“Messy” is such a mild way to discuss the horrible, awful, terrible, no-good, very-bad infection that would erupt after using a candy bar in such a manner.
Just find a way to hold the chainsaw in place as you move your arms. It’s not rocket science! And I should know, because I actually study rocket science!
BarerMender
Insufficient. You must hold the saw (set it on a table) and squeeze the switch. Without another arm. Toe won’t do; you’ll push the saw around. You’d need help.
BarerMender
While screaming in agony. You just sawed off our arm.
milu
i’m sure she could ask her girlfriend. she’d probably jump at the opportunity to practice her dismemberment skills.
Wagstaff
I assumed an effective design that would hold down the chainsaw AND its trigger.
Uhh, Bryy, she’s literally telling Dina she’s perfect as she is. Not sure how you’re seeing that as not accepting her
Daibhid C
I dunno — it’s kind of like that Frasier episode where it turned out Niles couldn’t actually see Daphne as she was, because he always saw her as perfect. And he had to accept she wasn’t perfect before their relationship could progress. (Of course, in that case, “progress” meant “have sex”, so this analogy is also not perfect.)
As individuals, still yes, but also: Becky, sweetie, no. Becky. Please. I’m going to need you to love yourself and be kind to yourself about 100000000% more, because you are breaking my heart into a billion pieces right now.
Well, I’m on the shit list for three out of the four of those. I’d be worried, but that’d require me thinking there was a deity who gave a shit about these rules
Are you wiccan or are you counting chemistry as a form of alchemy?
NotThatDrew
I mean, I wouldn’t say I’m a believer in any religion nowadays, but I did go through a phase of bouncing from one pagan religion to the next back in late high school till about mid college (so 16/17 til about 20), and I’d definitely count chemistry as alchemy.
i’m curious where you found alchemy? this christian website says that alchemy is indirectly condemned in various ways (its focus on earthly wealth, its associated beliefs of self-enlightenment) but not explicitely mentioned in the bible.
Galatians 5 says, “the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, quarreling, rivalry, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envying, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like.” and i will go on record to say i fucking love this sort of ridiculous pile-up of the criminal (murders), the mundane (envying), the weird (witchcraft), and the truly awesome: seditions, fornication and revelings!
Back in the day, useful chemicals, “magics” and drugs were all made by the same kinds of people: alchemists. Some of the rituals used by alchemists from India and the Arabian peninsula required elaborate steps to summon nature spirits and god-like beings, prompting animosity from those who pledged loyalty to their jealous god.
milu
Okay so this is really interesting =D
I kinda totally went off here, so let me preface this unspeakably verbose comment with a TL;DR: best i can tell, “alchemy” isn’t quite what the gospel (specifically Paul) is on about, but it’s a close enough approximation as long as we understand that the issue is with the metaphysics of it, not the material practices. (but i’m no expert, please knock down my flimsy argument)
in trying to figure out whether what you call alchemy could reasonably be inferred from Galatians or if i would be an annoying asshole and split hairs over this (i love splitting hairs, everyone hates me) i found that the original greek has “φαρμακεία” (farmakía) which is translated by greekbible.com as:
1) the use or the administering of drugs; 2) poisoning; 3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it; 4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
So, i don’t know much about the bible, except for being raised catholic then becoming an atheist as an act of teenage rebellion and wilfully forgetting everything i’d learned (i’m now a satan worshipper so you see, progress), but my understanding of Paul is that he’s like head of PR for christianity which is a fringe sect mostly restricted to the middle east at that point. and in that context, and keeping in mind what you said about a lot of medicinal drug production being connected to animist beliefs, which Paul would have seen as competitors to his own Gospel and more generally to monotheism, his use of “farmakia” coming as it did right after idolatry and smack in the middle of a humongous rant about Everything That’s Wrong With The World Nowadays feels to me like he might have been smoothly slipping it in: you agree with me that ADULTERY and FORNICATIONandsorcery and HATRED and MURDERS are terrible things don’t you???
in that context, i guess “alchemy” while kind of inaccurate(?), would at least be a less complacent translation than “witchcraft”; although i guess on yet a deeper level, the smearing (and horrific repression) of witchcraft in the middle ages in Europe kind of repeated that history of reframing pharmaceutical know-how and its associated animist/shamanist traditions as sin. this is a rabbit hole i am not falling into right now (because i could spend my day on this and i have already spent like… three hours?! goddammit), but here’s some things i wonder:
– is there a consistent association between (pre-scientific) drug practices and animist beliefs? (at least in the sphere of influence of monotheism; i don’t know enough about, say, chinese culture to draw any kind of parallel)
– have the christian authorities systematically suppressed local pharmaceutical medicine throughout history? have they ever tried to “christianize” (colonize, appropriate, control) them instead? (an independent question is how often and to what extent they were actually successful in destroying/controlling said practices.)
