I really do hope Mike gets his ass handed to him at some point. Violence doesn’t solve many problems but Mike strikes me as one of the few which it would.
And kicked in the shins by Joyce.
Sadly, he’s still around and still toxic.
whitt
sun tzu: “toxic” isn’t a nice thing to call anyone. not a single person can INFECT you with negativity. And if you’ll notice, Mike is being rather consensual about everything he does. He was upfront about no attachments with Ethan (while using his “evil” to make his friends do emotional work they aren’t doing otherwise, not even pushing his opinion that Ethan and Dan should be together but putting himself in the situation in a way agreed to and not unethical itself in order to CREATE and NOT FORCE a learning opportunity), not forcing himself to be even be acceptable to walk with. Imagine how isolating that would be? to know that you knowing your own power grants more, and that same power alienates. yet, Mike handles this realization with some grace and even apparent humor.
Dark humor, often. Like in panel three. And very dry.
But.. TOXIC?
He’s not perpetuating *harm* ANYwhere that I see.
whitt
*Dark humor like in panel FOUR.
Whoops.
Zaxares
There’s still the correct way of helping people to come to realizations and the wrong way. His is the wrong way. It’s akin to staging a fake kidnapping (unknown to both the parent AND the child) to get them to realize that they do truly love each other. Did it work? Yes, it did. Did it also cause needless trauma and anguish on both sides? Yes, it did.
Tough love only works insofar as people can handle the consequences. Not everybody is as resilient mentally or psychologically. Some of the people “helped” by Mike might end up crawling into a bottle or other unhealthy means of coping.
whitt
..my whole point is that NOTHING Mike has done has been truly harmful. And this comic illustrates an AWARENESS of his ability to get away with more than he ought to by rights. Yet his face expresses PAIN at this knowledge, he still does not take it personally when the black women he is talking to has a reaction toward security at his self-awareness of this.
THAT is consent. No way around it.
…I may be forgetting something important, but I can’t remember a single thing Mike’s done that’s been HARMful, malicious, or even long-term. Only mischievous. Only needling. Annoying, NOT *harm*ful.
There was also:
– Taking photos of Dorothy and Walky in bed together and saying he’d share them
– Making shitty comments about Billie the day after she and Ruth were sent to the hospital for being suicidal
– Slut shaming Sal (I don’t care if he happened to be right about her sleeping with Jason, it was still shitty)
Even if Mike *is* expressing sadness or pain over the way society lets him get away with this shit, he’s still doing it. His remorse means nothing and is worth nothing
He also doesn’t have ANY grounds for being upset by Sarah’s reaction. Even if he weren’t an asshole, people aren’t obligated to hang out with him
carms
“A culture of mass media that indoctrinates all people to eternally forgive white males”
I love Mike, he’s a fantastic terrible character, but a real person like that, hella naw, you right.
The dedication to his defence is a little telling perhaps.
thejeff
You must have some different definition of “truly harmful”.
I mean, he hasn’t actually killed or crippled anyone, so it’s all good right?
thejeff
No. It’s not a nice thing to call anyone. Nor are plenty of other correct labels.
I suppose you can avoid seeing the harm if you can convince yourself that everything he does is somehow intended to help the very people he’s harassing.
Rectilinear Propagation
Mike spent several comic strips punching Joe in the face.
I’m not sure how you got there, since their comment was in response to a comment that ended with, “He’s not perpetuating *harm* ANYwhere that I see.”
BBCC
Oh, crap, I see! My bad. Sorry, Rectilinear Propagation!
thejeff
Also, what’s consensual about recording Walky crying in his sleep and playing it for his friends?
And as for being “upfront” with Ethan, he’s being upfront about no attachments, but he’s using that to mask his actual reasons which makes him seem much less upfront about it all.
whitt
Ethan’s being equally upfront about his own feelings and desires…. by ignoring them in ways Mike is PLAYING INTO but not manipulating.
Hence:
as for recording being consensual, Mike’s possibly following modern law over actual consent culture. cuz he knows exactly where the line is, and where it should be, and plays with those lines in ways that then allow people to interact with them more directly.
