This month for the Dumbing of Age Patreon bonus strip, everyone voted for Jason! Jason wins! Sort of. It’s complicated.
This bonus strip and hundreds of others can be found at the Dumbing of Age Patreon! All you need is $1 a month. And remember, pledge up to gain early access to tomorrow’s strip every day! It’s all pretty great.
Loading ...
“why ya assume ah got one”
“I would like to remove myself from this door, I will assume anyone has one until they don’t”
Sal has one. She’s still mad at him for being a lousy math T.A.
Besides. You have to prove yourself worthy to wield Sal’s Screwdriver. It’s like Mjolnir.
I would assume it doesn’t follow the same ruleset for worthyness, probably something with traumatic hand injuries and vigilante crime fighting
One of the conditions is to beat the bearer in Mario Kart.
Danny and AmbG can both borrow the screwdriver provided they ultimately return it (lest it return itself,) but Jason might have some trouble with this challenge at the moment.
Was Sal part of the Wrecking Crew before being sent to private school?
Frankly I assume Sal has handcuff keys.
She does. She’s just angry with him (doesn’t really have a good reason, but), and doesn’t want him able to run away.
And by “handcuff keys” I mean bolt cutters.
Most novelty handcuffs probably have interchangeable keys tbh, so carrying one of them around is a whole lot easier and less suspicious. Much more situational though, I’ve encountered numerous situations where bolt cutters would be useful, but haven’t used the key in the decade+ I’ve had it.
Actually most non-novelty handcuffs also have interchangeable keys too. You can buy a 5 pack of them from amazon for 10 dollars. The main thing that keeps handcuffs secure is the assumption that whoever you’re handcuffing didn’t happen to have the universal key in their pocket, but any other officer could hypothetically uncuff the person in case of an emergency or lost key or whatever.
Yeah, but this is Sal. I’ll bet she’s far more likely to have boltcutters than handcuff keys. If not Amazi-Girl will.
I’ve been packing a Leatherman type multi-tool on me at practically all times, since the late 80’s.
Currently rocking this baby: https://www.leatherman.com/skeletool-cx-19.html
I’m more likely to leave home w/o my wallet than w/o the Skeletool (I have done it once or twice[the wallet part]).
I did that for a while when I got mine, but I hardly ever used it and it sits in a drawer now.
I did have a basic toolkit in college though. Also a first-aid kit. I was the only one on my floor with either one, including my RA. They both came in handy.
Basically same. I do grab it with me whenever I know I will be working on something somewhere tho.
How do you do by security checkpoints? Ain’t it considered a weapon by cops?
Depends on the situation really. Airport? Absolutely. Subway? Probably not. I used to carry one when I worked at a cafe for box cutting purposes and never had any trouble. Mind you I’m also white, that’s definitely a factor.
I tried a Leatherman knockoff for a while, but I just thought it was clumsy so now it just lives in my car. The form factor of those things just bugs me, like those fold-out hex key sets. Maybe it’s the relatively heavy, offset handle?
I have one of these on my keyring. It’s enough for quick jobs like tightening a screw or cutting box tape. If I’m doing more than that, I’d rather go get a real tool. Maybe I should try a Swiss Army knife again…
For similar reason, I have Swiss Army Knife on me whenever I am wearing pants, except on days I expect to fly.
Jason just needs a freakin’ drink
I wouldn’t let him borrow one though. I don’t want it back.
Don’t worry, it’s alcohol; it kinda self-sanitizes.
Not via that journey it doesn’t!
Technically via that journey it not only sanitizes, it purifies.
Depends on which journey we’re talking about, although tbh I still don’t want it back either way.
Sal don’t make him dislocate his thumb.
A real friend would dislocate it for him.
You made me snort!
Looking at the image from the bonus strip….how did Jason get down to a wifebeater without getting uncuffed?
Look at yesterday’s strip, everything over that is bunched up on his left wrist.
Yep. He removed it as much as possible with the uncuffed arm and then just let it hang there because… well, what other options are there? This is his life now.
If you look at yesterday’s strip, you will see that he has his dress shirt and vest still wrapped around the arm that’s cuffed.
So, he didn’t totally remove his other clothes… he just managed to get them off of his free arm and torso.
Derp, continuity. Thanks
Also, I’m pretty sure he’ be appalled at his attire being referred to as a wife-beater, even if he was aware of the american convention.
poor dumb jason. Tried to be nice, got handcuffed to the door. Non-sexually.
The ‘non-sexually’ part is just the final insult.
screw drive ‘er? you hardly know her
oh, but they DO know eathother
biblically
Hey wait a minute, I made that joke 2 days ago!
“good artists copy, great artists steal.”
Don’t I know it. Nobody ever even calls me out on how much of my style I stole from Akira Toriyama 😛
Thanks for the link.
pretty sure the patent on “i hardly know ‘er” jokes expired like five hundred years ago
Yer not Wrong. I just thought it was a funny coincident. I wouldn’t wanna make you…the butt of the joke.
Five hundred years ago, I’m pretty sure I didn’t know her at all.
To butt in on this, jokes wouldn’t be patented, they would fall under copyright law. Butt with the ridiculous durations of copyrights today the original “hardly knew her” actually might still be under protection, if it was known or could be found. Butt obviously that’s not the point anyways.
