Either Becky doesn’t know what going too far means, or she actually hates Dorothy for “Taking Joyce” or something but sucks at self reflection so hard she still thinks it’s just playful and fun rather than actual hatred
To be quite fair to Dorothy, I tend to assume that she is upfront enough to directly say to Becky that she doesn’t appreciate the way she has been treating her. Or at least that’s what Becky thinks (?), because I have the feeling that if Dorothy deliberately started to avoid Becky, the later would feel bad.
Call me crazy, but I’ve been in a similar position of Dorothy’s: Having to leave friends whom you love in order to pursue a dream. My theory here is that Dorothy is going to Yale and she is trying to enjoy her last few days with her friends the best she can. If having to tolerate Becky’s behavior is the price to pay, so be it.
I kind of doubt Dorothy’s leaving for Yale this semester after already starting at IU. Just… doesn’t make any practical sense. (Registration, tuition, moving her things out of the dorm and immediately hauling them to Massachusetts, transfers require notice with the school…) But I do think she has plans to be at Yale in the fall, and there ‘well, Becky’s only a relatively short-term thing’ applies.
Of course, a full semester is still plenty of time to test that tolerance to Becky.
So long as it’s just words, it feels to me like Becky just doesn’t know where to draw the line in her playful dislike. Mostly because I’ve known a number of people who are like that.
He supports conversion therapy and left Guardians of the galaxy after it was announced in the comics that his character is poly and bi, stating “creative differences”.
Probably other things too.
He supports a church whose sister church used to support conversion therapy nine years ago. That is not at all the same as him supporting conversion therapy. You can find it a dealbreaker that he supports that church without exaggerating his actual beliefs.
What Furubatsu said. Also, could we not be flippant about sexualizing minors and racial slurs? How can you -accidentally- use what is one of the most harmful words in the English language?
I suppose you could be very drunk to the point of slurring your words, think you’re gonna be funny and deliberately mispronounced “inebriated”, and then horrify both yourself and your SO when the absolute worst case scenario occurs and now you’ve accidentally said something you’re sure glad nobody else heard.
I’m not sure I equate winking at a 17 year old with sexulizing minors, but if you can use a racial slur by accident something is seriously wrong with you.
Okay, this is hilarious (in that these poor bastards do seem to have accidentally used a racial slur lol). At least a decade ago now (maybe longer) there was this ad for a small house on a little Australian realtor’s website that absolutely Blew. Up. Because of a slur they had put into the description, that seems to have been a typo.
I honestly believe that it legit probably was a typo, because the ‘N’ and the ‘B’ keys are right beside each other; and they were describing how this small house had a charm, that what they rephrased (once they heard about the typo, probably from reporters, lol) as larger homes lacked.
Frankly, I would have simply corrected the typo and left it as “bigger homes;” but I can also understand them wanting to just be done with it with no question that what they wrote was not remotely what they meant, lol.
Pretty specific accident; but at least possible and believable, lol.
–Oh! Reminded of another one; a coworker (fellow Canadian) came to work one day feeling extremely embarrassed, because it had snowed (unusual in the Vancouver area), and when he had stopped at a store to grab something on the way to work, the very nice cashier had said to him something along the lines of, “So I hear it’s pretty cold out?”
And he unthinkingly replied, “Heh, yeah, it’s pretty nippy.”
And then immediately felt like shit, because the cashier was Asian, and he’d honestly just meant it was a bit chilly out. Does that one count?
One of the people I went to school with was a white guy from a rural community which was so non-diverse that he grew up without actually being exposed to any racism besides what’s on TV. (Which is, incidentally, one grandfather different than my 1-8 experience, so I know it’s theoretically possible. I’ll admit that, roughly 13 years later, I went back for a visit, to find that a single black family had moved into the valley where I lived for those seven formative years, and I was shocked to find out how incredibly racist just about everybody in town was. Which is to say, they finally accepted *me*, despite the fact that I hadn’t been born there, because at least I was white, and they expanded on the ways they demonstrated hatred. I hadn’t expected that they’d accept the black family, but I thought they’d just give the same sort of hate that I’d gotten.)
His first exposure to people using the ‘n’ word in real life was at college, specifically in conversations his black roommate had with his black friends. After one completely clueless use of the word on his part, his roommate explained that, as a white guy, he should never, ever use that word.
Apart from that one incident in their freshman year, he otherwise got along very well with his roommate. They proceeded to room together for the rest of their time at college.
Nearly 4 years later, his roommate told him, “Ok, I think you’ve earned the ability to use the `n` word. But *only* when talking with just this specific group of people we’re in *right* now.”
That white guy could accidentally use the ‘n’ word, if he thought he was alone with that specific group of people, but they were on camera and so the whole world found out.
Other than that case, or equally extreme cases, I’m not sure how one could accidentally use it, without having a history of using it maliciously.
That said, I feel like there’s a lot more room for blissfully ignorant usage of the word than most people realize, because outside of extremely rural settings, it seems impossible to comprehend how incredibly non-diverse some parts of rural America are, and what can slip through the cracks when that happens.
Well, I suppose I can think of one…. If the word is constantly swirling around one’s head and being used in one’s personal racist musings, perhaps it could slip out in a moment of accidental honesty. Does that happen to you frequently, Ob?
I can only imagine a “legitimate” accidental use being you meant to say that words that means “cheap” and is harder to say than “cheap” and why is that word even in your lexicon, just say “cheap”
Come to think of it, most of those Hollywood types have probably done waaaay worse and their careers have been completely intact. All of them know about it, regardless, so none of ’em are off the hook.
That having been said, there have been people whose acting careers were ruined over something they characterized as “winking at a 17 year old”.
I’m blanking on the name, but the one that comes to mind had actually been filming kiddie porn, according to the judgement of a court of law. But at least in his initial public response, he continued to deny that.
I think most of them have been less egregious than that, but it’s pretty incredible about how flippant some people can be, when they’ve actually been involved in things much worse.
It is good but it’s also about the admin side of the parks and recreation department for a local government in a made up indiana town. The townsfolk show up a lot, the boss is anti-government and the main character is basically dotty.
I feel like that’s more what it was trying to be at first than what it ended up being. I watched The Office when it was on and thought it was fine, but I’ve never rewatched it, and I like Parks and Rec much more and have rewatched it approximately too many times. Meanwhile, my cousin is obsessed with The Office and I don’t think ever got into Parks and Rec.
The two shows definitely have different vibes, but I feel like one is a good palette cleanser for the other. Not that I’ve watched either show more than twice, they’re no OTGW.
One time, I heard of a law prof assigning “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”, as a weekend thing, with the side-job of listing as many legal violations as they could find. But Im generally not a fan of JUST assigning watching a movie or TV show for a non-media course.
That seems to go against the argument that political science degree is a terrible way to make a difference given that so many folks who have made a difference obtained a BA in political science.
To be frank in my haste to pen a response I kind of saw the BJ cat and today have assumed it was the same person. My anger clouded my mind. My apologies to tbf if they are reading this to Clif my argument stands.
Yes beacuse in political science you learn the mechanicsisms of government and how it functions. The ability understand these mechanisms is essential to getting into government and learning how to govern.
Not at all sure the the actual mechanisms which make the government function makes it into textbooks much.
It’s far from essential for getting into government. The most effective politician in my lifetime, Lyndon Johnson, was educated as a school teacher. Ronald Reagan was an actor.
Woodrow Wilson invaded Mexico five times, invaded Nicaragua nine times, stared an occupation of Haiti that lasted twenty years, invaded Russia and fought on their soil for two years. He also fired every black civil servant he could get his hands on because he was a virulent racist. A degree in poli-sci didn’t do him much good.
After winning re-election on an anti-war platform, no less. And throw in some bonus awful points for crapping on the First Amendment. Wilson was one of the worst Presidents ever.
Corellation is not causation and even if there was a causal argument to be made an n size of 1 person is not enough to make an argument that The degree in political science is terrible way to make a difference. Having Political science didn’t cause him to be a complete asshole he was just an asshole who happened to have a political science degree.
True enough. I’m interested in seeing your example of an individual where having a political science degree was of primary importance in the significant things they accomplished. I’m not arguing that a degree political science prevents a person from achieving great things, I’m just not at all convinced that a degree in political science particularly has that much to do with the great things accomplished.
First off by you logic no degree will lead to great things beqxuse all a degree is just proof you went to an accredited university.. its what you do with said degree is what matters ergo if that degree provided you with tools to achieve then its useful
As for a specific example Elinor Ostrom won the nobel prize in economics for her work in her work on the commons specifically the in management of common pool resources. Beacuse of her political science background she was able to understand the intricacies of governance which allowed her to discover a new approach to solving the Tragedy of the Commons, outside the previous dichotomy of the privatization vs the leviathan.
In terms of politics understand how governance works allows you to get the great things done with greater ease. Caligula had no interest nor knowledge on how to govern and Rome suffered Tiberus had both and Rome prospered. Catherine the Great understood how to govern her Husband did not. They didn’t have political science degrees but they understood the importance of knowing the mechanisms of government and how to use them. That’s what the political science degree is significant factor.
Tl;dr response a political science degree can help you make a difference beaxuse it provides you with fundamental knowledge to obtain a position of power where you can.
Elinor Ostrom
Also I accidently put Tiberus who was an utter shithead I mean Claudius the damn Julio Claudian dynasty uses the same names for everyone.
Also Mansa Musa
Thank you for your example of Elinor Ostrom, which is a fairly good example, though I was kind of under the impression that polycentralism was out of fashion now, and kind of thought that the only reason she had a political science degree was that she couldn’t get into the economics program she wanted on account of never taking trigonometry, but maybe I’m mistaking her with someone else.
No, I was right, it was her I was thinking of. Her nobel bio at https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/ostrom/biographical/ doesn’t mention trig specifically, just that it was a lack of math past algebra. What I hadn’t heard was that there was resistance into letting her into the political science program on account of her being a woman.
No it really doesn’t yeah he was a racist and not a good repersentation of the field and a terrible person. However Elinor Ostrom the first woman to win the noble prize in economics was a political scientist. And Ruth Bader Ginsber obtained her undergraduate in government at Cornell which is their equivalent of political science. Senator Tammy Duckworth has a PhD in political science. Jacinda Ardern had gotten her Bachelors in politics. If you look at many politcans or world leaders or members of legislatures they have at least a bachelor’s in political science or an equivalent.
I’d argue he’s a PERFECT example of the field. Poly Sci majors go there to have their predilections and preconcieved notions repeated back at them, or to fill a requirement in ‘social studies’ for another degree. The field itself doesn’t begin to teach how to govern, only what papers happen to be stylish in academia today about how to govern, and it’s a misnomer.
There is nothing Scientific about Political Science; no requirement for repeatable results, the peer review is mutual masturbation and outcomes are for the most part a matter of opinion and presentation, as opposed to observation of actual conditions, requiring repeatable, falsifiable results that actually reflect real-world conditions, and so on. A high school civics course can teach you how the government is supposed to work, a bit of study and a copy of the congressional record can show you how well that actually works, and for the rest it’s observation. (mainly learning how much each politician costs a lobbyist and which lobbyists pay the most for legislation, favors, or exemptions.) “Political Science” is a joke-a sad one, and very expensive, but a joke. Like most of the social studies fields, it’s loaded with blind ideologues and obsessed idealists selling their particular snake-oil.
I have tried three times to post a response but I am guessing the program that the site uses filters out links.
Falsifiaction and replication are critical elements of the field if they weren’t then i wasted my time reading Laktos Popper and Khun and learning the philosophy of science.
The people who are keeping track of those congressional record certinay have political science degree. just look up DW Nominate scores.
Also the idea of the US as a oligarchy was propagated by politcal scientists. From Dahl in the 50s to the more sophisticated methods of Gilens and Page 2014
If you are actually interested then I suggest reading Designing Socail Inquiry by King Keohane and Verba its free online.
Seriously, let’s take some quotes by and about Rodimus and Beckify them. They fit surprisingly well!
Dorothy: What’s wrong with my face? Becky: It’s basically a punch magnet. Dorothy: So rude! Sarah, did you hear that? Sarah: No. Was it about your face?
(Dorothy leaves for Yale) Becky: [double thumbs-up, huge grin] I wouldn’t want anyone here to mistake my grief for giddy excitement!
Becky: This is my new pie launcher. Carla built it as a thank-you present after I stopped going on and on about how much I wanted a pie launcher.
Dina: When did you first realize that she uses bad grammar to distract you whenever you raise an objection to something she wants to do? Joyce: She does WHAT?
Dorothy: Oh. Yeah. Sorry. Thanks to Becky, I’m conditioned to expect incomprehension, mockery, and boredom—usually in the space of thirty seconds.
What we deserve is an anti-45 timeline/universe. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the worst outcomes always because somebody crossed the gods at some point.
This American Life had a neat story a few weeks ago about a young woman who volunteered to help research one of the COVID-19 treatments. So yes, you can, Becky.
Once they transitioned Leslie Knope from being incompetent to hyper competent overachiever and Mark Left and Ben and Chris joined it is when the show got good. Ie everything after season 3.
I don’t think the first 2 seasons were TERRIBLE. They had potential, enough to keep the show afloat until it found its feet. But rewatching those seasons is definitely a slog, and makes them feel worse in retrospect, because the show definitely switches things up (in a good way) and the first 2 seasons feel a little confused and aimless.
