This week in Welcome To The Fuck Zone is Ethan! Ethan... and a booklet of some sort. Huh. If you're a Slipshine member, you can pop right on over. Disgrace
This week in Welcome To The Fuck Zone is Ethan! Ethan... and a booklet of some sort. Huh. If you're a Slipshine member, you can pop right on over.
595 thoughts on “Disgrace”
Ana Chronistic
nice guy
needs more of this tho
Kris
You can’t punch an old man in the face though. He’d die of a heart attack or stroke and Ruth or Billie would go to jail on murder charges.
Ana Chronistic
depends on the old man
I bet Henry Rollins could take one to the face and break your fist in the process
truk2
I remember discussing with siblings, How do I handle my father
“Well you can’t hit him. He has a heart condition. If anything happens, you’d never forgive yourself. And none of the family would ever speak to you again.”
“I think he knows that. That could be why he shouts “HIT ME” as soon as we get into an argument…”
Ps people find it REALLY easy to say “you’ll never forgive yourself”. People that say that lack imagination.
HMH
Independent of most other factors, if somebody is escalating an altercation by demanding that you hit them, you should probably take their word for it that it’s what they actually want. It’s an insidious control mechanism and we shouldn’t stand for it.
PyrrhusDuAekillhus
In fairness, you really shouldn’t engage in domestic battery just kind of as a general principle unrelated to conflict resolution strategy and whether or not the victim is physically frail or whether he’s being a dick.
Just, y’know… rule of thumb. “She was asking for it” is not a defense known for playing well in court for domestic violence cases.
MatthewTheLucky
Thanks, I needed that,
zoelogical
it just occurred to me that i could paint my nails and watch richard spencer get beaten up at the same time
thank you so much for this
iforgetwhatiputhere
Wait, so violence is ok as long as it’s the “good” kind?
thejeff
Um, yeah? That’s pretty clear and obvious.
The debate is over what the “good” kind actually is.
Punching fascists counts in my book.
iforgetwhatiputhere
Spoken like a true fascist…
Fart Captor
lmao
zoelogical
trust me, it’s the good kind when the people you’re punching are white supremacists
thejeff
That’s okay. The fascists really like pacifists.
iforgetwhatiputhere
Make no mistake–I am not a pacifist. But the only acceptable violence is that prescribed by law in a free society, not some fascist deciding to punch another fascist because they disagree on the specifics of their fascism…
BBCC
Ah yes, the old ‘punching someone in the face for advocating genocide makes you JUST AS MUCH a fascist as they are’ bullshit.
iforgetwhatiputhere
Ah yes, the old ‘I’ll insert some words in your argument so it’s the one I have an answer for’ bullshit.
Pat
BBCC pretty much quoted your directly, hon.
iforgetwhatiputhere
No ‘hon’, they didn’t. Their addition is in all caps for your convenience, too.
Meta
“the only acceptable violence is that prescribed by law in a free society”? Really?
This has been pointed out so many times, but this all depends on your definition of “law” and “free society” (and “violence”). The Holocaust was prescribed by law. Not in a free society, but in a society that had significant democratic support for the government carrying it out. The police violence against Civil Rights activists was prescribed by law, while the sit-ins themselves were illegal. That also wasn’t in a free society, but the thing is, many of the white people who opposed the Civil Rights movement genuinely believed it was, and that “separate but equal” was a legitimate counterargument to the movement. They got to define “free society,” and they got to prescribe the violence.
Fred Hampton was murdered in his bed by the FBI in the 1970s — that was prescribed by law, while the Black Panthers who carried weapons for self-defense against police officers were sent to prison and killed (where were the Second Amendment folks then?) The Philadelphia police used a helicopter to bomb the black liberation/anarchist group MOVE’s headquarters in the 1980s, killing 11, including five children. That was prescribed by law. Probably a majority of Americans believed they were living in a free society at the time — it was under Reagan. So, given that that society believed it was a free society and that the bombing was prescribed by law, was that violence acceptable?
Who gets to decide when our society is free? Who gets to decide what violence is acceptable? Your oversimplified rule inevitably leads to standing by and watching as the force of law selectively crushes innocent people.
PyrrhusDuAekillhus
I’d like to point out that your argument only adds “and sometimes the violence allowed by law isn’t acceptable, either” to his point, in no way are you actually contradicting what he’s saying.
Meta
Pyrrhus, not really. Iforget was saying that ONLY state-sanctioned violence under a free society was acceptable. I’m contradicting that by saying (a) that that form of violence doesn’t necessarily exist in any persistently just form and is therefore a bad metric and (b) that extralegal violence can be as acceptable or possibly more acceptable than legal violence when the state is unjust in its application of violence, as in the case of self-defense against police.