Sounds like a power play, but not an altogether unconscious nor harmful one. especially when we consider this person is supposed to have JUST moved out of their parents? This whole comic seems to be exploring how personal identity interacts with original “family” environment.
Ethan is submissive in personality. He’s even willing to deny his own sexuality to appease “doing the right thing” or “making people comfortable/happy”.
Mike is simply a converse, a dominant personality. He’s not willing to budge on what he sees to be real, even if it means pointing out how other people ARE (see: needling Dorothy into feeling guilty of her own accord for how she’s treating herself and Walky). Is MIKE doing the thing, or is he involving himself in ways that lead ultimately to more awareness, mindfulness, and consent. Sure, his methods are uncomfortable to some, but …. HARMful? I’m just not sure.
whitt
(ignore the “hence” — i think i started one thought then dropped it after the one word.)
thejeff
So it’s “consensual” because the law says he doesn’t need consent. Nice.
But yeah, I get it. It’s the same old bullshit. Mike’s not harmful because he’s being an asshole to make you a better person. And when the person in question actually gets worse from what he said (Ethan going back in the closet, Amber spirally farther into self-loathing), well that’s not his problem. He was trying to help. If they took it the wrong way, oh well.
kendermouse
I suspect Whitt may be defending Mike because they’ve recognized a bit of themselves in him, and don’t want to be made to feel hurtful/harmful/toxic by association.
Daibhid C
“not a single person can INFECT you with negativity”
Counterpoint: reading this comment made me want to punch something.
whitt
So do it. Non-harmfully. Why would someone having an opinion you disagree with mean *I* am at fault for speaking in front of you? I am not currently in any position to affect your life directly accept through you reading my words. … it doesn’t MATTER if I’m wrong, tangibly, does it?
You just implied that I am toxic. ..Is it toxic to call people toxic?
Mike seems to me to be a willing scapegoat, more than an abuser. Is he ‘perfect’? I didn’t say that.
Just my opinion, mate. It’s safe for people to be wrong if they have no power over you, which I don’t *think* I do..
whitt
(sigh)
*why would having an
*except through
I don’t like being told I’m toxic for thinking as I do. Teach me a better way to think, absolutely. But calling my thinking “toxic” does NOT make me open to listening more. =\
And burdening someone with the responsibility of NEVER thinking something their audience disagrees with is a power play UNlike what Mike has so far done.
Look at the final panel on this page for proof Mike respects people more than you just did me.
….
adjudicus
By your logic, anytime anyone posts anything on social media or even say something in public they bear no responsibility for the effect their words have on people, because, hey, its not THEIR fault that people chose to read/listen to their words, right?
And… no. Calling out toxic behaviour for what it is is not equivalent to actual toxic behaviour. That’d be like accusing someone of being racist after being called racist for their racist actions.
Mike may not deny his actions, sure, but has he ever apologized to people for his actions? Has he in any way changed his behaviour when people ask him to stop?
Knayt
So are we just ignoring Mike recording Walky without his permission seven times, and showing at least one of those recordings to other people without Walky’s permission? That was literally one strip ago, and while it’s the most recent example it’s far from the only one.
whitt
I again could be wrong about absolutely everything but…
I do not think Walky was HARMED
and I just looked it up and while the answers were not entirely built for this one fictional scenario, it looks like what Mike did was legal.
…so, this does not …. look, I’m not saying he’s doing everything right.
I’m saying he’s NOT been outright HARMful.
Means versus ends. His means are odd but his ends nonharmful.
The law is DEFINITELY not on the side of “no one may ever be recorded unknowingly.” I’m no lawyer. I just looked up internet stuff. But again….
if my point is Mike’s intentionally playing with lines of allowance in ways that bring them OUT, not hide them, I’m still going with even the Walky recording thing is more mischievous than malicious.
All it did is create self-awareness of how attached he is. Was it true that the show was canceled? nooooo. was Walky harmed?
