Wow really Taffy? We’ve got bullys, alcoholics, that guy who facilitated a mass kidnapping that led to people dying, sexual predators and that guy who kept a do list and Rachael is the worst? Feck off!
Well, excuse the fuck out of me for not liking the goddamn antagonist.
Freemage
KtBear: I generally read ‘so and so is the worst’ as talking about the Cast (as in, people listed on the cast page). So we can trim out Ryan and the Deplorable Dad Duo, among others, from the competition.
And as others have noted, the alcoholics and the do list folks have all at least attempted to change, while Rachael remains a one note character: “I judge you, for all time, according to the worst decision you’ve ever made.”
Now, personally, i wouldn’t rank her the worst, though I find her very annoying. Booster and Roz (I almost included Mary and Raidah, but they don’t make the aforementioned Cast Page Cut, placing them formally in the Antagonist category) both aggravate me more on their appearances. But frankly, if all three of them were shoved onto a bus, with Malaya driving, I’d be quite happy.
bemisawa
Also, much like certain bad Charlie Chaplin impersonators I could name, them being the actual worst kinda goes without saying, I would think? (Among reasonable company.)
Or, if someone tells me that they don’t like peas and carrots, I don’t necessarily automatically assume that they’re coming down hard in favor of colonialist genocides, you know? (Unless they’re giving me some VERY particular other cues.)
Also, “so-and-so is the worst” – and even “so-and-so is the actual worst” – is often used for hyperbole. Even if Taffy is not: yeah, what Freemage said. She’s just been very judgy, and about the only role I recall her having in DoA is as this person who doesn’t care about who people are, because how could people change? As someone who is sometimes way too hard on himself (based on what other people have told me), and who knows a fair number of people whose internal monologues seem to be borderline (or actually) abusive to themselves, that kinda harshness isn’t very helpful. (And the people who might need to hear how bad they’re acting – except maybe for Joe in the past, who was already moving in the right direction – either won’t hear it if it’s posed this way, or wouldn’t hear it regardless, or will internalize the “people can’t change” narrative and will be trapped by it.)
Rachel seems to be responding to some past traumas, as best I can tell. Which likely isn’t her fault. But she’s still consistently championing a fairly toxic standard onto people who we have a sympathetic perspective on. Joe, for example, is pretty clearly trying to be a better person – regardless of his past actions, which seem to be a combination of well-intentioned, ignorant, and asshole/immature. Yeah, it’s reasonable for Rachel to personally doubt that he’s really changed, or that Ruth’s really changed. She hasn’t seen any of that. But, unless I am misunderstanding her perspective pretty dramatically, she’s taking that into a pretty toxic place, even if she herself is doing so because of her own traumas: she’s claiming that people *don’t* change and *can’t* change.
Yeah, it’s understandable that she might think that if she’s coming from a place of trauma, sure. But what we’ve seen her doing in practice is speaking aloud the internal self-hating monologues of people who are already self-flagellating, and doubting that they can change. Yeah, no one is perfect, and there’s no such thing as being so good that you’re unable to do harm – and look at what embracing self-righteousness has done to Mary. But Rachel seems stuck in this black-and-white thinking, and this belief based on her own experiences which is just not very accurate. And she’s hurting people, and being unpleasant. I personally hope she gets a bit more perspective – maybe even from Joe’s character development – but yeah, I see why people don’t like her. I myself liked her quite a bit less until I started thinking about *why* she might be like that. Now, I still find her kinda unpleasant in DoA, because of how she’s been acting, but if she can get past that, I’d be very interested to see the more nuanced perspective she might grow into.
If that’s an acceptable way to get people to improve themselves, then I have to say it’s at the same level (or worse) of Mike’s techniques. And I do recall him catching a fair amount of flak for, you know, being an asshole (albeit secretly a principled one at least part of the time, and seemingly developing his methodology as a response to his parents being threatened, at least partially as camouflage, and as a way to protect them and those who he loves).
Bemisawa
(Hopefully, none of that comes off too harsh, or as overwhelming e.g. for being so long. Mostly, I’m just not particularly good at brevity without significant additional effort. Hopefully, it’s sufficiently clear that I mostly agree with your points (despite not being much of a Rachel fan); they just read as a bit harshly-stated. I didn’t mean it as condescending, either. And, who knows, perhaps you were intentionally overreacting back. The challenges of deciphering tone on the Internet from text are Literally The Absolute Worst (that is, kinda annoying, and sometimes hard to decipher without context).
Naw. Jennifer is the worst IMO… But that might be changing with her latest storyline and she seems to be coming back to Earth cuz I couldn’t stand her when she hung around Raidah (who is truly awful).
Billie has shown kindness to others, even during her worst segments in the story. She interacts with the other characters in a variety of ways. Rachel does neither, so I like her less.
So close, but you somehow veered away from the source of the awful. Raidah is the actual worst. She’s not only terrible, she makes other people terrible. I think I actually hate Raidah more than I do Mary. Mary is awful, but at least I can understand how and why. I just do not fathom how Raidah’s brain works.
Azhrei Vep
And while Mary is the more actively hateful person, she’s so excessive about it that she mostly just pushes people away from her bullshit (mostly. There was her boyfriend at one point), unlike Raidah who, as you pointed out, drags people down toward her level.
Honestly, while strict and harsh, she has a point.
The people you hurt are not required to forgive you.
I disagree that guilt can’t change a person, but the way she’s looking at it is… it’s similar to Jimmy McGill in Better Call Saul.
It’s not a question of if the guilt is real or not. It IS real guilt.
What matters is if the change is consistent and the behaviors are not repeated.
Clearly someone, I’m assuming her dad, had a pattern of behavior, felt bad, and then continued the behavior, even after expressing guilt to her, over and over and over. So she’s jaded to sex pests and their attempts to “reform”.
She’s harsh… but I can see where she’s coming from. Plus, she’s in college. Normally, people see there can be negatives in the world or different types of good, but Rachel is an interesting case where her coming of age is about accepting some people, not all will, but some people CAN change.
Well he’s not asking for forgiveness. He’s just minding his business. She inserted herself. People are not obligated to forgive you but that doesn’t mean she isn’t being a jerk.
This right here. He’s not asking for forgiveness. All the talk of social debt and who’s owed or not owed what, but nobody seems to care that he’s not asking for a damn thing from her.
Jonquil S
But he’s not trying to make amends either.
When someone chooses to harm another person, the two ethical courses of action are to try to repair & reverse the harm, and to pursue justice or forgiveness. Joe harmed Rachel, and he has not actually tried to repair that harm at all.
Just because Joe repaired the harm he caused Joyce doesn’t actually mean he actually did anything to help Rachel at all. In fact it sounds like he just avoided her.
He owes her, not the other way around. It’s good he’s not asking her for forgiveness. It’s bad that he’s not even trying to fix what he did. As if having a positive relationship with Joyce means the harm he did to everyone else also vanishes.
It doesn’t.