But mostly I’m just pointing out that that statement is a wild oversimplification that ignores the reality of statehood, free-ness, and “just” violence.
Jon Rich
Meta, your post is wonderful. We need more people who know about those events.
Meta
Glad it was appreciated 🙂
Meta
Also, your original comment said: “Wait, so violence is acceptable as long as it’s the ‘good’ kind?” Well, evidently you believe it is, as long as it’s your definition of “the ‘good’ kind.”
thejeff
Which was pretty much my point in my initial response. Almost everyone agrees that “violence is acceptable as long as it’s the ‘good’ kind”. We just differ on “the good kind”.
Nazis think violence against Jews (and homosexuals and many others) is “the good kind”. Other groups may have other targets that are always acceptable – plenty on non-fascist gay bashing or racial or sexual violence.
Some think that violence against those advocating such use of violence is acceptable, rather than always waiting until the advocates are actually in the middle of such violence.
Note that doesn’t make them fascists under any vaguely useful definition of the term. It does mean something other than “person I disagree with”.
iforgetwhatiputhere
Yes, thank you– I should have said extralegal violence. Way to get bogged down in the details though, this was literally someone wanting to haul off and punch someone because of what they said. No, just no. There is, thankfully, a law against hate speech so it’s not like there is no recourse if that is your issue. I’m not saying I want to enable this guy to spout whatever crap he may be spouting. But in my opinion the guy who punched him should be charged with assault. Bringing up Nazi Germany as a counterexample of legal violence is textbook Godwin’s law by the way, wtg…
thejeff
I think Godwin’s Law is kind of suspended when you’re talking about facism.
For obvious reasons.
Mind you, I also think the guy who punched him should be charged. I also think punching Nazis is a good thing. It’s like some kinds of protest. Breaking the law can be the right thing to do.
Meta
I didn’t compare you (or the United States) to Hitler, I was borrowing MLK’s argument from ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’:
“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”
And as thejeff points out, that example is legitimate when you’re talking about the legality of state violence, especially state violence under fascism.
I didn’t get bogged down in the details — my argument wasn’t intended as a defense of punching Richard Spencer. It was a criticism of your simplistic definition of moral violence.
iforgetwhatiputhere
Right, because nazi Germany is the first thing that comes to mind when someone says free society. Yes the definition is simplistic, this is a webcomic comments thread. If you want to be disingenuous, that’s your prerogative
Eldritch Gentleman
Law? Free society? What is that? Does it exist in a country famous for it’s police’s brutality who invaded two Middle Eastern countries while having NO approval from international community?
Law is an Illusion. It is a chain we humans have forged for ourselves to limit the amount of violence we engage in. But make no mistake, as soon as things start to go to hell that illusion disappears and people get violent. And this illusion only applies to those who cannot get away with their actions.
Pat
Fascists like being punched? Okay.
Do you just not know what it means? Words mean things.
hof1991
Checked with my 92 year old mom. Punching Nazis is OK with her. Pretty sure the Pope would forgive it too.
Vincent
Hey if you’re advocating murder and genocide, there’s a non-zero chance of being punched in the face.
thejeff
It’s a useful societal feedback mechanism.
Pat
“Violence just begets more violence!”
Yes, exactly. That is a factual description of what happened.
Vincent
A+ parenting skills. Probably unrelated to any good traits Ruth and Howard might have picked up.
Emperor Daniel
He’s just a hughes pile o’ shit.
TheAnonymousGuy
and yet, know ruth as a nutral witness to his shit, go to the dean and get him banned from campus, and howard away from him
Woobie
How?
TheAnonymousGuy
they could have other family he can stay with. o placed with someone ruth trust, if sirs removed from care ruths the (only as of know right now) guardian and she’d have a say in that kind of thing.
Fart Captor
They don’t have any other family, and it doesn’t seem like Ruth knows anyone except other students.
Cerberus
There are means, emancipation for one and she’s also a legal adult so that leaves even more potential options.
But it wouldn’t be easy. And “sir” would likely exploit every thing he could to punish her for such “disobedience”.
TheAnonymousGuy
Restraining order.
foamy
The big thing is financial independence. I don’t think Ruth has it, there’s no way Howard does, and absent that their options for cutting him completely out of their life are, basically, all shit too.
TheAnonymousGuy
Welfare, their both old enough to get jobs, fundraiser websites.
foamy
That’s not financial independence until it actually materializes, chief.
Cerberus
You might be overestimating how much aid welfare actually provides. It’s not really anywhere near enough to survive on and there’s all sorts of limitations especially in a state like Indiana.