I am just not sure anything he’s done counts as HARM, even if it’s not NICE.
adjudicus
…wow. there are plenty of things that are legal that still harm people, that is in no way an adequate defence of Mike’s actions. And ends justifies the means? There is no situation where that is an excuse. And “more mischievous than malicious”? If that something is dear enough to Walky that it elicits such an emotional response, that fucking crosses the line. Oh, and Mike absolutely knew how important that show was to Walky, and STILL chose to go ahead with it. That makes his actions even worse.
thejeff
That just means not enough violence was used. 🙂
Joyce’s “kicking in the shins” approach actually seemed to work. Didn’t get rid of him permanently, but got him out of the way which was the goal.
On thing that appears to be consistent across universes is that Mike enjoys exposing the hypocrisy and fallibility of humans. The way to “defeat” him would be to humble him, not to feed the things he thrives on. Resorting to physical violence seems about as useful and stupid and immature as a parent screaming at a crying child. You’re not solving anything, you’re just exacerbating the situation by venting, and then trying to find reasons to justify the action.
Then again, physical violence and justifications go hand-in-hand to begin with.
Or we could take it not seriously and have him beaten up.
thejeff
The way to “defeat” him is probably just to ignore him. Cut him off, isolate him, warn others about him. Don’t waste time with schemes to humble him. Don’t engage. Don’t interact with him at all. Certainly don’t listen to him.
Difficult to do that completely, especially for Walky, who has to room with him. Kicking him in the shins to get past him will do in a pinch. Not venting and justifying it, just circumventing an obstacle.
Mike, you realize that Joyce has not forgiven the majority of white males in her life and that quite a few of them have been beaten within an inch of their lives, imprisoned, or STABBED. You are supposed to be a smart evil genius and Joyce literally just got her wrist out of cast from BEATING A MAN.
Um I mean she’s still a dick to Joe who is basically a perfect cinnamon bun teddy bear compared to Mike so no
But the fandom seems perpetually unable to accept that Sarah is, at best, incredibly flawed in her moral prognosises of people so I give this conversation up basically before it starts.
doomska
I mean unless we are JUST talking about NotRyan in which case sure.
No, he’s done a lot more. There was an entire storyline about this
Zee
How is just ranking people worse than actively sending your naive sheltered friend to break up a relationship without her knowledge? Granted, raidah deserves it but still. I’ll never get the intense Joe hate
thejeff
Go read that strip where Joyce finally got through to him again.
His attitude matters.
Not fond of Sarah’s plans either, but Joe’s problems were basically his entire life – at least from what we saw of it. And he was talking himself up to be even worse than he actually was – with talking of drunken threesomes and the like.
Joe treated EVERY woman he encountered like their entire purpose for existing was for his benefit, constantly skirting (and not infrequently crossing) the line between merely being obnoxious and sexual harassment. He was so unwilling to respect women’s boundaries that it made many of them feel unsafe, and refused to listen to any complaints until Joyce was forced to painfully relate her very personal traumatic experience in order to drive it into his fat head that his behavior was harmful:
Joyce should never have had to tell him that to get him to stop.
Sarah had every reason to respond to Joe with hostility. And while he way she was manipulating Joyce was crappy, it doesn’t approach that level.
boxbot
@fart captor The strip literally right before that Joe explicitly said he is after meaningless sex because he thinks it’s good for both himself and his partner. He also earlier says he only has sex with consenting people, and that his goal is for both parties to have fun.
Now, he was TOTALLY WRONG, but he definitely didn’t treat women like they existed for his pleasure. In fact he actively tried to push danny away the same way he avoids meaningful relationships with women. His resulting actions caused more harm than Sarah but he’s not intentionally spiteful like she is.
He wasn’t talking about how he was only interested in casual sex, or even just the how he treats the women he sleeps with. They had been talking about his Do List, which he put EVERY WOMAN he encountered on, even if he didn’t know her name OR find her attractive. Joe himself is explicitly admitting that he is not treating women like human beings. He’s even doing it on purpose, knowing that it’s hurtful, because he thought the harm was minor (and he refused to listen to anyone telling him otherwise).
