the population of idiots that vote for people like her.
leslie knew that robin would most likely butt heads and egos with a lot of people in that class. those students also knew it. it’s not right to just ask someone to leave when the entire conversation has been totally respectful (well, tried to be) thus far.
to converse respectfully with someone you disagree with (or even just watch it) is the best lesson leslie could have taught them right then.
Having the actual politician right there in there classroom hardly seems necessary to explain the worst elements of American politics. Everything that she introduces with Robin could just as easily be established by showing the class a video.
Allowing a teacher to waltz into there class and explain to the students why they don’t matter to her, especially after a man spouting the same bigotries she defends recently came to school with a gun hardly seems necessary.
Also the tenor of the discussion yesterday hardly seemed “respectful” to me.
when do good lessons only do “what’s necessary”? solutions like “showing a video” is exactly why the education system is failing. it’s like gradeschools now not letting kids do chemistry experiments to mitigate liability. so they just have the teacher do a demonstration. they have to experience it. you can’t teach kids by telling them. they have to see it and see how these words can affect others.
it’s like one thing to see people on like /b/ make nazi jokes and truly believe horrid things. it’s another to actually hear that shit in real life. schools are best suited because it is a controlled environment where, if there was a true falling out and severe emotional distress, it can easily be addressed.
also, when was anyone willfully disrespectful? robin earnestly didn’t believe what she was saying was hurtful, as evidenced by this strip. joyce, leslie, and dorothy were also respectful. even roz was quiet.
your post highlights EXACTLY what the op was saying.
Yeah, it’s pretty horrific hearing things out loud that wouldn’t be out of place on /pol/ at its most rabid.
seriously.. i frequent funnyjunk, so i’m used to reading some baaaackward opinions.. but lord have mercy it was like a right hook to the temple watching some videos this week.
How are they experiencing gender studies right now, then?
Also, since when is “gay rights don’t matter” only disrespectful if it was intentionally so? Shit’s actually more awful if you don’t expect people to take offense to it.
because they are seeing how unwittingly ignorant some people are. and that those people are in power, keeping up a system that perpetuates the problems they’re studying.
because it is a debate they are having. when i say disrespectful, she could have been saying “shut up you stupid [expletive]” but she kept answering those questions. and joyce and dorothy and leslie were staying calm and asking more questions. that is what proper discourse looks like. when someone says something you don’t agree with, you keep a straight face and you keep that conversation going.
Nothing she has said suggests she is unwittingly ignorant. The apathy shines pretty clearly, but there isn’t much that suggests that she doesn’t see how her actions could be harmful. Thats why she backed out of Joyce’s question as soon as she saw it wasn’t going to go her way.
Also while cussing is certainly disrespectful, its not necessarily any more disrespectful than her behavior (re. eye rolling, question ducking, dismissiveness, the entire conversation with Dorothy) already is. And, its not really in her m.o. in any case. She is a guest politician here to curry favor, she starts cussing them out she would get booted even faster than she did. Also cussing implies she cares about what she’s doing or saying, which she clearly doesn’t.
Beyond her admission of pandering in response to the first question and to Joyce with regard to the bill, there isn’t much more of insight they could get out of Robin. She doesn’t seem to have any actual ideals or opinions, and it seems is going to lose her seat for that very reason. I don’t see how watching or listening to someone being evasive for however long is valuable to this class. I know you’re all for practical learning, but this could be better covered in a lecture or videos of politicians who are actually influential in a way directly connected to the class. Video is valuable because of the opportunities to rewind and pause for discussion and to focus on key events. This is an aimless waste of time which only serves to make students uncomfortable at best.
Ro be honest, I don’t get gender studies as a university subject, but US educationals system has other weirdness that doesn’t remotely compare to my (30 years old, German) experience.
Firstly yeah Robin was being pretty disrespectful to Dorothy in the last comic.
Secondly no bring a person to spew bigotry at the students is not a particularly valuable lesson plan. The only reason that this discussion has not been even worst is that Robin doesn’t actually buy the shit she says to other her base.
Further what specifically does Robin being physically in the room with them teach them the political system or its effects on others? Also how do make students experience a way of thinking about the world? Isn’t a honest discussion with there pears more useful then a discussion with someone who not only has the opposite goals then them, but due to her status as guest speaker is being given a position of authority? Especially in a 100 level class?
okay here we go:
firstly, i think that’s up for interpretation so we’ll just agree to disagree.
secondly, i still don’t understand why hearing someone’s opposing viewpoints is bad? like in a gender studies class, you will be told that one of the ways to stop the injustice is to try and change how people see gender and gender roles. so robin is like an open book as to why people think or act or say the things they do. that is hugely valuable insight. no change happens without some level of empathy from both sides.
furthermore, are you saying that having a politician – the source of many injustices – right there to be questioned is unnecessary? i understand the value of peers, but debriefing with peers after an external source comes in is EXTREMELY valuable to the process of learning. if all you do is talk about hypotheticals and not discuss a collective experience, you’re just mentally masturbating, which leads nowhere. like at work, you can think and think and think and think. but if you never go out there and test out your ideas (read: strategies to educate the ignorant) against the market (the ignorant, aka Robin), how will you ever know if your ideas are useful or right? how would you know if all that posturing was for the wrong problem>?
also, what alarms me is that you’re implying discussion with a politician is useless and we should be spending those exremely critical formative years in what is essentially an echo chamber. politicians are out there. thye are the real world. they are part of the vehicle of change in the country yyou of which you are a citizen. it doesn’t matter what level class. that is extremely important to be in the real world. that is what college is about.
let’s think of it on the flip side, shall we? say these kids never get that opportunity. so now, they hear all the bigoted things Robin says on the media. they don’t hear it in person. that’s what you wanted, right? well now they don’t have a way to have a proper discourse with her. to dig deeper into their ideas and see the holes in both their and her logics. that’s more counterproductive than hearing someone “spew bigotry.”
