|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 6, 2015 23:07:02 GMT
Annie being pushed back a year because of cheating is not abuse. So, any quotes suggesting that holding her back and only holding her back is abuse? Is that really necessary? I didn't claim people were saying so, I just said it's not abuse. I'm just trying to separate intertwined issues here, not put words in anyone's mouth. I do try my best to be fair in discussion and concede when I'm wrong, but I also try to express my concerns even if they go against the grain. Even if it might not be abuse, it is easy to clump it into the whole "abusive" treatment by Tony, and rightfully so. It's not any one of his actions, it's the whole brunt of everything he's done that's making Annie suffer. On its own, holding her back a grade wouldn't be so bad if not coupled with all the other consequences. If Annie was truly being abused, she could run away to be with the Donlans. That's what abused kids do, they run away or they self-harm, up to trying suicide. Which, Annie is harming herself, but she does have other options. It seems the situation is not bad enough to pursue them. True, but aren't some victims of legit abuse known to sometimes think they deserve it, especially if it's from a family member with authority? Yeah, but there are some mitigating factors in this situation. I've already outlined them. I've also conceded that it's a matter of degrees. It doesn't mean it's not abusive, if it's not "bad enough" to be on the extreme end of the abuse spectrum. But I dislike everyone reacting as if this truly is a situation from that extreme end of the abuse spectrum. It felt disrespectful and I felt I had to speak up. I just really wish there'd be more understanding and less stone-throwing around. Discussions can greatly benefit if people choose not to be so evasive and respond to a particular point the first time. As I told Refugee before in a PM, it's like you have to post sometimes countless times before someone finally "notices" it. By which I mean hassling someone until they stop dodging a comment and respond. Afterall, the best way to shut someone up isn't to bully or belittle them (all critics of Anthony are wrong), but to do a thorough rebuttal to each particular argument. I am not evasive nor am I dodging anything. I try my best to be fair in discussion. It is a complex, heavy and difficult subject. It is hard to articulate everything even when you're sure, and being absolutely sure in matters like these is not wise. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Aug 6, 2015 23:19:26 GMT
Is that really necessary? I didn't claim people were saying so, I just said it's not abuse. I'm just trying to separate intertwined issues here, not put words in anyone's mouth. I do try my best to be fair in discussion and concede when I'm wrong, but I also try to express my concerns even if they go against the grain. Even if it might not be abuse, it is easy to clump it into the whole "abusive" treatment by Tony, and rightfully so. It's not any one of his actions, it's the whole brunt of everything he's done that's making Annie suffer. On its own, holding her back a grade wouldn't be so bad if not coupled with all the other consequences. It's just that while there's been much disagreement, Annie needing to be punished for cheating is arguably one thing that's been agreed upon. And that's fair, but sometimes abuse can be serious, while subtle. A factor which sometimes keeps parents actually guilty of the offense from being identified. My apologies. You're not the one I'm accusing to be evasive. It's merely me commenting that one reason for things getting tense is that posters who flat out think Anthony is in the right or choose to defend him have yet to respond to certain points which arguably diminish the character's credibility, while still choosing to insist they're right. I mean I can understand not responding right away, or even the first couple times, but after a while, if one wants to claim to be right, they need to be willing to lay all the cards down. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 6, 2015 23:34:06 GMT
It's just that while there's been much disagreement, Annie needing to be punished for cheating is arguably one thing that's been agreed upon. To be honest, the discussion moves so fast that it's easy to miss something. I also don't always follow the entire thread because there's simply not enough time in a day. So I've kind of missed this agreement, but it was also me thinking out loud to myself, not an accusation levied at any side of the discussion. It doesn't mean it's not abusive, if it's not "bad enough" to be on the extreme end of the abuse spectrum. But I dislike everyone reacting as if this truly is a situation from that extreme end of the abuse spectrum. It felt disrespectful and I felt I had to speak up. And that's fair, but sometimes abuse can be serious, while subtle. A factor which sometimes keeps parents actually guilty of the offense from being identified. A fair point, one I will concede. Still, because of other factors, I don't think that is the case in Annie's situation. At least not from what we've been allowed to learn. I am not evasive nor am I dodging anything. I try my best to be fair in discussion. It is a complex, heavy and difficult subject. It is hard to articulate everything even when you're sure, and being absolutely sure in matters like these is not wise. My apologies. You're not the one I'm accusing to be evasive. It's merely me commenting that one reason for things getting tense is that posters who flat out think Anthony is in the right or choose to defend him have yet to respond to certain points which arguably diminish the character's credibility, while still choosing to insist they're right. Thank you. Please try to take into account how difficult it is to articulate a point which goes against the grain. Everyone else has the moral high ground, majority support and the confidence of being in the right. Speaking up constructively in the face of that is really hard. First you have to flail inarticulately and then you eventually hammer your points into something resembling sense. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Aug 7, 2015 1:15:40 GMT
My original comment was made with the intent to call out the lines culture is willing to muddle in order to ignore suffering. We see a person with a backstory and suddenly give them a pass for terrible and inexcusable behavior instead of recognizing that people who do bad things can be people.
