History Headscratchers / Sinfest

14th Aug '16 6:56:52 AM Phys101
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Criminey himself once said to Fuschia [[FridgeBrilliance "You weren't always a Devil girl"]] seems like that applies to more than just Fuschia.
* So, Fuschia and Blue, all the appearances of a steady relationship there. Suddenly, Criminy. Fuschia turns 'good' for Criminy, leaving Blue behind. Am I the only one bothered by the implications, here?

to:

** Criminey himself once said to Fuschia Fuchsia [[FridgeBrilliance "You weren't always a Devil girl"]] seems like that applies to more than just Fuschia.
Fuchsia.
* So, Fuschia Fuchsia and Blue, all the appearances of a steady relationship there. Suddenly, Criminy. Fuschia Fuchsia turns 'good' for Criminy, leaving Blue behind. Am I the only one bothered by the implications, here?



* I guess this has been talked about before, in this page, but my question is more specific and different. Why is Seymour evil because of his actions on bad behaviour? Sure, he is a jerk, and he has proven it more than once ,and he is also sexist, conformist and an extremist, but how is he supposed to know that Fuschia is trying to reform? I mean, all he saw was a succubus he has verified as evil before trying to seduce a friend of him (acquitance?) and, in turn, driving him in hell. Sure there were hints about their love and her reformation. Oh, I guess he should have guessed it... we are talking about the guy who does not see Jesus when he is in front of him.
** He should have seen it coming via the changes in Fuschia's attitude and approach. When she was evil, her approach and conduct was aggressive and proactive. During her change, her attitude became more defensive/reactive, not actively seeking trouble. Of course the big issue here is his HeelFaceDoorSlam, which is actually a very evil thing to do to someone actively seeking redemption.

to:

* I guess this has been talked about before, in this page, but my question is more specific and different. Why is Seymour evil because of his actions on bad behaviour? Sure, he is a jerk, and he has proven it more than once ,and he is also sexist, conformist and an extremist, but how is he supposed to know that Fuschia Fuchsia is trying to reform? I mean, all he saw was a succubus he has verified as evil before trying to seduce a friend of him (acquitance?) and, in turn, driving him in hell. Sure there were hints about their love and her reformation. Oh, I guess he should have guessed it... we are talking about the guy who does not see Jesus when he is in front of him.
** He should have seen it coming via the changes in Fuschia's Fuchsia's attitude and approach. When she was evil, her approach and conduct was aggressive and proactive. During her change, her attitude became more defensive/reactive, not actively seeking trouble. Of course the big issue here is his HeelFaceDoorSlam, which is actually a very evil thing to do to someone actively seeking redemption.



** Criminy got turned into a frog a few strips before the one you probably just read by one of Fuschia's incantations. Word of advice: when you see a new plot thread, backtrack to see if it's mentioned anywhere else.

to:

** Criminy got turned into a frog a few strips before the one you probably just read by one of Fuschia's Fuchsia's incantations. Word of advice: when you see a new plot thread, backtrack to see if it's mentioned anywhere else.
26th May '16 9:58:01 PM yamiblade
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Not to mention Monique has been shown to See and Knows Devil Slick is a separate Entity from Slick....and does Jack Shit to help or even inform him of the fact that he's Demon Possessed....
9th May '16 12:52:36 AM Metalix
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** So, you somehow missed all the moments the two had that didn't have Slick trying to get into Monique's pants? The times where they just sat beside each other and basically shot the breeze? The times where one was in a depressed slump and the other tried to cheer them up? How Slick had spent a fair amount of time before the Sisterhood showed up trying to become the sort of person Monique would want to be with? How you came to the conclusion that "As far as she knows, he never liked her for anything but her looks, and I can't recall him ever openly admitting he cared about her for anything else" is beyond me unless you started reading the comic around 2011 and never went further back. Also, Monique wasn't expressing displeasure with being oppressed by men, (And the idea of a character who used her sex appeal to LITERALLY make heads explode being oppressed by men is already pretty laughable) by the time Slick even brought up the conversation Monique was blatantly INSULTING her audience. Not to mention Slick's advice was to try and be more subtle with the whole thing. Finally, one fight from well intended, albeit badly timed, advice and Monique basically cut off all contact with Slick on her end, but somehow Slick is the crappy friend?

to:

** So, you somehow missed all the moments the two had that didn't have Slick trying to get into Monique's pants? The times where they just sat beside each other and basically shot the breeze? The times where one was in a depressed slump and the other tried to cheer them up? How Slick had spent a fair amount of time before the Sisterhood showed up trying to become the sort of person Monique would want to be with? How you came to the conclusion that "As far as she knows, he never liked her for anything but her looks, and I can't recall him ever openly admitting he cared about her for anything else" is beyond me unless you started reading the comic around 2011 and never went further back. Also, Monique wasn't expressing displeasure with being oppressed by men, (And the idea of a character who used her sex appeal to LITERALLY make heads explode being oppressed by men is already pretty laughable) by the time Slick even brought up the conversation Monique was blatantly INSULTING her audience.audience (and by extension the Critics who were against the changes made to Sinfest). Not to mention Slick's advice was to try and be more subtle with the whole thing. Finally, one fight from well intended, albeit badly timed, advice and Monique basically cut off all contact with Slick on her end, but somehow Slick is the crappy friend?
9th May '16 12:50:08 AM Metalix
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** So, you somehow missed all the moments the two had that didn't have Slick trying to get into Monique's pants? The times where they just sat beside each other and basically shot the breeze? The times where one was in a depressed slump and the other tried to cheer them up? How Slick had spent a fair amount of time before the Sisterhood showed up trying to become the sort of person Monique would want to be with? How you came to the conclusion that "As far as she knows, he never liked her for anything but her looks, and I can't recall him ever openly admitting he cared about her for anything else" is beyond me unless you started reading the comic around 2011 and never went further back. Also, Monique wasn't expressing displeasure with being oppressed by men, (And the idea of a character who used her sex appeal to LITERALLY make heads explode being oppressed by men is already pretty laughable) by the time Slick even brought up the conversation Monique was blatantly INSULTING her audience. Not to mention Slick's advice was to try and be more subtle with the whole thing. Finally, one fight from well intended, albeit badly timed, advice and Monique basically cut off all contact with Slick on her end, but somehow Slick is the crappy friend?
16th Feb '16 9:00:30 PM PurpleAlert
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** It's not "indifference to men's issues". "Male tears" isn't shorthand for "tears shed by men suffering from issues that negatively impact them", it's "tears shed by men who interpret the empowerment of women as discrimination against men". If you've ever seen the "But I'm A Nice Guy" aka "Feminazi Stole My Ice Cream" meme, those are the tears in question.
25th Jan '16 12:50:39 AM PurpleAlert
Is there an issue? Send a Message


**** Oppressed enough that ''asking to be treated equally is not effective''. Listen to yourself, your argument is that someone who openly resists oppression and gains any concessions by doing so, is not oppressed at all! By your logic, since women got the right to vote in 1920, that means that they were retroactively never really denied the right to vote; since segregation is illegal today, that means black people were retroactively never forced to ride in the back of the bus. And by extension, that means the unfairness that oppressed groups experience ''today'' doesn't count as oppression because they ''technically'' have the option to resist.

to:

**** Oppressed enough that ''asking to be treated equally is not effective''. Listen to yourself, your argument is that someone who openly resists oppression and gains any concessions by doing so, is not oppressed at all! By your logic, since women got the right to vote in 1920, that means that they were retroactively never really denied the right to vote; since segregation is illegal today, that means black people were retroactively never forced to ride in the back of the bus. And by extension, that means the unfairness that oppressed groups experience ''today'' doesn't count as oppression because they ''technically'' have the option to resist.resist, even if openly resisting means being "too angry" or "too hostile" and serves as an excuse to continue dismissing them ''while also denying that the oppression exists because it doesn't cater enough to the comfort of the oppressor''.
25th Jan '16 12:45:54 AM PurpleAlert
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** Oppressed enough that ''asking to be treated equally is not effective''. Listen to yourself, your argument is that someone who openly resists oppression and gains any concessions by doing so, is not oppressed at all! By your logic, since women got the right to vote in 1920, that means that they were retroactively never really denied the right to vote; since segregation is illegal today, that means black people were retroactively never forced to ride in the back of the bus. And by extension, that means the unfairness that oppressed groups experience ''today'' doesn't count as oppression because they ''technically'' have the option to resist.
25th Jan '16 12:01:12 AM PurpleAlert
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** How is that relevant to Monique's performance? It's performance art, she was expressing her own feelings in her own space. To borrow a quote, "If you ask someone nicely to stop hurting you, they'll say you don't sound hurt; demand that they stop hurting you, and they'll shut your mouth."
24th Jan '16 11:51:21 PM PurpleAlert
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** "Side effects" isn't the right word, but it ''is'' the effect of institutionalized misogyny that negatively impacts men. When anything feminine is considered inferior to males and masculinity, the only way for men to establish that they are indeed male and thus superior, is to reject femininity as much as possible. When abuse against men is dismissed or erased, it's because the experience of being victimized is seen as feminine (ie, weak, helpless, powerless, fragile) and diminishes his worth as a man. The perception of male = strong literally depends on the perception of female = weak, it's only logical that the line of thinking that says women are inferior refuses to entertain the notion that a woman, a creature inherently helpless and weak, could possibly harm a "real" man. Men can be victims of sexism and misandry, but it's rarely active denigration of maleness at the core of the issue; more often, it's that manhood itself is seen as being corroded by a man's feminine qualities, and when we characterize victimization as feminine, the only conclusion to draw is that if a man is a victim, he's not "really" a man. It's a complicated issue.
24th Jan '16 9:48:09 PM PurpleAlert
Is there an issue? Send a Message


----

to:

----* Where does the impression that Monique has anything to regret about losing her relationship with Slick come from, other than the fact that the relationship existed? As far as she knows, he never liked her for anything but her looks, and I can't recall him ever openly admitting he cared about her for anything else. When Slick basically drops a [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument logical fallacy]] on her to side with her critics, he was laying out that he was part of the problem that she was trying to fight. She was literally, physically oppressed by a bunch of men for expressing displeasure that she felt oppressed by men, and then one of her oldest friends, a guy, tells her that it's her own fault because she didn't diminish her anger for the comfort of the men who were oppressing her. That is an awful thing to say to someone that you're supposed to actually care about. Slick isn't a bad person, but he's a crappy friend to Monique.
---
This list shows the last 10 events of 258. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.Sinfest