Josh
I mean, it is pretty obvious Rachel does not want Joe around, and Joe obliged by staying clear. He noticed at least that much and avoided her because she has no intention of forgiving him no matter what. She doesn’t owe him forgiveness and he hasn’t sought it out based on what seems to be her preference.
Joe doesn’t seem like the type of character to ignore Rachel if she made ANY type of indication otherwise to her wanting something from him. So far she has only shown a desire to take potshots at him whenever possible and really, Joe shouldn’t and doesn’t owe her that privilege.
I think at this point, if Rachel asked for some kind of penance, Joe would oblige her and do his best to fulfill her terms. But since she hasn’t done that, it’s Fine, Actually™ for him not to. If anything, I imagine she’d like him even less if he started deliberately coming around her to make amends she never requested.
If we absolutely have to frame this in terms of social debt (which is a disgusting mindset to me, but I’ll try it), Joe doesn’t owe Rachel any specific action in any special amount. She wants him not to be around her, he’s been avoiding spaces he sees her in, that’s him giving her what she wants. If she doesn’t want him around, being around her would be going against her wishes and prioritizing his own need to make amends, which just sucks.
The bit about his relationship with Joyce not negating the harm Joe did to everyone else is just pointless to add. Adding that little “It doesn’t.” with its own line break for emphasis implies a belief that anyone said it did, or even indicated they thought that, but nobody has, especially not the person you’re directly replying to.
Ian Clark
When she’s made it very clear that she axiomatically will not accept attempts to make amends from anyone, that it’s actually part of her entire worldview, going out of your way to avoid contact actually is pretty much the best you can do.
a/snow/mous/e
Agreed. It’s annoying that she has to bring up how much she hates Joe whenever she sees him. If he can’t change, what’s the point in yelling at him?
Freemage
Serious question–what sort of ‘amends’ could Joe possibly offer at this point? He did something stupid (the do list), figured out, after a bit, that it WAS stupid and harmful, and:
1: Stopped the behavior, and:
2: Offered a token apology, and donut, to show others that at least he had a better understanding of the situation, and would not repeat it. He also made it clear at the time that no one was under any obligation to forgive him, even if they took the donut.
What sort of amends can one make for a one-time action? What could possibly atone for the harm he’s done, especially since she’s made it clear nothing ever would?
Bedovian
Making amends is a nice concept but sometimes the best thing you can do for someone you’ve hurt is to leave them alone.
“The people you hurt are not required to forgive you” is an absolutely true statement, full stop.
Furthermore, once you’ve hurt someone, you will always be a person who hurt someone. You can’t actually wipe the slate clean.
That being said, people are capable of growth, and change, and becoming a person who *wouldn’t have hurt* that person, if they had known then what they know now (or been the person then that they are now).
That doesn’t mean they didn’t still do whatever it is that they did, and people can choose whether or not to forgive them for it. But there’s a difference between being *a* person who made a mistake; or did something wrong; or hurt someone, and being the *same* person who…
Rachel doesn’t seem to get that. But if she did, she’s *still* not personally obligated to a) believe that Joe is actually a different person now than he was then; or b) forgive him, even if she does believe that he’s changed.
Tessea
You are not incorrect! But I think the point here is that Rachel is the one who started this conversation and is using it as an excuse to dump on him. she didn’t have to engage, she could have just gone off to do her own thing. Joe already knows she doesn’t like him and why. He even pointed out that he goes out of his way not to disturb her when he sees that she’s working out.
PedanticJerkass
And again, he’s neither demanding that she believe he’s changed nor demanding that she forgive him. The most he’s done so far is express that he wants to change and to acknowledge that she won’t believe he’s changed. Was even that too much for him to dare to do?
Badger
B, absolutely. A? If someone has has in fact changed and they don’t ’t see or acknowledge it because one refuses to do so, thats on them.
esolo
Sure. *We* know that Joe has, in fact, changed (or at the bare minimum, is in the process of changing). Rachel doesn’t know that; she only has Joe’s word for it. She hasn’t seen what we’ve seen and doesn’t know what we know. And given that it hasn’t really been *that* long since the events in question, I’m not sure it’s entirely unreasonable for her to be skeptical.
tbf
> Furthermore, once you’ve hurt someone, you will always be a person who hurt someone. You can’t actually wipe the slate clean.
I think that’s why Christianity is so popular; it promises to do just that.
Charles Phipps
I mean, it seems weird no one actually acknowledges the concept of atonement in the argument.
That a person can and should make amends for what actions they’ve taken.
To begin again.
Doopyboop
I also think it’s important to make it clear what is meant by hurting someone. We talking feelings, physical harm, mental harm? What if someone is a minor when they’ve hurt someone? Are they expected to carry that burden for life for something they did when they didn’t know any better? When they were perhaps having a meltdown? I think such a viewpoint is very unforgiving and frankly, very draconian.
I still have scars on my hands from working with children who, at times, had violent outbursts. I’ve been struck, had furniture and other items thrown at me, been bitten, scratched, hair pulled, you name it I’ve experienced it. But I would NEVER say that those children will now and forever always be “people who have hurt someone”. I did my best to deescalate, and once they were calm, we went about our day as normal. Some of them apologized, most didn’t, but that doesn’t really matter. I think it’d be a lie to pretend that I’m someone who has never, at any point, ever hurt another human being. I had my own outbursts when I was a child. I’ve been flippant with my tone and hurt friends without realizing. I’ve been thoughtless and hurtful before, because I’m not perfect. I’ve done my best to apologize and make things better when I’ve fucked up. If that’s good enough for some people, yay! If it isn’t for others, oh well! I’m not going to live the rest of my life thinking I’m the scum of the earth for that. I don’t think the vast majority of people should.
I don’t think there’s a slate that really needs to be cleaned. No one is guiltless but all anyone can do is their best. And if someone IS doing their best, isn’t that commendable? Do we really think the best and most productive way of going about life is to treat any instance of ever harming another person as evidence that that person is awful and will forever be stained by it?
esolo
There’s a huge difference between acknowledging that you’re a person who has made mistakes because you’re not perfect (and nobody is) and thinking you’re the scum of the earth, to be fair. And absolutely, people doing their best is commendable.
I agree that there’s a distinction between a child who is struggling to regulate their emotions causing harm, and someone saying something thoughtless in an argument, and someone deliberately doing something to hurt somebody else. It’s a spectrum, and the things we do are “defining” to different degrees, from “virtually not at all” to “quite a bit, actually.” But they don’t go away just because we’re better people now.
Case in point: when I was a kid, I was kind of an asshole. I had some anger issues because my dad was sick, and I took it out on other people. I never seriously hurt anybody physically, but I was definitely a “bully” in a way that I’m not proud of. I don’t think what I did when I was between the ages of six and eight is particularly defining of me now, at 32, but I *did* those things, and I don’t get to pretend that I didn’t just because I’d never do something like that now.
Nobody is saying that “the best and most productive way of going about life is to treat any instance of ever harming another person as evidence that that person is awful.” Good people make mistakes. Good people even sometimes do shitty things intentionally.