First season had only six episodes and all of it was done back to back and before it started airing, so it should be considered a two-hour pilot for the series. And like it usually happens, after the pilot come adjustments, they see what works and what doesn’t, and then the series improves. Which is exactly what happened here, except starting with second season, not second episode. And second season was awesome from the start, except it’s true that Paul Schneider’s character was its weakest part.
Season 2 isn’t so bad, even though Mark’s still around blanding up the place.
It’s when Leslie starts being more competent, Andy goes from a freeloading jerk to a sweetheart, his and April’s romance starts, April gets a lot more focus, and toward the end Chris and Ben join the cast.
I see 2 as the transitional season, where things started getting good. It just happened gradually.
Next Generation‘s first season is best forgotten. There’s a reason it’s the trope namer for “grew the beard” (the opposite of “jumped the shark”).
Deep Space Nine took about three seasons to really get going, because it had so much worldbuilding to do, but it got pretty damn good once the Dominion war picked up.
Voyager got more competent after they replaced Kes with Seven. The writing was all over the place throughout its run though. (Year of Hell and Timeless were good episodes, but we also got that one with the space lizards. Kate Mulgrew basically said she had to play Janeway as if she had untreated bipolar disorder because her characterization was so inconsistent. Voyager‘s terrible writing is also a contributing factor in one of my favorite examples of the butterfly effect.)
Season One was Gene Roddenberry’s fault, once he gave up on the show and the old writers were all but run out things turned around and got a lot better. It’s where we got the Borg, it’s where we got the badass Romulans, it’s where we got Lore and his rivalry with Data: three things that made the show the next six years and reverberated for years to come.
But the first couple of episodes were clearly f-up after f-up with the pilot having two separate plots because Gene couldn’t go with one storyline and we got a racist episode because nobody thought that an all-black tribalist society was a bad idea nor was an episode centered around someone being killed because they stepped onto a patch of grass leading to a whole “should we do something or not”.
And usenets were around then, but they were infants in 1987/88 so what you hear might actually be the DS9 and Voyager b****fests going on which are confirmed to have happened and led to a lot of fighting behind the scenes at both shows
Ol’ Gene also recycled scripts he wrote for a late 70s TOS follow-up series (supposed to be titled “Star Trek: Phase II“) that didn’t come to fruition, so they feel out of place like stiff TOS episodes.
Dorothy didn’t have to learn to love poli sci, she already had a strong interest in the field. However it was kind of forced on Becky due to circumstances and, as a former biology major, I just don’t see her developing a passion for something so far removed from what she set out to do. But it’s cute that Dorothy is so invested in her chosen field that she seems to think it’s a given that anyone else exposed to it would learn to love it too.
When you explain it that way that does make sense i am sorry for the accusatory remarks. I like Dorothy have a passion for the discipline and this comment section has been rife with curt remarks about political science.
No like I get the offense, I did mean it as some light teasing towards the field of polisci because as a STEM major I’m biased and personally don’t get how it’s interesting. But I don’t think it’s, like, a worthless field or anything. Someone’s gotta understand that stuff.
Bruh if I and the other psych majors didn’t get mad about people trashing psych majors when booster was doing their thing, you don’t get to be mad about people trashing polisci. Relax, it’s a comic comment section. No one’s actually coming for your degree
I bet Booster’s gonna have a goddamn field day analyzing Becky’s unnecessary horseshit behavior towards Dorothy but I kinda hope they just look at her and say that exact sentence.
There’s not much to analyze, Becky actually does like Dorothy but to Becky her unintentional ” miss perfect and way too nice for her own good” personality is just screaming to be challenged. But since there’s not much to poke fun of without being actually hurtful the best she can do is childlike insults which fits better for a more jokey mood.
That being said I’d say Dorothy brushing these taunts the off isn’t really a sign of her patience and more of a sign her maturity since she can tell these are not real pit downs, but it does make me wonder about most of the people in the comment section with their extreme reactions. If Becky comes out with a insult that a 1st grader would come up with and people act as if she just called Dorothy three different slurs in one sentence.
The specific insults aren’t the issue, it’s that she just will not stop with them and a lot of us reached our maximum tolerance for this petty bullshit weeks ago.
It’s like when you’re a kid in the back seat of the car with your sibling, and they keep waving their hand around right in front of your face. They’re not doing anything to hurt you, but they are going out of their way to be an annoying dumbass just because they think being obnoxious is funny. No matter how stupid and petty they’re acting, you can only tolerate so much of it before you either start screaming for mom or lunge across the car and beat the piss out of them.
Yeah, Becky isn’t Carla – Carla’s often an ass, but she’s a SKATE-BY ass. She comes, she asses, and then she leaves, so it doesn’t grate. By the time she comes to ass again, your brain has already recoveed from the previous instance so the whole thing doesn’t weigh down on you. But Becky. Just. Keeps. Going. It’s like the Energiser Bunny, if what it did was insult you.
She’s also an ass in a way that she prioritizes herself above other people rather than lowers them. Its easier to roll your eyes at an elevation/minimization than an outright kick down.
learn to love politics”, That’s a good one Dorothy. Yeah what’s not to love about such a “Noble” and non-corrupting profession.
For real though there are only two types of people who aspire to have a big career in politics. The ones who seek fortune & status and only care about living career where they feel accomplish even if it means discarding whatever morals they may have had and putting said career first above their actual duty, and then you have the ones who get into politics because they actually want meaningful change for good and want to champion a revolutionary cause. Unfortunately both sides of the U.S political system will see the latter group crushed and subdued because they political figures in charge like the old status quo system that thrives on everything the first group is.
I still say it’s important for those who care enough about where our nation is going to get involved since I’m a staunch believer in the old “with great power comes great responsibility moto” and we have the responsibility to take the wheel away from the same people who’ve been in power for the last 4 decades and have been driving us into the ground. But if we wanted a career in something that would give us fulfillment then I’m pretty sure we can find that somewhere else.
“What if you learn to love politics” she asked, that’s gold.
Or you can just do what I did and choose to focus on Canadian politics and international political economy. There are other carrers in politics that does not involve becoming a politician or even a bureaucrat.
I am saying that your dicatomous separation of who gets into politics and your statement that loving politics is flawed.
First your statement about only two types is rooted in American centric view of politics. Further more those who choose to study politics enjoy politics otherwise why bother? Maybe Becky might not want to be a political but perhaps she may enjoy the scientific aspect of political science ie: data analysis, research design, and modeling.
Learning about the subject does comes in handy, but you don’t go to college to dedicate more than half a decade of study and possibly put yourself in life long debt to not make a career out the subject you spent all that college time studying. That aside I wouldn’t say “loving politics is flawed, just that there isn’t a lot to love about the field especially depending on what country you reside in.
Not going to mock what Becky is doing though, as a scientist she can make just as much of a difference in a feild that’s a little bit more clean and the skills you’ve listed will help her with that.
The garbage boxes are the things she never wanted to do – being forced to follow a path you don’t care about in the slightest detracts from the educational experience
Bingo, lights flash, trumpets sound, we have a winner! it’s a scutwork field, something you have to take so you can take the classes you’re actually there for, just like when you’re in a STEM program, and they make you take a semester of listening to intersectional bullshittery studies taught by someone who’s basically going to stand there and grind about the people they hate for a semester. it’s something you take, and you repeat the prof’s ideas back at them as quickly as possible to get out of there and back to the thing you’re actually interested in.
Except that’s not what Zor said. There’s no such thing as a “scutwork field”.
Sure it sometimes sucks to have to take a class in a field you’re not interested in, but the problem is your interest, not the field itself. The people who do like that field may hate having to take classes in the thing you’re excited about. Maths being the most common example.
And to be relevant to this webcomic: Leslie’s gender studies would be the best example of “intersectional bullshittery studies”.
Also without the exaggeration. Cause clearly it isn’t true, but what is true is that figuring things out is what is important in the long run. And that is STEM pretty much.
Ah, I see. I had no idea that my education and career in accounting was worthless garbage. Or that my brother the welding engineer who has a certification in welding and fabrication (a professional course, not scientific) was likewise meaningless. Or that teachers with their education degrees are likewise valueless wastes. I shall have to readjust my thinking, apparently.
Not at all. Phone Sanitizers are a positive good and reduce the incidence of communicable diseases. But few of them have the impact of an Edison, Crick and Watson, Bohr or Turing. Paciole, Wedgwood and Pierpoint Morgan had an impact, but just weren’t in the same league.
People who go around to homes and offices and clean telephones. This was an actual job once, although I’m not sure if there are any professional phone sanitizers still around.
Thomas Edison was a terrible fucking scientist who made his name from other people’s work, whom he exploited, underpaid, and never gave credit to. He fought against the implementation of alternate curent, even though it was proven to be safer, because it would cost him money. He was basically Henry Ford. Fuck Edison, and may he burn in hell.
He was more of a technologist than a scientist and his real contribution was providing a model for a modern industrial research laboratory. But he applied math and science and was quite clearly STEM.
now see, you just listed three things that have ACTUAL VALUE as your examples of ‘non’ stem work. Except that’s not what I was saying in the first place. Welding involves Metallurgy, physics, and chemistry, as well as a smattering of engineering. That’s all useful and valuable. We wouldn’t even HAVE an education without Teachers, and Accounancy has actual, repeatable, real world answers.
IOW it’s got an actual application.
What’s bullshit, are the courses that are navel-gazing and where you get your degree by repeating back to the prof their own pet peeves and ideas in slightly different words without requiring actual means of testing those ideas. Essentially if the difference between pass and fail is the fealty to the opinion of the lecturer? then the course is bullshit and a waste of time and money. Poly Sci is a prime example of that, so are most of the “Humanities” departments that make headlines or start movements on Tumblr and Twitter.
You are living proof that we need more humanities, not less. All you purity of stem dorks desperately need some social analysis skills and I say that as someone who did stem myself.
You can’t be a proper scientist without being aware of science’s role in society, of ethics, of how science has been misused and can be a tool for oppression and harm. Science is no more neutral or pure than the rest of the world cause it’s done by people. (Not to get even deeper into the social construction of science itself.)
a “Proper” Scientist? really?? Do describe a Proper scientist. Science is a TOOL. That’s all it is. It’s not a religion, it’s not a philosophy for living, it’s not an effective means of managing social interaction. THAT stuff is the purview of PHILOSOPHY, or theology. Science can not answer whether god exists, (it’s an untestable hypothesis) and it can’t tell you what is right or wrong (that’s the purview of ethics and morality, or philosophy again) If you need to get a student loan to find out how to be a good person, you’ve already failed, and so have your parents and your community. A ‘Proper’ Scientist applies the scientific method, to things that can be examined scientifically.
Amazingly, this doesn’t include the inner life and workings of real live human beings, nor does it include the interactions of spirits, fae, or mythical beings. Take ten social scientists, show them a crowd of people and you’ll get eleven theories about what those people are doing and why, and none of them will be testable, because it’s just opinions wrapped in scientific language. Political “Science” isn’t actually scientific. Neither are most of the drivel coming out of universities these days in the humanities. Even Economics, which HAS actual answers and can even have replicatable results, is more of an art form than a science, since those results vary wildly in the wild and inputs don’t guarantee outputs once applied to actual human beings.
Someone claimed there were 50 genders, but when you break it down, it’s 4, and forty six personality traits or personal preferences being assigned as if they were viable demographic groups instead of the choices of individual people.
Most of it is cargo-cult science, meaning it has all the trappings of science, the lab coats, the nifty use of latin or other dead languages, and lots of math, but it’s science in the same way that measuring head-bumps to determine intelligence is science.
Without the math you can’t do effective machine learning and without machine learning we’ll never be able to build the machines to eventually replace us with something better.
It’s not my preferred way of looking at life, but when it comes to U.S politics I believe more cynicism is needed, not less. If a new shyster comes out of the wood work looking to run for office and people don’t question what their choices have been in their political career so far or where they’re getting their campaign funds from and instead only care about “What demographic are they apart” or whether or not they have a D or an R next to their name and only care about that. Then I’d say those people are being foolish not to look deeper into the matter.
As a PoliSci grad, being a PoliSci major is just despair that politics is governing over people who have no grasp on politics.
Example: Try having a discussion with anyone to the left about the pros and cons of the Electoral College and you’re met with Bush and Trump problems but they then ignore the problems with a parliamentary system or a pure democracy.
Does wanting get rid of the winner take all system for the electoral collage and having a more serious Crackdown on gerrymandering during elections count as to far left of a opinion? Asking for a friend who’s actually really just me.
As someone on the left, I’ll bite – give me the pros of the Electroal College, a system whose only purpose is to look at election results and go “nah, fam”.
Well, way back when the electoral college approach helped convince smaller states to sign onto the Constitution. Now that they’re stuck with it, it’s kind of obsolete.
It was also intended to play a larger role back in those slower moving days when they didn’t see politics being dominated by two parties. In a non-party system, it could have played the role that contested nominating conventions did – handling cases with multiple candidates and no outright majority, by the usual combination of persuasion and deal making. Never really worked out that way, at least as a general rule.
That function again, is pretty much obsolete and was from day one.
As thejeff notes yes the electoral college does balance out the strength of small states with larger states. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. It does force presidential candidates to pay attention to states or regions that might otherwise be ignored. Right now if a person wanted to win the Electoral College by only focusing on the largest states they would need to win 11 states compared to in 2020, 50% of the popular vote was owned by 8 states. The problem is that we’ve arbitrarily capped the House at 435 seats and set the minimum house seat for each state at 1. So due to portioning, as we know it
The electoral college as it is right now is not representative because it is not properly proportional.