– and here’s the big one: how does the development of modern medicine in the Renaissance interact with the church’s attacks on grassroots medicinal know-how? a lot has been written about the patriarcal nature of the war on witches in that period, but here i’m interested in the religious aspects of that particular “enclosure”. i suspect there’s a complex history of strategic alliances between medical science and the church especially when it came to burning witches, but probably just as many points of tension between them, because medicine was undergirded by humanistic philosophy and aimed for a form of secular authority that was a whole different sort of threat to organized religion.
final thought, in reaction to @NotThatDrew up there, chemistry doesn’t really seem to count as alchemy, cos what Paul was on about was not the material manipulation of chemical compounds i guess, so much as the animist beliefs and rituals associated with the practice of “farmakia” in his time. probably? speculation involved as you can tell (plus i left out like a whole page of my musings and research on various aspects of this). i would love to be meticulously proved wrong —or right, honestly i don’t care, again my kink is hairsplitting so being “right” is just convenient shorthand for “temporarily stumped as to which hair to be splitting next” =P
Jhon
Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
milu
ahah that’s kind of sweet =)
Demoted Oblivious
Disclosure: all this is fuzzy armchair rememberings. no citations.
Not provided: reference about it being illegal at the time.
milu
yeah, i also have vague memories about dissections being at least sort of frowned upon, but i tried looking it up quickly on wikipedia, and at a very cursory glance it seems that the catholic church was mostly fine with it.
the more fun and popular parts of the history of dissection of course have to do with how corpses were procured, which the article you quote goes into a bit
Clif
milu, on a completely different subject, I didn’t see your response yesterday to my comment on inherently biased sampling, so I went back and answered it today in yesterday’s comment section.
milu
ooh, neat!
*reads*
haha nice example =) thanks for your explanation.
i think i see what i misunderstood.
inherent bias means that any universe with different constants would either not exist or not persist long enough or not be conducive to life/consciousness? right? in other words that at some point up the causal chain, the values that allow for water to behave the way it does are also the only ones that allow for consciousness?
in any case, that is pretty much what intuitively feels right to me, though if i get this right, it leaves out the question of whether there is any sense in which those constants are the product of randomness to begin with (kajillion-sided dice), or are somehow consubstantial with the definition of “reality”. ok, i’m out of my depth now =)
Demoted Oblivious
Also, in multiverse theory, the only possible universes which can spawn life are the only ones that may have life that can wonder at how amazing it is that their universe can spawn life.
milu
yeah, i think that’s what i initially thought Clif meant by “inherently bias sample”.
Wagstaff
Ohh too fascinating! Believe it or not, I almost went as far as you did in my original comment!
…do you have other examples of Willis’s lesbians chainsawing off their own arms?
Wagstaff
I imagine Ultra-Car may have done so at one point, but seeing as she’s technically a robot, doesn’t really count.
I am Nothing
Naw, that totally counts. Robots are people too!
Wagstaff
No, I mean it doesn’t count because a robot can very easily replace their arms after removing them. For humans to attempt this, however, would be rather stupid.
I am Nothing
Ah, but if we keep doing it, we’ll eventually evolve to have our limbs regenerate like some kind of reptile.
Reltzik
Nonono. Lamarckian evolution says that if you keep cutting off the arms they will eventually become stunted and stubby rather than….
…. wait. …Lamarckian evolution was disproved.
…. okay, yeah, that regeneration idea’s completely legit, chainsaw away!
milu
“Ah, but if we keep doing it, we’ll eventually evolve to have our limbs regenerate like some kind of reptile.”
define “we”
Clif
“We” as in “all of us lesbians existing in a Willis comic.”
davidbreslin101
Lamarkism is sneaking back in via epigenetics. If you keep cutting off the arms,
eventually enough DNA methylation tags will build upto stop the arms growing in the first place.
milu
i was about to write that biology being the gruesome science that it is, someone is sure to have tested this on a bunch of mice, and it turns out that is pretty much exactly what Weissman did in his attempt to disprove lamarckian inheritance. ugh
Demoted Oblivious
Not only is epigentics cool that way, but new CRISPR technogy (literally CRISPRon, CRISPRoff) has been created that will allow us to use epigentics to turn off (or on) DNA using epigenetic switches, and this change is INHERITABLE. So now not only can we disable problematic DNA (hereditary diseases for example), but if we find out we need that DNA for something else, we can turn it back on.
