SFP

sfp 6 131 for web

Show Comments
  • Hiram

    Being a strong cup of tea has to be the only thing keeping her awake at this point.

    • Lysiuj

      She should try being a strong cup of coffee instead…

      • Tylikcat

        I don’t know, warm milk, shot of brandy optional, might not be a bad thing?

        • Loranna

          *imagines Alison now as a cup of warm milk, with a shot of brandy optional*

          *wonders if including the optional shot of brandy would significantly impact Alison’s relationship with Feral*

          *thinks she may have taken the metaphor to places that were better left unspoken >.>*

          Loranna

          • Weatherheight

            Wait? Who’s Brandi?

            The sailors say, Brandi, you’re a fine girl…

  • Danygalw

    He wanted to lose his job. He wanted to have an excuse to lose his job.

    • Christophe2314

      Actually, I don’t think he did. He would have lost had he picked the black stone while Al picked the white stone. If everyone picks the black stone, everyone wins. That was the whole point.

      • MisterTeatime

        I think that’s Danygalw’s point- if Gurwara picked the white stone, his job would be safe no matter what, but the black stone carried the risk of losing his job depending on Alison’s move. He picked the black stone knowing that, therefore he was OK with that risk- therefore either he trusted Alison to avoid forcing him to quit, or he wouldn’t have minded if he had to quit.

        • Shjade

          I think that if Alison had chosen the white stone, he wouldn’t have felt he could teach her anything. So in that sense, yes, he was ready to quit.

        • Rosensweig

          I was thinking the same thing.

          Something doesn’t add up here, for the professor. He claims to have been shocked that she chose the black stone. If he really was expecting her to choose white, that means he was planning to lose his job. So, either he WANTED to lose his job, or he was only feigning surprise and trusted all along that Alison would choose white.

          I suppose there are also a couple other theoretical possibilities, but I don’t take either of these seriously: The sleight of hand thing someone else (maybe jokingly?) suggested above, or that he didn’t actually intend to follow through with his promise if he “lost”.

          • Weatherheight

            Feigning surprise seems more consistent with this whole conversation. Arjun has been being bit dramatic (when not overly dramatic) from the beginning. Also more in keeping with the first encounter in the class.

            Then again, I’m a donkey – what do I know? πŸ˜€

      • Danygalw

        Yeah, and he was expecting her to pick white.

  • Lysiuj

    It’s not just about what you do, it’s also about why you do it. (One of the best lessons The Wheel Of Time taught me.)
    You can change and still make the same choice.

  • Lysiuj

    Something Ididn’t think of, and apparently niether did Alison.
    Last time John “lost” but Arjun stll gave him the opportunity to simply work for his grade. Couldn’t that have happened this time too? One or both of them put down white but John doesn’t get an automatic F?

    • Tylikcat

      In the classroom exercise, yes.

  • Huttj509

    You can’t trust everyone to be on board with what you feel is right. Someone will always disagree, whether from ignorance, disagreement in philosophy, or just being a jerk. But this isn’t everyone Professor, this is me and you, and on that scale there can be trust and teamwork towards the good of all.

    • Lysiuj

      The game hinges on a situation it presents, where everyone needs to both risk and cooperate to get a good result for all. In reality we don’t need everyone to agree, it’s enough that some do in order to work together for something good.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Especially when in the real world, there’s a portion of the population that will never agree no matter the circumstances. So, we’ll just have to make their lives better even if we have to drag them kicking and screaming the entire way.

        • James Chen

          Onward! To the century of the fruitbat!

    • juleslt

      Beautifully put, Huttj509

    • andrew

      well said! If they don’t use that next page it will be a criminal misuse of resources.

  • Choosing to be nice puts you in a position of vulnerability. But sometimes it’s worth it.

  • Ganurath

    I suppose he feels that he could bet his career on her making the smart choice when faced with the prisoner’s dilemma.

  • Giacomo Bandini

    The Lesson is: get to know, to truly know, the world who is around you. Build trust and understanding.

  • Spectacles

    Really, this is the greatest lesson I think Gurwara could hope to teach.

    True, everyone is in it for their own reasons… but I don’t think it’s entirely for different reasons. Not 100%. That doesn’t mean it can’t come to the same conclusion. Maybe Alison’s conclusion is simply more accepting of a broader scope, now that she had experienced it for herself. Maybe when everyone has their own reasons towards a certain goal, it’s a stronger bond toward achieving said goal.

    I already expect there will be contention against this idea. I can’t really express everything I want to in such a short amount of text, but my general feeling is towards that Alison had grown from her experience. Not that she has compromised her ideals–simply that she now sees them in a different context.

  • Carl

    I like the characterization here–in particular, the fact that Allison (like me) saw right through Gurwara’s overacting and knew perfectly well what stone he was going to reveal (and became impatient when he tried to draw out the moment too long). Nice work.

  • Smithy

    The lesson here is you cannot expect strangers or poorly aware individuals to make the right decision, just because it’s the right decision.
    But you can should count on those you’ve talked with and trust to make it.

  • Stephanie

    Since John was already not getting an automatic F, does this mean he now gets the automatic A instead of “whatever grade he earns”?

    • Insanenoodlyguy

      You realize that nobody is getting the automatic A, right? That was never an actual thing.

      • Stephanie

        I’m not going to “realize” that unless and until it’s actually confirmed in the comic, no. Gurwara has neither said nor done a single thing to contradict his original claim that students who put down white stones receive an automatic A.

        • Insatiable Booksluts

          It’s still reasonable to assume that a college professor would use that more as an example than an actual metric for grading the class. I feel like his department would probably have some things to say about giving everyone an automatic A or F based on a teaching exercise.

          • Stephanie

            I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be absurd and worthy of a warning from the department head. But so far he’s done nothing but double down on it.

          • Stephanie Gertsch

            Yeah, it’s stupid but so far no one from inside the school or outside has mentioned that grading doesn’t work that way. So we kind of have to roll with the premise.

          • Strictly speaking, he could get away with grading that way for literally everyone in his class except for John; everyone else had a fair choice, after all, even if the choice presented was (in my opinion) stupid.

            Incidentally, I kind of felt like the Professor’s choice was inevitable, since (from his POV) his winning and losing was entirely dependent on how Alison chose: if she had chosen white, he would have failed (as a teacher) regardless of how he selected.

          • Stephanie Gertsch

            I think the reason people object to the grades being used as leverage is because while teachers can deduct grades for disruptive behavior with fair warning, it’s highly unusual to make an entire semester’s grades depend on a single class exercise. It’s wasting your students’ time when they and their parents are the ones paying.

          • No doubt. Speaking as a teacher, I would expect to get raked over the coals if I ever attempted to do something like that, myself. Having said that, though, I still absolutely have the right to- teachers have an incredible amount of discretion when it comes to assigning grades, even in objective disciplines. The amount of discretion available in subjective disciplines is staggering.

            The reason Gurwara could get away with assigning grades that way is pretty simple, actually: NO ONE was forced to take a failing grade (with the exception of John- and his failing grade was rescinded before he left the class). The students were told the parameters and given a choice and, based on the outcomes, it can be reasonably concluded that the students all understood the significance of playing a black stone or a white stone.

            Now, just to reiterate: personally, I think the exercise (as conducted) is dumb; if he actually did go through with the threat to fail anyone who played a black stone unless everyone played a black stone, he would probably not be asked back next semester. If he was tenured, he would be given a non-teaching position with considerably fewer benefits and pay, but he would not be brought back into the classroom. Given that Gurwara seems to enjoy teaching, I cannot believe he would actually follow through on the threat. Given that the exercise most likely has no real teeth, it seems unlikely that even gullible freshman would be fooled enough to really care, and the most you’d get out of it is a thought experiment twisted by expectations of social pressures.

          • Stephanie Gertsch

            Yes, I was surprised how literally all the characters seemed to take the exercise. I was half-expecting someone to say to Allison, “Um, do you think maybe it was a joke? I think the university would frown on students being failed from a class they paid for on the first day in a totally arbitrary exercise.” But all the interactions since the classroom scene operate on the premise that Allision failed a class and she’s bummed about it and other people give her advice based on that.

            So I was like, “So does this take place in the God’s Not Dead universe?”

          • Beroli

            Unless I’m forgetting something, the only other person she unambiguously told Gurwara had failed her was Daniel, whose knowledge of how the school system works is limited and who thought she should deal with being angry at Gurwara by killing him. All she told Max was that someone was very prepared to take her argument apart.

          • Stephanie Gertsch

            Page 54: “Technically I’ve failed the frickin’ class.” πŸ˜› (To which Max responds sympathetically.)

          • Beroli

            But he didn’t ask for details.

            …Not that I’d trust his opinion on whether she’d actually failed the class any more than I would Daniel’s: he likely knows as little about the school system, for an antipodal reason.

          • Stephanie Gertsch

            I would probably view him as more likely to complain about perceived unfair treatment than Daniel (especially as at this point he’s still pulling out all stops to please Allison), but like I said everyone in this universe is operating on “God’s Not Dead” logic.

            We sort of have to build on what characters say and do to figure out the rules of this world. The teacher told Allison he failed her twice (when they met up in the park he doubled down on the game having real consequences), Allison told two other people the story and they accepted it at face value, and no one else in the class or in the school tried to contact her to get her to return to class.

            The only reason to believe he was joking is that he let another student off and people who like the character don’t want to believe he’d be that harsh to his class.

            Without a character such as the President of the school saying what he
            did was against the rules, I honestly am not sure what other conclusion
            to draw. The writers did a good job making the situation clear. I don’t know how else to explain except…read the text again?

        • Insanenoodlyguy

          Yet he has already contradicted his stance on the black stones. It seems unlikely to the point of reasonable assumption that this very good teacher is not in fact a horrible one.

          • Stephanie

            You’re welcome to your assumptions, but the fact that I don’t make the same assumption doesn’t mean that I’ve failed to “realize” something that hasn’t actually been stated in the comic yet.

        • Izo

          Everything will go perfectly for everyone forever thanks to Alison because of abusing superhero powers.

          Except Max. Because f**k Max.

          • Lysiuj

            /s

          • Stephanie

            You’ve been so insistent about this prediction that I almost think you’ll be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.

          • Izo

            You mean like it HAS happened? (perfect end for Alison where everything goes her way)

            Nah, I’m peachy about it. It’s such a good lesson for today’s youth.

          • Stephanie

            Oh, damn, I hadn’t heard that Brennan and Molly were ending the comic on this page. That’s such a shame.

          • Izo

            Again, how much longer am I supposed to be waiting until you permit me to make an inference from the story arc? It’s only been a year after all.

          • Stephanie

            We will not necessarily see all of the outcomes of coercing Max within this arc. If there are serious negative consequences for her actions with Max, they are likely to be long-term, not immediate, for reasons other commenters have already described.

            My expectation is that this will come back to bite Alison in a future arc, in an unexpected way that raises the tension and stakes of that arc. But I’m not going to say “such and such will definitely happen,” because I don’t know. I have to wait and see, just like you.

            You may be waiting a very long time, since webcomics are produced slowly and months of real-time can pass before even a day goes by in-universe.

          • Izo

            I’ll repeat my question to you, Stephanie.

            When am I PERMITTED by you to make an inference about the now year long storyline which has, since nearly the beginning, been leading to an end of ‘Alison gets away with everything with no negative consequences for her bad actions?’

            Just wondering how long I need to wait, since in the meantime all the people constantly slamming on me has been such a delight.

          • Stephanie

            You can do whatever you want. I’m not your mother.

            By the same token, I’m allowed to think you’re being completely unreasonable.

          • Izo

            Yet every time I bring this up, your response tends to be ‘the storyline is not over yet! Wait!’

          • Stephanie

            That would be me thinking you’re being unreasonable, yes.

          • Izo

            Right. And you keep using the same argument of ‘wait until it’s over’ as if the storyline is going to be several Falcons/Patriots games in a row.

          • Stephanie

            Yes. We won’t know the entirety of what happens in the story until the entire story exists.

          • Izo

            Are you of the belief that there will be some sort of Deus Ex Machinae to change everything that this story arc has been building up to over the past year, at the very last page or something?

          • Stephanie

            It wouldn’t be a deus ex machina if it were the result of what happened in this arc.

            I don’t think whatever happens will happen on the final page, although I can’t definitively state that it won’t. I think it’s most likely that, in a future arc, a long-term consequence of the Max incident will come back to haunt Alison and complicate whatever she’s dealing with at that time.

          • Izo

            “It wouldn’t be a deus ex machina if it were the result of what happened in this arc.”

            That’s the point of my question. If the entire arc leads in one direction, then the last page leads in another for some reason, seems pretty much like a DeM, hence why I keep coming to the conclusion that the morale was ‘might makes right’ and ‘it’s fine to hurt other people to get a result that you like if those other people disagree with you.’

            I’d like it if there was a long term consequence at the very least, but who knows if I’d be reading still by then, or if anyone will even remember this arc. Which is another problem – making it too ‘far in the future consequence’ blunts any real impact of what happened (at least usually).

          • Stephanie

            That’s always a risk with serial fiction. Either you limit yourself to completely resolving each arc within itself, or you lay a foundation for far-off payoffs and risk your audience losing interest in the foundation before you get to the payoff.

            But my personal opinion is that it’s most important to adjust the pacing for archival readers, since most “reading of the comic” that takes place over the long term will be archival. An archival reader won’t be waiting months or years for the payoff. That’s just a sacrifice we make for the privilege of getting to observe and comment on the production of the comic in real time.

          • Izo

            Admittedly if I was reading this in archival form, my opinion might change, but I can’t know that since it’s either taking forever for her to get some sort of actual punishment for her actions or she’s not going to receive any punishment to begin with.

          • Stephanie

            Exactly–it could be either of those things, so it’s premature to make statements like “everything will be wonderful forever and the moral is tyranny is great.” We don’t know. All we know is that she wasn’t immediately punished, which is entirely reasonable under the circumstances. How could Max possibly mobilize a meaningful “counterattack” in so little time?

          • Beroli

            Possibly the people you slam on don’t like it any better than you do, and the cards you play (saying that you’re a minority, that everyone should have understood that you didn’t actually mean what you said, that you’re smarter than nearly everyone else here, that you never said you’re smarter than everyone else here) don’t meaningfully change the fact that that’s what you’re doing. Possibly if you want to not be slammed on you should try not treating people you disagree with like that automatically makes them inferior to you. Just a thought.

          • Izo

            “Possibly the people you slam on”

            Having a different opinion is not slamming. I argue with people’s IDEAS being wrong. I don’t insult the person directly. Don’t bring up the Scott thing – that was attacking his mentality of making a moral equivalency (which I’ve since found he elaborated on). If you can’t separate someone arguing with your ideas from attacking you directly, you’re basically the same as Alison. Case in point. I disagree with almost everything Stephanie has said on this entire story arc. However, I think she’s a decent person and if we ever met in real life, I’m pretty sure we’d get along even when disagreeing with each other. Sort of how Scalia and Ginsberg were polar opposites politically and judicially, but were socially friends.

            “saying that you’re a minority,”

            You do realize I’m referring to minority opinion on this forum, right? I’m not referring to being a racial minority (which I am) or an ethnic minority (which I am) because I don’t consider just being a minority to be something worthy of protecting, except for when you have a minority OPINION. That’s why the country was set up the way it was – to protect against tyranny of the majority or protect the powerless people from the loudest among us or those with the most power.

            “that everyone should have understood that you didn’t actually mean what you said,”

            How about this. After I’ve explained what I meant by what I said, you take the explained meaning as being what I said instead of harping on what you did not understand me saying in the first place? Or would you rather keep harping and insulting based on the first post because you can’ argue with what I’m actually meaning and need to rely on a strawman argument instead?

            “that you never said you’re smarter than nearly everyone else here”

            I said I’m intellectually correct. I consider a lot of people intellectuals who might be absolutely wrong. And I also said 30 to one is fair when debating me because I have thirty people dog-piling on me .

            “that holding you responsible for having said what you said is cherry-picking”

            If you ignore everything I said except one statement taken out of context or without looking at the later elaboration, that’s actually the definition OF Cherry-picking.

            You’re adorable.

            “Possibly if you want to not be slammed on you”

            Oh hon, I don’t care if people slam on me. That’s sort of the point. If I cared I’d never post here half of my opinions. I just have very little respect for slam me en masse as they sit in a bubble of like-minded opinions and are unwilling to hear differing opinions without attacking the person making them

            “should try not treating people you disagree with like that automatically makes them inferior to you.”

            I consider IDEAS to be superior or inferior, not people. And I don’t attack the person personally. And yes, don’t bring up Scott again. Even with him I was attacking the mentality of his statement, which he apparently elaborated on, and when Roman pointed out that elaboration, I apologized for calling his mentality psychopathic, although anyone who does have the mentality which I was describing WOULD be clinically psychopathic. Attacking the mentality of a particular opinion – not the person. Once he separated himself from that mentality, I can’t attach the perjorative to him anymore.

          • Stephanie

            I honestly still am not following your logic for why what you said to Scott didn’t count as a personal attack. Your justification seems to be “I wasn’t attacking him as a person, I was attacking the mentality I thought he had, and since someone who held the ideas I thought he held would have that mentality, I was really only attacking his ideas.” Or to put it more simply, “If I attack someone’s character based on their ideas, it doesn’t count as an attack on them, but only as an attack on their ideas.”

            That’s like if I thought someone online was clinically obese and called them a “fat cow,” and then said it didn’t count as a personal attack because I was only attacking their fatness, not them.

            The fact of the matter is, regardless of how reasonable you thought it was at the time, you did attack Scott’s character (and therefore Scott as a person) when you called him a psychopath.

          • Izo

            Because I have the capability of separating a person as an individual from them having crazy ideas or ideas that I find to be stupid, ignorant, or psychopathic in nature if brought to its ultimate conclusion. For example, you’re a utilitarian. I think utilitarianism is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history, and only works well on a small scale. Whenever it’s been used on any sort of large scale, liberty and personal freedom always is destroyed as a result, resulting in a despotic rule because utilitarianism, when applied to government, isn’t actually about ‘doing more good than evil’ – it’s about ‘I think I know better than you about what you should do, so I will make you do what I want by force if necessary.’

            However, I have no doubt that you are, personally, a good person. You just have ideas that I find horrific when it comes to utilitarianism. I find the same thing for someone who would put compare premeditated murder of an innocent person with execution of a guilty person, and I would find that sort of moral equivalency to be a psychopathic mentality. Which Scott is apparently not. But even if he was, I wouldn’t necessarily be attacking him – just his ideas. People are not defined by just one idea they have.

            I also notice that this whole ‘attacking someone’s character’ is only allowed when directed at someone like me, because I don’t see you or anyone else running to my defense at the MULTIPLE posts which directly attacked my character (not that I need protecting), or even at the many, many posts I’ve dealt with which attack me as a person (as a lawyer, as an educated woman, etc).

            And by the way, calling someone a fat cow IS a personal attack. Saying they are overweight and unhealthy is not necessarily, or saying a person is fat might not be, because you could argue that it might be skewing their opinion on the ‘healthy at any size’ movement is not.

            Saying their idea on something is stupid, wrong, ignorant, hypocritical, or even psychopathic (if the idea that you think they’re arguing is indeed something that would require a psychopathic mentality in order to justify) is not. Especially when it’s based on how the person has read the statement given to them without correction by that person.

            I’ll give a general example. While recording a deposition dealing with an asbestos lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs was making the complaint that their lawsuit was based on them having shortness of breath, which is a symptom of asbestosis and mesthophilioma. The guy was also 360 lbs and smoked a couple of packs of cigarettes a week. The other attorney asked irritatedly, on record, if the guy was having shortness of breath because he was incredibly fat. Probably shouldn’t have said the word ‘incredibly’ but it was accurate. He wasn’t doing it to insult the person directly – he was bringing into dispute on the deposition the idea that the shortness of breath was from asbestosis, rather than from being morbidly obese. And the attorney was definitely annoyed with this plaintiff and probably used the ‘incredibly’ in a pejorative way. But if the lawsuit was about a workman’s compensation case that had nothing to do with his weight, the words ‘incredibly fat’ would never have come up. And if they did, THEN it would be a personal attack.

          • Stephanie

            I appreciate and recognize that you draw a distinction between “Stephanie’s ideas are terrible” and “Stephanie is terrible” in your interactions with me. The thing is, I don’t think you approached Scott that way, and I think you often don’t approach people that way.

            I don’t think it’s right for people to direct personal attacks at you. But I think it’s hypocritical of you to insist that you don’t also resort to personal attacks. I think that you would have considered it a personal attack if someone called you a psychopath based on the ideas you’ve expressed. Yet you always have a rationalization for why it doesn’t count when you do it.

            “Fat cow” is to “overweight” as “psychopath” is to “holds ideas I find reprehensible.” That’s my point. Calling Scott a psychopath was a personal attack for the same reason that calling someone a “fat cow” would be. You could have expressed opposition to Scott’s ideas without attacking him as a person, but that’s not what happened. And you still seem to be arguing that attacking his character based on his ideas is the same as merely criticizing his ideas, which isn’t true.

          • Izo

            “I think you often don’t approach people that way.”

            I approach people with a measured response in how they approach me (except that I don’t go for the personal attacks). You’re respectful to me, so I’m respectful to you. I am aware, though, that I don’t get the same ‘defenders’ as other people do because of having differing viewpoints, which I find rather hypocritical of certain people. Or it might just be that people don’t feel like becoming the targets of post attacks as well, which I can understand. I just tend not to care when people attack me with words. I worry more about sticks and stones than names.

            “I think that you would have considered it a personal attack if someone called you a psychopath based on the ideas you’ve expressed.”

            Actually I would have just argued about why what I said was not something that’s remotely psychopathic and why. They could call my opinion heartless if they’d like instead, but I could also argue against that as well.

            “Yet you always have a rationalization for why it doesn’t count when you do it.”

            Yes, I am good at rationalizing my responses, because my responses tend to be based in rational thinking.

            “”Fat cow” is to “overweight” as “psychopath” is to “holds ideas I find reprehensible.”

            Actually it isn’t. Psychopathic is a clinical term. It means a mental state o abnormal or violent social behavior (while sociopathic means just lacking a sense of moral responsibility for ones actions – ie, having no conscience). It’s not the same as saying the person holds ideas which I find reprehensible. I find Bernie Sanders to have reprehensible ideas because I consider socialism to be rather reprehensible whenever it’s put into practice by the government on a large scale, and it almost always leads to bankruptcy, tyranny, or both. I don’t consider the man to be evil though – he’s probably one of the nicer people who were running – just a nice person who has idiotic ideas.

            Fat Cow, however, is insulting. Saying someone is fat isn’t necessarily (at least not always, depending on the context). I can’t think of any context in which fat cow would not be insulting, though.

          • Stephanie

            I know it’s a clinical term. People often use clinical terms as insults. In casual discourse, outside of a psychologist’s office, “psychopath” is a dehumanizing insult.

            You are certainly not qualified to diagnose someone with psychopathy over the internet, so it would be unreasonable to claim that you were just using the clinical definition and didn’t intend it to be insulting. An argument about a webcomic is not among the contexts where “psychopath” is not an insulting term.

          • Izo

            “People often use clinical terms as insults.”
            I use clinical terms as clinical terms.

            “You are certainly not qualified to diagnose someone with psychopathy over the internet”
            I didn’t. I described the mentality that I thought he was espousing as being that of a psychopath. I don’t know Scott from anyone else. Don’t know anything about him other than his post.

            “so it would be unreasonable to claim that you were just using the clinical definition and didn’t intend it to be insulting. ”

            Except for the fact that in our long thread I did explain it in clinical terms multiple times.

            “An argument about a webcomic is not among the contexts where “psychopath” is not an insulting term.”

            Sure it can be. Depends on what we’re talking about.

          • Stephanie

            Explaining it in clinical terms is meaningless when you’re not qualified to apply the clinical definition to anyone. When you call someone a psychopath, and you’re not either literally a qualified psychologist or literally talking to a diagnosed psychopath, it’s derogatory. It’s shorthand for “a monstrous person without empathy, someone whose perspective lies entirely outside of human value systems, someone to be mistrusted and despised.” It is a vicious personal attack.

            If you don’t want to be accused of making personal attacks, don’t call people “psychopaths.” Everyone who read your post saw your use of that word as a clear insult, as should be obvious from the way they reacted.

            To use a comparison here, “autistic” is a clinical term, but that doesn’t mean you can go around calling people you disagree with autistic and then claiming “it wasn’t an insult, I meant it in the clinical sense.”

          • Izo

            “Explaining it in clinical terms is meaningless when you’re not qualified to apply the clinical definition to anyone.”

            I’m more than qualified to know how to use a definition. You do not need to be a psychologist to use the word. You just need to use ‘google.’

            To paraphrase Ben Shapiro, “I don’t need 7-Year Degree in Sociology to know BS when I hear it” – or in my case, I don’t need a 7-Year degree in Psychology to understand how the definition of psychopath applies to a mentality.