Now an argument can be made about the EC disenfranchising the votes of the loser in each state and I agree with that but that’s more to do with states doing a winner take all system rather than a proportional split of the top two parties in each state. While this would be more representative, it would take longer to know who won an election and we’ve already seen the problems with that this cycle, though this is more a Trump bug than a feature.
Additionally the EC reinforces the two party system which is a good thing because in previous party systems in US History, polarization goes in a pendelum and is forced back to the center because that is where the majority of voters work. There are benefits to a two party system which in general include easy aggregation of ideals into a binary, and GENERALLY an inability for far flanks of either spectrum to take root. there isn’t enough data on whether Trump will be an exception to the rule or if this is a feature of a new party system. We still don’t know if we are in a realignment or not. We’ve seen a Right-Left-Far Right-Center Left cycle so far in the last say 20 years. We don’t know whether a response will be a swing will be to a Center Right in 2024 but we do know a feature of this current party system is parties general don’t hold power for longer than 8 years at the top. Biden had the 2nd most votes in TX of all time in 2020, what if the 2024 Dem candidate wins TX, that changes the landscape.
Rambling at this point TLDR, the Electoral College is imperfect and needs to be tweaked to better represent its role in the current American political system.
Technically, what thejeff noted was that the EC was barely useful when it was created and absolutely useless now, but on with your points.
The population representation aspect: if the EC were not a thing, then you don’t have the winner-takes-all problem, because each vote is, well, a “point”, instead of what you have now, where a state is worth a number of points. What the EC effectively does is make, say, a California vote worth less than a South Carolina one.
I’m not sure your argument of taking longer to figure out who won the election holds – there’s only so much space for legal challenges because the margins in each state can be small; a direct popular vote election makes the margins LARGER, and therefore, less contestable. Trump may have lost a few places by a couple of thousand votes, but he lost the overall vote by SEVEN MILLION.
Additionally, I hypothesise that it would increase voter engagement – after all, if you live in, say, NY, California, or Hawaii, how motivated are you to vote?
I’m going to VEHEMENTLY disagree with you on the two-party system (a different matter, but we might as well engage in it as well). There is no aggregation of ideals into a binary, unless you think that, say, Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi have ideological commonalities much beyond “we don’t want the Republicans in power”. And that, of course, is its own problem – right now, if you’re a US voter and want to be, well, not a shit, you’re voting Democrat regardless of who the Democrat candidate is, because the alternative is, well, THAT. And that means that, in cases which I will not pretend to know an approximate number, you’re not going to vote FOR someone as much as you’re going to vote AGAINST someone (I remain steadfast in my belief this is the reason Biden is the most voted candidate in US history). I mean, if you’re a Californian voting for the House you’re voting Pelosi, regardless of how you feel about her constant attempts to squash progressives and her whitecarding funds for children concentration camps with no strings attached, because the other side is the one actually putting up those concentration camps.
I too also say to hell with the two party system, why keep it alive when both parties make it a priority to not help the citizens they govern. If there’s one thing I cant stand is being driven to conform to one of the other when neither holds my values or has the general population in mind.
Removing the electoral college doesn’t leave you with either a parliamentary system or a pure democracy. It just gives you a President elected by popular vote.
It’s still a representative democracy, not a pure or direct one. And there’s still a president, so not a parliamentary democracy.
The fact that some readers are taking Becky’s comments towards Dorothy a lot harder and more seriously than Dorothy herself seems to suggests to me that rather than Becky being a horrible monster something is being lost in translation, possibly Becky’s tone of voice.
Well, it does seem that Dorothy is more actively trying to brush the comments off, and I think it’s fair to feel she shouldn’t have to. Idk, I find everyone with lines in this particular strip to be varying degrees of annoying today, but I can still enjoy the strip, where for others the annoyance might tank the enjoyment of something they’d otherwise enjoy, which can be frustrating.
Or Dorothy genuinely doesn’t understand why Becky is being this way and is still trying to be nice plus throw in some idea of wanting to be kind to Becky because of everything thats happened to her and then not wanting to cause problems between her and Joyce and I can see why Dorothy hasn’t said anything to Becky (or straight out decked her)
I’m dumb so correct me if I’m wrobg but I thought microaggressions specifically refered to aggressions against minorities, particularly dogwhistle ones (ie ones outsiders wouldn’t notice)
The “micro” in “microaggression” isn’t about the target, it’s about the level of the aggression. As a distinction, let’s say you meet someone that looks, and there’s no good way to write this so I’m going to have to bleach my soul afterwards, “exotic”:
– if you tell them to go back to where they come from, that’s a macroaggression
– if you ask them where they’re from, thereforem implying, consciously or not, that they don’t belong there, that’s a microaggression.
Microaggressions are still about marginalized groups, though. Becky’s comments toward Dorothy aren’t microaggressions. They’re insults and could be considered aggressive, sure; “microaggression” just means something else.
No, that’s nto how it works – you can totally do microaggresions against non-margialised groups. If your barista gives everyone extra cream in their coffee for free except you, that’s a microaggression*. Also, don’t piss off your barista, those people are in charge of your drink.
*I mean, presuming you don’t dislike cream in your coffee or are allergic or something.
I’m just gonna quote Wikipedia, I guess: “Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups. The term was coined by Harvard University psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals which he regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflicting on African Americans.”
What Yumi said though, and also, even if it were ONLY about the size, I wouldn’t consider saying things clearly and specifically and in language everyone around can recognize a microaggression.
It’s a difference in clear hostility level – in my previous example, the first thing is obviously bad, meant to make the target of the remark feel bad. The other one is a more subtle, not necessarily conscious form of othering.
Just to be clear, Becky’s not doing any sort of aggression here, micro or otherwise. In the other strips she IS, but those aren’t microaggressions – not because they’re being directed at Dorothy, but because they’re clear open hostility.
I actually think that might be true, but what we the comment section know is that Becky uses Goofy Becky as her cover for all things Serious Becky. Becky’s tone is the only reason she gets away with as much as she continues to wher Dorothy is concerned. No one thinks she’s being serious, it’s Goofy Becky.
For me, at least, the Becky seems to never be anything BUT hateful to Dorothy (and that she has refused to call her by her actual name, as Dorothy has requested at least once, in favor of a nickname that doubles as an old-timey insult) is frankly upsetting. The only reason I can think of to be constantly petty/mean to someone is active dislike. I feel bad for Dorothy having to live with someone who already thinks of trying to hurt her feelings or make her suffer as a fun way to spend time and fear what may happen if familiarity breeds (more) contempt.
not to distract the conversation, just curious, but when has dorothy ever said anything about the nickname? i genuinely don’t remember her ever commenting on it- positively, negatively, OR neutrally. and a quick look through their strips together didn’t turn anything up, but maybe i missed it.
I think it’s the pervasiveness of Becky’s attitude toward Dorothy. Like, Carla is a snarky, snide, even rude person, and Malaya can be too, but they doesn’t target one person. And they aren’t around as much. Joe and Walky can be sarcastic and rude, but they aren’t intentionally combative to a specific person in every interaction, at least, not if the other person has been generally polite to them. Ruth and Billee were antagonistic, but they were mutually antagonistic into their Destructive Lesbian Pact. Sal was unpleasant about Malaya, but Marcy shut that down if need be and Sal wasn’t quite so smug about it. Mike was antagonistic to almost everyone, and not everyone liked that, but his antagonism usually brought some insight with it, even if Mike was a horrible person in the process.
Becky is antagonistic to Dorothy specifically, constantly, and seemingly for no reason other than Dorothy being close to Joyce. And she’s so proud of herself for it. Sure, Dorothy is tolerant about it. And Becky seems to think it’s all in snide fun, for her, but with an edge of actually trying to push Dorothy out and away from Joyce. So whatever Dorothy’s reaction, Becky’s still being a constant smug asshole to Dorothy for petty reasons, and that isn’t cute to watch strip after strip. It’s certainly not cute anymore, for a lot of people.
I think one problem is that they’re living together: so this kind of thing is constant now and Dorothy will probably only receive breaks when she has a different class given their social circle.
Granted I don’t hate Becky or anything. Given her past experiences I hardly think she should be tarred and feathered (Dorothy as others have mentioned probably having similar thoughts and like Dorothy can escape to Yale it seems or will be anyway next semester potentially so an end date is in sight) but like… her character arc really will have to involve her stopping this eventually.
I don’t take them terribly seriously, I’m just getting sick of them. Even if it’s one hundred percent just a joke (which I don’t believe), it’s a joke that’s been run into the ground, then shoved about thirty feet lower.
Dorothy probably has unseen, positive interactions with Becky and periods of time where their conversations don’t end with “yeah but YOUR ___ IS A BUTT.”
During Walky and Dorothy’s Amazi-Girl chase, the library was labelled the “Leslie Knope Library,” but this episode established Parks and Rec’s existence as a show in this universe and Willis is calling himself out on it
As someone who has never watched that show I’d probably be just cribbing up on wiki articles rather than bothering to watch seasons upon seasons of something honestly. And I say this as someone who has pondered on watching the show before.
Granted mandated viewing is kind of like book assignments in English classes: any vague interest I might have had in consuming it would evaporate as soon as it becomes homework/a chore.
Also is it just me or does Joyce look vaguely surprised at Becky’s comment to Dorothy? (Hard to tell tbh at this angle).
Even if nothing is commented on immediately it does make me wonder if she’ll be filing this away in her head for later if a pattern emerges for her. (Granted Becky hasn’t exactly been sweetness in front of her when it comes to Dorothy before anyway).
I do think that there is a possible direction this arc could go where Joyce finally has enough with Becky’s possessiveness and gives her a public telling off.
Or she just takes her to the side and talks to her privately. Honestly could be more impactful that way depending on what’s said. Sometimes the most devastating blows are given softly.
Though like Joyce has her own issues with being honest/up front with Becky right now given the fact she’s no longer religious so I’m feeling it will come up too (Though suspicions that Becky already knows could mean it goes from private to public blow out!)
Or maybe it descends into crying hugs. There’s various possibilities really.
Don’t know if it’s intended, but it’s not just you. It probably IS intended, because, if you’ll notice, Sarah’s raising an eyebrow at the whole thing, too.
I’m glad some people in the comments agree with me about Becky being horrible to Dorothy all the time for no reason. I think what pisses me off the most about it is how she does it with a SMILE. She’s constantly insulting and belittling her and being smug about it too. That’s just….ugh
I don’t like the underlining message people keep sending that “If you don’t like Becky, it’s because she’s a lesbian and you’re a giant raving homophobe”
No I also love the ladies (and a large variety of other beings in all flesh packages)
And I still don’t like her b/c I don’t really like how mean she is, she’s not JUST mean to Dotty, she’s been passively mean to Joyce and prods at her for funsies.
Honestly, I’ve barely seen that defense of her recently.
It was common early on, when she was being attacked for stupid things like the haircut or for probably just blowing the whole thing with her dad out of proportion.
Also my dislike for Robin intensified in every strip she’s in. Are both these characters meant to be endearing? Because they just leave me cold and annoyed
I also loathe DoA Robin, and I think she gets a lot of mileage from her Shortpacked! appearances, where the goofballness was more in line with the overall theme.
Yeah, it kind of makes sense that Dorothy and Becky’s personal dispute over who gets to be Joyce’s bestie (probably one sided on Becky’s side) should also be reflected in Becky despising Dorothy’s goals and self-chosen calling.
Agrred. The scholarship provides housing and an opportunity for college, but she still wants to be a scientist and the fact that she has a knack for politics and stumbled into a good opportunity to use that doesn’t change that.
I love how people are all ‘Yeah this is totally fine for Becky to do” while everyone was waiting for Walky and Amber to get expelled b/c Amber changed a grade from a failing to “just passing”
Gosh I’m just disliking Becky every time I see her…she’s so dang mean to Dorothy….
Becky for sure gets the wrong reaction from the commentariat sometimes (I distinctly recall the kerfuffle that happened when she used a single $20 bill to get herself a haircut instead of, like, buying a house or something? Because when someone is poor they need to prostrate themselves and have no personal dignity or luxuries) but Amber’s struggles are different. Not inherently more or less valid than others, just different.
Amber, as someone who suffers from a mental disorder as well as being a victim of child abuse who now struggles with healthily expressing that anger, sometimes gets reactions to the effect of “look at this crazy bongo acting exactly like her dad”, because the stereotype surrounding abuse victims is “you are doomed to go on and abuse your loved ones because it happened to you.” I remember yonks ago I made a post about how I noticed that we only ever seem to get upset about characters being hella angry when it’s Ruth and Amber, the two characters who were abused and naturally have the hardest time dealing with anger. Walky finds out Asher sent his sister up a creek for a joke and he gets so furious he punches him in his stupid face, but no one’s ever gonna tell Walky he’s too angry.
So because we have the narrative of “abuse victims go on to abuse their own victims” formed in us by media and peers, we then start throwing it around, because that’s all we know.
Oh yeah, the mentality towards Amber is pretty disgusting, it’s like everyone’s waiting for her to snap, and are hyper critical of her b/c of it, it’s hella not fair, as I pointed out….Becky basically asks for an easy a and gets it, Amber changes Walky’s failing grade so he just passes… Only one person is being eagerly waited to be expelled.