It’s the DNA equivalent of patching a wound vs amputating the limb. (CRISPR originally worked by fully excising DNA, now we can leave it in place and disable it, like commented out sectiins of code.)
254 thoughts on “Change ya”
Ana Chronistic
first, some aids
*gets lynched*
Crazy Lou
hangry crotch is not a mental image I needed
Emperor Norton II
Wrong.
It is the mental image we all need.
RassilonTDavros
It’s the mental image we all have to endure.
Clif
❤
Felix
This.
Felix
Need? No. Deserve..?
Doctor_Who
Becky, have a Snickers…on second thought, don’t that could get messy.
Wagstaff
The thought of that is enough to make me Snicker.
quixoticmaunster
“Messy” is such a mild way to discuss the horrible, awful, terrible, no-good, very-bad infection that would erupt after using a candy bar in such a manner.
Yotomoe
Vagina dentata.
Slartibeast Button, BIA
You forgot the Queen Of Wands link.
Thag Simmons
Oh that’s much less bad than I was expecting.
StClair
pretty much exactly what I was expecting.
Roborat
Man, I loved that comic, I really miss it.
Rabisch
Sorry. But why in Italian?
NotThatDrew
As great as chainsawing the arms off to deal with all lustful thoughts sounds on paper, you’re probably gonna need those for finals, Becky
Judas Peckerwood
There might also be logistical issues. The first arm would be easy enough to do, but the second one would be a bit more challenging…
Wagstaff
Just find a way to hold the chainsaw in place as you move your arms. It’s not rocket science! And I should know, because I actually study rocket science!
BarerMender
Insufficient. You must hold the saw (set it on a table) and squeeze the switch. Without another arm. Toe won’t do; you’ll push the saw around. You’d need help.
BarerMender
While screaming in agony. You just sawed off our arm.
milu
i’m sure she could ask her girlfriend. she’d probably jump at the opportunity to practice her dismemberment skills.
Wagstaff
I assumed an effective design that would hold down the chainsaw AND its trigger.
Reltzik
Why would she need lustful thoughts for finals?
I mean, I’m not saying she WON’T, I’m just wondering what other classes she’s taking.
Fart Captor
These two are the best you cannot change my mind
RassilonTDavros
Agreed.
Really relieved by Becky’s first line accepting Dina for who she is… though going directly from there to hating herself is rather worrying.
Bryy
Becky won’t accept that Dina’s not what she thinks she is. That’s extremely worrying.
RassilonTDavros
…except Becky is accepting that Dina is ace here? It’s herself that she’s not accepting now.
Fart Captor
Uhh, Bryy, she’s literally telling Dina she’s perfect as she is. Not sure how you’re seeing that as not accepting her
Daibhid C
I dunno — it’s kind of like that Frasier episode where it turned out Niles couldn’t actually see Daphne as she was, because he always saw her as perfect. And he had to accept she wasn’t perfect before their relationship could progress. (Of course, in that case, “progress” meant “have sex”, so this analogy is also not perfect.)
RacingTurtle
I love them
Yotomoe
I don’t agree with what you say but I will fight to the death your right to say it.
Clif
Maybe you should just fight to the first fall. I hear their right to say it fights dirty.
Tan
As a pair, yes.
As individuals, still yes, but also: Becky, sweetie, no. Becky. Please. I’m going to need you to love yourself and be kind to yourself about 100000000% more, because you are breaking my heart into a billion pieces right now.
Wagstaff
Here’s an interesting fact. The “ways of flesh” (sin) as listed in the Christian Bible include drugs, sorcery, alchemy, and worship of all other gods.
NotThatDrew
Well, I’m on the shit list for three out of the four of those. I’d be worried, but that’d require me thinking there was a deity who gave a shit about these rules
Ari
Are you wiccan or are you counting chemistry as a form of alchemy?
NotThatDrew
I mean, I wouldn’t say I’m a believer in any religion nowadays, but I did go through a phase of bouncing from one pagan religion to the next back in late high school till about mid college (so 16/17 til about 20), and I’d definitely count chemistry as alchemy.