Joe was sexually harassing practically every woman he met and completely refused to listen to any of them telling him to stop, no matter how clearly they expressed that his unwelcome, or how visibly it was stressing them out.
It was only when every single woman on campus was pissed off at him that he actually considered that maybe he was doing something bad, and even then he was still refusing to accept that his actions were harmful until Joyce told him about what happened with Ryan (which, again, is extremely shitty of him, as that shit was painful for her to talk about).
The fact that Joe thinks he’s very good about consent doesn’t change the fact that he very clearly was not. He pays only the absolute bare minimum of respect for consent to avoid being a sex offender, but “not committing a crime” and “treating women like people rather than objects” are not the same thing.
Sarah, on the other hand, has been intentionally spiteful towards exactly one person, who she has good reason to feel spiteful towards. That’s not even in the same ballpark.
boxbot
@fart captor my point is that Joe treats everyone like objects, not just women, because he thinks it’s better for everyone. This includes his “closest” friend, Danny, who he explicitly wants no meaningful interaction with. Again, he’s causingg a lot more harm than Sarah, but he doesn’t mean to, whereas Sarah is intentionally causing harm (and knowingly accepting further collateral damage). So no, it’s not in the same ballpark, it’s apples and oranges. They’re both terrible people in their own way, but they both have positives.
What’s there to be tongue-in-cheek about? The circumstances of his birth means he can get away with a lot of behavior other people can’t.
TemporalShrew
He’s not being tongue-in-cheek about the issue itself, which I’m pretty sure he’s self-aware enough to both know about and probably not give a fuck about, because he’s Mike. It’s more that the response is absurdly general and he knows it’s not the answer she’s actually looking for.
Unusually Angry Hippie
Well yeah, he’s being tongue-in-cheek because he’s just pointing it out as a fact of life without make excuses for himself. He’s an asshole and gets away with it because people are sheep, ’nuff said, moving on.
I think the issue boils down to the fact Mike is a protagonist so we assume he’s got his reasons but in RL, everyone knows a Mike and they’re just plain assholes because being one is fun.
222 thoughts on “Recording”
Ana Chronistic
“Why yes I DO get away with murder, regularly”
“I’d say I can’t tell if you’re shitting me but experience tells me I already know the answer anyway”
C.T Phipps
I really do hope Mike gets his ass handed to him at some point. Violence doesn’t solve many problems but Mike strikes me as one of the few which it would.
Jamie
He literally got jumped by Amazi-girl, remember?
sun tzu
And kicked in the shins by Joyce.
Sadly, he’s still around and still toxic.
whitt
sun tzu: “toxic” isn’t a nice thing to call anyone. not a single person can INFECT you with negativity. And if you’ll notice, Mike is being rather consensual about everything he does. He was upfront about no attachments with Ethan (while using his “evil” to make his friends do emotional work they aren’t doing otherwise, not even pushing his opinion that Ethan and Dan should be together but putting himself in the situation in a way agreed to and not unethical itself in order to CREATE and NOT FORCE a learning opportunity), not forcing himself to be even be acceptable to walk with. Imagine how isolating that would be? to know that you knowing your own power grants more, and that same power alienates. yet, Mike handles this realization with some grace and even apparent humor.
Dark humor, often. Like in panel three. And very dry.
But.. TOXIC?
He’s not perpetuating *harm* ANYwhere that I see.
whitt
*Dark humor like in panel FOUR.
Whoops.
Zaxares
There’s still the correct way of helping people to come to realizations and the wrong way. His is the wrong way. It’s akin to staging a fake kidnapping (unknown to both the parent AND the child) to get them to realize that they do truly love each other. Did it work? Yes, it did. Did it also cause needless trauma and anguish on both sides? Yes, it did.