Becky has reason to be jealous of Dorothy. I mean, there’s the prior Joyce-Dorothy connection, there’s the fact that Dorothy has a functioning family that is well off. I’m not justifying the behavior, just saying that without therapy to cope with all the shit she’s been through, she’s gonna be a little unhealthy in coping. The best thing would probably be for Becky to be in a different dorm, make some friends distinct and apart from Joyce’s friends. Not likely to happen anytime soon though.
I’m going to ignore all the dumbass speculation on Becky’s well-established tsundere nonsense re: Dot and just say
Dorothy, you sweet summer child, who the fuck do you think actually gives a shit about transparent corruption in politics? At least among the centrists you hunger to join.
I mean, if Becky actually wanted to join the progressive wing of Congress maybe continued corruption would be a bad look, but she pretty clearly knows that and no leftist would cancel her for that. Also she doesn’t want to. Also also she knows the progressive wing is outflanked by centrist dipshits and fascists.
Becky was homeschooled in an oppressive religious family. She’s not stupid, but does she really have what it takes to make it through a medical science course? She doesn’t even know what scientist she wants to be.
It’d be a thing if Becky doesn’t do well in sciences, after the buildup. (Enthusiasm doesn’t mean you’re suited for a thing, after all), but does do well at the Freebie course.
I can’t remember if I’ve only been saying this here or at Patreon, but I honestly think this is one of the best places to take Becky.
I’m the kind of person who only really likes characters when we seem them at their worst every once in a while, and Becky’s never really had that. She’s always won out in the end, with her transparent hatred of Dorothy brimming in the background as more important things kept happening to her, and now it’s got the panel time to focus on what’s been blatantly obvious for years: Becky is still deeply in love with Joyce and resents Dorothy for being so close to her.
Becky is bullying Dorothy, but it’s not just a funny quirk or whatever. Dorothy’s ignoring it for now but the continued proximity the two share means it has to eventually boil over. I remember when this first really got into gear there was some “oh you silly Becky, that’s not what you say to Dorothy” kind of posts, that Becky was just being thoughtless instead of malicious, and I reject that. Why drag this out for years and reach a boiling point only for it end with Becky going “it was just a prank bro” and move on? Nah, buckle up kiddos, we’re heading into character drama.
And here’s the thing, Becky being a jerk doesn’t invalidate everything about her. She doesn’t have to be That Perfect Girl for you to like her. Few people are 100% a dick and I think even less than that are 100% moral and just all the time. We all fail, we all have our blind spots, we all act lower than we are.
I want this to be ugly. I want this to be messy. This comic is always at its best when it’s about interpersonal conflict and there is no greater danger to the cast of DoA than the ones they put each other through.
Yeeeeeees! All of this. I’m looking forward to Becky and Dorothy both getting actually pushed to their breaking points on this subject, because the drama will be DELICIOUS.
Now about Daisy:
Daisy is a good looking girl. Surely she has had offers, even encounters. But guys don’t do it for her. She’s holding out for a heroine.
Now if Walky wanted to ingratiate himself with Jennie, he could probably talk Lucy into dressing up as NightGirl. Just putting that out there.
Dumbiverse IU named the library after Leslie Knope, one of the main characters from Parks and Recreation. Now it’s been established that the show is fiction to the characters in the comic, therefore the library is named for a fictional character.
Well, I haven’t had coffee, but I have had Taco Bell, so I’ll try to explain. In the finale of Parks and Recreation, there was a flash forward where the IU library was renamed after Leslie Knope. In the DoA-verse, the library is named after her, as seen here: https://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/01-the-only-dope-for-me-is-you/wordplay/
Since this strip establishes that Parks and Rec is a show in-universe, their library is named after a fictional character.
Not saying theres nothing there but from the same page:
“I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want free from the judgement of their fellow man.”
Pratt added that though his faith is important to him, “no church defines me or my life, and I am not a spokesman for any church or any group of people.”
I mean the original statement had Chris Pratt leaving guardians because the character has been written as bi but I cant find anything like that (I could find pages where people wanted to see his reaction to it though) and that he supports conversion therapy
But I can’t find anything where he supports it so to me its looking like some people want to end Chris Pratts career over nothing
Dude, that’s… not how it works. You can’t attend and serve as a promo material for a church that says that being LGBT+ is bad, actually, and then go “but *I*’m actually ok with them”. I don’t know if that’s why Pratt left GotG, but his actions clearly state that he thinks being LGBT+ is bad, regardless of what he says.
Sorry, the way you wrote in the previous post I assumed that was established fact. A better phrasing on my part would’ve been: “I don’t know if that caused Pratt to leave GotG”. I’m going through some eyes health problems that severely limit my screentime, so I’m out of the loop on movie news. I just know the whole “Chris Pratt’s church is shit” thing becasue that was out before my problems started, in late August.
See thats the problem. Someone says something and its accepted.
I can’t find anything that says Chris Pratt is leaving GotG, I can’t find any link to Chris Pratt supporting gay conversion, I went to zoe church and couldn’t find any link to Chris Pratt promos (or anything similar) and the only thing that is verified is something the Church leader said awhile back
Yet somehow its accepted as fact
I can, however, find plenty of links of people supporting him, his charitable acts etc
I don’t know about “gay conversion therapy” specifically – this is what I DO know:
– the church Chris Pratt attends is anti-LGBT. We know this is true because the pastor has made a movie claiming that being LGBT is bad. This should be bad enough for anyone. But, wait, there’s more.
– Ellen Page criticised that church for being anti-LGBT (which it is); I don’t know if there was any specific incident tied to that, or if she was just commenting on general anti-LGBTness. At that point, Chris Pratt said that the church was, in fact, totally cool with LGBBT folks (which it clearly isn’t).
So, one of the three:
– Chris Pratt thinks that saying that saying that being LGBT is bad is actually not anti-LGBT (which, what?);
– Chris Pratt doesn’t know that the church he attends is anti-LGBT, but decided to defend it against accusations of such anyway (which is terrible);
– Chris Pratt DOES know that the church he attends is anti-LGBT, but decided to defend it against accusations of such anyway (which is even worse).
I think it’s important to clarify the nature of said church: it’s not one of those churches like a catholic church or something, where priests can get rotated out; it’s a Church, capitalised – the Church leader is, de facto, the Church itself. If he said “being anti-LGBT is bad”, then that is, in fact, the stance of the Church.
Just a note, very understandable with limited screen time and being out of the loop because of it, but the other actor you mentioned is Elliot Page now and uses he/they pronouns.
Oh shit, thank you both for telling me. Wikipedia tells me he came out as transgender this month, so yeah, last time I had screen time to be up to date with stuff he’d only come out (thought of himself as?) a gay woman.
Ok so we’re going round in circles here, all I want is a quote or a link or something but instead all I’m hearing is something similar to telephone
Everyones saying how bad Chris Pratt is but no one can actually show any proof or evidence
Its like someones decided that because Chris Pratt didn’t endorse Biden he must therefore be a Trump supporter then add in hes a christian plus throw in a comment from Elliot Page and hey presto Chris Pratt is basically a very bad, no good person
As such I’m not going to comment on this topic anymore as its detracting from the comic
Loading ...
but Becky, you’d either have to fill the vaccine with instructions on how to destroy Dotty’s face, or a dead/weakened version of Dotty’s face
…wait
I think we’re reaching the point where it’s no longer playful (if it ever was) and Becky just seethes with a genuine unjustified hate of Dorothy.
One she barely disguises.
Ehh, I don’t think she actually hates her. She’s just kind of a crass person, like, most of her Walky interactions.
Either Becky doesn’t know what going too far means, or she actually hates Dorothy for “Taking Joyce” or something but sucks at self reflection so hard she still thinks it’s just playful and fun rather than actual hatred
The alternative is that Becky struggles with her attraction to Dorothy and hates that she’s fallen for a second straight girl.
…
What?
To be quite fair to Dorothy, I tend to assume that she is upfront enough to directly say to Becky that she doesn’t appreciate the way she has been treating her. Or at least that’s what Becky thinks (?), because I have the feeling that if Dorothy deliberately started to avoid Becky, the later would feel bad.
Well, that’d be a thing.
Honestly I’m less “anticipating the payoff” as just waiting for something besides “Becky is a jackass to Dorothy, who takes it”, again.
Yeah this record has been played too many times, I mean something will probably happen but it’d be nice to see it sooner rather than later
The looks on Sarah and Joyce’s faces suggest it may be sooner than we think.
Hopefully
Call me crazy, but I’ve been in a similar position of Dorothy’s: Having to leave friends whom you love in order to pursue a dream. My theory here is that Dorothy is going to Yale and she is trying to enjoy her last few days with her friends the best she can. If having to tolerate Becky’s behavior is the price to pay, so be it.
I kind of doubt Dorothy’s leaving for Yale this semester after already starting at IU. Just… doesn’t make any practical sense. (Registration, tuition, moving her things out of the dorm and immediately hauling them to Massachusetts, transfers require notice with the school…) But I do think she has plans to be at Yale in the fall, and there ‘well, Becky’s only a relatively short-term thing’ applies.
Of course, a full semester is still plenty of time to test that tolerance to Becky.
It’s scratched and stuck in a loop, somebody needs to give the table a bump to get it back on track.
I mean, given she grew up with Joyce who just learned what boundaries are, I wouldn’t be surprised if she doesn’t realize she’s going too far
So long as it’s just words, it feels to me like Becky just doesn’t know where to draw the line in her playful dislike. Mostly because I’ve known a number of people who are like that.
I feel like Becky would do fine in politics and make a real benefit to the world.
But I felt the same as a redeemed Robin.
Becky, at this rate, will become president of the united states while running as a gag and trying to lose. Against Dorothy.
As someone who has never seen it, why is Robin telling them to watch Parks and Rec? Also is Parks and Rec any good?
Its about a low level city bureaucrat trying to do good and be optimistic about her job’s zero importance.
It also has Chris Pratt.
2020 happened and Chris Pratt is less of a ringing endorsement for a show now.
It’s a shame because I really liked Guardians of the Galaxy but I don’t think I could like it as much now with Pratt hanging over my head.
Yeah, Parks and Rec helped Chris Pratt launch his career and that is now a point against it.
What the fuck happened? Did he wink at a 17 year old or accidentally use the N word or something?
He supports conversion therapy and left Guardians of the galaxy after it was announced in the comics that his character is poly and bi, stating “creative differences”.
Probably other things too.
That’s disappointing as I like Chris Pratt, do you have any links?
He supports a church whose sister church used to support conversion therapy nine years ago. That is not at all the same as him supporting conversion therapy. You can find it a dealbreaker that he supports that church without exaggerating his actual beliefs.
I can’t find anything about him leaving. Source?
What Furubatsu said. Also, could we not be flippant about sexualizing minors and racial slurs? How can you -accidentally- use what is one of the most harmful words in the English language?
I suppose you could be very drunk to the point of slurring your words, think you’re gonna be funny and deliberately mispronounced “inebriated”, and then horrify both yourself and your SO when the absolute worst case scenario occurs and now you’ve accidentally said something you’re sure glad nobody else heard.
I’m not sure I equate winking at a 17 year old with sexulizing minors, but if you can use a racial slur by accident something is seriously wrong with you.
Okay, this is hilarious (in that these poor bastards do seem to have accidentally used a racial slur lol). At least a decade ago now (maybe longer) there was this ad for a small house on a little Australian realtor’s website that absolutely Blew. Up. Because of a slur they had put into the description, that seems to have been a typo.
I honestly believe that it legit probably was a typo, because the ‘N’ and the ‘B’ keys are right beside each other; and they were describing how this small house had a charm, that what they rephrased (once they heard about the typo, probably from reporters, lol) as larger homes lacked.
Frankly, I would have simply corrected the typo and left it as “bigger homes;” but I can also understand them wanting to just be done with it with no question that what they wrote was not remotely what they meant, lol.
Pretty specific accident; but at least possible and believable, lol.
–Oh! Reminded of another one; a coworker (fellow Canadian) came to work one day feeling extremely embarrassed, because it had snowed (unusual in the Vancouver area), and when he had stopped at a store to grab something on the way to work, the very nice cashier had said to him something along the lines of, “So I hear it’s pretty cold out?”
And he unthinkingly replied, “Heh, yeah, it’s pretty nippy.”
And then immediately felt like shit, because the cashier was Asian, and he’d honestly just meant it was a bit chilly out. Does that one count?
One of the people I went to school with was a white guy from a rural community which was so non-diverse that he grew up without actually being exposed to any racism besides what’s on TV. (Which is, incidentally, one grandfather different than my 1-8 experience, so I know it’s theoretically possible. I’ll admit that, roughly 13 years later, I went back for a visit, to find that a single black family had moved into the valley where I lived for those seven formative years, and I was shocked to find out how incredibly racist just about everybody in town was. Which is to say, they finally accepted *me*, despite the fact that I hadn’t been born there, because at least I was white, and they expanded on the ways they demonstrated hatred. I hadn’t expected that they’d accept the black family, but I thought they’d just give the same sort of hate that I’d gotten.)
His first exposure to people using the ‘n’ word in real life was at college, specifically in conversations his black roommate had with his black friends. After one completely clueless use of the word on his part, his roommate explained that, as a white guy, he should never, ever use that word.
Apart from that one incident in their freshman year, he otherwise got along very well with his roommate. They proceeded to room together for the rest of their time at college.
Nearly 4 years later, his roommate told him, “Ok, I think you’ve earned the ability to use the `n` word. But *only* when talking with just this specific group of people we’re in *right* now.”
That white guy could accidentally use the ‘n’ word, if he thought he was alone with that specific group of people, but they were on camera and so the whole world found out.