But being a generally good person who does generally good things isn’t a free pass for doing something shitty. It doesn’t make them an awful person; it makes them a generally good person who did something shitty, the same as most people. We can acknowledge that we’re all imperfect people who have done shitty things without it being “carrying a burden for life” or thinking we’re “the scum of the earth” or that we will “forever be stained” by it.
So yeah, I agree with everybody who is saying some variation of “people are mostly composed of shades of gray and nobody is perfect and everybody has (probably) hurt someone at some point.” That’s what being a person is. I just think it’s important not to pretend that just because I’m not the kind of person now who would do the shitty thing I did then, that I didn’t still do that thing. That’s what I mean by always being “a person who . . .”
Vox
Everyone has hurt someone. Defining ourselves and others by “sin” should have died out with the puritans.
In 14 years this Rachel has never said a single nice thing to anyone, or about anyone.
Although she seemed normal for 30 seconds in flashback once on meeting Ruth.
She’s toxic. She’s just making baseless accusations.
She’s obviously pulled this before on Joe, which is why he admitted to avoiding her.
Nymph
That isn’t what happened between them at all. He was avoiding her because he put her name on the List where he rated her like a product and then published it so people could see his esteemed opinion on her body and how fuckable it was.
She’s not upset for no reason at Joe. I agree she could have kept it to herself, but she’s not obligated to. He was a dick to her and most other women on campus. Her accusations are not baseless, they’re just lacking the extra information about Joe changing that we as the audience have.
For her, she was treated like shit and then accused of publishing the list 3 days after a rapist was found on campus, and then told he would adjust her rating downward for being a pain in the ass about this. THEN Joe apologized once and started avoiding her. It’s been a few months for her (not years like it has for us) and she’s understandably still pissed off about what he did.
She has some shitty opinions about whether people can change or not, but like everyone else on the cast she is 19/20ish so that’s not terribly surprising. I’m actually still flabbergasted that people are SO angry at her for what feels like a very normal reason to be annoyed at someone and snappy when she sees them.
Aus
The main reason people are angry at her – and I don’t know if outright angry is correct, but it’s not too important – is that *she* approached *Joe* unsolicited, decided to engage with him, and decided to begin using what I would call abusive tactics on him.
Note that all he said at first yesterday was that he chooses to avoid sharing the gym with her. She escalates by attributing it to a horribly sexist reason, and the *second* thing he says is “I do it in acknowledgment of your feelings about me”. To which she escalates again – saying he hasn’t changed (putting those words in his mouth, no less). To which he disagrees, but acknowledges that he understands her postion.
If Rachel sincerely believes change is impossible, and (as she says today) that even if it was, it doesn’t wipe away your sin, then why does she speak to him at all? After all, nothing she says will change him for the better. So the *only* possible outcome is to make him feel bad and/or to make herself feel better by making him feel bad. And that is petty vengeance. She’s not defending herself – he didn’t speak to her. She’s not defending others – he didn’t speak to anyone else, improperly or otherwise.
*That’s* why people dislike what she’s doing.
Nymph
Right, I understand why people are upset. I don’t understand the level of upset that’s aimed at her, and part of that is that I personally disagree that she’s doing much wrong by being the one to start this conversation. I think people who are victims of some form of cruelty by another person have an absolute right to talk to that person and be angry while doing it.
Also, Joe was HORRIBLY SEXIST the last time she talked to him, so it’s not weird that she treated him that way.
As for her opinion on change, she’s hardly the first 19/20-something who had a stupidly rigid and unfair opinion that she’s not taking notes on.
So, again, my flabbers are fully gasted that people find this so infuriating rather than just “Oof, what a shitty opinion.”
Freemage
Part of it is also that this is the only side of her we’ve ever seen, other than the Ruth flashback. Maybe if we saw her having a normal day with friends or something, it might help. But right now, she’s as one-note as Mary, and with less alterations of the beat.
Adam Black
Except we learned that isn’t the last time they talked.
They’ve been working out together and she drove him away with talk like this ( which may have been justified) and now she’s blaming him for not spending time with her.
No matter what he does is going to be wrong.
This is Tsundere.
It’s not that she’s not justified it’s that she has NOTHING else.
Does she have friends? Hobbies? Innerlife.
Her dialogue been become a loop of a depressed character inner condemning critic.
Do we ever see her doing or saying ANYTHING kind to anyone, ever?
Nymph
Again, that is NOT what either of them said. You are making things up to be upset about. He said he’d been avoiding her, he didn’t say why. Neither of them have talked about working out together and her driving him away.
Adam Black
You have a good memory for what happened three months ago in comic.
But I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about yesterday and today’s comics. The words on the page.
They also tell us new facts, which you are supposed to infer and understand we as the audience have missing information .
When I said her accusations are baseless, I was stating a fact not an opinion. Rachel is justified in her dislike of Joe for all the reasons you described. But that wasn’t what she was talking about. At all. For all we know.
(1) We learn a new fact.
(2) They have been regularly working out together.
(3) Enough that Rachel noticed.
We are supposed to update our priors with this info.
(4) We learn that they had this conversation before and this is why Joe avoids her and no longer works out when she is there deliberately.
Lets look at the accusations: (1) Joe can’t work out around her because she is too sexy.
Notice how self flattering this is, and it’s not because of the things Rachel said to Joe implying she’d rather not see him.
(2) Look at the “Capitalized” You. She is implying shed rather not see him, so it’s obvious she said this in the past too.
(3) There is no cases of Joe avoiding women he likes because he finds them hot.
(4) It’s sus she remembers being 11 on the list and brings it up. But not how quickly he offered to downgrade her. Which you haven’t forgotten.
( I think she’s into Joe. This is her terrible ham-handed way of flirting and begging . On the old Joe this would have encouraged him)
(5) ‘You agree that you haven’t changed ‘ because Joe is giving her personal space after multiple negative conversations during workouts ??
That’s a You Hate Wallfles discourse. Nobody was talking about change. She accused him of being a bad person because she missed him and is too social awkward to phrase it anyway but an accusation of a crime.
Unless there is a missing conversation last time where Joe promised to change for her this is non sequitur.
But we have multiple conversations for years of Rachel starting the conversation about “no one can change” or “redemption is a story” when no one asked her. She clearly needs therapy about something big.
(6) She literally says “So you agree you haven’t changed”. Something he never said. You see this yourself. You know based on the words on this page this is a baseless accusation. ( Whether people can change or Joe has changed. Or whether Joe deserves her forgiveness is irrelevant. )
It’s BASELESS because she made it up. Invented it. Tried to put words in his mouth he never said.
She has her reasons.
But there is big difference between being justifiable cynical
and seeking out ppl to harass them. Or making stuff up.
I liked Rachel in Walkyverse and this one note character is a big downgrade. I no longer recognize Rachel.
Nor do I think she is a moral authority. She knew first hand Ruth was out of control and said and did nothing the first semester. Ruth is an enabler.