            So no Stephanie. You’re wrong. Unless you think that everyone who is not an attorney can not use the words of legal terms? Which should make most of my debates with other people on internet forums a LOT easier, since I can then tell them they’re not allowed to argue with me until they’ve gotten a JD, an LLM, and passed at least one state bar (and maybe get federal sponsorship like I have so that we can be on an even playing field).

            “To use a comparison here, “autistic” is a clinical term, but that doesn’t mean you can go around calling people you disagree with autistic and then claiming “it wasn’t an insult, I meant it in the clinical sense.””

            Depends on if the person was talking in a way which can be defined as autistic, actually. Why you have taken it upon yourself to be the language police is confusing to me, actually, telling me what I can and cannot say based entirely on how much schooling and licensing I’ve had in a particular subject. Actually if someone did say that the person was acting mildly autistic, they might be referring to a person’s inability to socially interact and communicate with others, combined with repetitive behaviors.

            Wow, I knew the definition of autism and I’m not even a therapist. I just have google. I’m betting you might know the legal definitions like mens rea or res ipsa loquitur and not have been to law school. You could just google it then apply it to your argument.

          • Stephanie

            No. You are not qualified to diagnose someone with a clinical mental illness. Having a general idea of what the word means does not make you a qualified psychologist, and it does not qualify you to diagnose people with anything. And even if you were a psychologist, you still would not be qualified to diagnose a complete fucking stranger whom you’ve never spoken to in person, on the basis of a single sentence they wrote in the comments of a webcomic.

            You are one hundred percent wrong if you think it’s not insulting to call a stranger “psychopath” or “autistic” as long as you can scrounge up some reason to claim “well, they might actually be.” Again: If you are not their therapist in the process of officially diagnosing them, accusing someone of having a mental illness is an insult. There may be times you feel the insult is warranted; this does not make it magically stop being an insult.

            You can keep trying to justify it until you’re blue in the face, but the reality is that if you go around calling people “psychopaths,” just about every single person who sees that is going to perceive it as an insult. It is essentially universally understood that those accusations are insults. And if a particular phrase you’re using is perceived by everyone who hears it as an insulting personal attack, then you should maybe acknowledge that it’s offensive and stop fucking doing it, instead of doubling down.

          • Izo

            “No. You are not qualified to diagnose someone with a clinical mental illness. ”

            And it’s a good thing that I did not then! I stated that the mentality he was displaying (which turned out to NOT be the mentality he was displaying after he clarified) is psychopathic. That requires being able to understand a definition. It does not involve diagnosing a person like a patient. Which is good, since even psychotherapists would not diagnost a person based on one sentence on the internet, but they could still say that a particular mentality is, by definition, psychopathic.

            “if you go around calling people “psychopaths,” just about every single person who sees that is going to perceive it as an insult.”

            Again, it depends on if the mentality they’re displaying is psychopathic. Not that they are themselves psychopaths.

            “It is essentially universally understood that those accusations are insults.”

            Good thing that I’ve clarified about a dozen times that I’m using the word from a clinical definition, and I don’t need a degree in order to understand a definition of a word. I just need to be literate.

            “And if a particular phrase you’re using is perceived by everyone who hears it as an insulting personal attack, then you should maybe acknowledge that it’s offensive and stop fucking doing it, instead of doubling down.”

            I can’t help if other people are going to cherry pick what they read, especially after I’ve explained what I mean by the word in context. Heck, feel free to take the word out of context more if you’d like and ignore the rest of the thread.

          • Stephanie

            I don’t care if you insist you’re just insulting their “mentality.” Again, that’s like me calling someone a fat cow and saying I’m just insulting their “fatness,” or just insulting their “body.” When you insult someone’s “mentality” by calling them a psychopath, you are insulting the person.

            Nobody’s “cherrypicking” anything. You explicitly referred to someone by an insulting term that attacked the very essence of their character (what you call their “mentality”). You doubled down on that insult and made sure there was zero ambiguity that you were in fact accusing that person of being a psychopath. People are responding to the things you have said in their totality.

            It doesn’t matter how much you insist that people shouldn’t be offended when you call them psychopaths. When someone tells you you hurt them, you don’t get to decide that you didn’t. When everyone who hears you say something agrees that it was rude and inappropriate, that’s a sign that you should stop saying that thing. When you exist in a world with other humans in it, sometimes you have to take a step out of your own head and acknowledge the way that your words affect people.

            You act like people are ignoring you when you say “it’s not really an insult.” You act like they’re ignoring your paragraphs of rationalization for why calling Scott a psychopath was justified. But they’re not. They just don’t agree with you that it wasn’t an insult, or that it was justified. Nobody agrees with you that “attacking the mentality” the way you did is somehow different from attacking the person. Nobody agrees with you that calling someone a psychopath isn’t a personal attack as long as you can cite a reason that you called them one. Everyone who has responded to what you said to Scott found it insulting. Ipso facto, it’s insulting.

          • Izo

            Cut and paste what I’ve said from anywhere else in this thread, since at this point I’m just repeating myself to you.

          • Stephanie

            Funny, I feel the same way. I really don’t think the basic concept of “if the thing you are saying is insulting to absolutely everyone, then it’s clearly an insulting thing to say and you should stop” should require as much reiteration as I’ve had to give it.

            You are going to continue to get this reaction whenever you call people names. Trying to find loopholes to make your name-calling not “count” as a personal attack will not change that reaction.

          • Izo

            Honestly Stephanie, after you upvoted Zorae’s post, I’m not sure I care much about what you think about what is and is not a personal insult.

          • Stephanie

            I have no idea which specific post you’re talking about, and I also don’t care. You have no idea of my reasons for upvoting anything. What I do and don’t upvote has no bearing on the substance of my arguments. You are fixating on something irrelevant to avoid engaging with points you are unable to refute.

            Don’t call people names if you don’t want them to get pissed at you. Don’t call people names and then insist you never call people names, if you don’t want people to see you as a hypocrite.

          • Izo

            Stephanie, just check this page for a search for ‘douche canoe.’ I’m pretty certain it only comes up a couple of times, on the posts that you’ve upvoted.

            And it’s not your reasons for upvoting that I’m taking note of. Its your hypocrisy of upvoting specific posts which are literally namecalling me, personally, while simultaneously telling me not to make personal attacks as if attacking ideas and mentalities with a clinical definition are the same as attacking a person. Yes, because douche canoe is a … clinical term I’m assuming?

            Pretty much everything you’re saying right now on this topic is just too hypocritical to take seriously at this point until you reconcile this dual stance of upvoting people who make personal attacks while lecturing me on the same thing, sorry.

          • Stephanie

            I’m lecturing you on making personal attacks while claiming that you’re not doing so, actually. I’m not a fan of insults, but I have substantially more respect for people who use them and own up to it than I do for people who try to have it both ways.

            I don’t know why you think “clinical definition” is a magic phrase that makes it okay to insult people. You even make this little jab about “oh I guess douche canoe is a clinical term,” as if you honestly think that I assign literally even the slightest bit of relevance to the word “clinical” in this context. You, a non-psychologist talking to a stranger on the internet, used the word “psychopath” in a nonclinical context and in a derogatory manner. Not only that, you trivialized a real condition that real humans suffer from by using it to score points in a cheap argument. The possibility that someone, somewhere is using it inoffensively in a clinical context does not absolve you.

            I don’t appreciate your implication that if I want you to listen to me, I’d better stop upvoting people you don’t like. I will upvote whatever posts I want. Not everyone’s ethics are as black and white as yours; just because I don’t approve of personal attacks doesn’t mean I have to utterly condemn any post that ever contains one.

            If you want to use that as an excuse to keep the blinders on, that’s on you. You’re the one who’s going to keep catching shit from everyone each time you’re needlessly antagonistic and then pretend to have the moral high ground.

            I mean, seriously–how’s that working out for you? Not great, right? Seems like going around insulting people and wildly accusing them of holding reprehensible strawman positions is not getting you a positive reaction? I’ve been trying to help you re-examine the way you interact with people here so that you don’t have to feel persecuted all the time, but you’ve made it clear that you don’t want to hear it, so forget it.

          • Zorae42

            Ah yes, because the outlook Alison has taken from this is: “I should use my power to coerce innocents more often, this is great!”

            And not: *Puking out of guilt* “I did a terrible thing because it’s the only way I knew how to do it. I need to learn how to communicate better or this is going to happen again and I really don’t want that to happen.”

            But hey, it’s easy to overlook/undervalue certain events in the comic and only fixate on the ones that perpetuate your beliefs.

            And today’s youth? In danger of embracing tyranny? Really? Considering a majority of the people under the age of 30 voted for Hilary, I’m fairly certain today’s youth already has the correct idea about tyranny. Can’t say the same for the elderly though.

          • Tylikcat

            And of course, here I am “There must be a more effective way of manipulating Max into using his pwoer for Science and being totally cool with it…”

          • Zorae42

            I was talking about it from the way Alison seems to have reacted.

            I’m personally all for examining it a bit more dispassionately and recognizing that by resorting to tyranny she’s lost access to a valuable asset. It really was a pretty ineffective course of action in this instance.

          • Tylikcat

            I’m also mocking myself a fair bit – and by extension, mocking the horror around the concept of manipulation, since, really, if someone can talk Max into it without coercion, who is to say them nay? But I’m not at all certain I’m more concerned about the loss of access to Max’s abilities than I am about Max’s welfare…

            …and I’m not certain otherwise, either.

          • Lostman

            In other words you view Max as resource.

          • Tylikcat

            No. You can’t take a post that was deliberately ambivalent and self-mocking and extract one single thing out of it in a meaningful way. (Especially in the context of the rest of my posts on the subject.)

            I *do* think Alison’s alienation of Max, and the lost opportunity represented by the potential loss of Max’s voluntary cooperation in other medical research* is one of the worst losses of the current situation. I think that’s a bigger deal than either Alison’s angst or Max’s assault.

            But I’m also not dealing with Max one on one in a personal context, which can’t really be compared in scale to the other. Max’s experience is its own scale.

            * Is this at all likely to have happened? Who knows.

          • Lostman

            Sorry about that.

          • Izo

            “And not: *Puking out of guilt* “I did a terrible thing because it’s the only way I knew how to do it. I need to learn how to communicate better or this is going to happen again and I really don’t want that to happen.””

            Correct, it’s not ‘puking out of guilt, I did a terrible thing because it’s the only way I knew how to do it. I need to learn how to communicate better…’

            Because she already has said she would do it again . And like I’ve said many times, if a person does not suffer from any sort of punishment whatsoever for their negative actions, the main point you get from this is that what you did wasn’t so bad after all, or maybe even was good.

            Lets have an example here.

            Lets say you are an easily triggered individual with violent tendencies. And you murder someone simply because they would not give you $5 that you needed to buy food. You were really hungry, and they had $5. They didn’t do anything wrong but they were keeping you from getting that $5. Now… they’re dead, and you have your $5 that you took from their wallet, plus another $50. No one saw you do it. You got away with murder.

            You did feel bad about having to kill the person, but they could have avoided it if only they gave you $5 so you could eat. Sure, you could have gotten a job and earned the $5, or you could have tried to figure some other way to get the $5 that did not involve murder, but you’re impatient and hungry. Besides, it worked. You now not only have $5 for a meal, you have $50 for an additional 10 meals. And you’re even going to use half of that money to feed other hungry people, because you feel bad about murdering the innocent person who was a bad person for selfishly not wanting to give you the $5 when he had $55. Plus you did get away with the crime. No punishment for you. No jail. No negative Aesop’s moral. No nothing.

            But you still feel guilty. So you confess your crime to another person, who essentially tells you ‘Well yeah, you arguably did a bad thing, but you arguably also did a good thing because screw that guy – he should have given you the $5. By the way, just to ensure that I won’t call the police on you, I once murdered a man as well because he wouldn’t give me a single dollar. So now if I tell on you, you can tell on me and we will both be punished. You don’t have to worry about me turning you in, plus you shouldnt feel guilty.’

            And then you no longer feel guilty because you realize that if you have to do it again in the future, you will, although it’s a real shame that you have such a temper and can’t think of better ways to get $5 that are not as convenient as murdering people since you know you can get away with it, since you got away with it the first time.

            That’s what you’re describing essentially. That temporary and expunged guilt for a miniscule period of time is punishment for terrorizing someone and using violence and death threats to get your way. There’s no lasting punishment. No actual lesson that will make her a better person or feel actual remorse – just token remorse with no bite to it. Crocodile tears which go away as soon as someone else tells them that what they did was acceptable enough.

            “But hey, it’s easy to overlook/undervalue certain events in the comic and only fixate on the ones that perpetuate your beliefs.”

            Pot calling the kettle black. You totally ignore what she did because she threw up once and felt briefly bad about it. Except she has said, multiple times, including to Max, that she would do it again. The entire morale of the story is ‘I will stick with my initial tyrannical principles.’

            “And today’s youth? In danger of embracing tyranny?”

            Well, the millenials at least. The next generation actually seems a lot more libertarian in the Max mindset, but millennials? WAAAAY more in favor of tyranny than classical liberals. Against free speech, fine with violence as a response to words you don’t like… yes. Today’s youth is in danger of embracing tyranny.

            “Really? Considering a majority of the people under the age of 30 voted for Hilary,”

            …. no, too easy for me to write something long in response to this.

            Especially since you’ll think I voted for Trump in some binary fashion (I didn’t, btw) if I tell you what I think of Hillary. I voted third party but I’ve been over this in the past forums.

            “I’m fairly certain today’s youth already has the correct idea about tyranny. Can’t say the same for the elderly though.”

            Who are ‘the elderly?’ What’s the cutoff age?

          • Zorae42

            Except it’s not murdering someone for $5, it’s punching someone in the face for $5. And then taking only $5 like you said you would. And not for you to eat, but for an entire orphanage to (somehow) be fed for life off that measly $5.

            And the dude said, “I once killed a dude for $1, it turned out he didn’t have any money at all, and I still regret my actions”. Not, “Don’t feel guilty”.

            She’d do it again because it’d mean saving all those orphans again, it’s not like she’s willing to condemn those orphans to starvation for the needs of one, greedy asshole. But, she’s also said that she wants violence to be a ‘last possible resort’ sort of thing rather than her goto method. Because she’d much rather talk the dude into giving her $5 than beating it out of him.

            “millennials? WAAAAY more in favor of tyranny than classical liberals. Against free speech, fine with violence as a response to words you don’t like… ”

            Yeah, I have no idea where that’s coming from. Most millennials seem to be for simply not being douchebags to other people. Never seen them against free speech. Unless you mean the ones that are for punching Nazi’s, which seems like a wonderful mindset for our youth to have.

            “I voted third party but I’ve been over this in the past forums.”

            Ah, so you voted for Trump. Cool of you to admit to supporting tyranny in real life after all this posturing on the internet.

            “Who are ‘the elderly?’ What’s the cutoff age?”

            Considering the majority of people above 30 voted Trump, guess I’m saying the majority of people above 30? Obviously not all of them are douche canoes, but for some reason a majority of them are (or at least morons). Although that’s rather horrifying since I’m not too far off that age, no idea how the majority of people born just a few years before me could be so awful.

          • Beroli

            I’m not actually okay with anyone being physically assaulted in lieu of legal action. Even if it’s directed at deserving people at first, that way lies mob rule, and the most vulnerable people (which doesn’t correlate with people who have awful views; we are not living in a Saturday morning cartoon and the shoulder angel cannot count on winning a physical altercation with the shoulder devil) getting murdered.

            That said, the people Izo seems to be aligning herself with–older people, people who voted for Trump or for Gary Johnson, self-described champions of free speech, may call themselves classical liberals or libertarians but not classical libertarians–reacted with as much or more outrage to Milo Yiannopoulos getting banned from Twitter as to Richard Spencer being punched, and generally cheer when people they call “SJWs” are driven out of public forums, so the only consistent principle I see in their “anti-tyranny” is “people’s right to speak and be widely heard is directly proportional to how much I agree with them.”

          • Izo

            “I’m not actually okay with anyone being physically assaulted in lieu of legal action. Even if it’s directed at deserving people at first, that way lies mob rule, and the most vulnerable people (which doesn’t correlate with people who have awful views; we are not living in a Saturday morning cartoon and the shoulder angel cannot count on winning a physical altercation with the shoulder devil) getting murdered.”

            Clearly, based on Zorae’s dictates (and he is far wiser than the rest of us plebes), you are therefore a nazi who needs to be punched, and forced to agree with him. Since he knows better than you do.

            “That said, the people Izo seems to be aligning herself with–older people, people who voted for Trump or for Gary Johnson, self-described champions of free speech, may call themselves classical liberals or libertarians but not classical libertarians”

            Modern day libertarians ARE essentially the same as classical liberals. We believe what liberals USED to believe in. To quote Dave Rubin, who is a liberal, gay jewish man, “I did not leave the left. The left left me.” Watch the Rubin Report. It’s great, really.

            But nah, according to Zorae, he’s a nazi who voted for Trump. A gay, jewish nazi Trump supporter. Except he didn’t. He voted for Gary Johnson as well, and his reasoning was ‘if I voted for Hillary, it’s telling the Democrats that I support having candidates like Hillary instead of BETTER Democratic candidates.’ Which is rather good reasoning.

            “reacted with as much or more outrage to Milo Yiannopoulos getting banned from Twitter as to Richard Spencer being punched”

            Mainly because we don’t like when free speech is silenced, not because we agree with those speakers. I’m probably a lot closer to Ben Shapiro’s way of thinking when it comes to free speech than Milo, since Milo is more of a provacateur than a lecturer, sort of like Howard Stern. Except he’s a gay british jewish/catholic conservative Trump supporter who only dates muslim and black men exclusively. Nazis are weird, amirite?

            “and generally cheer when people they call “SJWs” are driven out of public forums,”

            Pretty sure they cheer about people who are disruptive and trying to shu down the speeches getting thrown out, not because they’re ‘SJW’s.’ Heck, Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos tend to ASK for people on the left to speak first – Shapiro because he likes having an intellectual debate with someone with differing opinions, and Milo because, and I quote ‘it’s more fun when they disagree with me.’

            I’ve seen videos of people with very leftist viewpoints who ask questions or criticize speakers like Steven Crowder, Milo, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and quite a few others where they ask critical questions or criticize without being disruptive, and they are not asked to leave. It’s the ‘being disruptive’ aspect, not the viewpoint aspect that’s the problem. People like who I mentioned above actually tend to love when they have debates with people who do NOT think like they do, as long as those people are not trying to actively shut down the speech period. That’s the opposite of an echo chamber. That’s a marketplace of ideas.

          • Zorae42

            Since Nazi’s are people for the literal killing of others based on their religion/race/sexual preference, no Beroli is not a Nazi. I only mentioned the word ‘Nazi’ once, and that was clearly in reference to Richard Spencer (who is a literal fucking Nazi). I understand disagreeing with physical violence. It’s honestly not a bad position to have. It’s just one that I think is a bit idealistic.

            “he’s a nazi who voted for Trump. A gay, jewish nazi Trump supporter. Except he didn’t. He voted for Gary Johnson as well.”

            Again, I’m calling literal Nazi’s Nazi’s. Please stop attempting to say what my views are. You and he may not have been supporters, but you definitely didn’t try to stop him. Instead you threw your vote away because you wanted to ‘send a message’. One that said your principles mattered more than the safety and well being of others.

            I don’t know enough about all of these people you’re talking about to make a comment on them. So I’m going to do so. Also, not that it really matters, but I am a woman. Usually, it’s customary to use ‘they’ when talking about people on the internet whose gender you don’t know.

          • Izo

            “Since Nazi’s are people for the literal killing of others based on their religion/race/sexual preference, no Beroli is not a Nazi.”

            Gotcha. So you just think it’s okay to use violence on other people if they have different political or philosophical opinions from you, but not because of their religion, race, or sexual preference. Good to know. That totally makes you not fascist at all. Not even a little bit.

            “I understand disagreeing with physical violence.”

            I’m glad that at least one of my opinions are on the Zorae-Approved list, so that I will not be subjected to violence for that one by you.

            Very, very good to know.

            “It’s honestly not a bad position to have. It’s just one that I think is a bit idealistic.”

            So….. how many people have you personally physically attacked for not doing what you say to do? Probably none, since I’m sure you only associate with good, decent people who have your exact same opinions on everything.

            “Again, I’m calling literal Nazi’s Nazi’s. Please stop attempting to say what my views are.”

            Well, you did say I was a Trump supporter so you’re being a bit hypocritical there. Also, you didn’t call Nazis Nazis. You said that Millennials today have no problem with free speech, UNLESS it comes from nazis (at which point the punchings begin). You then proceeded to ignore all of my post from the pew research, USA Today, the LA times and a few other reports on how 40-50 percent of millennials seem to want limits on free speech for what they consider ‘offensive’ speech, which is troublesome since ‘offensive’ is very subjective. Which is why I said that a lot of millennials have a problem with the very notion of free speech. I also used a bunch of quotes of famous, intellectual giants from history who are far smarter than either of us. In short, offensive speech needs to be protected, because you never know what will be considered offensive, and it’s not up to you to judge what another person can and cannot say if it’s not leading to direct intentional harm or violence against another person (ie, the ‘fire in a crowded theater’ exception and ‘direction to assassinate’ speech). For example, your entire post before had been offensive to me, yet I strangely am fine with you posting it without being subjected to violence to make you change it.

            “You and he may not have been supporters, but you definitely didn’t try to stop him.”

            Voting for one tyrant in order to stop another tyrant is not a victory. It just means the Democrats will keep putting people like Hillary up for the vote instead of good candidates. I’ll vote for who my conscience dictates to vote for, thank you very much. You know, too bad you and everyone else didn’t vote for someone like Gary Johnson instead. He might be a bit of a pothead and not the brightest bulb, but he’s not corrupt.

            “Instead you threw your vote away because you wanted to ‘send a message’.”

            No, I voted for someone who has my political beliefs, rather than be a mindless peon. Voting for one person because you hate the other person is a mind-bogglingly stupid reason to vote for anyone.

            “One that said your principles mattered more than the safety and well being of others.”

            Yeah! Screw principles! They’re for suckers! It’s a good thing we have people like you, who I’m guessing you are implying don’t have principles, to tell the rest of us what to do. /s

            I guess this is why you should use violence on me. To force me to vote for the person you want…. or the person you don’t not-want. That’s the democratic way. God bless America.

            Also who’s safety are we talking about? Because the stuff you’ve been saying doesn’t make me feel particularly safe.

            “I don’t know enough about all of these people you’re talking about to make a comment on them.”

            Then you should learn something about them.

            Christina Hoff Sommers is a second wave feminist from the 60s, a professor at Brandeis University, and a classical liberal who stood up for actual feminism and women’s rights. Today she gets shouted down for NOT being a third wave feminist and actually promoting discussion with people of other viewpoints through rational debate. She also runs a vlog called The Factual Feminist.

            Sam Harris is a noted liberal atheist and neuroscientist. He’s often seen in atheist circles as one of the ‘Four Horsemen of New Atheism’ along with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and the late Christopher Hitchens. He’s drawn sharp criticism for his stance against Islam as a religion, although in the past he never seemed to get he same criticism about his stance against Christianity. Most of his books are about morality, neuroscience, terrorism, self-defense, and most importantly, free will. He’s given two speeches at TED and promotes secularism and science in his podcasts, and runs a foundation called Project Reason, which encourages critical thinking and wise public policy via the promotion of scientific knowledge.

            Ben Shapiro is the former editor at large of Breitbart (he quit over the Corey Lewandowski incident and Breitbart’s refusal to stand behind reporter Michelle Fields), a best-selling author, pro-pacifist, a Harvard-graduate lawyer, a syndicated columnist, and probably the best debater currently around. He’s an orthodox jew, one of the biggest promoters of the ‘Never Trump’ movement, and largely libertarian in most of his political beliefs. He’s also massively hated by the more radical elements of the left, and frequently the subject of attempts to have him banned from college campuses when they have him speak. He’s married to a jewish-Moroccan woman who’s a doctor, and was once physically accosted and threatened with a beating (specifically that she would “send him home in an ambulance” while grabbing his neck) on live TV by transgender activist .Zoey Tur, who later also twittered that she wanted to curb-stomp him. The Alt-Right also HAAAAAAAAAAATES him. The man is an absolutely brilliant debater.

            Milo Yiannopoulous. Well he’s a very right wing Trump supporting provocateur who I’m pretty sure says half the things he says just to get a rise out of people. He’s a pretty bad debater but mainly because he says most stuff for shock value (sort of like Howard Stern, except he’s gay and very political). I’m not a huge fan of him but I support his right to speak without being shut down. He was huge on Twitter, is a major Trump supporter, and claims to be a cutural libertarian. Although again, I pretty much think that’s just because Libertarians don’t try to shut down his right to speak like many more fascists elements do, even if they disagree with stuff that he says. He’s a flambouyantly gay, sometimes drag-queen, jewish-but-practicing-catholic British immigrant who exclusively dates black men and muslim men and refers to Trump as ‘Daddy.’ He got banned on Twitter recently because of stuff that some of his followers said about Leslie Jones and for his criticism and some of his retweets in regards to the movie remake of Ghostbusters (apparently a lifetime ban). Several of his university speeches have resulted in people using violence, death threats, and mass rioting to prevent him from speaking.