Other than that case, or equally extreme cases, I’m not sure how one could accidentally use it, without having a history of using it maliciously.
That said, I feel like there’s a lot more room for blissfully ignorant usage of the word than most people realize, because outside of extremely rural settings, it seems impossible to comprehend how incredibly non-diverse some parts of rural America are, and what can slip through the cracks when that happens.
Just for my own edification, how does one accidentally say the N word? My imagination must be very limited, because I can’t think of one scenario.
Well, I suppose I can think of one…. If the word is constantly swirling around one’s head and being used in one’s personal racist musings, perhaps it could slip out in a moment of accidental honesty. Does that happen to you frequently, Ob?
See also: NASCAR driver Kyle Larson.
I can only imagine a “legitimate” accidental use being you meant to say that words that means “cheap” and is harder to say than “cheap” and why is that word even in your lexicon, just say “cheap”
that words THANKS PHONE if it’s not misspelling it’s inappropriate pluralisation
I take issue with the “wink at a 17 year old” bit. Nobody’s acting career has ever been harmed because of something like that.
Come to think of it, most of those Hollywood types have probably done waaaay worse and their careers have been completely intact. All of them know about it, regardless, so none of ’em are off the hook.
True.
That having been said, there have been people whose acting careers were ruined over something they characterized as “winking at a 17 year old”.
I’m blanking on the name, but the one that comes to mind had actually been filming kiddie porn, according to the judgement of a court of law. But at least in his initial public response, he continued to deny that.
I think most of them have been less egregious than that, but it’s pretty incredible about how flippant some people can be, when they’ve actually been involved in things much worse.
How do you accidentally use the N-word?
Mispronounced the country of Niger.
or, purely hypothetically, meaning “niggard” and having it go pear shaped because you read a lot more than you talk to people.
good thing that would never, ever happen. probably scar a dude.
expertly trolled, Willis
It is good but it’s also about the admin side of the parks and recreation department for a local government in a made up indiana town. The townsfolk show up a lot, the boss is anti-government and the main character is basically dotty.
Parks and Rec is good from season 2 on. Luckily season 1 is only about 7 episodes long.
It’s very much a product of it’s time, but if you can make peace with the Obama-era liberalism of it, it’s pretty solid
As I rewatch various sitcoms from the Obama-era, I keep running into Joe Biden references, and it’s kind of jarring now.
Want to see something weird?
W H A T
It’s kind of like The Office’s sister-show. So the same people who like The Office also like Parks n Rec, and might alternately binge the two shows.
I feel like that’s more what it was trying to be at first than what it ended up being. I watched The Office when it was on and thought it was fine, but I’ve never rewatched it, and I like Parks and Rec much more and have rewatched it approximately too many times. Meanwhile, my cousin is obsessed with The Office and I don’t think ever got into Parks and Rec.
The first season of P&R is very The Office, with Leslie being more of an incompetent Michael-Scott-Type character.
Season 2 is when she became the overachiever that she remained for the rest of the show.
The two shows definitely have different vibes, but I feel like one is a good palette cleanser for the other. Not that I’ve watched either show more than twice, they’re no OTGW.
She’s right. Mark is the worst.
Parks and Rec is a really good show about local government i recommend it to students to watch though i would never assign it as homework.
One time, I heard of a law prof assigning “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”, as a weekend thing, with the side-job of listing as many legal violations as they could find. But Im generally not a fan of JUST assigning watching a movie or TV show for a non-media course.
I don’t agree with his politics, but Ron Swanson is hilarious.
TBH being a poli sci major is a terrible way to make a difference anyway.
Explain?
The only president who was a political scientist was Woodrow Willson. I think that speaks for itself.
Political science is also a common major for people planning to go to law school; half of US presidents were lawyers.
That seems to go against the argument that political science degree is a terrible way to make a difference given that so many folks who have made a difference obtained a BA in political science.
Yeah, I would assuume tbf said as much to counter Clif’s comment…?
To be frank in my haste to pen a response I kind of saw the BJ cat and today have assumed it was the same person. My anger clouded my mind. My apologies to tbf if they are reading this to Clif my argument stands.
But did they make a difference as a political scientist, as a lawyer, or as a politician?
People who legislate or administer are important almost by definition, but is political science really the best preparation for such a role?
Yes beacuse in political science you learn the mechanicsisms of government and how it functions. The ability understand these mechanisms is essential to getting into government and learning how to govern.
Not at all sure the the actual mechanisms which make the government function makes it into textbooks much.
It’s far from essential for getting into government. The most effective politician in my lifetime, Lyndon Johnson, was educated as a school teacher. Ronald Reagan was an actor.
But they were both effective in terrible negative ways
My assumption is that the fact that they ended up having the same avatar may have caused confusion.
Woodrow Wilson invaded Mexico five times, invaded Nicaragua nine times, stared an occupation of Haiti that lasted twenty years, invaded Russia and fought on their soil for two years. He also fired every black civil servant he could get his hands on because he was a virulent racist. A degree in poli-sci didn’t do him much good.
Oh, I forgot. He got us needlessly involved in WWI. Not a good president.
Also not making the argument that Woodrow Wilson was a good president.
After winning re-election on an anti-war platform, no less. And throw in some bonus awful points for crapping on the First Amendment. Wilson was one of the worst Presidents ever.
TBF, the other option was Teddy Roosevelt, and he was gonna get you guys into WWI even earlier.
Corellation is not causation and even if there was a causal argument to be made an n size of 1 person is not enough to make an argument that The degree in political science is terrible way to make a difference. Having Political science didn’t cause him to be a complete asshole he was just an asshole who happened to have a political science degree.
True enough. I’m interested in seeing your example of an individual where having a political science degree was of primary importance in the significant things they accomplished. I’m not arguing that a degree political science prevents a person from achieving great things, I’m just not at all convinced that a degree in political science particularly has that much to do with the great things accomplished.
First off by you logic no degree will lead to great things beqxuse all a degree is just proof you went to an accredited university.. its what you do with said degree is what matters ergo if that degree provided you with tools to achieve then its useful
As for a specific example Elinor Ostrom won the nobel prize in economics for her work in her work on the commons specifically the in management of common pool resources. Beacuse of her political science background she was able to understand the intricacies of governance which allowed her to discover a new approach to solving the Tragedy of the Commons, outside the previous dichotomy of the privatization vs the leviathan.
In terms of politics understand how governance works allows you to get the great things done with greater ease. Caligula had no interest nor knowledge on how to govern and Rome suffered Tiberus had both and Rome prospered. Catherine the Great understood how to govern her Husband did not. They didn’t have political science degrees but they understood the importance of knowing the mechanisms of government and how to use them. That’s what the political science degree is significant factor.
Tl;dr response a political science degree can help you make a difference beaxuse it provides you with fundamental knowledge to obtain a position of power where you can.
Elinor Ostrom
Also I accidently put Tiberus who was an utter shithead I mean Claudius the damn Julio Claudian dynasty uses the same names for everyone.
Also Mansa Musa
Thank you for your example of Elinor Ostrom, which is a fairly good example, though I was kind of under the impression that polycentralism was out of fashion now, and kind of thought that the only reason she had a political science degree was that she couldn’t get into the economics program she wanted on account of never taking trigonometry, but maybe I’m mistaking her with someone else.
No, I was right, it was her I was thinking of. Her nobel bio at https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/ostrom/biographical/ doesn’t mention trig specifically, just that it was a lack of math past algebra. What I hadn’t heard was that there was resistance into letting her into the political science program on account of her being a woman.
No it really doesn’t yeah he was a racist and not a good repersentation of the field and a terrible person. However Elinor Ostrom the first woman to win the noble prize in economics was a political scientist. And Ruth Bader Ginsber obtained her undergraduate in government at Cornell which is their equivalent of political science. Senator Tammy Duckworth has a PhD in political science. Jacinda Ardern had gotten her Bachelors in politics. If you look at many politcans or world leaders or members of legislatures they have at least a bachelor’s in political science or an equivalent.
I’d argue he’s a PERFECT example of the field. Poly Sci majors go there to have their predilections and preconcieved notions repeated back at them, or to fill a requirement in ‘social studies’ for another degree. The field itself doesn’t begin to teach how to govern, only what papers happen to be stylish in academia today about how to govern, and it’s a misnomer.
There is nothing Scientific about Political Science; no requirement for repeatable results, the peer review is mutual masturbation and outcomes are for the most part a matter of opinion and presentation, as opposed to observation of actual conditions, requiring repeatable, falsifiable results that actually reflect real-world conditions, and so on. A high school civics course can teach you how the government is supposed to work, a bit of study and a copy of the congressional record can show you how well that actually works, and for the rest it’s observation. (mainly learning how much each politician costs a lobbyist and which lobbyists pay the most for legislation, favors, or exemptions.) “Political Science” is a joke-a sad one, and very expensive, but a joke. Like most of the social studies fields, it’s loaded with blind ideologues and obsessed idealists selling their particular snake-oil.
I would not go that far. But the “science” in “political science” was used to give politicology more prestige.
I have tried three times to post a response but I am guessing the program that the site uses filters out links.
Falsifiaction and replication are critical elements of the field if they weren’t then i wasted my time reading Laktos Popper and Khun and learning the philosophy of science.
The people who are keeping track of those congressional record certinay have political science degree. just look up DW Nominate scores.
Also the idea of the US as a oligarchy was propagated by politcal scientists. From Dahl in the 50s to the more sophisticated methods of Gilens and Page 2014
If you are actually interested then I suggest reading Designing Socail Inquiry by King Keohane and Verba its free online.
Becky’s problem with Dorothy has been really concerning the last two “days” but damn, that last line is really good.
Same energy.
Huh, Becky is not 100% dissimilar from Rodimus now that I think about it.
For instance, they both are lesbians.
Seriously, let’s take some quotes by and about Rodimus and Beckify them. They fit surprisingly well!
Dorothy: What’s wrong with my face?
Becky: It’s basically a punch magnet.
Dorothy: So rude! Sarah, did you hear that?
Sarah: No. Was it about your face?
(Dorothy leaves for Yale)
Becky: [double thumbs-up, huge grin] I wouldn’t want anyone here to mistake my grief for giddy excitement!
Becky: This is my new pie launcher. Carla built it as a thank-you present after I stopped going on and on about how much I wanted a pie launcher.
Dina: When did you first realize that she uses bad grammar to distract you whenever you raise an objection to something she wants to do?
Joyce: She does WHAT?
Dorothy: Oh. Yeah. Sorry. Thanks to Becky, I’m conditioned to expect incomprehension, mockery, and boredom—usually in the space of thirty seconds.
Okay, but to be fair, Prowl often deserves that kind of sass. Dorothy, not so much.
Becky’s gonna stare at Leslie Knope, stare at Dorothy, stare at Leslie, narrow her eyes suspiciously, and ask if Dorothy believes in time travel.
I maintain in 20XX, Dorothy will lose an election to Becky who solely ran to promote her Science Network.
Then Becky reluctantly does the greatest Presidency ever.
Because we deserve an anti-Trump future.
What we deserve is an anti-45 timeline/universe. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the worst outcomes always because somebody crossed the gods at some point.
The way things are is far from perfect, but I vastly prefer it to what I deserve.
What we deserve is to die in nuclear fire. I’m fine with not getting what we deserve for a little longer.
This American Life had a neat story a few weeks ago about a young woman who volunteered to help research one of the COVID-19 treatments. So yes, you can, Becky.
Parks and Rec truly is great but the two first seasons (the first of which is only six episodes long) diiid kinda suck.
Once they transitioned Leslie Knope from being incompetent to hyper competent overachiever and Mark Left and Ben and Chris joined it is when the show got good. Ie everything after season 3.
How did it survive til then if it was that bad?
Though it might be a ‘taste is subjective’ thing. There are a lot of big shows that I am personally pretty bored with.
I don’t think the first 2 seasons were TERRIBLE. They had potential, enough to keep the show afloat until it found its feet. But rewatching those seasons is definitely a slog, and makes them feel worse in retrospect, because the show definitely switches things up (in a good way) and the first 2 seasons feel a little confused and aimless.
Season 1 is only six episodes, and things start to shift in season 2.
First season had only six episodes and all of it was done back to back and before it started airing, so it should be considered a two-hour pilot for the series. And like it usually happens, after the pilot come adjustments, they see what works and what doesn’t, and then the series improves. Which is exactly what happened here, except starting with second season, not second episode. And second season was awesome from the start, except it’s true that Paul Schneider’s character was its weakest part.
Season 2 isn’t so bad, even though Mark’s still around blanding up the place.
It’s when Leslie starts being more competent, Andy goes from a freeloading jerk to a sweetheart, his and April’s romance starts, April gets a lot more focus, and toward the end Chris and Ben join the cast.
I see 2 as the transitional season, where things started getting good. It just happened gradually.
Sounds very similar to TNG’s timeline.
I was gonna say, Nono’s question applies to most of the Star Trek series.
Star Trek shows have a guaranteed fanbase that will watch a lot of crap because it’s Trek.
Not in 65 it didn’t
Next Generation‘s first season is best forgotten. There’s a reason it’s the trope namer for “grew the beard” (the opposite of “jumped the shark”).
Deep Space Nine took about three seasons to really get going, because it had so much worldbuilding to do, but it got pretty damn good once the Dominion war picked up.