Tough love only works insofar as people can handle the consequences. Not everybody is as resilient mentally or psychologically. Some of the people “helped” by Mike might end up crawling into a bottle or other unhealthy means of coping.
whitt
..my whole point is that NOTHING Mike has done has been truly harmful. And this comic illustrates an AWARENESS of his ability to get away with more than he ought to by rights. Yet his face expresses PAIN at this knowledge, he still does not take it personally when the black women he is talking to has a reaction toward security at his self-awareness of this.
THAT is consent. No way around it.
…I may be forgetting something important, but I can’t remember a single thing Mike’s done that’s been HARMful, malicious, or even long-term. Only mischievous. Only needling. Annoying, NOT *harm*ful.
That was my entire point.
Fart Captor
@whitt:
Here’s Mike listening to Amber opening up to him and talking about one of her greatest anxieties, and Mike immediately using it to make her feel like shit:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/04-just-hangin-out-with-my-family/ensnared/
There was also:
– Taking photos of Dorothy and Walky in bed together and saying he’d share them
– Making shitty comments about Billie the day after she and Ruth were sent to the hospital for being suicidal
– Slut shaming Sal (I don’t care if he happened to be right about her sleeping with Jason, it was still shitty)
Even if Mike *is* expressing sadness or pain over the way society lets him get away with this shit, he’s still doing it. His remorse means nothing and is worth nothing
He also doesn’t have ANY grounds for being upset by Sarah’s reaction. Even if he weren’t an asshole, people aren’t obligated to hang out with him
carms
“A culture of mass media that indoctrinates all people to eternally forgive white males”
I love Mike, he’s a fantastic terrible character, but a real person like that, hella naw, you right.
The dedication to his defence is a little telling perhaps.
thejeff
You must have some different definition of “truly harmful”.
I mean, he hasn’t actually killed or crippled anyone, so it’s all good right?
thejeff
No. It’s not a nice thing to call anyone. Nor are plenty of other correct labels.
I suppose you can avoid seeing the harm if you can convince yourself that everything he does is somehow intended to help the very people he’s harassing.
Rectilinear Propagation
Mike spent several comic strips punching Joe in the face.
Delicious Taffy
Yeah, but that’s okay and fine, because Joe noticed a woman who wasn’t Joyce, while they were on a date.
BBCC
You say that like it was acceptable.
Yumi
I’m not sure how you got there, since their comment was in response to a comment that ended with, “He’s not perpetuating *harm* ANYwhere that I see.”
BBCC
Oh, crap, I see! My bad. Sorry, Rectilinear Propagation!
thejeff
Also, what’s consensual about recording Walky crying in his sleep and playing it for his friends?
And as for being “upfront” with Ethan, he’s being upfront about no attachments, but he’s using that to mask his actual reasons which makes him seem much less upfront about it all.
whitt
Ethan’s being equally upfront about his own feelings and desires…. by ignoring them in ways Mike is PLAYING INTO but not manipulating.
Hence:
as for recording being consensual, Mike’s possibly following modern law over actual consent culture. cuz he knows exactly where the line is, and where it should be, and plays with those lines in ways that then allow people to interact with them more directly.
Sounds like a power play, but not an altogether unconscious nor harmful one. especially when we consider this person is supposed to have JUST moved out of their parents? This whole comic seems to be exploring how personal identity interacts with original “family” environment.
Ethan is submissive in personality. He’s even willing to deny his own sexuality to appease “doing the right thing” or “making people comfortable/happy”.
Mike is simply a converse, a dominant personality. He’s not willing to budge on what he sees to be real, even if it means pointing out how other people ARE (see: needling Dorothy into feeling guilty of her own accord for how she’s treating herself and Walky). Is MIKE doing the thing, or is he involving himself in ways that lead ultimately to more awareness, mindfulness, and consent. Sure, his methods are uncomfortable to some, but …. HARMful? I’m just not sure.
whitt
(ignore the “hence” — i think i started one thought then dropped it after the one word.)
thejeff
So it’s “consensual” because the law says he doesn’t need consent. Nice.