            “So I’m going to do so. Also, not that it really matters, but I am a woman.”

            You’re right. It doesn’t matter that you’re a woman. So am I by the way, and that doesn’t matter either.

            “Usually, it’s customary to use ‘they’ when talking about people on the internet whose gender you don’t know.”

            Something you said in the past made me think you were a guy. I’ll refer to you as ‘she’ now that I know. Honestly I don’t care much though. I’ve had people calling me ‘he’ for years now online (despite many times saying I’m a woman) and I don’t really care. Just makes me more impressed when they say ‘she.’ Couldnt care less what people call me on the internet though

          • Zorae42

            “Gotcha. So you just think it’s okay to use violence on other people if they have different political or philosophical opinions from you.”

            Nope, just people that call for the extermination of others.

            “So….. how many people have you personally physically attacked for not doing what you say to do? Probably none.”

            You’re right! Gold star for you! Probably because I don’t attack people for not doing what I say. Although I’d do it if the thing I said to do was something like “don’t hurt me” or “don’t hurt that person”, which are quite reasonable reasons to attack people for not listening to you. Honestly, that’s a really vague statement. It’s a case by case basis as it should be (imo).

            “Well, you did say I was a Trump supporter so you’re being a bit hypocritical there.”

            No, I said you’re vote contributed to him winning the election. Not the same thing. I read this reply before the other one, chill out. I’m fine with you posting this as well.

            “Voting for one tyrant in order to stop another tyrant is not a victory.”

            Nope, but it definitely would make a lot of people living in this country a lot safer than they are today. Although I’m not certain why you consider Hilary a tyrant. Sure she’s hella corrupt, but she’s not a tyrant. Although, I honestly don’t want to hear anything more on that subject. But feel free to exercise your freedom of speech to do so if you wish.

            “Yeah! Screw principles! They’re for suckers!”

            Nope, saying that you placed more importance on them than the safety and well being of others. But hey, thousands of people may die/suffer now because you were too good to prevent a tyrant from being elected. Glad you’ve got those principles valued so high :D.

            For all the harping you do on utilitarianism for enabling tyranny, you’re a shinning example of how deontology can do the same.

            “I guess this is why you should use violence on me. To force me to vote for the person you want.”

            Never said we should use violence on people to make them vote correctly. My gosh you take things to extremes.

            Thanks for the big info dump on all those people. I’ll take it with a grain of salt since I don’t particularly trust the source it’s coming from.

            “Something you said in the past made me think you were a guy. I’ll refer to you as ‘she’ now that I know”

            I usually don’t either. I think it was the way you were taking liberty with what you assumed my views were that made me irritated that you did the same with my gender. Plus I’d been reading through some extreme feminist rhetoric and, at the time, the thought of being mistaken for a man was distressing πŸ˜› (guess I couldn’t help having some of that feeling rub off on me lol).

          • Izo

            “Nope, just people that call for the extermination of others.”

            Gotcha. You’re against abortions. Good to know.

            “You’re right! Gold star for you!”

            Psst, hon. Read the rest of the paragraph. You missed pretty much all the pertinent stuff. I’m pretty sure you’ll take away my gold star.

            “Probably because I don’t attack people for not doing what I say. Although I’d do it if the thing I said to do was something like “don’t hurt me” or “don’t hurt that person”, which are quite reasonable reasons to attack people for not listening to you.”

            You would not attack someone for not doing what you say, although you would attack someone is the thing was them telling you to not hurt them.

            I have no idea what you’re saying now. Would you like to re-write this paragraph?

            “Honestly, that’s a really vague statement.”

            You’d definitely know about vague statements after your last statement.

            “It’s a case by case basis as it should be (imo).”

            Annnd you’re going to write a single law which encompasses all case-by-case statements somehow of when it’s acceptable or not acceptable to use violence to force another person to do something? Or are you just talking pure chaos of everyone deciding on their own when it’s acceptable to use violence? Hey, I like your car. I think this is an acceptable excuse to use violence because I don’t have a car and I might eventually use the car to help someone else.

            Must be a wonderful car-jacker defense.

            “No, I said you’re vote contributed to him winning the election.”

            Actually, I did not contribute to him winning the election and you don’t seem to understand how U.S. elections work. My state went for Hillary anyway.

            “Not the same thing. I read this reply before the other one, chill out. I’m fine with you posting this as well.”

            No idea what you’re referring to now.

            “Nope, but it definitely would make a lot of people living in this country a lot safer than they are today.”

            In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point. That does not sound particularly safe to me, given they have nuclear weapons.

            “Although I’m not certain why you consider Hilary a tyrant.”

            Waaaay too much info that I’d need to give and waaaay on a tangent.

            Not to mention doesn’t really matter since you only voted for her because you hate the other candidate, not because you like her.

            “Sure she’s hella corrupt, but she’s not a tyrant.”

            Oh she can definitely be both. She’s a real multitasker, that lady is.

            “Although, I honestly don’t want to hear anything more on that subject. But feel free to exercise your freedom of speech to do so if you wish.”

            Without you considering me a bigot for not voting for Hillary? Good. I guess you’ll just keep calling my actions the actions of a douche canoe instead. Since douche canoes do have actions. And are a real thing. There are many canoes that are made of douches. As is the way in all civilized debates.

            “Nope, saying that you placed more importance on them than the safety and well being of others. But hey, thousands of people may die/suffer now because you were too good to prevent a tyrant from being elected. Glad you’ve got those principles valued so high :D.”

            Woah, who died? Who suffered? I’d like names and statistics. I’m sure you have facts and statistics on this right? It’s definitely not just hysterical fear-mongering, because you’re against that sort of stuff. You told me so. You told me that only douche canoes create fear mongering.

            “For all the harping you do on utilitarianism for enabling tyranny, you’re a shinning example of how deontology can do the same.”

            How so?

            Also how am I a shining example of deontology? I havent said anything about obligation or duty. Just that I vote for people who hold my values and I do NOT vote for people just to tow the party line.

            If anything, YOU’RE being a deontologist. Deontology is the study of the nature of duty and obligation, and you’ve gone out of your way to say that people should vote for Hillary JUST so Trump wouldn’t win, as if it’s a person’s duty to vote for someone in order to prevent someone else from winning (as if it’s an either-or decision, or as if people who hate Hillary would suddenly vote for him because they hate Trump more WITHOUT being a massive deontologist. For that matter, Gurwara is a deontologist as well as that’s the reason he gave for shooting the doctor. Obligation to his promise over ‘right and wrong.’

            Again, I’m a libertarian. I’m of the opinion that people are intelligent enough and capable enough to make their own decisions for actions which affect themselves. You don’t seem to understand this concept. You don’t seem to understand a great many concepts, honestly, and I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s just an observation I’ve noticed with you on politics, economics, philosophy, and the law.

            “Never said we should use violence on people to make them vote correctly. My gosh you take things to extremes.”

            … you’ve said, multiple times in this thread, that you find it acceptable to use violence to make people do what you want, or not say certain words, on a case by case basis.

            You don’t seem either willing or capable of giving any firm descriptions though. You just seem to ‘wing it’ with what you find acceptable and not acceptable with extremely vague terms. Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. You’re using far too many subjective terms as universal, static rules.

            “Thanks for the big info dump on all those people. I’ll take it with a grain of salt since I don’t particularly trust the source it’s coming from.”

            You could always use Google. Or watch them on Youtube.

            I’m heartbroken that you don’t trust me though. I hope you’ll do some research, but I have my doubts that you will based on what I’ve seen of you in this thread. You don’t seem (and I might be wrong since I only know you from this thread) to rely that much on research, but rather on your ‘gut instincts’ in fairly vague terms, even when what you’re saying is very contradictory.

            “I think it was the way you were taking liberty with what you assumed my views were that made me irritated that you did the same with my gender.”

            I don’t know. There’s something that made me think of you as a type of ‘male feminist’ who didn’t really believe what they’re preaching, but just saying it because it’s standard rhetoric. Sort of a moot point really.

            “Plus I’d been reading through some extreme feminist rhetoric”

            It’s sort of distressing that you don’t know who Christina Hoff Sommers is, I have to say.

            “the thought of being mistaken for a man was distressing πŸ˜› (guess I couldn’t help having some of that feeling rub off on me lol).”

            Not sure why it matters really. It’s not like you were going to beat my arguments by virtue of having a vagina or penis. Words don’t really care about sex organs.

          • Zorae42

            “Gotcha. You’re against abortions. Good to know.”

            *finger guns* Eyyyy. Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.

            “I have no idea what you’re saying now.”

            *I don’t attack people for not doing what I say.
            *Although I would attack a person for not doing what I said if the thing I (note I’m saying it) said was:
            a. “Don’t hurt me”
            b. “Don’t hurt that person”
            *As in I would attack someone who was hurting me after I told them not to

            “Annnd you’re going to write a single law which encompasses all case-by-case statement”

            Who said anything about writing a law? I simply said what my beliefs were. Not saying that our system should change to support them. My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?

            “Must be a wonderful car-jacker defense.”

            Nope, that’s a bad one. Here: “I stole your car because my friend got shot, we were in the middle of nowhere with no way to contact anyone, and I needed a way to get them to the hospital. As soon as I got them there I was planning on returning the car back where I found it with a note with my information if you wanted me to pay for the cleaning or anything”.

            I’d say that’s a pretty reasonable defense. But that’s up to whatever jury/judge on the case to decide. I’d disagree with their ruling if they put the person away, although I wouldn’t expect them to change it just because it didn’t match up to what I personally wanted to happen.

            “My state went for Hillary anyway.”

            Oh gosh, my apologies. I didn’t know. Then yes, you personally were not at fault. Although people like you that lived in states that did vote third party did.

            “No idea what you’re referring to now.”

            Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter. Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so. Well except for you directly contributing to him winning, I suppose I made an assumption about the state you lived in. And once you pointed that out I apologized for making said assumption.

            “In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point.”

            Oh please, don’t start making predictions about what would’ve happened. How about we stick to the things that have happened? Like the travel ban or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students. I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare, but thankfully that got struck down. Although that was a real and valid fear many people had before the election.

            “Without you considering me a bigot for not voting for Hillary? Good.”

            Oh no, that won’t change. You could still talk about her if you wanted, as that is your right. Thank you for refraining though, that whole election was tiresome and I’m still in shock that it actually happened the way it did.

            “Woah, who died? Who suffered? I’d like names and statistics.”

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/trumps-refugee-ban-is-a-matter-of-life-and-death-for-some-like-a-1-year-old-with-cancer/2017/01/30/4c8e4aae-e711-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.edd30c56fe50

            https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/for-many-refugees-trumps-travel-ban-is-a-death-sen/

            https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/

            “If anything, YOU’RE being a deontologist.”

            Nope, that was a Utilitarian action. I chose the lesser of two evils. A Utilitarian believe the ends justify the means (which I believe is sometimes true). By refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, people who voted third party, made joke votes, or didn’t vote at all (for that specific reason) showed that their principles/duty to not voting for someone they considered evil mattered more than the result. Which is definitely a Deontological action.

            You might not be one, but you took an action because you didn’t think the ends justified the means. And now we have a tyrant because so many people thought the same πŸ™‚

            “Again, I’m a libertarian. I’m of the opinion that people are intelligent enough and capable enough to make their own decisions for actions which affect themselves. You don’t seem to understand this concept.”

            There you go again, making claims about other people. I never said you weren’t a libertarian.

            “Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. ”

            You’re right! Good thing I’m not describing how I think society should work and am instead describing my beliefs as they pertain to a single event in a fictional comic. Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic. Or singular events in hypothetical situations that are vaguely equivalent to the events in the comic.

          • Zorae42

            “Gotcha. You’re against abortions. Good to know.”

            *finger guns* Eyyyy. Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.

            “I have no idea what you’re saying now.”

            *I don’t attack people for not doing what I say.
            *Although I would attack a person for not doing what I said if the thing I (note I’m saying it) said was:
            a. “Don’t hurt me”
            b. “Don’t hurt that person”
            *As in I would attack someone who was hurting me after I told them not to

            “Annnd you’re going to write a single law which encompasses all case-by-case statement”

            Who said anything about writing a law? I simply said what my beliefs were. Not saying that our system should change to support them. My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?

            “Must be a wonderful car-jacker defense.”

            Nope, that’s a bad one. Here: “I stole your car because my friend got shot, we were in the middle of nowhere with no way to contact anyone, and I needed a way to get them to the hospital. As soon as I got them there I was planning on returning the car back where I found it with a note with my information if you wanted me to pay for the cleaning or anything”.

            I’d say that’s a pretty reasonable defense. But that’s up to whatever jury/judge on the case to decide. I’d disagree with their ruling if they put the person away, although I wouldn’t expect them to change it just because it didn’t match up to what I personally wanted to happen.

            “My state went for Hillary anyway.”

            Oh gosh, my apologies. I didn’t know. Then yes, you personally did not contribute. Although people like you that lived in states that did vote third party did.

            “No idea what you’re referring to now.”

            Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter. Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so. Well except for you directly contributing to him winning, I suppose I made an assumption about the state you lived in. And once you pointed that out I apologized for making said assumption.

            “In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point.”

            Oh please, don’t start making predictions about what would’ve happened. How about we stick to the things that have happened? Like the travel ban or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students. I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare, but thankfully that got struck down. Although that was a real and valid fear many people had before the election.

            “Without you considering me a bigot for not voting for Hillary? Good.”

            Oh no, that won’t change. You could still talk about her if you wanted, as that is your right. Thank you for refraining though, that whole election was tiresome and I’m still in shock that it actually happened the way it did.

            “Woah, who died? Who suffered? I’d like names and statistics.”

            https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/for-many-refugees-trumps-travel-ban-is-a-death-sen/

            https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/

            But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency. I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.

            “If anything, YOU’RE being a deontologist.”

            Nope, that was a Utilitarian action. I chose the lesser of two evils. A Utilitarian believe the ends justify the means (which I believe is sometimes true). By refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, people who voted third party, made joke votes, or didn’t vote at all (for that specific reason) showed that their principles/duty to not voting for someone they considered evil mattered more than the result. Which is definitely a Deontological action.

            You might not be one, but you took an action because you didn’t think the ends justified the means. And now we have a tyrant because so many people thought the same πŸ™‚

            “Again, I’m a libertarian. I’m of the opinion that people are intelligent enough and capable enough to make their own decisions for actions which affect themselves. You don’t seem to understand this concept.”

            There you go again, making claims about other people. I never said you weren’t a libertarian.

            “Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. ”

            You’re right! Good thing I’m not describing how I think society should work and am instead describing my beliefs as they pertain to a single event in a fictional comic. Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic. Or singular events in hypothetical situations.

          • Zorae42

            Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.

            I would attack someone who was hurting me or someone else after I told them not to. Hence why your statement, “Attack people who don’t do what you say” is vague as there are cases where it is justified.

            I’ve simply said what my beliefs were. Not saying that our system should change to support them. My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?

            “My state went for Hillary anyway.”

            My apologies, I didn’t know. Then yes, you personally did not contribute to his election. Although people like you that lived in states that did go for him did.

            Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter. Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so. Well except for you directly contributing to him winning, I suppose I made an assumption about the state you lived in. And I apologize again for making said assumption.

            “In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point.”

            How about we stick to the things that have happened? Like the travel ban, the beginning of the Lakota Pipeline again, or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students. I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare, but thankfully that got struck down. Although that was a valid fear many people had before the election.

            As for actual people suffering, well there’s all those refugees who were in dire need of medical care and were denied access to that of the US, thus endangering their lives. There’s the increase in hate crimes since the election because the message that a bigot can be president has emboldened people to act on their similar beliefs. And the aformentioned Lakota Tribe. But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency. I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.

            My vote for Hilary was a Utilitarian action. I chose the lesser of two evils. A Utilitarian believe the ends justify the means (which I believe is sometimes true). By refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, people who voted third party, made joke votes, or didn’t vote at all (for that specific reason) showed that their principles/duty to not voting for someone they considered evil mattered more than the result. Which is definitely a Deontological action.

            I never said you weren’t a libertarian.

            “Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. ”

            You’re right! Good thing I’m not describing how I think society should work and am instead describing my beliefs as they pertain to a single event in a fictional comic. Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic. Or singular events in hypothetical situations.

          • Zorae42

            Haha, that’s three times I’ve gotten marked as spam. I realize it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I don’t want to leave this as it is. So let’s try yet again.

            Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.

            I would attack someone who was hurting me or someone else after I told them not to. Hence why your statement, “Attack people who don’t do what you say” is vague as there are cases where it is justified.

            I’ve simply said what my beliefs were. Not saying that our system should change to support them. My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?

            “My state went for Hillary anyway.”
            My apologies, I didn’t know. Then yes, you personally did not contribute to his election. Although people like you that lived in states that did go for him did.
            Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter. Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so. Well except for you directly contributing to him winning, I suppose I made an assumption about the state you lived in. And I apologize again for making said assumption.

            “In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point.”

            How about we stick to the things that have happened? Like the travel ban, the beginning of the Lakota Pipeline again, or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students. I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare, but thankfully that got struck down. Although that was a valid fear many people had before the election.

            As for actual people suffering, well there’s all those refugees who were in dire need of medical care and were denied access to that of the US, thus endangering their lives. There’s the increase in hate crimes since the election because the message that a bigot can be president has emboldened people to act on their similar beliefs. And the aformentioned Lakota Tribe. But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency. I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.

            My vote for Hilary was a Utilitarian action. I chose the lesser of two evils. A Utilitarian believe the ends justify the means (which I believe is sometimes true). By refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, people who voted third party, made joke votes, or didn’t vote at all (for that specific reason) showed that their principles/duty to not voting for someone they considered evil mattered more than the result. Which is definitely a Deontological action.

            I never said you weren’t a libertarian.

            “Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. ”
            You’re right! Good thing I’m not describing how I think society should work and am instead describing my beliefs as they pertain to a single event in a fictional comic. Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic. Or singular events in hypothetical situations.

            Edit: Maybe it’s because I don’t view the world in black and white and believe that universal rules can’t exist without sometimes punishing innocent/well meaning people. I recognize that society doesn’t work that way, nor is there a consistent way to make it completely fair. But that doesn’t mean I can’t personally disagree with some of the ways it works without desiring to to tear it all down simply because it’s not perfect.

          • Zorae42

            Haha, that’s 4 times I’ve gotten marked as spam. I realize it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I don’t want to leave this as it is. So let’s try yet again.

            Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.

            I would attack someone who was hurting me or someone else after I told them not to. Hence why your statement, “Attack people who don’t do what you say” is vague as there are cases where it is justified.

            I’ve simply said what my beliefs were. Not saying that our system should change to support them. My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?

            “My state went for Hillary anyway.”
            My apologies, I didn’t know. Then yes, you personally did not contribute to his election. Although people like you that lived in states that did go for him did.
            Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter. Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so. Well except for you directly contributing to him winning, I suppose I made an assumption about the state you lived in. And I apologize again for making said assumption.

            “In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point.”
            How about we stick to the things that have happened? Like the travel ban, the beginning of the Lakota Pipeline again, or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students. I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare, but thankfully that got struck down. Although that was a valid fear many people had before the election.

            As for actual people suffering, well there’s all those refugees who were in dire need of medical care and were denied access to that of the US, thus endangering their lives. There’s the increase in hate crimes since the election because the message that a bigot can be president has emboldened people to act on their similar beliefs. And the aformentioned Lakota Tribe. But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency. I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.

            My vote for Hilary was a Utilitarian action. I chose the lesser of two evils. A Utilitarian believe the ends justify the means (which I believe is sometimes true). By refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, people who voted third party, made joke votes, or didn’t vote at all (for that specific reason) showed that their principles/duty to not voting for someone they considered evil mattered more than the result. Which is definitely a Deontological action.

            I never said you weren’t a libertarian.

            “Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. ”
            You’re right! Good thing I’m not describing how I think society should work and am instead describing my beliefs as they pertain to a single event in a fictional comic. Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic. Or singular events in hypothetical situations.

            Maybe it’s because I don’t view the world in black and white and believe that universal rules can’t exist without sometimes punishing innocent/well meaning people. I recognize that society doesn’t work that way, nor is there a consistent way to make it completely fair. But that doesn’t mean I can’t personally disagree with some of the ways it works without desiring to to tear it all down simply because it’s not perfect.

          • Beroli

            I don’t know who’s flagging your comment (I have a guess, but it’s unprovable and so that guess may be unfair), but now that it has a reply, it won’t disappear if someone else does it.

          • Zorae42

            Well, I guess it can still disappear. I think I’m done trying now. If it’s that important to someone to prevent me from posting my personal views and defending myself from another person claiming I have views that I don’t, then I’m not going to bother. I’ll just be content that at least some people saw my argument and move on from this trivial debate.

          • Izo

            Hrm, I can’t respond to Zorae’s post, and there’s soooo much I want to respond about, if only for the massive inaccuracies that she’s written.

            So I’ll respond here.

            “Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.”

            While it’s arguable whether a zygote or a fetus or any other step in the birth process is a full human being (and lets face it, you don’t have the be-all-and-end-all on that), at some point in the birth cycle, it is definitely human, and at ALL points in the birth cycle, it’s a living organism, even if you won’t classify it as human yet. And at some point, it is extermination of other life.

            Not to mention the huuuuuge hypocrisy that you show when you’re for bodily autonomy in the case of abortion rights for women, but against it when it’s about forcing someone to do something that you want them to do if it’s NOT about abortion rights for women. Hell, based on your hypocritical views, you could argue that, even if the fetus/zygote/etc was NOT a human life (which I tend to think that it is, just from a scientific standpoint, which makes the rest of what I’m going to say moot if it was being directed at someone else who DID think more than one ‘human body’ was involved), then someone should be justified in forcing the woman to give birth, since you don’t think that bodily autonomy is important anyway.

            “I would attack someone who was hurting me or someone else after I told them not to.”

            Then you should, by that logic, be on Max’s side. He was hurt by Alison. He told her to stop. She didn’t stop until he complied with her demands.

            “Hence why your statement, “Attack people who don’t do what you say” is vague as there are cases where it is justified.”

            Nothing vague about it. We have the exact scenario here in the comic, and you can apply that to real world scenarios as well. For example, lets say I HAD been a Trump supporter and voter (I wasn’t, but lets play pretend for a moment)…. would you think you’re justified in using force to MAKE me vote for Hillary? What if I’m in a swing state? Would you feel justified in calling for force to make me? A whole lot of ‘antifa’ would (and the whole antifa thing is bs to begin with, since they’re hardly ‘anti-fascist’ when they’re using fascist actions to try to force their beliefs on others anyway).

            “I’ve simply said what my beliefs were”

            You’ve been arguing with me non-stop based on your beliefs.

            “My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?”

            It would be chaos. Which is what your arguments of ‘it’s justifiable to force people to do what you want’ would lead to if it was ever put into practice. Not just majority rule, but tyranny OF the majority, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers were concerned about when they made the nation a Republic instead of a Democracy. To prevent tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the more vocal among us silencing those more silent.

            That’s why what Alison did is so abbhorent to me. Because she puts her own personal views, at any particular moment in time, as more important than other people’s to the point where she doesn’t just argue about it (which would be acceptable) but she uses physical force to force others, who have done NO harm to anyone else, to comply (which is not acceptable).

            “My apologies, I didn’t know.”

            It shouldn’t matter. If shouldn’t matter where I live. You have no moral superiority over me to tell me what my vote should or should not be.

            “Then yes, you personally did not contribute to his election. Although people like you that lived in states that did go for him did.
            Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter.”

            The hilarious thing is you really do think that, rather than think that Hillary ran a crappy campaign or that you all should have just voted third party instead of the ONE crappy candidate you were given for Democrats.

            “Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so.”

            …. the hypocrisy of this sentence is so mind-blowing.

            “How about we stick to the things that have happened?”
            I have been. Even Hillary’s advisors, the generals, and the Russians have said that her actions would have likely led to war. With a nuclear-armed Russia. Talk about ‘utilitarian’ choices there?

            “Like the travel ban,”
            Wasn’t a ban. 90 day travel freeze from 7 countries which had been decided on by Obama, which you clearly don’t seem to realize. And the reason for those countries being chosen by Obama was not because they’re muslim, but because the countries do not have any sort of vetting process to figure out who they are when they come into this country, which is based on a law that was passed in 1954, by Democrats, supported by Democrats, written by Democrats, and used ONCE before, by Democratic President Jimmy Carter.