We can see terrible things being done to children and turn our heads away and make excuses incredibly easily, and said children can continue to suffer for years, because there are adults all around them who continue to make excuses for the parents or authority figures mistreating them, giving them leeway because they have their own problems, countless rationalizations that only serve to enable more harm to come to the child in question. Anthony's behavior is abusive. The situation Antimony is in within the story is abusive. The severity of it isn't important to distinguishing whether it is abusive or not. I have seen several children in similar situations who recieved no help, were never believed when they claimed the situation was bad, and were even ignored because it did not match up to the impossible standards culture and society have set up for defining 'abuse' as. People can be abusive even if they have reasons, even if it's by mistake or on accident, even if they can make excuses for themselves, and even if they do love the person they are abusing. The act of abuse is not hinged upon intent, but the behaviors themselves. An abusive person can cease their behavior and no longer be abusive, but that does not undo their previous abusive behavior and make it never have been abusive to begin with. Abuse can be physical, psychological, emotional, and even the result of no ill-will on the part of the abuser themselves. It can come from anywhere, take many forms, and should never be taken lightly or ignored.
Picking and choosing what does and does not count as abuse is an incredibly dangerous road to go down and has, in my experience, led to nothing but suffering and tragedy. A story which portrays a form of abuse in a realistic manner (regardless of the realism inherent in the setting) is engaging in an important cultural discussion that can be very easily derailed, misinterpreted, or used in a harmful way. The way the story is presenting this is like a personality test for the audience. We are presented with a horrible situation, with emotionally involved and damaging behavior, and the audience is given the opportunity to react to what they see with the context they bring to the table. It is in my opinion that any form of behavior that results in disproportionate emotional harm on a subject should be adressed as doing so, and in cases where there is no attempt on the party inflicting said emotional harm to alleviate said damage they should be held responsible for their actions and should apologize before being forgiven. The behavior on display is, unquestionably, wrong and damaging, and it can unfortunately be quite easy to ignore that fact when presented with context for the root of the behavior. The context, however, does not undermine or diminish the impact of said damaging behavior. I simply felt it important to keep that in mind.
It is a sensitive subject on all fronts, and while brevity is the soul of wit, it was likely not the appropriate avenue for such a serious issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by justcurious on Aug 7, 2015 1:43:24 GMT
One thing that should be noted is that Tony is wallowing in guilt because he had exaggerated expectations of himself. And he has not apparently revised his estimate of his capabilities. His guilt protects him from having to lower his estimate of his capabilities.
And he expects others to judge him by his standards. That is, he expects them to agree with his estimate of his capabilities.
I think he sees failure as only due to lack of ability or lack of effort. And I think he is judging others, especially Annie, by these harmful inappropriate standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 7, 2015 1:53:29 GMT
My original comment was made with the intent to call out the lines culture is willing to muddle in order to ignore suffering. We see a person with a backstory and suddenly give them a pass for terrible and inexcusable behavior instead of recognizing that people who do bad things can be people. I'm not giving Tony a pass for anything. It's up to him to redeem himself through action. The backstory is just something that shows that redemption might be possible, down the road. We can see terrible things being done to children and turn our heads away and make excuses incredibly easily, and said children can continue to suffer for years, because there are adults all around them who continue to make excuses for the parents or authority figures mistreating them, giving them leeway because they have their own problems, countless rationalizations that only serve to enable more harm to come to the child in question. Anthony's behavior is abusive. The situation Antimony is in within the story is abusive. The severity of it isn't important to distinguishing whether it is abusive or not. You are free to think so, but I have to disagree. To insist that Annie's situation is the same as severe abuse is inconsiderate and disrespectful. That said, it's one thing to try and ascertain degrees of abuse in a discussion about a fictional story, and another thing entirely to equivocate when a real child's well-being might be in danger. Of course it is better for someone to step in, for the child to receive help, no matter how "small" the issue. Even with Annie, nobody here is saying that she doesn't need help. We are all on the edges of our seats, impatient for something to happen for the better. Cheering Donald on, hoping for others to intervene. I have seen several children in similar situations who recieved no help, were never believed when they claimed the situation was bad, and were even ignored because it did not match up to the impossible standards culture and society have set up for defining 'abuse' as. People can be abusive even if they have reasons, even if it's by mistake or on accident, even if they can make excuses for themselves, and even if they do love the person they are abusing. The act of abuse is not hinged upon intent, but the behaviors themselves. An abusive person can cease their behavior and no longer be abusive, but that does not undo their previous abusive behavior and make it never have been abusive to begin with. Abuse can be physical, psychological, emotional, and even the result of no ill-will on the part of the abuser themselves. It can come from anywhere, take many forms, and should never be taken lightly or ignored. Picking and choosing what does and does not count as abuse is an incredibly dangerous road to go down and has, in my experience, led to nothing but suffering and tragedy. A story which portrays a form of abuse in a realistic manner (regardless of the realism inherent in the setting) is engaging in an important cultural discussion that can be very easily