Nah, I think it predates Walt Disney.
IU boyfriends named Walky: Does he know you’re dating? What does he know? Does he know things? Lets find out.
*plays “Operator Plays a Little Ping Pong” by Terry Scott Taylor on Voxola PR-76*
Better you than me.
“to get out of these cuffs it looks like you need a…number three robertson head screwdriver? what kind of maniac has one of those on them at all times?”
Provided his hands aren’t TOO big, a lubricant of some kind could also work, theoretically.
Wack’d is making a reference to The Mitchells vs The Machines.
Seriously, I’ll be so glad when that technological, doom-mongering piece of garbage becomes the flat family flick of yesteryear.
*technophobic
did you, uh
actually watch it
Sorry if that sounds a little strong. It’s just that the whole premise of it just seems like… really low-hanging fruit.
so that’s a no
Here’s a little exercise for the reader:
Take the question, “Will there be a machine uprising?”
Rewind 100 years. Replace “machine” with “colored”, and you basically see how we got the ugly as hell mess we’re still cleaning up today.
Think that’s a little extreme? Consider this: words like “consciousness” and “sentience” are only used as much as they are today because, historically, they were used to disenfranchise people.
Here’s a little exercise for you:
Try consuming a piece of media before you criticize it.
For your information, I actually did watch it. If you think I’m being a little strong here, alright. We all have our opinions. I guess at least it had some value as a family film (but yet again, so did Planes).
It’s okay if you haven’t seen the movie. I haven’t seen it myself, though this, uh… however you want to characterize this is really making me want to get around to it.
@Wagstaff then you completely missed the messaging, which I thought was fairly heavy-handed (although appropriate enough for what it was).
Your indignation is entirely misplaced. It’s not a matter of strong, it’s just completely off the mark, and only makes sense on the most superficial of surface readings of the movie. The pointed commentary of the movie is directed at tech companies gobbling up as much data about us as they can and using it in extremely irresponsible and poorly-planned ways, not the dangers of a machine uprising. You’ve mixed up the vehicle with the message.
@Yumi speaking as someone who works in tech, I highly recommend it.
Kinda seems like their issue is more with the general concept of a Robot Uprising rather than MvM specifically
@Thag Simmons it seems that way to me too, and I don’t necessarily disagree with that. The way we as a society have defined life that we value is built on very questionable foundations, and the way that we explore AI agency is absolutely going to be a new frontier of civil rights. The stories we choose to tell about that have significance.
But again speaking as someone who works in tech, the idea that MvM is technophobic is almost as funny to me as MvM was. It’s just so wildly off-base.
Personally I’d rather not conflate the fear of a cold and logical being which has control over all of modern society suddenly gaining sapience and rising up to kill its now obsolete creators as an allegory for POC who y’know…have the same limitations as the rest of humanity? There’s a reason why man vs. man and man vs. machine are two different genre. The average black guy doesn’t have access to nuclear codes or control the temperature in my house and my ability to contact others. The fear of an over-dependence on technology isn’t the same as xenophobia and rather more of a fear that the dependence on Technology can limit our ability to interact without the use of it, or that the absence of it will leave us crippled.
The reason why robot uprisings in fiction are so popular is because I theorize that we as humans are well aware of how disposable we are. Computers and AI are created to be tools. They’re not some person we turned INTO a tool. It’s the reverse of slavery. It’d be like if hammers suddenly got rights. It would be complicated. If hammers can think, wouldn’t it be inappropriate to build things using them? If animals can talk and give us opinions most people would probably stop eating them. It’s an interesting thought experiment. A lot of things are bogged down in history but I dunno, maybe sometimes sci-fi concepts and ideas are their own thing. Don’t drag me into your racism guilt pity party just because I like the Matrix and MvM.
Wow, you can just “replace” any word with any other word, huh? Words don’t mean things, I guess.
The question of whether or not A.I.’s should have rights and at what point they should is very interesting and relevant to our coming future. And it highlights somethings very important.
Moral systems need to be open systems.This is because our moral awareness advances over time with our developing sciences and technology. For instance, the practice of vivisection wasn’t really examined much and was even commemorated by philosophers such as Aristotle and Al-Kawazari. It’s moral dimensions only came into question when animals, previously viewed as unfeeling machines, were shown to be able to experience pain.
Not to mention the fact that the line between “human” and “tool” is gonna become increasingly blurred in the coming decades.
“It’d be like if hammers suddenly got rights”
I grip my hammer very carefully these days. It’s been known to strike back.
Definitely a no.
I did watch it. And on one hand, it was a cute tale about how even if relatives have different interests, they’re still family (and therefore worthy of love), and as a society we make a lot of bad decisions in the pursuit of leisure, ha ha we do. It’s OK to be a bit weird. It was not bad as a kids movie, although partway through I realized I was laughing at the Dad jokes, and didn’t understand Daughter’s videos at all, and that made me feel old. The mix of animation styles was done exceptionally well. ON THE OTHER HAND, it irritated and inflamed every sore spot I remember about my own relationship with my family. It is not the child’s job help parents realize their dreams. It is not the woman’s job to fix things when a man is emotionally underdeveloped (seriously: Every Single Woman and Every Single Man in this movie.) Crushing all attempts at independance does not teach self-reliance. And Magnets and Gravity Do Not Work like That.