            “the beginning of the Lakota Pipeline again,”
            Not really sure why the pipeline is a bad thing. Especially considering there’s more environmental problems involved in transferring the oil via trucks on the roads, not to mention more cost, more risk, and less jobs. Plus the oil would still be going out – just to Russia via additional pipelines being built, rather than the Keystone pipeline. Plus it’s one of thousands of pipelines which get constructed, the rest of which people like you seem largely quiet or ignorant of. Only way to prevent the need for it is to send the world back a couple of hundred years to a pre-industrial society. Then you’ll only have mass starving, a minimalization of technology, etc.

            “or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students”
            Actually Trump is fine and supportive of transgender people using any bathroom they want. Trump Towers allows it and Caitlin Jenner is a huge Trump supporter because of it. If anything, Trump is probably one of the most trans-supportive Republicans that’s ever been elected. Just sayin’.

            What he does support, though, is states rights. He’s sort of consistent on that at least. Which is probably why many libertarians are not freaking out about Trump, even if they’re usually not massive Trump supporters. You know, the same states rights that people on your side of the aisle only support when arguing about sanctuary cities, but strangely don’t any other time?

            “I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare,”

            Seriously, nothing you’re saying is even remotely accurate. Millions aren’t losing their health care when the ACA goes down. The ACA is a horrible law, by the way, that should have been struck as unconstitutional (if not for that idiot Roberts deciding he was a legislator and NOT a judge and changing the law when even Obama said it was NOT a tax) and only encourages doctors to NOT accept medicare in the first place and the ACA. I have family who are doctors, so I do know how to payment ‘plan’ goes. The ACA also relies on young people paying for older people by forcing young people to have plans that they simply do not need, and pretty much screws family plans totally. Trumpcare also sucks btw and THAT’S what is getting struck down – the ACA is still being repealed, with it’s $12,000 deductibles and ‘It’s a tax, it’s not a tax’ forcing of people to get something they don’t want. You know what would work better? Gasp. Capitalism. Removing the limitations on where insurance companies can sell their policies, which would force different plans to have to compete with each other, rather than forcing people to buy one particular plan rather than another in another state. Why do you think Lasik eye surgery has gone down from $20,000 per eye to $4,000 for both? Because there’s competition involved. When insurance companies don’t have to compete with each other, they can form blocs that screw the consumer. When they have to compete with each other, or have to deal with new insurance companies that will compete by offering better prices, then you would start seeing more affordable insurance.

            “Although that was a valid fear many people had before the election.”

            You and I have a really different definition of ‘valid’ – talk about fear mongering. Wow.

            “As for actual people suffering, well there’s all those refugees”

            Refugees. How’s that been working out in Belgium, Germany, and the other countries? You know, the places where they’re having full grown adults claiming to be 14 year olds. Or the rape gangs. To the point where Merkel is beginning to realize she made an awful mistake. By the way most of the ‘syrian refugees’ are not actually refugees, or even Syrian. Just sayin’.

            “who were in dire need of medical care”

            Where’d you get this pseudo-fact from?

            “and were denied access to that of the US, thus endangering their lives.”

            Got another proposal. Offer the ‘refugees’ safe zones IN the middle east, supported by UN troops (actually sorry, UN Peacekeepers have had a nasty habit of being involved in rape and murder, so going to say US troops instead)…. so… Middle east safe zone, supported by US troops, where the ‘refugees’ can have access to medical help. Bam! Compassionate to the suffering without allowing hundreds of thousands of un-vetted people into the country as a drain on economic services and a potential national security threat if they can’t be properly vetted (which even Hillary advisors said they could not be).

            “There’s the increase in hate crimes since the election”

            Actually there hasn’t been. There’s definitely been an increase in people trying to fake hate crimes and getting caught though. There’s also been an increase in rioting, but a lot of that’s from ANTI-Trump protesters.

            “because the message that a bigot can be president has emboldened people to act on their similar beliefs.”

            Again, not sure how Trump is a bigot. He’s just stupid. Most of his kids converted to judaism. He’s married to an immigrant (a legal immigrant). He’s pro-LGBT rights. He puts hispanic and black people at the highest levels of his companies. Where is this ‘bigotry?’ Is it because he said he wanted to ban muslims? Because I think that’s just him speaking stupidly because he is a stupid person, not a bigot, since he hasnt actually tried to ban all muslims (the ‘muslim ban’ was for 7 countries, which Obama chose, for reasons of them not being able to vet properly, and one of which we were currently at war with, and did not include another 43 muslim-majority countries, who could still come in without any problem).

            Trump IS sexist – yeah that I’m pretty sure he is since he has a habit of cheating on his wives then marrying the person with whom he cheated, although I consider Hillary to be at least as bad for women, ironically. Given what she did to the women who Bill molested or how she supported Bill after he cheated on her with and verbally slammed the women. Although Trump does seem to not have a problem putting women in high positions of power, despite his sexist attitudes in his personal life.

            “And the aformentioned Lakota Tribe.”

            Uh…. how has the Lakota tribe (ie, Sioux) been harmed by Trump?

            “But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency.”

            Pssh, I’m going to guess that you were calling for his impeachment within the first two minutes of his presidency.

            “I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.”

            You haven’t actually shown anyone who’s suffered yet anyway. Look, I’m not a Trump supporter, but if you keep crying wolf over BS stuff that doesn’t exist, if and when he does something that’s ACTUALLY wrong or criminal, people are just going to look at you and say ‘yeah there they go again, making up stuff.’

            “My vote for Hilary was a Utilitarian action.”

            No, you voted clearly on party lines, which is deontological…. not because of ‘good’ – Hillary is anything but ‘good.’

            And that’s another problem. You making assumptions that, in this example, one is good and the other is bad. When it’s actually one is bad and the other is stupid.

            “I never said you weren’t a libertarian.”

            You seem to think that I’m a Trump supporter because I did not vote for Hillary though. Just because I did not vote for someone who is a criminal does not mean I support someone who’s does not have a filter on his speaking voice for saying dumb crap because he’s used to being able to say anything he wants since he’s insanely rich. Just because I fact check you when you bring up the often clearly false narratives being thrown out there daily does not mean I dont think there are probably REAL stories out there about Trump that aren’t being reported because the media is too busy believing Buzzfeed about fake stories of Russian hookers peeing on him. You want me to agree with you on something about Trump? Use the Trump-Care proposed law as an example, because we’d probably find common ground there. Use the fact that he doesn’t seem to really respect women in general, because I’d have a lot more difficulty arguing in his defense there as long as you don’t try to tie in his disrespect for women with abortion or LGBT stuff, since for both of those he seems to actually be more Democratic about in the first place and I’d wind up having to point that out.

            “Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic.”

            And the fact that she is unaffected by laws makes it even more vital that she doesn’t start subjectively deciding what other people should do, since she can’t get held to the same standards as other people, which is a really good way to lead to an authoritarian tyrant or Hitler-esque fascist society with Alison in the place of ‘der Fuhrer.’

            To quote Peter Parker: With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.

            “Maybe it’s because I don’t view the world in black and white”

            You seem to when it comes to trump voters, and people who did not vote for Hillary all but arent on the Bash Trump bandwagon, and people who did not vote for Hillary at all but ARE on the Bash Trump bandwagon in the same basket.

            One might even call it a deplorable basket. A Basket of deplorables, if you will.

            “I recognize that society doesn’t work that way, nor is there a consistent way to make it completely fair.”

            One way you definitely can’t make it fair is to have one overpowering god-king/god-queen deciding for everyone else what to do by virtue of overwhelming might. That’s most of human history – most of bloody, tyrannical human history, pre-civilization, pre-liberty, pre-individual rights.

            “But that doesn’t mean I can’t personally disagree with some of the ways it works without desiring to to tear it all down simply because it’s not perfect.”

            I do agree with you here. But the difference is I’m not calling you evil just because you voted for Hillary, and if Hillary had won, I wouldn’t be saying ‘you should have voted for Trump.’

            https://68.media.tumblr.com/6457fb587cf7920c6ee1806b88efbae1/tumblr_nejkoqLwRf1r9da42o1_500.jpg

          • Mars Romael

            Hello, love your argument so far, shame about Stephanie :(. Listen I Voted like you In the election, correctly, and I have been constantly hearing things about either side of the election. What I heard straight from Trumps mouth sounded abhorrent and what I’ve heard about Hillary from the news was absolutely terrible. Could you do me a huge favor and link, elaborate, help me understand what Hillary has done? You seem very informed on relating subjects and would love to see where your opinion on Hillary comes from.

          • Izo

            It hasn’t exactly been hidden what Hillary has done. Insider Trading at Whitewater. Suspected involvement in multiple murders, including that of Vince Foster. The cover-up of Benghazi. Public smearing of her husbands molestation and rape victims. Violation of federal rules on record keeping of classified materials in the private email server (which Patraeus WAS found guilty of for faaaar less), as well as hiding evidence, then attempting to destroy and actually destroying evidence when she had the private server wiped, ignoring and lying under oath about multiple demands by Congress to turn over government emails, bribery charges using the Clinton Foundation as a front and Bill’s speaking fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation as the payment method for everything from access to the Secretary of State (and possibly to the President, which we can’t know since she wiped so much of the information and violated) to the sale of 24 percent of the United States uranium mines effectively to the russians, perjury, sale of high-tech secrets to China (documented by Judicial Watch) in 1996, Travelgate, Hillary’s missing law firm billing records from 1994, which then mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996 (part of Whitewatergate scandal), The cattle future scandals (more insider trading), the hiring of an Iranian multimillionaire with ties to Tehran in 2008 as her National finance director (which was actually another bribe for which she got payments of over $100,000 between 2005 and 2008), who was later convicted of running a Ponzi sceheme in 2010, financial mismanagement and fraud in the Clinton Foundation in the amount of over $17 million ccording to the report written by Charles Ortel and the WND in Public Filings, as recently as 2015….

            There’s seriously so much stuff she’d ACTUALLY done, and which even the reports showed that she did, but it was decided to not prosecute him for no reason other than she is Hillary Clinton. This has gone on for decades now of her getting away with crime after crime, lying about it in the face of definitive proof of what she claims didn’t happen (or proof that things she said happened did NOT happen). And that’s before you even get to the trail of bodies which seem to follow the Clintons for decades as well (even if they were involved in a quarter of the people who turn up shot in the head, in the back, or ‘committing suicide under mysterious circumstances,’ that’s still more than enough that ANYONE else would be in prison for decades, even just for the smaller crimes.

            Not to mention we would be at war with the Soviet Union had she been elected if we are to believe even some of what she said during the campaign itself. According to her own advisors and multiple generals.

            And I’m not going to be a Trump defender (Trump’s biggest problem is he has a sort of diarrhea of the mouth where he just blabs on anything that pops into his head at a given moment with no internal filter to say ‘hey, maybe this is a dumb thing I’m saying’ then doubles down on it because he’s stubborn), because I’m in a state where it doesn’t really matter anyway and I voted for someone who actually shares many of my political opinions on liberty and individual rights, Gary Johnson, who is pretty much a pothead but someone who has no criminal history and actually respects and follows the Constitution (even if he doesn’t know where Aleppo is, which lets admit it, most people probably didn’t until it became a big story)…. but voting for her would have told the Democrats that it’s fine for them to put forth people like HER as the Presidential nominee, when there are better choices available like Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, Martin Heinrich, Joe Manchin, Jerry Brown…. hell, they could have run Joe Biden and the Democrats would have definitely won with Joe Biden . The Democrats needed to realize they were going down the wrong track with backing Hillary (and cheating to ensure Hillary was the nominee instead of, say, Bernie Sanders, during the primaries).

            And frankly I found that if people really wanted a woman as President, the Republicans were running one who was far better than Hillary or Trump – Carley Fiorina, who is both intelligent and NOT loaded with scandals and criminal cover-ups and not saying idiotic things every other time she opens her mouth. She wasn’t nominated, so I didn’t really care much about the other Republican candidates (except maybe Rand Paul, who’s the closest thing to a Libertarian that has ever been in the Republican Party, but he sometimes makes some really dumb decisions as well out of what I can only assume is pride).

          • Izo

            “Except it’s not murdering someone for $5, it’s punching someone in the face for $5. And then taking only $5 like you said you would. And not for you to eat, but for an entire orphanage to (somehow) be fed for life off that measly $5.”

            So…. you’re saying it’s okay to punch people in the face to take $5 from them if you are feeling hungry and don’t have the money to buy food that costs $5?

            See, that’s concerning to me.

            Also if you want, say ‘you punch them in the face and threaten that you will kill them if they don’t give you $5, if you really want to be anal about this comparison.

            Congratulations. You just implied that any time a person has any excuse, they can mug and assault another person.

            “And the dude said, “I once killed a dude for $1, it turned out he didn’t have any money at all, and I still regret my actions”. Not, “Don’t feel guilty”.”

            Way to utterly miss what I said

            This part of the example was to give the person leverage over the person hearing the confession, so that you don’t have to be plagued with worry that they will tell on you. It has nothing to do with the guilt part. Also, he clearly did NOT regret his actions, and he never said he did. So in the comparison, saying ‘I still regret my actions’ you trying to turn this into a strawman argument since the actual stuff I said is too difficult for you to debate.

            “She’d do it again because it’d mean saving all those orphans again,”

            What orphans? Where are you getting this from in my example?

            “it’s not like she’s willing to condemn those orphans to starvation for the needs of one, greedy asshole.”

            It’s good that we have people like you and Alison who know better than the rest of us. By the way, send me $200. I want to feed some orphans and if you don’t send me the money, maybe someone will find you and make you send it.

            Just kidding obviously. But imagine if that was real. You think I would be justified in forcing you to send me money under the threat of force because I think I know better how to spend your money than you do?

            “But, she’s also said that she wants violence to be a ‘last possible resort’ sort of thing rather than her goto method.”

            Except it wasn’t her last possible resort. Want? Doesn’t matter if she would do the same thing again. Which she said she would. Also…. life doesn’t always go your way. A free society means you can’t force people to do what you want. They have to have the right to say no about their own bodily (and financial, for that matter) autonomy if they did nothing wrong.

            “Because she’d much rather talk the dude into giving her $5 than beating it out of him.”

            Give me $5. What should I do to you if you say no? Should I try to think of other ways to earn $5, try to find someone else who might give me $5, or just chalk it up to the idea that the world does not revolve around me and I might not get $5 period?

            “Yeah, I have no idea where that’s coming from. Most millennials seem to be for simply not being douchebags to other people.”

            I wonder what your definition of a douchebag is. Seems like it’s ‘whoever does not believe what I believe.’ That sounds like a pretty fascist mentality.

            Which brings us to your next few sentences about nazis.

            “Never seen them against free speech.”

            http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-millennials-freespeech-poll-20151123-story.html

            https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/first-amendment-college-campus-millennials/477171/

            http://college.usatoday.com/2015/11/25/millennials-free-speech-pew-survey/

            Happy reading.

            “Unless you mean the ones that are for punching Nazi’s, which seems like a wonderful mindset for our youth to have.”

            Actually I mean the idea of ‘offensive speech’ being illegal, but the problem being that the word ‘offensive’ is subjective, and what is offensive speech to one person is not to another, and it’s a great way of shutting down both the marketplace of ideas and public debate if you can make claims that the other person does not have a right to talk but you do.

            It’s a nazi, fascist philosophy, ironically, to first shut down free speech and the right to have dissent. A philosophy which you are supporting.

            Or have you never heard the quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.” by Evelyn Beatrice Hall?

            Or perhaps Benjamin Franklin, who said “If all printers were determined to not print anything till the were sure it would not offend anybody, there would be very little printed.”

            Perhaps you’ve heard of Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said “If there is any principle of the Constitution thatmore imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us… but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

            In other words, it’s really easy to allow only the speech with which you agree. Wonderful echo chamber for you to live in. But eventually you’ll be the one whos speech is being curtailed. Speech which you do not consider offensive, but someone else does.

            “Ah, so you voted for Trump.”

            Ah. So apparently you never learned how to read. Third party. I’m a libertarian. I voted for Gary Johnson, just like I did in the previous election.

            “Cool of you to admit to supporting tyranny in real life after all this posturing on the internet.”

            …he said in an authoritarian, tyrannical fashion, after lying about what I said.

            “Considering the majority of people above 30 voted Trump, guess I’m saying the majority of people above 30? ”

            So… if you’re older than 30…. you are elderly. I …. see…..

            I could pretty easily make a joke about how the immaturity of your post, if you think being older than 30 makes you elderly. Nah….

            “Obviously not all of them are douche canoes,”

            Let me guess, only the people who agree with everything you say are not. Good to know. Your bubble must be really fun to live in.

            “for some reason a majority of them are (or at least morons).”

            Obviously you need to start threatening them with physical violence so they start thinking properly, like you do. That doesn’t sound even remotely fascist. Not nazi mentality. Nah. /s

            “Although that’s rather horrifying since I’m not too far off that age,”

            You should look for ways to make sure you don’t become 31 then. The world would have to have another ‘douche canoe’ in it. We’d rather have free thinkers like you (well, free-the-right-kind-of-thinkers anyway) /s

            “no idea how the majority of people born just a few years before me could be so awful.”

            If only they had your stunning intellect and knew right from wrong (ie, your right from wrong). Someone should threaten them with violence to force them to make the right decisions – ie, your decisions. They’re basically nazis since they don’t agree with you, after all. Damn fascists, not doing what you tell them to do as if they had freedom of speech, which you totally support except for when it’s not speech that you like….

          • Zorae42

            “So…. you’re saying it’s okay to punch people in the face to take $5 from them if you are feeling hungry and don’t have the money to buy food that costs $5?”

            Way to utterly miss what I said. I said, “but for an entire orphanage to (somehow) be fed for life off that measly $5”. And you know what? Yeah, I’d say it’s okay to punch people in the face to take $5 from them and then somehow magically feed an entire orphanage for the rest of their lives. I mean, if the dude doesn’t want to give up $5 to feed an entire orphanage, then sure.

            “You just implied that any time a person has any excuse, they can mug and assault another person.”

            No, I just implied that if they have a really really ridiculously good excuse, then sure. But in real life, that $5 is not going to feed an orphanage, so probably not really applicable.

            “Also, he clearly did NOT regret his actions, and he never said he did.”

            Guwara: β€œBut for that damned gun, I could have lived guiltless and clean”.

            “By the way, send me $200. I want to feed some orphans and if you don’t send me the money”

            Hey, if you could somehow legitimately prove that you’d use that money to feed orphans and I was at a financial point where I could afford it, then I’d totally send you the money to feed them. Because I’m not an awful person who only cares about myself. And if someone asks me for help for the sake of others at little cost to myself then I’m all for doing it. But my personal character has nothing to do with the comic, now does it?

            “Except it wasn’t her last possible resort. Want? Doesn’t matter if she would do the same thing again. Which she said she would.”

            Because she didn’t have the skills or the realization at the time. She wants to do better in the future.

            “Give me $5. What should I do to you if you say no? Should I try to think of other ways to earn $5, try to find someone else who might give me $5, or just chalk it up to the idea that the world does not revolve around me and I might not get $5 period?”

            I mean, that’s not really the same situation since other ways and other people exist to give you $5. But if you could explain more about why you needed the $5 then I might agree (again because I’m not a selfish prick, or at least I don’t think I am). And that’s what Alison wants to try and accomplish.

            “Actually I mean the idea of ‘offensive speech’ being illegal”

            Ah, I’m sorry I could not read your mind across the internet and determine what exactly you meant by saying ‘millennials support tyranny’. I take a bit of offense at you automatically assuming my views on the subject since it was clear I didn’t know exactly what you meant. Although since you were somewhat right about them, I guess I can’t be too upset.

            Honestly? Hate speech probably should be illegal. For the same reason it’s illegal to yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded room. It’s done as a way to incite violence and really has no place in society. You can espouse whatever views you want (within reason, obviously wanting to kill all people of a certain ethnicity is not an acceptable view to have let alone tell people of that ethnicity), but once you start dropping slurs, you’re only doing it to hurt/incite other people. Obviously it’d have to have some very very specific wording to prevent tryanny from arising from that sort of law.

            “Ah. So apparently you never learned how to read.”

            Made my opinions clear in the post down below. Going to leave this one alone.

            “So… if you’re older than 30…. you are elderly. I …. see…..”

            I was kind of being facetious about the elderly comment. I apologize for that. I was going off the same statistics I used before. And it was horrifying to learn that the majority of people above 30 voted for Trump and his tyranny (I assumed the age would be much older).

            “Let me guess, only the people who agree with everything you say are not. Good to know. Your bubble must be really fun to live in.”

            Nope, just people that believe in demeaning women, hate/fear mongering of immigrants/muslims, the further mistreatment of minorities, unnecessary and unrealistic solutions that are not actual solutions (the wall), tyranny in general, and helping out the wealthy %1 at the expense of everyone else. I’m not sure how thinking those sort of people are bad people is itself bad?

            Heh, I was going to write out how I don’t think you’re a ‘douche canoe’ and you have differing views from me. But then I remembered that you contributed to the election of the President we have now. You’re not a full on ‘douche canoe’ (I mean, it’s not like you voted for him), but still some lesser variety of a ‘douche’. Anyone who puts themselves above others in that sort of scale is, honestly. Not illegal to be one, just means I don’t like you nor would I want to associate with you *shrug*.

            But don’t worry, I’m calling your actions those of a douche. Not you personally. Totally not the same thing.

            “You should look for ways to make sure you don’t become 31 then.”

            Hah, if only. But that’s fine, I assume other sensible people of my age will retain their wits as they age and not stoop to supporting tyranny just for having lived longer. If not, then I’ll happily be in that minority that doesn’t.

            “If only they had your stunning intellect and knew right from wrong (ie, your right from wrong).”

            Oh man, I hope not. I think I’m pretty smart, but I’m definitely not ‘stunning’. And I know I don’t get ‘right from wrong’ correct quite a bit. I do wish they’d realized how awful of a person Trump is before they’d voted for him and the gravity of what voting for him would mean. Although who knows, maybe they were just grossly misinformed, the votes were skewed because of Russia’s possible interference, or some weird other third reason that would mean that almost half of the people in this country aren’t bigots.

          • Izo

            First…. cmon don’t upvote your own posts. That’s just in such bad taste.

            Second… I’m sort of surprised that Stephanie upvoted you when, in the post, you outright do a direct, personal insult in the form of the words ‘douche canoe.’ I guess Stephanie’s posts about insults are limited to criticizing just me :).

            Third….
            “Way to utterly miss what I said. I said, “but for an entire orphanage to (somehow) be fed for life off that measly $5″.”

            Where did this whole orphanage thing come from? I’m pretty sure my example had nothing to do with an orphanage. Also if there was an orphanage that could be fed for $5, and there was some idiot who thought the best way to feed them is to mug someone with money, then that person is psychopathic (uh oh I used the word psychopathic again in referring to a particular mentality without having a license in psychotherapy!)

            “And you know what? Yeah, I’d say it’s okay to punch people in the face to take $5 from them and then somehow magically feed an entire orphanage for the rest of their lives.”

            As opposed to finding a way to feed that orphange which does not involve beating someone else up. Hope you never have money and come across someone who needs $5 to feed a magical orphanage.

            “I mean, if the dude doesn’t want to give up $5 to feed an entire orphanage, then sure.”

            Why don’t you give the $5 yourself? Take up a collection for willing people to donate. Get a job. Sell the person something that you own that’s worth $5, which can then be used to feed the orphanage. See we’re getting far from my example, which was a lot more on point than yours about magical orphanages. My example was straightforward. Yours is sort of…. gobbledygook nonsense at this point which is so far removed from the original comparison as to no longer be a comparison at all.

            “No, I just implied that if they have a really really ridiculously good excuse, then sure. But in real life, that $5 is not going to feed an orphanage, so probably not really applicable.”

            And yet you can’t use my far more realistic example of ‘person wants to eat, wants $5, beats someone else up to get $5.’

            Nah, you had to bring magical orphanages into this.

            How about this – you have absolutely no right to hurt another person if you are not in danger or protecting another person from THAT person trying to hurt them. Period. You are not the God-Queen of all creation for whom others must bow down to your desires. You can just as easily BE the victim in the scenario. And if you think you are, and do force someone, you damn well should accept punishment for your actions. Something the victim will consider worthy of closure.

            When someone says ‘If only people did things my way, then everything would be perfect’ – I think ‘that’s a real Nazi-type thing to say.

            “Because she didn’t have the skills or the realization at the time. She wants to do better in the future.”

            Her stupidity is not an excuse for her bad actions. And she’s already said she’d do the SAME thing again, because she realizes she’s too stupid to know how to do it any other way. Despite that, for years, she’s NOT gone violence as the exclusively only way when dealing with other people like Moonshadow, or even with Cleaver after he was captured. Or with Professor Cohen. Or with Patrick (sometimes).

            “I mean, that’s not really the same situation since other ways and other people exist to give you $5. But if you could explain more about why you needed the $5 then I might agree (again because I’m not a selfish prick, or at least I don’t think I am). And that’s what Alison wants to try and accomplish.”