But yeah, I get it. It’s the same old bullshit. Mike’s not harmful because he’s being an asshole to make you a better person. And when the person in question actually gets worse from what he said (Ethan going back in the closet, Amber spirally farther into self-loathing), well that’s not his problem. He was trying to help. If they took it the wrong way, oh well.
kendermouse
I suspect Whitt may be defending Mike because they’ve recognized a bit of themselves in him, and don’t want to be made to feel hurtful/harmful/toxic by association.
Daibhid C
“not a single person can INFECT you with negativity”
Counterpoint: reading this comment made me want to punch something.
whitt
So do it. Non-harmfully. Why would someone having an opinion you disagree with mean *I* am at fault for speaking in front of you? I am not currently in any position to affect your life directly accept through you reading my words. … it doesn’t MATTER if I’m wrong, tangibly, does it?
You just implied that I am toxic. ..Is it toxic to call people toxic?
Mike seems to me to be a willing scapegoat, more than an abuser. Is he ‘perfect’? I didn’t say that.
Just my opinion, mate. It’s safe for people to be wrong if they have no power over you, which I don’t *think* I do..
whitt
(sigh)
*why would having an
*except through
I don’t like being told I’m toxic for thinking as I do. Teach me a better way to think, absolutely. But calling my thinking “toxic” does NOT make me open to listening more. =\
And burdening someone with the responsibility of NEVER thinking something their audience disagrees with is a power play UNlike what Mike has so far done.
Look at the final panel on this page for proof Mike respects people more than you just did me.
….
adjudicus
By your logic, anytime anyone posts anything on social media or even say something in public they bear no responsibility for the effect their words have on people, because, hey, its not THEIR fault that people chose to read/listen to their words, right?
And… no. Calling out toxic behaviour for what it is is not equivalent to actual toxic behaviour. That’d be like accusing someone of being racist after being called racist for their racist actions.
Mike may not deny his actions, sure, but has he ever apologized to people for his actions? Has he in any way changed his behaviour when people ask him to stop?
Knayt
So are we just ignoring Mike recording Walky without his permission seven times, and showing at least one of those recordings to other people without Walky’s permission? That was literally one strip ago, and while it’s the most recent example it’s far from the only one.
whitt
I again could be wrong about absolutely everything but…
I do not think Walky was HARMED
and I just looked it up and while the answers were not entirely built for this one fictional scenario, it looks like what Mike did was legal.
…so, this does not …. look, I’m not saying he’s doing everything right.
I’m saying he’s NOT been outright HARMful.
Means versus ends. His means are odd but his ends nonharmful.
The law is DEFINITELY not on the side of “no one may ever be recorded unknowingly.” I’m no lawyer. I just looked up internet stuff. But again….
if my point is Mike’s intentionally playing with lines of allowance in ways that bring them OUT, not hide them, I’m still going with even the Walky recording thing is more mischievous than malicious.
All it did is create self-awareness of how attached he is. Was it true that the show was canceled? nooooo. was Walky harmed?
I am just not sure anything he’s done counts as HARM, even if it’s not NICE.
adjudicus
…wow. there are plenty of things that are legal that still harm people, that is in no way an adequate defence of Mike’s actions. And ends justifies the means? There is no situation where that is an excuse. And “more mischievous than malicious”? If that something is dear enough to Walky that it elicits such an emotional response, that fucking crosses the line. Oh, and Mike absolutely knew how important that show was to Walky, and STILL chose to go ahead with it. That makes his actions even worse.
thejeff
That just means not enough violence was used. 🙂
Joyce’s “kicking in the shins” approach actually seemed to work. Didn’t get rid of him permanently, but got him out of the way which was the goal.
Rabid Rabbit
Yeah, but he enjoyed it.
Beef
I don’t. When did that happen?
neeks
Whiteboard ding dong bandit storyline
Ferdinand Rosenthal
October 7, 2014.
July 18th, 2014.
brasca1
Apparently Ruth didn’t kill him. Either she’s losing her talent for femur removal or the anti depression medication is extremely effective.