You keep describing a discussion that was not happening.
There was no substantive discussion worth having, nor was Robin being an “open book”. Joyce got blown off with “your concerns are silly why are you so worried”, Dorothy was directly disrespected, and then Robin started asking for soft questions.
Nothing of value was happening, much less anything relevant to the course.
You don’t need Robin to bring in a new viewpoint. We already have Joyce, Joe and Walky three individuals who all come from viewpoints that are different then those taught in the class. However none of them have a position of power over there fellow students. And again: nothing that Robin has said here brings any further insight then a video would bring.
Whats been shown in previous classes is that they aren’t speaking in hypothetical. All of the discussions so far have brought very personnel experiences to the classroom. Further so far the class has not been “strategies to educate the ignorant” the only educating of the ignorant has been educating the students. To use one of your previous analogies would you have a 100 level student conduct a chemistry experiment on the level of a professional chemist?
I am not in fact implying that one can never have a useful discussion with a politicians. I am however saying that students who do not have all of the basics of gender studies down have a discussion with a someone who has no interest in an honest debate and who is going out of her way to pick the students she doesn’t think will challenge her ideas anyway is not particularly useful. Remember what Robin said to the first question went completely unchallenged and from Roz’s response to Leslie they had already covered what was wrong with her logic in the text.
You seem to be under the imprison that they are having an experience that will make them dig deeper. But the only person who was digging deeper was Joyce someone who would have been defending her earlier in the comic and whose changes have largely been the result of interactions outside of class. Peyton did not debate Robin’s points, and robin managed to sidetrack Dorothy from the question she planned to ask.
Leslie brought Robin in for her own personal reasons unrelated to the students needs or education. Hence why the “discussion” is lacks both moderation or any kind of agenda and Leslie is dressed for a hot date.
Also this is not debate club. Discussion, respectful or not, with a random politician on whatever you or they have their mind on is not a valuable or reasonable “lesson” for a 100 level gender studies class. If this was going to be a valuable experience for the class Leslie and Robin needed to have some kind of plan beyond showing up.
Ugh. Thank you for saying that.
The class is about Gender Studies. The discussion was not.
This makes it not a productive use of class time.
ah, right. good point.
this is totally subjective educational philosophy, but i’ll throw it out there: i personally don’t think it’s so wrong to veer off if the discussion is emotionally vesting. with things like gender studies and how.. umm.. sensitive.. responses can get, it seems like a valuable lesson to see these girls hear legitimately upsetting/bigoted things but still respond with eloquence and respect.
That’s the sort of thing that should be planned out, not done accidentally because you mistakenly trotted a bigot into the classroom.
fair point
seeing as i can’t reply to your other comment, i’ll paste it here and reply:
You keep describing a discussion that was not happening.
There was no substantive discussion worth having, nor was Robin being an “open book”. Joyce got blown off with “your concerns are silly why are you so worried”, Dorothy was directly disrespected, and then Robin started asking for soft questions.
Nothing of value was happening, much less anything relevant to the course.
i’ve already conceded that point.
we were talking about the lessons learned from experiencing the exhibition of bigotry. even if the conversation with robin failed, this is now perfect fodder for the class to have their peer-to-peer discussion that Zatar had suggested as a substitution.
Shammers, you seem to be the only person in that particular portion of this comment chain who was talking about that. Everyone else was talking about the experience the students were actually having/likely to have and whether Leslie should have shown Robin the door or even invited her in the first place. Spending a class period for one or two gaffes of potential value is silly. And if a bigoted politician with any actual convictions had shown up (given its a gender studies class that’s *not happening*) they still would be unlikely to get much more out of them than they could from videos. Probably less.
I’d think LGBT issues are close enough to gender issues (especially the T) that they should have space in a gender studies class.
Or what was the point of Leslie pointing out that Joe and Walky had chosen traditional gender roles in their 15-minute relationship?
Robin’s contribution to that discussion was “my constituent’s bigotry and my reelection are more important than legal protections for LGBT people”.
Not exactly a viewpoint worth bringing into the classroom.
it shows the oppressive machinery at play. that is extremely valuable
The LGBT students don’t need to get that lesson in class.
I agree that LGBT issues are relevant, but its kind of clear that Robin isn’t going to discuss those issues beyond what she said. Which boiled down to: I did it so I could have a chance at another term, and the effects don’t matter to me. Which while it holds some value, doesn’t to the point of being worth bringing her into the class for what is likely a 50min to 1hr 15min class period.
(I don’t really see how the Joe and Walky thing is related to LGBT issues specifically though.)
I have had the good fortune to have government people of various sorts as guest speakers in a couple of my classes, and they were all–in contrast to Robin–competent, coherent, and had interesting (non-insulting) perspectives.
Robin (aside from being obviously fictional) is contributing nothing of worth.
How is Robins conversation respectful? She just stated she doesn’t want to answer any more questions on actual politics as a response to someone’s statement she didn’t like.
also, can we appreciate that we are having a discussion of bigotry and mary’s face is glaring out? lolol
i agree.
gird your loins against the tide of rage, though.
She probably wasn’t even listening at that point.