And until you get to a desperation point, it’s a hell of a thing to trust in fundraiser sites and “maybe we’ll get jobs”. Like I took that risk of potential homelessness, but I got to my “fuck it” point. I’m not fully sure Ruth is there yet despite all the horribleness she is enduring.
foamy
Let’s also not forget the twenty-five thousand per year for tuition, either, and the options for dealing with that with no income are also all terrible.
spam
ya’ll forget that they are Canadian, so non of this applies
thejeff
@spam: Are they? I know they were raised there, but they’re very likely US citizens as well.
And I suspect that taking a minor from his legal (US) guardian and fleeing the country is even more legally fraught than other options.
Cerberus
spam- But they’re not. Or rather, they might still have their Canadian citizenship, but at least Howard’s legal guardian is American which roots at least him in the US for a bit unless they can emancipate him. And given “sir’s” controlling nature, I wouldn’t be surprised if he actively took the time to make it difficult for either of them to just go back to Canada, especially Ruth as she sees it as her real home.
foamy
@spam: As they reside in the U.S., I’m curious as to how you think Ruth and Howard’s Canadian citizenship is relevant.
@Cerberus: If were Canadian citizens in the first place (which they would be if they were born in Canada, or had a Canadian parent, so, yes), they’ll still have their Canadian citizenship. None of the ways in which it can be lost are at all applicable here. Naturalizing to a foreign country ceased to be a reason to lose it in 1977 and those who had lost it by doing so had it restored in 2009; loss by second-generation-by-descent Canadians failing to apply for retention also stopped in 2009, and only kicked in at 28 years of age anyway; and there’s no way whatsoever Clint has the necessary pull to have gotten the cabinet Minister responsible to pull it on grounds of treason, terrorism, or fraud.
foamy
I mean I guess there’s also renunciation, but Howard doesn’t qualify for that. Ruth might, but she’d have to be a U.S. citizen (do we know if she is?), and it’s not something Clint could do on her behalf.
Cerberus
foamy- Thank you for that. I wasn’t sure what the exact state of Canadian citizenship was and if it was possible to lose it like other citizenships. The legal guardian issue is definitely still a tie cause there’s rules blocking someone from fleeing the country with the legal dependents of another person, but it’s nice to know that one day if they can get free, they can reconnect with Canada if they want and benefit from a much lesser punitive system than America.
foamy
All I did was check the wiki article to confirm the specifics :v
SuchGravitas
This whole TheAnonymousGuy thread is an exercise in “why don’t the victims of abuse just leave???” mate, it is not that simple, it is never that simple. If someone you know is ever being abused and you’re in a position to talk to them about it, please don’t just run down this sort of list of stuff off the top of your head without putting any thought into the obstacles that a victim, especially one who is suffering a couple of crushing mental health conditions as a result of the abuse, is dealing with. It’s not cool, and it will make them less likely to talk to you again even if they feel they’re in danger.
thejeff
@TheAnonymousGuy: report him for what? For something that is, in isolation, little more than an obnoxious comment. You don’t lose custody for something like that.
Especially if you’re as connected and influential as Clint appears to be.
AutobotDen
“Sir” can go sit in a cactus patch.
Leorale
He should run into a train and step on all the legos.
Lone Wolf
I don’t care that he’s a handicapped veteran, I want to punch that asshole in the face so much.
Woobie
Ha!
I once dated someone whose father years ago drove drunk, killed his brother, and was seriously injured in the accident. He never did any of the physical therapy recommended and has lost mobility thereby, and talks long shit to EVERYONE. His disabilities are a shield against those he provokes.
I don’t think he has really been in a physical altercation since the accident stopped his physical abuse of his wife.
Kitschensyngk
Fought a war, did he? On whose side?
Griiins
The side that won, THE SIDE that WON.
Silly Name
For a certain definition of “victory” which ignores the consequences of your country’s action once the conflict is over, or that you barely achieved anything except for killing countless civilians and giving a whole generation PSTD, sure.
Abel Undercity
Scene from Preacher (the comic) keeps looping through my head:
Bodyguard: SON OF A bongo, HE’S SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OLD!
Jesse Custer: That’s okay…
(punches bodyguard)
… I hit YOUNG fucks, too.
cybik
We have met the source of her mental health issues.
And it is GIGANTIC.
Danni
cask of amontillado feels appropriate right now
Tomas
For the love of Cheese, Montresor!
OnyxIdol
Yes, for the love of cheese.
Mr. Bulbmin
And that is why threatening someone with “a death that Edgar Allan Poe wrote” is so fun. The variety. Sealing someone in brick is such a fun, interesting demise to inflict.
. . . Am I a sociopath?
iforgetwhatiputhere
Yes, yes you are.
Silly Name
But you are the kind of sociopath whose company I enjoy!
Incidentally, how do you feel about houses with wooden floors?
Vincent
Depends on how soundproof the floors are.
Danni