(7) Next baseless accusation: “it doesn’t matter if you’ve changed or not”
Unless there have multiple interim conversations where he confided this to Rachel,this is just psychological projection and false even from her viewpoint.
It DOES Matter. And it especially matters to Rachel as she keeps bringing it up. Unprompted to Multiple people.
Rachel is arguing with herself. And she is losing.
(8) “All you have is your guilt, and Guilt isn’t change.
Ditto number 7. Unless Joe told her off panel he felt guilty, she is just making stuff up, begging him, throwing spaghetti on the wall.
This isn’t the comic we’ve been reading for 15 years. Joe ,Guilty?
This seems more projection about an abusive family member or Ruth.
This isn’t going to land because it’s not accurate to the personality. Maybe he should feel guilty. Maybe Rachel should find another way to express her hornieness. Or whatever this is.
Joe has probably said 20,000 dismissive things about women and the comic hasn’t shown any sense of guilt for most of it. He expressed remorse for some, but not guilt.
Nymph
I read the first two paragraphs and decided you could go fuck yourself with that condescending tone ? I won’t be reading the rest. Hope it was fun to type.
Joe was literally just in there working out nominally by himself. When confronted on him not being there often, he said that he doesn’t work out when she’s here because he knows she doesn’t like him. The only words he’s said in his own defence is that he knows she doesn’t believe he can change, but he’s still trying to be the best person he can be.
She may be under absolutely no obligation to forgive him, but no one in that room is asking her to forgive or interact with him. She’s just kinda starting shit with a dude that actively doesn’t exist around her if he can avoid it.
Nearly every time Rachel shows up, she’s starting shit with another character. It’s her only trait. Fuck all this “obligation” nonsense, she’s always the one instigating a confrontation over shit that happened months or years ago.
That right there is her tale. At some point she feels she let something happen and kept quiet about it until someone was hurt badly. Now she speaks up about the simple truth that change takes consistent work, not just a statement of intent.
When she’s been featured, that’s who she’s been, and almost always with Joe and Ruth. Joe, whose first interaction with her was to tell her she’s an eleven on his do list, and second interaction was to accuse her of leaking that list. And Ruth who was her freshman roommate while going through what turned her into who she was at the start of the strip. The only other person who has earned her ire is Mary.
Needfuldoer
She has a history with Ruth, too. They were roommates in their freshman year, and apparently Ruth did something unforgivable that’s still undefined.
And yet, when she found out Ruth was going to be her RA, she did NOT immediately go to the housing admins and demand to be moved, or even tell them why Ruth would be a bad RA. Instead, she simply remained on the wing, all the while continuing to resent Ruth to the point she walks up and starts a conversation until she can make a jab.
Needfuldoer
Well yeah, if she moved to another building she wouldn’t get to make those jabs. (And from a Doylist perspective, we’d see her even less. She’d make as many appearances as Beatrice and Nash.)
Mr D
If I may? No, she does not “speak the truth that change takes consistent work”.
She states, under no uncertain terms, that “Change is impossible”.
The people you hurt are not required to forgive you, but you are required to improve your reading comprehension at some point instead of just assuming that that canned phrase applies to every sitaution.
Ironically, guilt actually can be and usually is a great motivator for change, but shame isn’t. The distinction being that guilt is when you feel bad about what you’ve done, and shame is when you feel bad about who you are. I say “ironically”, because it shows how Rachel’s actually making things much worse. Or she would be if Joe wasn’t actively choosing to disregard her and change anyway.
I love how Joe is just minding his own and focusing on his own self improvement regardless of Rachel’s negging. Makes me respect Joe a whole lot more and view Rachel as nothing more than a stagnating 20 year old who thinks they have the whole world figured out when it’s just plain arrogance.
Booster pinned her down pretty well a couple strips back; https://www.dumbingofage.com/2020/comic/book-11/01-this-bright-millennium/sobstory/
Honestly, with how one note Rachel is about this whole ” change doesn’t matter” thing I wonder if there is something that she is guilty about from her past she feels like she can’t or shouldn’t let go of. Would kind of give some explanation of why she is the way she is. But also entirely possible she’s just an asshole.
My best guess would be that she’s repeatedly suffered (whether severely or just socially) by people who then went on to feel bad about it, maybe even suffer consequences for it, and then seem to go on with their lives, but the harm to *her* was never undone.
As an example, a young straight couple engages in sexual activity, and the guy tells his friends. The girl is slut-shamed, and the school then goes through a lot of effort to try to educate everyone about not slut-shaming, and after all that, the guy apologizes. Maybe he even seems to sincerely do better after that. But the girl still suffered the consequence of it, and even IF people act like she was the victim, their attitude about her is permanently damaged. There’s no putting the genie back in that bottle.
There really isn’t a simple answer at all for how to manage those emotions. But I would recommend against what Rachel is doing; specifically seeking out conversations with people that trigger these feelings or memories.
thejeff
Or even more so from someone who hurt her, apologized, said they’d change, then did it again.
And probably again.
Pretty standard abuser behavior.
Strawb
Yeah that makes sense. I don’t really blame her though she obviously can’t help confronting Joe when she sees him. She’s probably seeking a resolution he can’t provide.
I’m actually enjoying this interaction. Joe isn’t being a doormat but he’s accepting she won’t ever stop being mad about it. And Rachel is being realistic if also obviously combative.
It became clear to me years ago that the mainstream version of “social justice” is Christianity without the redemption part. It’s just, you crossed them, so you’re a sinner and they hate you forever. And they never ask themselves how it is that they managed to make “social *justice*” Into a swear word. Well, it’s things like this
I think the point is that jacking off wasn’t enough to handle his desires for Joyce; now we have to wait, and see if Joyce is ready anytime soon. Which might be complicated by the whole Joyce/Dorothy situation.
He also has to get stronger to be able to squeeze her harder
ZombieKyrik
If he doesn’t take care of his needs before he smooshes her again she might feel something poking her; whether that’s something she wants, or not, we’ll have to wait, and see.
457 thoughts on “Changed”
Schpoonman
Fuck off, Tall Rachel.
Taffy
She’s the actual worst.
NGPZ
damn I don’t even wanna imagine how other Rachel feels about her.
Rachel should just change her name so other Rachel can be Rachel
Taffy
You’re so right. She sucks so bad, she doesn’t deserve her own name.
PedanticJerkass
Why isn’t this one “other Rachel”?
Taffy
It’s an extremely obvious case of pretty privilege, tbh.
NGPZ
420 comments!!!! BLAZE IT!!!!
KtBear
Wow really Taffy? We’ve got bullys, alcoholics, that guy who facilitated a mass kidnapping that led to people dying, sexual predators and that guy who kept a do list and Rachael is the worst? Feck off!
Taffy
Sorry you feel that way.
Thag Simmons
I’ll say they’ve done an excellent job making me share their annoyance whenever Rachel appears
Taffy
Well, excuse the fuck out of me for not liking the goddamn antagonist.