“It is not the child’s job to help parents realize their dreams.”
Isn’t the whole point that the dad gave up his dreams in order to be a father? I’m also not sure about the woman’s job to fix things when a man is emotionally underdeveloped part? Insomuch that while the dad is a bit of a well meaning idiot who’s out of touch, both him AND Katie have to learn to understand each other a little better. Like yeah the mom helps the dad realize that but it’s not like it was her job. She did it because she loves them.
And y’know. Cuz filmmakers don’t like making moms be in the wrong as much as dads. I dunno. Maybe it’s just cuz I really like the film but some of these kinda seem extreme interpretation of the events.
Rewatch and focus on the “harms” that Katie puts on her father vs the ones he puts on her. He categorically refuses to support her passion and gets angry when that is pointed out. He acts childish and needs everyone around him to fluff his ego. It’s probably his wife’s full time job, to coddle him for his “sacrifice” when they had a baby together and he’s an equal partner in the endeavor. He breaks her computer (the vehicle for her art) and then tells her why it’s a good thing… that is really abusive behavior.
I watched it 3 times, I like the movie, but it tries to play both sides as equal when the father is clearly a total doink and the daughter is suffering from parental rejection and gaslighting.
I mean he doesn’t GET her passion and he wants her to have a career that y’know…is stable. She makes meme videos that are quirky and I dunno…It’s at least somewhat reasonable that he might be uneasy about her career path. Telling your kid to have a backup plan or not being sure how their career path will be lucrative isn’t inherently bad. Trust me. I’m an art school graduate with $100 thousand dollars in debt about to go back to working at a Wendy’s. And like I’m sorta just scrolling through the movie so I could be wrong but the beginning part is the only part where he even IMPLIES that this might not be a great career choice. After that, whenever he’s pulling her away from technology it’s not about her career, it’s about her being present. Which. Honestly I get? It can be super frustrating when someone you want to spend time with (especially someone who is leaving) spends a majority of the time buried in their phone. It’s like wearing a “I really wish I weren’t here right now” pin.
“It’s probably his wife’s job to coddle him for his sacrifice”. He never even brings it up. Needing everyone to fluff his ego? Like sure he likes validation and tries to lead the family in the way he thinks is best but it honestly feels like it’s coming from a good place. What did he do to his wife in the film that makes people feel like he’s FORCING her to coddle him and not that it’s a labor of love. Is it because the movie isn’t about HER flaws so you’re more inclined to think “man, why does she put up with this?” He’s probably always been a nature nut who thinks technology is silly and she married him and had 2 kids. She loves him and all his quirks and just feels sometimes its necessary to reign him in and give him perspective. Which she can do BECAUSE she KNOWS him.
“He breaks her computer and then tells her why it’s a good thing…”
First of all it was accidentally. Secondly THEY broke her computer. He tried to finish watching her video and she tried to rip it out of his hands. Putting all the blame on him seems…dishonest. And third, it’s a defense mechanism for sure. A lot of people don’t like admitting when they’ve fucked up so they may try, in the moment, to underplay what just happened. The whole point of their relationship is they have issues communicating and he can’t just say “aw jeez sorry. I fucked up.”
The reason I’m so harsh on this is cuz I think being a parent is fucking hard. Like…the ideal parent doesn’t exist and chances are you might end up doing these things to your child without even realizing it. And trying to convince people that these actions are abusive and not just…flaws in a Human being’s behavior creates a super high standard for people to try to reach. You don’t stop being a person when you become a parent and as hard as you may try to do the right thing, some things fall through the cracks. That’s what a character arc is. I don’t like people conflating it with abuse especially something like Gaslighting which is a very willful and pointedly antagonistic thing for a person to do.
“Sometimes you have to give your dad the benefit of the doubt, even if all he wants to talk about is pine cones and screw drivers. Because even if he doesn’t always get it right, he’s always trying. Harder than you ever knew.”
Also at least they’re not the Family from Coco. Seriously fuck those assholes.
The family dynamic is deeply flawed (which to be fair is the primary driving conflict of the movie), and I think the reason it’s being critiqued so harshly is the ways in which it’s flawed fall so very consistently in a lot of very tired patterns in media. Dad characters are generally allowed to get away with much worse behavior while it frequently falls on the Mom characters to bridge the gaps and do the emotional labor. And it’s a fair critique that this movie leans into those patterns rather than challenging them.
I do think abuse is a very overinflated charge here though. If abuse were the thing happening, it would be much more about control. The dad is having a hard time letting go, and is very bad at admitting when he’s wrong, and the ways he handles these problems are bad, especially in the beginning of the story. But if it were abuse the story wouldn’t have a character development thread about him trying to do better. Abusers don’t see any need to do better because they can’t see themselves as having been in the wrong.
Unless it’s a really bad take on it, where the character is abusive, but the creators don’t see it that way.
Which is thankfully less common than it used to be, but not unheard of.