derailed, misinterpreted, or used in a harmful way. The way the story is presenting this is like a personality test for the audience. We are presented with a horrible situation, with emotionally involved and damaging behavior, and the audience is given the opportunity to react to what they see with the context they bring to the table. It is in my opinion that any form of behavior that results in disproportionate emotional harm on a subject should be adressed as doing so, and in cases where there is no attempt on the party inflicting said emotional harm to alleviate said damage they should be held responsible for their actions and should apologize before being forgiven. The behavior on display is, unquestionably, wrong and damaging, and it can unfortunately be quite easy to ignore that fact when presented with context for the root of the behavior. The context, however, does not undermine or diminish the impact of said damaging behavior. I simply felt it important to keep that in mind. It is a sensitive subject on all fronts, and while brevity is the soul of wit, it was likely not the appropriate avenue for such a serious issue. There are complexities and degrees of severity in this subject, you've outlined them yourself. Trying to simplify it to some easy target or solution is unwise and does a disservice to the complex issue. It is not all the same, observably and objectively it isn't. However, I do appreciate your eloquent and polite way of stating your view. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Aug 7, 2015 2:29:56 GMT
My original comment was made with the intent to call out the lines culture is willing to muddle in order to ignore suffering. We see a person with a backstory and suddenly give them a pass for terrible and inexcusable behavior instead of recognizing that people who do bad things can be people. I'm not giving Tony a pass for anything. It's up to him to redeem himself through action. The backstory is just something that shows that redemption might be possible, down the road. I apologize, it was not my intention to claim so. It was an admittedly contextless and general statement meant to provide rationale for my previous post, and the use of the general 'we' was certainly a problematic one. We can see terrible things being done to children and turn our heads away and make excuses incredibly easily, and said children can continue to suffer for years, because there are adults all around them who continue to make excuses for the parents or authority figures mistreating them, giving them leeway because they have their own problems, countless rationalizations that only serve to enable more harm to come to the child in question. Anthony's behavior is abusive. The situation Antimony is in within the story is abusive. The severity of it isn't important to distinguishing whether it is abusive or not. You are free to think so, but I have to disagree. To insist that Annie's situation is the same as severe abuse is inconsiderate and disrespectful. That said, it's one thing to try and ascertain degrees of abuse in a discussion about a fictional story, and another thing entirely to equivocate when a real child's well-being might be in danger. Of course it is better for someone to step in, for the child to receive help, no matter how "small" the issue. Even with Annie, nobody here is saying that she doesn't need help. We are all on the edges of our seats, impatient for something to happen for the better. Cheering Donald on, hoping for others to intervene. It isn't the same as severe abuse, certainly, but it does fall beneath the umbrella on the abusive spectrum. My point was that the severity of the action doesn't undermine its categorization. A less abrasive form of abuse is still capable of being categorized as abuse, is what I meant. On the subject of fictionality, I find that media is often more important in developing opinion and worldview than many like to think. Film and television help color our perception of the world in a great many ways, and I find that when an audience is capable of making a judgement in a fictional context then that judgement becomes slightly (if not significantly) easier to make in a real-world context as well. I find the perspective we take in our fiction to be rather important as it often informs our perceptions of reality and is often molded by said real-world perceptions to begin with. In that way, I would say that how we handle such an issue in a fictional setting can have a lot to say as to how we might handle such a situation in a real-world setting, as our opinions and viewpoints are quite inclusive when it comes to who we admonish and who we forgive in that fictional context. I've heard a great many of the justifications for Anthony's behavior that I've read over the last few months in real-life situations where it was used to help prolong the damaging circumstances and the level of discomfort that gives me is pronounced. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 7, 2015 2:30:23 GMT
Another reason just occurred to me, why I'm so opposed to this witch hunt. Because in real life, it can lead to this kind of thing on the opposite side of the spectrum: www.imdb.com/title/tt2106476/ Basically, because of a stupid misunderstanding, a teacher is reviled and hunted down as an abuser. This is a subject that should definitely be approached with caution. People are easily riled up when it comes to the well-being of children. I think they are generally quicker to come to a child's aid than check the whole story. Which is usually warranted, and probably for the best. Children are defenseless, vulnerable and incapable of helping themselves. Unlike an adult, they are incapable of changing their situation. Adults have so many more options open to them, even if they find themselves wrongfully accused. If nothing else, they can at least articulate their situation and defend themselves. They can move to a different place. A child can't do any of that. That said, witch hunts are still wrong. Hate mobs are wrong. Exaggerated outrage is wrong. So is abuse. Both are extreme bad things on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Everything in between is a jungle of complex interactions and various shades of grey, more often ugly than not. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 7, 2015 3:10:41 GMT