She brought Robin in because she has the hots for her, not for its educational value. My respect was raised when she asked Robin to leave because this “discussion” seems rather aimless and largely unrelated to the subject matter of the class. Robyn has already stated that she only wants to take “softball” questions, and while I’m sure she’ll gaffe all over the place, this isn’t really an appropriate forum.
see, responses like this “discussion” seems rather aimless and largely unrelated to the subject matter of the class. is a much more valid reason than “it hurt their feelings.”
i respect your response! 🙂
Not hurting people’s feelings is a perfectly valid reason. Only an asshole hurts people’s feelings when there is another way to get the idea across. (Well, sometimes we all act like assholes when angry, but the point is, we acted like assholes.)
Not that feelings is the issue. This was about bigotry, not feelings. Not having a bigot come speak bigoted things is a perfectly reasonable thing. You don’t see her letting Joe say bigoted things in class.
That’s not what she’s there for. That’s not the class. Unless the class is some sort of communications class, and the entire point is how to respond to someone who says vile and awful things, there is no reason to let the bigoted person peddle bigotry.
no it IS about hurting people’s feelings. why exactly should we not discuss bigotry in a class? at the base level? is it because it’s not true and shouldn’t be culturally accepted? well that’s for them to decide, now isn’t it? the point of arts classes is that we deal in little-t-truths. and those truths will butt heads with others’ truths.
but past that, you have to let them see it and show the consequences of it. only then will they be able to make a well-formed opinion.
so why else should we not show it? so we don’t cause emotional distress? or is there a third thing i’m not thinking about?
also,
you’re saying a gender studies class shouldn’t show you how to address a situation where someone is saying bigoted things?
nobody is peddling bigotry. it is a discussion. discussions are meant to show two opposing sides. they ask her about policy, she answers with her beliefs. they debate beliefs. that’s a natural chain of events in MANY humanities and social science classes i’ve had.
“Discussing bigotry” and “exhibiting it” are two completely different things. It should definitely be discussed. Exhibited? Not so much.
you would never discuss if it’s never exhibited. you can’t have a true debate with someone of opposing values if they were not exhibiting those values, no? you’d just be discussing with an actor.
Which is what they’re doing. Its been made clear at several points that Robin doesn’t actually have any values, or even much social awareness. She does and says whatever she thinks will win her votes. Which in this case is parroting whatever her constituents believe.
She has no insight to share.
There’s nothing to debate. Bigotry is wrong. The class would discuss bigotry by explaining how to recognize it in yourself and why it is wrong. There would be no advocate for the other side.
The only reason you might call in someone to argue for bigotry is if you were doing some sort of debate/rhetoric class. It’s like asking someone to come in and debate how 2+2=5.
Bigotry is just as wrong as 2+2=5.
You almost got there. No, bigotry isn’t wrong because it hurts people’s feelings. It is indeed untrue and should not be culturally accepted. It is harmful to society as a whole, and causes a lot more hurt than just feelings. It was just pointed out how bigotry allowed a law that left LGBT people homeless. (Don’t know if that’s a real law or not.)
It is sorta up to a culture, but not really. I mean, if a culture allowed rape and murder, would you say “it’s their culture,” or would you try to stop it?
But, ultimately, the culture does make the final decision. But how in the world do you think that is done? It is done like this, by people saying “This is unacceptable” and kicking these people out. Enough people do that, then that becomes the culture.
You can’t say it’s up to the culture and then get upset when the people in that culture are trying to change it.
the culture does make the final decision. But how in the world do you think that is done? It is done like this, by people saying “This is unacceptable” and kicking these people out.
ah, and here it is. the core difference in all the arguments i’ve been making against several people here.
i would disagree that kicking people out is what needs to be done. let me preface by saying that i’ve conceded that dorothy’s conversation was going nowhere, so leslie asking robin to leave was a good idea for that reason.
on the issue of someone saying bigoted things: i think that person can say all those things as long as they are not personally attacking anyone. the discussion ends in two ways: amicably, where they just agree to disagree; or emotionally, where they end up with personal attacks. the latter is when i think forcing someone to leave is warranted.
either way, the class then has a debrief discussion amongst themselves where they talk about things like holes in either side’s arguments, the logic behind the bigoted thoughts. and maybe even why did it get so emotionally intense? why did that force such a break in the intellectual flow?
it’s like going to the gym: you don’t build muscle there. you tear up muscle there. you build muscle in repairing the tears.
i think my entire opinion comes down to this: anyone can think what they want to think, but they can’t suppress the actions and thoughts and speech of others by acting on those opinions.
i think we’ve hit the natural endpoint of our debate, and it’s like 2:30 in the morning here. we’ll have to agree to disagree
thanks for the great discussion and pointing out that thing about veering off! i guess i was a bit blind to it because i do that all the time, lol. have a good night y’all
I dunno. I think encouraging discussion of opposing views is a good ideal, but it doesn’t hold up in practice. Leslie’s job is to teach a curriculum. It wouldn’t make sense for a history teacher to bring in a historical revisionist as a guest speaker, or a chemistry teacher to bring in a homeopath. This isn’t the setup for a fair and balanced discussion; this is a teacher allowing a stranger into her classroom and letting them give lessons to her students that she knows are incorrect.
This. Also note that any discussion with a guest speaker who gets to choose who asks the questions is inherently unequal.
Bigotry is not a mere opinion. Safe spaces aren’t about freedom of speech. That exists everywhere. Safe spaces are about banning bigotry, as a respite from the rest of the world.
It is perfectly acceptable to ban bigotry, not act like it’s something you can learn from. You can’t. It’s bigotry. It’s evil.
classes are not spaces by definition then.
you can learn a lot from bigotry. if you don’t try to understand where the other guy is coming from – why they act and think and say the things they do – how are you any less willfully ignorant than they are?
my understanding of the social sciences and humanities – esp those like gender studies – is to educate and empower people to stop injustice. the first step is educating what the injustices are. the second is to educate why the oppressors think their oppression is justified.
if you know only first, congrats. you can point out flaws. if you know only the second, well you’re probably a bigot. if you know both, well now you have a real means for change.