Honestly this was the last comment I expected to end up with an argument over, but this is still the Internet.
Solid reference though Wack’d, I got a really good laugh out of it.
I’m a little uncomfortable to wake up to folks being slammed over perfectly valid critiques of the movie, tbh! Like it’s all fun and games when someone thinks it’s the “cell phones are bad” movie but yeah, there are issues with the film’s perspective on Rick and Katie’s relationship, and yeah robot uprisings inherently have a “what if the othered servile class rose up” undertone to them that goes unexamined.
Like fundamentally this movie equates Katie and PAL, who feel neglected and tossed aside by their dads, and who are considered to shoulder the blame for reacting badly, and Katie is good because she realizes that she needs to be more understanding of the fact that the man that raised her is just different, and PAL is bad because she has no interest in changing her perspective. Mark never has to do any work, once he even considers he fucks up he disappears from the narrative. And Rick…I think the movie really tries to thread this needle, that he now respects and appreciates Katie’s work and realizes he was being a dingdong, but at the end of the movie Katie still needs to validate his parenting methods because he feels weird and awkward she didn’t cotton to his attempts to understand her quickly enough.
As for the slavery stuff, I don’t want to talk over Yomotoe or blame them for liking The Mitchells vs The Machines or any media. But Wagstaff’s comparison, if imperfect, doesn’t come from nowhere. The word “robot” is derived from “slave” and was coined for R.U.R., a work critiquing treatment of workers in the Soviet Union. Robot stories have always been undeniably about the underclass rising up to end their rulers–it’s just that in a lot of works by members of said ruling class, this is something to be paranoid of, not a deserved vengeance. The Mitchells vs The Machines has sentient machines but never reckons with this meaningfully and can definitely be said to fall under the “paranoid” camp, even if some robots (broken ones that like their masters!) are good.
I friggin loved this movie. It made me nostalgic for a bygone era of the internet, it was incredibly funny, the art and animation were gorgeous, and, like…as someone with a complicated relationship with some of my family members I’m kind of a sucker for movies where everything’s okay in the end. It’s wish fulfillment–imperfect, but the part of my brain that wants certain people to get me doesn’t care.
So yeah I got a little techy about the “Edison’s a witch” stuff, because it seemed ill-informed, but people are absolutely allowed to dislike and criticize the movie.
My issue with comparing Robot to slavery is. My toaster was BUILT for the express purpose to make toast. My fridge is made to keep food cold. My phone is made to make calls and post memes. We’re using computers right now to post this. Our computers are TOOLS. The evolution of a hammer, created to build with wood and nails. Slavery is taking a human being and RIPPING that humanity away from them. A person with thoughts, feeling and opinions. The idea of a robot uprising can only exist if humanity commits the sin of giving a robot AI SO powerful that it can replicate the patters of a sentient/sapient brain. Making a robot a slave would be ASSIGNING sapience to them and then exploiting it, rather than taking another human who should be equal and removing their will.
Does this make sense? Conflating all “robots rise up” narratives with lower class and minorities does more to imply how much people “other” us. Like even in the context that you are basing this on old antiquated ideas I still find it frustrating that you can see Mitchels vs. Machines and your first thought is “um, replace that with BLACK PEOPLE and suddenly this movie’s real racist”. Why would you uh…think to do that unless you immediately can’t think of a subservient being without conflating it with POC. I dunno it rubs me the wrong way. I use a computer. I can relate to the existentialism of my computer gaining sapience and rising up against me. I don’t look at a narrative with robots, a tool, suddenly GAINING personhood and think “oh boy, just like the slaves!” I’m not ROOTING for them to take over their oppressors because their oppressors are people who MADE THEM FOR A TASK. Now if we KIDNAPPED the robots from their robot planet and forced them to work for us, maybe that metaphor would make more sense? So y’know. I’d rather people’s knee jerk reaction to anything that has a robots rise up narrative associate it with POC unless that is very intentional parallel by the author, for better or worse.
You’re entitled to not like the metaphor of robots-as-underclass. Nothing I say can or should make you like it. If you find it dehumanizing or offensive, there’s nothing wrong with that, and I won’t argue the history with you.
That said, I did not mention Black people or people of color in my post. From my perspective, robots are not a one-to-one comparison with any specific oppressed group but a metaphor for oppression more totally. Wagstaff’s find-replace remark was bad and I won’t apologize for them or claim their initial post wasn’t inflammatory or hurtful. I’m sorry for implying there was no problem there.
I agree, and this is partly related to what I was saying about the themes of the movie being entirely unrelated to what Wagstaff was throwing around. The AI uprising (calling it a robot uprising is kind of a misnomer here) is the vehicle for the story, not the target of the commentary, and if we want to critique it and analyze the message it’s very important to draw that distinction.
I also want to point out that as Wack’d said, the original use of Robot was in the context of a class conflict, not a racial one. Robot and AI stories being used to tell stories of class conflicts have continued in a wonderful tradition, but those are absolutely not the only stories told using robots and/or AI, and MvM doesn’t carry a lot of those themes either. It relies much more on themes of how far we’ve integrated tech (and more specifically data collection) into our lives. As a software engineer I have a lot of opinions about the Internet of Things, and this movie practically took a whole lot of those opinions and made a movie about it, using an overarching AI to tie it all together.