I'm not giving Tony a pass for anything. It's up to him to redeem himself through action. The backstory is just something that shows that redemption might be possible, down the road. I apologize, it was not my intention to claim so. It was an admittedly contextless and general statement meant to provide rationale for my previous post, and the use of the general 'we' was certainly a problematic one. It's okay, I understood that you meant it in a general sense. I just had to clarify my stance, as one of the people who were on the opposing side of the discussion. You are free to think so, but I have to disagree. To insist that Annie's situation is the same as severe abuse is inconsiderate and disrespectful. That said, it's one thing to try and ascertain degrees of abuse in a discussion about a fictional story, and another thing entirely to equivocate when a real child's well-being might be in danger. Of course it is better for someone to step in, for the child to receive help, no matter how "small" the issue. Even with Annie, nobody here is saying that she doesn't need help. We are all on the edges of our seats, impatient for something to happen for the better. Cheering Donald on, hoping for others to intervene. It isn't the same as severe abuse, certainly, but it does fall beneath the umbrella on the abusive spectrum. My point was that the severity of the action doesn't undermine its categorization. A less abrasive form of abuse is still capable of being categorized as abuse, is what I meant. You are right, it is in some ways abusive, even if not severely. I later also agreed with this. It took me a bit of flailing to properly articulate my point.  At first I only had my own outrage and sense of hurt, and those don't exactly promote clarity of thought. I also had an uphill battle considering the general view of the forum. But hey, as a result of all that flailing, we've discovered another level of complexity that should be taken into account. A deeper understanding was reached, I hope. On the subject of fictionality, I find that media is often more important in developing opinion and worldview than many like to think. Film and television help color our perception of the world in a great many ways, and I find that when an audience is capable of making a judgement in a fictional context then that judgement becomes slightly (if not significantly) easier to make in a real-world context as well. I find the perspective we take in our fiction to be rather important as it often informs our perceptions of reality and is often molded by said real-world perceptions to begin with. In that way, I would say that how we handle such an issue in a fictional setting can have a lot to say as to how we might handle such a situation in a real-world setting, as our opinions and viewpoints are quite inclusive when it comes to who we admonish and who we forgive in that fictional context. See, I consider the Internet to have that educational and influential role nowadays. Whole generations of children are growing up online. That's why I consider it important to speak up when I see a witch hunt forming around exaggerated emotions. People should grow awareness of when they're giving into thoughtless impulse. They should learn to stop themselves, to think before giving into a knee-jerk response. Internet mobs form all too easily, which is ridiculously sad, considering how advanced our civilization and culture is supposed to be. Apparently we care nothing about developing self-awareness and being in charge of our emotions. There's the added factor of apparent anonymity that makes it easier for people to think they can act without consequences. Personally, I try not to do or say anything online that I would hate seeing by my full name on the evening news. I do my best to take responsibility and stand behind my online activities. To me, online is as relevant and important as 'real life'. So yes, I also consider this conversation important, even if it is about fictional characters in a fictional world. Internet witch hunts have caused harm to people in real life. And they form innocuously, around exaggerated emotions and misunderstandings that quickly blow out of proportion. Calling for moderation and thoughtfulness on a heated issue is something I just had to do, given my negative experiences with such things. Through life, I've experienced it online as well as in real life; causing consequences on a scale from protests to actual full-blown wars. I've heard a great many of the justifications for Anthony's behavior that I've read over the last few months in real-life situations where it was used to help prolong the damaging circumstances and the level of discomfort that gives me is pronounced. As you so aptly put it, we all bring our own contexts to the discussion. Yours is an important one. I just have to caution that it's not the only truth. Many of these perspectives, even the clashing ones, are just different facets of the whole truth. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Aug 7, 2015 4:07:07 GMT
This has probably (already) been one of the most rewarding discussions I've had on the Internet, I feel inclined to note. I'm not sure if that speaks to inadequacies of my own to engage in a discussion well enough or to your ability to do so quite well.
Emotion is one of the difficult factors that always comes into play in nearly any conversation, especially when it comes from previous experience. I can surely say that being able to keep one's head is a very useful skill to have, one that can be quite difficult when dealing with deeply rooted traumas that resurface when sore spots are rubbed against and protective/defensive instincts come into play. The difficult thing is that in plenty of cases anger is the one way many people were able to get out of unhealthy and toxic relationships, so levelheadedness can feel like a call to enable. It's not unusual to see people looking at situations as presented in this comic and bring their own baggage into the scenario, certainly. There's a level of protectiveness similar to that of a parental figure, but also an underlying sense of one's own victimhood that resurfaces as well, which helps color perception. Many of the more angry responses in cases like these (and I know from talking to several) are from people who made the same excuses Annie makes for her father in their own horrible situations and they feel heartbroken watching a representation of such a tragic scenario and being reminded of their own pain and how they were once unwilling to break themselves out of it and see it in a light that eventually helped them escape. There's a harsh balancing act wherein one is supposed to gauge whether it's better to break all ties completely for one's own mental health and when to allow for the abusive party to fix their mistakes and work towards self-improvement. I usually feel less inclined to do the latter as it was often a promise made that was never fulfilled, and that has all its own layers of issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by mishyana on Aug 7, 2015 4:14:19 GMT