Freemage
KtBear: I generally read ‘so and so is the worst’ as talking about the Cast (as in, people listed on the cast page). So we can trim out Ryan and the Deplorable Dad Duo, among others, from the competition.
And as others have noted, the alcoholics and the do list folks have all at least attempted to change, while Rachael remains a one note character: “I judge you, for all time, according to the worst decision you’ve ever made.”
Now, personally, i wouldn’t rank her the worst, though I find her very annoying. Booster and Roz (I almost included Mary and Raidah, but they don’t make the aforementioned Cast Page Cut, placing them formally in the Antagonist category) both aggravate me more on their appearances. But frankly, if all three of them were shoved onto a bus, with Malaya driving, I’d be quite happy.
bemisawa
Also, much like certain bad Charlie Chaplin impersonators I could name, them being the actual worst kinda goes without saying, I would think? (Among reasonable company.)
Or, if someone tells me that they don’t like peas and carrots, I don’t necessarily automatically assume that they’re coming down hard in favor of colonialist genocides, you know? (Unless they’re giving me some VERY particular other cues.)
Also, “so-and-so is the worst” – and even “so-and-so is the actual worst” – is often used for hyperbole. Even if Taffy is not: yeah, what Freemage said. She’s just been very judgy, and about the only role I recall her having in DoA is as this person who doesn’t care about who people are, because how could people change? As someone who is sometimes way too hard on himself (based on what other people have told me), and who knows a fair number of people whose internal monologues seem to be borderline (or actually) abusive to themselves, that kinda harshness isn’t very helpful. (And the people who might need to hear how bad they’re acting – except maybe for Joe in the past, who was already moving in the right direction – either won’t hear it if it’s posed this way, or wouldn’t hear it regardless, or will internalize the “people can’t change” narrative and will be trapped by it.)
Rachel seems to be responding to some past traumas, as best I can tell. Which likely isn’t her fault. But she’s still consistently championing a fairly toxic standard onto people who we have a sympathetic perspective on. Joe, for example, is pretty clearly trying to be a better person – regardless of his past actions, which seem to be a combination of well-intentioned, ignorant, and asshole/immature. Yeah, it’s reasonable for Rachel to personally doubt that he’s really changed, or that Ruth’s really changed. She hasn’t seen any of that. But, unless I am misunderstanding her perspective pretty dramatically, she’s taking that into a pretty toxic place, even if she herself is doing so because of her own traumas: she’s claiming that people *don’t* change and *can’t* change.
Yeah, it’s understandable that she might think that if she’s coming from a place of trauma, sure. But what we’ve seen her doing in practice is speaking aloud the internal self-hating monologues of people who are already self-flagellating, and doubting that they can change. Yeah, no one is perfect, and there’s no such thing as being so good that you’re unable to do harm – and look at what embracing self-righteousness has done to Mary. But Rachel seems stuck in this black-and-white thinking, and this belief based on her own experiences which is just not very accurate. And she’s hurting people, and being unpleasant. I personally hope she gets a bit more perspective – maybe even from Joe’s character development – but yeah, I see why people don’t like her. I myself liked her quite a bit less until I started thinking about *why* she might be like that. Now, I still find her kinda unpleasant in DoA, because of how she’s been acting, but if she can get past that, I’d be very interested to see the more nuanced perspective she might grow into.
If that’s an acceptable way to get people to improve themselves, then I have to say it’s at the same level (or worse) of Mike’s techniques. And I do recall him catching a fair amount of flak for, you know, being an asshole (albeit secretly a principled one at least part of the time, and seemingly developing his methodology as a response to his parents being threatened, at least partially as camouflage, and as a way to protect them and those who he loves).
Bemisawa
(Hopefully, none of that comes off too harsh, or as overwhelming e.g. for being so long. Mostly, I’m just not particularly good at brevity without significant additional effort. Hopefully, it’s sufficiently clear that I mostly agree with your points (despite not being much of a Rachel fan); they just read as a bit harshly-stated. I didn’t mean it as condescending, either. And, who knows, perhaps you were intentionally overreacting back. The challenges of deciphering tone on the Internet from text are Literally The Absolute Worst (that is, kinda annoying, and sometimes hard to decipher without context).
Scotch
This is why TL:DR was invented
Nurts2That
Naw. Jennifer is the worst IMO… But that might be changing with her latest storyline and she seems to be coming back to Earth cuz I couldn’t stand her when she hung around Raidah (who is truly awful).
Taffy
Billie has shown kindness to others, even during her worst segments in the story. She interacts with the other characters in a variety of ways. Rachel does neither, so I like her less.
John Campbell
So close, but you somehow veered away from the source of the awful. Raidah is the actual worst. She’s not only terrible, she makes other people terrible. I think I actually hate Raidah more than I do Mary. Mary is awful, but at least I can understand how and why. I just do not fathom how Raidah’s brain works.
Azhrei Vep
And while Mary is the more actively hateful person, she’s so excessive about it that she mostly just pushes people away from her bullshit (mostly. There was her boyfriend at one point), unlike Raidah who, as you pointed out, drags people down toward her level.
Mr. Random
Honestly, while strict and harsh, she has a point.
The people you hurt are not required to forgive you.
I disagree that guilt can’t change a person, but the way she’s looking at it is… it’s similar to Jimmy McGill in Better Call Saul.
It’s not a question of if the guilt is real or not. It IS real guilt.
What matters is if the change is consistent and the behaviors are not repeated.
Clearly someone, I’m assuming her dad, had a pattern of behavior, felt bad, and then continued the behavior, even after expressing guilt to her, over and over and over. So she’s jaded to sex pests and their attempts to “reform”.
She’s harsh… but I can see where she’s coming from. Plus, she’s in college. Normally, people see there can be negatives in the world or different types of good, but Rachel is an interesting case where her coming of age is about accepting some people, not all will, but some people CAN change.
Bedovian
Well he’s not asking for forgiveness. He’s just minding his business. She inserted herself. People are not obligated to forgive you but that doesn’t mean she isn’t being a jerk.
Taffy
This right here. He’s not asking for forgiveness. All the talk of social debt and who’s owed or not owed what, but nobody seems to care that he’s not asking for a damn thing from her.
Jonquil S
But he’s not trying to make amends either.
When someone chooses to harm another person, the two ethical courses of action are to try to repair & reverse the harm, and to pursue justice or forgiveness. Joe harmed Rachel, and he has not actually tried to repair that harm at all.
Just because Joe repaired the harm he caused Joyce doesn’t actually mean he actually did anything to help Rachel at all. In fact it sounds like he just avoided her.
He owes her, not the other way around. It’s good he’s not asking her for forgiveness. It’s bad that he’s not even trying to fix what he did. As if having a positive relationship with Joyce means the harm he did to everyone else also vanishes.
It doesn’t.
Josh
I mean, it is pretty obvious Rachel does not want Joe around, and Joe obliged by staying clear. He noticed at least that much and avoided her because she has no intention of forgiving him no matter what. She doesn’t owe him forgiveness and he hasn’t sought it out based on what seems to be her preference.