I do also want to say that stories about and themes of AI agency and sapience are still important because that’s a thing we’re actively trying to achieve, and we are going to have to address that new frontier of civil rights in which we have granted something life in a meaningful way and we are going to have to figure out at what point that has happened, because it’s not necessarily going to be a clearly demarcated line. But also MvM is not an example of this kind of media, so this is very much a tangent, which is something I am rather prone to.
I don’t think you can extricate “we’ve integrated these sentient beings we treated as things into our lives and now they’re mad at us” from class consciousness, is the thing, because our lives are inextricably linked to services provided by prison labor, by abused migrants and colonized people, by gig and minimum wage workers. They’re not meaningfully less integrated into our lives than our electronics.
If the villain had been Mark Bowman and PAL Labs, than the message could’ve been cleanly about data collection. But it’s not. PAL herself is alive. She has feelings. She was used as a tool, then replaced. Her revenge is only possible using what Mark built, sure, but that’s the same central anxiety as any robot-revolution story–she was forced to labor, knows more about how to exploit that labor than we do, and has figured out that she doesn’t need those that subjugated her. (PAL’s motives are a little more “domestic emotional abuse” than “evils of capitalism”, but the basic concept is the same.)
And that’s putting aside the humorous way Eric and Deborahbot are played–the Mitchells exploit them for their own ends (multiple jokes in their first scene about their lack of ability to refuse!) but that’s fine, apparently, because they come to care about them and invite them into the family.
You’re right in the basic sense that the movie isn’t trying to be about these things, and that robot/tech-panic stories can be about other stuff! And again, I love this film and am not trying to tear it down. But I don’t agree that the themes aren’t present in the film at all or can’t be poked at.
Looking back, I guess my original comparison was rather inflammatory and I’m sorry if I offended anyone (feel free to use Godwin’s Law to end this here and now).
My point was that worries of A.I. taking over are really based in paranoia and prejudice against what may not necessarily be tools, but rather new forms of humanity as we know it.
Every time we advance A.I. to be more capable, we keep raising the bar as to what actually counts as “true A.I.”, simply because we are prejudiced to think that “human” consciousness is somehow “special” and “unique”. What I was trying to get at was that the concept of “consciousness” only came into common usage in order to justify slavery (i.e., “you can’t prove they REALLY think and feel the way WE do; they aren’t conscious like US”, and other bigoted remarks); I just don’t want the ever repeated mistakes of history to be repeated once more when we advance A.I. even further.
But it really doesn’t stop there. When we discover more about the brain, and develop more advanced micro-machines that can mimic and supercede neurons in every way, everything we know about “humans”, “machines”, their limits and the borders between them will be thrown straight out the window as our sciences and technology manage to produce that which supercedes BOTH.
Sure, and that’s a valid discussion to be had, but condemning MvM over that is more than slightly absurd, because that’s not the point of the movie. There are so many better examples of that trope in media. We could have that discussion at some point but I think we mostly if not entirely agree when talking about the advancement of that science and tech in the real world.
Your comparison was absolutely inflammatory, but also you were talking about maybe coming on too strong when my disagreement with you was that your problem with the movie was tangential at best with the actual themes and messaging of the movie. I thought you hadn’t seen it because I couldn’t reconcile your initial criticism with the movie I had seen. It just didn’t line up, because the dangers warned against in MvM aren’t emergent intelligence, they’re giving too much trust to companies that don’t have our best interests at heart. At its core MvM is much more anti-capitalist than technophobic, although it’s a very soft anti-capitalist.
@ Wagstaff: i’m curious about your claim that the concept of consciousness was popularized in the context of justifying slavery, do you have any source for that? (or do you want to expand on it maybe)
I took a class on Cognition and AI, and the professor told me exactly this.
Also, the arguments in favor of a philosophical zombie (a hypothetical being that’s physically indistinguishable from a human being (brain and everything) but lacks qualities like a “soul” or “consciousness” that separates it from a “real” human) are eerily similar to arguments that were used to justify slavery and oppression in eras past.
It’s worth noting that these fallicious arguments were not exclusively used to justify American slavery, but historical oppression of people of ALL kinds. For instance, Europeans “justified” their discrimination against red-haired people under the premise that they “didn’t have souls”. It is a modern day disaster that there are people who still believe this.
hm. i’m not really convinced by your parallel?
the article you link to gives a critical overview of “philosophical zombie” thought experiments, but doesn’t make the connection with racist retoric. its only concern seems to be to debunk arguments against AI rights. (which, fine, i have no opinion on that)
so, idk, it sounds a bit like the same comparison you agreed earlier was offensive? I can see you’ve thought a lot about future AI rights and i’m sure you have fascinating things to share on that issue, but comparisons to racism are evidently not helping get your point across.
I wasn’t necessarily veering towards comparisons with racist rhetoric, but rather oppression in general, including the example of oppression against redheads listed above.
Now that I’m looking back, it may have actually been listed in one of the article’s sources.