Wagstaff
Well, like every other despicable villian in fiction, the god in question is proportetly jealous and proud of it.
DrunkenNordmann
“Ways of the flesh” sounds like it’s a forbidden lore of magic.
Wagstaff
Nah, it’s just theopolitical supremacism.
Clif
tantric – https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-tantric-sex
Yotomoe
Creating some horrifying sex creaters. Either that or spells that involve sex.
milu
i’m curious where you found alchemy? this christian website says that alchemy is indirectly condemned in various ways (its focus on earthly wealth, its associated beliefs of self-enlightenment) but not explicitely mentioned in the bible.
Galatians 5 says, “the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, quarreling, rivalry, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envying, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like.” and i will go on record to say i fucking love this sort of ridiculous pile-up of the criminal (murders), the mundane (envying), the weird (witchcraft), and the truly awesome: seditions, fornication and revelings!
Wagstaff
Back in the day, useful chemicals, “magics” and drugs were all made by the same kinds of people: alchemists. Some of the rituals used by alchemists from India and the Arabian peninsula required elaborate steps to summon nature spirits and god-like beings, prompting animosity from those who pledged loyalty to their jealous god.
milu
Okay so this is really interesting =D
I
kindatotally went off here, so let me preface this unspeakably verbose comment with aTL;DR: best i can tell, “alchemy” isn’t quite what the gospel (specifically Paul) is on about, but it’s a close enough approximation as long as we understand that the issue is with the metaphysics of it, not the material practices. (but i’m no expert, please knock down my flimsy argument)
in trying to figure out whether what you call alchemy could reasonably be inferred from Galatians or if i would be an annoying asshole and split hairs over this (i love splitting hairs, everyone hates me) i found that the original greek has “φαρμακεία” (farmakía) which is translated by greekbible.com as:
1) the use or the administering of drugs; 2) poisoning; 3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it; 4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
So, i don’t know much about the bible, except for being raised catholic then becoming an atheist as an act of teenage rebellion and wilfully forgetting everything i’d learned (i’m now a satan worshipper so you see, progress), but my understanding of Paul is that he’s like head of PR for christianity which is a fringe sect mostly restricted to the middle east at that point. and in that context, and keeping in mind what you said about a lot of medicinal drug production being connected to animist beliefs, which Paul would have seen as competitors to his own Gospel and more generally to monotheism, his use of “farmakia” coming as it did right after idolatry and smack in the middle of a humongous rant about Everything That’s Wrong With The World Nowadays feels to me like he might have been smoothly slipping it in: you agree with me that ADULTERY and FORNICATIONandsorcery and HATRED and MURDERS are terrible things don’t you???
in that context, i guess “alchemy” while kind of inaccurate(?), would at least be a less complacent translation than “witchcraft”; although i guess on yet a deeper level, the smearing (and horrific repression) of witchcraft in the middle ages in Europe kind of repeated that history of reframing pharmaceutical know-how and its associated animist/shamanist traditions as sin. this is a rabbit hole i am not falling into right now (because i could spend my day on this and i have already spent like… three hours?! goddammit), but here’s some things i wonder:
– is there a consistent association between (pre-scientific) drug practices and animist beliefs? (at least in the sphere of influence of monotheism; i don’t know enough about, say, chinese culture to draw any kind of parallel)
– have the christian authorities systematically suppressed local pharmaceutical medicine throughout history? have they ever tried to “christianize” (colonize, appropriate, control) them instead? (an independent question is how often and to what extent they were actually successful in destroying/controlling said practices.)
– and here’s the big one: how does the development of modern medicine in the Renaissance interact with the church’s attacks on grassroots medicinal know-how? a lot has been written about the patriarcal nature of the war on witches in that period, but here i’m interested in the religious aspects of that particular “enclosure”. i suspect there’s a complex history of strategic alliances between medical science and the church especially when it came to burning witches, but probably just as many points of tension between them, because medicine was undergirded by humanistic philosophy and aimed for a form of secular authority that was a whole different sort of threat to organized religion.
final thought, in reaction to @NotThatDrew up there, chemistry doesn’t really seem to count as alchemy, cos what Paul was on about was not the material manipulation of chemical compounds i guess, so much as the animist beliefs and rituals associated with the practice of “farmakia” in his time. probably? speculation involved as you can tell (plus i left out like a whole page of my musings and research on various aspects of this). i would love to be meticulously proved wrong —or right, honestly i don’t care, again my kink is hairsplitting so being “right” is just convenient shorthand for “temporarily stumped as to which hair to be splitting next” =P
Jhon
Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
milu
ahah that’s kind of sweet =)
Demoted Oblivious
Disclosure: all this is fuzzy armchair rememberings. no citations.