I'll be honest, I get pissed off when people call Tony abusive. Don't you think that it's a bit offensive to people who might've gone through actual parental abuse? He's not gonna be winning "parent of the year" and his behavior has caused Annie pain and anguish, yeah. Abuse is when you're afraid of your parent because of how they act towards you. When you have to look over your shoulder for fear of what they're going to do next. When you have no trust left in them or the world around you that everything will somehow be alright. Abuse makes you feel like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEz5il1SyhcI just think it's really inconsiderate and shows a grave lack of perspective. I genuinely mean no offense to you or whatever your experiences have been, but the Oppression Olympics argument does not hold water with me. Your argument is the Gunnerkrigg Court equivalent of every dudebro gamergater saying that we can't talk about feminism in the West because women have it worse elsewhere. Your own experiences with abuse do not invalidate the abuse of others as seen through the prism of a fictional character, no matter whatever subjective degree to which you think your abuse was worse. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Aug 7, 2015 4:43:16 GMT
My original comment was made with the intent to call out the lines culture is willing to muddle in order to ignore suffering. We see a person with a backstory and suddenly give them a pass for terrible and inexcusable behavior instead of recognizing that people who do bad things can be people. Not to mention: 1. Between losing her mom and being abandoned by her father, the same rationalizations can be applied to her. Yet Tony defenders tend to adopt the mentality that a child/teen who does wrong deserves any punishment, even when it's disproportionate to the offense (i.e. holding her back is fair, but forcing her to live in a large room by herself is overdoing it). 2. Incidentally, one problem Tony and Annie shares is their grief over losing Surma. But in Annie's case, she had no control over whether she was born, whereas Anthony did. Now Annie can be held accountable for her cheating and deserves reasonable punishment, but she is blameless on both her mom's death, and Tony ditching her. Tony on the other hand could have made it so that he couldn't procreate, yet chose to do something he knew would cause Surma's death. And I can understand them hoping to have a child and finding a way to save the mom, but Tony was flat out unwilling to consider he was wrong until it was too late. Overall, they both have a shared grief over Surma's death. But Annie had no choice to decline being born, while with Tony it's a case of self-inflicted tragedy. 3. Heck, even with Annie having the ego and unsavory traits of her parents, she's actually able to admit at times when she steps out of line. And as Refugee pointed out she seeks to make amends towards people like Mort or Reynard if she hurts them. At the end of the day, one doesn't need to be perfect, but they sure as Hell need to make the effort to right their wrongs, and so far we have yet to see Anthony doing the same. And well, if we can expect our youth to take responsibility for their failings, we don't need to hold the hand of an adult who had decades to mature. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 7, 2015 7:45:42 GMT
This has probably (already) been one of the most rewarding discussions I've had on the Internet, I feel inclined to note. I'm not sure if that speaks to inadequacies of my own to engage in a discussion well enough or to your ability to do so quite well. Thank you for the compliment. I was terrified for the most part. It is a big exposure to reveal private stuff while simultaneously engaging in a viewpoint opposing the majority. It's a vulnerable position. So it was reassuring to see that the discussion can be civil and insightful, even if heated. Thank you for contributing to that. Emotion is one of the difficult factors that always comes into play in nearly any conversation, especially when it comes from previous experience. I can surely say that being able to keep one's head is a very useful skill to have, one that can be quite difficult when dealing with deeply rooted traumas that resurface when sore spots are rubbed against and protective/defensive instincts come into play. The difficult thing is that in plenty of cases anger is the one way many people were able to get out of unhealthy and toxic relationships, so levelheadedness can feel like a call to enable. Levelheadedness can also be a symptom of PTSD. An eerie calm. To me it means being able to think before acting, and choosing the most effective and beneficial course of action; instead of being buffeted this or that way on the winds of my emotions. Anger or arguing didn't work at all. Only stubborn passive-aggressive insistence worked for me. I would be calm and bide my time. That's how I got out. The parallels with Annie's displaced anger are interesting in this context. It's not unusual to see people looking at situations as presented in this comic and bring their own baggage into the scenario, certainly. That's what anyone's starting point will necessarily be, but it doesn't mean it can't evolve with more understanding. I've allowed for my view to be reshaped and modified through the discussion. There's a level of protectiveness similar to that of a parental figure, but also an underlying sense of one's own victimhood that resurfaces as well, which helps color perception. Many of the more angry responses in cases like these (and I know from talking to several) are from people who made the same excuses Annie makes for her father in their own horrible situations and they feel heartbroken watching a representation of such a tragic scenario and being reminded of their own pain and how they were once unwilling to break themselves out of it and see it in a light that eventually helped them escape. There's a harsh balancing act wherein one is supposed to gauge whether it's better to break all ties completely for one's own mental health and when to allow for the abusive party to fix their mistakes and work towards self-improvement. I usually feel less inclined to do the latter as it was often a promise made that was never fulfilled, and that has all its own layers of issues. Ugh, it's hard to respond to these observations without oversharing, and I'm already uncomfortable with how much I've revealed. I was shaken out of my sense of victimhood early on. I never made excuses for my parents, I mistrust authority figures to this day, and I always wanted to escape. I guess that's why my responses are different. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 7, 2015 7:49:48 GMT