            I specifically need YOUR $5. I’m sure there are other 5 dollar bills out there, but I don’t have time to look for another $5 that would do the same thing as this thing which I consider a good reason, evne though you won’t consider it a good reason. I can’t give a good reason that will fit your definition of good reason that I need the $5. I can only give a good reason that fits MY definition of a good reason. And since I’m incapable of articulating myself, I’m just going to say that I just need it and I need it more than you need it so give it to me or else violence will ensue! Now I’m gonna show you that I can break your arm if I want, and if that doesn’t work I’m gonna kill you because you can’t stop me since you are weak and I am strong.

            THAT’S what Alison was doing.

            “Ah, I’m sorry I could not read your mind across the internet and determine what exactly you meant by saying ‘millennials support tyranny’.”

            It would have involved reading the parts about a lot of millennials are against free speech. Yknow, or you could ask.

            “I take a bit of offense at you automatically assuming my views on the subject since it was clear I didn’t know exactly what you meant.”

            Well since you took offense at what I said, I suppose you should want what I said banned? Also it wasn’t clear that you didnt know what I meant, since you wrote a pretty lengthy post anyway in response.

            “Although since you were somewhat right about them, I guess I can’t be too upset.”

            O…kay?

            “Honestly? Hate speech probably should be illegal.”

            Based on who’s interpretation of what is considered hate speech?

            “For the same reason it’s illegal to yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded room.”

            Actually it’s NOT the same reason given though. Not even close.

            Even Oliver Wendell Holmes, who basically came up with that exception, would disagree with you that offensive speech is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater. He used that example in order to say that free speech had SOME limits, and those limits involved where there is an active danger to someone else as a direct result of that speech. Like where a mafia boss tells a hitman to shoot a business owner in the head three times. That’s not free speech. Even if the hitman doesn’t do it. Where a KKK grand dragon is ordering his men to lynch a black man. Even if they don’t do it but there was still the intent of that order. There are LIMITED exceptions to free speech. But not ‘offensive speech.’ Offensive speech is allowed, and SHOULD be allowed, because it’s subjective on what is and is not offensive.

            “It’s done as a way to incite violence and really has no place in society.”

            I guess most of the Founding Fathers, under your interpretation, have no place in society then. In fact, your speech could be considered hate speech against someone with a different political view. I mean… you hate Trump right? And you seem to hate not only Trump supporters, but even anyone who did not vote for Hillary. That seems mighty hateful to me. Guess by your own interpretation, you shouldn’t be allowed to say that. In fact, you shouldn’t be allowed to say most of your past posts based on that interpretation.

            “You can espouse whatever views you want (within reason,”

            Who’s reason? Your reason? My reason? I think my ‘within reason’ may have a lot more leeway than your reason.

            “obviously wanting to kill all people of a certain ethnicity is not an acceptable view to have let alone tell people of that ethnicity),”

            Is the speech actively telling people to immediately kill another person? Because that really IS an exception to free speech, without having to fall under ‘hate speech.’ It doesnt even have to be of a certain ethnicity. If you said to a man ‘If you kill my sister, I will give you $10,000’ you’re commissioning a crime. You don’t have a defense for that crime by saying it’s free speech. It’s not even hate speech. Doesn’t have to be.

            “but once you start dropping slurs, you’re only doing it to hurt/incite other people.”

            Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

            Seriously, it’s true. Look at how many people call me names here. Or told me that I can’t speak without having a degree in a certain field. I haven’t called to have them banned from saying anything.

            “Obviously it’d have to have some very very specific wording to prevent tryanny from arising from that sort of law.”

            Really. Pray tell me what the wording would be. I’m a lawyer. I’d love to hear this. Tell me who will decide what words shall and shall not be allowed, and what words shall be considered offensive, and which shall not. And then find out if a random group of people agree with which words are and are not offensive. Will this ban be universal to everyone? If not, that’s discriminatory. Legally … discriminatory. Don’t worry Stephanie (who I’m assuming is reading this since she’s been upvoting you along with yourself upvoting yourself), I’m a lawyer and I passed the bar in multiple states, I’m allowed to give legal opinions. πŸ™‚

            “I was kind of being facetious about the elderly comment. I apologize for that.”

            So instead of being facetious, answer the question. What is ‘elderly?’

            “I was going off the same statistics I used before. And it was horrifying to learn that the majority of people above 30 voted for Trump and his tyranny (I assumed the age would be much older).”

            Again…. Yeah how dare there be people with opinions different from yours. They should be shot. /s

            “Nope, just people that believe in demeaning women,”

            So… I’m guessing you’re against sharia law?

            “hate/fear mongering of immigrants/muslims, the further mistreatment of minorities,”

            Okay I don’t actually see any problem with this part, except for my imposing my will on other people’s ability to have free thought about it, although ‘mistreatment’ implies it’s not just ‘speech’ so that’s a bit unfair of you.

            “unnecessary and unrealistic solutions that are not actual solutions (the wall),”

            Building a wall is hate speech? Saying you’ll build a wall is hate speech… because you consider the building of a wall to be an unrealistic solution?

            So… wait…. unrealistic speech is hate speech also? What? Huh?

            “tyranny in general,”

            … she said as she proceeded to give a list of things people can and cannot say in a tyrannical manner…

            “and helping out the wealthy %1 at the expense of everyone else.”

            You do realize that’s not how economics works right? It’s not a zero sum game. Also, The wealthy 1% …

            Here I’m just going to post a link or two of Ben Shapiro on that. Since he’s far smarter than I can ever hope to be and better at using his words to eviscerate that tired Occupy Wall Street bs.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGooHl2R_Y8
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dvOy9XhL0

            You would fail if you took an economics class with this whole ‘the rich steal from the poor to make their money’ thing as your thesis.

            “I’m not sure how thinking those sort of people are bad people is itself bad?”

            Probably because I’m going to tell you the novel idea that a person being rich is not, in itself, bad, nor does it mean they got rich by stealing the money from the poor.

            By the way, from a global standard, you’re pretty close to the one percent already just by being a citizen of the United States if you’re even in the lower middle class.

            “Heh, I was going to write out how I don’t think you’re a ‘douche canoe’ and you have differing views from me. But then I remembered that you contributed to the election of the President we have now. You’re not a full on ‘douche canoe’ (I mean, it’s not like you voted for him), but still some lesser variety of a ‘douche’.”

            Nothing Stephanie? Really? Oh well, guess your posts in the other threads are now meaningless to me on this subject on account of blatant hypocrisy :). Not because I care about people defending me from personal attacks. I’m only fascinated by the hypocrisy part.

            Back to the Goddess Zorae for whom we all must obey since she knows better than all others:

            Gotcha Zorae. Anyone who did not vote for Hillary is a douche of some level. That’s really good debating skills you’ve got there. I’m hoping that douche has some clinical terminology? Pretty sure douche canoe doesn’t.

            “Anyone who puts themselves above others in that sort of scale is, honestly.”

            Wait…. waitwaitwait. So…. anyone who puts themselves above others is a douche? Honey… are you calling yourself a douche? Oh honey, cmon…. don’t namecall yourself.

            “Not illegal to be one, just means I don’t like you nor would I want to associate with you *shrug*.”

            I’m sure I will never get over not being in your social circle. I so wanted you to like me. Then again, you might think we’re both douches, so there’s a chance, right? /s

            “But don’t worry, I’m calling your actions those of a douche. Not you personally. Totally not the same thing.”

            Yes, because you’re obviously using the clinical definition of douche, which is what again? You’re just calling me a shower of water. Because I am giving you a refreshing entrance to new ideas to clean out the smelly old ones?

            I appreciate that. Really I do πŸ™‚

            “But that’s fine, I assume other sensible people of my age will retain their wits as they age and not stoop to supporting tyranny just for having lived longer. If not, then I’ll happily be in that minority that doesn’t.”

            In other words, they won’t do tyrannical things such as forcing others to do things against their will or using violence on them for using wrongspeak?

            Sure hope they don’t.

            “Oh man, I hope not. I think I’m pretty smart, but I’m definitely not ‘stunning’.”

            I knew I forgot to use the /s a few times in my post….

            “And I know I don’t get ‘right from wrong’ correct quite a bit.”

            The first thing you’ve said that I definitely agree with…

            “Although who knows, maybe they were just grossly misinformed, the votes were skewed because of Russia’s possible interference,”

            Ignore the fact that it’s not ‘interference with the election’ – it was releasing emails that the DNC did send and receive, and that it was Wikileaks, not Russia. And that the information was stuff like that Hillary had received the questions for debates in advance. Or that the DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign to screw over Sanders. But hey… sure, feel free to think that Putin personally traveled from state to state to hack into the voting booths, just like in the hit movie Sneakers starring Robert Redford and Dan Akroyd. Because that’s totally how hacking works.

            “or some weird other third reason that would mean that almost half of the people in this country aren’t bigots.”

            Including all those people who voted for Barack Obama in the last two elections and suddenly realized he was black (dangit he tricked them and they werent attending their Klan rallies to be told that he was black), so immediately became racist and sexist so they didn’t vote for Hillary. Because that makes more sense than the idea that Hillary ran a crappy campaign against someone who, by all rights, she should have been able to beat on her own without trying to skew things and collude with the major news organizations, the DNC, massive support from celebrities and a majority of megacorporations.

            Much easier to assume it was Russia or half the country are bigots. Good for you on your critical thinking. /sarcasm

          • Zorae42

            I agree it’s poor taste. I had a problem with my long posts getting marked as spam and I got tired of reposting them. I assumed that by upvoting them they’d be less likely to be marked as spam. So far all the ones I’ve upvoted haven’t been marked as spam (although that might just be coincidence). Usually if I come back and see others have also upvoted I’ll remove mine.

            Second, I can’t say things for Stephanie (although apparently you think you can, as well as for anyone else). But I called your actions ‘those of some sort of a lesser douche’. Not the same πŸ˜›

            The entire orphanage thing came from my reply. Because your example isn’t equivalent. Robbing someone to feed yourself is an act that benefits only yourself. I’d understand the desperation that led to such an act, although I would not condone it. The magical orphanage was the closest thing I could think of to compare to ‘everyone gets organ transplants forever’.

            “As opposed to finding a way to feed that orphanage which does not involve beating someone else up.”

            *shrug* didn’t say it was a good example. Also, if I came across someone that needed $5 to feed a magical orphanage I’d probably give them the money.

            How about this, I view Robin Hood as a heroic figure. Not really a ‘psycopathic’ view to have. And he totally stole from ‘innocent’ rich people to give to the poor. Was it the best way to help them? Probably not, but many people still consider it a heroic thing to have done. Also, the ‘perfect solution’ of going overseas and finding a way to forcibly bring King Richard back to stop the kingdom from needing to fund a horribly expensive war/ransom wasn’t a very realistic option.

            I’m not advocating for some sort of military state where only my views are correct and people can attack others for not believing in whatever view they have. Just saying that if it’s for a good enough cause, and in very specific cases, then I’m kind of okay with resorting to violence (especially if you attempted non-violent methods first and those didn’t work).

            “Well since you took offense at what I said, I suppose you should want what I said banned? Also it wasn’t clear that you didnt know what I meant”

            My post: “Yeah, I have no idea where that’s coming from. Never seen them against free speech.”

            It wasn’t until your next one that you explained fully what you meant by it, and it was full of rhetoric acting like I’d fully supported it. And no, again I said “hate speech/slurs”, being offensive isn’t something that should be made illegal.

            “Based on who’s interpretation of what is considered hate speech?”

            I don’t know, how about the same interpretation of what’s considered hate crimes?

            “Actually it’s NOT the same reason given though. Not even close.”

            Except it is. If a white dude goes into a predominately black neighborhood and shouts the N word at the top of his lungs, then it’s the exact same thing.

            “I guess most of the Founding Fathers, under your interpretation, have no place in society then. In fact, your speech could be considered hate speech against someone with a different political view.”

            Man, for saying that you don’t, you have some really thin skin you know that? Have I dropped any slurs? Have I said that all that oppose me should be tortured/raped/killed? Have I made vulgar comments about your person? Or have I only used childish insults and statements that I disagree with certain people/think their bad people? Please don’t demean the term ‘hate’ to mean ‘disagreement’ when there are people out there that truly suffer from it.

            “Really. Pray tell me what the wording would be. I’m a lawyer. I’d love to hear this.”

            Well, as I am not a lawyer, I wouldn’t have the pretense to attempt to do such a difficult job without the proper training and understanding of the law. Obviously I don’t know how such a law should be worded. But if one was put forward I could do my best to understand it, whether there were any bad implications contained in it, and then would support it after doing said research on it. Since that’s the way our government works (or at least supposedly does).

            “What is ‘elderly?'”

            Why? What does it have anything to do with this thread? I was simply making the comment that a majority of older people are the ones who literally voted for a tyrant and seem to be the ones that need a lesson in tyranny.

            “So… I’m guessing you’re against sharia law?”

            That whole list there was a list of what I considered made a person a ‘douche canoe’. Again, not illegal thoughts to have, just ones that I consider bad and what would make me call someone a ‘douche canoe’.

            “I’m hoping that douche has some clinical terminology?”

            Nope, because I don’t call people clinical terms when I know only what google has told me about them. I merely call them childish insults to help get across my point that I don’t like the things they believe. But since being a ‘douche’ isn’t a thing that you can map to a clinical problem that real people have and suffer from and shouldn’t be thrown around freely as an insult as that implies that the people that suffer from it should be looked down on, I guess that makes me worse at debating.

            “Wait…. waitwaitwait. So…. anyone who puts themselves above others is a douche?”

            “In that sort of scale is”. I’m sorry, I didn’t contribute to hurting the safety and well being of thousands of people so no. Although sure, I guess everyone’s a little bit douche-y. Again, since it’s a childish insult that merely delivers my opinion of ‘not good but more-so’, it’s not really that big of a deal.

            “I knew I forgot to use the /s a few times in my post….”

            Hah, I could tell the sarcasm was there, but it was amusing to take it at face value. It also was meant to dissuade you from going on about me thinking highly of myself (as I really don’t), but since you then went on to call me ‘God-Queen’ in the next post I guess it was ineffective.

            “Ignore the fact that it’s not ‘interference with the election'”

            *shrug* It was not my intention to get into an argument about the election. I was merely making a statement about how the results have made me feel a bit disillusioned with the world in general. I’m a cynic on small scale things but I was an optimist at heart.

          • Zorae42

            I agree it’s poor taste. I had a problem with my long posts getting marked as spam and I got tired of reposting them. I assumed that by upvoting them they’d be less likely to be marked as spam. So far all the ones I’ve upvoted haven’t been marked as spam. That might just be coincidence, although I didn’t do it with these last two posts and surprise surprise, they got marked as spam.

            The entire orphanage came from my reply. Because your example isn’t equivalent. Robbing someone to feed yourself is an act that benefits only yourself. I’d understand the desperation that led to such an act, although I would not condone it. The magical orphanage was the closest thing I could think of to compare to ‘everyone gets organ transplants forever’.

            “As opposed to finding a way to feed that orphanage which does not involve beating someone else up.”

            *shrug* didn’t say it was a good example. Also, if I came across someone that needed $5 to feed a magical orphanage I’d probably give them the money.

            How about this, I view Robin Hood as a heroic figure. Not really a ‘psycopathic’ view to have. And he totally stole from ‘innocent’ rich people to give to the poor. Was it the best way to help them? Probably not, but many people still consider it a heroic thing to have done. Also, the ‘perfect solution’ of going overseas and finding a way to non-forcibly bring King Richard back to stop the kingdom from needing to fund a horribly expensive war/ransom wasn’t a very realistic option.

            I’m not advocating for some sort of military state where only my views are correct and people can attack others for not believing in whatever view they have. Just saying that if it’s for a good enough cause, and in very specific cases, then I’m kind of okay with resorting to violence (especially if you attempted non-violent methods first and those didn’t work).

            “Well since you took offense at what I said, I suppose you should want what I said banned? Also it wasn’t clear that you didnt know what I meant”

            My post: “Yeah, I have no idea where that’s coming from. Never seen them against free speech.”

            It wasn’t until your next one that you explained fully what you meant by it, and it was full of rhetoric acting like I’d fully supported it. And no, again I said “hate speech/slurs”, being offensive isn’t something that should be made illegal.

            “Actually it’s NOT the same reason given though. Not even close.”

            Except it is. If a white dude goes into a predominately black neighborhood and shouts the N word at the top of his lungs, then it’s the exact same thing.

            “I guess most of the Founding Fathers, under your interpretation, have no place in society then. In fact, your speech could be considered hate speech against someone with a different political view.”

            Man, for saying that you don’t, you have some really thin skin you know that? Have I dropped any slurs? Have I said that all that oppose me should be tortured/raped/killed? Have I made vulgar comments about your person? Or have I only used childish insults and statements that I disagree with certain people/think their bad people? Please don’t demean the term ‘hate’ to mean ‘disagreement’ when there are people out there that truly suffer from it.

            “Really. Pray tell me what the wording would be. I’m a lawyer. I’d love to hear this.”

            Well, as I am not a lawyer, I wouldn’t have the pretense to attempt to do such a difficult job without the proper training and understanding of the law. Obviously I don’t know how such a law should be worded. But if one was put forward I could do my best to understand it, whether there were any bad implications contained in it, and then would support it after doing said research on it. Since that’s the way our government works (or at least supposedly does).

            “What is ‘elderly?'”

            Why? What does it have anything to do with this thread? I was simply making the comment that a majority of older people are the ones who literally voted for a tyrant and seem to be the ones that need a lesson in tyranny.

            “So… I’m guessing you’re against sharia law?”

            That whole list there was a list of what I considered made a person a ‘douche canoe’. Again, not illegal thoughts to have, just ones that I consider bad and what would make me call someone a ‘douche canoe’.

            “I’m hoping that douche has some clinical terminology?”

            Nope, because I don’t call people clinical terms when I know only what google has told me about them. I merely call them childish insults to help get across my point that I don’t like the things they believe. But since being a ‘douche’ isn’t a thing that you can map to a clinical problem that real people have and suffer from and shouldn’t be thrown around freely as an insult as that implies that the people that suffer from it should be looked down on, I guess that makes me worse at debating.

            “Wait…. waitwaitwait. So…. anyone who puts themselves above others is a douche?”

            “In that sort of scale is”. I’m sorry, I didn’t contribute to hurting the safety and well being of thousands of people so no. Although sure, I guess everyone’s a little bit douche-y. Again, since it’s a childish insult that merely delivers my opinion of ‘not good but more-so’, it’s not really that big of a deal.

            “I knew I forgot to use the /s a few times in my post….”

            Hah, I could tell the sarcasm was there, but it was amusing to take it at face value. It also was meant to dissuade you from going on about me thinking highly of myself (as I really don’t), but since you then went on to call me ‘God-Queen’ in the next post I guess it was ineffective.

            “Ignore the fact that it’s not ‘interference with the election'”

            *shrug* It was not my intention to get into an argument about the election. I was merely making a statement about how the results have made me feel a bit disillusioned with the world in general.

          • Zorae42

            Well, my reply has been marked as spam twice now. So I’m going to attempt to condense my response and not carry on with this format of defending myself against each of your points which has been creating longer and longer replies.

            I added the orphanage because stealing to feed yourself, while understandable, is still a self serving action, making it not equivalent to Alison’s actions. It’s not realistic since the example that I’m agreeing with is also not realistic.

            I’m not advocating for some sort of military state where only my views are correct and people can attack others for not believing in whatever view they have. Just saying that if it’s for a good enough cause, and in very specific cases, then I’m personally okay with resorting to violence (especially if you attempted non-violent methods first and those didn’t work).

            I said I don’t support “hate speech/slurs” being protected, being offensive isn’t something that should be made illegal. Please don’t demean the term ‘hate’ to mean ‘disagreement’ when there are people out there that truly suffer from it.

            As as I am not a lawyer, I wouldn’t have the pretense to attempt to do such a difficult job without the proper training and understanding of the law. Obviously I don’t know how such a law should be worded. But if one was put forward I could do my best to understand it, whether there were any bad implications contained in it, and then would support it after doing said research on it. Since that’s the way our government works (or at least supposedly does).

            That whole list there was a list of what I considered made a person a ‘douche canoe’. Again, not illegal thoughts to have, just ones that I consider bad and what would make me call someone a ‘douche canoe’. I don’t call people clinical terms when I know only what google has told me about them. I merely call them childish insults to help get across my point that I don’t like the things they believe. But since being a ‘douche’ isn’t a thing that you can map to a clinical problem that real people have and suffer from and shouldn’t be thrown around freely as an insult as that implies that the people that suffer from it should be looked down on, I guess that makes me worse at debating.

      • I thought everybody got an automatic A, including John, because Gurwara generally has a “fuck grades” attitude toward ethics.

        • Tylikcat

          I do wonder if he’s being nearly as effective an instructive for everyone else as he’s being for Al… or if that’s his point at all. (And sure, it’s clearly important to teach Al ethics. But they did all sign up for a course taught by this other guy.*)

          * Of course, being as it was that our introduction to Gurwara was that he briefly claimed the other guy was dead… πŸ˜›

          • Weatherheight

            Muddying the waters from the very get-go, our Arjun…

          • Tylikcat

            Truth in false advertising!

  • Tom O.

    Gurwara knows sleight of hand and would have shown the optimal stone regardless. That’s why he had to make Alison go first. (OK, I’m just kidding but it would be a cool Princess Bride like twist.)

    • Jared Rosenberg

      I clearly can not take the stone in front of me….

      • palmvos

        inconceivable!

    • Psile

      I have been building up an immunity to philosophy classes for the last 7 years.

      • palmvos

        hello, my name in Inigo Montoya. you failed my father…..

    • Flipz

      You keep using that axiom. I do not think it achieves what you think it achieves.

      (Yes, this would have been more relevant during the original stones game, but I didn’t see any Princess Bride references back then. πŸ˜› )

  • Negathle

    Minor art quibble: Allison looks like she is looking over her professor’s shoulder in panel one. Intended?

    • 12th

      Quibble to the quibble: they are sort of both looking off-center from each other, but altering the rotation of their heads would have us looking at the back of Gurawa’s head and having Allison looking directly at the audience. Bit awkward, but that’s the camera angle they are at.

      Also, who knows, maybe that duck has followed them and has distracted the prof.

      • Weatherheight

        They’re scanning for the Postal Workers Union……

    • Urthman

      She was about to fly over and catch that kid who looked like he was about to fall out of a tree, but he grabbed a branch and didn’t fall.

      • Weatherheight

        “Every day! Every single day! And you never even thanked me once!”

  • Hawthorne

    And then Harry Blackstone appears and puts down a white stone and the world implodes.

    • Alexander

      Sorry, but the first thing I thought was: Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden?

      • masterofbones

        I assumed that is what they were talking about. Was it not?

  • Insanenoodlyguy

    No, the lesson is “If will not choose black yourself I will insist you do or else I will do the violence”. The reign of the tyrant has begun!

  • Matrix

    The lesson here is complex and simple at the same time. Much of life is. Basically, She has started THINKING rather than reacting to the world. She is now more aware of her decisions and her motivations and how others fit into them. Taking the time to work through her thoughts prior to making a rash decision or declaration. While the end result MIGHT be the same the major difference is that she has the mental backing, the follow through, the certainty to argue her points and to live them. They are more than mere words. They are a part of her reality.
    Now that her brain is started I am sure that she has much to teach Gurwara. It is true that the teacher gets taught by the student as the student gets taught by the teacher. I am sure he is looking forward to it.
    Back to the lesson. She, in this case, is choosing to save others specifically their grades and scholarships, at the possible sacrifice to herself. While it is assumed that she will be sticking to her principals no matter what, that is no longer the case. He is now inviting her to explain her motivations under the goad of her sticking to her principles no matter what. To the outside observer it is an obvious jab at her confidence and her thought process BUT the key here is that she has had time to THINK and decide in this specific situation. She is not going into this blindly but with thoughtful intent. That is exactly what the Professor wanted. It matters not that the results, on the surface, are the same.

    • Elaine Lee

      Also, she knows what the consequences could be and I doubt she would’ve thrown a tantrum if Gurwara had turned up the white stone. Accepting negative consequences is something you have to get used to, when you’re trying to do the right thing.

  • DaktariD

    It looks like someone’s crisis of confidence might be over

  • Tylikcat

    “Not just me. John as well, right? Those were the rules…. And also you.”

  • Oldlion

    Another lesson :
    The prisonner dilemna is not played in the same way with every opponent/partner.
    There is no “true” solution.
    If you know and can trust the ones you play with, it is great.
    I’ve read somewhere that people often are either “takers” or “givers”.
    If there are givers and takers in a team, the team works ok and the takers do great. The givers are seen as losers.
    If there are only takers, the team does poorly or fails.
    If there are only givers, the team can do miracles.
    Sadly, most often the safe way to live is to be a taker.

    • And yet if we all aimed to give instead, we truly could move the world.
      I think this impulse, this hope for the future of humanity is similar to what Jesus described when talking about “faith as small as a mustard seed”.

  • Revelation, as expected.

    The interesting bit is going to be Alison’s answer to the question in the last panel

  • JohnTomato

    Principles change with time and how the person changes.