HeySo
On thing that appears to be consistent across universes is that Mike enjoys exposing the hypocrisy and fallibility of humans. The way to “defeat” him would be to humble him, not to feed the things he thrives on. Resorting to physical violence seems about as useful and stupid and immature as a parent screaming at a crying child. You’re not solving anything, you’re just exacerbating the situation by venting, and then trying to find reasons to justify the action.
Then again, physical violence and justifications go hand-in-hand to begin with.
C.T Phipps
Or we could take it not seriously and have him beaten up.
thejeff
The way to “defeat” him is probably just to ignore him. Cut him off, isolate him, warn others about him. Don’t waste time with schemes to humble him. Don’t engage. Don’t interact with him at all. Certainly don’t listen to him.
Difficult to do that completely, especially for Walky, who has to room with him. Kicking him in the shins to get past him will do in a pinch. Not venting and justifying it, just circumventing an obstacle.
Pablo360
Ignore him is bad advice, but your advice isn’t actually to ignore him so I’ll shut up for now.
Hari
Maybe Sarah can beat his ass!
DarkoNeko
uh. I woke up way too early.
AnvilPro
No! No walking separately! They need to be best friends and hang out forever! I want them to be the Statler and Waldorf of this comic.
JetstreamGW
The question is, what is a mana mana?
The better question is, who cares!?
TheHorseCouncil
“DOH HOHOHOHOHOHO!”
cbwroses
+1
Needfuldoer
We’d love to hear your story!
In fact, we’d hate to miss your story!
In fact, we’d love to hate your story!
DOOOOH HOHOHOHOHOHOHO
C.T Phipps
Mike, you realize that Joyce has not forgiven the majority of white males in her life and that quite a few of them have been beaten within an inch of their lives, imprisoned, or STABBED. You are supposed to be a smart evil genius and Joyce literally just got her wrist out of cast from BEATING A MAN.
SUGauthor
The white males that she hasn’t forgiven did WAY worse stuff then he ever did, honestly Mike has a point.
doomska
Um I mean she’s still a dick to Joe who is basically a perfect cinnamon bun teddy bear compared to Mike so no
But the fandom seems perpetually unable to accept that Sarah is, at best, incredibly flawed in her moral prognosises of people so I give this conversation up basically before it starts.
doomska
I mean unless we are JUST talking about NotRyan in which case sure.
Fart Captor
Joe absolutely deserved how Sarah treats him. Being better than Ryan or Mike is an INCREDIBLY low bar
doomska
I mean. Not really. Joe has done a lot less shitty stuff than Sarah, for instance.
Fart Captor
No, he’s done a lot more. There was an entire storyline about this
Zee
How is just ranking people worse than actively sending your naive sheltered friend to break up a relationship without her knowledge? Granted, raidah deserves it but still. I’ll never get the intense Joe hate
thejeff
Go read that strip where Joyce finally got through to him again.
His attitude matters.
Not fond of Sarah’s plans either, but Joe’s problems were basically his entire life – at least from what we saw of it. And he was talking himself up to be even worse than he actually was – with talking of drunken threesomes and the like.
Fart Captor
Joe treated EVERY woman he encountered like their entire purpose for existing was for his benefit, constantly skirting (and not infrequently crossing) the line between merely being obnoxious and sexual harassment. He was so unwilling to respect women’s boundaries that it made many of them feel unsafe, and refused to listen to any complaints until Joyce was forced to painfully relate her very personal traumatic experience in order to drive it into his fat head that his behavior was harmful:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/04-the-do-list/object/
Joyce should never have had to tell him that to get him to stop.
Sarah had every reason to respond to Joe with hostility. And while he way she was manipulating Joyce was crappy, it doesn’t approach that level.
boxbot
@fart captor The strip literally right before that Joe explicitly said he is after meaningless sex because he thinks it’s good for both himself and his partner. He also earlier says he only has sex with consenting people, and that his goal is for both parties to have fun.
Now, he was TOTALLY WRONG, but he definitely didn’t treat women like they existed for his pleasure. In fact he actively tried to push danny away the same way he avoids meaningful relationships with women. His resulting actions caused more harm than Sarah but he’s not intentionally spiteful like she is.