Joe doesn’t seem like the type of character to ignore Rachel if she made ANY type of indication otherwise to her wanting something from him. So far she has only shown a desire to take potshots at him whenever possible and really, Joe shouldn’t and doesn’t owe her that privilege.
Taffy
I think at this point, if Rachel asked for some kind of penance, Joe would oblige her and do his best to fulfill her terms. But since she hasn’t done that, it’s Fine, Actually™ for him not to. If anything, I imagine she’d like him even less if he started deliberately coming around her to make amends she never requested.
Taffy
If we absolutely have to frame this in terms of social debt (which is a disgusting mindset to me, but I’ll try it), Joe doesn’t owe Rachel any specific action in any special amount. She wants him not to be around her, he’s been avoiding spaces he sees her in, that’s him giving her what she wants. If she doesn’t want him around, being around her would be going against her wishes and prioritizing his own need to make amends, which just sucks.
The bit about his relationship with Joyce not negating the harm Joe did to everyone else is just pointless to add. Adding that little “It doesn’t.” with its own line break for emphasis implies a belief that anyone said it did, or even indicated they thought that, but nobody has, especially not the person you’re directly replying to.
Ian Clark
When she’s made it very clear that she axiomatically will not accept attempts to make amends from anyone, that it’s actually part of her entire worldview, going out of your way to avoid contact actually is pretty much the best you can do.
a/snow/mous/e
Agreed. It’s annoying that she has to bring up how much she hates Joe whenever she sees him. If he can’t change, what’s the point in yelling at him?
Freemage
Serious question–what sort of ‘amends’ could Joe possibly offer at this point? He did something stupid (the do list), figured out, after a bit, that it WAS stupid and harmful, and:
1: Stopped the behavior, and:
2: Offered a token apology, and donut, to show others that at least he had a better understanding of the situation, and would not repeat it. He also made it clear at the time that no one was under any obligation to forgive him, even if they took the donut.
What sort of amends can one make for a one-time action? What could possibly atone for the harm he’s done, especially since she’s made it clear nothing ever would?
Bedovian
Making amends is a nice concept but sometimes the best thing you can do for someone you’ve hurt is to leave them alone.
Freezer
Her feelings are valid. Doesn’t mean she’s not being a turbo bongo about it.
esolo
“The people you hurt are not required to forgive you” is an absolutely true statement, full stop.
Furthermore, once you’ve hurt someone, you will always be a person who hurt someone. You can’t actually wipe the slate clean.
That being said, people are capable of growth, and change, and becoming a person who *wouldn’t have hurt* that person, if they had known then what they know now (or been the person then that they are now).
That doesn’t mean they didn’t still do whatever it is that they did, and people can choose whether or not to forgive them for it. But there’s a difference between being *a* person who made a mistake; or did something wrong; or hurt someone, and being the *same* person who…
Rachel doesn’t seem to get that. But if she did, she’s *still* not personally obligated to a) believe that Joe is actually a different person now than he was then; or b) forgive him, even if she does believe that he’s changed.
Tessea
You are not incorrect! But I think the point here is that Rachel is the one who started this conversation and is using it as an excuse to dump on him. she didn’t have to engage, she could have just gone off to do her own thing. Joe already knows she doesn’t like him and why. He even pointed out that he goes out of his way not to disturb her when he sees that she’s working out.
PedanticJerkass
And again, he’s neither demanding that she believe he’s changed nor demanding that she forgive him. The most he’s done so far is express that he wants to change and to acknowledge that she won’t believe he’s changed. Was even that too much for him to dare to do?
Badger
B, absolutely. A? If someone has has in fact changed and they don’t ’t see or acknowledge it because one refuses to do so, thats on them.
esolo
Sure. *We* know that Joe has, in fact, changed (or at the bare minimum, is in the process of changing). Rachel doesn’t know that; she only has Joe’s word for it. She hasn’t seen what we’ve seen and doesn’t know what we know. And given that it hasn’t really been *that* long since the events in question, I’m not sure it’s entirely unreasonable for her to be skeptical.
tbf
> Furthermore, once you’ve hurt someone, you will always be a person who hurt someone. You can’t actually wipe the slate clean.
I think that’s why Christianity is so popular; it promises to do just that.
Charles Phipps
I mean, it seems weird no one actually acknowledges the concept of atonement in the argument.
That a person can and should make amends for what actions they’ve taken.
To begin again.
Doopyboop
I also think it’s important to make it clear what is meant by hurting someone. We talking feelings, physical harm, mental harm? What if someone is a minor when they’ve hurt someone? Are they expected to carry that burden for life for something they did when they didn’t know any better? When they were perhaps having a meltdown? I think such a viewpoint is very unforgiving and frankly, very draconian.
I still have scars on my hands from working with children who, at times, had violent outbursts. I’ve been struck, had furniture and other items thrown at me, been bitten, scratched, hair pulled, you name it I’ve experienced it. But I would NEVER say that those children will now and forever always be “people who have hurt someone”. I did my best to deescalate, and once they were calm, we went about our day as normal. Some of them apologized, most didn’t, but that doesn’t really matter. I think it’d be a lie to pretend that I’m someone who has never, at any point, ever hurt another human being. I had my own outbursts when I was a child. I’ve been flippant with my tone and hurt friends without realizing. I’ve been thoughtless and hurtful before, because I’m not perfect. I’ve done my best to apologize and make things better when I’ve fucked up. If that’s good enough for some people, yay! If it isn’t for others, oh well! I’m not going to live the rest of my life thinking I’m the scum of the earth for that. I don’t think the vast majority of people should.
I don’t think there’s a slate that really needs to be cleaned. No one is guiltless but all anyone can do is their best. And if someone IS doing their best, isn’t that commendable? Do we really think the best and most productive way of going about life is to treat any instance of ever harming another person as evidence that that person is awful and will forever be stained by it?
esolo
There’s a huge difference between acknowledging that you’re a person who has made mistakes because you’re not perfect (and nobody is) and thinking you’re the scum of the earth, to be fair. And absolutely, people doing their best is commendable.
I agree that there’s a distinction between a child who is struggling to regulate their emotions causing harm, and someone saying something thoughtless in an argument, and someone deliberately doing something to hurt somebody else. It’s a spectrum, and the things we do are “defining” to different degrees, from “virtually not at all” to “quite a bit, actually.” But they don’t go away just because we’re better people now.
Case in point: when I was a kid, I was kind of an asshole. I had some anger issues because my dad was sick, and I took it out on other people. I never seriously hurt anybody physically, but I was definitely a “bully” in a way that I’m not proud of. I don’t think what I did when I was between the ages of six and eight is particularly defining of me now, at 32, but I *did* those things, and I don’t get to pretend that I didn’t just because I’d never do something like that now.
Nobody is saying that “the best and most productive way of going about life is to treat any instance of ever harming another person as evidence that that person is awful.” Good people make mistakes. Good people even sometimes do shitty things intentionally.