    Everything changes all the time.

  • Robert

    Wow… just… wow.

    Seriously, do we ever truly win? Whether we stand by our convictions in the face of mounting opposition, or go with convenience and “sell out”… do we ever win?

    We are horrible creatures, humans… all of us are varying degrees of horrible… to ourselves, those we profess to care for, and to those we dislike. Horrible…

    Then comes the moment my belief that we are truly selfishly, wickedly, bad gets blown away, and I feel hope, for a fleeting moment, before someone does something shitty… followed by a dozen more crappy people doing lousy things… followed by another few thousand doing the same… but every time I think I’m going under, drowning in the fetid morass that is our overpopulated world, there’s that moment again…

    • Insatiable Booksluts

      Winning would imply an ending, and overall, there’s not one in sight. We can win situations, we can’t win humanity in general. You can’t win a game with no ending and where everyone plays by their own set of rules.

      • Insatiable Booksluts

        (But, I guess you also can’t lose.)

    • Elaine Lee

      Not so. It is a miracle that most of us manage to get through the day without hurting anyone. It is a miracle that most people would willingly help another person in distress, or sacrifice for another. The world is actually becoming less and less violent, even with the population being what it is (though I do realize the population is a problem).
      http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence

  • Arkone Axon

    I love how he’s rolling his eyes because he already told John that he wasn’t automatically flunking. So he knows that Alison is desperate to do SOMETHING that is pure and good without any negative side effects.

    “You’re not going to fail John either, right? I’ve saved John!”

    “No, I… er… yes. Yes, you saved John. That is what you did. How about another slice of pizza?”

    • LSabljak

      http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-129-2/ I think they’re talking in the hypothetical sense, since gurwara said that for the sake of their game John had also been stuck with his black stone. I’m not certain though; I could be misreading.

      • Arkone Axon

        Oh… that’s right. Alison might not have heard Gurwara telling John he wasn’t going to flunk just because of the silly game. This might have been Gurwara actively trying to do something to cheer Alison up. “I’ll do something nice for her. What does she like? Oh yeah – helping people. Here, I’ll pitch her a nice easy one to hammer out of the park.”

        • LSabljak

          Not exactly? with the referenced page above, panel 1, when Al asks if it’s just Gurwara and her playing the stone game second time around, he points out that John is still out there with his black stone and no choice but to play it.

          I’m pretty confident that his saying that is to deliberately test Al’s conviction to stick to her beliefs, but wiith stronger justifications this time. John’s hypothetical participation in round 2 here is a message: this isn’t a pure takeback of a failing grade. this test is still ongoing.

  • Walter

    I can’t help but think that everyone passes Mr. Guwara’s course, every semester.

    • masterofbones

      He actually has tenure and just takes over people’s classes randomly.

    • Danygalw

      He’s a substitute.

  • McFrugal

    Awwww… He didn’t go no-stone. Or maybe he pulled some sleight of hand and was planning to mirror whatever her choice was?

  • Izo

    Moral of the story arc:

    If you threaten to murder people and bully people with your power if they do not do as you say, everything will go your way, all medical conditions will be cured, your friend will find love and a happy life, any guilt you MIGHT feel will be allayed, you will pass your class, and the professor that was unfair to you will quit his job.

    And people on the internet will gang up on anyone who says otherwise and call them names. πŸ™‚

    • Lostman

      You have heat when people dog pile you, this is a public form then again.

      • Izo

        Yeah but I have decided to spin it as that that when people pile on me here 30 to one (with all the lovely threats and insults that come with it), as they usually do, it’s almost an even debate, intellectually. πŸ™‚ Especially when dealing with law. Or basic science. Or not threatening to murder people to get what you want. Or engaging in violence to get what you want. Or murdering someone because you promised to murder someone after the fact. The only way they can get an advantage IS to dogpile on me with insults instead of measured responses (with the exception of very few people).

    • Roman Snow

      You wouldn’t have cause to feel “ganged up on” if you didn’t randomly antagonize people for holding views they never actually held or expressed.

      • Arkone Axon

        Speaking as one of the people who agreed with Izo about how what Alison did was wrong and reprehensible… I’ve had plenty of people attacking me for holding views I never actually held or expressed. The only part where I disagree with Izo is that the whole point of this current story arc is that Alison (or any other protagonist… i.e. any of us) can make a huge mistake, but still try to make amends, try to make things right, try to atone. It’ll never be as good as not having made the mistake in the first place… but just because you’re on the slippery slope doesn’t mean you can’t recognize it and pull yourself back.

        • Roman Snow

          Izo’s position on the morality of the characters themselves isn’t what’s objectionable. I’m referring primarily to Izo’s conduct on page 128.

          Izo said “someone should put a bullet in [Gurwara’s] brain,” to which Scott replied “He killed that man and killing is wrong! KILL HIM!”

          Izo then asked Scott if he was “psychopathic or something” (I think this comment may have been deleted by moderation but you can see lots of people referring to it) and accused him of “defending murder.”

          This seems to just come out of nowhere, right? Over the course of several hours of arguments, it turned out that:
          1. “‘A bullet in Gurwara’s head’ is a metaphor for ‘Gurwara needs to face justice for his crimes, and the penalty should meet the crime.'” (exact quote)
          2. No one realized this because we’re just not smart enough. “But I suppose I was overestimating people’s general intelligence in that they’d know that ‘a bullet in the head’ is a metaphor to ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘murderers deserve to be executed.'” (exact quote)
          3. “And since I consider legal execution to NOT be morally wrong, his statement is an argument to me that what Gurwara did was similarly not morally wrong.” (exact quote)
          4. Therefore, Scott was “defending murder.”

          No amount of argument could convince Izo otherwise.

          Later Scott came back and explained that he thought a “bullet in the head” was advocating street justice, not legal execution, and that he respected Izo’s clarified position. Izo has yet to apologize to him.

          • Arkone Axon

            Honestly, I wouldn’t know. I’ve been a bit more focused on the points where people have insisted on coupling “you’re wrong and here’s why” with “also you’re stupid and let me make other childish insults as well because it’s important to ridicule anyone who disagrees with me,” whenever I have pointed out that what Alison did to Max was unjustified and unconscionable. Not so much because her goals were unworthy (setting aside the fact that she was prepared to condemn innocent strangers to death herself if she could have convinced Feral to get off the table on her own, she was still being a good person in not wanting her friend to suffer so much agony while doing so much good), as because she literally went about it in the worst possible way.

            And Alison herself has already acknowledged that as well… but apparently even though I’m echoing the same position as Alison, my views are “headcannon” because I insist on thinking of Max as more than just a grown up version of Montana Max (You win a no-prize if you get that reference. And another if you get the reference about no-prizes :p ).

          • Roman Snow

            I know what a no-prize is but I had to google Montana Max.

          • Arkone Axon

            No-prize AND an upvote, then.

      • Izo

        Well I guess I’m Max then. The unlikeable, but intellectually correct, person holding a logical opinion in front of others who are (mostly) emotionally unstable and unable to get their way without force.

        Also nothing random about it, and apparently you’re the only person allowed to have an opinion.

        I’m fine with being the subject of everyone else’s Two Minutes Hate here. There are worse fictional people to be than Emmanuel Goldstein.

        Not sure if most people will get that reference, although I’ve talked about it a lot in the past.

        • Roman Snow

          Hardly. No one like you is represented in the comic.

          Do you have any plan to apologize for the way you’ve treated people, and lately Scott in particular, or are you just going to keep telling us how intellectually superior you are?

          • Stephanie

            Yeah, I agree that an apology to Scott is warranted. He has clarified his original statement, so it’s confirmed now that he never had any intention of defending murder. He deserves an apology for the accusation that he’s a “psychopath” who defends murder.

          • Izo

            “Hardly. No one like you is represented in the comic.”

            Nope. I’m Max.

            “Do you have any plan to apologize for the way you’ve treated people,”

            You’re funny πŸ™‚

            “or are you just going to keep telling us how intellectually superior you are?”

            You need to read 1984 to get the Emmanuel Goldstein reference if you think what I wrote was ‘I’m smarter than you, nyaah nyaah.’

          • Stephanie

            So…you’re not going to apologize to Scott for calling him a psychopath and saying he was defending murder, when you know now that he wasn’t?

            That’s disappointing. We’ve had some pretty civil exchanges in the past, which led me to believe that you would be willing to apologize if you found out you’d condemned someone unjustly. You even sort of apologized to me for the blood donation thing, but you won’t apologize to Scott?

          • Izo

            “So…you’re not going to apologize to Scott for calling him a psychopath and saying he was defending murder, when you know now that he wasn’t?”

            Read the entire thread. And maybe respond without cherry picking my post, Stephanie.

            “That’s disappointing. We’ve had some pretty civil exchanges in the past, which led me to believe that you would be willing to apologize if you found out you’d condemned someone unjustly. ”

            Oh, if I condemned someone unjustly, I would definitely apologize. I don’t think I condemned Scott unjustly at all. Or condemned him at all, actually.

            “You even sort of apologized to me for the blood donation thing, but you won’t apologize to Scott?”

            Because you were logically consistent about the blood donation thing. Scott isn’t. He made a statement of moral equivalency about something which is not morally equivalent, we went over a whole argument where we wound up coming to an impasse, and so you think that, in the event of an impasse, I am therefore supposed to apologize? Sort of defeats the definition of ‘impasse’ right?

          • Stephanie

            I did read the entire thread. Roman Snow was clearly referencing what happened with Scott when he asked if you plan to apologize. You made it clear that you have no such intention, and you confirm that with this post.

            I don’t know how you can insist that you didn’t condemn Scott unjustly. You accused him of being a psychopath and of defending murder. In the ensuing debate, you kept saying, “We don’t know the truth because Scott hasn’t clarified yet.”

            Well, Scott clarified. Do you now accept that you were incorrect when you said that he defended murder?

          • Izo

            No offense but … where the hell did Scott clarify?

          • Roman Snow
          • Izo

            Okay sort of wish he did that before a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng thread on it with multiple posts about how he had not responded to clarify. I didn’t see his post, which was written after I had stopped posting on that page (I’ve been working on a fairly large case and only have a couple of days a week to waste arguing on internet forums πŸ™‚ )

            I apologize for inferring he was having a psychopathic mentality.

          • Stephanie

            I’m glad that you apologized. But I hope you’ll apologize to him directly, or he probably won’t see it.

            I think he was just offline doing other things while we were having that conversation. In another comment he said that he came back to discover that a whole conversation had occurred while he was gone.

          • Izo

            “I’m glad that you apologized. But I hope you’ll apologize to him directly, or he probably won’t see it.”

            Uh… no. Because that thread is now closed and I can’t post to it anymore.

            “In another comment he said that he came back to discover that a whole conversation had occurred while he was gone.”

            I haven’t seen that post either.

          • Stephanie

            I mean, you could @ him or reply to any of his comments in any unlocked thread anywhere.

          • Roman Snow

            You can @ people on Disqus?

            @disqus_DkLklQDjEE:disqus

            Hm. I didn’t know that.

          • Izo

            So were you wanting me to make an apology or were you wanting me to make a big show ABOUT the apology?

          • Stephanie

            I was wanting you to apologize to the person who’s owed the apology. I’m not owed this apology. Neither is Roman.

          • Izo

            And I wasn’t apologizing to you or Roman so you got your wish.

          • Stephanie

            If we’re the only ones who see the apology, though, what’s the point? You’re essentially just tossing the apology into the wind.

            The right thing to do is to direct your apology to Scott himself, since he’s the injured party. This doesn’t require it to be a “big show.” A single reply to any one of his recent comments in the vein of “sorry I called you a psychopath, thanks for clarifying what you meant” is all it would take.

          • Izo

            If Scott doesn’t read the comments, it doesn’t matter anyway. Its a public forum and he’s free to respond. I would have responded in that thread, but it’s closed.

            But if it wraps things up:

            @Scott – I apologize for inferring that you had a psychopathic mentality, especially since you clarified your post.

          • Stephanie

            Oh man, I hate to say this when you made a good-faith effort to @ him, but I don’t think the @ worked. Apparently the mechanism for @ing people who aren’t already in the thread is more confusing than I realized. I’m just gonna reply to one of his comments with a link to your comment.

          • Roman Snow

            Thank you.

          • Scott

            Well…sometimes I don’t get notifications from Disqus until a few hours/days later. I was surprised to see that an entire discussion had taken place between our relative posts and I understand how that can make things hard to keep up with. So, with that being said, I fully expect you won’t see this one.
            However, in case you do:
            It wasn’t my clarification that was critical to the discussion, it was yours. My original comment that you took such offense with was, in my opinion, directly applicable to your original post. What you did was to post a new position, completely different than your original, and then attack me for disagreeing with your new post that I hadn’t even seen. In the future, I would not attempt to use statements like “deserves a bullet in the brain” as a metaphor for the due process of law. We lowly philistines are unlikely to pick up on such subtitles.
            Also, everyone has read 1984. You aren’t some unrecognized genius for being able to cite a book that has been required reading in practically every high school in the United States for decades. You also aren’t some sort of anti-state pariah. You gave an opinion, people pointed out the logical fallacies in that opinion. No one was attempting to take your opinion away.

          • Roman Snow

            “You need to read 1984 to get the Emmanuel Goldstein reference if you think what I wrote was ‘I’m smarter than you, nyaah nyaah.'”

            Likening yourself to the opponent of a totalitarian regime doesn’t negate that you keep referring to yourself as “intellectually correct” and saying that you “overestimated people’s general intelligence.”

          • Izo

            1) Technically speaking, the people railing on me DO tend to act like a totalitarian regime in how they act (certain people notwithstanding). Majority bullying the minority.
            2) I do consider myself intellectually correct when I’m saying that violence should not be used to violate an innocent person’s rights. I consider Stephanie to be intellectual as well – I just don’t consider her to be correct most of the time because I disagree with her on stuff such as utilitarianism being a good thing. I don’t consider Scott to be intellectual or unintellectual (honestly I don’t have an opinion on whether he is or isnt since his only post to me was a snide, brief comment making an unfounded moral equivalency).
            3) I do tend to overestimate people’s general intelligence if I think they’re going to give a reasoned response like Stephanie gives, but instead I get a bunch of people slamming my being an attorney, or saying how I should not be allowed to speak, or that I don’t know psychology and should get out of here, or pretty much anything Shweta says about me.
            4) Seriously, read 1984. At least read the part about 2 Minutes Hate if you don’t see why I am making a comparison.

          • Roman Snow

            The 2 Minutes Hate, a two minute period during which the opponent of the party is subject to nonstop condemnation. I get it.

            I have other things to do, and since the important part of the conversation at the moment is the one you’re having with Stephanie I’ll drop this for now.

          • Izo

            That’s sort of a VERY cliffnotes version. You really should read it. You’d actually get the comparison I’m making better then. And I’ve never had a problem with Stephanie btw. We disagree about everything and I consider her wrong about most stuff that we debate but she’s usually pretty civil about it, doesn’t namecall at me, and I appreciate that.

            Here… I’ll post an excerpt of Two Minutes Hate for you. Hopefully you’ll decide to read the book as well.

            It was nearly eleven hundred, and in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT, they were dragging the chairs out of the cubicles and grouping them in the centre of the hall opposite the big telescreen, in preparation for the Two Minutes Hate….

            The next moment a hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started.

            As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.

            The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even – so it was occasionally rumoured – in some hiding-place in Oceania itself.

            Winston’s diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard – a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venemous attack upon the doctrines of the Party – an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing BIG BROTHER, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the Revolution has been betrayed – and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life. And all the while, lest one should be in any doubt as to the reality which Goldstein’s specious clap trap covered, behind his head on the telescreen there marched the endless columns of the Eurasian army – row after row of solid-looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces, who swam up to the surface of the screen and vanished, to be replaced by others exactly similar. The dull rhythmic tramp of the soldiers’ boots formed the background to Goldstein’s bleating voice.

            Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were – in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State….

            In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O’Brien’s heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably.

            In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic…

            The Hate rose to its climax. The voice of Goldstein had become an actual sheep’s bleat, and for an instant the face changed into that of a sheep. Then the sheep-face melted into the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his sub-machine gun roaring, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen. But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of BIG BROTHER..

            Winston had heard the whispered story of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies, of which Goldstein was the author and which circulated clandestinely here and there. It was a book without title. People referred to it, if at all, simply as the book. But one knew of such things only through vague rumours. Neither the Brotherhood nor the book was a subject that any ordinary Party member would mention if there was a way of avoiding it.

          • Roman Snow

            I need to read it eventually anyway due to it’s cultural significance and how often it’s referenced.

          • Izo

            And we’re in total agreement there. It’s also just a REALLY good book.

          • Vigil

            We all consider ourselves intellectually correct about the thing’s we have non-uncertain beliefs about. Otherwise we wouldn’t believe the things we believe, we’d believe something else or be uncertain about the issue.

            So isn’t saying you “consider myself intellectually correct” a somewhat trivial statement about a non-uncertain belief you have? (And one that others aren’t making, despite also not believing that they are wrong about things they’re not uncertain about)

          • Izo

            “We all consider ourselves intellectually correct about the things we have non-uncertain beliefs about. Otherwise we wouldn’t believe the things we believe, we’d believe something else or be uncertain about the issue.”

            I wouldn’t say ‘all’ but a lot of people might say that, okay?

            “So isn’t saying you “consider myself intellectually correct” a somewhat trivial statement about a non-uncertain belief you have?”

            if it’s a trivial statement, then it’s not worth other people arguing over my saying it.

            “(And one that others aren’t making, despite also not believing that they are wrong about things they’re not uncertain about)”

            You really should read more of the non-Stephanie, non-Roman responses made to me by a lot of people who ‘jump on the bandwagon’ when arguing, and complete silence on anyone saying ‘okay you’re going too far on attacking her.’

          • Vigil

            I think the point Roman is making is that when in reality everyone “considers themself intellectually correct”, making that statement explicitly can come across as an unnecessary and perhaps condescending assertion of superiority in a situation where obviously you believe your view is superior, as does everyone else.

            I will admit I have not gone back to previous pages to see all the “bandwagon” people you speak of. Your comment history is private (fair enough) so it’s non-trivial to seek out.

          • Izo

            “making that statement explicitly can come across as an unnecessary”

            Well thank goodness we live in a free society where I can use the words I want to describe myself.

            “and perhaps condescending assertion of superiority in a situation where obviously you believe your view is superior, as does everyone else.”

            When you’re debating another person in an intellectual argument, do you generally NOT try to show a superiority of viewpoints? I’m not sure why people have such a hard time separating individuals from ideas. Maybe it comes from being a lawyer.

            “I will admit I have not gone back to previous pages to see all the “bandwagon” people you speak of. Your comment history is private (fair enough) so it’s non-trivial to seek out.”

            Feel free to watch my posts for a while and I’m sure you’ll start seeing the bandwagon as soon as I say anything.

          • Stephanie

            >Feel free to watch my posts for a while and I’m sure you’ll start seeing the bandwagon as soon as I say anything.

            Izo…almost everything you say in these comments is openly antagonistic. At best it’s antagonistic toward the comic we’re all fans of, at worst it’s antagonistic toward the community or even specific people. Of course people react negatively to that. You wouldn’t get that “bandwagon” reaction if you weren’t saying antagonistic things.

          • Izo

            “Izo…almost everything you say in these comments is openly antagonistic. At best it’s antagonistic toward the comic we’re all fans of, at worst it’s antagonistic toward the community or even specific people.”

            No, it’s openly CRITICAL.

            “The tone of your posts is often aggressively sarcastic.”

            I’m sarcastic in response to people who deserve the sarcasm.

            “Of course people react negatively to that. You wouldn’t get that “bandwagon” reaction if you weren’t saying antagonistic things.”

            No, what you mean is I wouldnt get the bandwagon reaction if I thought the same as the people attacking me. Unfortunately I have that horrible free will thing that used to be all the rage.

          • Stephanie

            I genuinely do not think you would get the reaction you do if you expressed the same views in a less aggressive, less antagonistic way.

            You’ve said a few times that you appreciate that I make an effort to be measured and respectful in my replies to you, right? And because of that, you’ve generally been less antagonistic toward me. Can’t you see how other people might feel the same way? That other people might respond to the tone of your posts just like you respond to the tone of theirs?

          • Izo

            “I genuinely do not think you would get the reaction you do if you expressed the same views in a less aggressive, less antagonistic way.”

            Sorry Stephanie. I’d like to be nice to you but I’m having a lot of trouble taking your posts as serious or genuine when you upvote people who are calling me a ‘douche canoe’ while simultaneously posting stuff in this thread. It’s just too much hypocrisy for me to take you seriously right now, and since I do actually respect you (even if I disagree with most of what you say, at least in the past year), I’m just going to stop responding to you on this subject in the interim until this whole hypocrisy thing resolves itself.

          • Stephanie

            I upvote people when they make salient points. Many of the people who respond to you are making salient points about either your tone, or the substance of your arguments. Unfortunately there is no way for me to give a partial upvote that doesn’t cover the odd “douche canoe” they may have sprinkled in there.

            But I think you really just want a reason, any reason, not to hear what I’m saying to you. Ultimately, it’s no skin off my back. I told you this because you seem genuinely upset about the backlash your comments receive, and I believe it is within your power to change that without compromising your principles. But I can’t force you to stop acting against your own interests. You seem pretty thoroughly convinced that you’re the “good guy” in this situation being unfairly persecuted, and as long as you stay in that headspace, you’re just going to keep beating your head against the same walls. All I can do is remind you of the Golden Rule, and leave it at that.

          • Zorae42

            To be fair, I said that the action of voting 3rd party in the 2016 US election was that of ‘a lesser form of douche’, not a full blwon ‘douche canoe’ :P.

            I recognize that someone can take bad actions without inherently being a bad person. Although I suppose I didn’t word it that way in my post. Probably because of how angry/bitter I still am about the results of the election. And, maybe, part of me does think that doing such a terrible thing does make you an inherently bad person.

            But it was mostly because I was tired/irritated by having any point or belief of mine blown out of proportion. Requiring me to spend half of my post defending myself against points I never made. I also wanted a way to convey my disapproval of said action in a way that I felt conveyed the magnitude of how bad of an action it was without giving the implication that one should be legally punished for it (as there are no laws against taking douche-y actions). Of course that didn’t work out because it was still taken like I believed we should assault anyone guilty of such behavior.

            I appreciate the upvote and apologize for writing my post in such a way that other, less emotional people, couldn’t support it without sacrificing some of their principles to do so.

          • Stephanie

            I can understand it. I get frustrated sometimes too, and slip into disrespectful/antagonistic language, even though I try not to. And I agree with you that Izo’s responses to your points were out of proportion, and assigned positions and principles to you that you never claimed to have.

            Plus, it counts for a lot you’re not trying to claim that you never insulted her. I find name-calling in general less objectionable than “name-calling, but still trying to claim the high ground.” It’s not like I’ve never insulted anyone, I just try to own it and do better next time.

          • Arkone Axon

            Oh… wow. Really? Huh. When I voted for Johnson (because I couldn’t vote for Stein, because you can’t do a write-in vote with the electronic machines used in my state), I knew that people would blame me and those like me because I didn’t vote for the annointed sainted messiah who was oh so wonderful and pure and good but was defeated by a bunch of racist sexists who came wandering out of the woods chanting “not… her… not… her…” I still find that amusing.

            I just want to point out a few things. One: Trump is the second most despised presidential candidate in U.S. history, and the president with the lowest initial approval ratings of any president in U.S. history (and that includes Lincoln, whose election sparked a civil war). AND CLINTON STILL LOST TO HIM. Don’t say “she won the popular vote” as if that mattered (not when, had Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, you would have agreed that the popular vote does not matter); the rules of the contest were established in advance, and you don’t get to change the rules of a game of cards after you’ve been dealt your hand.

            Two: Trump has indeed done a lot of horrible, horrible things. And most of those things were what Clinton would have done had she won. There are some minor differences (for example, she wouldn’t have tried to strike down Obamacare but she would have passed the TPP), but otherwise the only difference is that Trump is too stupid and oblivious to bother with the thin veneer that his predecessors used. Instead of having an FDA head who was a lobbyist for pharmaceutical corporations, he appointed an FDA head who OWNS a pharmaceutical corporation. He’s doing the same horrible things that Bush, Obama, and Bill Clinton did, and that Hillary Clinton would have done, only he’s too stupid to hide it. Instead of a slick machiavellean evil corporate hypocrite, he’s a cheesy hammy 1980s cartoon villain.

            Three: People are sick of being told to choose between the lesser of two evils. We’re tired of being told we have to accept evil. We’re tired of being lied to. People voted for Trump for the same reason that the one I really wanted to vote for was Sanders. They want a revolution, they want a REAL change. So people voted to stick a monkey in the white house, just to A: piss off all the pretentious elitist jerks who smugly expected them to go with the plan, and B: because if you give a monkey a big stick and access to delicate gears and cogs, you’re going to have a broken machine, and when it’s a machine doing things you don’t want being done… you want that monkey to have a nice big stick and the freedom to poke it nice and deep.