Fart Captor
@boxbot: That’s not what Joe said, or he what he was referring to.
He said “Everyone’s better off not human beings. […] That way no one really gets hurt”
He wasn’t talking about how he was only interested in casual sex, or even just the how he treats the women he sleeps with. They had been talking about his Do List, which he put EVERY WOMAN he encountered on, even if he didn’t know her name OR find her attractive. Joe himself is explicitly admitting that he is not treating women like human beings. He’s even doing it on purpose, knowing that it’s hurtful, because he thought the harm was minor (and he refused to listen to anyone telling him otherwise).
Joe was sexually harassing practically every woman he met and completely refused to listen to any of them telling him to stop, no matter how clearly they expressed that his unwelcome, or how visibly it was stressing them out.
It was only when every single woman on campus was pissed off at him that he actually considered that maybe he was doing something bad, and even then he was still refusing to accept that his actions were harmful until Joyce told him about what happened with Ryan (which, again, is extremely shitty of him, as that shit was painful for her to talk about).
The fact that Joe thinks he’s very good about consent doesn’t change the fact that he very clearly was not. He pays only the absolute bare minimum of respect for consent to avoid being a sex offender, but “not committing a crime” and “treating women like people rather than objects” are not the same thing.
Sarah, on the other hand, has been intentionally spiteful towards exactly one person, who she has good reason to feel spiteful towards. That’s not even in the same ballpark.
boxbot
@fart captor my point is that Joe treats everyone like objects, not just women, because he thinks it’s better for everyone. This includes his “closest” friend, Danny, who he explicitly wants no meaningful interaction with. Again, he’s causingg a lot more harm than Sarah, but he doesn’t mean to, whereas Sarah is intentionally causing harm (and knowingly accepting further collateral damage). So no, it’s not in the same ballpark, it’s apples and oranges. They’re both terrible people in their own way, but they both have positives.
C.T Phipps
Mike is actively trying to break up people so…
Oh wait, so Sarah doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Fart Captor
No, she has plenty of other areas where she is a far better person than Mike. Pretty much EVERY other subject in fact
doomska
I am pretty critical of Sarah and think the fanbase is overly forgiving of her actions but…
Yea I mean she has a lot of legs to stand on relative to Mike. Mike is fucking poison.
TemporalShrew
In fairness, I’m pretty sure he’s being at least 50% tongue-in-cheek here.
… Although I don’t feel like Mike would typically benefit from “fairness” being applied to his words or actions.
Classic Appa
What’s there to be tongue-in-cheek about? The circumstances of his birth means he can get away with a lot of behavior other people can’t.
TemporalShrew
He’s not being tongue-in-cheek about the issue itself, which I’m pretty sure he’s self-aware enough to both know about and probably not give a fuck about, because he’s Mike. It’s more that the response is absurdly general and he knows it’s not the answer she’s actually looking for.
Unusually Angry Hippie
Well yeah, he’s being tongue-in-cheek because he’s just pointing it out as a fact of life without make excuses for himself. He’s an asshole and gets away with it because people are sheep, ’nuff said, moving on.
thejeff
Mike definitely benefits from “fairness” being applied to his actions.
He wouldn’t benefit from fairness.
AutobotDen
Mike is a special kind of asshole.
NF
I feel like the fandom has been called out in the fourth panel.
C.T Phipps
I think the issue boils down to the fact Mike is a protagonist so we assume he’s got his reasons but in RL, everyone knows a Mike and they’re just plain assholes because being one is fun.
Tarmaniel
I dunno, this phenomenon sure didn’t help Danny.
DailyBrad
Which the fandom got a dose of reality when we met Danny’s parents, who were basically the comment section of that time period.
Some took a hint, some kept on “Hyuck, Dannying!1”
C.T Phipps
His ukulele made me realize he was hopeless.
Felix
All Danny’s are…
Vulcanodon
His ukulele made me realize he is powerful. He is beyond social opprobrium. He has built up an immunity to
iocane powdertoxic masculinity.