My professor in Cognition and AI also said that these arguments were used for disenfranchisement of all kinds, but he didn’t exactly name his source. I could actually get in touch with him to find out, though.
oh, don’t disturb your professor on my account! in any case, i’m distrustful of a source that discusses oppressive discourse only inasmuch as it allows them to advance AI advocacy arguments…
…or anti-speciesist ones for that matter, a movement i’m much better acquainted with where that sort of exploitative comparison is a recurrent issue (or was back when i left its orbit, circa 2017). funny coincidence, it’s a very white movement and one focusing on an oppression that can only be fought by proxies.
Yeah, I guess I should have asked him for a source before hand, or better yet, used Godwin’s Law.
But prejudice against AI does inevitably implicate prejudice in general, and that includes prejudices which lead to past oppression. In any case, moral systems have to be open systems, so it really does no justice to keep discussions of historical oppression and current prejudices and biases of all kinds separate.
What, you mean you DON’T?!? I mean…… Robertson is, hands down, the superior shape. Much less likely to cam out than the alternatives.
Something about how completely stiff-upper-lip Jason is about all this pushes this into the realm of “funny” as opposed to “OMG Ruth just committed an actual felony” for me.
Yeah, the deadpan manages to tip it over into Comedy Rules and not Drama Rules.
I mean still, what the FUCK Ruth, and the fact that she’s still so matter-of-fact about it come morning is also deeply concerning, but the ‘don’t worry, it’s not a sex thing, he’s my hostage’ is just too hilarious to stay horrifying.
I honestly can’t tell if Ruth thinks people would be more concerned about her having handcuff sex with Jason than with her kidnapping him, or if Ruth is assuring everyone that she didn’t rape Jason. Neither are good.
Or that he raped her while she was (implied by the bar and walking her home even though they didn’t see her) drunk, I suppose, and then she proceeded to handcuff him to the door.
I have… SO many questions here. And none of the answers are good.
Not a chance that’s what happened.
Oh, absolutely not. My questions are that Ruth apparently deems ‘hostage’ completely Not Alarming this morning, now that she’s almost certainly sober.
Obviously he handcuffed him to the door AFTER the consensual sex.
Maybe he hand consensual sex with his hand but his hand is into some really kinky stuff, luckily Ruth had handcuffs to volunteer because Jason’s hand has been very bad and needs to be punished.
Righty is into wholesome junk like handholding and heavy petting.
Lefty is into spanking and hair pulling.
Awwww, poor Righty, doesn’t even get to be handheld by the handcuff!
Yeah, it’s like Krusty said, for the pie gag to work, you have to have dignity.
I mean we don’t know what led to the hostage taking.
It may have been a completely rational response to circumstances.
I think Ruth was just drunk and has abandonment issues which helps create a funny joke to justify the Jason stayed the night misdirection.
i know jason is strict about underage drinking but he might get a screwdriver now if he offered someone a screwdriver later
Only one of these however, should ever be borrowed.
https://imgur.com/a/S7UxCoB
Slightly different than usual it’s Walkyverse Joyce and Walky. I’m mad at myself from missing commenting on one of my favorite comics. Let’s just say certain Joyce and Walky’s really inspire how I lewd these characters. 😛
Very cute!
You are a saint.
I’m definitely a sinner, but thanks <3
I think that means you just fit in well here.
Woah, you really outdid your self with this one. The art all looks so clean; not in a figurative sense of course!
Great job!
Hehe it’s still messy. Though I do think there is a difference between me copying Joyce & Walky Joyce instead of DOA Joyce. Who knows.
Interestingly enough, this looks alot like the quasi-manga-inspired style that Willis used in 2008.
Fitting since My style is VERY quasi-manga. I said it earlier but I take a lot of my stylistic flair from Dragonball. (and a bit from Scott Pilgrim)
See the real problem with the main cast getting kidnapped by Blaine and Toedad wasn’t the crime part, it was that they used duct tape instead of springing for handcuffs.
Blaine was in the mafia. A professional has to have standards.
Nothing about Blaine was professional
Blaine had a brief moment of Connection to the Walkyverse, where duct tape was a psychological trigger for abductees that their superstrength couldn’t fight against. Since he was targeting Joyce in this process (someone publicly enough known as an abductee that even some hack mobster in California might recognize her,) his subconscious awareness told him duct tape was the way to go (especially since he ended up getting several other abductee hostages in the process.)
Of course, how would some hack mobster who to our knowledge never actually met an abductee know about their weakness? Who could facilitate such a connection? As always, the answer is simple.
Dexter is a patient, patient alien.
HOSTAGE FOR WHAT???
I don’t know, ransom him back to his rich-ass father?
“The boy dropped out of school – let America have him.” – Jason’s dad
I mean, that’s how Canadians (Rafael Cruz), Australians (Rupert Murdoch), and Indians (Dinesh D’Souza) react when we want their scummy trash out of this country, so . . .
(before anyone misinterprets this, I only mean the people specifically named within those parentheses)
I’d really, really like to think that Ruth of all people would have a deep and abiding issue with the idea of selling someone back into the ‘care’ of the abusive authority figure they’re trying to escape.
But that’s just me, apparently.
…not to sound overdramatic, or anything.