They very much can be safe spaces, and often are. That doesn’t mean that bigotry and such won’t be discussed when it’s appropriate to the lesson, but most teachers do not allow bigotry in their classroom.
Your idea of what a humanities class is is not accurate. It is the study of human culture. It is not some recruiting drive for an organization. Like most classes, is a place where knowledge that others have acquired is disseminated to others.
What is taught in a gender studies class is the research that has been done on gender. Yes, some of that may include actually talking with actual sexists and finding out what they think–but that’s going to be done by surveys and not in an attempt to convert anyone. And it’s quite unlikely that the students will need to do that research.
It’s possible they would have a project about asking other people what it means to be a man/woman/etc and then discuss it in class.
Humanities classes are not activism.
This is a weird tangent for people to go on when Robin’s been dodging meaningful questions and is currently fielding one that, as far as anyone else knows, is trivial.
Yeah. Thats why a lot of the people in this thread are annoyed. A hypothetical non-extant highly unlikely experience is being defended.
It’s unlikely in that a speaker would be better vetted in the first place, but there’s politicians that would flounder almost this badly (except for the part where they nakedly admit they don’t care and just want votes).
True. But I was talking about Robin providing the experience being defended specifically.
Leslie isn’t against confronting things, it’s just she only confronts things she disagrees with. She’s one them, what you you call it… hypocrites.
Yeah, that’s the word. Hypocrite.
How is it hypocritical to only confront the things you disagree with?
If you don’t have a quarrel with something, what reason is there to start a confrontation?
….so your argument is she agrees with what Robin was saying before?
I’m suddenly dying to know his name. DOES HE HAVE A NAME????!
Yes. His name is Kyle. (click on the tag “congressional aide”, then look for the comic that takes place at dawn with an airplane in the first panel)
Robin doesn’t care.
Thank you! I feel like having someone do easy research for me has given me some small insight into what it must be like to have an aide.
Does it count if you then ignore the research and just use the aide to give direction because you can’t be bothered to figure out how to interact with the public on your own?
Your name is Archivist, how did you not do that yourself? Why do you not live up to your name?
I should clarify that this is meant as a joke in good humor. Sometimes that doesn’t translate well and sometimes that’s my fault for saying something stupid.
Oh my god, you’re right. I’ve completely failed to carry out the implied mission statement of my screenname. I am shamed. This is a dark day. Have I forgotten my original purpose? I need to go on a vision quest.
Yes, and his name is John Cena *Do Do Do Do~*
You can’t see me, My time is now!
NOT ENOUGH CENA
Damn you Bean!
Where’s Joe? I don’t see him but he’s tagged.
On the right side of panel 1 (behind Dorothy’s left shoulder). Yes, it’s just part of his arm/shoulder. That’s how it works, sometimes.
I’m reminded of that time in Shortpacked! Willis confirmed Historical Jesus as not-straight by tagging a tiny glimpse of his arm.
Given Robin’s general cluelessness, Dorothy would probably be better off talking to
congressional aideKyle, who might at least be able to point to Frieda as being the local contact, and who might be sufficiently on the ball to have contact information for the interns.Nice job breaking it, Leslie.
…. I mean I can’t blame her for breaking it off there, unless it’s to say she should have broken it off earlier, but still…
Okay, opening a vote up to the floor here. Did Leslie end this too early, or too late?
dangit les.
Dorothy is ON THE CA- DAMMIT LESLIE
I’m proud of Leslie for managing to do that, but at the same time she just had to have the worst possible timing, didn’t she?
Dammit Leslie could you have waited just one minute more?
DAMN IT
If only they were so easy to get rid of in real life.
Here are my thoughts so far about the safe space argument:
Safe spaces in and of themselves aren’t inherently a terrible idea. There is definitely a reason why there are all-women college, historically black colleges, etc. That exist. It’s important to be able to be freely exist in a space with people like you, so you can let your guard down and discuss things you might not be able to with other people. If you couldn’t, it would definitely be detrimental to your health.
That being said, having recently graduated from such a liberal college, I think that the idea of trigger warnings and the like have become bastardized to the point where people use it so often for every single context, that it has lost its true meaning. The original intent was for people who actually are capable of being triggered, like people with PTSD and other forms of actual trauma.
However, I noticed over my time there that it eventually became synonymous with “I don’t like what you have to say/I’m not interested in your opinion.” It became an easy way to explain what in reality is being narrow minded, while people who actually could use trigger warnings and safe spaces were worse off because now no one takes them seriously now. There should be no tolerance for students hurting their classmates or professors being hurtful as well, have rules for respect.
I have read a great article that also pointed out that mental health services are lacking, so students turn to school structure (they shouldn’t – professors are not trained to deal with a lot of these problems, the schools need more mental health professionals, and the structure is not conductive to well-being, but that’s a 20 page paper for later) to help them deal with their issues. I might sound callous there, but the reality is that these students (like myself at the time) will need to learn to cope in college, and they’ll likely be needing to cope with these issues when they leave (like me right now) – hold the school accountable for exacerbating these issues (like not punishing rapists and abusers) and hold the school accountable for providing services and safe spaces.
But in terms of academics, we can’t change what the Nazis did or what the Civil Rights Movement actually was like. We can and should never re-write history to make people more comfortable with it. No one should have to take the class if they really don’t want to, but they should know the importance of these things. I took several classes about Nazism, and there were definitely times I had to step out the classroom.