I genuinely mean no offense to you or whatever your experiences have been, but the Oppression Olympics argument does not hold water with me. Your argument is the Gunnerkrigg Court equivalent of every dudebro gamergater saying that we can't talk about feminism in the West because women have it worse elsewhere. Your own experiences with abuse do not invalidate the abuse of others as seen through the prism of a fictional character, no matter whatever subjective degree to which you think your abuse was worse. You're disregarding all the subtlety and complexity of the previous discussion to attack a straw-man. Have fun with that. You're not interested in a discussion, you just want to reaffirm your preexisting views. I'm not inclined to engage. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Aug 7, 2015 8:03:27 GMT
I genuinely mean no offense to you or whatever your experiences have been, but the Oppression Olympics argument does not hold water with me. Your argument is the Gunnerkrigg Court equivalent of every dudebro gamergater saying that we can't talk about feminism in the West because women have it worse elsewhere. Your own experiences with abuse do not invalidate the abuse of others as seen through the prism of a fictional character, no matter whatever subjective degree to which you think your abuse was worse. You're disregarding all the subtlety and complexity of the previous discussion to attack a straw-man. Have fun with that. You're not interested in a discussion, you just want to reaffirm your preexisting views. I'm not inclined to engage. I was reading through the discussion and have to agree with you about the amount of straw men that are being built here. Saying that Tony has some reasons for what he is doing after all, other than excessively resenting his daughter as we were led to believe a couple of chapters ago, is not the same as saying that they are GOOD reasons, or saying that he is a good parent. It is saying that there are shades of grey, Tony does not understand his daughter, his reasons have caused him to take a course of action which has had horrible results on her, that doesn't make him abusive. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Aug 7, 2015 8:21:42 GMT
Tony does not understand his daughter, his reasons have caused him to take a course of action which has had horrible results on her, that doesn't make him abusive. And here's where I feel Tony defenders are not quite getting. We're not against him for being a flawed man. We're against him largely because he doesn't put in the effort to understand Annie. He doesn't even need to be successful in an attempt to understand her. But again, lack of effort. |
|
|
|
Post by justcurious on Aug 7, 2015 10:50:31 GMT
Anthony does not get a pass because his reason for abandoning Annie was not as bad as we quite reasonably expected. It was still a bad reason with bad consequences.
Some of what he is doing wrong comes from concern for Annie on the part of someone with little wisdom and not a good sense of proportion. Good intentions in the unwise are dangerous. Part of it is to protect his self image.
He does not mean to be abusive but the effects have been though some of what appeared to be abuse such as cutting Annie's hair has turned out not to be.
I expect to see things which make his behaviour in class understandable but not things which make it excusable.
Is Tony evil? Well evil is a term that I would apply to acts not people. And yes it is too strong a term to describe much of what happens in Gunnerkrigg Court. Some people are more likely to morally fail that others but there is nothing called evil which resides in people driving their actions. Tony just has some serious character flaws which make him likely to do the wrong thing in some circumstances. Bad acts can be and often are driven by good motives. They are still bad, evil is a matter of means not ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by philman on Aug 7, 2015 12:30:41 GMT
Tony does not understand his daughter, his reasons have caused him to take a course of action which has had horrible results on her, that doesn't make him abusive. And here's where I feel Tony defenders are not quite getting. We're not against him for being a flawed man. We're against him largely because he doesn't put in the effort to understand Annie. He doesn't even need to be successful in an attempt to understand her. But again, lack of effort. And I would agree with you. He hasn't. I don't see where anyone was arguing otherwise. and I have yet to see a 'Tony Defender' say that they aren't against his actions either. |
|
|
|
Post by pxc on Aug 7, 2015 13:16:26 GMT
And here's where I feel Tony defenders are not quite getting. We're not against him for being a flawed man. We're against him largely because he doesn't put in the effort to understand Annie. He doesn't even need to be successful in an attempt to understand her. But again, lack of effort. And I would agree with you. He hasn't. I don't see where anyone was arguing otherwise. and I have yet to see a 'Tony Defender' say that they aren't against his actions either. The more frustrating Tony defenders justify some of his actions in a vacuum (He's well within his rights as a parent to hold his daughter back a year! She cheated!) while pretending the context of those actions doesn't exist. And they also refuse to address (or show willful ignorance toward) the more egregious actions. It's bizarre and makes me wonder what part of themselves they're trying to justify in defending Tony's actions and motivations. But really it's a vocal minority that many of us would probably be better off ignoring. |
|
|
|
Post by AluK on Aug 7, 2015 13:30:25 GMT
It's bizarre and makes me wonder what part of themselves they're trying to justify in defending Tony's actions and motivations. But really it's a vocal minority that many of us would probably be better off ignoring. Dude, you really should know better than resort to this kind of ad hominem. It's cool that you have you opinion and all, but maybe you should consider not being an ass about it. |
|
|
|
Post by mishyana on Aug 7, 2015 15:23:25 GMT