Voyager got more competent after they replaced Kes with Seven. The writing was all over the place throughout its run though. (Year of Hell and Timeless were good episodes, but we also got that one with the space lizards. Kate Mulgrew basically said she had to play Janeway as if she had untreated bipolar disorder because her characterization was so inconsistent. Voyager‘s terrible writing is also a contributing factor in one of my favorite examples of the butterfly effect.)
I maintain that had the internet (and internet Star Trek fandom) of today existed when TNG first aired, it would never have gone on to Season 2.
As it was, I didn’t even have the internet back then, and I STILL heard about the online Trek b****-fests and troll wars on Usenet and such.
Season One was Gene Roddenberry’s fault, once he gave up on the show and the old writers were all but run out things turned around and got a lot better. It’s where we got the Borg, it’s where we got the badass Romulans, it’s where we got Lore and his rivalry with Data: three things that made the show the next six years and reverberated for years to come.
But the first couple of episodes were clearly f-up after f-up with the pilot having two separate plots because Gene couldn’t go with one storyline and we got a racist episode because nobody thought that an all-black tribalist society was a bad idea nor was an episode centered around someone being killed because they stepped onto a patch of grass leading to a whole “should we do something or not”.
And usenets were around then, but they were infants in 1987/88 so what you hear might actually be the DS9 and Voyager b****fests going on which are confirmed to have happened and led to a lot of fighting behind the scenes at both shows
Ol’ Gene also recycled scripts he wrote for a late 70s TOS follow-up series (supposed to be titled “Star Trek: Phase II“) that didn’t come to fruition, so they feel out of place like stiff TOS episodes.
You want to continue with academics though, Becky, and that could be derailed if you actually get that A and someone reports it.
Okay, grav roulette, lets see what you have for me tonight.
Ah, a Canadian national treasure.
Well played.
It’s so cute how Dorothy thinks someone could learn to love poli-sci
Umm I and many have devoted 6 to 8 years of our lifves to the study of Political Science. if you don’t learn to love something then why do it.
Honestly the disdain towards political science in this comment section.
Dorothy didn’t have to learn to love poli sci, she already had a strong interest in the field. However it was kind of forced on Becky due to circumstances and, as a former biology major, I just don’t see her developing a passion for something so far removed from what she set out to do. But it’s cute that Dorothy is so invested in her chosen field that she seems to think it’s a given that anyone else exposed to it would learn to love it too.
When you explain it that way that does make sense i am sorry for the accusatory remarks. I like Dorothy have a passion for the discipline and this comment section has been rife with curt remarks about political science.
No like I get the offense, I did mean it as some light teasing towards the field of polisci because as a STEM major I’m biased and personally don’t get how it’s interesting. But I don’t think it’s, like, a worthless field or anything. Someone’s gotta understand that stuff.
Bruh if I and the other psych majors didn’t get mad about people trashing psych majors when booster was doing their thing, you don’t get to be mad about people trashing polisci. Relax, it’s a comic comment section. No one’s actually coming for your degree
You didn’t get mad at people trashing psych majors?
Turn in your degree immediately!
Fuck off Becky jesus christ
She didn’t do jack shit, this time. I’m as sick of her Dotty-hate as anyone, but come on.
I’m tired of the fake childish rivalry. There’s no reason behind it. Becky is just being a dick to be a dick and it’s so old.
Agreed
It’s not fake, just passive-aggressive. The jealousy is quite sincere.
It’s sucking the narrativium away from more interesting topics.
I bet Booster’s gonna have a goddamn field day analyzing Becky’s unnecessary horseshit behavior towards Dorothy but I kinda hope they just look at her and say that exact sentence.
Booster’s take down of Becky is my big hopes for 2021
There’s not much to analyze, Becky actually does like Dorothy but to Becky her unintentional ” miss perfect and way too nice for her own good” personality is just screaming to be challenged. But since there’s not much to poke fun of without being actually hurtful the best she can do is childlike insults which fits better for a more jokey mood.
That being said I’d say Dorothy brushing these taunts the off isn’t really a sign of her patience and more of a sign her maturity since she can tell these are not real pit downs, but it does make me wonder about most of the people in the comment section with their extreme reactions. If Becky comes out with a insult that a 1st grader would come up with and people act as if she just called Dorothy three different slurs in one sentence.
It’s not the low quality of the insults, it’s the sheer number of them.
Almost everything she says to Dorothy is a put-down. Her patience is bound to boil over at some point…
The specific insults aren’t the issue, it’s that she just will not stop with them and a lot of us reached our maximum tolerance for this petty bullshit weeks ago.
It’s like when you’re a kid in the back seat of the car with your sibling, and they keep waving their hand around right in front of your face. They’re not doing anything to hurt you, but they are going out of their way to be an annoying dumbass just because they think being obnoxious is funny. No matter how stupid and petty they’re acting, you can only tolerate so much of it before you either start screaming for mom or lunge across the car and beat the piss out of them.
Yeah, it’s gone on way too long, and it wasn’t very funny to begin with. To mix a metaphor, this is just beating a dead horse into the ground.
Yeah, Becky isn’t Carla – Carla’s often an ass, but she’s a SKATE-BY ass. She comes, she asses, and then she leaves, so it doesn’t grate. By the time she comes to ass again, your brain has already recoveed from the previous instance so the whole thing doesn’t weigh down on you. But Becky. Just. Keeps. Going. It’s like the Energiser Bunny, if what it did was insult you.
She’s also an ass in a way that she prioritizes herself above other people rather than lowers them. Its easier to roll your eyes at an elevation/minimization than an outright kick down.
learn to love politics”, That’s a good one Dorothy. Yeah what’s not to love about such a “Noble” and non-corrupting profession.
For real though there are only two types of people who aspire to have a big career in politics. The ones who seek fortune & status and only care about living career where they feel accomplish even if it means discarding whatever morals they may have had and putting said career first above their actual duty, and then you have the ones who get into politics because they actually want meaningful change for good and want to champion a revolutionary cause. Unfortunately both sides of the U.S political system will see the latter group crushed and subdued because they political figures in charge like the old status quo system that thrives on everything the first group is.
I still say it’s important for those who care enough about where our nation is going to get involved since I’m a staunch believer in the old “with great power comes great responsibility moto” and we have the responsibility to take the wheel away from the same people who’ve been in power for the last 4 decades and have been driving us into the ground. But if we wanted a career in something that would give us fulfillment then I’m pretty sure we can find that somewhere else.
“What if you learn to love politics” she asked, that’s gold.
Or you can just do what I did and choose to focus on Canadian politics and international political economy. There are other carrers in politics that does not involve becoming a politician or even a bureaucrat.
Sounds good but fortunately in America most people only give attention to u.s. officials.
I am saying that your dicatomous separation of who gets into politics and your statement that loving politics is flawed.
First your statement about only two types is rooted in American centric view of politics. Further more those who choose to study politics enjoy politics otherwise why bother? Maybe Becky might not want to be a political but perhaps she may enjoy the scientific aspect of political science ie: data analysis, research design, and modeling.
Learning about the subject does comes in handy, but you don’t go to college to dedicate more than half a decade of study and possibly put yourself in life long debt to not make a career out the subject you spent all that college time studying. That aside I wouldn’t say “loving politics is flawed, just that there isn’t a lot to love about the field especially depending on what country you reside in.
Not going to mock what Becky is doing though, as a scientist she can make just as much of a difference in a feild that’s a little bit more clean and the skills you’ve listed will help her with that.
So only STEM is real education and everything else is garbage boxes…?
The garbage boxes are the things she never wanted to do – being forced to follow a path you don’t care about in the slightest detracts from the educational experience
Bingo, lights flash, trumpets sound, we have a winner! it’s a scutwork field, something you have to take so you can take the classes you’re actually there for, just like when you’re in a STEM program, and they make you take a semester of listening to intersectional bullshittery studies taught by someone who’s basically going to stand there and grind about the people they hate for a semester. it’s something you take, and you repeat the prof’s ideas back at them as quickly as possible to get out of there and back to the thing you’re actually interested in.
Except that’s not what Zor said. There’s no such thing as a “scutwork field”.
Sure it sometimes sucks to have to take a class in a field you’re not interested in, but the problem is your interest, not the field itself. The people who do like that field may hate having to take classes in the thing you’re excited about. Maths being the most common example.
And to be relevant to this webcomic: Leslie’s gender studies would be the best example of “intersectional bullshittery studies”.
What you said except without the sarcasm.
Also without the exaggeration. Cause clearly it isn’t true, but what is true is that figuring things out is what is important in the long run. And that is STEM pretty much.
Ah, I see. I had no idea that my education and career in accounting was worthless garbage. Or that my brother the welding engineer who has a certification in welding and fabrication (a professional course, not scientific) was likewise meaningless. Or that teachers with their education degrees are likewise valueless wastes. I shall have to readjust my thinking, apparently.
Clif is really on a “roll” tonight.
Not at all. Phone Sanitizers are a positive good and reduce the incidence of communicable diseases. But few of them have the impact of an Edison, Crick and Watson, Bohr or Turing. Paciole, Wedgwood and Pierpoint Morgan had an impact, but just weren’t in the same league.
Phone sanitizers? I don’t get it.
From _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_.
Is that a Discworld thing?
It’s a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy thing.
People who go around to homes and offices and clean telephones. This was an actual job once, although I’m not sure if there are any professional phone sanitizers still around.
Did
Did people not have cleaning cloths in their homes Back Then?
DT, for your own good, get your phone sanitized NOW. There’s a pandemic on.
If you catch Covid because your phone wasn’t professionally sanitized, you’ll be sorry.
I have dish soap and paper towels. I’ll be fine. There’s no room in my wallet for a luxury like having somebody dry-clean my cell phone.
Thomas Edison was a terrible fucking scientist who made his name from other people’s work, whom he exploited, underpaid, and never gave credit to. He fought against the implementation of alternate curent, even though it was proven to be safer, because it would cost him money. He was basically Henry Ford. Fuck Edison, and may he burn in hell.
He was more of a technologist than a scientist and his real contribution was providing a model for a modern industrial research laboratory. But he applied math and science and was quite clearly STEM.
I’d like to hope my degree in history isn’t worthless garbage. Though right now I work in retail, so I don’t know.
now see, you just listed three things that have ACTUAL VALUE as your examples of ‘non’ stem work. Except that’s not what I was saying in the first place. Welding involves Metallurgy, physics, and chemistry, as well as a smattering of engineering. That’s all useful and valuable. We wouldn’t even HAVE an education without Teachers, and Accounancy has actual, repeatable, real world answers.
IOW it’s got an actual application.
What’s bullshit, are the courses that are navel-gazing and where you get your degree by repeating back to the prof their own pet peeves and ideas in slightly different words without requiring actual means of testing those ideas. Essentially if the difference between pass and fail is the fealty to the opinion of the lecturer? then the course is bullshit and a waste of time and money. Poly Sci is a prime example of that, so are most of the “Humanities” departments that make headlines or start movements on Tumblr and Twitter.
You are living proof that we need more humanities, not less. All you purity of stem dorks desperately need some social analysis skills and I say that as someone who did stem myself.
You can’t be a proper scientist without being aware of science’s role in society, of ethics, of how science has been misused and can be a tool for oppression and harm. Science is no more neutral or pure than the rest of the world cause it’s done by people. (Not to get even deeper into the social construction of science itself.)
Nope. Forget trying to understand people or societies. The only thing that matters is hard sciences that produce measurable, testable results.
a “Proper” Scientist? really?? Do describe a Proper scientist. Science is a TOOL. That’s all it is. It’s not a religion, it’s not a philosophy for living, it’s not an effective means of managing social interaction. THAT stuff is the purview of PHILOSOPHY, or theology. Science can not answer whether god exists, (it’s an untestable hypothesis) and it can’t tell you what is right or wrong (that’s the purview of ethics and morality, or philosophy again) If you need to get a student loan to find out how to be a good person, you’ve already failed, and so have your parents and your community. A ‘Proper’ Scientist applies the scientific method, to things that can be examined scientifically.
Amazingly, this doesn’t include the inner life and workings of real live human beings, nor does it include the interactions of spirits, fae, or mythical beings. Take ten social scientists, show them a crowd of people and you’ll get eleven theories about what those people are doing and why, and none of them will be testable, because it’s just opinions wrapped in scientific language. Political “Science” isn’t actually scientific. Neither are most of the drivel coming out of universities these days in the humanities. Even Economics, which HAS actual answers and can even have replicatable results, is more of an art form than a science, since those results vary wildly in the wild and inputs don’t guarantee outputs once applied to actual human beings.
Someone claimed there were 50 genders, but when you break it down, it’s 4, and forty six personality traits or personal preferences being assigned as if they were viable demographic groups instead of the choices of individual people.
Most of it is cargo-cult science, meaning it has all the trappings of science, the lab coats, the nifty use of latin or other dead languages, and lots of math, but it’s science in the same way that measuring head-bumps to determine intelligence is science.
Please explain to me how a math degree is useful
Math degrees allow the holder the ability to work in a variety of fields, from statistics to actuarial science, to engineering support.
Plus Math is cool.
Without the math you can’t do effective machine learning and without machine learning we’ll never be able to build the machines to eventually replace us with something better.
Becky specifically wanted to become a scientist, but the conditions of her free ride are that she has to major in PoliSci.
Cynicism is a lazy excuse for a personality.
This is supposed to be nested to Newllend
I don’t need an excuse to have a personality.