Renaisance artists (Da Vinci) often were breaking catholic law when they engaged in dissections. They did this to achieve a better understanding of the human body, how it is put together and how it moves. In the process they provided a
body of knowledge that has helped inform medicine for centuries to the present day.
Not provided: reference about it being illegal at the time.
milu
yeah, i also have vague memories about dissections being at least sort of frowned upon, but i tried looking it up quickly on wikipedia, and at a very cursory glance it seems that the catholic church was mostly fine with it.
the more fun and popular parts of the history of dissection of course have to do with how corpses were procured, which the article you quote goes into a bit
Clif
milu, on a completely different subject, I didn’t see your response yesterday to my comment on inherently biased sampling, so I went back and answered it today in yesterday’s comment section.
milu
ooh, neat!
*reads*
haha nice example =) thanks for your explanation.
i think i see what i misunderstood.
inherent bias means that any universe with different constants would either not exist or not persist long enough or not be conducive to life/consciousness? right? in other words that at some point up the causal chain, the values that allow for water to behave the way it does are also the only ones that allow for consciousness?
in any case, that is pretty much what intuitively feels right to me, though if i get this right, it leaves out the question of whether there is any sense in which those constants are the product of randomness to begin with (kajillion-sided dice), or are somehow consubstantial with the definition of “reality”. ok, i’m out of my depth now =)
Demoted Oblivious
Also, in multiverse theory, the only possible universes which can spawn life are the only ones that may have life that can wonder at how amazing it is that their universe can spawn life.
milu
yeah, i think that’s what i initially thought Clif meant by “inherently bias sample”.
Wagstaff
Ohh too fascinating! Believe it or not, I almost went as far as you did in my original comment!
milu
haha please don’t refrain your nerdiness ^^
Jhon
“seditions, fornication and revelings” will definitely be on my next party invites.
Reltzik
I think my bathroom scale makes me guilty of weighs-of-the-flesh.
Clif
Sure, blame it on the scale.
I do from time to time.
RassilonTDavros
…What is it with lesbians and chainsawing off their own arms?
Thag Simmons
Well I imagine this is a call-back to that.
Wagstaff
Please don’t use that as the defining example. Leslie was not the brightest bulb in Shortpacked.
King Daniel
…do you have other examples of Willis’s lesbians chainsawing off their own arms?
Wagstaff
I imagine Ultra-Car may have done so at one point, but seeing as she’s technically a robot, doesn’t really count.
I am Nothing
Naw, that totally counts. Robots are people too!
Wagstaff
No, I mean it doesn’t count because a robot can very easily replace their arms after removing them. For humans to attempt this, however, would be rather stupid.
I am Nothing
Ah, but if we keep doing it, we’ll eventually evolve to have our limbs regenerate like some kind of reptile.
Reltzik
Nonono. Lamarckian evolution says that if you keep cutting off the arms they will eventually become stunted and stubby rather than….
…. wait. …Lamarckian evolution was disproved.
…. okay, yeah, that regeneration idea’s completely legit, chainsaw away!
milu
“Ah, but if we keep doing it, we’ll eventually evolve to have our limbs regenerate like some kind of reptile.”
define “we”
Clif
“We” as in “all of us lesbians existing in a Willis comic.”
davidbreslin101
Lamarkism is sneaking back in via epigenetics. If you keep cutting off the arms,
eventually enough DNA methylation tags will build upto stop the arms growing in the first place.
milu
i was about to write that biology being the gruesome science that it is, someone is sure to have tested this on a bunch of mice, and it turns out that is pretty much exactly what Weissman did in his attempt to disprove lamarckian inheritance. ugh
Demoted Oblivious
Not only is epigentics cool that way, but new CRISPR technogy (literally CRISPRon, CRISPRoff) has been created that will allow us to use epigentics to turn off (or on) DNA using epigenetic switches, and this change is INHERITABLE. So now not only can we disable problematic DNA (hereditary diseases for example), but if we find out we need that DNA for something else, we can turn it back on.
It’s the DNA equivalent of patching a wound vs amputating the limb. (CRISPR originally worked by fully excising DNA, now we can leave it in place and disable it, like commented out sectiins of code.)