            In summary: I’m a proud lesser douche. I shall bear the label “fleet” with pride.

          • Vigil

            There’s a concept in storytelling called show-don’t-tell – and it applies to argument as well. Telling the person you’re arguing with that your argument is “correct” will convince them of precisely nothing. Laying out the evidence for why it is has at least a chance of convincing them.

    • Stephanie

      Gurwara isn’t quitting his job. The possibility of Gurwara resigning was eliminated when Alison revealed her black stone.

      In any case, I still don’t understand why you insist on repeatedly announcing “the moral of the story is tyranny is great, nothing bad will ever happen,” when you’re commenting on a story that isn’t over yet.

      • Filthy Liar

        Tyranny works though. Also, Alison isn’t a tyrant.

        • Stephanie

          I don’t think she is either. I support her decision to coerce Max. I’m talking about Izo’s perspective as I’ve come to understand it from her many posts on the subject.

      • Izo

        “Gurwara isn’t quitting his job. The possibility of Gurwara resigning was eliminated when Alison revealed her black stone.”

        From a few pages ago, by Gurwara:

        “What are the stakes?”
        “The same as last time! Let us use your grade in the class as our stakes, and for me, let us use my employment at the school itself. After all this talk, I am feeling generous, ad wish to see if you have learned your lesson.”

        “In any case, I still don’t understand why you insist on repeatedly announcing “the moral is that tyranny is great, nothing bad will ever happen,” when you’re commenting on a story that isn’t over yet.”

        How much longer are you going to use the argument of ‘the story arc isnt over yet’ over a story arc that I’ve been repeatedly told to wait for almost a year over? Are you really unable to make any inferences from where the story has been leading?

        “Edit: OK, actually, that’s not quite fair. I think it’s almost guaranteed that, when the story is concluded, you will believe that your prediction has been fulfilled. But not because I don’t think there will be negative consequences to Alison’s actions.”

        Really. What negative consequences do you see to Alison’s actions?

        “I just don’t think you will accept anything less than the complete negation of any possible upside to coercing Max, combined with Alison being irrecoverably devastated in some way, as severe enough for your purposes.”

        Holy strawman Batman. Why do you people keep using strawman arguments against me to make it easier to argue what I’m saying? I want to see that her simple plans of ‘violence on innocent people you don’t like makes the world perfect’ doesn’t actually result in making the world more perfect. With great power comes great responsibility. I’m trying to figure how this is so hard a concept. Especially in a comic book deconstruction. Spider-Man only came up with it about 55 years ago.

        “Even that might not be enough. She’d have to be universally despised as well, just to make it crystal clear that no one could ever sympathize with her decision.”

        Again, what lasting thing has happened bad as a result of what she did. Anything to prevent her from doing it again? Nope. She’d do it all over again, plus is now morally vindicated for it by the wise professor.

        “I think that if there is any silver lining at all to this at the end of the day, you’ll still be saying that the moral of the story is that tyranny works.”

        oh yes, it’s such a silver lining to see people who think violence to get what you want is a good thing, regardless of who it’s against as long as that person has an opinion you don’t like. Bodily autonomy of others is so overrated.

        Lets see another dozen or so people upvote you on your fabricated version of what I’ve said. :/

        /s

        • Stephanie

          Gurwara is not quitting his job. His employment was at stake in this contest, but he didn’t actually lose it, because Alison chose the black stone.

          You’ll get your chance to prove me wrong about the rest of it.

          • Izo

            “What are the stakes?”
            “The same as last time! Let us use your grade in the class as our stakes, and for me, let us use my employment at the school itself. After all this talk, I am feeling generous, ad wish to see if you have learned your lesson.”

            It seems to read to me that his employment is at stake vs her grade because of how he said ‘to see if you’ve learned your lesson.’

            But I guess in this case it’s possible that I’m interpreting this wrong.

          • Stephanie

            Yes. I know. His employment was at stake. But he did not actually lose his employment. He is not going to quit his job.

            It’s been a long time since we first saw the game with the stones, so I’ll just go over the rules again. If you put down white, you “win.” If you put down black, and anyone else puts down white, you “lose.” If everyone puts down black, you all “win.”

            In order for Gurwara to have to actually resign his job, Alison would have had to play the white stone, while he played the black stone.

            Since Alison played the black stone, Gurwara does not have to quit his job. Since Gurwara also played the black stone, Alison and John don’t fail his class.

            In summary: Gurwara did not lose the game, so he is not going to quit his job.

          • Izo

            Okay this sort of makes sense, so this argument I’ll give to you.

            Still doesn’t make sense for why he’d say ‘if you’ve learned your lesson’ but everything else here does make sense that he’s substituting his employment in place of his ‘grade in the class.’

    • Zorae42

      People on the internet calling others names?

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d805264f501f67faeb9d802776ff2dfef22652cc432374a04e1958a81935d962.jpg

      Did they call you insane or psycopathic? Oh wait, no. That’s what you called people. πŸ™‚

      • Izo

        It’s so adorable when you cherry pick, ignore the entire thread, and add a meme πŸ™‚ Keep it comin’.

    • Filthy Liar

      Dang, you’re really convinced that misdeeds always get punished. What has led you to that entirely unfounded belief?

      • Izo

        I’m really convinced that misdeeds SHOULD be punished. And defintiely should not be commended. What has led me to this belief? Lets see. The law. Basic morality. Respect for others bodily autonomy. Silly stuff like that. Next person to dogpile on me?

        • Filthy Liar

          Max had a choice, he made the wrong one, and his misdeeds are being punished. Surely you should be happy?

          • Izo

            Max had a choice. He made a choice. It was not the wrong one. It was HIS choice. A choice which was not causing him to hurt other people (and no – refusing to help people whom you did not put in danger is not hurting them – omission of doing a good action is not the same as doing a bad action), and was meant to protect himself. So no, he had no choice. Alison stole his choice from him. He made no misdeed, and if you think he did, then I hope no one ever decides that they know better for you what you should do, and will not force you to do what they want whether you like it or not.

            You don’t seem to understand what a misdeed is. Not doing a good deed is not a misdeed. As I’ve argued in the past, the fact that you do not donate blood every week does not mean you are a horrible person who is killing people who need your blood type in transfusions to live.

          • Filthy Liar

            You’re incoherent. Your first two sentences are directly contradicted by your sixth. Look, he had a choice. He made it. Then the Universe said, too bad, you’re doing it anyway. That doesn’t deny him his choice. That’s how life works. He could always choose to die rather than submit (not that Alison is likely to kill him).

          • Izo

            Not sure how anything I said was incoherent. Seems entirely coherent to me. Maybe you just don’t understand what I’m writing? He had a choice. Which Alison took away, which then made him have NO choice. Not sure how this is difficult for you to understand. Then again, you think it’s okay to use violence to force someone to do what you want, and that a person can make a wrong choice about what they want to do with their own bodily autonomy, so maybe your morality is pretty skewed to begin with.

            Also, Alison is not ‘the universe.’ She’s just a bully with power and no willingness to have limit herself to the responsibility that goes with that power if she wants something bad enough. Just like a rapist who wants sex from his victim, and uses his superior physical ability to get what he wants. Or are you saying that a rape victim has a choice, in that they can choose to have sex, or can choose to be raped? That seems like what you’re saying. You literally think that a person can make a wrong choice about their own free will to do not do something with their own body just because another person is stronger than they are. A real law of the jungle, ‘might makes right’ world that you live in, rather than, say, civilization.

          • Filthy Liar

            Just because the reaction to your choice negates that choice doesn’t mean you didn’t have a choice. The people at Auschwitz had choices, yeah. That’s one of the things that made it so horrible, people did terrible things to one another so they could live another day. Your choice being negated doesn’t mean you didn’t make it though.

            With regards to your last paragraph, that’s a horrible dilemma, but those are choices. There are probably other choices, but if those are the only ones you get then those are the only ones you get. What do you think free will means?

          • Izo

            Do what I say or I will kill you is NOT a choice.

            I’m bewildered that you’d think it is one, or that you think the people at the Concentration Camps had a choice between being there or not, when the alternative was death.

            “Your choice being negated doesn’t mean you didn’t make it though.”
            …. this is like… trolling right? This has got to be a trolling thing. You don’t seem to understand the definition of words or something. A choice being negated doesn’t mean that you didn’t make a choice? What exactly do you think ‘negated’ means? I’m sorry but you can’t possibly be this dim. I’m almost sure that you know that what you’re saying is ridiculous and are just trying to get a rise out of me at this point.

            “With regards to your last paragraph, that’s a horrible dilemma, but those are choices.”

            Just to be clear, you are saying that every woman who’s ever been raped at knifepoint made a choice to be raped. Do what I say, or I will violate you and MAKE you do what I say. You’re actually saying that’s a ‘choice.’ That’s literally what you’re saying. Amazing…

            I’m just shaking my head at this point that you think this is ‘choice’ and not ‘forced.’ Maybe you not only don’t understand the what ‘negated’ means, but you literally don’t understand what the word ‘choice’ means.

            “What do you think free will means?”

            …. clearly not what you think it means. Free will means the ability to make a choose something without that decision being forced upon you.

            And I watch this thread in bewildered silence as no one else seems to respond to what you’re saying. Astounding. You people…. seriously…

          • Stephanie

            I don’t know why I keep engaging, but this is a great example of what I’ve been saying. I actually agree with you here that “do X or die” is not a genuine choice, that it should not be treated like one, and that putting it on par with unrestricted choice is both pointless semantic nitpicking and disrespectful to real-world victims of violence.

            Yet the way you present your point is outrageously antagonistic and condescending, to the point that you even extend the range of your contempt to include everyone in the entire SFP community who had the nerve not to get involved in your personal back-and-forth with Filthy Liar in a now-obsolete comments section. And you wonder why you keep getting negative reactions from people!

            You could present your viewpoints without constantly pausing to emphasize how utterly flabbergasted you are that your opponent could be “dim” enough to disagree with you. You want to talk choice, that’s a choice you actually do have. Nobody’s putting a gun to your head and making you phrase your arguments in ways virtually guaranteed to piss people off.

          • Filthy Liar

            Well, the discussion is four days old at this point, people are in the new thread.

            All our decisions are forced upon us, shaped by our previous choices, our environment, and the choices of others. I get to choose to engage in this discussion online rather than what part of the garbage patch I want to pick over in hopes of finding something I can sell. The circumstances of your choice matter a lot, but ultimately you do have a choice. Sometimes it’s between two incredibly unpalatable options, sometimes it’s between ice cream flavors.

            The people who get raped at knife-point aren’t choosing to get raped, they’re choosing not to get stabbed to death. I’m not defending the people who put them in that situation and confront them with that choice, they’re terrible and should be put to death, but their are choices in that situation.

          • Izo

            I’m not sure how you can say that the rape scenario is the victim a choice. Choice is an aspect of free will, and when it’s ‘do what I say or die,’ the most notable aspect OF choice is missing – free will. And I think that’s the main problem I’m having with your interpretation, which I can’t help but see as a warped interpretation that allows for every atrocity on Earth to happen and allows some of the blame to ALWAYS fall on the victim. You utterly have ignored free will as part of the decision making process in a choice. A person puts a gun to your head and tells you to sign over all your money to them or they will shoot you, and you do so… saying ‘you chose to not be shot’ does not negate the fact the CHOICE being made was about giving all your money away, and it was done by force, not a free will-fueled choice. You shift blame to the victim, and it’s just a little bit despicable – no offense but I think you know that it is, and you’ve just been trolling on your responses.

            The rape victim chose to wear a sexy outfit that night, instead of covering themselves up since men can’t control their urges. Seriously, that sounds like some major sharia law sort of reasoning.

            The wife chose to be beaten by her drunk husband because she didn’t flee the house with her child when he wasn’t home and live on the streets instead.

            The soldier chose to kill the enemy about to aim a rifle at him because he could have let the enemy kill him instead.

            These. Are. Not. Decisions. Made. Of. Free. Will. They’re victim blaming.

          • Filthy Liar

            It doesn’t matter why a choice was made. Your belief in free will is great and all, but has nothing to do with the fact that most choices are made in situations ranging from less than perfect to horrific. Half the time people are acting in situations where they don’t even necessarily know the outcomes of the choice they’re making. Blame doesn’t attach to choices, it attaches to actions. The rapist is to blame, not the victim. The robber is to blame, not the victim. Etc. ad inifinitum. I’m not blaming the victims. You really seem to want me to be though.

          • Izo

            At this point, I know you’re trolling so I’m just going to simplify my arguments to you.

            “It doesn’t matter why a choice was made”
            Yes it does.

            “Your belief in free will is great and all, but has nothing to do with the fact that most choices are made in situations ranging from less than perfect to horrific.”
            Yes it does. It’s the focal important reason for making choices.

            “Half the time people are acting in situations where they don’t even necessarily know the outcomes of the choice they’re making. ”

            They don’t always know the outcome, but they make guesses based on their beliefs, using free will to have those beliefs and attempt to put them into practice via their choice.

            “Blame doesn’t attach to choices, it attaches to actions.”

            Meaningless sentence, and blame can and does attach to choices. Actions can be made without a guilty mind. Mens Rea and Actus Reus, in legal terms.

            “The rapist is to blame, not the victim.”
            Except you’re blaming the victim by saying she was the one making the choice, shifting the blame from the choice of the rapist to rape, which is where the blame actually attaches.

            “The robber is to blame, not the victim”
            Except you’re blaming the victim by saying she was the one making the choice, shifting the blame from the choice of the robber to rob, which is where the blame actually attaches.

            “I’m not blaming the victims.”
            You are. You are creating a moral equivalency of the criminal choosing to do something evil with the victim choosing to not die for resisting the criminal’s choice.

            “You really seem to want me to be though.”
            I don’t want you to. But you are.

          • Filthy Liar

            I’m not trolling. We’ve simply got two conflicting views on morality and free will. I genuinely think you’re incorrect about the issue. An inability to grant that the person you’re engaging with might have a totally irreconcilable worldview with your own does you no credit.

          • Izo

            Okay, then for the moment I’ll assume you are not trolling, but your argument DOES wind up victim-blaming. And I mean that genuinely as well.

          • Filthy Liar

            I did read the rest of your post. Your second sentence at least to the first comma in this one is where we disagree though. There’s not going to be a meeting of minds on this. I fundamentally disagree with your worldview. The rest of it is you assigning me motives based on your worldview, which I emphatically do not subscribe to.

          • Izo

            How about responding to the entire rest of my post then? Any part of it. You know, where the pertinent stuff I wrote was? I’m assuming you can’t, which is why you’re trying to sidestep it.

    • Vigil

      You believe that Alison’s actions against Max were horrifyingly morally wrong. Ok.

      People do horrible things all the time (in the real world, and in the SFP world). Sometimes they get away with it. Whether or not they do depends on how likely the circumstances make both discovery of their actions and punishment post discovery (plus luck, obviously). Sometimes they get away with it for a short period, sometimes a long period, sometimes forever. At no point does the universe (either in the real world or in SFP) bend itself out of shape to punish someone who has done something bad. Punishment happens only if circumstances align.

      In this scenario, short term punishment seems very unlikely, given that Max has his reasons not to tell people about what Alison did. Even if he did, the punishment would likely be social-only, given how fruitless an endeavour trying to physically contain Alison is (see that time she killed the man who killed Feral’s doctors and threatened to kill a ~100 person crowd and then faced no legal consequences). Long term punishment seems more likely, as many in the comments have discussed (Max seeking out supers to protect himself, finding a way to expose Alison without exposing himself, trying to find ways to kill Alison, etc.)

      You’ll note that nothing in the above is levying a judgement about the morality of Alison’s actions – whether they are horrifying as you believe, misguided as some commenters believe, or correct as others believe. This is just laying out how likely the “punishment” you want for Alison is to come very soon, and the answer, judging from the circumstances, is not very likely.

      So what exactly do you want? Do you genuinely want the universe of SFP to bend itself out of shape and make highly implausible things happen just to punish Alison as soon as possible?

      • Izo

        “You believe that Alison’s actions against Max were horrifyingly morally wrong. Ok.”

        Said to frame this post as if what Alison did was NOT horrifyingly morally wrong. Okay.

        “People do horrible things all the time (in the real world, and in the SFP world). Sometimes they get away with it.”

        Also in the real world, people at least RISK consequences for when they do horrible actions. Alison doesn’t.

        “Whether or not they do depends on how likely the circumstances make both discovery of their actions and punishment post discovery (plus luck, obviously). Sometimes they get away with it for a short period, sometimes a long period, sometimes forever.”

        Gotcha. Doing a half-assed plan without any idea of how it would come out through research should result in most injuries and sickness being cured forever while your best friend being able to no longer sacrifice to make it happen and you don’t have to even feel guilty about it anymore and can say that you’d do it all again. Plus get a good grade while we’re at it.

        “At no point does the universe (either in the real world or in SFP) bend itself out of shape to punish someone who has done something bad. Punishment happens only if circumstances align.”

        At no point does the universe in SFP bend itself out of shape to fit a narrative? Are you seriously arguing that, at no point in time has this storyline bent itself away from normal things happening in response for ones actions where it does not come out PERFECTLY as planned?

        Wow. Okay then. Wow.

        “In this scenario, short term punishment seems very unlikely, given that Max has his reasons not to tell people about what Alison did.”

        Yes, it’s called not wanting other monsters like Alison doing the same thing to him for their own needs.

        “Even if he did, the punishment would likely be social-only, given how fruitless an endeavour trying to physically contain Alison is (see that time she killed the man who killed Feral’s doctors and threatened to kill a ~100 person crowd and then faced no legal consequences)”

        Power fantasies of unstoppable monsters are fun, arent they? Sort of like Injustice: Gods Among Us if there was no Batman to stand against Superman once he went Alison-Mindset. Definitely no need to risk having a physical response. Everything boring about Superman wrapped up in one socially just package.

        “You’ll note that nothing in the above is levying a judgement about the morality of Alison’s actions – whether they are horrifying as you believe, misguided as some commenters believe, or correct as others believe. ”

        Correct, you don’t levy any sort of judgment about the morality of Alison’s actions. This is not a good thing.

        “This is just laying out how likely the “punishment” you want for Alison is to come very soon, and the answer, judging from the circumstances, is not very likely.”

        I want the punishment to be something which would prevent Alison from doing the same thing again. You know. One of the main points of a punishment is to prevent the perpetrator from repeating the crime. Nothing here will prevent her, and the moral is that she will do it again. And feel justified and not-guilty.

        “So what exactly do you want? Do you genuinely want the universe of SFP”

        The fictional universe of SFP… .continue….

        “to bend itself out of shape”

        Because negative results for negative actions is ‘bending itself out of shape. Cause and effect is SO obscene…

        “and make highly implausible things happen”

        As opposed to the highly plausible result of her unresearched experiment resulting in medically improbable result of all organs being given to the world without even so much as a sacrifice of one life (that being Feral’s). and the only person who’s life was messed up as a result is the person that Alison does not like because he’s a dirty libertarian Ayn Randian who Alison should throw into the sun like she’s told Cleaver she thinks about doing, save for the fact that he might be needed to be threatened and used again in the future?

        “just to punish Alison as soon as possible?”

        You do remember this story arc has been going on almost a year now, right?

        • Stephanie

          “Cause and effect” has nothing to do with karma. Bad actions aren’t guaranteed to cause bad outcomes for the person who did them.

          The story arc has been going on for a long time in the real world because webcomics are slow. In-universe, it’s been maybe a couple of days.

          • Izo

            “Bad actions aren’t guaranteed to cause bad outcomes for the person who did them.”

            So are you now admitting that Alison’s actions were bad?

          • Stephanie

            No. I acknowledge that you think they were bad, and what I’m arguing against here is your claim that “cause and effect” mandates that she therefore suffer a bad outcome.

            I feel like you tried to score a pretty cheap point there. You know perfectly well what my position is on Alison’s coercing Max. This isn’t the first time that your eagerness to contradict something, anything in each of my posts has resulted in a childish jab like that one.

          • Izo

            “I feel like you tried to score a pretty cheap point there. You know perfectly well what my position is on Alison’s coercing Max. This isn’t the first time that your eagerness to contradict something, anything in each of my posts has resulted in a childish jab like that one.”

            Nope, not trying to score points, and it’s definitely not a ‘childish jab.’ It’s just showing that its rather easy and natural to describe Alison’s action as ‘bad.’ To the point where if you need to point out to me an action of Alison’s, and you want to refer to what she did to Max quickly, you could describe it as her ‘bad’ act, and I won’t automatically think you’re talking about when she did stuff like killing the arsonist, or letting Moonshadow go, or getting Professor Cohen’s partner killed as collateral damage. Each of which I’ve argued in the past that Alison was NOT bad in doing, or giving what I think of as legitimate excuses for her actions that made them not ‘bad.’ You’re referring to what is difficult for most people to argue is NOT ‘bad’ – using and threatening violence on an innocent person to get something you want.

          • Stephanie

            I don’t think it’s necessary for me to reiterate that I don’t condemn her actions every time I want to say “Given that you condemn her actions, I don’t think the claim you just made follows from that.”

          • Izo

            I’m talking about a description of her actions which can readily be understood by someone reading this conversation. It’s very easy to describe what she did as being ‘bad.’ It’s the whole point of the arc and how it ties into (and totally screws over) the Cleaver speech.

          • Vigil

            There’s one thing that we’ve all been arguing about in the comments for the last forever – Alison’s treatment of Max to save Feral and many others. If Stephanie said “that thing Alison did” to you, I reckon your mind (and mine) would jump right to that thing Alison did that we’re all arguing about. It’s really easy to describe those actions of Alison’s (which you think are bad) as literally anything because we’ve all spent so much focus and time on them that they are the first thing we think of when we come to comment on SFP.

          • Izo

            My point still is that the easiest way to describe Alison’s action is not ‘Alison’s selfless deed’ or ‘Alison’s reckless action’ or even just ‘that good thing that Alison did’ but rather ‘Alison’s bad act.’

          • Stephanie

            I haven’t found “Alison’s bad act” to be an easy or intuitive way to describe it. It probably feels intuitive to you because it matches your opinion on the subject.

            I usually just call it “Alison’s decision to coerce Max.” I think that phrasing strikes a good balance of impartiality, conciseness, and precision.

          • Izo

            I’m pretty sure that even Alison would be referring to her act as ‘bad.’ She just seems to think it’s acceptable to do a bad act in order to help her friend, because she did the bad act to someone who was NOT her friend.

          • Stephanie

            Yes, I’m sure she would say it was bad. She’s made it explicit that she’s angry at herself for not developing the skillset to take the diplomatic option.

            This doesn’t mean that it’s the “easiest way” to describe what she did. Not for everyone.

          • Rando

            There are two possibilities here.

            She sees her actions as bad, but considers herself above the law. As she willfully committed multiple felonies, and has not, nor even considered, turning herself into the authorities.

            She does not see her actions as bad, it is just that no one else matters, other than her and her friends.

            Take your pick.

          • Stephanie

            You could just read the comic, it’s right in there. She wouldn’t undo what she did, but she’s angry at herself for lacking the skills to obtain Max’s cooperation without violence. Leaving Feral on the table wasn’t an option for her, but if she had worked harder to expand her skillset, she might have been able to negotiate with Max successfully.

            Don’t know where you’re getting this “no one else matters” thing. She screwed over exactly one person. In the process, her actions benefited an enormous number of people.

          • Rando

            Because we all know that the other people she helped were merely incidental. Getting Feral off of that table was the only thing she cared about. She would have taken the exact same action if no one other than Feral had been helped by the action.

            She thinks she is above the law, and isn’t actually showing true remorse for what she did. She can tell herself she wishes she could have talked him through it instead, but at the end of the day she would still do the same thing again.

          • Beroli

            You and the mice in your pockets should not involve other people in your assumptions, however certain of them you are.

          • Stephanie

            What a terrible person for not wanting one of the most altruistic people in the world to suffer excruciating torture 24/7 for the rest of her life, I guess?

          • Izo

            So… even the person who did the action considers what she did to be bad. You described it as bad when describing it to me so that I know which action you’re talking about. But when you refer to it to yourself, you don’t refer to it as ‘bad?’

          • Stephanie

            We’ve been over this. I used the word “bad” in my comment to you because I was responding to your implication that “cause and effect” mandates that people be karmically rewarded or punished for their good and bad actions. I was not specifically referring to Alison’s actions when I made the general statement that people don’t always suffer bad consequences for bad actions.

          • Izo

            “I made the general statement that people don’t always suffer bad consequences for bad actions.”

            And my statement is that they should. And even Alison thinks she should, if not for the fact that there’s no one capable of giving her consequences for her actions. And reality itself seems to be reinforcing this idea that her actions have no negative consequences, regardless of what she does, since everything turned out perfect.

          • Stephanie

            If you ever become God, you can implement whatever karmic punishment system you want. In the meantime, that’s not how the world works, and it’s not how the SFPverse works.