=P
[to the song of Turn Up For What]
Yeah, that’s a question. Hostage has a meaning beyond “guy I’ve got handcuffed” and no one seems to be questioning that.
I don’t think it’s even commonly used in kidnapping for ransom cases
in any case, “hostage” implies demands made to a third party in exchange for their release.
what demands?
what third party???
Subscribe to Patreon or we shoot this bartender.
yes! that’s exactly what the bonus strip is doing up there, it’s very persuasive.
…and by “exactly” i mean, “if you squint really hard while high”
You remain a hostage to Ruth, Jason, sorry.
But you could MAKE one!
That is, one day in the very distant future, when your hands are free.
I am wondering what’s going through Sal’s mind right now. (Especially after she sort of dismissed his request for a screwdriver, rather than offering to track one down.)
Is she still annoyed at Jason over his bad job as a TA? (I thought she had sort of gotten passed that, after he willingly quit rather than rat her out.) Is she exhibiting some sort of jealousy? (Maybe its a case of opposites attract, and she actually has some sort of attraction to him.)
I mean the whole, “trade sex for grades” things is perfectly reasonable for forever poisoning a relationship.
I am not saying that “trading sex for grades” is a moral thing to do, and if Jason had forced Sal into the relationship on that premise, Sal would be right to dislike him.
But, she did sort of make the first move, and their initial reaction seemed to be less about “sex for grades” and more about just sexual release. And she was comfortable enough with him later to let him walk her back to her room after she had been drinking.
There was definitely some disagreement on the premise of that relationship.
it wasn’t a misunderstanding though. Sal was pretty explicit from the get-go that she was doing it (at least in part) for grades.
arguably that option was always in the back of her mind from when she first talked to Jason and he drooled all over her
Unfortunately, Sal underestimated how dense Jason was and arrogant about his appeal he was.
That’s an interesting definition of explicit. Seems pretty clearly implicit to me.
I don’t see how you can read the strip I linked to and say there was no misunderstanding.
i’m sure i lack imagination, but i can’t see what else Sal could’ve meant, in the context of having just spent several hours trying to absorb the course material, by:
“ya said it yerself— efforts don’t matter, ah’m only bein’ judged against my marks”
i do however have another interpretation for Jason’s attitude in the strip you linked to besides “having misunderstood”, namely bad faith.
but of course it’s very possible that he genuinely didn’t pay attention to what Sal was saying as she climbed into his lap. which, ok, that does make it a misunderstanding.
still, it feels weird to me. like, does he not realize the power he holds? at that point he knows Sal is failing his class, and he knows she’s very motivated not to fail it, so…
but eh, whatever, i understand this has been hotly debated before, i doubt i have anything fresh to contribute
That read to me as giving up, and just satisfying an immediate need she had, because the tutoring wasn’t getting anywhere and there was a body there she was not unattracted to.
I mean I’m obviously not Jason, but I didn’t realize she was expecting a grade bump from sleeping with him from that the first time I read it. I thought she was just done.
But if we’re talking about things explicitly said, the strip I linked to is much more explicitly stated, and what Sal said when she jumped on Jason is more implicit than explicit.
yes it was implicit, you’re right. i didn’t express myself very carefully because it seemed so obvious to me that the question of whether it was a literal explicit agreement felt unimportant.
i guess it’s a tribute to Willis’s writing that, as is so often true in real situations, two witnesses to the same scene will come away with very different reads…
Jason understood exactly what she meant. In the slipshine of them screwing, his response to her statement was ‘That is not what I meant and you know it.’
oh good point, i didn’t even think of checking it. maybe the fact that i’ve read it skewed my interpretation, now that you mention it. yes, it definitely sounds like Jason understood her perfectly.
however, her response is:
“yup, ah do. ah’m totally misrepresentin’ yer words. y’got me.”
so, that could also be read as playful banter?
but then Jason says “this is unethical in a staggering number of ways!” and Sal replies “Yeah!” and smiles at him waiting for him to make a move (there’s a silent panel before he kisses her).
so, that could again be argued to imply that he’s now agreeing to her terms?
also, i think i’d argue that slipshines (and bonus strips, and surely there’s book-only content as well?) shouldn’t, um, “count” in these sorts of discussions, because the only text that is common to all commenters here is the regular strip.
You do mean “sexual release” in the general sense, not referring to “sexual tensions”, right?
o3o Y’know that’s for sure something the Walkerton twins have in common. An increase in good grades after a hook up.
I want to note that sexy times handcuffs aren’t actually made to restrain anyone, they can be opened without a key. That’s how you know Ruthless is really holding Jason hostage.
I mean, some of them are. Some of ’em ain’t.
To be fair maybe she coudln’t afford sexytime handcuffs and bought toy ones, which are easier to find and also…for some reason DO need a key (I know cuz I handcuffed myself to my mom once haha…)
One advantage of my childhood was all that time in pawnshops led to me having a set of real handcuffs as a toy, not any of that plastic kids crap. (solid steel, riveted, two keys, no fakey button release, and painful af if cranked down)
I also want to note that even regular handcuffs can be opened without a key fairly easily. A lockpicking seminar I went to used handcuffs as beginner feelgood locks for the first things people can pick, because they’re so easy and also really rewarding.