But being a generally good person who does generally good things isn’t a free pass for doing something shitty. It doesn’t make them an awful person; it makes them a generally good person who did something shitty, the same as most people. We can acknowledge that we’re all imperfect people who have done shitty things without it being “carrying a burden for life” or thinking we’re “the scum of the earth” or that we will “forever be stained” by it.
So yeah, I agree with everybody who is saying some variation of “people are mostly composed of shades of gray and nobody is perfect and everybody has (probably) hurt someone at some point.” That’s what being a person is. I just think it’s important not to pretend that just because I’m not the kind of person now who would do the shitty thing I did then, that I didn’t still do that thing. That’s what I mean by always being “a person who . . .”
Vox
Everyone has hurt someone. Defining ourselves and others by “sin” should have died out with the puritans.
Adam Black
In 14 years this Rachel has never said a single nice thing to anyone, or about anyone.
Although she seemed normal for 30 seconds in flashback once on meeting Ruth.
She’s toxic. She’s just making baseless accusations.
She’s obviously pulled this before on Joe, which is why he admitted to avoiding her.
Nymph
That isn’t what happened between them at all. He was avoiding her because he put her name on the List where he rated her like a product and then published it so people could see his esteemed opinion on her body and how fuckable it was.
She’s not upset for no reason at Joe. I agree she could have kept it to herself, but she’s not obligated to. He was a dick to her and most other women on campus. Her accusations are not baseless, they’re just lacking the extra information about Joe changing that we as the audience have.
For her, she was treated like shit and then accused of publishing the list 3 days after a rapist was found on campus, and then told he would adjust her rating downward for being a pain in the ass about this. THEN Joe apologized once and started avoiding her. It’s been a few months for her (not years like it has for us) and she’s understandably still pissed off about what he did.
She has some shitty opinions about whether people can change or not, but like everyone else on the cast she is 19/20ish so that’s not terribly surprising. I’m actually still flabbergasted that people are SO angry at her for what feels like a very normal reason to be annoyed at someone and snappy when she sees them.
Aus
The main reason people are angry at her – and I don’t know if outright angry is correct, but it’s not too important – is that *she* approached *Joe* unsolicited, decided to engage with him, and decided to begin using what I would call abusive tactics on him.
Note that all he said at first yesterday was that he chooses to avoid sharing the gym with her. She escalates by attributing it to a horribly sexist reason, and the *second* thing he says is “I do it in acknowledgment of your feelings about me”. To which she escalates again – saying he hasn’t changed (putting those words in his mouth, no less). To which he disagrees, but acknowledges that he understands her postion.
If Rachel sincerely believes change is impossible, and (as she says today) that even if it was, it doesn’t wipe away your sin, then why does she speak to him at all? After all, nothing she says will change him for the better. So the *only* possible outcome is to make him feel bad and/or to make herself feel better by making him feel bad. And that is petty vengeance. She’s not defending herself – he didn’t speak to her. She’s not defending others – he didn’t speak to anyone else, improperly or otherwise.
*That’s* why people dislike what she’s doing.
Nymph
Right, I understand why people are upset. I don’t understand the level of upset that’s aimed at her, and part of that is that I personally disagree that she’s doing much wrong by being the one to start this conversation. I think people who are victims of some form of cruelty by another person have an absolute right to talk to that person and be angry while doing it.
Also, Joe was HORRIBLY SEXIST the last time she talked to him, so it’s not weird that she treated him that way.
As for her opinion on change, she’s hardly the first 19/20-something who had a stupidly rigid and unfair opinion that she’s not taking notes on.
So, again, my flabbers are fully gasted that people find this so infuriating rather than just “Oof, what a shitty opinion.”
Freemage
Part of it is also that this is the only side of her we’ve ever seen, other than the Ruth flashback. Maybe if we saw her having a normal day with friends or something, it might help. But right now, she’s as one-note as Mary, and with less alterations of the beat.
Adam Black
Except we learned that isn’t the last time they talked.
They’ve been working out together and she drove him away with talk like this ( which may have been justified) and now she’s blaming him for not spending time with her.
No matter what he does is going to be wrong.
This is Tsundere.
It’s not that she’s not justified it’s that she has NOTHING else.
Does she have friends? Hobbies? Innerlife.
Her dialogue been become a loop of a depressed character inner condemning critic.
Do we ever see her doing or saying ANYTHING kind to anyone, ever?
Nymph
Again, that is NOT what either of them said. You are making things up to be upset about. He said he’d been avoiding her, he didn’t say why. Neither of them have talked about working out together and her driving him away.
Adam Black
You have a good memory for what happened three months ago in comic.
But I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about yesterday and today’s comics. The words on the page.
They also tell us new facts, which you are supposed to infer and understand we as the audience have missing information .
When I said her accusations are baseless, I was stating a fact not an opinion. Rachel is justified in her dislike of Joe for all the reasons you described. But that wasn’t what she was talking about. At all. For all we know.
Justified Dislike≠ All Random Accusations being relevant and/or True.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2025/comic/book-15/04-the-only-exception/hnnrrrgh/
(1) We learn a new fact.
(2) They have been regularly working out together.
(3) Enough that Rachel noticed.
We are supposed to update our priors with this info.
(4) We learn that they had this conversation before and this is why Joe avoids her and no longer works out when she is there deliberately.
Lets look at the accusations: (1) Joe can’t work out around her because she is too sexy.
Notice how self flattering this is, and it’s not because of the things Rachel said to Joe implying she’d rather not see him.
(2) Look at the “Capitalized” You. She is implying shed rather not see him, so it’s obvious she said this in the past too.
(3) There is no cases of Joe avoiding women he likes because he finds them hot.
(4) It’s sus she remembers being 11 on the list and brings it up. But not how quickly he offered to downgrade her. Which you haven’t forgotten.
( I think she’s into Joe. This is her terrible ham-handed way of flirting and begging . On the old Joe this would have encouraged him)
(5) ‘You agree that you haven’t changed ‘ because Joe is giving her personal space after multiple negative conversations during workouts ??
That’s a You Hate Wallfles discourse. Nobody was talking about change. She accused him of being a bad person because she missed him and is too social awkward to phrase it anyway but an accusation of a crime.
Unless there is a missing conversation last time where Joe promised to change for her this is non sequitur.
But we have multiple conversations for years of Rachel starting the conversation about “no one can change” or “redemption is a story” when no one asked her. She clearly needs therapy about something big.
(6) She literally says “So you agree you haven’t changed”. Something he never said. You see this yourself. You know based on the words on this page this is a baseless accusation. ( Whether people can change or Joe has changed. Or whether Joe deserves her forgiveness is irrelevant. )
It’s BASELESS because she made it up. Invented it. Tried to put words in his mouth he never said.
She has her reasons.
But there is big difference between being justifiable cynical
and seeking out ppl to harass them. Or making stuff up.
I liked Rachel in Walkyverse and this one note character is a big downgrade. I no longer recognize Rachel.