            The setting of this comic is “a world like ours but superpowers exist,” not “a world like ours but karmic justice exists.” Having Zeus himself strike Alison with lightning the instant she steps a toe out of your ethical boundaries would be a slap in the face of plausibility, utterly ruin the pacing of the narrative, and replace the nuanced ethical dilemmas that form the heart of this comic with hamfisted, black-and-white aesops handed down by the author like the Ten Commandments. If that’s the kind of story you want, I don’t know why you’re reading SFP instead of Silver Age superhero comics.

          • Izo

            “If you ever become God, you can implement whatever karmic punishment system you want. In the meantime, that’s not how the world works, and it’s not how the SFPverse works.”

            I’m pretty sure I don’t need to be God to have an opinion on how people should suffer from bad consequence for bad actions. Good thing too, since I’m agnostic. It would be really weird for God to be agnostic. He (She) wouldn’t believe in himself (herself) without definitive proof.

            “The setting of this comic is “a world like ours but superpowers exist,” not “a world like ours but karmic justice exists.””

            Actually since it’s a deconstruction of traditional superhero stories, the whole karmic justice thing has a place in it. Isn’t that one of the points of ‘social justice’ anyway? Karmic resolution for ones actions?

            “Having Zeus himself strike Alison with lightning the instant she steps a toe out of your ethical boundaries would be a slap in the face of plausibility,”

            You’re being REALLY literal about ‘Deus Ex Machinae’ aren’t you?

            “If that’s the kind of story you want, I don’t know why you’re reading SFP instead of Silver Age superhero comics.”

            Uh…because I like reading about female protagonists who are strong? Also until this particular story arc, I was actually a big fan of everything Alison did, and pretty much on the exact other side in debates. As recently as last year.

            Also silver age comics suck. Doesn’t mean I want to read about where bad people get rewarded with absolutely nothing bad happening as a result of their actions. I’m not a fan of downer endings or broken aesops.

          • Stephanie

            Look, I understand that you’re saying how you think the world “should be”, not how you think the world “is.” I just don’t get why you think your conception of how the world “should be” is at all relevant to how this comic is written.

            Alison’s story does not take place in your personal utopia. In fact, would be impossible for SFP’s story about nuanced ethical dilemmas to take place in that world, since morality would be ordained by the universe itself from the top down rather than being something people have to figure out for themselves.

            I don’t at all understand the point you’re trying to make about social justice. I’ve never in my entire life heard anyone suggest that social justice has something to do with the universe itself punishing you for doing evil shit.

          • Izo

            “I just don’t get why you think your conception of how the world “should be” is at all relevant to how this comic is written.”

            Because the comic is very philosophical and existential in nature, so ‘should be’ applies.

            “Alison’s story does not take place in your personal utopia. In fact, would be impossible for SFP’s story about nuanced ethical dilemmas to take place in that world, since morality would be ordained by the universe itself from the top down, rather than being something people have to figure out for themselves.”

            Ethics are entirely about what a person ‘should do’ and ‘shouldn’t do.’ Not sure why you’re now arguing against what I think ‘should be.’

          • Stephanie

            This is a story about nuanced ethical dilemmas. This requires ambiguity–it requires a setting in which people can reasonably debate what’s right and what’s wrong, or what you “should” and “shouldn’t” do.

            Nuanced ethical dilemmas cannot exist in a world where morality is a known factor. If SFP took place in a universe where a distinct category of “bad actions” was encoded into the fabric of the universe, and committing those bad actions caused the actor to suffer swift and inevitable karmic punishment, there would be no ambiguity. No one could ever argue whether a particular action was right, wrong, or some shade of grey. The answer would be right there, in stark black and white: If you do a thing, and the universe punishes you, then that was a Bad Thing.

            Therefore, in order for SFP to be set in your karmic justice utopia, it would have to be gutted of its central themes. Alison could never question whether she was doing the right thing with her immense power, because the laws of physics themselves would answer that question for her.

            I don’t know where you get the idea that “the comic is philosophical” means “should be applies.” It’s philosophical because it’s addressing complex ethical issues in the context of an amoral universe where there are no easy answers. Not every work that contains philosophy has to be a utopian representation of a world with such fundamentally different cosmology from our own that karmic punishment is an actual thing. And it’s especially presumptuous to expect a story you aren’t writing to conform to your specific value system, out of all the value systems in the world.

          • Vigil

            From my perspective (can’t speak for Stephanie), I view every one of those descriptions (except ‘Alison’s selfless deed’) as equally unambiguous. And when I hear ‘Alison’s bad act’ while it is fairly unambiguous, I do have to first shift myself into the mindset of someone who believes what she did was bad – as I am sure you have to do (but in reverse) when you hear ‘Alison’s good act’.

            Personally I think it’s that required mental shift that means the easiest way for you to describe the action is ‘Alison’s bad act’. Just as it’s easiest for me to describe it as ‘Alison’s good act’. So I don’t think we’re going to be able to agree here as we’re just coming at it from different perspectives.

          • Izo

            The difference is Alison has done a lot of ‘reckless’ acts in the past. She’s done a lot of ‘good things’ in the past as well. I can’t really say she’s done a lot of things that even Alison herself would consider ‘bad.’ If I tell you ‘remember when Alison did that bad thing? This event would probably be at the top of the list. Because a lot of things Alison did, which one MIGHT argue are bad, would at least not be considered bad by Alison, and also just in general, forcing another person to do your bidding by threatening them with death if they don’t comply …. it does require a lot more mental gymnastics to justify as being ‘not bad.’ There isnt even the element of IMMEDIATE stress or psychological shock involved, like there was in the only other event that I can think of that even comes close (the event outside the hospital where she threatened the civilians, in which you COULD argue, convincingly even, that she was in shock at the time after what had just happened seconds beforehand, compounded with the stress of what Feral’s friend said to her and watching doctors get burned alive in front of her). THIS event has none of that. Everything is very theoretical and abstract about people’s lives being in danger, except for Feral, who’s life was not in danger and who could, of her own free will, stop doing what she was doing anyway.

          • Vigil

            Yeah I am going to have to stick where I am here. For me, while Alison has done good things in the past, none of them are “Alison-style” good things. What I mean by that is that Alison (as extensively discussed) likes solving large-scale problems in a single stroke. Her actions in this arc are precisely that – which is why I find “Alison’s good act” the most clearly descriptive. Perhaps you are right – in which case I could easily disambiguate it as “Alison’s most significant good act”.

            If I step back from the argument snarl across the entire story, if you asked me what “Alison’s bad act” was, I’d probably say “fucking up Moonshadow’s plans”.

            Again – I genuinely think this is a matter of perspective. I think what Alison did was good, you think it was bad. The “obvious indicators” you’re describing of “badness” make complete sense to you, starting from a deontological perspective, and resonate far less with me, starting from a utilitarian perspective.

        • Vigil

          “Said to frame this post as if what Alison did was NOT horrifyingly morally wrong. Okay.”
          Wasn’t my (conscious) intention. Sorry if it came across that way.

          “Also in the real world, people at least RISK consequences for when they do horrible actions. Alison doesn’t.”
          Yep, that’s the entire premise of this comic. A person with huge amounts of physical power and not much to limit her figuring out what to do with that.

          “Gotcha. Doing a half-assed plan without any idea of how it would come out through research should result in most injuries and sickness being cured forever while your best friend being able to no longer sacrifice to make it happen and you don’t have to even feel guilty about it anymore and can say that you’d do it all again. Plus get a good grade while we’re at it.”
          I don’t think Alison isn’t feeling guilty about it. To everything else – yep, that’s the scenario we’ve been presented with.

          “At no point does the universe in SFP bend itself out of shape to fit a narrative? Are you seriously arguing that, at no point in time has this storyline bent itself away from normal things happening in response for ones actions where it does not come out PERFECTLY as planned?”
          You’re right – the world does bend to fit narrative. Just not beyond all logic. As I said, the narrative may well follow up with grave consequences to Alison’s actions, maybe even somewhat implausible ones. But it doesn’t make much sense for them to happen right now.

          “Yes, it’s called not wanting other monsters like Alison doing the same thing to him for their own needs.”
          I am not and have no desire to diminish his reasons. I’m just noting how they affect the likelihoods of things happening.

          “Power fantasies of unstoppable monsters are fun, arent they? Sort of like Injustice: Gods Among Us if there was no Batman to stand against Superman once he went Alison-Mindset. Definitely no need to risk having a physical response. Everything boring about Superman wrapped up in one socially just package.”
          Not a response to anything I’ve said, so I’ll ignore it. Again, it’s kind of the premise of the story that very little can physically stand up to Alison.

          “Correct, you don’t levy any sort of judgment about the morality of Alison’s actions. This is not a good thing.”
          This is semantic reaching (judgement-thoughts vs. judgement-legal). You and I both levy judgements(-thoughts) about Alison’s actions. I’m just trying to separate those from this argument because I know we disagree there and that’s not going to change.

          “I want the punishment to be something which would prevent Alison from doing the same thing again. You know. One of the main points of a punishment is to prevent the perpetrator from repeating the crime. Nothing here will prevent her, and the moral is that she will do it again. And feel justified and not-guilty.”
          Just because you want it, doesn’t mean it’s likely in-story. Not to mention that very little actual in-story time has passed, so frankly we have no idea what the eventual moral is or even if there’s supposed to be one. I am not trying to say you shouldn’t want it (we all want various things to happen in media we consume), just that it’s not likely.

          “Because negative results for negative actions is ‘bending itself out of shape. Cause and effect is SO obscene…”
          Negative results have already happened – Alison’s treatment of Max, and you view that as a tremendously negative result. What you’re asking for are actually, from your perspective, positive results (i.e. Alison’s punishment). And the whole thrust of my argument is that such positive results often (depending on circumstance) do not result from negative actions.

          “As opposed to the highly plausible result of her unresearched experiment resulting in medically improbable result of all organs being given to the world without even so much as a sacrifice of one life (that being Feral’s). and the only person who’s life was messed up as a result is the person that Alison does not like because he’s a dirty libertarian Ayn Randian who Alison should throw into the sun like she’s told Cleaver she thinks about doing, save for the fact that he might be needed to be threatened and used again in the future?”
          There’s a difference between the premise of how superpowers work being “implausible” (given how they work, I find it highly plausible Patrick has the resources to make accurate predictions of it) and the post-premise story cause-and-effect being implausible. Again, you already find the fact that Max’s life has been messed up a colossally horrible thing – why do you say “the only person” as if you need other lives to be messed up to validate that?

          “You do remember this story arc has been going on almost a year now, right?”
          I am in complete agreement that the format of this medium makes the story pacing and the narrative resolutions (moral or otherwise), PAINSTAKINGLY slow.

          • Izo

            I appreciate the respectfulness of your post btw. Sorry if I read your first sentence with that intent..

            “You’re right – the world does bend to fit narrative. Just not beyond all logic. As I said, the narrative may well follow up with grave consequences to Alison’s actions, maybe even somewhat implausible ones. But it doesn’t make much sense for them to happen right now.”

            I don’t consider the idea of negative consequences for a poorly thought out and not-at-all researched plan to be beyond all logic. If anything I think what’s happened so far is what’s been beyond all logic to the point of violating my suspension of disbelief in order to further a forced arc of ‘utilitarian use of violence and force will save the world and nothing bad will happen as a result.’ It used to be about the downsides of having a ‘crippling’ case of social justice as a superheroine. I’ve noted in this story arc a distinct lack of the ‘crippling’ part.

            “Just because you want it, doesn’t mean it’s likely in-story.”

            You literally pointed out an incorrect assessment of what I wanted. I corrected you by saying what I actually wanted, and you then used it to say that ‘just because I want it doesn’t mean it’s likely.’ Although yes, I do consider cause and effect to be something that SHOULD be likely. Especially in a deconstruction of a superhero genre. The world is NOT supposed to twist around to work for the protagonist in a deconstruction. It makes her into an unjustified mary sue when she is clearly NOT one. She’s massively flawed.

            “Not to mention that very little actual in-story time has passed, so frankly we have no idea what the eventual moral is or even if there’s supposed to be one.”

            Not that little time. It’s not like Grrlpower (great webcomic btw, ask Weather) where a year RL is the total of an hour IC.

            “I am not trying to say you shouldn’t want it (we all want various things to happen in media we consume), just that it’s not likely.”

            Except if you try to base it on what’s happened in the past in this same webcomic, it SHOULD be likely. This story arc pretty much takes the conclusion of the Cleaver story arc and what she said to him in prison about the little voices in one’s head and saying no to those voices, and says ‘screw that whole speech, I was totally BS’ing there, Cleaver.’

            “Negative results have already happened – Alison’s treatment of Max, and you view that as a tremendously negative result.”

            Negative actions to the person who committed the negative act or to the person meant to be helped BY the negative act. Not negative actions to the victim. That’s like saying that, not to bring a rape analogy into this again, but if a man rapes a woman and gets away with it and even if he feels guilty at first, he has people telling him that there’s no reason for him to feel guilty because she was asking for it anyway and besides, he really needed sex, that the fact that something negative happened to the WOMAN means the cause and effect had a negative result. When I say negative result, I’m obviously not meaning negative result to the innocent victim. Cmon already…. that’s not even REMOTELY a stretch to understand.

            “What you’re asking for are actually, from your perspective, positive results (i.e. Alison’s punishment).”

            No, what I’m asking for are negative results from the protagonist’s perspective. To ensure she learns an actual lesson from this that what she did was wrong and that she should NOT do it again. But she’s going to. Because everything so far in this horrible story arc is saying ‘she should do it again and feel socially justified about it.’ God help humanity if everyone had this viewpoint.

            “There’s a difference between the premise of how superpowers work being “implausible” (given how they work, I find it highly plausible Patrick has the resources to make accurate predictions of it) and the post-premise story cause-and-effect being implausible. Again, you already find the fact that Max’s life has been messed up a colossally horrible thing – why do you say “the only person” as if you need other lives to be messed up to validate that?”

            I’ve read and re-read this paragraph several times and I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here at all. Please elaborate.

            “I am in complete agreement that the format of this medium makes the story pacing and the narrative resolutions (moral or otherwise), PAINSTAKINGLY slow.”

            There isn’t even the foreshadowing of her having some negative resolution to this action though. All the foreshadowing is to show ‘everything’s going to work out for Alison here.’ As opposed to almost every other story arc in this webcomic. It’s horribly jarring.

          • Vigil

            I appreciate the respectfulness of your post btw. Sorry if I read your first sentence with that intent..

            No problem, I can see how it could have been read that way.

            On the implausibility of the Feral-empowing circumstance, I was trying (perhaps badly) to draw a distinction between “Feral + Max = all the organs” as a story premise, and “Alison getting punished” as an effect that might follow from the story premises and previous events. In general I view story premises as the “axioms” of the story – you somewhat just have to accept them, and effects as the things you can criticise more. Personally I can buy that Patrick has the resources to work out that “F+M = mass organs”. But I can see how it might stretch disbelief. I can also understand the position that the F+M combo having this effect is too much of a Deus Ex Machina. And I can understand the position that “this implausible DeM just lead to a horrible moral lesson so I hate the DeM even more”.

            On consequences for Alison – it really has only been a few days. I honestly can’t see any in-universe mechanism via which punishment could have been levied against her in that time.

            I on this thread, have been saying, to quote Stephanie “Bad actions aren’t guaranteed to cause bad outcomes for the person who did them.” I don’t think you disagree with that?

            From what I’ve gathered your rough position (and apologies if I’ve misinterpreted) is “Stories have morals which people then take as moral licensing for similar actions. Therefore this story should have a “good” moral otherwise it will mean people have the wrong ideas about what the right morals are (in the case of this comic you assert that “naive utilitarianism” and “tyranny” are these wrong ideas). Therefore the story needs to “prove”, via showing us anecdotally in its narrative, that tyrannical actions which violate individual liberty do not have good consequences for the one who acted.”

            How far off is that?

            There isn’t even the foreshadowing of her having some negative resolution to this action though. All the foreshadowing is to show ‘everything’s going to work out for Alison here.’

            I disagree. Alison explicitly discusses on page 123-2 that Max might use his wealth and power to attack her either directly or directly as a result of her actions. Frankly I don’t really know where Alison goes from here – the things she’s discussed with Guwara are useful but not concrete. I don’t get the sense everything’s going to work out.

            As opposed to almost every other story arc in this webcomic. It’s horribly jarring.

            I am slightly interested to hear what you thought of the Moonshadow arc and Mary’s actions, in that case. (Especially given your usage of the “daughter of the murdered doctor kills Guwara” hypothetical)

          • Vigil

            My long posts always seem to get detected as spam (grandparent to this comment) πŸ™

          • Izo

            I feel your pain there.

          • Arkone Axon

            Izo, I’d like to point out one thing. There are people commenting in these pages who insist that Max totally deserved it because (insert twisting of events to paint him as a one dimensional caricature of a petty and cruel bastard totally undeserving of pity here). However, in the context of the story itself… Alison acknowledges that what she did is extremely wrong. Very, very bad. She also acknowledges that Max may very well take action to protect himself against further victimization at her hands, and she would be hard pressed to say that he was unjustified in doing so. And she’s stated she’ll make an effort to provide restitution, if that’s even remotely possible.

            She knows she did wrong, she knows she’s facing consequences, and she’s going to try to fix things IF she can. It’s the difference between, say, an unrepentant murderer who insists their victim totally had it coming and everyone else is against them for not seeing the moral rightness of their act, even as they get sent to death row… and a penitent killer who pleads guilty, accepts a reduced sentence, and tries to do something decent with themselves both before and after being released.

          • Izo

            “Alison acknowledges that what she did is extremely wrong. Very, very bad.”

            But she also say she would do it again. She’d do it all again. She feels it was JUSTIFIED even though it was bad. That feels like everything she does from here on in is the action of a bully.

            “She also acknowledges that Max may very well take action to protect himself against further victimization at her hands, and she would be hard pressed to say that he was unjustified in doing so.”

            Yeah um… she’d still kill Max if he did something that crossed the line, even if he does it because there’s only a limited amount of things that can be done to even TRY to protect himself against someone like Alison. She has very few weak spots.

            “And she’s stated she’ll make an effort to provide restitution, if that’s even remotely possible.”

            Still seems like just words for now. Meaningless words too, since she did say she would do it all again. Sort of like a rapist saying ‘I rape this woman. I feel bad about it. Now I won’t go to JAIL or anything, but I’ll send her a lot of money to make some sort of restitution. To make myself feel better about my crime. But I’ll probably do it again in the future.’

            Sort of the Michael Jackson method of committing crimes and getting away with it.

            “She knows she did wrong, she knows she’s facing consequences, and she’s going to try to fix things IF she can. ”

            What consequences has she faced? What consequences is she facing? No one even knows about what she did except the professor and Max. How will she fix it when she said outright that she would do it again? Meaningless words.

            ” It’s the difference between, say, an unrepentant murderer who insists their victim totally had it coming and everyone else is against them for not seeing the moral rightness of their act, even as they get sent to death row… and a penitent killer who pleads guilty, accepts a reduced sentence, and tries to do something decent with themselves both before and after being released.”

            If Alison gives herself up to a super-prison and has herself voluntarily incarcerated in a prison like Cleaver’s that’s somehow capable of containing her, then your comparison might work. But unless that happens, it doesn’t work. Because a penitent killer who pleads guilty, but refuses to actually go to jail and who the government can’t send to prison? What good is his admission of guilt then? How does that give the victim ANY closure? How does that teach any sort of lesson? How does that tell anyone ELSE that they shouldn’t do the same exact thing?

          • Arkone Axon

            Um… first of all, Michael Jackson has been increasingly vindicated over the years since his death, especially after the first boy to accuse him (now an adult) came forward and declared that his father lied and made a false accusation and he had kept silent about it until his father died out of respect for said father. That his father made him make a false accusation in order to extort money out of Jackson, and Jackson paid out even though he feared that it would lead to similar false allegations for similar extortion.

            (It should be noted that Maculay Culkin, after divorcing his parents, went to live with Michael Jackson. Which means that he was either innocent of the charges… or that Culkin decided he’d rather go live with with a pedophile who molested him, rather than put up with either of his piece of crap parents)

            As for punishment… the point of punishment isn’t revenge. It’s to achieve three things. One: teach the transgressor to not repeat their misdeeds. Two: to teach others not to emulate the transgressor. Three: to prevent the transgressor from repeating their misdeeds.

            We don’t execute murderers for gleeful revenge; we execute them so they won’t be able to murder anyone else ever again. We don’t incarcerate thieves so we can torment them during their prison term; we incarcerate them so they can’t steal from anyone else during their time in prison.

            For a punishment to work on Alison, it needs to be something that she very much does not want to see happen, and that will thusly motivate her to not repeat her misdeeds. For instance, she has things in her life that she enjoys. Things that can be taken from her. The harsher examples – like friends and relatives who are NOT invulnerable – are examples that would only appeal to someone capable of murdering someone to punish someone else. I wouldn’t put it past Max’ parents… but Max himself, I don’t see Max ever doing any such things. Depriving someone else of their freedoms and possessions – including their possession of their own lives – is anathema to what he believes. However, even milder examples exist – such as her reputation. Finding out that the Superwoman decided to assault and torture someone is not going to endear her to anybody. Finding out that they were made to participate in medical procedures without the informed consent of those involved will not please the doctors, or anyone else in the medical community. Just because Gurwara isn’t sharing the truth doesn’t mean someone else might not. Someone could send Alison a link to the video of her actions (security cameras in Max’ apartment) torturing and assaulting some anonymous young man as he screams for help posted on youtube, along with a note: if you tell anyone who your victim was, you will be escalating things. You do not want to escalate things.

            Beyond that, there’s the matter of restitution. A traditional legal concept is “weregild.” Instead of execution or even incarceration, the transgressor provides restitution to the victim – such as your example of a rapist compensating their victim. If the rapist provides weregild AND refrains from repeating their misdeed, then justice has been done (as much as it can be, at any rate). Alison took from Max – took his dignity, his peace of mind, his ability to live his life without wondering when the flying SJW will swoop in and declare, “hey, jerk who I don’t like – I need your powers again, so let’s go. Don’t make this more difficult than it has to be.” There are things she can provide him to try to make up for it… IF he will allow her to.

            (I should note that if he does allow her that opportunity, it will show great maturity on his part. Of course, there will be those who simply sneer how he’s letting himself be bribed like a spoiled brat… but you and I are both agreed on how close minded and prejudiced those people are)

          • Beroli

            It’s not automated spam detection: it’s someone hitting the “flag” button, which Disqus doesn’t ask for justification for or track who does it.

          • Vigil

            Really? Wow, that’s disappointing. Thanks for letting me know.

          • Tylikcat

            I have in the past done so accidentally on a mobile device. Well, and with my hands full.

    • Thewizardguy

      Of course there’s no automatic negative effect. What were you expecting? One of the main points of the comic is that Allison’s powers, in many ways, put her above the law. As long as she isn’t slaughtering people in the streets she can do pretty much whatever she wants simply because the law can’t afford to hunt her down. As such the only person who can force her to do anything is herself, and she has to make her own decisions.

      This does not mean that Max could not later use his considerable fortune to oppose her on some other front, such as her new project, out of spite. But having some hand-of-god Karma come down and slap her in the face for doing a bad defeats the point of the comic, and depicts a world where the universe will act out to correct you whenever you screw up. In a comic that up until now has focused so heavily on the murky waters of morality, and just how little of a solid solution there is, I would hate for them to turn it into a black-and-white issue, or for them to implement the children’s-film concept of magical Karma.

      On the other hand it seems (to me, at least) that this arc is building on her apologising to Max for her actions. She had to make a choice, and performed a small evil action to remove another. And even if she were to make that choice again she now disagrees with her own reasoning for the choice, and appears to be attempting to restructure her morality.

      Besides, it’s not like Max is going away any time soon. The dude has one of the most powerful abilities on the planet, something that apparently boosted Feral’s regeneration a hundredfold if not more. The same effect used on Cleaver or a similar menace would make him a nearly unstoppable threat, and used on Alice could truly give her the absolute power that she now approaches possessing.

    • Danygalw

      he’s not quitting his job. she picked black.

      • Izo

        That part of the discussion has already been resolved in another part of this thread.

  • zellgato

    What it means is… She used to hang out with a mind reader.. She unconciouslly knows how to deal with word play and confusing crap.. So she’s learned to just do what she can in life

  • Dogwood

    Allison has decided she can take the hit for others despite that there are many folks who can’t.

    She has become Feral.

    • Weatherheight

      Interesting parallel – let’s find if it’s a sound one as well. πŸ˜€

  • Mitchell Lord

    Much like P.T. Barnum says. You can get some of the people to work with you all of the ttime. You can get all of the people to work with you some of the time…

    But you can’t get all of the people to work with you all of the time. (You can, however, get enough to prevent…MAJOR problems)

  • plot twist of the century: the black stones are actually just junior mints