I have read that some students have even called for censorship of material taught in class, which is utterly ridiculous and backwards for a number of reasons. One of the pros of going to college on a liberal campus is being exposed to different ideals. You are supposed to debate. You are going to be reading things that might not immediately interest you or make you feel great. You are supposed to disagree with people – and there will definitely be people in life that you’ll disagree with at best.
You cannot expand your mind if you never have new experiences, like meeting people or reading books or media and the like. It has always worked that way, and it won’t change. If you surround yourself with people who think like you 24/7, then you’re not actually learning much, since it’s the same thing every time.
Practically speaking, how can you claim yourself to be a champion for justice and the like without actually exposing yourself to it, if you won’t read about it or listen or talk to someone or experience it for yourself? This is how you get people posting inaccurate information on Facebook and things like that, speaking in generalized terms and without context – there is a context for everything. And when you lack that information and don’t want to learn more about it, what do you do? You make assumptions, and assumptions breed uninformed decisions and opinions that affect people.
Example:
Myth: White slave-owning women in America were nice to their slaves because they knew what it was like to be oppressed by their white male counterparts.
Fact: It was utterly and completely normal for whites to think of blacks as cattle. Women participated in the punishment of slaves as well, and used slaves to run their households. The relationship between white women and black women was even more interesting and complex, because many white women saw black women, who were in reality often sexual slaves as well, as competition for the attention of their husbands, just one example. Totally fucked, but it’s the truth.
Source: Narratives like incidents in the life of a slave girl, 12 years a slave, diaries of slave-owning women, etc.
This is why history is important to learn. We are doomed to repeat the past if we can’t even talk about it. This is why people should learn current events and discuss it- and read it from all angles, read a biography of the same person from more than one author – don’t just read one version of it and assume it to be completely true, absolutely. This absolutism has also contributed to past election because rather than dealing in realities, we steeped ourselves in intellectualism so pure that in truth, no candidate could have met the standards that a lot of people really couldn’t even put into words. “not bigoted” is legitimate, but plain “likability” has nothing to do with doing a job. It’s about WHY you don’t like someone. Get down to the bottom of it, and then create a PRACTICAL and reasonable solution. This is what it means to research, to investigate, and practice critical thinking.
This “liberal bubble” is what I think in part what contributed to the election of Trump – we as a group surrounded ourselves with the same kind of people, we eventually began to think everywhere is like where we were, and in addition we forgot the history. We forgot it – better put, many of us didn’t want to hear and see the truth – and we fell asleep and bickered amongst ourselves which candidate was better or would have won or whatever as if the alternative was a decent opponent, and we let that opportunity slip through our fingers. Not all of us, but a lot of us did. And we’re still bickering about it. This is why the right prevailed – they had massive turnout, while we basically fell apart after the primaries.
It is also the “conservative bubble” that allows people in that group to remain close minded and ignorant, and react violently to any sign of change. People are so steeped in their world, they don’t know or want any other way to live. It happens on both sides, really.
We can’t have these kids going to college and not learning anything else. It’s not even just about exposure to a world outside of 22 years of schooling. It’s about learning about what you really care about, getting closer to who you are as a person. it’s about teaching people to really work their brains and use them. It’s about cooperative living and mutual respect, it’s about realizing that people are complex, and it’s about learning to recognize the signs that things are not right and being quick enough to nip it in the bud. The most the classroom can do to achieve that is provide the kids with information and foster honest and respectful discussion.
Wow, that was much longer than I thought it was, sorry guys!
I think it was well-written, and I generally agree with you.
yeah. the word “safe spaces” is becoming a bit ambiguous.
one side is arguing the echo chamber side of it. the other, the nurturing side of it.
sigh. precision of language would solve so many problems.
It was all worth saying. I hope people read it.
I haven’t been on campus in a minute, so I wasn’t going to comment on current implementation, but yes, at the end of the day this shit needs to be discussed. There’s nothing wrong with students stepping out. It might cost them points, but they’re allowed to make that trade for their mental health. Going much further actually is eroding part of the value. As absurd as it was to hear stupid shit like “O.J. Simpson manipulated a tiny legal loophole to go free”, or ‘reverse racism is why you’re here.’, there is little way to avert that and still keep the often-inflammatory truth available for students.
Like, a warning doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It’s rather the point of the warning, in this case.
I agree. This is why actual safe spaces, like Black student unions and women’s clubs are necessary – in the cases like you described, these spaces allow students to mentor each other and process the world they learn about outside in a supportive environment.
I will point out, though, that it’s extremely unlikely any of this had strongly to do with Trump’s election. It’s barely been what, 5 years? Since the concept was codified? Not a whole lot of 23 year olds vote in the best of times. And I doubt the implementation is that bad as a rule.
Further, the ‘conservative bubble’ is maintained by geography. check the maps – it was the rural places that voted Trump in like this, for the most part. It’s a lot easier to think of latin@s as rapists or sex weirdoes as horribly immoral when you can drive down the street for a few minutes and get cheerfully served good (cheap) food by someone who looks like me but has just as much (or more, given my slight southern drawl) of a midwestern accent as I do. It’s a lot harder when Castro is a 10 minute drive and you can see the sex weirdoes in their habitat.
The bubble conservatives live in is geographical, first and foremost. They may still be assholes if they’re in a city, but they’re not as removed from the ‘other side’ when they basically have to confront us to get gas. I think you’re really misattributing a /lot/ to college, based purely off of your experience at one. These aren’t long standing policies that have had time to produce that kind of broad reach. They /could/ contribute, but they wouldn’t be driving it primarily at all.
I should have been more specific – I don’t believe the concept of bubbling ourselves in started at college, I was just speaking to the discussion of today’s comic at first cause it takes place at a university and other people in the comments were speaking to the college context.