You're disregarding all the subtlety and complexity of the previous discussion to attack a straw-man. Have fun with that. You're not interested in a discussion, you just want to reaffirm your preexisting views. I'm not inclined to engage. I was reading through the discussion and have to agree with you about the amount of straw men that are being built here. Saying that Tony has some reasons for what he is doing after all, other than excessively resenting his daughter as we were led to believe a couple of chapters ago, is not the same as saying that they are GOOD reasons, or saying that he is a good parent. It is saying that there are shades of grey, Tony does not understand his daughter, his reasons have caused him to take a course of action which has had horrible results on her, that doesn't make him abusive. Not sure where you or Rasselas are seeing straw men. It was his contention that what Annie is facing is not abuse because, as he has argued since, it's not the same as his experience or it's not harsh enough by whatever metric one apparently measures abuse. I believe that is flawed. If I've somehow misread his arguments, and I don't think I have, he's got no apparent interest in correcting my impression. As insulting as he thinks it is to call what Annie is going through abuse, I think it is insulting in turn to dismiss real psychological abuse that really happens to real people, in this case through the lens of a fictional character, because by his measure it isn't harsh enough. I apologize, however, if my initial reply seemed, or was, overly antagonistic. I react poorly to "your suffering isn't as bad as my suffering, therefore your suffering is invalid" arguments, because I have to deal with them on a nearly daily basis personally. And it was not meant to dismiss the context of later discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Aug 7, 2015 15:35:20 GMT
If I've somehow misread his arguments, Yes |
|
|
|
Post by darklingthrush on Aug 7, 2015 16:40:25 GMT
If I've somehow misread his arguments, Yes My internet forum days are largely long behind me, but I like jumping on this one once or twice a year to discuss something particularly salient in the comic. Usually it's fine, and a welcome change from the flamey online communities of my youth. I'm a bit disappointed right now. Mishyana has been polite in voicing her opinions. Rasselas, I commend you on sharing pieces of your personal life relevant to this really good discussion. That's brave. But as far as this continued conversation, why not either respond to her queries or choose not to? There's no reason for snarky dismissiveness. Since you indicated earlier that you were "not inclined to engage" in continued discussion - a perfectly valid choice - why not just let it go? |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Aug 7, 2015 21:54:19 GMT
-No he did not abandon her. He made it so the court would look after her until he was ready. -He provided for her even in his absence, she had a clean safe place to live and those who would look after her. -He provided for her access to education and even Freedom to leave the campus if the campus allowed it, since GKC was watching out for her. By your definition, dropping off your kid at an orphanage never to come back isn't abandonment, because real abandonment only occurs by losing children in dark woods so they starve to death and are eaten by wolves, whereas orphanages send kids to school and feed them three times a day. It wasn't "until he was ready". He had no intention to ever come back or play any significant part in her life at the time he sent her to GC, he said so himself: "I never wanted to return. How could she live with the man that killed her mother?" I don't know which country you live in, but where I'm from, not contacting your child for a year is enough to make you lose permanently any claim to guardianship of that child. While it's not as serious as trying to drown it in the bathtub, it's still a serious issue. When you give off your kid to someone else and disappear durably from their lives, be it to an institution, a surrogate family or even your own mum, it is abandonment. You no longer fulfill the role of a parent. If you made sure someone else is doing the parenting for you, then good news, you managed to abandon your kid without adding neglect, which might well send you to prison, but you're still no longer a parent. |
|
|
|
Post by CoyoteReborn on Aug 8, 2015 4:25:17 GMT
By your definition, dropping off your kid at an orphanage never to come back isn't abandonment, because real abandonment only occurs by losing children in dark woods so they starve to death and are eaten by wolves, whereas orphanages send kids to school and feed them three times a day. I'd never let anyone eat children in MY Forest! They're far too high in cholesterol. Rabbits and wisps are much healthier. I strive to be a good role model for my subjects. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 17:32:53 GMT
A villain has a waxed vaudevillian mustache, of course. It may never be pictured or described but it clearly appears in the discerning reader's mind as growing on the upper lip of the character in question the more you read about him/her/it/they. You can shave it all you want, but the stubble will only grow a more persistent shade of glaucous grey. Will these hands ne'er be clean? I'd include under the banner of "antagonist" any conflict where there's anthropomorphism going on in the mind of the protagonist, including the environment or setting if a main character develops in response to that (if not, then it could be a foil) or where a protagonist is modifying teleological positions over the course of the work regarding the specific setting (alternatively, the antagonist and the protagonist being arguably the same person in this latter case). We're on the same page. The term "antagonist" bears the danger of double-crossing the discourseful reader, in case that the opposition is either obviously fatic, and thus as unconquerable as the sun, or selected due to a limited, glamourous perception -- in which all suggestions of choice may likewise be illusionary. The Man in the High Castle, for example, features the institution of a victorious Nazi Germany as the antagonist, threatening to immolate the Japanese Home Islands with their nuclear weaponry. The lost war has not eradicated humanity -- kindness, curiosity, pride, and all that is sound and soundful -- but the threat of Doomsday grows ever more tangible, even as the characters themselves grow towards such sensitivity, until, in the final scenes, the world is doubly revealed as unreal: first through Tagomi's experience of a "nightmare" San Francisco, in which the Embarcadero Freeway has suddenly entered existence; and subsequently through a final divination by the Yijing, which denotes the fictional book-within-the-book as conveying "Inner Truth", even though it describes another "unreal" outcome of the Second World War. This inner truth cannot be identified with the ephemeral fact of some stateside triumph (the value of "historical facts" being called into question within the story; a crude industrialist, not understanding but believing himself to be, inverts this by making a mockery of imagination and verisimilitude per se). Relief comes to Tagomi through the joy of beauty by chance, a form falling into