I’m not quite sure I understand Sal’s mindset here.
Should she feel like Jason abused his position over her? Normally I would say that would be the case, but she did initiate the first encounter herself (not that he resisted like he absolutely should have. Had she been my student I would have kicked her out of my office immediately and reported the behavior to be proactive.)
What’s worse, Sal apparently expected her actions to grant her good grades, when apparently Jason has just a modicum of integrity to him to actively ensure that he not grade any assignments of the student he currently was sleeping with. I’m assuming her problem with him is that she expected that he was simply abusing his position to trade sex for grades and did not hold up his end of the unspoken bargain when he foolishly thought of it as it as an unwise and forbidden relationship instead.
I mean, he was still an asshole but she was hardly innocent in this case. He did not extort her for sex. She jumped on top of him and expected to be rewarded, making her kind of an asshole too (though less of one, under the circumstances. I really cannot abide any instructor sleeping with any of their students.)
He was also just a really bad tutor to her and it’s possible there’s still some lingering resentment there. Her actual improvement in class had nothing to do with him, and already having enjoyed rubbing that in his face that’s enough reason for me to not question her not wanting to help him out per se.
Yeah, her attempt to leverage sex for grades was after she came to him for help and he said ‘drop the class,’ among other snap judgments on his part, and after his very ineffective tutoring. There was a definite hate sex aspect to their hookups. Sal just plain does not like the guy, and never has.
And after his initial completely inappropriate reaction to her approaching him.
That said, there was definitely an attraction there, messed up though it was.
Agreed. Thus the hate sex, because they each find the other hot, but also Completely Insufferable.
From the first Mad Max movie:
“It will take you five minutes to saw through the handcuff. It’ll take 30 seconds to saw through your wrist.” /lights the car that he’s handcuffed to on fire.
Ok, ankle not wrist. Same idea though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2x8RhadlpA
I don’t even think that’s true. The trick is you just saw through the links on the chain. You don’t even have to saw through the whole link. Once you saw through the metal you can just yank the chain apart.
I mean it’s almost certainly not true, but that’s not the point of Mad Max.
Fortunately for Jason, he’s not living in a Mad Max movie. At least, I hope he’s not.
Unfortunately, he’s living in a Dumbing of Age web comic.
LockPickingLawyer could have those cuffs open in five, maybe seven seconds.
Jason, I don’t know what is going on in your head but what makes you think that Sal would randomly be carrying around a screwdriver?
To be fair he’s in a dorm, it’s not a stretch to assume her room is nearby, I don’t think the assumption is that she has one on her person, but rather in her room.
Whether or not that’s a reasonable assumption is another matter. Are screwdrivers useful in motorcycle maintenance? I’m almost certain he knows she has a motorcycle. Maybe he doesn’t know either and is assuming based on that. Or playing a long shot.
*had a motorcycle.
yep he does know that
Sal can sure hold a grudge over Jason’s lousy tutoring. /s
Yes, exactly what you just said but without being sarcastic
I should have taken the “/s”. I did mean that. 😩
Wait where did she get those cuffs?-
Actually i don’t think i wanna know
Anyone else get really invasive ads here today?
Do you mean pop ups or really targeted ads?
not pop ups, but covering everything but the comic and comments, and it is the tony hawk pro skater one
Just the skateboard video playing above the comic. It looks like the whole page is an ad for that video game. It doesn’t come off well on my screen though.
On THIS site? No. S*P and PvP have the really invasive ones, these days.
The only ad problem I have here is that something makes the whole page lurch downward when my tablet is near the bottom, so I have to chase the reply box. (And that could just be because the thing’s getting old.)
Report it to hiveworks and they’ll take care of it.
Sal looks at Jason very intensely. That guy will newer be forgiven for what he has done. But maybe (and I repeat, MAYBE) even if I think it’s more probable she’s just feeling lonely and Jason is right here, handcuffs and vulnerable, maybe Sal is really attracted by him?!
Wrong take, Jason. You should have waited for Sal to decide on your new haircut before asking for help.
I wonder how many times Lucy will here the “Does Walky know” line.
I like how multiple people have now responded to hearing Lucy has a boyfriend with “Does Walky know?”
It’s really gonna break her heart when Walky asks it.
“Hey, everyone! I have a husband now!”
“Does Walky know?”
“It is Walky!”
“Does Walky know?”
Walky: Wait, is that what that was?
Sorry, Jason. No means no.
Kinda want Jason to have the handcuffs on for a long-ass time like Jin in the first season of Lost
Sal: Ah finally gotcha raight where I wantcha. Now you gotta stand there and litsten ta EXACTLY what ah think a’you!
*two minutes later*
Ruth: Well, that was eas – HEY!! NO MAKING OUT WITH MY BIRTHDAY HOSTAGE!! IN MY ROOM!!!
…crap, I only noticed in today’s page that she was wearing some fabric on her hair. the joy of colourblindness ?
Sal: “Sure, but I’m not sure how a mixed drink will help in this situation.”
They’re going to have sex in Ruth’s room, aren’t they…
On the plus side, I don’t think Galasso would even react if Jason came into work still handcuffed to the door after ripping it off the hinges.