When I move on to speak about the bubble, I realize the concept of bubbling ourselves in with people who look and think exactly like us and rejecting all else existed long before there was a name to it. Additionally, safe spaces have also existed long before people put a name to it, the same way feminism wasn’t invented in the 19th century.
The bubble that conservatives live in is geographical, but remember that that is not entirely on accident. POC, for a very long time and even now, were not allowed to live in those areas and/or were driven away from them, because whites wanted to surround themselves with other whites who were just like them. Another name for the rise of suburbia is “the white flight”. Cities have long been places where poor of all colors and POC congregated to live.
And yet, POCs have historically taken on subservient roles, gone out to these places to work as maids or butlers or nannies. Even if POCs interact as workers, it’s still very easy to think less of them when that’s literally the only way you interact with them. When I think about the bubble I emphasize the willfulness of it, the inability to see the reality of the world around you – even if you’re surrounded by it everyday.
I do think that the inability to see the reality around us caused people to underestimate the potential of a Trump win. A lot of people didn’t want to hear that he should be taken seriously as a threat, a lot didn’t want to hear that a presidency underneath him and his cronies would ultimately be worse than a Clinton presidency, and a lot of folks still haven’t accepted that Sanders had lost the primaries. And then of course, there was the dreaded, “I live around tolerant people, why should we worry at all about the millions of intolerant white people who want to take our rights away? I’m staying at home, cause Clinton’ll win anyway.” Meanwhile these white folk were collectively mobilizing for their candidate. As it relates to the “bubble” concept – if you surround yourself with people who think like you and refuse to see the truth or anything different from what you want to see, you’ll miss a lot of things. I agree with you that a lot more had to do with it, but I think this is a relevant issue. This is just my experience, but especially now that he’s released his plans for the first 100 days in office, I’ve seen that it’s really beginning to sink in for a lot of the people I know who chose not to vote or voted 3rd party basically they didn’t think to care enough about the alternative. And people are still claiming that the outcome had nothing to do with race – as they live in liberal areas, why should they have thought the larger US was any different? But they lost sight of the bigger picture.
I don’t really see how that the unwillingness to hear about uncomfortable topics that leads to “safe spaces” as a concept becoming a hinderance has much to do with what you’re referring to. There’s a difference between avoiding anything that makes you anxious or stressed and being blind to the existence of troubling situations or their effects on you. To avoid something you have to know it exists, and to avoid something to the point that you aren’t willing to learn about it even where appropriate you have to see it as a threat. I avoid listening to bigots at all because it makes me angry and depressed and I already am prepared to act against them. I avoid concepts and situations that disturb me because there is either little I can or little I am willing to do about them, but being exposed to the zaps me of the energy I need to do what I can about other issues.
Being too comfortable and fleeing things that you know make you uncomfortable can go hand in hand, but aren’t married situations. Maybe your experience is different, but when I see people complain of being “triggered” or promoting a “safe space” from certain subjects or images its usually in an attempt to manage their own adverse emotional response (rage, fear, anxiety, etc.). They don’t want to talk about it because they know it exists and feel like they have no control over it, which is concerning but doesn’t generally lead to voting Green Party. Naivety does. People who don’t realize that the world outside of them contains lots of people who are dangerous don’t tend to spend a lot of time hiding from it. As for those who don’t vote, that apathy can come from one of two places: belief that their vote won’t count (saw a lot of that on both sides of the color wheel), or not caring enough about the outcome. The people who believe their vote won’t count tend to be cynical, which comes from awareness of their situation. The people who don’t care are comfortable enough to let others fight instead for a reason, the scariest parts of the results don’t directly effect them. The house across the street is on fire, and while that might be sad they (presumably) will still have a place to live. NTM the people who just couldn’t vote for various reasons.
I’m definitely not saying you have to put yourself in traumatic situations, I said specifically in my experience people were using it to shut others down and not listen to other’s opinions beside their own. Like they would participate, and then give their opinion, and then if somebody else’s opinion was different it was like they didnt want to hear it and used it as an excuse – not evryone of course, but like I said it became bastardized. People used it for every reason. There were many classroom sessions where basically all everyone did was agree with each other while anyone with contrary opinions just kept their mouths shut to avoid being jumped on. Let me be clear – someone having a different opinion than you is not the same as them dehumanizing you or being a bigot or a jerk, but a lot of these same kids thought so.
It’s my experience that people who I knew who voted third party didn’t care who Trump was. They knew – and everyone knew – just listen to a single sound bite, he wasnt this elusive character – and just didn’t care
They underestimated him, and maybe some people really were naive, but they underestimated him nonetheless. Cynicism comes froma sort of awareness you are correct, but that relates to what I was saying in that sometimes it can be half-baked because you don’t completely understand what’s at stake. Same for the people who dont care. That’s why I said it’s important to learn history, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Regardless of the reason, half of voters decided to stay home. We have a problem of people not participating . And the end result is kinda the same, not matter the reasoning people wanna give. A lot of people are totally fucked because not enough people cared enough to include them in their bubble, their sphere of thinking.
I guess that was my roundabout way of trying to relate why it’s detrimental to stick your head in the sand, which like you said is very different from protecting yourself. After all, most kids who come to college are a reflection of their geographical environment most of the time.
I think that people tend to keep people alike themselves round them has no bearing at all on the discussion of safe spaces. It is a general human condition to want to be validated and not in constant strife with the people around you, to have people with whom you cooperate to win goals you cannot reach on your own (even simple things like giving a hand at putting heavy furniture in a different room).