place and pearl-like thought, removed from the darkly purposeful motions of the German war-machinery: the book ending with the revelation of its "inner truth" (which the characters within the book, of course, misunderstand ever so slightly) mirrors Tagomi's essential experience at large, structurally, in the entire story as the reader finds it. It's a good book and it was written by the man who wrote that other book that inspired a film that featured that quote about tears in rain and Röntgen beams attacking the ship on the shoulder of Barbarossa's Nebula. If you can still push anything onto your reading stack, in spite of your expressed preference for proviant packagings, I'd recommend it. Well, they are animals. If they are human creations then they are struggling with contradictory projections because their powers are so limited. Coyote's powers are greater so he can shrink the moon on a whim and doesn't struggle with the same... economics? That seems likely. The way in which Ysengrin's Etheric likeness radiates on the edges does suggest, as I see it, that some part of theirs extends beyond their otherwise well-defined conceptual boundaries, as does Annie's hair. In the Ether, Coyote appears as an infinite ribbon that unites a simple, recurring pattern and a complicated, non-periodical scrawl. His opposition to Jones, the other near-divine figure, has been established, notably with regards to the all-cutting Tooth, but the closest to an Etheric representation of Jones that we have seen is the self-contained Wandering Eye glyph. I find it reasonable to extend the comparison to her nature, the pattern being her nature at birth, conceived as it was by humans; the scrawl being her nature as she developed it across the eons. Renard also shows that scrawl ( here*) which I can best describe as Pseudo-Kufic. Perhaps it is related to Diego's code, or whatever has appeared before Tony on the recent page. In any case, I think there is an affinity between Etheric power and these joint qualities of a recurring core and transcendent ectoplasm. That sentence or sentiment will have to be reformed to look less thalloidal and more tellurian at some time to come, possibly, maybe. ---- * When I just reread Annie's "I'm just checking in", this is what I thought of. Food for thought (?) |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 14, 2015 1:53:21 GMT
The term "antagonist" bears the danger of double-crossing the discourseful reader, in case that the opposition is either obviously fatic, and thus as unconquerable as the sun, or selected due to a limited, glamourous perception -- in which all suggestions of choice may likewise be illusionary. I tend to use "antagonist" for any source of conflict that's been granted by the author or illustrator the characteristics of a character (heh) somewhere in the work. I wrote "tend" because I try to follow the intent rather than apply the letter of that rule to every phrase that could be a slip in a magnum-opus doorstop or any brushstroke that might have gone astray. Of course, thesis papers can be written on the nuts and bolts... The Man in the High Castle, for example... It's a good book and it was written by the man who wrote that other book that inspired a film that featured that quote about tears in rain and Röntgen beams attacking the ship on the shoulder of Barbarossa's Nebula. It does sound good and following inspiration through other media is always interesting. If you can still push anything onto your reading stack, in spite of your expressed preference for proviant packagings, I'd recommend it. It's less of a preference and more a post-college-life consequence-enforced time/brainpower shortage. I do tend to lean toward nonfiction, though I collect rare books when I have some spare cash (nearly never). Failing that, I collect old, obscure and kooky works. I have a waist-high stack of those I haven't read yet. The last thing I can clearly recall reading for sheer recreation was "Blood on the Coal" as part of reverse-engineering the Silent Hill movie #1. The way in which Ysengrin's Etheric likeness radiates on the edges does suggest, as I see it, that some part of theirs extends beyond their otherwise well-defined conceptual boundaries, as does Annie's hair. In the Ether, Coyote appears as an infinite ribbon that unites a simple, recurring pattern and a complicated, non-periodical scrawl. His opposition to Jones, the other near-divine figure, has been established, notably with regards to the all-cutting Tooth, but the closest to an Etheric representation of Jones that we have seen is the self-contained Wandering Eye glyph. I find it reasonable to extend the comparison to her nature, the pattern being her nature at birth, conceived as it was by humans; the scrawl being her nature as she developed it across the eons. Past jokes aside, I have no idea if Jones was created mentally fully-formed and mobile or what, but I suspect that you are correct that she did change with regard to her role over the ages. I'm not convinced that there's a fixed objective reality in GC, much less a past; the author has hinted that time travel might be possible if you knew the right people. I think it's more like a dualism with patterns of mutually-interacting currents (tropes?) between the two. I've discussed this at length before in the context of etheric flow but it can also be looked at as a collection of interacting individuals' stories. Renard also shows that scrawl ( here*) which I can best describe as Pseudo-Kufic. Perhaps it is related to Diego's code, or whatever has appeared before Tony on the recent page. In any case, I think there is an affinity between Etheric power and these joint qualities of a recurring core and transcendent ectoplasm. That sentence or sentiment will have to be reformed to look less thalloidal and more tellurian at some time to come, possibly, maybe. I'm holding off making predictions on those aura-dealies because of the subjectivity in the RotD, Zeta's dreamtime, and likely Anthony's dreamquest. There just aren't enough points of comparison to make a visual judgement on the core/ectoplasm but we do know that there's the fire and "what was left" which is probably memories, as Antimony lacks her mother's memories but has her powers, once she learns how to use them, so I would agree. Bowling with a Valkyrie made me wonder what a Brinanthony date would've been like... |
|
At first I only had my own outrage and sense of hurt, and those don't exactly promote clarity of thought. I also had an uphill battle considering the general view of the forum. But hey, as a result of all that flailing, we've discovered another level of complexity that should be taken into account. A deeper understanding was reached, I hope.