It’s not my preferred way of looking at life, but when it comes to U.S politics I believe more cynicism is needed, not less. If a new shyster comes out of the wood work looking to run for office and people don’t question what their choices have been in their political career so far or where they’re getting their campaign funds from and instead only care about “What demographic are they apart” or whether or not they have a D or an R next to their name and only care about that. Then I’d say those people are being foolish not to look deeper into the matter.
Wouldn’t more people having an understanding of polisci be a step towards looking deeper into what politicians are doing?
As a PoliSci grad, being a PoliSci major is just despair that politics is governing over people who have no grasp on politics.
Example: Try having a discussion with anyone to the left about the pros and cons of the Electoral College and you’re met with Bush and Trump problems but they then ignore the problems with a parliamentary system or a pure democracy.
Does wanting get rid of the winner take all system for the electoral collage and having a more serious Crackdown on gerrymandering during elections count as to far left of a opinion? Asking for a friend who’s actually really just me.
As someone on the left, I’ll bite – give me the pros of the Electroal College, a system whose only purpose is to look at election results and go “nah, fam”.
Well, way back when the electoral college approach helped convince smaller states to sign onto the Constitution. Now that they’re stuck with it, it’s kind of obsolete.
It was also intended to play a larger role back in those slower moving days when they didn’t see politics being dominated by two parties. In a non-party system, it could have played the role that contested nominating conventions did – handling cases with multiple candidates and no outright majority, by the usual combination of persuasion and deal making. Never really worked out that way, at least as a general rule.
That function again, is pretty much obsolete and was from day one.
As thejeff notes yes the electoral college does balance out the strength of small states with larger states. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. It does force presidential candidates to pay attention to states or regions that might otherwise be ignored. Right now if a person wanted to win the Electoral College by only focusing on the largest states they would need to win 11 states compared to in 2020, 50% of the popular vote was owned by 8 states. The problem is that we’ve arbitrarily capped the House at 435 seats and set the minimum house seat for each state at 1. So due to portioning, as we know it
The electoral college as it is right now is not representative because it is not properly proportional.
Now an argument can be made about the EC disenfranchising the votes of the loser in each state and I agree with that but that’s more to do with states doing a winner take all system rather than a proportional split of the top two parties in each state. While this would be more representative, it would take longer to know who won an election and we’ve already seen the problems with that this cycle, though this is more a Trump bug than a feature.
Additionally the EC reinforces the two party system which is a good thing because in previous party systems in US History, polarization goes in a pendelum and is forced back to the center because that is where the majority of voters work. There are benefits to a two party system which in general include easy aggregation of ideals into a binary, and GENERALLY an inability for far flanks of either spectrum to take root. there isn’t enough data on whether Trump will be an exception to the rule or if this is a feature of a new party system. We still don’t know if we are in a realignment or not. We’ve seen a Right-Left-Far Right-Center Left cycle so far in the last say 20 years. We don’t know whether a response will be a swing will be to a Center Right in 2024 but we do know a feature of this current party system is parties general don’t hold power for longer than 8 years at the top. Biden had the 2nd most votes in TX of all time in 2020, what if the 2024 Dem candidate wins TX, that changes the landscape.
Rambling at this point TLDR, the Electoral College is imperfect and needs to be tweaked to better represent its role in the current American political system.
Technically, what thejeff noted was that the EC was barely useful when it was created and absolutely useless now, but on with your points.
The population representation aspect: if the EC were not a thing, then you don’t have the winner-takes-all problem, because each vote is, well, a “point”, instead of what you have now, where a state is worth a number of points. What the EC effectively does is make, say, a California vote worth less than a South Carolina one.
I’m not sure your argument of taking longer to figure out who won the election holds – there’s only so much space for legal challenges because the margins in each state can be small; a direct popular vote election makes the margins LARGER, and therefore, less contestable. Trump may have lost a few places by a couple of thousand votes, but he lost the overall vote by SEVEN MILLION.
Additionally, I hypothesise that it would increase voter engagement – after all, if you live in, say, NY, California, or Hawaii, how motivated are you to vote?
I’m going to VEHEMENTLY disagree with you on the two-party system (a different matter, but we might as well engage in it as well). There is no aggregation of ideals into a binary, unless you think that, say, Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi have ideological commonalities much beyond “we don’t want the Republicans in power”. And that, of course, is its own problem – right now, if you’re a US voter and want to be, well, not a shit, you’re voting Democrat regardless of who the Democrat candidate is, because the alternative is, well, THAT. And that means that, in cases which I will not pretend to know an approximate number, you’re not going to vote FOR someone as much as you’re going to vote AGAINST someone (I remain steadfast in my belief this is the reason Biden is the most voted candidate in US history). I mean, if you’re a Californian voting for the House you’re voting Pelosi, regardless of how you feel about her constant attempts to squash progressives and her whitecarding funds for children concentration camps with no strings attached, because the other side is the one actually putting up those concentration camps.
I too also say to hell with the two party system, why keep it alive when both parties make it a priority to not help the citizens they govern. If there’s one thing I cant stand is being driven to conform to one of the other when neither holds my values or has the general population in mind.
Removing the electoral college doesn’t leave you with either a parliamentary system or a pure democracy. It just gives you a President elected by popular vote.
It’s still a representative democracy, not a pure or direct one. And there’s still a president, so not a parliamentary democracy.
The fact that some readers are taking Becky’s comments towards Dorothy a lot harder and more seriously than Dorothy herself seems to suggests to me that rather than Becky being a horrible monster something is being lost in translation, possibly Becky’s tone of voice.
Well, it does seem that Dorothy is more actively trying to brush the comments off, and I think it’s fair to feel she shouldn’t have to. Idk, I find everyone with lines in this particular strip to be varying degrees of annoying today, but I can still enjoy the strip, where for others the annoyance might tank the enjoyment of something they’d otherwise enjoy, which can be frustrating.
Or Dorothy genuinely doesn’t understand why Becky is being this way and is still trying to be nice plus throw in some idea of wanting to be kind to Becky because of everything thats happened to her and then not wanting to cause problems between her and Joyce and I can see why Dorothy hasn’t said anything to Becky (or straight out decked her)
Yeah that.
Becky is being a poster child for microaggressions.
I’m thinking it might have gone past the micro stage, mind you Joyce doesn’t look impressed in the last panel so maybe she’ll say something
I’m dumb so correct me if I’m wrobg but I thought microaggressions specifically refered to aggressions against minorities, particularly dogwhistle ones (ie ones outsiders wouldn’t notice)
The “micro” in “microaggression” isn’t about the target, it’s about the level of the aggression. As a distinction, let’s say you meet someone that looks, and there’s no good way to write this so I’m going to have to bleach my soul afterwards, “exotic”:
– if you tell them to go back to where they come from, that’s a macroaggression
– if you ask them where they’re from, thereforem implying, consciously or not, that they don’t belong there, that’s a microaggression.
Microaggressions are still about marginalized groups, though. Becky’s comments toward Dorothy aren’t microaggressions. They’re insults and could be considered aggressive, sure; “microaggression” just means something else.
No, that’s nto how it works – you can totally do microaggresions against non-margialised groups. If your barista gives everyone extra cream in their coffee for free except you, that’s a microaggression*. Also, don’t piss off your barista, those people are in charge of your drink.
*I mean, presuming you don’t dislike cream in your coffee or are allergic or something.
I’m just gonna quote Wikipedia, I guess: “Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups. The term was coined by Harvard University psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals which he regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflicting on African Americans.”
What Yumi said though, and also, even if it were ONLY about the size, I wouldn’t consider saying things clearly and specifically and in language everyone around can recognize a microaggression.
It’s a difference in clear hostility level – in my previous example, the first thing is obviously bad, meant to make the target of the remark feel bad. The other one is a more subtle, not necessarily conscious form of othering.
Just to be clear, Becky’s not doing any sort of aggression here, micro or otherwise. In the other strips she IS, but those aren’t microaggressions – not because they’re being directed at Dorothy, but because they’re clear open hostility.
Not necessarily.
Pretty sure it’s no longer a micro agrression when you state them out loud.
I actually think that might be true, but what we the comment section know is that Becky uses Goofy Becky as her cover for all things Serious Becky. Becky’s tone is the only reason she gets away with as much as she continues to wher Dorothy is concerned. No one thinks she’s being serious, it’s Goofy Becky.
For me, at least, the Becky seems to never be anything BUT hateful to Dorothy (and that she has refused to call her by her actual name, as Dorothy has requested at least once, in favor of a nickname that doubles as an old-timey insult) is frankly upsetting. The only reason I can think of to be constantly petty/mean to someone is active dislike. I feel bad for Dorothy having to live with someone who already thinks of trying to hurt her feelings or make her suffer as a fun way to spend time and fear what may happen if familiarity breeds (more) contempt.
not to distract the conversation, just curious, but when has dorothy ever said anything about the nickname? i genuinely don’t remember her ever commenting on it- positively, negatively, OR neutrally. and a quick look through their strips together didn’t turn anything up, but maybe i missed it.
I’m curious on the “old-timey insult” part of “Dotty”. Tone doesn’t translate through text, so I’m going to add that I’m genuinely curious here.
“dotty” is older british slang for eccentric or slightly mad.
Doubt it’s even crossed Becky’s mind, but it is a thing.
Thanks.
Boney Poindexter.
Don’t forget ‘friendstealinghussy’.
I think it’s the pervasiveness of Becky’s attitude toward Dorothy. Like, Carla is a snarky, snide, even rude person, and Malaya can be too, but they doesn’t target one person. And they aren’t around as much. Joe and Walky can be sarcastic and rude, but they aren’t intentionally combative to a specific person in every interaction, at least, not if the other person has been generally polite to them. Ruth and Billee were antagonistic, but they were mutually antagonistic into their Destructive Lesbian Pact. Sal was unpleasant about Malaya, but Marcy shut that down if need be and Sal wasn’t quite so smug about it. Mike was antagonistic to almost everyone, and not everyone liked that, but his antagonism usually brought some insight with it, even if Mike was a horrible person in the process.
Becky is antagonistic to Dorothy specifically, constantly, and seemingly for no reason other than Dorothy being close to Joyce. And she’s so proud of herself for it. Sure, Dorothy is tolerant about it. And Becky seems to think it’s all in snide fun, for her, but with an edge of actually trying to push Dorothy out and away from Joyce. So whatever Dorothy’s reaction, Becky’s still being a constant smug asshole to Dorothy for petty reasons, and that isn’t cute to watch strip after strip. It’s certainly not cute anymore, for a lot of people.
I think one problem is that they’re living together: so this kind of thing is constant now and Dorothy will probably only receive breaks when she has a different class given their social circle.
Granted I don’t hate Becky or anything. Given her past experiences I hardly think she should be tarred and feathered (Dorothy as others have mentioned probably having similar thoughts and like Dorothy can escape to Yale it seems or will be anyway next semester potentially so an end date is in sight) but like… her character arc really will have to involve her stopping this eventually.
The end date, though, will be 2030 or so, and only if Willis includes a months-long time skip. That’s kind of a long time to keep a running gag going.
I don’t take them terribly seriously, I’m just getting sick of them. Even if it’s one hundred percent just a joke (which I don’t believe), it’s a joke that’s been run into the ground, then shoved about thirty feet lower.
Dorothy probably has unseen, positive interactions with Becky and periods of time where their conversations don’t end with “yeah but YOUR ___ IS A BUTT.”
We aren’t getting many of these moments.
What fictional character is the library named after?
During Walky and Dorothy’s Amazi-Girl chase, the library was labelled the “Leslie Knope Library,” but this episode established Parks and Rec’s existence as a show in this universe and Willis is calling himself out on it
Also, in Parks and Rec, the IU library was renamed after Leslie.
Honestly, Robin, good call. Mark’s existence within the show in general was pretty underwhelming
Yeah I still regret trying to get a friend into the show and starting with season 1
New gravatar VERY appropriate in this case
As someone who has never watched that show I’d probably be just cribbing up on wiki articles rather than bothering to watch seasons upon seasons of something honestly. And I say this as someone who has pondered on watching the show before.
Granted mandated viewing is kind of like book assignments in English classes: any vague interest I might have had in consuming it would evaporate as soon as it becomes homework/a chore.
Yeah, I can see assigning a movie or an episode or two of a show, but an entire show? That’s likely hundreds of hours.
Also is it just me or does Joyce look vaguely surprised at Becky’s comment to Dorothy? (Hard to tell tbh at this angle).
Even if nothing is commented on immediately it does make me wonder if she’ll be filing this away in her head for later if a pattern emerges for her. (Granted Becky hasn’t exactly been sweetness in front of her when it comes to Dorothy before anyway).
I do think that there is a possible direction this arc could go where Joyce finally has enough with Becky’s possessiveness and gives her a public telling off.
Or she just takes her to the side and talks to her privately. Honestly could be more impactful that way depending on what’s said. Sometimes the most devastating blows are given softly.
Though like Joyce has her own issues with being honest/up front with Becky right now given the fact she’s no longer religious so I’m feeling it will come up too (Though suspicions that Becky already knows could mean it goes from private to public blow out!)
Or maybe it descends into crying hugs. There’s various possibilities really.
Don’t know if it’s intended, but it’s not just you. It probably IS intended, because, if you’ll notice, Sarah’s raising an eyebrow at the whole thing, too.