To my mind, a “safe space” is a space that people create on purpose to create a respite for people who are harressed in a lot of ways on a daily basis. A space where the people who create it make the rules that certain common but harassing behavior is not accepted and people acting that way are warned and (if they continue) excluded.
Women’s spaces were created for just that purpose: to have spaces were you’d get a respite from everyday sexism in all its forms and power up again. To gain energy for the fight to change the society which accepted it, to try and create groups that worked differently.
I just read a study that most people simple assume that the people they like have similar attitudes to life (and politics) than they do, and are often quite disturbed when they find out differently.
We all deserve to be validated and safe in our lives. Danger is part of life, but if you are permanently threatened and or devaluated (they go hand in hand) this takes a heavy toll on body and mind.
We need to create spaces where we feel safe and at home AND we need to keep the ability to look and relate to what is happening outside of the places and groups where we feel at home.
That last part is what I was getting at- I said in my first comment that safe spaces are absolutely necessary.a nd I agree – I do think it’s human nature to want to be around people who are like you. However, there’s a difference between that and actively segregating yourself from others – as we’ve seen in the history of a lot these geographical places people were referring to. Yeah, they’re geographical, but marginalized groups have been harassed and killed because they’ve wanted to exist in places like that and the dominant culture said no. The dominant culture has placed itself in a bubble and won’t tolerate anyone elses existence – and now they want to expand that bubble and take away people’s rights.
Yeah, it’s hard to talk about them just being “geographical” when you look into the history of sunset towns and later white flight. It’s geographical, but so much of the demographic geography of this country is driven by racism, historical and to this very day.
I also wouldn’t put is so much as “expand that bubble and take away people’s rights”, as now they’re seeing that bubble encroached on and they just want to go back to the way things were. Which seems normal because of the bubble, but does involved taking away rights or not expanding rights that were never really there in the first place.
^This.
Just to clarify the “^This.” was posted as a response to Lailah.
White-washing history benefits abusers in the short-term, and no one in the long run.
I think I said that right…
Congressional aide, thank you for your time and for coming. Good luck with his campaign. He might become a half-hearted gesture to Robin, but to Leslie she’s the one who isn’t there any more.
Yeah, nice catch. I didn’t even see that on the first read.
Leslie what the fuck we were so close !
Goddammit, Leslie, that question was IMPORTANT!
DOTTY YOU GO AFTER THAT CONGRESSWOMAN RIGHT NOW AND GET THE SWEET DEETS
But yeah, when the prospective booty call goes way off rails it’s best to shut it down. This being Leslie though, I’m sure she’s learned a thing or two about it now.
I wouldn’t be too fast to discard any future endeavors between her and Robin though. Might take time.
Re: Kyle
Having flashbacks to Kelso here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efndBfXHPxs
Actually, I think Leslie probably saw what Dorothy was getting at and shut it down before she could inadvertently trigger Joyce and/or out Joyce as being a rape victim to Robin, Aide/You, and anyone in the class who didn’t already know about it.
Only flaw with that theory is that Leslie is one of the people in the class who doesn’t already know about it.
Oh, I thought she knew. Still, Leslie is the one who pointed out where Ryan slipped out of the building to Sal and Amazi-Girl, so I’m pretty sure she still got the gist of what was Dorothy was getting at and stopped her before she did something well-intentioned, but rash or ill-timed.
Is this the end of us seeing Robin, for the moment?
If so… I’m kind of glad… but… kind of sad. :/ TBH, the last few pages have been painfully real for me. They’ve hurt like hell.
But right now, surrounded by people who want to smooth things over, sweep things under the rug, pretend things won’t be so bad and try to ignore the *actual* danger I and others are in? I really think we all need more painfuly real things to remind us of what we’re facing. :/
…But fun happy comics are also good, and sometimes needed, if we’re moving on to less serious things. DX
It’s like she is… unconsciously awful. It’s like she is going through life waving her fists around, punching people at random and asking “What? Did I do something?”
All you peeps getting on Leslie’s case for interrupting Dorothy’s investigation should probably keep in mind that this is Robin we’re talking about.
The only people she’s called by name in the entire comic are her opponent, her sister, and, once, the Dean. Leslie has continued to be “Teach”, even after inviting Robin to call her “Leslie”. Robin’s 24×7 handler has just been demoted from “aide” to “you”. And her introduction to her army of unpaid interns did not actually include being, y’know, introduced to them. There is no way that she actually knows Ryan’s name.
Huh. That hadn’t even occurred to me. Good point.
“once, the Dean” — um, she called him ‘Deany’.
In their very first appearance, she called him “Anthony”. And then she dropped her grown-up disguise and started calling him “Deany” and “Mr. Dean” and so on.
Robin might manage to get access to personnel records, though. But that’s all moot. Leslie has no idea of the particulars of the situation – with what she knows, the likely conclusion she draws is that Dorothy is romantically/sexually interested in one of Robin’s campaigners, so she cut the whole situation short.
Or Kyle might just know, especially once he figures out which intern Dorothy’s talking about. Mind you, he probably shouldn’t answer in that case.
But yeah, there really aren’t a lot of contexts in which Dorothy’s question is acceptable and the actual truth is one of the least likely. Not that I think Leslie is focused enough to be interrupting Dorothy’s question specifically rather than just finally giving up enough to boot Robin out the door.
The thing with Dumbingverse Robin is that she’s a complete and total narcissist. Self-centered, filtering the people she allows around her for people who will praise her and cheer her, trying to filter what the people around her say so that it’s only praise and approval or invitations for her to earn that praise and approval. We’ve seen it all along, but this particular scene in this particular classroom has put it more clearly on display than ever.