Nor do I think she is a moral authority. She knew first hand Ruth was out of control and said and did nothing the first semester. Ruth is an enabler.
(7) Next baseless accusation: “it doesn’t matter if you’ve changed or not”
Unless there have multiple interim conversations where he confided this to Rachel,this is just psychological projection and false even from her viewpoint.
It DOES Matter. And it especially matters to Rachel as she keeps bringing it up. Unprompted to Multiple people.
Rachel is arguing with herself. And she is losing.
(8) “All you have is your guilt, and Guilt isn’t change.
Ditto number 7. Unless Joe told her off panel he felt guilty, she is just making stuff up, begging him, throwing spaghetti on the wall.
This isn’t the comic we’ve been reading for 15 years. Joe ,Guilty?
This seems more projection about an abusive family member or Ruth.
This isn’t going to land because it’s not accurate to the personality. Maybe he should feel guilty. Maybe Rachel should find another way to express her hornieness. Or whatever this is.
Joe has probably said 20,000 dismissive things about women and the comic hasn’t shown any sense of guilt for most of it. He expressed remorse for some, but not guilt.
Nymph
I read the first two paragraphs and decided you could go fuck yourself with that condescending tone ? I won’t be reading the rest. Hope it was fun to type.
Wereg
Joe was literally just in there working out nominally by himself. When confronted on him not being there often, he said that he doesn’t work out when she’s here because he knows she doesn’t like him. The only words he’s said in his own defence is that he knows she doesn’t believe he can change, but he’s still trying to be the best person he can be.
She may be under absolutely no obligation to forgive him, but no one in that room is asking her to forgive or interact with him. She’s just kinda starting shit with a dude that actively doesn’t exist around her if he can avoid it.
Taffy
Nearly every time Rachel shows up, she’s starting shit with another character. It’s her only trait. Fuck all this “obligation” nonsense, she’s always the one instigating a confrontation over shit that happened months or years ago.
Furie
Rachel is a consistent character.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/03-the-thing-i-was-before/redemption/
That right there is her tale. At some point she feels she let something happen and kept quiet about it until someone was hurt badly. Now she speaks up about the simple truth that change takes consistent work, not just a statement of intent.
When she’s been featured, that’s who she’s been, and almost always with Joe and Ruth. Joe, whose first interaction with her was to tell her she’s an eleven on his do list, and second interaction was to accuse her of leaking that list. And Ruth who was her freshman roommate while going through what turned her into who she was at the start of the strip. The only other person who has earned her ire is Mary.
Needfuldoer
She has a history with Ruth, too. They were roommates in their freshman year, and apparently Ruth did something unforgivable that’s still undefined.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/unredacted/
https://www.dumbingofage.com/blankslate/
Freemage
And yet, when she found out Ruth was going to be her RA, she did NOT immediately go to the housing admins and demand to be moved, or even tell them why Ruth would be a bad RA. Instead, she simply remained on the wing, all the while continuing to resent Ruth to the point she walks up and starts a conversation until she can make a jab.
Needfuldoer
Well yeah, if she moved to another building she wouldn’t get to make those jabs. (And from a Doylist perspective, we’d see her even less. She’d make as many appearances as Beatrice and Nash.)
Mr D
If I may? No, she does not “speak the truth that change takes consistent work”.
She states, under no uncertain terms, that “Change is impossible”.
Bruno
The people you hurt are not required to forgive you, but you are required to improve your reading comprehension at some point instead of just assuming that that canned phrase applies to every sitaution.
Ian Clark
Ironically, guilt actually can be and usually is a great motivator for change, but shame isn’t. The distinction being that guilt is when you feel bad about what you’ve done, and shame is when you feel bad about who you are. I say “ironically”, because it shows how Rachel’s actually making things much worse. Or she would be if Joe wasn’t actively choosing to disregard her and change anyway.
Mr D
Wait wait wait, when did we see Rachel’s dad? Did I miss a page somewhere? Is this a patreon page?
thejeff
We didn’t. But we did see a flashback to her moving in and he was conspicuously absent, which made some of us suspicious.
Plenty of innocent explanations of course, but …
Elf grrl
I love how Joe is just minding his own and focusing on his own self improvement regardless of Rachel’s negging. Makes me respect Joe a whole lot more and view Rachel as nothing more than a stagnating 20 year old who thinks they have the whole world figured out when it’s just plain arrogance.
Booster pinned her down pretty well a couple strips back; https://www.dumbingofage.com/2020/comic/book-11/01-this-bright-millennium/sobstory/
Taffy
I adore how he’s completely stonewalling her here. He’s giving her nothing and she can’t stand it.
Needfuldoer
Gray-rocking works!
Lumino
“The important lessons are supposed to be humbling.” -Ruth
CrimsonStorm
Honestly, with how one note Rachel is about this whole ” change doesn’t matter” thing I wonder if there is something that she is guilty about from her past she feels like she can’t or shouldn’t let go of. Would kind of give some explanation of why she is the way she is. But also entirely possible she’s just an asshole.
Aus
My best guess would be that she’s repeatedly suffered (whether severely or just socially) by people who then went on to feel bad about it, maybe even suffer consequences for it, and then seem to go on with their lives, but the harm to *her* was never undone.
As an example, a young straight couple engages in sexual activity, and the guy tells his friends. The girl is slut-shamed, and the school then goes through a lot of effort to try to educate everyone about not slut-shaming, and after all that, the guy apologizes. Maybe he even seems to sincerely do better after that. But the girl still suffered the consequence of it, and even IF people act like she was the victim, their attitude about her is permanently damaged. There’s no putting the genie back in that bottle.
There really isn’t a simple answer at all for how to manage those emotions. But I would recommend against what Rachel is doing; specifically seeking out conversations with people that trigger these feelings or memories.
thejeff
Or even more so from someone who hurt her, apologized, said they’d change, then did it again.
And probably again.
Pretty standard abuser behavior.
Strawb
Yeah that makes sense. I don’t really blame her though she obviously can’t help confronting Joe when she sees him. She’s probably seeking a resolution he can’t provide.
I’m actually enjoying this interaction. Joe isn’t being a doormat but he’s accepting she won’t ever stop being mad about it. And Rachel is being realistic if also obviously combative.
Barf Ninjason
It became clear to me years ago that the mainstream version of “social justice” is Christianity without the redemption part. It’s just, you crossed them, so you’re a sinner and they hate you forever. And they never ask themselves how it is that they managed to make “social *justice*” Into a swear word. Well, it’s things like this
butts
look we’re all very proud of your will to change, man, but that doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to jerk off
ZombieKyrik
I think the point is that jacking off wasn’t enough to handle his desires for Joyce; now we have to wait, and see if Joyce is ready anytime soon. Which might be complicated by the whole Joyce/Dorothy situation.
Paradoxius
He also has to get stronger to be able to squeeze her harder
ZombieKyrik
If he doesn’t take care of his needs before he smooshes her again she might feel something poking her; whether that’s something she wants, or not, we’ll have to wait, and see.