I’m glad some people in the comments agree with me about Becky being horrible to Dorothy all the time for no reason. I think what pisses me off the most about it is how she does it with a SMILE. She’s constantly insulting and belittling her and being smug about it too. That’s just….ugh
I don’t like the underlining message people keep sending that “If you don’t like Becky, it’s because she’s a lesbian and you’re a giant raving homophobe”
No I also love the ladies (and a large variety of other beings in all flesh packages)
And I still don’t like her b/c I don’t really like how mean she is, she’s not JUST mean to Dotty, she’s been passively mean to Joyce and prods at her for funsies.
Honestly, I’ve barely seen that defense of her recently.
It was common early on, when she was being attacked for stupid things like the haircut or for probably just blowing the whole thing with her dad out of proportion.
Many people say it whenever you criticize her tbh.
Haven’t seen it here today. Don’t remember it being a big thing the last couple of appearances.
What do you mean “some”? That’s been every other comment on every Becky strip for months, it’s the popular opinion
I was trying to include the few people who don’t have that weird mentality of “EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU IS TIED TO WHO YOU WANNA BONE”
God is that really the case? Jesus I hate it when that happens.
Also my dislike for Robin intensified in every strip she’s in. Are both these characters meant to be endearing? Because they just leave me cold and annoyed
I also loathe DoA Robin, and I think she gets a lot of mileage from her Shortpacked! appearances, where the goofballness was more in line with the overall theme.
One of these days I’m gonna have to watch all of Parks and Rec. So far I’ve just watched a bunch of clips of it on Youtube.
I recently learned that “Keener” is Canadian slang for “an eager student; a brown-noser”. Maybe not from Ruth’s part of Canada.
Yeah, it kind of makes sense that Dorothy and Becky’s personal dispute over who gets to be Joyce’s bestie (probably one sided on Becky’s side) should also be reflected in Becky despising Dorothy’s goals and self-chosen calling.
I think that part is more about her being forced into it as a condition of her scholarship when it’s not what she wants to do.
Agrred. The scholarship provides housing and an opportunity for college, but she still wants to be a scientist and the fact that she has a knack for politics and stumbled into a good opportunity to use that doesn’t change that.
I love how people are all ‘Yeah this is totally fine for Becky to do” while everyone was waiting for Walky and Amber to get expelled b/c Amber changed a grade from a failing to “just passing”
Gosh I’m just disliking Becky every time I see her…she’s so dang mean to Dorothy….
Yeah, but Walky’s Brown and Amber’s Different, so they don’t get any leeway. Am I being sarcastic? Do I need the /s? Up to you, folks.
I mean Becky’s just as different as Amber, she’s just more loud.
I believe they are referring to Amber’s struggles with mental disorders and anger management.
Becky’s got similar problems, the difference is Becky’s just good at slapping on a happy face and acting like it’s not a problem/ a joke.
Becky for sure gets the wrong reaction from the commentariat sometimes (I distinctly recall the kerfuffle that happened when she used a single $20 bill to get herself a haircut instead of, like, buying a house or something? Because when someone is poor they need to prostrate themselves and have no personal dignity or luxuries) but Amber’s struggles are different. Not inherently more or less valid than others, just different.
Amber, as someone who suffers from a mental disorder as well as being a victim of child abuse who now struggles with healthily expressing that anger, sometimes gets reactions to the effect of “look at this crazy bongo acting exactly like her dad”, because the stereotype surrounding abuse victims is “you are doomed to go on and abuse your loved ones because it happened to you.” I remember yonks ago I made a post about how I noticed that we only ever seem to get upset about characters being hella angry when it’s Ruth and Amber, the two characters who were abused and naturally have the hardest time dealing with anger. Walky finds out Asher sent his sister up a creek for a joke and he gets so furious he punches him in his stupid face, but no one’s ever gonna tell Walky he’s too angry.
So because we have the narrative of “abuse victims go on to abuse their own victims” formed in us by media and peers, we then start throwing it around, because that’s all we know.
Oh yeah, the mentality towards Amber is pretty disgusting, it’s like everyone’s waiting for her to snap, and are hyper critical of her b/c of it, it’s hella not fair, as I pointed out….Becky basically asks for an easy a and gets it, Amber changes Walky’s failing grade so he just passes… Only one person is being eagerly waited to be expelled.
That’s partly because we were too busy being outraged about Robin being a teacher at all. Partly because she would do things like give Becky an A.
Becky has reason to be jealous of Dorothy. I mean, there’s the prior Joyce-Dorothy connection, there’s the fact that Dorothy has a functioning family that is well off. I’m not justifying the behavior, just saying that without therapy to cope with all the shit she’s been through, she’s gonna be a little unhealthy in coping. The best thing would probably be for Becky to be in a different dorm, make some friends distinct and apart from Joyce’s friends. Not likely to happen anytime soon though.
I’m going to ignore all the dumbass speculation on Becky’s well-established tsundere nonsense re: Dot and just say
Dorothy, you sweet summer child, who the fuck do you think actually gives a shit about transparent corruption in politics? At least among the centrists you hunger to join.
I mean, if Becky actually wanted to join the progressive wing of Congress maybe continued corruption would be a bad look, but she pretty clearly knows that and no leftist would cancel her for that. Also she doesn’t want to. Also also she knows the progressive wing is outflanked by centrist dipshits and fascists.
For once, I’m with Becky.
Becky was homeschooled in an oppressive religious family. She’s not stupid, but does she really have what it takes to make it through a medical science course? She doesn’t even know what scientist she wants to be.
What scientist she wants to be? Pretty sure that at this point Becky would be perfectly happy being the scientist, Dr. MacIntyre-Saruyama, Phd.
It’d be a thing if Becky doesn’t do well in sciences, after the buildup. (Enthusiasm doesn’t mean you’re suited for a thing, after all), but does do well at the Freebie course.
That puts Becky in an interesting position.
I can’t remember if I’ve only been saying this here or at Patreon, but I honestly think this is one of the best places to take Becky.
I’m the kind of person who only really likes characters when we seem them at their worst every once in a while, and Becky’s never really had that. She’s always won out in the end, with her transparent hatred of Dorothy brimming in the background as more important things kept happening to her, and now it’s got the panel time to focus on what’s been blatantly obvious for years: Becky is still deeply in love with Joyce and resents Dorothy for being so close to her.
Becky is bullying Dorothy, but it’s not just a funny quirk or whatever. Dorothy’s ignoring it for now but the continued proximity the two share means it has to eventually boil over. I remember when this first really got into gear there was some “oh you silly Becky, that’s not what you say to Dorothy” kind of posts, that Becky was just being thoughtless instead of malicious, and I reject that. Why drag this out for years and reach a boiling point only for it end with Becky going “it was just a prank bro” and move on? Nah, buckle up kiddos, we’re heading into character drama.
And here’s the thing, Becky being a jerk doesn’t invalidate everything about her. She doesn’t have to be That Perfect Girl for you to like her. Few people are 100% a dick and I think even less than that are 100% moral and just all the time. We all fail, we all have our blind spots, we all act lower than we are.
I want this to be ugly. I want this to be messy. This comic is always at its best when it’s about interpersonal conflict and there is no greater danger to the cast of DoA than the ones they put each other through.
Yeeeeeees! All of this. I’m looking forward to Becky and Dorothy both getting actually pushed to their breaking points on this subject, because the drama will be DELICIOUS.
I’m in favor of just *getting around to it*, at this point.
Anyone else impressed by the mere fact that Robin chose Parks and Rec over The West Wing as an example of how politics and policy works?
One predated the other by a decade. I’m sure she chose based on what is most current/something that might have swayed her when she first watched it.
Now about Daisy:
Daisy is a good looking girl. Surely she has had offers, even encounters. But guys don’t do it for her. She’s holding out for a heroine.
Now if Walky wanted to ingratiate himself with Jennie, he could probably talk Lucy into dressing up as NightGirl. Just putting that out there.
Cease Dorothy. For the love of the unknown just fucking cease.
*Becky
Where is the edit button? Seriously, that’s the one thing that site needs.
Political science or other science? Becky has a real Sophie’s choice here.
Could I trouble someone who’s had coffee to explain the alt text joke? It’s going right over my head (what fictional character?).
Dumbiverse IU named the library after Leslie Knope, one of the main characters from Parks and Recreation. Now it’s been established that the show is fiction to the characters in the comic, therefore the library is named for a fictional character.
Well, I haven’t had coffee, but I have had Taco Bell, so I’ll try to explain. In the finale of Parks and Recreation, there was a flash forward where the IU library was renamed after Leslie Knope. In the DoA-verse, the library is named after her, as seen here: https://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/01-the-only-dope-for-me-is-you/wordplay/
Since this strip establishes that Parks and Rec is a show in-universe, their library is named after a fictional character.
Well, ninja’d and replied wrong. Should have had coffee.
Yeah, Taco Bell creates a different sense of urgency that’s only effective short-term.
To be fair, coffee *also* creates that particular sense of urgency, in addition to the caffeine rush.
Taco Bell makes you have to pee?
Sounds like the makings of a Zappa song.
I think “Well i havent had coffee, but I have had taco bell” is becoming a new saying for me.
So no links (or anything) about Chris Pratt, its sounding a bit like rumour and hearsay to me
Dagnabbit, that was a reply to Furubatsuu
This was the first hit on Google for “Chris Pratt evangelical”:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/12/is-chris-pratts-evangelical-church-really-welcoming-to-lgbtq-people/
Here’s a quote from Wikipedia about the church leader, Chad Veach:
“Chad Veach, produced a film that refers to “same-sex attraction” as one form of “sexual brokenness,” comparing it to a pornography addiction.”
Not saying theres nothing there but from the same page:
“I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want free from the judgement of their fellow man.”
Pratt added that though his faith is important to him, “no church defines me or my life, and I am not a spokesman for any church or any group of people.”
I mean the original statement had Chris Pratt leaving guardians because the character has been written as bi but I cant find anything like that (I could find pages where people wanted to see his reaction to it though) and that he supports conversion therapy
But I can’t find anything where he supports it so to me its looking like some people want to end Chris Pratts career over nothing
Dude, that’s… not how it works. You can’t attend and serve as a promo material for a church that says that being LGBT+ is bad, actually, and then go “but *I*’m actually ok with them”. I don’t know if that’s why Pratt left GotG, but his actions clearly state that he thinks being LGBT+ is bad, regardless of what he says.
I’ve tried looking for something about Chris Pratt leaving GotG but I can’t find anything, can you link something please
Sorry, the way you wrote in the previous post I assumed that was established fact. A better phrasing on my part would’ve been: “I don’t know if that caused Pratt to leave GotG”. I’m going through some eyes health problems that severely limit my screentime, so I’m out of the loop on movie news. I just know the whole “Chris Pratt’s church is shit” thing becasue that was out before my problems started, in late August.
See thats the problem. Someone says something and its accepted.
I can’t find anything that says Chris Pratt is leaving GotG, I can’t find any link to Chris Pratt supporting gay conversion, I went to zoe church and couldn’t find any link to Chris Pratt promos (or anything similar) and the only thing that is verified is something the Church leader said awhile back
Yet somehow its accepted as fact
I can, however, find plenty of links of people supporting him, his charitable acts etc
I don’t know about “gay conversion therapy” specifically – this is what I DO know:
– the church Chris Pratt attends is anti-LGBT. We know this is true because the pastor has made a movie claiming that being LGBT is bad. This should be bad enough for anyone. But, wait, there’s more.
– Ellen Page criticised that church for being anti-LGBT (which it is); I don’t know if there was any specific incident tied to that, or if she was just commenting on general anti-LGBTness. At that point, Chris Pratt said that the church was, in fact, totally cool with LGBBT folks (which it clearly isn’t).
So, one of the three:
– Chris Pratt thinks that saying that saying that being LGBT is bad is actually not anti-LGBT (which, what?);
– Chris Pratt doesn’t know that the church he attends is anti-LGBT, but decided to defend it against accusations of such anyway (which is terrible);
– Chris Pratt DOES know that the church he attends is anti-LGBT, but decided to defend it against accusations of such anyway (which is even worse).
I think it’s important to clarify the nature of said church: it’s not one of those churches like a catholic church or something, where priests can get rotated out; it’s a Church, capitalised – the Church leader is, de facto, the Church itself. If he said “being anti-LGBT is bad”, then that is, in fact, the stance of the Church.
Can you link to that quote or film so I can check it out myself?
I don’t like being that guy but since no one can provide a link or quote for Chris Pratt I do want to see if theres any validity to what you say
Just a note, very understandable with limited screen time and being out of the loop because of it, but the other actor you mentioned is Elliot Page now and uses he/they pronouns.
Also its not Ellen Page its Elliot Page
Oh shit, thank you both for telling me. Wikipedia tells me he came out as transgender this month, so yeah, last time I had screen time to be up to date with stuff he’d only come out (thought of himself as?) a gay woman.
Ok so we’re going round in circles here, all I want is a quote or a link or something but instead all I’m hearing is something similar to telephone
Everyones saying how bad Chris Pratt is but no one can actually show any proof or evidence
Its like someones decided that because Chris Pratt didn’t endorse Biden he must therefore be a Trump supporter then add in hes a christian plus throw in a comment from Elliot Page and hey presto Chris Pratt is basically a very bad, no good person
As such I’m not going to comment on this topic anymore as its detracting from the comic
Spin spin spin, Grav roulette!
Not bad. Could be better, but it really could be much worse.
Even if she didn’t ask people were gonna assume anyway which matters more than the truth a lot of the time in politics.
Man the Dotty banter is just becoming bullying at this point.
The world would definitely be a better place, with a, “stupid butt-face”, vaccine.