Is it WRONG that she wants that kind of affirmation? No. It’s not greatly laudable, but it’s not intrinsically wrong in its own right. I even sympathize a bit.
What she does to get it, and how she shuts down and dehumanizes both the people around her and large swathes of society in general in order to get it? That IS wrong.
I feel like there could be a great villain origin story here, about how she came to seek validation through those particular means.
she probably thought, “Freshman fresh out of highschool. should be easy enough with no hard questions because people in this area at this age haven’t likely had any hard times.”
little did she expect a world by willis. yay willis!
Peyton: “Um… I actually had another que… OK, never mind, I guess.”
Bailey?
“It’s not related to politics, I promise” – because that is of course a promise that has to be made when you ask a politician a question in the middle of a campaign.
Of course, Dorothy is more goal oriented than me, but I still regret we didn’t get to see more of Keener awesomeness.
I’ve got a feeling that the class will be cut short today so Leslie can possibly have a long shower or maybe even sit in a corner and mourn her broken heart. I can’t honestly say that I blame her.
Robin’s visits tend to cut classes short.
But they are sure educational.
It really seems like she didn’t plan the classroom sessions itself out at all. I’m not sure why she thought Robin would be any different than she is – perhaps because she was infatuated with her.
Yes. She thought less in terms of “classroom session” and more in terms of “seduction”
She might have reconsidered the wisdom of that.
Some classroom prep would not have gone amiss.
I’m surprised that Robin did no asked for a list of questions before hand.
Still, at least we know Leslie’s backstory is (almost) identical to Becky’s.
I hope Joyce picked up on that.
Well, Robin doesn’t do prep work – though you’d think Kyle would have.
And Leslie wasn’t thinking about the actual class, so she didn’t do any.
Pretty sure Roz convinced her to do it from what the last page implied.
Do what, have Robin in class? Because Leslie was the one that asked Roz to get her in…http://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/02-i-was-a-teenage-churchmouse/gag/
And that’s another partial answer to the discussion above: With proper setup and with Leslie actually focused and leading the discussion, there could have been something to learn from talking to even a politician like Robin. With her ceding control and letting things flounder there was nothing worthwhile to be gained.
We’ve learned that some politicians will pander and throw LGBTQ people under the bus for political gain. What a revelation.
It’s a revelation for Joyce, and any other students in the class as insulated as her. So there’s that, at least.
Her best friend’s dad came to campus with a gun and kidnapped her to take her to a conversion camp.
What exactly is this new thing you think she’s going to learn here?
That the problem extends from her family, local church and into politics?
We also learn that Leslies’ back story isn’t that dissimilar to Becky’s, although that is incidental. Still not sure whether or not Joyce heard her.
News to me.
Well shoot, two steps back until Ryan Scarface gets caught.
Nice plot block, Leslie.
She invited a Congresswoman and literally told her to leave before two minutes had passed.
Leslie, you are one shit teacher.
See, the first question Robin got was on point and interesting and worth discussing in class.
Robin’s reaction to it was “can I have a question NOT from someone who seems to know how local law protection works?”
Then she stated that she wanted to hear out Dorothy explicitly because Dorothy is not one of the minorities she’s hurting with her platform, and when Dorothy pointed out that she still experiences racism, started complaining that the conversation failed to meet a treschold of not being about Nazis, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS THE ONE TO BRING UP RACE IN THE FIRST PLACE
this ‘discussion’ was already a trainwreck, and from observable trends it was only going to get worse, owing exclusively to Robin putting her foot in her mouth in ways that are not appropriate / expected of a congresswoman
Leslie was completely right to shut it down, even though her timing – in the middle of someone asking a question – was not impeccable.
That said, Leslie was still the one who brought Robin in, which was probably a bad idea from the beginning. Yeah, that first question was interesting, but considering who Robin is it should be obvious it would eventually degenerate into some nonsense sooner or latter. Leslie was right to shut the thing down at that point, but she was wrong in starting it to begin with.
That’s harsh and unfair, Leslie is/was completely besotted by Robin to such an extent that she could ignore her policies and voting record. I mean you could check every panel but specifically the first panel to see how bad it was: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-7/01-glower-vacuum/phresh/
She invited Robin to see if she could get it on with her but it would/should have provided an informative lesson for everyone in the class so its not a bad thing on Leslies part
Once Leslie saw that it was going to only go downhill and do nothing but upset people she shut it down, theres still a lot the class can discuss after all
Leslie was obviously wasn’t thinking with her brain at the start but she’ll probably learn form the experience and maybe the class will as well
What if the guy Robin calls her aide is actually her opponent in the race. He’s been following her around spying on her and she doesn’t even know.
Her opponent has been namechecked as Jake Manley, and her aide’s name (according to intrepid archive-divers) is Kyle. Jake Manley has yet to show up onscreen in this comic.
This is an example of why Leslie shouldn’t do wacky hijinks.
And she buttoned up her shirt. Oh, Leslie.
She buttoned it up a few strips ago apparently, when Robin was being grilled. I failed to notice it until now, too.
Random question, but I just read an article on Cracked
http://www.cracked.com/article_24374_5-real-towns-that-lived-out-horror-movie-plots.html
and number one is about a town with a bunch of landmarks that share it’s name with a Shortpacked! character. Did Willis name him after the town or was this just really weird parallel thinking? O_O
sorry! sorry, i’m sorry, sorry
Mei? What are you doing here?
Leslie breaking up Robin’s guest lecture also sounds like a preemptive break-up with Robin.
Well, she only looked at, and spoke with, Robin’s intern. She couldn’t even look Robin in the face.
*wonders if her aide’s name was Adrian and until now had assumed she’d been calling him byy the shortend form of his name…*